Replies to post #584783 on Fannie Mae-No Politics (FNMA)

[Lotto65]

Thank you Ano!!!!!

[Guido2]

Thanks ano. Since 65,000 documents have been delivered, I wonder if Fairholme legal staff could use some help with discarding ones that have no relevance to the case. I wouldn't mind volunteering if they can accept help from non lawyers.

[kthomp19]

So what does Fairholme want?

This is a good breakdown, thank you for posting it.

Glaring in its absence is something Fairholme does not ask for: any review or change to the original SPSPAs, let alone any other decisions from 2008. It is clear from your list that they only want the NWS unwound, along with prospective (future) injunctions against behavior by a conservator that does not conserve and preserve the wards' assets.

If you look at this from the point of view of standing, you'll realize that Fairholme doesn't even have standing to ask Lamberth to change anything from 2008.

You do have a clear error in your reasoning, though:

c. Declaring that, by entering the Net Worth Sweep, FHFA violated its fiduciary duty to Plaintiffs.

In c) they hold that they are entitled to damages “Fiduciary Duty” When someone has a fiduciary duty to someone else, the person with the duty must act in a way that will benefit someone else, usually financially.

The person who has a fiduciary duty is called the fiduciary, and the person to whom the duty is owed is called the principal or the beneficiary. If the fiduciary breaches the fiduciary duties, he or she would need to account for the ill-gotten profit. The beneficiaries are typically entitled to damages. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fiduciary_duty”

So in short if a) and b) are granted, c) will also be legitimate

Lamberth already dismissed a) and c). He only allowed b) to go to trial. Sweeney also directly said that FHFA has no fiduciary duty to shareholders. Thus c) has already failed, even though b) was granted. It would have failed even if a) was granted as well. Those three things were separate lines of attack.

Nov-8 2019 Lamberth came out with his MEMORANDUM OPINION document 112
https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.160910/gov.uscourts.dcd.160910.112.0.pdf
in this document the questions in connection to the RFP are:

Note that all of these questions, other than two, have only to do with the NWS, as in they have nothing to do with the original SPSPAs. The two exceptions:

* How did the events surrounding the placement of the Companies into conservatorship affect the reasonable expectations of the parties?

* Did private shareholders in 2008 reasonably expect the conservatorships to be temporary?

The first is pertinent to the NWS because if Lamberth were to rule that the NWS doesn't violate the (perhaps modified by the conservatorships) reasonable expectations of investors at the time of the NWS, he could rule against the plaintiffs. The second question is essentially the same thing.

Neither of these questions is any indication that Lamberth will come anywhere close to trying to change anything from the original SPSPAs. You're really barking up the wrong tree if you think he even can do this, let alone will.

[Donotunderstand]

ano

cool - reviewing what I will never remember but a way to summarize?

13-1053 moving forward -- I ASSUME GLOBAL MORION TO DIMSISS KNOWCKED DOWN?

So

Lots of documents (RFP list) - and tons of information coming the way of plaintiffs !!!!! (or at least so ordered )

Some solid points - arguments to judge by judge or trial - now will go forward (what about #3 listed below but not in heading)

COUNT I FHFA’s Conduct Exceeded Its Statutory Authority As Conservator
COUNT II Breach of Contract Against FHFA, Fannie, and Freddie: Claim for Damages
COUNT III Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing
Against FHFA, Fannie, and Freddie: Claim for Damages
COUNT IV Breach of Fiduciary Duty Against FHFA, Fannie, and Freddie: Claim for Damages
COUNT V The Net Worth Sweep Violates Delaware Law Against FHFA and Fannie:
Claim for Damages and Injunctive Relief
COUNT VI The Net Worth Sweep Violates Virginia Law Against FHFA and Freddie: Claim for Damages and Injunctive Relief

