Replies to post #760916 on Fannie Mae-No Politics (FNMA)

[Robert from yahoo bd]

Louie, I haven't researched it. It seems originally 10 years ago, US Treasury WAS listed as a Defendant in the case. However, I believe that UST was removed as a Defendant.

Why?

Again I haven't looked into it, but I'm guessing that since this is a Contract case we are dealing with two parties here. The Shareholders (us-Class Plaintiffs) and the FHFA (the Defendant) in its ACTING CAPACITY AS THE CONSERVATOR ON BEHALF OF FANNIE MAE AND FREDDIE MAC.

DEMARCO was the mental giant that gave away ALL THE SHAREHOLDERS PROFITS AWAY INTO PERPETUITY (for nothing) by signing the 3rd Amendment or Next Worth Sweep.

The US TREASURY does NOT have what I believe is known as Privity of Contract with the Shareholders. They have Privity of Contract with the Corporations.

The Shareholders have an Implicit Contract with their Corporations that they won't give away ALL the Corporations profits into perpetuity. Since FHFA as the Conservator 'steps into the shoes' of the Corporations only the FHFA and the Corporations internal memos appear relevant to this Implicit Contract case.

The Government Attorneys will argue (or may have already) that the Jim Parrot Salt the Earth with the Shareholders Carcasses Memo is too prejudicial to the trial and irrelevant since the UST has no Privity of Contract in an Implied Breach of the Shareholders Contracts with the Corporations and not Treasury.