Replies to post #740232 on Fannie Mae-No Politics (FNMA)

[Wise Man]

Quit the Judiciary verbosity, dude. Fanniegate is about breach of the statutory provisions that the corrupt plaintiffs cover up and the misinterpretation of those provisions by the SCOTUS, that omitted "authorized by this section" after "take any action".
The question of what the capital distributions are about, is answered in the exceptions to the Restriction on Capital Distributions in HERA and the CFR1237.12:
-To reduce the SPS
-Applied towards their Recapitalization or towards building Net Worth (improve the financial condition)

This is why there is a Separate Account plan that must be unwound, so that the conservator complies with the statutory provisions, and stops pretending to steal capital from FnF.

The real question is: will you and your clan ever gonna read the statutory provisions?

[Wise Man]

A dividend is a distribution of earnings.
Did you know that? But not just earnings in the quarter, but Retained Earnings, that is, accumulated earnings in the balance sheet.
Not even one quarter this premise was met: dividends out of losses, not enough Net Income, and, above all, the Retained Earning account is still in Deficit. Huh?
You can't pretend that it was interest payments.
This is why I'm considering it capital distributions applied towards the exceptions in the law and the CFR1237.12.
Reduce the SPS and Recap/build Net Worth, which complies with its mandate as conservator (put FnF in a sound and solvent condition)

Do you know that a dividend and a payment with SPS like today, are capital distributions? Then, restricted when FnF are undercapitalized.
Do you know something about Finance?
Why don't you take a course in Finance instead of writing here all day?

[5bagger]

When will this writ be answered?

[Donotunderstand]

Yes
Although -- my google and other search - suggests that Major Question is not as much a Doctrine as an exception to Chevron in Major Questions ?

Does the below sound right --- (best I found in shorter form)

The major questions doctrine’s precise relationship to the Chevron doctrine is unclear.

The Chevron doctrine, which the Court established in Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984), governs judicial review of an agency’s interpretation of a statute it administers. If Chevron applies, a court will typically engage in a two-step analysis to determine if it must defer to an agency’s statutory interpretation. At step one, the court asks whether the statute directly addresses the precise issue before the court. If the statute is ambiguous or silent in that respect, the court must proceed to step two, which instructs the court generally to defer to the agency’s reasonable interpretation.

[Donotunderstand]

AND

this intrigues me

The current Petition for a Writ of Certiorari at the USSCT, may answer a preliminary question, and that is, was the NWS a Nationalization of the GSES (2 lynchpins of the Secondary Mortgage Market) or was it simply a return on the UST'S 'investment'?

Flat out I did not know that the nationalization question is part of the "Writ" --- as I did not think it was part of the underlying case that "we" want reviewed again?

Of is that the idea of a WRIT --- ask the court to look at a case decision with a NEW WAY (seems off)