Replies to post #307750 on Fannie Mae-No Politics (FNMA)

[Donotunderstand]

955
the author of that piece gets way in the weeds of various arguments about a stock taking

he seems to say if there is a taking - those who owned that day

and that maybe the GOV using some prior decisions can argue and win that it was not a taking

yet the same author - one person - suggests he thinks the ACKMAN case has real merit and the appeal will succeed

frankly I have no idea how good the analysis was --- but it did tell me the GOV effort to DISMISS in the SWEENEY court is hot and alive which I hate

and I would not pick one section of a multi faceted debate to highlight -------- the author showed it truly is gray and grayer

glad we have some big time lawyers on our side

[Patswil]

Shorts under water----GOVT Lawyers sweating bullets

scrambling to CYA's collectively

[Odismyman86]

It follows that the warrants can't be challenged because they haven't been exercised. If/when they are exercised you can be sure that they'll be challenged........and deemed illegal as they were in the AIG case.

[955]

This is following the same logic Judge Lamberth used in the court ruling he made. Scary.

The Fifth Amendment does not distinguish between permanent and temporary. A TAKING IS A TAKING!

The Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution provides, "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fifth_amendment

Private property HAS been taken and is currently being used for public use. RULE!

Quote:
In contrast, when the government enacts a regulation, the government always has the option to rescind the regulation.

Thus, the restriction can never be assumed to be permanent for purposes of compensation, and a purchaser of property cannot expect to be permanently deprived of use, even if the deprivation would have been a taking of his predecessor's property…. [T]he right to use land runs with the land, and a regulatory restriction on use does not make the property the government's when the government does not pay for it. … Since a permanent regulatory taking cannot be forced upon the government, the "entire damages" are not owing until the government decides not to rescind the action which results in the taking, and until that point (or the point at which the judgment becomes final and beyond appeal) the taking is potentially temporary.

Finally,

"the Court holds that just compensation for the regulatory taking of real property interests may be owed to owners who have acquired their property interests after the onset of the taking, due to the government's ability to transform regulatory takings into temporary ones."
http://seekingalpha.com/article/3340185-fannie-mae-the-governments-most-recent-motion-to-dismiss-and-fairholmes-motion-to-stay