Fannie Mae-No Politics (FNMA)

[kthomp19]

1) 12 U.S.C. 4617(b)(2)(A)(i) “succeed to all rights” is a no go as the 3th amendment is outside statute “conserve and preserve”

False. The NWS doesn't prove that the succession clause violates the Constitution. All the NWS being ruled ultra vires does is allow the case to clear the 4617(f) bar.

2) 12 U.S.C. 4617(f ) “Limitation on court action” has nothing to do with the 3th amendment, as the 3th is outside the statute preserve and conserve

True. That means if the Supreme Court does strike down the NWS as being ultra vires, or remands the claim back to Judge Atlas with the en banc panel's instructions, 4617(f) will remain intact.

3) 12 U.S.C. 4512(b)(2) “for cause” is not severable or HERA needs to be rewritten in an executive agency style that does NOT forget the Fiduciary duties it has

False. Anything is severable if the Supreme Court decides it is. HERA's lack of a severability clause means nothing because the Supreme Court severed part of Sarbanes-Oxley, which doesn't have a severability clause, in Free Enterprise Fund.

4) 12 U.S.C. 4512(b)(2) “for cause” Judicial invalidation of the Third Amendment

Perhaps. This is the backwards relief that the plaintiffs seek, but it might not be granted.

1.5 out of 4 is a marked improvement. Kudos...

Then to see the Domino effect, when 4512(b)(2) “for cause” is illegal 12 U.S.C. 4617(f ) “Limitation on court action” will also become illegal as the FHFA is now an executive agency and no longer independent, then 12 U.S.C. 4617(b)(2)(A)(i) “succeed to all rights” it can succeed to the rights, but FHFA now has Fiduciary duty to shareholders as executive agency, so it doesn’t look pretty for the FHFA

...oh, nevermind. This entire argument is completely fallacious.

4617(f) applies just as easily to an executive agency as an independent one. The GSE Act of 1992 set up OHFEO, which was not an independent agency, but included an extremely similar judicial review restriction in Section 1369(a)(4):

(4) LIMITATION ON JURISDICTION- Except as otherwise provided in this subsection, no court may take any action regarding the removal of a conservator or otherwise restrain or affect the exercise of powers or functions of a conservator.

Your argument that the independence of FHFA means that 4617(f) is invalid is thus completely wrong.

A question: is that section of the GSE Act materially different than HERA's 4617(f)? If so, how?

This in turn renders your other argument, that FHFA has a fiduciary duty to shareholders, also invalid, because it cannot follow from your false premise. Not to mention that three different judges, including Sweeney, said that FHFA has no fiduciary duty to shareholders. A consistent refusal to face the fact that judges Lamberth, Caldwell, and Sweeney all refuted your argument doesn't change reality.