Replies to post #401837 on Fannie Mae-No Politics (FNMA)

[whipstick]

All depends on how closely you're paying attention.

[rekcusdo]

While I agree with most of your post I take exception to the following statement:

"The legal jargon and mambo-jumbo is so convoluted and littered with clauses or phrases that give the Judges wide latitude to extinguish equity. Phrases such as 'may' could' 'shall' 'at discretion of' pollute the meaning of the contracts and open them for reverse logic decisions. "

Those who are not trained in the law often refer to legal verbiage as "mumbo-jumbo" or "jargon". In fact, it is the specificity of the language and how the law perceives it that makes the contracts and defamation cases even possible. Without the legal interpretation of these words, the law would be completely meaningless as every person would perceive "intent" differently.

Intent is meant to be determined by a reasonable person standard, considered the objective test. To discount or not consider language in a standardized meaning is to make interpretation of intent subjective. That is not a wise course to take.

That being said, I do think that the interpretation by the appellate court in the Perry case was wrong about its interpretation of "may". "May" has a very distinct meaning in the law, and I feel the judges did not adhere to how the law has defined and used the word "may" in a contract over the last 50-100 years.

But just because I feel the judges got the meaning of the word wrong in this case does not mean there is no merit to the specificity of the legal language and how specific words actually matter.

Also...."I am long FANNIES and suffering deep anxiety attacks". If you have so much invested in this stock that you are suffering from anxiety, I recommend selling some of your position. I have a good amount invested in this stock...but not so much that I couldn't afford to lose it all.