Replies to post #681089 on Fannie Mae-No Politics (FNMA)

[skeptic7]

only the shadow knows

[Wingsjr]

I’m pretty sure that stealing a company and Profits and lying to judges is against the constitution. Everything about the CS is unconstitutional. There is 11,000 sealed documents that prove that.

[Robert from yahoo bd]

Textualists understand that the incidental powers granted to FHFA in HERA, do not mean that an accountable to no one in Government FHFA Director can do whatever he wants. As David Thompson stated at the SCOTUS orals, "The US Congress doesn't hide elephants in mouse holes."

The 16 judge EnBanc Panel ruling in their majority opinion said, "We doubt that Congress "in fashioning this intricate ... machinery, would thus hang one of the main gears on the tail pipe."

Such a ruling upending 100's of years of Conservatorship Law by the SCOTUS seems unlikely, but keep holding your jps while the conversion ratio slips from 5 to 3. Where is that downward spiral going to end? Oh yeah, fulcrum security, how could I forget!

[Robert from yahoo bd]

The SCOTUS today AGAIN slapped down a Governmental overreach! This time for a cop who ran a licence plate tag number for a friend and received 18 months in prison. "It was an important one because the government in recent years has been applying the law quite broadly, arguing that users “exceed unauthorized access” (and thus face federal criminal liability) whenever they use information from a computer for an impermissible reason. In this case, for example, the police officer, Nathan Van Buren, lawfully accessed computerized license-plate records, but his use of the information for a private purpose led to the federal criminal prosecution that the court has now rejected."

https://www.scotusblog.com/2021/06/justices-narrow-federal-computer-fraud-statute/

The SCOTUS is there to protect our rights against Governmental overreach, JUST LIKE WE'VE EXPERIENCED HERE!

[Dax1]

Exactly,
The 3rd amendment activated and signed by Tim Geithner and Ed Demarco is a violation of the 5th amendment of the constitution.

[Robert from yahoo bd]

Since the text in HERA essentially lets fhfa do whatever it wants whenever it wants however it wants, how would that square with such a positive ruling?

The "may do whatever is in the best interests of the FHFA" section of HERA is an INCIDENTAL POWER and does not override the GENERAL POWER OR MANDATE of the Conservator to preserve and conserve their wards assets.

Criminal statutes are construed narrowly as the power of the State to imprison people is the greatest infringement on their Liberties.

How does the fact that a particular Judge is a "textualist" have negative implications for the posture of the Collins Plaintiffs legal case?