Replies to post #577283 on Fannie Mae-No Politics (FNMA)

[amelia43]

This comment is very worrisome.

[Jason-H]

That would be terrible. How come Jude said so!

[955]

Who owned the property at the time of the taking should NOT be of any concern to the Judge. Her priority should be focused on whether or not a taking occurred of private property period....NOT who owned it and when. The 5th Amendment does NOT specify who the owners are or when they owned it. It simply states, "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." F&F were taken for public use and F&F now must be justly compensated. The fact is the Gov stole F&F under FALSE pretenses, used the STOLEN funds for it's own benefit at increased taxpayer risk and expense and continues to pillage the goose that lays golden eggs. F&F must now be compensated for it irregardless of who the present owners are. If the present owners benefit, then so be it, it should NOT be of any concern of Gov who profits off their mistake. Investors should be free to "shop for a lawsuit" if they so desire, without fear of punishment for doing so. Gov put itself in that position when they decided to commit the robbery in the first instance. Owners should NOT be held liable for Gov wrong doing. There is a price to be paid when criminals commit crimes and it is the job of the courts to see that prosecution of these criminals is carried out to the fullest extent of the law. It's time for Judge Sweeney to stop protecting the real criminals here and side with justice being served.

Maybe this is why we're down.

Sweeney: my world view is that in order to have standing for a taking, the claimant must have owned the property at the time of the taking. If you bought after maybe you were shopping for a lawsuit and that’s never a good idea.