Replies to post #781334 on Fannie Mae-No Politics (FNMA)

[Rodney5]

It’s an illegal contract between two government agencies that answer to the executive branch. You’re blowing smoke using mirrors. The companies did not have a choice, their heads hit the floor! REMEMBER??

Before the take down of the companies Treasury Secretary Paulson was unaware that the FHFA Regulator had sent both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac letters saying the companies were safe and sound and exceeded their regulatory capital requirements. Paulson told FHFA Director Lockhart that he had to change his agency’s posture on the two companies, and FHFA did exactly that. FHFA sent each company an extremely harsh mid-year review letter, and two days later, Paulson, Lockhart and Fed chairman Bernanke met with the companies’ CEO's and directors to tell them they had no choice but to agree to conservatorship.

When Paulson met with the directors of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to inform them of his intent to take over their companies, neither entity met any of the twelve conditions for conservatorship spelled out in the newly passed HERA legislation. Paulson since has admitted he took the companies over by threat.

[Barron4664]

Dont be so silly. Check the distant history. From where does the Lamberth jury trial originate? Oh thats right. It is the only surviving claim from the fairholme Court of appeals or was it the Perry. It all merges together in the fog of distant memory. Anyway LuLU, it doesnt matter because the defendant in those original cases was the federal government. Not the GSEs. The claims the jury heard are a result of the Federal Appeals court overturning Lamberths original ruling remanding the issue back down to Lamberth and telling him to get it right this time. Do you think he got it right this time? The Gov will not and has not signaled its attempt to appeal because there is nothing to appeal except on the part of plaintiffs appealing Lamberth’s conduct and unreasonable decisions favoring the federal government. The Jury verdict in my opinion ends the SPSPA. There is no way forward in my opinion except the nullification of the SpS, Warrants, and LP. Unless we as a country are prepared for the gov to end basic contract law in a free society. Is that what you want LuLu because if what you think is true is true than that is the new reality we are in moving towards. Any freedoms you think you have will be gone. What you have left is some form of socialist, communist marxist whatever instead. And that is the only reason I am invested here. It is a binary trade for me. Either we live in a free society with rule of law and property rights in which case I will make lots of money in the end, or we have lost that and now live in something else entirely. In that case money won’t mean very much anyway. Pay attention.

[Ace Trader]

TWO THINGS that stand out with your statement I'd liken to discuss is:

That would mean that the FHFA cannot re-start the NWS after they reach there capital threshold of 4% I think it is ! Then what happens when they reach that level? The 4th amendment stated the NWS will restart?

If the Gov can't appeal then it's up to the companies to Appeal or would it be the FHFA? If there's nothing to appeal then wouldn't the SPSA also be null ???

[Wise Man]

The claim arises from the retention of securities, not from the purchase. Thus, the date of issuance or purchase that you mention, is pointless.

these purchases occurred prior to the conservatorship, when FHFA did not even exist.

This concept was taken from the FHFA Final Rule on July 20, 2011, where the director talked extensively about the payment of Securities Litigation claims in the preface, ending up with: "Prohibiting payments...."

Also, it seems that you don't understand what you were accused of. You omitted the FHFA as defendant and, secondly, you mention FnF as Defendants instead, that can't be named defendants. 2 mistakes.
A conservatorship isn't about suing the conservatees and later, the conservator represents them in court, kind of giving powers to an attorney for the representation.

FHFA must assume the legal defense in conservatorship on behalf of the real defendants, Fannie and Freddie, precisely because FHFA is acting as conservator.

There is a transfer of powers and rights (momentarily) to carry out a task: statutory goals. It means that you don't have them (Voting Right, ASMs, etc.) and instead, the FHFA is using them and acting on your behalf (in your name), though we know that it may not be in your best interests like a Trustee. Which doesn't mean that the conservator's task is to deliberately attack your interests by the way, because there are other Fiduciary Duties like loyalty.
Fiduciary duties arise always when someone is acting on behalf of other.
Judge Sweeney was warned by certified mail, that the conservator's Incidental Power sounds a lot like a Fiduciary Duties provision, and the "authorized by this section" after "take any action", looks like the Duty of Care (uphold the law) owed to us.
As judge Willett explained, it refers to actions "within its enumerated Powers (Rehab)". Also pointed out by justice Alito that began with "rehabilitate FnF" in the interpretation of this Incidental Power.

It's important because now, this breach of Duty of Care isn't a tort claim because it's statutory, and therefore, it falls squarely within the Court of Federal Claims jurisdiction. Tort claim was the excuse used by judge Sweeney to toss the claim brought by Arrowhood in the trash bin, after shamelessly omitting the "authorized by this section" wording and ignoring that Fiduciary Duties is a plural form for a reason: there are more than one (best interests).
Judge Sweeney, former DOJ employee, is known as The Tipp-Ex Queen.

[Wise Man]

Remember also that, presumably, FnF appear as defendants (now illegally) aiming to settle the 8 Securities Law violations confidentially directly with FnF, once the Conservatorship is over and FnF recover their powers to carry out this deed.
At a time when there is a settlement proposal of these wrongdoings on social media with all the Equity holders, worth $4.8B., that also serves as compensation for Punitive Damages, and against the DOJ as vicariously responsible of the FHFA's actions.

Replica of the settlement reached by PwC, as auditor of Freddie Mac, in 2016 with some investors, we were told. Which sounds like a big lie and it was simply a trial balloon to teach us that, with a confidential settlement, not even the judge can see the terms of the settlement.
What a coincidence that a former PwC executive (the same individual at Mr. Crow's luxury retreat?) just landed as member of the BOD of Fannie Mae.

This is why the controversial Sheila Bair (she formed part of the conclave that made the decision of Conservatorship, according to a WSJ article on d-day: "top banking official", to later show up as chairman of the Board of Directors of Fannie Mae, pretending that FnF are managed by the FDIC, just like the failed 1989 RTC (Public-Private Partnerships with Wall Street), where the FHLBanks' Funding Corp invested in, that saddled the taxpayer with losses ($30B through the purchase of the Refcorp bond issued by Funding Corp, where the rogue FHLBs have only paid interests when their SEPARATE ACCOUNT provision was for "the repayment of principal"; and $18.8B invested directly in RTC)), one year ago surprised us with her dramatic appeal to release FnF from Conservatorship, despite their shocking $402 billion capital shortfall over minimum Leverage capital requirements.
They seek the release just to settle their 8 Securities Law violations (gifted SPS absent from the balance sheets, SPS increased instead of issued, etc.) confidentially with FnF.

By the way, you are also omitting that the U.S. Treasury is a party in the Lamberth court too, represented by the DOJ, according to Pacer. This compels the DOJ to find out everything happening in the Lamberth court.
Another honest mistake, Glen Bradford - LuLeVan -JOoa0ky?

Importantly, the government and Treasury are not defendants in Lamberth,