Replies to post #744469 on Fannie Mae-No Politics (FNMA)

[Robert from yahoo bd]

Clarence, I can't thank you enough, first I'm learning more about the Nondelegation Doctrine (and its been apparently a hot topic at both the USSCT as well as Academia lately) and now, I can't wait to read the case you conveniently linked for me!

I still believe that the NWS may have been a violation of the Major Questions Doctrine. I noticed in the final brief by the government in the student loan forgiveness lawsuit to be heard by SCOTUS next month that Collins somehow represents the argument that the Major Questions Doctrine DOESN'T apply to the student loan forgiveness issue, did you ever see that? I thought Collins was a SOP case about insulated agency Directors.

From the government's brief:

4. The major questions doctrine provides no
reason to depart from the statutory text ....... 46

Collins is referenced on page 47.

brief - In the Supreme Court of the United States

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22-535/251437/20230104223200307_22-506tsUnitedStates.pdf

[Robert from yahoo bd]

I think this is it..."While it is true that California requires all state-chartered savings and loans to be federally insured, Saratoga’s decision to enter the savings and loan business in California was voluntary. Upon so deciding, Saratoga understood, with what may only be viewed as a historically rooted expectation, that the federal government would take possession of its premises and holdings as conservator or receiver if it substantially dissipated its “assets or earnings due to any violation or violations of law or regulations, or to any unsafe or unsound practice or practices[.]” 12 U.S.C. § 1464(d)(6)(A)(ii) (1988) (amended 1989). Saratoga also understood that such an occupation and seizure would not leave Sara-toga without rights. Saratoga could have reasonably expected to be able to contest the appointment of the conservator and the receiver in a U.S. district court. 12 U.S.C. § 1464(d)(6)(A)(v) (1988) (amended 1989). *959What neither Saratoga nor CHS could have expected was to be compensated for a regulatory possession by OTS and the RTC of its property if that possession were to occur following a determination that Saratoga’s financial situation mandated federal conservatorship or receivership."

Hence, no right of shareholders to exclude Uncle Suggy from their property and therefore no right to exclude others from their property therefore NO TAKINGS!

Uncle Suggy wins, yet again!

But what's ESPECIALLY PERNICIOUS about this fact pattern is that the Net Worth Swipe was implemented approximately 4 years AFTER they were placed in the CONservatorships with an intent by the evil Uncle Suggy, according to our best buddy, Jimmy Parrot, at the UST to "make sure that they NEVER go private again and to salt the Earth with the Shareholders Carcasses!"

That's my Uncle Suggy ;-) ! I'm sure other Americans can't wait to risk their limited resources by putting their own capital in a 1st Loss Position, in this Public Mission/Private Capital business and partnership.

What could possibly go wrong?

[Robert from yahoo bd]

Clarence, did you see this? On Friday SCOTUS granted a Writ for ANOTHER Pacific Legal Foundation case (PLF has been slam dunking the ball in the Supremes court for awhile!)

The case is: Tyler v. Hennepin County, Minnesota

ONCE AGAIN they have a sympathetic Plaintiff American who has been the unfortunate victim of Gubmint overreach (this time, it's a county). Seems the county actioned off a 94 yr old ladys condo for $15k in delinquent county real estate taxes and fees for $40k and put the $25k left over into the county operating budget).

Issues: (1) Whether taking and selling a home to satisfy a debt to the government, and keeping the surplus value as a windfall, violates the Fifth Amendment's takings clause; and (2) whether the forfeiture of property worth far more than needed to satisfy a debt, plus interest, penalties, and costs, is a fine within the meaning of the Eighth Amendment.

https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/tyler-v-hennepin-county-minnesota/

From the PLF brief: "Tyler also alleged in the alternative that the
County unjustly enriched itself by reaping the windfall at her expense.

At common law in
England and the United States, government could only take as much as
it was owed in taxes, penalties, interest, and costs. When government
took property and sold it for more than the debt, any surplus proceeds
belonged to the former owner. By failing to honor this traditional
property right and refund the $25,000 to Tyler or otherwise pay her for
her equity interest, the County took her property without just compensation.

In the event that Tyler’s constitutional and statutory claims fail to
provide relief, then her claim of unjust enrichment should ensure that
the government is not unjustly enriched at her expense. The district court
erred in dismissing her claim.
This Court should reverse and remand."