Replies to post #593690 on Fannie Mae-No Politics (FNMA)

[chessmaster315]

If it has anything to do with John Carney, its probably inaccurate or sensationalized. Remember his reputation: He worked as a tabloid author before going to work at WSJ, so their goal is to dig up "news" that has no relation to the truth, like all tabloids.

ab·loid
/'tab?loid/
Learn to pronounce
noun
a newspaper having pages half the size of those of a standard newspaper, typically popular in style and dominated by headlines, photographs, and sensational stories.

Further, the defination of sensationalism is as follows:

sen·sa·tion·al·ism
/sen'saSH?nl?iz?m/
Learn to pronounce
noun
1.
(especially in journalism) the use of exciting or shocking stories or language at the expense of accuracy, in order to provoke public interest or excitement.
"media sensationalism"

[Stern is Bald]

Makes zero sense...

[Pecker9Wood]

On and on over this sort of stuff and it is obvious to any that knows the business and the connection the twins have with the government. The government will always be obligated to step in as they are the ones to loan and profit on the MBS. The twins only securitize them into packages to be bought. So much about nothing. What a crock of BS. Must note it is the same for the banks and the government will step in there too as it there is history to support all this. Guess these people who talk like this want us to believe they just fell off the turnip truck (new borns). Where is the justice.

[trunkmonk]

so where does it all fit in with this weeks events?

(1) Whether plaintiffs have standing to assert derivative claims
notwithstanding the succession clause contained in the
Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 (HERA),
12 U.S.C. § 4617(b)(2)(A)(i).
(2) Whether actions by the Federal Housing Finance Agency
(FHFA) as conservator for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are
attributable to the United States such that the Court possesses
subject-matter jurisdiction to entertain plaintiffs’ derivative
takings and illegal exaction claims.
(3) Whether plaintiffs’ allegations that FHFA entered into an
implied-in-fact contract with the Enterprises to operate the
conservatorships for shareholder benefit fail as a matter of law.


from the Dec 6th statement
(1) whether an implied conflict-of-interest exception to the succession clause contained in the Housing and
Economic Recovery Act of 2008 (HERA) provides plaintiffs standing to pursue shareholder
derivative claims; (2) whether actions by the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) as
conservator for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (Enterprises) are attributable to the United States
such that the Court possesses subject-matter jurisdiction under the Tucker Act to entertain
plaintiffs’ derivative takings and illegal exaction claims; and (3) whether plaintiffs plausibly
alleged that FHFA entered into an implied-in-fact contract with the Enterprises to operate the conservatorships for shareholder benefit.


CONCLUSION
For these reasons, the Court should certify the December 6 opinion for interlocutory
appeal by amending the order to add the following statement pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(d)(2):
The Court finds that this order involves the following controlling
questions of law with respect to which there is a substantial ground
for difference of opinion and that an immediate appeal from the
order may materially advance the ultimate termination of the
litigation.
(1) Whether plaintiffs have standing to assert derivative claims
notwithstanding the succession clause contained in the
Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 (HERA),
12 U.S.C. § 4617(b)(2)(A)(i).
(2) Whether actions by the Federal Housing Finance Agency
(FHFA) as conservator for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are
attributable to the United States such that the Court possesses
subject-matter jurisdiction to entertain plaintiffs’ derivative
takings and illegal exaction claims.
(3) Whether plaintiffs’ allegations that FHFA entered into an
implied-in-fact contract with the Enterprises to operate the
conservatorships for shareholder benefit fail as a matter of law.
In addition, if it certifies the December 6 opinion, the Court should also stay further
proceedings pending the Federal Circuit’s resolution of our petition for interlocutory appeal and,
if the petition is granted, the Federal Circuit’s decision on that appeal.

[Pecker9Wood]

Just might be something here as it has Waters all worked up saying Trump has less integrity then the Crips and Bloods. Unbelievable.