NEXT
in your words
Further proceeding puts the government in a very fragile position, the more they produce the more evidence there is against them, and the harder it is to settle, and if it will be judged by a jury there will be turmoil and the outcome will be even higher for plaintiffs……

In my words
ADDS SUPPER PRESSURE to settle

[ano]

So What does Fairholme want in Sweeney’s Court ? (13-465C)

13-465C FAIRHOLME FUNDS, INC. v. United States…………..Common & Preferred
Court: United States Court of Federal Claims
Proceeding: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4198608/fairholme-funds-inc-v-united-states/

On july 9-2013 Fairholme filed a lawsuit in the federal court of claims 4 days prior to their “Fairholme’s 13-1053” case, this case is sealed in secrecy and documents first need to be redacted before they are made public, discovery was allowed and lots of harmful documents were recovered , and after discovery the complaint was amended to hold the conservatorship itself is illegal, on jan-10-2020 the parties will file a joint status report proposing further proceedings and, if appropriate, a schedule for such proceedings.

There are 11 related cases to this Fairholme 13-465C case:
Washington Federal v. United States, No. 13-385C
Cacciapalle v. United States, No. 13-466C
Fisher v. United States, No. 13-608C
Arrowood Indemnity Company v. United States, No. 13-698C
Reid v. United States, No. 14-152C
Rafter v. United States, No. 14-740C
Owl Creek Asia I, L.P. v. United States, No. 18-281C
Akanthos Opportunity Master Fund, L.P. v. United States, No. 18-369C
Appaloosa Investment Limited Partnership I v. United States, No. 18-370C
CSS, LLC v. United States, No. 18-371C
Mason Capital L.P. v. United States, No. 18-529C

First lets look at 13-465C FAIRHOLME v. United States
In their initial prayer for relief they demand only one thing
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4198608/fairholme-funds-inc-v-united-states/

PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs seek a judgment as follows:
A. Awarding Plaintiffs just compensation under the Fifth Amendment for the
Government’s taking of their property;
B. Awarding Plaintiffs the costs and disbursements of this action, including
reasonable attorneys’ and experts’ fees, costs and expenses; and
C. Granting such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cofc.28224.1.0.pdf

now although this sounds like an easy one, as they only demand “just compensation” the difficulty starts with, what has the government done to plaintiffs, to demand “just compensation”, this can mean 2 things, either the 3th amendment prohibited rehabilitation and therefore ”just compensation” should be awarded, or the conservatorship itself was a taking as the complete rolled out action ending at the 3th amendment forbids the companies to be rehabilitated and since they had 10+years to fix the problem, they neglected a problem and therefore “just compensation” should be awarded for the conservatorship itself, this is a catch-22 as both are not legal, and not according to FHFA statue.
This is of course very worrisome for the government as the conservatorship itself is at stake since not explicitly is mentioned that the “just compensation” is wanted for the 3th amendment

On Jan-2-2014 Judge Sweeney granted Discovery in this case and the discovery was completed in Jan-2018, out of the discovery came some very damaging documents and the documents even needed to be unsealed by Sweeney http://www.fairholmefundsinc.com/Documents/GSEDOCS20160413.pdf
To shed some light on the matter

Below a Summary of some of the redacted documents:
168 http://www.glenbradford.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/13-465-0168.pdf
202 http://www.glenbradford.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/13-465-0202.pdf
203 http://www.glenbradford.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/13-465-0203.pdf
204 http://www.glenbradford.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/13-465-0204.pdf
205 http://www.glenbradford.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/13-465-0205.pdf
206 http://www.glenbradford.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/13-465-0206.pdf
234 http://www.glenbradford.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/13-465-0234.pdf
236 http://www.glenbradford.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/13-465-0236.pdf
242 http://www.glenbradford.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/13-465-0242.pdf
258 http://www.glenbradford.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/13-465-0258.pdf
261 http://www.glenbradford.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/13-465-0261.pdf
272 http://www.glenbradford.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/13-465-0272-4.pdf
297 http://www.glenbradford.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/13-465-0297.pdf
301 http://www.glenbradford.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/13-465-0301.pdf
389 http://www.glenbradford.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/13-465-0389.pdf
404 http://www.glenbradford.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/13-465-0404-1.pdf
422 http://www.glenbradford.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/13-465-0422.pdf

