Replies to post #792997 on Fannie Mae-No Politics (FNMA)

[Rodney5]

Guido, Donotunderstand ask me about the status of limitations running out to file lawsuit.

The FHFA / Treasury continue to change the contract, letter agreement dated January 14, 2021, So, the Statute of Limitations are not up. PAGE 6 Liquidation Preference increases dollar for dollar for all the retained earnings of the enterprises. So, every time the contract is changed this pushes the status of limits out further in time.

https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/136/Executed-Letter-Agreement-for-Fannie-Mae.pdf

Somehow we need to take in to consideration the recommendation of our friend Barron.

Quote: “ “Little Tucker Act” lawsuit for illegal exaction against the Treasury Department for money losses of less than $10,000 in my local district court. The purpose of this legal action is to introduce violations of the Charter Act and the Federal Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness act of 1992 both as amended by HERA. Notice that FHFA will not be named as defendant. Relief sought is to enforce the provisions of the SPSPA that require the agreement be terminated and declared null and void if the agreement is found by a competent court of jurisdiction to be in violation of the GSE charter documents. Should this argument fail, a second prayer for relief will seek to force the consolidation of the enterprises onto the nations balance sheet due to violations of the GAO act and violations of the 14th amendment debt clause. At this time, money damages would be limited to court costs and Statute of limitations would rely on DOJ guidance for recurring claims due to material changes introduced in the letter agreements. For example the new increase of liquidation preference for free introduced within the last 6-years.” End of Quote

Any suggestions or comments?

[RickNagra]

Once again you seem to have out done yourself. You explain things in a way in which everyone can understand. Simple and to the point.

Thanks Vancmike for staying on subject.

As I have stated before, when it suits them, the govt claims the SPS was an investment. At other times that it's a loan. FnF sent their equity to the Treasury until stopped by the Fifth Circuit Enbanc. Since then the the Liquidation Preference has grown for each $ of earnings as per letter of agreement signed between Calabria and Mnuchin. When Fannie states "amounts attributable to Senior Preferred Stock" Fannie is signifying that the SPS is considered a loan.

Also, as I have repeatedly stated, if the SPS were a loan, it was paid back a decade ago. If it was an investment, then the corporations have always been capitalized, and there's been no need for the conservatorship.

[kthomp19]

As I have stated before, when it suits them, the govt claims the SPS was an investment. At other times that it's a loan.

Wrong. It was always an investment and it was never a loan.

When Fannie states "amounts attributable to Senior Preferred Stock" Fannie is signifying that the SPS is considered a loan.

Wrong again. This statement does not at all imply that the senior prefs are a loan.

Also, as I have repeatedly stated, if the SPS were a loan, it was paid back a decade ago. If it was an investment, then the corporations have always been capitalized, and there's been no need for the conservatorship.

And every time you said it you were wrong, among a whole host of other things you have been wrong about.