Fannie Mae-No Politics (FNMA)

[ano]

FHFA’s Parent Agency is HUD

KT please read carefully and SLOW

“An independent federal agency may also be defined as an agency in which the top official has cause removal protections and, therefore, is insulated from political interference by the president or other elected officials. According to the Sourcebook, cause removal protections ensure that "political appointees cannot be removed except 'for cause,' 'inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office,' or similar language." https://ballotpedia.org/Independent_federal_agency

Then we can conclude The FHFA now has to report to HUD “U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development” as that will be their parent agency “The heads of these 15 agencies are also members of the president's cabinet ”https://www.usa.gov/branches-of-government#item-214495

Then it is logical

“As a result of the removing the “for cause” and replacing it with “At-Will” the FHFA is no longer an independent agency, and can no longer be funded thru FnF, as the FHFA agency now is a government agency that receives it funding from the appropriation act, and of course the distributed funds from 12 years,(2008-2020), to operate the Agency(FHFA) need to be returned.
“FHFA issues assessment notices to the regulated entities semi-annually, with the collections occurring October 1 and April 1.”
https://www.fhfa.gov/AboutUs/Reports/ReportDocuments/FHFA-2019-PAR.pdf
really great stuff in this document start at page 27”

And then “HERA now is in conflict with the constitution, and all the frivolous payment demands in SEC. 1106. ASSESSMENTS. (page 2669) will be voided
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/PLAW-110publ289/pdf/PLAW-110publ289.pdf” is a logical consequence of paying back the funds, as the FHFA is no longer “independent”

Please also note this ruling is effective as of July-16-2018 (when the 5th circuit came to the conclusion “for cause” needs to be removed), this is important as then is concluded Treasury and HUD’s FHFA made a deal with each other, not treasury and an independent agency (and that is important for the claims in sweeney’s court Derivative claims Fiduciary duty, and one step away(warrant exercise) from Direct “purported genesis of the fiduciary duty”

Then you need to ask yourself: Treasury makes a deal with HUD that ONLY benefits Treasury thru a SPSPA ?

Does that make sense or would it be legal for treasury to profit from a deal that a sister agency forced upon a private entity?

Wrong. Changing only the removal clause in HERA does not change FHFA's funding apparatus, or any other part of HERA for that matter.

Wrong again. Changing the removal clause is the remedy that the en banc majority deemed proper to remedy what they saw as unconstitutional. This has absolutely nothing to do with any payments of any kind, past, present, or future. The en banc panel did not see fit to grant relief based on the NWS (unwinding it, for example).

These two quoted assumptions do not have any grounding in law or precedent.