Replies to post #686437 on Fannie Mae-No Politics (FNMA)

[JOoa0ky]

The sentiment that I am getting from everyone involved is that our attention turns to the Fairholme Funds v. the United States which is in the US Court of Federal Claims. That is where the "takings" claim will be battled over.

SCOTUS basically said that prospective relief was moot due to the 4th letter amendment but at the same time it also validated the fact that the FHFA is not independent and that it is a govt actor. The NWS was "legal" because they may take actions that are in the best interest of the entity in conservatorship or themselves, the agency because it is an extension of the public it serves.

Conclusion: The "Takings Clause", the last clause of the Fifth Amendment, limits the power of eminent domain by requiring "just compensation" be paid if private property is taken for public use.

They are sweeping on behalf of the public.
JUST COMPENSATION.


Last but not least: After all these shennanigans... my confidence in cryptocurrency has skyrocketed. If govts can behave this way... then THERE IS NO ALTERNATIVE if not crypto...

Thanks for the summing up. We losed in SCOTUS, which is unexpectedly to many here.

I am thinking that illegal taking is so obvious. We should easily win if we suit on Unconstitutional. The major obstacle is the Injunction Clause in HERA, which bars all shareholders from suiting. Can we get someone who is not a shareholder to suit on Illegal Taking ? If that someone is not a shareholder, the judges cannot simply refer to the Injunction Clause and reject the trial. If that someone is a relative to a shareholder, who is unhappy about the way that his mum or dad are unfairly treated. I am not a law guy, so this is just brainstorming.