Replies to post #682938 on Fannie Mae-No Politics (FNMA)

[Commons_Cancelled]

When can we expect to see your lawsuit challenging all of the allegations against FNMA that you've put forward?

Since none of the existing suits encompass all of your claims, it would be prudent for you to file a claim.

I look forward to reading this lawsuit. Please share the link when you file it.

Until then, only the allegations being challenged in Court matter ;-)

[kthomp19]

it nowhere states on witch conditions it can leave conservatorship, it only states the portfolio needs to be wound down and all other sort of demands, nothing however to make them solvent again (a one-sided illegal contract) or the terms upon which the contract will end

None of this proves your point. A true wind-down contract would include conditions upon which the wind-down would depend, and those are absent.

The original contract was not one-sided at all either. The companies received a 12-figure funding commitment each to keep them out of mandatory receivership by HERA, and Treasury in return received the senior prefs and the warrants.

The NWS absolutely was one-sided, by contrast: FnF received no return consideration, which is part of why it is illegal.

Then you misunderstood the liquidation end date, “it means”:
“Liquidation End Date” means the date of completion of the liquidation of Seller’s assets”

"Liquidation End Date" is merely a defined term in the contract. Its inclusion in the contract does not prove that the contract was meant to wind down FnF.

the party of last resort does have a fiduciary duty to keep things moving, one-sided is illegal, coercion is illegal, so it is their fiduciary duty to keep the companies afloat as lender of last resort, not to bring them down, doing so will ruin the economy as then there is no party of last resort

This reads somewhere between spaghetti logic and a word salad. Maybe I'm just hungry.

Treasury has no statutory mandate to either the companies or shareholders. If you disagree, find the law that proves your case. Your "reasoning" above doesn't even come close to doing so.

And as both government and Collins agree the “for cause” protection is illegal it most likely is
...
HERA states it should not listen to the judicial branch as it is independent, but if “for cause” is replaced to at will, it must listen to the separation of powers, it therefore must strike 4617(f) no court can take action, as FHFA will become executive

The Safety and Soundness Act of 1992 once again proves you wrong. OHFEO was an executive agency that had its own anti-injunction clause on page 311:

(4) LIMITATION ON JURISDICTION.—Except as otherwise pro-vided in this subsection, no court may take any action regarding the removal of a conservator or otherwise restrain or affect the exercise of powers or ftuictions of a conservator.

Read it carefully: an executive agency can, and did, have an anti-injunction clause essentially identical to 4617(f). One that nobody, to my knowledge, has ever challenged. Certainly not successfully.

The Collins plaintiffs don't even challenge 4617(f) in their own case! So once again, bring your own lawsuit to strike down 4617(f) or drop the continued incorrect arguments.