The government Treasury/FHFA/Congress have had an enormous lacks in judgment. They believe that because FNMA and FMCC are GSE’s they can crap on share holders. The first mistake was thinking the federal government could play both sides of the fence with a privately owned company. In 1968 the government privatized FNMA and FMCC to keep them off the books in down years and was essentially their way of making private investors take a hit before he government/tax payers. I have searched the web high and low for this legislation but assume it was never down loaded as it occurred in 1968. We can assume that when this was done ownership, and by proxy, the 5th amendment rights of the Constitution, applied to private ownership. Anyone in DC with access to these records would be encouraged to look for this transition and the legislation that facilitated it. Everyone has a habit of going back as far as 2008 like that is the timeline in question. When establishing the rights of the share holders and the ownership of FNMA that the Government SOLD to them it is important to reference that legislation as that is when WE became the owners of housing. We took the risk and the rewards from that point forward. From that point forward, even being a GSE, the government gave us Constitutionally protected rights of ownership. When did Congress make its first mistake? The bail out that assumed FNMA and FMCC caused the collapse. They assumed they could assign a conservator, not a receiver, and we would fail under the weight of our misdealing’s. That was where they failed to take OUR company. They still needed us to own FNMA and FMCC to keep what they thought would be losses off their books and have the ability, through the PSPA, to sell off and recoup their investment and fulfill their desire to restructure a privately owned company. Essentially they picked the wrong bad guy and assumed to much. When they realized FNMA and FMCC where not the ones at fault they still had wheels in motion to take our company and tried to justify the process by amending the original agreement with itself through the FHFA. They realized they had misjudged our fault, FNMA/FMCC, and that a conservator was required to fulfill certain things to owners that contradicted their agenda so they swept profits and tried to claim powers under HERA that HERA can not Constitutionally facilitate. Lamberths ruling says as much. It describes the lawsuit he dismissed as misdirected and recommends a challenge to HERA itself as a remedy. Why? Because it is unconstitutional. WE own FNMA and any amendment made to the bail out that self deals OUR rights as owners away is UNCONSTITUTUIONAL regardless of what HERA says. The appeal will win because Lamberth cut to the chase in his ruling instead of picking apart how many ways HERA fails. He basically said, sue HERA, it is flawed.