449 second amended complaint
https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.uscfc.28224/gov.uscourts.uscfc.28224.449.0.pdf
“The amended complaints contain some additional details, add claims for illegal exaction, breach of fiduciary duty, and breach of contract, and style various claims as both “direct” and “derivative.”

And

A heavily-redacted presentation from fanniefreddiesecrets.org http://fanniefreddiesecrets.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/October-2008-PWC-Freddie-Memo.pdf

And

Susan McFarland http://www.fairholmefundsinc.com/Documents/ExhibitC.pdf


REDACTED
Now if you read between the lines of the redacted pages, it is very clear the board of directors consent, and the financial data supporting the consent (the government claims they have by redacting the documents) is the problem, not sure how the government thinks this is a self-evaporating problem that with solve itself by time, but as we now can conclude there was a problem with the takeover (so plaintiff claims), and now after 12 years this problem, is still the problem.

SEALED INFORMATIOM
Then on May 30, 2014 the government realized the discovery would only harm them and they decided to file a “MOTION for Protective Order”, this gave the government the possibility to seal documents and redact documents for the public, this hide and seek game however has a consequence, eventually after the ruling the documents will need to be unsealed again and be made public, this puts the government in disadvantage, when there is nothing damaging in the documents, the government overstepped because there is nothing to hide from and distortion or obstruction of justice will come into play after the ruling, or the facts in in the documents will justify plaintiffs arguments, and will prove the obstruction of justice so in either case it is a negative for the government prior to settling the case


LAWSUITS FILED AFTER SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
quote “In addition to the amended complaints, seven additional plaintiffs recently filed suits in this Court setting forth substantially similar claims.7

7 The Court coordinated the Owl Creek, Akanthos, Appaloosa, CSS, and Mason cases for “discovery, motion practice, case management, case scheduling, and other pretrial proceedings as appropriate” and directed that the briefing schedule will follow the Court’s February 21, 2018 scheduling order. See, e.g., Order, Owl Creek Asia I, L.P. v. United States, No. 18-281 (Fed. Cl. Apr. 24, 2018), ECF No. 9. The remaining two cases have been stayed pending disposition of this motion. See Order, 683 Cap. Partners v. United States, No. 18-711 (Fed. Cl. July 16, 2018), ECF No. 10; Order, Patt v. United States, No. 18-712 (Fed. Cl. July 16, 2018), ECF No. 7.

COUNTS GRANTED AND DENIED
In the latest document (document 449) Sweeney states following claims will proceed and are denied,
The court therefore GRANTS IN PART defendant’s motion to dismiss with respect to the claims plaintiffs label as direct (counts I, IV, VII, and X), and DENIES IN PART the motion with respect to the derivative claims (counts II, III, V, VI, VIII, IX, XI, XII). By no later than Friday, January 10, 2020, the parties shall file a joint status report proposing further proceedings and, if appropriate, a schedule for such proceedings.

GRANTED
COUNT II
Just Compensation Under the Fifth Amendment
for the Taking of Private Property for Public Use
(Derivative Claim on Behalf of Fannie Mae by Plaintiff Barrett)

COUNT III
Just Compensation Under the Fifth Amendment
for the Taking of Private Property for Public Use
(Derivative Claim on Behalf of Freddie Mac by Plaintiff Barrett)


COUNT V
Illegal Exaction Under the Fifth Amendment
(Alternative Derivative Claim on Behalf of Fannie Mae by Plaintiff Barrett)

COUNT VI
Illegal Exaction Under the Fifth Amendment
(Alternative Derivative Claim on Behalf of Freddie Mac by Plaintiff Barrett)

