Replies to post #385736 on Fannie Mae-No Politics (FNMA)

[955]

WHOOOOOOOOOOOOA THERE COWBOY!

Who ever said this was a "bailout"??? It was NEVER a "bailout". THAT IS THE GOV NARRATIVE. Susan McFarland, ex-CFO Fannie Mae, testifies she informed Treasury 2 weeks before the infamous 3rd Amendment sweep (NWS) that Fannie Mae DTA's (Deferred Tax Assets - essentially loss carry forwards) were about to turn YUUUUUGELY profitable after FHFA previously wrote them off as WORTHLESS. "BAILOUT" NOT REQUIRED. Yet Treasury and FHFA decided to move forward with the ILLEGAL TAKEOVER in spite of irrefutable evidence to the contrary that Fannie & Freddie didn't require any assistance. Furthermore, FHFA and Treasury CONSPIRED "the deal" between Gov and itself, both of whom benefited from the self-dealing.

No....

The warrants are the subject matter of a contract and do not fall within an illegal Takings.

The warrants were not created by the Government. They were created by the original agreement of the bailout as an offering to the Government. This, by definition, does not fall into the definition of a Taking.

[401kobessive]

Ur a government tool

[Steelhead9]

The profits (since you clumped them together as one topic) are a separate issue. The NWS is a breach of contract and definitely is an illegal taking. However, I don't want the NWS addressed by the courts as a Taking. That wouldn't maximize our payout. I want the NWS addressed as a breach of contract as that could nullify the entire 3rd Amendment.

Now, the difference is that these are claims made in two different cases, yes? "Taking" in Perry? My memory escapes me, If my understanding is correct, please remind me of the case that makes the "Breach of Contract" claim. What I think is the case you refer to is on the tip of my tongue, just out of reach.

Forgive me if I am way off, I'm a doddering old man.

[salesleader]

Thank you Rek for a little more understanding