Replies to post #769898 on Fannie Mae-No Politics (FNMA)

[Wise Man]

A judge rules that expert witness testimonies aren't evidence.
Trump said yesterday about the judge in Manhattan ruling over one of his cases.
It dynamites the Lamberth trial, filled with the so called "experts" as substitution for the law, making up damages with the share price reaction, when the damage is the dividend to UST in undercapitalized enterprises, a dividend paid out of unavailable funds for distribution (accumulated deficit Retained Earnings accts), the gifted SPS nowadays, the Warrant, etc. The goal was to make the JPS holders get back dividends, a swap JPS for Cs and prevent the FMCC holders from filing new lawsuits as they've been included in the illegal Class Action, where the FNMA holders were absent.

So many testimonies instead of the law, that this is why the one making up the whole staged trial came up with the idea of the jury asking for the HERA text on the last day (besides MBS data of 2011 and 2012. Joking, right?), pretending to have knowledge of the law, when the laws in force are the FHEFSSA and the Charter Act, as amended by HERA, and about rulemaking, the July 20, 2011 Final Rule that supplemented the Restriction on Capital Distributions with CFR 1237.12 and also, precisely, it was expressly included the payment of Securities Litigation judgments as one of the capital distributions restricted, by amending its definition. The determination of damages was the only task of the jury. Therefore, they missed key legislation and rulemaking for the verdict.
Let alone that leaving the decision to 8 individuals is outrageous, that looks more like expert witnesses but without the label of "expert". They are just called on this board: "8 random people".
This will backfire and judge Lamberth has no other option than to rule: "Judgment notwithstanding the verdict" (JNOV): the jury incorrectly applied the law in reaching its verdict.
E.g. SPSPA: "Conservatorship pursuant to Section 1367(a) of the FHEFSSA of 1992".

Expert witness is synonym of conflict of interests and, according to the Manhattan judge, it isn't evidence and now we will call it "fabricated evidence" in those cases where they showed up.

Notice that Trump is also accused of fabricating evidence in Fanniegate with the famous Trump letter that the attorney for Fairholme submitted in court in the Collins case, to later falsely allege that it's what the SCOTUS requested.

There is a big problem with these law firms fabricating evidence and other is covered up. Law firms that later hire Goofy's for social media propaganda, etc. They are required to pay us a compensation for Punitive damages.