Replies to post #732585 on Fannie Mae-No Politics (FNMA)

[Barron4664]

I agree with what you are saying. I share in your frustration. Yet none of the examples you raise are the result of enumerated clauses in a contract. One need only read the posts of kthomp to see that every issue brought by shareholders is confounded and contradicted by contract language the gov wrote for itself. In my opinion, the only way to solve this mess is to get the judiciary to focus on the contract itself. Not the terms inside the contract, but just the creation and validity of the contract. I believe the SCOTUS discussed the fact that an acting director of the FHFA was already answerable directly to the President. Therefore, the SCOTUS gave us shareholders the key to unravel the NWS. In fact, none of our court cases will work because they are focused on the language within the contract and conflate that with the powers granted FHFA through HERA. But the issue is an acting director signed a contract with the Treasury and gave away everything. If you read the SCOTUS opinion in this light it becomes obvious that FHFA can have a single director if answerable to the President and that the actions they take as conservator can benefit the agency etc. However, contract law is based on common law, not constitutional law, and nothing in any court decision has changed the definition of a contract. The current litigation is based on categorical error at this point. Somehow, we need to challenge the contract creation and not the words inside the contract to get past legal process and have an actual ruling on what a contract is. GLTA.