.@TheJusticeDept's SOLICITOR GNRL IS A SCAMMER
Shameful omnibus reply filed on Oct23 at @Scotus.
-To the Scotus-appointed amicus: he omits the Amicus' explanation of the Govt Implicit Gtee,which is the "special borrowing rights from UST.§1719(b)(c)"
Like a charlatan...#Fanniegate
Shameful omnibus reply filed on Oct23 at @Scotus.
-To the Scotus-appointed amicus: he omits the Amicus' explanation of the Govt Implicit Gtee,which is the "special borrowing rights from UST.§1719(b)(c)"
Like a charlatan...#Fanniegate
...he twists the Amicus' take, who stressed the FHFA's limited Powers when acting as Conservator, but the Solicitor Gnrl refutes it signaling that the @FHFA's powers are significant, notwithstanding that he was enumerating all the powers of FHFA-R: enforce policies,overseer of...
...the mortgage mkt,etc).This is because he spent 10yrs stating that HERA grants the conservator unlimited powers("sweeping grant of powers"),something that the Professor slams.
-To the JPS holders, the Solicitor Gnrl replies that the FHFA didn't wield any Executive Power when...
-To the JPS holders, the Solicitor Gnrl replies that the FHFA didn't wield any Executive Power when...
it approved the NWS, because it was acting as conservator of private enterprises and it simply "stepped into the shoes" of private corporations. "Private shoes". "Shed its Govt character". So, the Solicitor Gnrl wants to make up the figure of a conservator that doesn't wield...
...executive power but it isn't subject to any statutory power(authority),so it can do whatever it wants.Surprisingly,he doesn't base that idea on the FHFA-C's Inc Power "take any action",like before,after being hammered,because,as scammer,he omitted "authorized by this section".
He also claims that the NWS complies with the FHFA-C's Powers, since the 3rd amendment "preserves" the funding commitment (because the 10% dividend would have depleted it),and it puts FnF in a sound condition (because they won't file for bankruptcy)
He doesn't understand that...
He doesn't understand that...
..."put (restore) FnF in a sound condition"(Power)in a financial company,means recapitalization,as Capital is the foundation of safety and soundness. Capital means earnings,but the Solicitor Gnrl assures that the statute doesn't impose an obligation to preserve the earnings...
despite of FHFA-C's Power: put(restore)...
It's disgraceful that, when talking about earnings, he adds "for the shareholders' benefit". The shareholders benefit from the economic interest on their property either he wants it or not, as a stock has a legal claim on the earnings.
It's disgraceful that, when talking about earnings, he adds "for the shareholders' benefit". The shareholders benefit from the economic interest on their property either he wants it or not, as a stock has a legal claim on the earnings.
Finally,he omits the 2nd leg of the FHFA-C's Power: put FnF in a solvent condition,that means reduction of the obligations w/ the taxpayers (SPS),which is the exception(B)to the Restriction On Capital Distributions that he covers up.
An illiterate that cherry-picks the provisons.
An illiterate that cherry-picks the provisons.
@threadreaderapp unroll
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