Count VIII
Breach of Fiduciary Duty
(Derivative Claim on Behalf of Fannie Mae by Plaintiff Barrett)

Count IX
Breach of Fiduciary Duty
(Derivative Claim on Behalf of Freddie Mac by Plaintiff Barrett)

COUNT XI
Breach of Implied-in-Fact Contract Between the United States and the Companies
(Derivative Claim on Behalf of Fannie Mae by Plaintiff Barrett)

COUNT XII
Breach of Implied-in-Fact Contract Between the United States and the Companies
(Derivative Claim on Behalf of Freddie Mac by Plaintiff Barrett)

DENIED

COUNT I
Just Compensation Under the Fifth Amendment
for the Taking of Private Property for Public Use
(Direct Claim by all Plaintiffs)

COUNT IV
Illegal Exaction Under the Fifth Amendment
(Alternative Direct Claim by All Plaintiffs)

Count VII
Breach of Fiduciary Duty
(Direct Claim by All Plaintiffs)

COUNT X
Breach of Implied-in-Fact Contract Between the United States and the Companies
(Direct Claim by All Plaintiffs)
http://www.glenbradford.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/13-465-0422.pdf


The Direct Claims could not be granted because the court has no jurisdiction over it
Following Derivative claims will proceed:
1) Just Compensation Under the Fifth Amendment
2) Illegal Exaction Under the Fifth Amendment
3) Breach of Fiduciary Duty
4) Breach of Implied-in-Fact Contract Between the United States and the Companies

1) For claim one “The just compensation” it not specified as to what action violated the 5th amendment, the conservatorship itself, or the 3th amendment in the SPSPA only, maybe this is somewhere in the redacted documents or maybe fairholme did this by intent, but sure this results in TOLLING, so future litigation can have standing because the rest of the world only received redacted documents
2) The Illegal exaction is indeed a wrongful act, as it prevents plaintiffs from recovering
3) The breach of fiduciary duty comes from doing the opposite as Treasury and FHFA should have done (conserve and preserve v. siphoning of all profits in perpetually)

4) The Breach of Implied-in-Fact contract is also NEW in the second amended complaint and makes the conservatorship itself impossible, while we currently do not know what the demands of the Implied-in-Fact contract are, it doesn’t matter from a legal point of view, the BOD represents the interest of shareholders and they have a “duty of candor” that does not allow a verbal Implied-in-Fact contract, this problem is something the government cannot overcome, and will eventually lead to unwinding the conservatorship itself, and because this claim is now made in the second amended complaint in 13-465C, it is now in the public territory, that the takeover of FHFA is illegal, as the BOD cannot step into an Implied-in-Fact contract, because of their “duty of candor”
Link to implied-in-fact contract: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/contract_implied_in_fact
Link to BOD duty: https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/sites/gsb/files/publication-pdf/cgri-quick-guide-03-board-directors-duties-liabilities.pdf

So that is where we stand today, on Friday, January 10, 2020, the parties shall file a joint status report proposing further proceedings and, if appropriate…., a schedule for such proceedings.

[ano]

What does Collins want ? (19-422 SCOTUS)

19-422 Collins v. Mnuchin……………Common & Preferred
Supreme court https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/collins-v-mnuchin/

This case started on Oct-20-2016, and was Assigned To: Nancy Friedman Atlas (Democratic)
16-03113 https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4533994/collins-v-lew/

First let’s take a look at the prayer for relief:

