Replies to post #760221 on Fannie Mae-No Politics (FNMA)

[Brooge warrants cancelled]

I distinctively recall him saying that but then stating its congress's job

[Rodney5]

Kthomp19: Conversation on the White Paper

Quote: “And, more importantly, so what? Even if FnF didn't "need" the treatment they got, it happened anyway. Being "right" about this, which again is a matter of opinion, doesn't change anything.” End of Quote... You are right it doesn't change anything.

Kthomp19 Quote: “The laws matter. The Supreme Court said the NWS was legal, which means FHFA and Treasury have been following the law all along. Maybe not your interpretation of it, but too bad.” End of Quote

Yes, The law does matter. The FHFA / Treasury have not been following the Law.


THE LAW CHARTER ACT

The United States prohibition on assessment or collection of fee or charge to Fannie Mae, (section 304 Fee Limitation). Only Federal Reserve Banks are authorized to be reimbursed of fees, (section 309).

SEC. 304. SECONDARY MARKET OPERATION

Fee Limitation

Quote: “(f) PROHIBITION ON ASSESSMENT OR COLLECTION OF FEE OR CHARGE BY UNITED STATES.—Except for fees paid pursuant to section 309(g) of this Act and assessments pursuant to section 1316 of the Federal Housing Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness Act of 1992, no fee or charge may be assessed or collected by the United States (including any executive department, agency, or independent establishment of the United States) on or with regard to the purchase, acquisition, sale, pledge, issuance, guarantee, or redemption of any mortgage, asset, obligation, trust certificate of beneficial interest, or other security by the corporation. No provision of this subsection shall affect the purchase of any obligation by the Secretary of the Treasury pursuant to subsection (c) of this section.” End of Quote. Page 16

Only Federal Reserve Banks are authorized to be reimbursed of fees, (section 309).

SEC. 309. GENERAL POWERS OF GOVERNMENT NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION AND FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION

Federal Reserve Banks to Act as Fiscal Agents (Fannie Mae and GNMA)

Quote: “(g) DEPOSITARIES, CUSTODIANS, AND FISCAL AGENTS.—The Federal Reserve banks are authorized and directed to act as depositaries, custodians, and fiscal agents for each of the bodies corporate named in section 302(a)(2), for its own account or as fiduciary, and such banks shall be reimbursed for such services in such manner as may be agreed upon; and each of such bodies corporate may itself act in such capacities, for its own account or as fiduciary, and for the account of others.” End of Quote. Page 29

https://www.fanniemae.com/sites/g/files/koqyhd191/files/migrated-files/resources/file/aboutus/pdf/fm-amended-charter.pdf

https://www.congress.gov/110/plaws/publ289/PLAW-110publ289.pdf

You said it yourself...

Rodney5
Re: Rodney5 post# 753488
Sunday, 04/23/2023 9:01:48 PM
Barron Quote: “They are only true if the illegal actions of Treasury and its subservient FHFA are not eventually overturned.”

Kthomp19 Quote: “Overturned by whom? I don't see how any existing lawsuit can have that result, and anyone wanting to file a new lawsuit had better hurry the hell up.”

Link: https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=171706295

[Barron4664]

“The laws matter. The Supreme Court said the NWS was legal, which means FHFA and Treasury have been following the law all along. Maybe not your interpretation of it, but too bad.”

The problem with the above statement, and the ruling you base it off of is that no plaintiff’s have bothered to read the Safety and Soundness Act of 1992 and realize that the (NWS) should have been repealed as it represented a modification to a “new product” authorized under Sec 1790 of the Charter Act that hadn’t had a public notice in the Federal Register, opportunity for public comment, or required rule making. Supremes ruled in a vacuum of what a FHFA-C could do. The APA requirements on the director of the FHFA have nothing to do with the actions of conservator. Unfortunately, judges will not lift a mental finger of curiosity to read outside the briefs. If the Plaintiff doesnt raise the issue, they wont look. Just the way it is I guess. Problem is that anyone who takes the time to actually read the laws that matter can clearly surmise that the SPS are an illegal product in the absence of required rule making of the Director. This is all whats called a categorical error of the Plaintiffs. And it is why nothing will ever be done to correct the wrongs perpetrated against the companies and its shareholders. Too much time has likely expired.

Isnt it amazing how some APA requirements of the Safety and Soundness act must be followed, no matter what, such as the capital requirement rule or the transparency rule, or the new MBS products and activities rule? But lets skip the rule making for a new product called the Senior Preferred Shares with a variable liquidation preference tied to 200 billion in tax payer debt. Just think if an Attorney back in 2013 said to Sweeny, or any other judge. “Excuse me, but where is the required rule making for the SPS”? Boom, APA requirement is black and white, the worst that would have happened is that FHFA would have been forced to do the rule making. No automatic NWS by signing a letter. At least it would be legal afterwords. There would have been no more simple letter agreements or amendments.

The institutions are all systematically corrupt in my opinion.

[Louie_Louie]

No. Much n said congress needed just before the election. He said they needed to get them out, but stated congress, but just before end of Trump's term.

Quit worrying about how right someone is... It will help your problem. So yeah, you're 100% wrong in my book and any law you quote at people is comical, since the current state of affairs makes a mockery of justice. Anyone with ears and eyes knows that.

So good bye cram down, conversion, restructure, fulcrum, etc

[Louie_Louie]

My conspiracy theories are just like yours! Unproven. Funny how that works Eh?
If you would have read (RIF reading is fundamental,). I stated JMHO.
OBVIOUSLY you are not aware of the meaning. It's also what you neglect to state every time you seem to want to correct someone to YOUR opinion.

You have no idea how this ends, so everything you state is non factual until it ends. AND THEN it will be a lucky guess on your part, if in fact a few things you state come to fruition. Anyone's guess how this ends irregardless of THE LAW. Laws were made to be changed, challenged and dropped, and believe it or not, they don't need your permission. Lol