InvestorsHub Logo


04/20/23 2:44 PM

#44150 RE: 955 #44149

Justice Breyer comments

Donotunderstand, I appreciate your contribution to our effort in getting out of this prison.

“time of emergency-near “war times” ?

Even in war time real property is compensated under the 5th...

“how do two judges come to the edge of saying we got screwed and then vote with the assailant”

It has been covered a dozen times on this board...

It was explained to you in the post you replied too.

“Quote: "This lawsuit does not challenge the foregoing arrangement made in September 2008. While Plaintiffs do not concede that all the measures taken in September 2008 were justified or necessary, they are not here to challenge the placement of Fannie and Freddie into conservatorship at the height of the financial crisis, or the original deal struck by Treasury and FHFA at that time." End of Quote. Page 7

The lawyers are focused on the third amendment net worth sweep. And IT IS NOT WORKING!


“Well, why didn't you bring a takings claim?”

JUSTICE BREYER: -- and this seems like a takings claim, why should we stretch out of recognition or stretch or try to draw lines unnecessarily on the question of derivative actions? Page 71

JUSTICE BREYER: I'm -- I'm aware of derivative action of the conservator. In fact, he so -- goes so far that the company's hurt, really hurt, and the shareholders are destroyed, bring a takings claim, but as long as there's a colorable claim, as long as there's a colorable defense, forget it. Apply ordinary derivative law. Page 71


MR. THOMPSON: Your Honor, we have brought a takings claim, but that doesn't absolve this Court of -- under the APA, of addressing our challenge to the lawfulness of the agency action. There's no reason to think that – Page 70

Let me interpret MR. Thompson, Your Honor, I work for JPS Shareholders and these JPS Shareholders don't care about the company or the common shareholders, matter of fact we want the Treasury to cram-down, place the company in receivership or whatever it takes so we can collect Par Value on our investment! The Contract, first amendment, second amendment we don't care. My clients are asking this Court to draw a line in the sand (third amendment) with a 'colorable claim' so we can collect Par Value. JUSTICE BREYER: “FORGET IT” …

The question was asked on this board, “Why did Breyer vote along with the other Justices?” Ha


Justice Breyer told the Plaintiffs how to win!

UPMOST IMPORTANT: JUSTICE BREYER: Quote: “Thank you. I think in reading this you could, with trying to simplify as much as possible, do you -- the shareholders' claim as saying we bought into this corporation, it was supposed to be private as well as having a public side, and then the government nationalized it. That's what they did. If you look at their giving the net worth to Treasury, it's nationalizing the company. Now, whatever conservators do and receivers do, they don't nationalize companies. And when they nationalized this company, naturally they paid us nothing and our shares became worthless. And so what do you say?” End of Quote, page 12


DERIVATIVE. Coming from another; taken from something preceding, secondary; as derivative title, which is that acquired from another person. There is considerable difference between an original and a derivative title. When the acquisition is original, the right thus acquired to the thing becomes property, which must be unqualified and unlimited, and since no one but the occupant has any right to the thing, he must have the whole right of disposing of it. But with regard to derivative acquisition, it may be otherwise, for the person from whom the thing is acquired may not have an unlimited right to it, or he may convey or transfer it with certain reservations of right. Derivative title must always be by contract.

The lawyers are focused on the third amendment net worth sweep; IT IS NOT WORKING! By Public Law the whole contract is illegal, the contract is illegal based on the United States is not permitted to charge a commitment fee to be paid by the enterprises. The Senior Preferred Stock Purchase Agreement is not a law: The SPSPA is an illegal contract.