Replies to post #357781 on Fannie Mae-No Politics (FNMA)

[rekcusdo]

"Why would "intent" matter in a takings claim? Property was either taken improperly, or it wasn't. Right?"

Per Dunn v. City of Milwaukie, a takings claim requires a showing of intent to take. A taking can not occur "accidentally".

But even if no intent (or motive) was required for a takings to occur, we have so many other potential claims here other than takings...contract breach, fraud, fiduciary breach, legislative mandates, criminal...some already raised and some just waiting for the discovery to complete to see if it can be raised.

[Zmarzz]

Hi:
I think motivation is crucial.
It is one thing for the feds to argue that over the life cycle of a 30 year mortgage, sometimes FnF will do very, very well and other times very, very poorly because of changes in the national and global economies. It is very different for the government to argue that they want to confiscate the profits of Fnf because the costs of Obamacare are much higher than expected!
I think the federal government has the right to expect that FNF be self-sustaining over the long term. It clearly doesn't make sense to distribute large profits when things are going well, and then asking for a bailout when things are going badly. In this situation, however, I believe the government is trying to conceal documents that show they wanted the FNF profits for reasons unrelated to FNF.

[chessmaster315]

The government brought up the "intent" issue. They posit..."gee, we did not INTEND to take your money, it was just an accident when we were trying to protect taxpayers".

Shareholders allege premeditated thievery.
IN murder, you have to show "intent" to kill. If you simply accidently run over someone, the penalty is different than if it can be proven you plotted to kill them.

Shareholders allege premeditation, not just an "accidental" theft of funds.
If I go to a government office, and sign a document, and accidently put their pen in my pocket..this is one thing.
But, if I break into government offices, have 10 18 wheelers ready to empty out billions of dollars worth of products, these are completely different crimes with completely different penalties.

In both of the above senarios, government property was "taken", but the penalties would be far different.

The mere fact that government brought up the "intent" issue, is, an admission of guilty.
If I said, "Oh, gee, I did not mean to put that US Government pen in my pocket, here it is back." This is an admission I took property, and asks for lenience.

However, if I said, "I did not take your property."...then the government may use that "US Government pen" in my pocket as evidence.

The government posits, "We did not take any of your property, but if we did, we did not intend any harm."

Its pleading both defenses. The VA does this a lot. "We did not do anything wrong, but we put controls in place and wont do it again."