Replies to post #681388 on Fannie Mae-No Politics (FNMA)

[MannSinger]

Act of USA in GSE=Act in Banana Republic of America- BRA

‘‘(2) DISCRETIONARY APPOINTMENT.—The Agency may, at
the discretion of the Director, be appointed conservator or receiver for the purpose of reorganizing, rehabilitating, or winding up the affairs of a regulated entity.

‘‘(D) POWERS AS CONSERVATOR.—The Agency may, as conservator, take such action as may be—
‘‘(i) necessary to put the regulated entity in a sound and solvent condition; and
‘‘(ii) appropriate to carry on the business of the regulated entity and preserve and conserve the assets and property of the regulated entity.

‘‘(E) ADDITIONAL POWERS AS RECEIVER.—In any case in which the Agency is acting as receiver, the Agency shall place the regulated entity in liquidation and proceed to realize upon the assets of the regulated entity in such manner as the Agency deems appropriate, including through the sale of assets, the transfer of assets to a limited-life regulated entity established under subsection (i), or the exercise of any other rights or privileges granted to the Agency under this paragraph.


Conclusion:
Conservator cannot take action of receiver(winding up) without appointing itself as receiver.

From day 1, The conservator is acting like a receiver once he gave 79.9% of company for few thousand dollars.

[Robert from yahoo bd]

See it helps when you expand your conversation from just a few lines!

I searched the entire text of the opinion and could not find where Thomas says EXACTLY what "unauthorized access" means. SO PROVE ME WRONG AND SHOW ME EXACTLY WHERE HE SAID "UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS" Supra at 11-12 footnote 9 is not his opinion.

Here's the language from J. Thomas's dissent: "The Act defines “exceeds authorized access” as “to access
a computer with authorization and to use such access to ob-
tain or alter information in the computer that the accesser
is not entitled so to obtain or alter.” §1030(e)(6).

SO SAY I'M RIGHT AND THAT YOU ARE THE DEGENERATE! And say it like this, "Sir, you are correct and I am a degenerate!" HeeHee!

There is no definition for incidental powers. The powers are outlined below.

That's right and the General powers of a Conservator to preserve and conserve their wards assets overrules these incidental powers.

The textualists viewed it differently based on the text of the law. That is my point. Did you really not understand what I have been clearly saying?

This may be where there is "a failure to communicate". The majority opinion is simply stating that the Criminal statute MUST BE CONSTRUED AS WRITTEN. Here, Officer Van Buren was convicted of a felony and sent to the jail for 18 months for "unauthorized access" of the computer in his squad car. Since he had authorized access to use his squad car computer, it was NOT UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS and since criminal statutes are construed strictly Van Buren wins. J. Thomas in the dissent said that there is a definition in the statute of what UNAUTHORIZED access means and it is consistent with property law and officer Van Buren violated it. I explained this to you already though!

Maybe I am confused as to what you mean by "Textualist". How is J. Thomas, Roberts and Alito NOT Textualists but ACB, Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, Kagan, Sotomayor, and Breyer ARE Textualists? Isn't the job of ALL Judges to read and interpret the Laws? Can a "textualist" Judge rule differently in one type of case versus another and when?