Replies to post #511966 on Fannie Mae-No Politics (FNMA)

[ano]

The precedent for FnF is AIG

Oh o.k I get it, you want a precedent fact that invalidates the warrant and proves it to be illegal. Below is a link to the AIG case that proves by precedent the 79.9% takeover is illegal, thus the SPSPA and Warrant.

As you will discover in your journey in the saga, after 10 years all holes are covered, either with lawsuits or documents or opinions (depending on importance) that the government all need to proof are (deadly) wrong, if they want to proceed with the SPSPA or warrant, but as for now they only upset various courts and their shareholder base

The precedent for FnF is AIG, the government took the same steps with the 79.9% and the takeover was ruled illegal, but no damages were paid, as otherwise they would gone bankrupt anyway, in our case it is proven the government “cooked the books” https://www.housingwire.com/ext/resources/images/A-Forensic-Look-at-the-Fannie-Mae-Bailout-Parts-I-II-III-FINAL-20150616.pdf because they do not release the 12.000 documents in discovery, so unless the government proofs otherwise they loose and the “three card monte” is correct, so there was no need for the government to take over FnF, and they would have survived without any help from the government, so the court can rule the SPSPA warrant and NWS illegal, as it sets a precedent so it will never ever happen again

The Conclusion in AIG:

Based upon the foregoing, the Court concludes that the Credit Agreement
Shareholder Class shall prevail on liability due to the Government’s illegal exaction but shall recover zero damages online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/StarrvUS06152015.pdf

The “Credit Agreement Class” is the class of persons and entities allegedly
injured by the Fifth Amendment taking or illegal exaction of a 79.9 percent equity
interest in AIG pursuant to the Credit Agreement.

The record supports a conclusion that FRBNY, Treasury, and their outside counsel
from Davis Polk & Wardwell carefully orchestrated the AIG takeover so that
shareholders would be excluded from the process. These entities avoided at all cost the
opportunity for any shareholder vote. Having intentionally kept the shareholders in the
dark as much as possible, it rings hollow for Defendant to contend that the shareholders waived the right to sue by failing to object.
online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/StarrvUS06152015.pdf

Also keep in mind this all is not about the current lawsuits, the government has been working for decades to change the system of FnF, so in 2008 they had an opportunity to finally do it.