Thanks Barron, You ask for “Any suggestions or comments?” I want remind the board the question you asked, with links to the Charter Act, HERA, SPSPA, etc… Anyone that can point out important information written in these documents to help in your forthcoming lawsuit. Thanks again Barron.
“This leads to the question, who authorized the appropriation of taxpayer debt to provide the 200 billion commitment? Certainly not Congress. Please someone show where Treasury was authorized by a law to make a 200 billion commitment available in exchange for One Million Shares (1,000,000) with an initial liquidation preference of $1,000 per share. Shares of senior equity in FNMA? It's all illegal and unconstitutional.”
Charter act prohibits the commitment fees (Seniors, warrants, variable liquidation preference). More importantly the actions of Treasury to appropriate 200 billion in taxpayer debt, take non regulatory control of the companies through the SPSPA (require Treasury permission at least 10 separate times) and ownership of more than 50% of the companies requires them under the GAO act and the CFO act to consolidate the GSEs onto the nations balance sheet. The fact that that hasn't happened means the Treasury has violated the 14th amendment to the Constitution by repudiating the 5 trillion in debt the Treasury has acquired through their actions since 2008. Their actions have resulted in a takings of the entire enterprise value of the formerly private companies. These actions have necessarily turned the GSEs back into agencies of the executive branch as they were originally created. This is the definition of a major question and also a separation of powers problem since Congress did not authorize the actions Treasury took and continues to take.
Again, I stress the Senior Preferred Stock Purchase Agreement is not a law. The SPSPA is an illegal contract, The Charter Act is the Law.
SUBSECTION (g) TEMPORARY AUTHORITY OF TREASURY TO PURCHASE OBLIGATIONS AND SECURITIES; CONDITIONS.— EMERGENCY DETERMINATION REQUIRED. Page 16
Under this subsection the FHFA / Treasury would have to prove, 'What was the Emergency'...
(And this will open the door for the plaintiffs to bring out the forced write down of the deferred tax assets, treasury's charge of an illegal commitment fee, violated the law by not adding the liabilities onto the national debt, neither entity met any of the twelve conditions for conservatorship spelled out in the newly passed HERA legislation, 5th amendment, 14th amendment, etc...)
There was no 'Emergency.'
FHFA freely admitted the companies were adequately capitalized, evidence the companies exceeded capital requirements absolutely no need for emergency funding.
SECOND QUARTER CAPITAL RESULTS
Minimum Capital Fannie Mae’s FHFA-directed capital requirement on June 30, 2008 was $37.5 billion and its statutory minimum capital requirement was $32.6 billion. Fannie Mae’s core capital of $47.0 billion exceeded the FHFA-directed capital requirement by $9.4 billion.
Freddie Mac’s FHFA-directed capital requirement on June 30, 2008 was $34.5 billion and its statutory minimum capital requirement was $28.7 billion. Freddie Mac’s core capital of $37.1 billion exceeded the FHFA-directed minimum capital requirement by $2.7 billion.
Yeah I have a suggestion. If you proceed pro se and don't have any legal experience OR if you hire any attorney, be prepared to spend at minimum $500K....to pay for the government's costs. That's if you get bounced early.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
