Thanks for your response.
Ok, lets try more specific questions, that is, regarding your opinions regarding the afore mentioned en banc decision:
1. Do you interpret this to mean the NWS is invalidated, that is, the government may no longer confiscate earnings from shareholders?
2. It would seem that the "net effect" is termination of the NWS. Does this mean shareholders are entitled to a remedial compensation, since the court made it clear the NWS was inconstitutional. Can this remedial compensation be limited to our actual losses, or can shareholders be also compensated for "injury". In other words, things like litigation fees (attorney fees), loss of use of the funds confiscated, that is, interest on money they took from shareholders. If you think shareholders are entitled to remedial compensation (over and above the moneys taken), how much will that be?
3. Absent remedial compensation, how much do you think sharholders have overpaid? Does this mean the 10 percent rate remains intact or is a heavy 10 percent intheerest rate oveburdensome, and also inconsistent with "conserving and preserving assests of FNMA". In oth er words, if I was a conservator, and lent my client money, isnt it true, that If I charged the client excessive interest, I would be violating the fiduciary responsibility.
Allow me an example. Lets say a fiduciary was appointed over a Veteran because he was unable to handle his financial affairs. Lets also say the Veteran was broke, needed money for food, so the fiduciary lent the Veteran money charging 10 tercent interest per day.
In a short time, even a small loan at 10 percent dail y interest, would double the debt in just 7.2 days.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
