Replies to post #586375 on Fannie Mae-No Politics (FNMA)

[ano]

Quote:
________________________________________
So What does Washington Federal want?
________________________________________
Reading the Prayer for Relief shows the answer: only money damages for common and preferred shareholders as of the day conservatorship was imposed (September 6 2008).

The "other relief as this Court may deem just and appropriate", if it even applies, won't even approach ending the conservatorships or changing anything from the original SPSPAs. Sweeney's court doesn't have the jurisdiction to do either of those things.

I don’t follow your logic, in WF they claims:

“87. Even if the consent of the boards of directors of the Companies was sufficient, this
“consent” was legally invalid because it was obtained through misrepresentation and duress.”
So what you’re saying is that if Sweeney concludes consent to conservatorship was forced by duress, the conservatorship can go on, and the future precedents is that duress is no longer a problem in law, as Sweeney in the Wf FnF case concluded in the future everybody can be forced into a contract by duress

Quote:
________________________________________
Then in the end I’m concluding this Washington Federal case is a total-loss for the government
________________________________________
This is jumping to a conclusion. Sweeney has not even ruled on the motion to dismiss yet, let alone conducted a trial. Unless she does so and finds in favor of the plaintiff, your conclusion is just a guess.

this sage started for me when there was no conservatorship, so “jumping” is a big word, ones the 3th amendment was installed of course for everybody, the problem started, then the discovery about what happened started, and since 2012 the government has been accumulating huge problems in this saga, only due to the 3th amendment, if it was not installed, and they were released in 2012/2013 nobody would have made/had a problem, I’ve been following Sweeney since Jul-9 2013 when the Fairholme Sweeney case was filed, and since then I’ve seen so much misbehavior that it is hard to imagine you can get away with it, so in this WF case it sums again up what has been accumulated in the years after the 3th was installed, it is not new nor something that surprises me, as I already known for years this is going on, but ones I sum it up (again) I come to a conclusion (the same as I already had), and it again proves to me you can’t behave like vic vance in GTA, meaning you can’t steal rob coerce or do whatever you like just to survive, this WF sums up nicely the wrongdoings and we will see what Sweeney says about it, is it difficult? Yes it is, she will either obey the constitution or not, would it be wise for her to come to the conclusion justice is not served? No it will have a HUGE effect in the next downturn, Would it be wise for her to use Ostrich policy as all the others did? No all eyes are on her case, the pressure is building and will it be front page news?, YES it will

Quote:
________________________________________
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)
________________________________________
Since the evidence is sealed, you cannot say that plaintiffs' points have been proven by it. Have you seen the sealed documents?

We all have seen thousands of pages and hundreds of documents, and some unsealed privileged documents by Sweeney, out of all the thousands of pages there is not 1 point that proofs plaintiffs are wrong, the government only defends without backup of documents, That begs the question why was it sealed if there is nothing to hide from, it should only proof the governments rights and proof plaintiffs are wrong, that only gives one logical explanation, the government wants to seal the documents (so they claim) to prevent financial distress, and duress by the government (what WF claims) is not something you can easily recover from as humans are very sophisticated beings and able to spot lies and deception miles away, then the ethics surrounding this problem are HUGE(as stated by Sweeney) so no I did not see document UST00530714. That starts with” The coercive nature of the Government’s strategy to obtain board consent is clearly
Evident… UST00530714” but it certainly will not proof the government entered on a legal basis and if we go by what we have seen sofar,I wouldn’t be surprised “UST00530714” says “you either play ball or you’re out!”(sweeney’s quote)