regulatory vs physical takings $FNMA #FANNIEGATE
Posted on June 9, 2015
upon further review basically it appears that access journalism actually does exist.
the good news regarding john carney is that he always has the treasury’s position to report, and thank god he is an access journalist because it makes it super convenient because it seems pretty apparent that he knows which rock they are going to attempt to hide behind.
their latest motion to dismiss fairholme’s case basically is the difference between a physical takings and a regulatory takings, and i guess the idea is that with a regulatory takings there is this prevalent idea that after the takings occurs anyone who purchases has no right to sue for damages.
for the most part so far all of the case law that i’ve read on the blogosphere has nothing to do with being time delimited but the peter stuff is all about being a scavenger and has to do with the price you paid for a security being irrelevant.
this regulatory / physical takings push basically indicates that, at least to me, the government’s first defense has entered the port-a-potty and decided to go scuba diving/spelunking
so, i have no idea what the difference is between physical and regulatory takings but all of the regulatory takings cases i read had to do with some random stuff, like installation of some damn that redirects water and depletes land value or some new zoning law that went into affect or who knows what.
in the case of fannie and freddie, the government came in and took over everything and has entered into perpetual profit sweep agreements with itself.
so, i guess the takeaway is that john carney’s case law stuff that he provided is indeed the reasoning that the government is likely to attempt to use to defend their recent motion to dismiss.
this is good news or at least i think it is because i dont think it applies because this appears to be a physical takings
what’s funny is that john carney said that from what he can tell takings claims would be transferrable in this situation and that the idea that every new sweep continues to take ..
basically fundamentally the law was completely broken, so this is all technical shit.
from what i can tell, the technical stuff points to this being a physical takings and the recent motion from the government is dead in the water in that case.. that and all the other stuff.
in the meanwhile, i’d like to thank carney for helping people like me better understand what sort of case the defendant is trying to bring and … do our own due diligence to ferret out how stupid it is.
note that earlier this year i asked john to try and convince me not to borrow in excess of $100K and buy stock to sit on for years… and … so here i am, blogging this kind of stuff at 2am, having nothing better to do, and that’s the reality i’m faced with these days.
i’ll let you keep trying.