Replies to post #797747 on Fannie Mae-No Politics (FNMA)

[Rodney5]

DaJester I appreciate your contribution to our cause. My understanding the SCOTUS did not validate the Net Worth Sweep. The Supreme Court basically said we will not rule or give Judgment or act as an arbitrator on the contract the SPSPA, So, the NWS was not validated as legal or illegal by the Court and the suit was dismissed. NOW we have an 8-0 Jury that has validated the NWS is illegal.

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.

The Plaintiffs brought the wrong lawsuit. The Federal statutes are the Charter Act, the Safety and Soundness Act of 1992, as amended by HERA, Administrative Procedures Act, and potentially the Chief Financial Officers Act. None of the litigation made any claims of violation of these acts. The plaintiffs have to prove the FHFA / Treasury broke the law.

The lawsuit challenged the actions of the Conservator and attempted to squeeze the APA and the 5th amendment takings into the Actions of the FHFA-C within the terms of the SPSPA, it failed. AGAIN, The Supreme Court basically said we will not rule or give Judgment are act as an arbitrator on the contract the SPSPA. So, the NWS was not validated by the Court: The Court dismissed the lawsuit, by memory 9-0.

[kthomp19]

Did the SCOTUS also say that there is no repercussions?

Indirectly I suppose, because they denied cert on the CAFC's dismissal of all NWS takings claims.

If so, the Lamberth verdict is in jeopardy.

Maybe if it gets appealed all the way to the Supreme Court. They have already made one incomprehensible ruling (that the NWS was not ultra vires) and declined to review another (by the CAFC, that FnF have no right to exclude the government from their net worth and thus the NWS wasn't a taking) so the range of possibility is uncomfortably wide.

Lamberth already specifically ruled that the Collins opinion wouldn't stop the implied covenant claim from going forward. The defendants have tried that argument at least three times and have lost every time, though they recently tried it yet again.