Replies to post #713866 on Fannie Mae-No Politics (FNMA)

[Achilles deFlandres]

Thank you. Now to the question: Did Judge Schwarz succeed (Sr.) Judge Sweeney on the takings lawsuits? I was sure that had been discussed here many times and I would say there were court actions with Schwarz's name on them. What did I miss?

[Mnemonic]

Hi Clarence,

It looks like the "right to exclude" language effectively killed the derivative takings. The wording seems to imply that once HERA was written, shareholders had no right to exclude the gov't from F&F's net worth, and that their reasonable expectations could not have been violated because there's no expectation that Treasury wouldn't take all the money.

My questions are as follows:

1. Based on this interpretation with exclusion as the only criteria, wouldn't the fact that eminent domain exists mean that the government could not be excluded from any private property? Does this ruling therefore permit any governmental taking without just compensation?

2. Doesn't the 80% warrants effectively establish that shareholders had a reasonable expectation of still owning some (i.e.- 20%) of the companies?

3. Is Congress allowed to legislate away property rights by making exclusion impossible, and also prevent redress via a succession clause? Wouldn't this have rather broad implications for property rights in general, and conservatorships in particular?

Thanks in advance :]

EDIT: One more: How do we appeal this ruling--is it to SCOTUS?--and when can we expect a response?