Replies to post #681172 on Fannie Mae (FNMA)

[Robert from yahoo bd]

I think you are missing the point. The Prosecutor (i.e., Da gubmint) convicted a man who was sentenced to serve a prison term of 18 months. How did the government do it? BY OVERREACHING ON THEIR INTERPRETATION OF A STATUTE. Officer Van Buren HAD AUTHORIZED ACCESS TO THE COMPUTER SYSTEM, so how can the government convict a cop of a felony if he ALWAYS HAS AUTHORIZED ACCESS TO THE COMPUTER SYSTEM?

In Collins, Hashim Moopan, FOR YEARS, has tricked lower court Judges by saying, "Well, Uncle Suggy can do the Net Worth Swipe BECAUSE IT "MAY" do anything that benefits the FHFA. See it's in the incidental powers section of HERA!". This is an example of Governmental overreach. Why? Because, as explained by the 5th Circuit EnBanc Panel majority ruling, that power is incidental and cannot override the general duty of a Conservator to preserve and conserve their wards profits and assets.

Does that help any or are you more confused?

Here is Amy Howe's explanation: "The question in Van Buren was whether users violate that statute by accessing information for improper purposes or instead whether users violate the statute only if they access information they were not entitled to obtain. In this case, for example, a Georgia police officer named Nathan Van Buren took a bribe to run a license-plate check. He was entitled to run license-plate checks, but not for illicit purposes. The lower courts upheld a conviction under the CFAA (because he was not entitled to check license-plate records for private purposes). The Supreme Court disagreed, adopting the narrower reading of the CFAA, under which it is a crime only if users access information they were not entitled to obtain."

https://www.scotusblog.com/2021/06/diverse-six-justice-majority-rejects-broad-reading-of-computer-fraud-law/

When it comes to the power of the state to take away your Liberty, don't you want them to do so ONLY IF YOU ACTUALLY VIOLATED THE STATUTE?