PRAYER FOR RELIEF
190. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for an order and judgment:
a. Declaring that the Net Worth Sweep, and its adoption, are not in accordance with and violate HERA within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(C), that Treasury acted arbitrarily and capriciously within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A) by executing the Net Worth Sweep, and that FHFA’s structure violates the separation of powers;
b. Enjoining Treasury and its officers, employees, and agents to return to Fannie and Freddie all dividend payments made pursuant to the Net Worth Sweep or, alternatively, recharacterizing such payments as a pay down of the liquidation preference and a corresponding redemption of Treasury’s Government Stock rather than mere dividends;
c. Vacating and setting aside the Net Worth Sweep, including its provision sweeping all of the Companies’ net worth to Treasury every quarter;
d. Enjoining FHFA and its officers, employees, and agents from implementing, applying, or taking any action whatsoever pursuant to the Net Worth Sweep;
e. Enjoining Treasury and its officers, employees, and agents from implementing, applying, or taking any action whatsoever pursuant to the Net Worth Sweep;
f. Awarding Plaintiffs their reasonable costs, including attorneys’ fees, incurred in bringing this action; and
g. Granting such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper.

Respectfully submitted,
Beck Redden LLP

Then The case was terminated on may-22-2017 https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txsd.1391317/gov.uscourts.txsd.1391317.52.0_1.pdf

And on may-30-2017 the case was appealed in the 5th circuit of appeals
17-20364 https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/7447843/patrick-collins-v-steven-mnuchin-secretary/ and on July-16-2018 the 5th circuit came with following conclusion :

III. CONCLUSION
We AFFIRM the district court’s order granting the Agencies’ motions to dismiss the Shareholders’ APA claims because such claims are barred by 12 U.S.C. § 4617(f).
We REVERSE the district court’s order granting the Agencies’ motion for summary judgment regarding the Shareholders’ claim that the FHFA is unconstitutionally structured in violation of Article II and the Constitution’s separation of powers, and we REMAND to the district court with instructions to enter judgment declaring the “for cause” limitation on removal of the FHFA’s Director found in 12 U.S.C. § 4512(b)(2) violates the Constitution’s separation-of-powers principles.
https://www.courtlistener.com/pdf/2018/07/16/patrick_collins_v._steven_mnuchin_secretar.pdf

The case was remanded from the 5th circuit (17-20364) back to Judge Nancy F Atlas in District Court, S.D. Texas. (16-03113)

Then on sept-30-2019 Collins filed a Petition for a writ of certiorari in the SCOTUS,
and the government filed on Oct-29-2019 a petition for a writ of certiorari in the SCOTUS

Patrick J. Collins v. Steven T. Mnuchin
https://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docket/docketfiles/html/public\19-422.html
(DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/10/2020)

Mnuchin v. Patrick J. Collins
https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/19-563.html


So now we know Judge Atlas will “enter judgment declaring the “for cause” limitation on removal of the FHFA’s Director found in 12 U.S.C. § 4512(b)(2) violates the Constitution’s separation-of-powers principles.” As ordered by the 5th circuit

As a result of the removing the “for cause” and replacing it with “At-Will” the FHFA is no longer an independent agency, and can no longer be funded thru FnF, as the FHFA agency now is a government agency that receives it funding from the appropriation act, and of course the distributed funds from 12 years,(2008-2020), to operate the Agency(FHFA) need to be returned.
“FHFA issues assessment notices to the regulated entities semi-annually, with the collections occurring October 1 and April 1.”
https://www.fhfa.gov/AboutUs/Reports/ReportDocuments/FHFA-2019-PAR.pdf
really great stuff in this document start at page 27

Another result is, HERA now is in conflict with the constitution, and all the frivolous payment demands in SEC. 1106. ASSESSMENTS. (page 2669) will be voided
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/PLAW-110publ289/pdf/PLAW-110publ289.pdf


That is where we stand today, awaiting a ruling on the 3th amendment by Judge Atlas.

