Replies to post #820100 on Fannie Mae-No Politics (FNMA)

[Rodney5]

JSmith5 Quote: "And the facts - and the law - are on our side. But the courts are not. We all got that." End of Quote

We have covered these many times; it is not the courts' fault...
Again, the plaintiffs' brought the wrong lawsuits.

All the lawsuits challenged the actions of the Conservator within the terms of the SPSPA... AND 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 as legal or illegal by the Court: The Court dismissed the lawsuit.

SPSPA which is a contract. 4617f bars courts from questioning the actions of a conservator.

THE PLAINTIFFS BROUGHT THE WRONG LAWSUIT.

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).

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

Quote: “A number of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac stockholders filed suit alleging that FHFA’s and Treasury’s alteration of the dividend formula through the Third Amendment exceeded their statutory authority under the Recovery Act and constituted arbitrary and capricious agency action in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A). They also claimed that FHFA, Treasury, and the Companies committed various common-law torts and breaches of contract by restructuring the dividend formula.
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). We also reject most of the stockholders’ common-law claims. Insofar as we have subject matter jurisdiction over the stockholders’ common-law claims against Treasury, and Congress has waived the agency’s immunity from suit, those claims, too, are barred by the Recovery Act’s limitation on judicial review. Id. As for the claims against FHFA and the Companies, some are barred because FHFA succeeded to all rights, powers, and privileges of the stockholders under the Recovery Act, id. § 4617(b)(2)(A); others fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The remaining claims, which are contract-based claims regarding liquidation preferences and dividend rights, are remanded to the district court for further proceedings. “End of Quote

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/

[Rodney5]

HOW TO WIN

Barron4664

Re: EternalPatience post# 762310

Saturday, August 12, 2023 11:25:20 AM

Post#
762323
of 820107
If you were paying attention to my posts you would have realized that my proposed strategy that Rodney has been posting relies on filing little tucker act claims in the local federal district court. If you file a takings claim for greater than $10,000, it has to be heard in Sweeny’s court of federal claims. If you challenge any aspect of the SPSPA, such as the NWS the terms of the agreement requires all claims to be heard in the DC district Court aka Lamberth.

I propose neither. I propose claims alleging illegal exaction due to Treasury and FHFA violating Federal statutes that any district court has jurisdiction over. 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 current litigation makes any claims of violation of these acts. They all challenge 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. all have failed to this point. It is called a categorical error. Kind of like the “war on terror” how do you fight a war against a weapon?

Rather, I propose a simple set of questions:

1) is a variable Liquidation preference pegged to the amount of commitment drawn by the GSEs (with a 10% rate later changed to NWS, later to LP increased for free) attached to the sale of 1000 Senior Preferred Shares considered a charge or fee for the purposes outlined in the Charter Act?

2) are the warrants in consideration of the Commitment a charge or fee?

3) If they are determined to be a charge or a fee attached to a GSE obligation or a security, are they prohibited by the plain language of the Charter Act?

4) what appropriations law did treasury use to make $200 billion of tax payer debt available for the GSEs to draw from?

5) are the SPS with a variable liquidation preference outlined in the SPSPA and its amendments and share certificates a new product for the purposes of the Safety and Soundness Act of 1992 as amended by HERA?

6) If they are a new Product, Congress directed the Director of FHFA to apply the Administrative Procedures Act to these new products sold to Treasury. Did FHFA follow the administrative procedures congress required in the plain language of the safety and soundness act?

7) The CFO act requires the Treasury department based on published accounting standards to determine if their actions of funding through appropriations, ownership of 100% of the GSEs net worth and non-regulatory control of the GSEs through the SPSPA require the consolidation of the GSEs liabilities onto the nations balance sheet. Do the actions of Treasury under the SPSPA require such consolidation under the plain language of the Chief Financial Officers Act?

The answers to these questions would hopefully result in the voiding of the SPSPA in its entirety and a cash sum of less than $10,000 to me. Each of these questions can be answered by just reading the plain language of the statute and the Agreements. No fancy legal doctrines are needed for mental gymnastics. It is plain letter law that avoids all the traps. The only doctrine involved is the doctrine of continuing claims. Otherwise we are limited to the SOL on the 4th amendment to the SPSPA.

[kthomp19]

Yeah - we have overpaid the Treasury - its clear and unambiguous. By a lot. And the facts - and the law - are on our side. But the courts are not. We all got that.

As I have said before, when you look at what has happened over the last 17 years with the GSEs - a reasonable person would conclude that the law, the facts, fundamental fairness and even reason itself seem to be irrelevant.

We are now faced with a situation where the Government has expressed its intention to create a SWF. They are looking for money to fund it as well as cut the deficit. These actions are currently on steroids. The Government has a history of how it treats these bailouts. So we now need to be prepared to counter what may be coming. That's all am saying.

Very well said. Dovetails nicely with your other post.

History doesn't repeat, but it rhymes.