Replies to post #793156 on Fannie Mae-No Politics (FNMA)

[Rodney5]

Millett and Ginsburg summarized the case and their 70-page opinion as follows:

Quote: “ We hold that the stockholders’ statutory claims are barred by the Recovery Act’s strict limitation on judicial review. See 12 U.S.C. § 4617(f). ” End of Quote

STRICT LIMITATION ON JUDICIAL REVIEW

The SCOTUS is barred from ruling on the case. It was dismissed.

Link: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/02/21/d-c-circuit-concludes-recovery-act-bars-judicial-review-of-suits-against-fhfa-over-treatment-of-fannie-and-freddie-shareholders/

The problem is not with the rulings of the courts. The problem is and always has been that the plaintiffs attorneys have only challenged the “Actions of the Conservator” such as the NWS or other provisions of SPSPA which is a contract. 4617f bars courts from questioning the actions of a conservator. As it should. None of the 15 + years worth of court cases have challenged the action of the FHFA as regulator or Treasury with respect to the statutes that actually matter. The charter act, safety and soundness act, chief financial officer act, etc. To get a takings or an illegal exaction verdict, you have to show that the gov broke the laws. The actions of the conservator cant break a law. But if you go before a judge and say the SPSPA is bad and the gov stole our companies and limiting the argument to the specifics of the SPSPA agreement and the amendments you get 15 years of no results.“

[skeptic7]

Well said. I prefer just to keep it more simple. The NWS is alive n well and to be employed at the discretion of the conservator.
Thanks.