[ano]

So What does Washington Federal want ? (13-385)

WASHINGTON FEDERAL v. United States……………… Common & Preferred
United States Court of Federal Claims
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4198605/washington-federal-v-united-states/

This case started on June 10, 2013 and was Assigned To: Margaret M. Sweeney
In their initial prayer for relief they demand:
https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cofc.28070.1.0.pdf

PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE Plaintiffs Washington Federal, Michael McCredy Baker, and City of Austin Police Retirement System demand judgment in their favor and in favor of the Classes against Defendant, the United States of America, as follows:

A. Determining that this action may be maintained as a class action;

B. Certifying Classes of, (A) for Fannie Mae (1) all persons or entities who held
shares of Fannie Mae common stock on or before September 5, 2008, and (2) all persons or
entities who held shares of Fannie Mae preferred stock on or before September 5, 2008; and, (B)
for Freddie Mac (1) all persons or entities who held shares of Freddie Mac common stock on or
before September 5, 2008, and (2) all persons or entities who held shares of Freddie Mac
preferred stock on or before September 5, 2008.

C, Finding that Plaintiffs have met the requirements of a class representative and
may maintain this action as representatives of the Classes;

D. Finding that the Defendant has taken and/or illegally exacted Plaintiffs’ and the
Classes private property in violation of the Due Process and Takings Clauses of the Constitution;

E, Determining and awarding Plaintiffs and the Classes damages suffered by them
by virtue of the Defendant’s taking and/or illegal exaction in the amount of $41 billion, or some
other amount to be determined at trial;

F, Prejudgment and post-judgment interest, together with any and all further costs,
disbursements and reasonable attorneys’ and experts’ fees;

G. Granting all other relief as this Court may deem just and appropriate.

Then on Apr 4, 2014 it was ORDERED in document 44: “As alluded to in the court's February 7, 2014 order, briefing regarding the motion to dismiss is stayed pending the conclusion of jurisdictional discovery in Fairholme. Once the parties in Fairholme file a postdiscovery joint status report, the court will issue an order in this case regarding further proceedings. Signed by Judge Margaret M. Sweeney.”

Then on Jan-12-2018 following was filed in the Fairholme case 13-465C document 396
http://www.glenbradford.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/13-465-0396.pdf
On January 11, 2018, the parties in the above-captioned case filed a joint status report (1) indicating that they had completed the quick peek discovery procedure

Not sure if the above 2 was an indication that Washington Federal could proceed or if plaintiffs are waiting on final discovery to get started again, Sweeney said “the conclusion of jurisdictional discovery” which is not “completed the quick peek discovery” but anyway

On Nov 14, 2018 the First Amended REDACTED Complaint was filed
https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.uscfc.28070/gov.uscourts.uscfc.28070.70.0_1.pdf
this document states the same prayer for relief as the initial prayer for relief, so let Sum-up the REDACTION is Washington Federal’s (13-385) FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT and look for clues in the redactions to understand the scope:

