Replies to post #350151 on Fannie Mae-No Politics (FNMA)

[yambike]

Bigyank has been MIA for the last couple days. perhaps in hiding?

BUt he had argued before that the Perry plaintiffs fuddied up the case by going after the APA and contract claim. He questioned the tactic saying that the takings argument had more merit.

We can now see the wisdom of the plaintiff attorneys. The Piezel appeal is saying that no taking has occured since he was able to bring the case to court. He coulve brought a direct claim in state court, for which the statute has run out.

oh what tangled circular logic govt weaves. They are trying to displace the plaintiff in the Paraglia v Fannie case by arguing that FHFA usurped all rights of the shareholders. That there is a taking. But in other cases, it claims that it did no such thing.

[big-yank]

Piszel actually dealt with a written contract in dispute. There is no written contract between Perry Capital and the government. Right? If so, please provide a link because I would love to see such a document. That not being the case, you then fall into the murky ether of implied contracts, rights of preferred shareholders whose stock carries no guaranteed payment stipulation and a sea of assumptions that, of course, could be accepted by the judge's panel... with any such outcome being a longshot at best.

JMHO.