Page 7(4.) probably a report from MS that concludes 'Forgery And Fraud'
Page 8(6.) probably FHFA’s August 22, 2008 letters, that state FnF soundness
Page 11(11.) probably proofs FnF were solvent and because of false narrative of their financial distress the DTA needed reduced
Page 23(46.) probably a statement of Secretary Geithner approving or applauding an increase of their retained portfolio
Page 23(47.) probably a journal or financial result that shows OFHEO is flip flopping capital restraints
Page 26(54.) F) probably about a statement former speechwriter for President George W. Bush, made about What to Do about Them http://people.stern.nyu.edu/svnieuwe/econvoice_ARVNW.pdf
g) & h) unknown context but probably about the flip flopping of capitalization standard, that a week later FnF miraculously became under-capitalized
Page 28(57.) probably news coverage that the governments opinion is now indeed undercapitalized
Page 28(58) probably about https://fcic-static.law.stanford.edu/cdn_media/fcic-docs/2008-09-04%20FHFA%20Dickerson%20ltr%20to%20Fannie%20Mae%20Mudd%20-%20Mid-year%20letter.pdf
That proofs here is some serious flip flopping going on, “and we even put a confidential stamp on it” LOL
Page 29(59.) probably proof about (58.) that they openly stated the undercapitalization
Page 29(60.) probably a secondary proof of (58)
Page 29(61.) probably statement or report from MS that says FnF are undercapitalized while two other letters (to Mudd & Syron) proof the opposite just 13 days earlier
Page 30(62.) probably a statement from FHFA’s DeLeo that says FHFA concluded FnF are undercapitalized
Page 30(63.) probably the same statement as (62.) but a different part of it with her proving MS also confirmed her undercapitalization fabrication
Page 32(70.) probably excerpt of document or email from GT, that says the PSPA has nothing to do with the financial solvency, or is asking reasons as to why they think the PSPA has any meaning in financial solvency
Page 33(71.) probably a statement in a document after conservatorship that proves the old BOD thought the terms of the PSPA were too harch
Page 33(73.) probably several quotes from officials who at the time said FnF in the future will no longer exist in prior form and a wind down scenario is in place
Page 36(79.) probably something from treasury and FDIC admitting the decrease in value of the preferred and common stock value
Page 40(88.) the most important one. probably a script from a meeting between the BOD and FHFA/Treasury that proves they entered with Coercion/Duress into the conservatorship (UST00530714.) (later Judge Sweeney quotes this section as death grip)
Page 40(89.) probably breathtaking Script that proves ”the highly unusual provision in HERA, that immunized the Companies’ directors against liability for consenting to the appointment of the FHFA as conservator. See 12 U.S.C. § 4617(a)(6).”
Page 41(90.) probably an agency who has criticism on FnF management and board of directors, it later goes on with the (89.) script and ex Freddie CEO Syron “that the letter was there as a mechanism to bring about a result”. (later Judge Sweeney quotes this as either agree or you’re out”)
Page 42(92.) probably proof of a meeting quote or fraise that “Suddenly” the BOD agreed to the terms while all the other documents prove there is still uncertainty to approve
Page 43(93.) probably this is about the same meeting as (92.) but goes on with more quotes from either Paulson or Lockhart stating unconstitutional things
Page 45(100. &101. ) have no context and are 100% Redacted
Page 51(127.) probably a document from BlackRock that confirms Freddie’s core capital only decreased from $37.9B to 37.1B and was not depleted and fannie core capital increased from $45.4B to $47.0B
Page 54(135.) probably a document from BlackRock that proof solvency two weeks before conservatorship
Page 56(146.) probably proof of the government mantra “we are rescuing FnF because they are insolvent” (while they were not) and proof of all the Smoke and mirrors they used to prove their point
Page 62(156.) probably a BlackRock document that proves Freddie’s future condition would be solvent
Page 65(166.) probably documents that show FnF could pay the non-market conform 10% interest rate and simultaneously pay down the liquidation preference and be profitable in the foreseeable future
Page 65(167.) probably document(s) from discovery or document numbers that show treasury and FHFA knew they would be profitable in the foreseeable future
Page 66(169 &170.) have no context
Page 67(174.) has no context

I will post the complete REDACTIONS ONLY file later as reply to this post, otherwise it will make this post unreadable

Then we look at the claims for relief that states following :

VIII. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
COUNT ONE
(ILLEGAL TAKING AND/OR EXACTION IN VIOLATION OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION)
https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.uscfc.28070/gov.uscourts.uscfc.28070.70.0_1.pdf
217. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference and reallege each and every allegation of the
preceding paragraphs, as though fully set forth herein.
218. In imposing the unprecedented conservatorships over the Companies and in taking
and/or illegally exacting more than 1 billion shares of the common stock and approximately 597
million shares of the preferred stock of Fannie Mae (with a redemption value of approximately
$21 billion) and approximately 650 million shares of the common stock and approximately 464.1
million shares of the preferred stock of Freddie Mac (with a redemption value of approximately
$14 billion) without just compensation, the Government destroyed the rights and value of the
property interests tied to the common and preferred stock of the Companies held by Plaintiffs and
the Classes, nullified their reasonable, investment-backed expectations, and violated the
fundamental principles of the Due Process and Takings Clauses of the United States Constitution.
219. In taking private property, the Government is required to adhere to due process of
law and to respect the legal rights of affected parties.
220. The Government violated the statutory, contractual, and Constitutional rights of
Plaintiffs and the Classes in taking and/or illegally exacting virtually all the value of the above
referenced common and preferred shares of both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that they owned,
without providing just compensation.
221. HERA did not authorize the Government to assert a conservatorship over either
Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac at the time the conservatorships were imposed over them.
222. As described herein, as a result of the Government’s legally unsubstantiated
imposition of the conservatorships, the Government destroyed the value of the stock held by
Plaintiffs and members of the Classes, nullified their reasonable, investment-backed expectations,
and violated the fundamental principles of the Due Process and Takings Clauses of the United
States Constitution. The Government took and/or exacted the property and property rights of the
Companies’ shareholders to improperly and impermissibly benefit private parties and public
interests in at least the following manners:
a. By causing the Companies to assume a significantly increased level of risky
mortgages and mortgage-related assets prior to the conservatorships, thus leading to greatly
diminished net worth and capital of the Companies;
b. By improperly imposing the PSPAs and conservatorships over the Companies
under false pretenses with no valid statutory basis;
c. By forcing the Companies to assume the toxic assets of other financial institutions
following the conservatorships, thus engaging in a “backdoor” bailout of those other financial
institutions and lowering the equity value of the Companies; and
d. By improperly taking all of the net worth of the Companies.
223. Even when the Government takes or illegally exacts private property to serve public
purposes, the United States Constitution requires the payment of “just compensation.”
224. The Government did not pay just compensation to Fannie Mae common and
preferred stock shareholders or Freddie Mac common and preferred stock shareholders for the
taking and/or illegal exaction of the value of their private property, equity interests in the
Companies. The Government’s actions required it to pay just compensation to the Plaintiffs and
members of the Classes under the Takings Clause of the United States Constitution.
225. The Due Process and Takings Clauses of the United States Constitution protect
shareholders from having their property and property rights taken and/or illegally exacted without
just compensation. As a direct result of the Government’s violations of the United States
Constitution, Plaintiffs and the Classes were injured, including monetary damage, as a direct and
proximate cause of the Government’s taking and/or illegal exaction of billions of dollars of
property interests associated with their holdings of Fannie Mae common and preferred stock and
Freddie Mac common and preferred stock. The Government is liable to Plaintiffs and the Classes
for the injury it caused.

So now from the list above we can conclude:
1) violated Due Process
2) no due process
3) violated the statutory, contractual, and Constitutional rights
4) HERA did not authorize the conservatorship
5) conservatorships destroyed the value of the stock & its expectations
6) prior to the conservatorships they demanded an increase in risky loan witch diminished the net worth
7) improperly imposing the PSPAs with no valid statutory basis
8) forcing toxic assets from others into the company was a “backdoor” bailout for others
9) improperly taking all of the net worth of the Companies
10) no just compensation illegally exacts private property
11) just compensation is needed under the Takings Clause of the United States Constitution
12) the Government’s violated the Constitution and is liable, as Plaintiffs were injured

Then in the end I’m concluding this Washington Federal case is a total-loss for the government, this is not something that can be repaired either way, if plaintiff loses in this case all the above accusations need to be proven wrong, and that is something they cannot do as the proof contradicting the governments right is already presented(although Sealed) in this case, you will need a deep pockets to settle this case

In ending we can conclude we are waiting on final discovery in fairholme 13-465C, and the schedule in fairholme (due Jan-10-2020) that includes the discovery end date, which will release this case as Once the parties in Fairholme file a postdiscovery joint status report, the court will issue an order in this case regarding further proceedings.