Fannie Mae (FNMA)

[ano]

At that point it would just be the original contract plus the first two amendments.

The 3th amendment is not severable from the contract, (6.12) I know you think the government CAN participate in an illegal act, I don’t believe the government is allowed to participate in any illegal act

No. If the NWS had never happened FnF would have continued to pay the 10% dividend on the seniors. That knocks the $165B number down to around $125B.

incorrect, if the NWS never happened all funds distributed to the treasury would be used to pay down the SPS, during the time the 3th was in effect no dividends accrued, would be strange to reinstall those as that would be pick and choose regulation especially because they were not able to payback the SPS during the 3th, the sum paid during the 3th amendment will be used as paydown on the SPS

WRONG. This is not even close to being correct. Read the question again.

QUESTIONS PRESENTED
In 2008, Congress created the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA)—an “independent” agency with sweeping authority over the housing finance
system. 12 U.S.C. § 4511(a). Unlike every other independent agency except the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, FHFA is headed by a single Director who can only be removed for cause by the President and is exempt from the congressional appropriations process. 12 U.S.C. §§ 4512(b)(2), 4516(f)(2).
The questions presented are:
1. Whether FHFA’s structure violates the separation of powers; and
2. Whether the courts must set aside a final agency action that FHFA took when it was unconstitutionally structured and strike down the statutory provisions that make FHFA independent.

1) Violating the separation of powers, will mean ALL actions from the conservatorship are Void-Ab-Initio
2) Because FHFA violated the separation of power, could it have enacted the 3th amendment

Both are a net negative for the government, Collins identified following as violating
a) 44 U.S.C. § 3502 (5) Term “independent agency” means the Board of Governors of the FHFA
b) 12 U.S.C. § 4511(a) Establishment
c) 12 U.S.C. § 4512(b)(2) Term
d) 12 U.S.C. § 4516(f)(2) Not Government funds
e) 12 U.S.C. § 4617(a) HERA empowered FHFA to appoint itself as the conservator
f) 12 U.S.C. § 4617(f) Limitation on-court action (anti-injunction clause)
g) 12 U.S.C. § 4617(b)(2)(D) put in sound and solvent condition; and preserve and conserve
h) 12 U.S.C. § 4617(b)(2)(A)(i) General powers (succession clause)

The question presumes that the conservatorship is legal. There is no challenge to the conservatorship itself.

If the powers granted upon the director given in HERA are not within the constitutional means of creating an independent agency with a single director, the director did not have the power to put the entities into conservatorship, it doesn’t necessarily mean the whole conservatorship is void, but indirect it is, and all people who are “damaged” by this person will need to be compensated as the action was not within the constitution, so it could not have taken place

Quote:
________________________________________
the executive powers might be voided
________________________________________
What does this mean?

same as above, the powers granted in HERA are executive, the director can decide whatever he wishes without being liable to anyone, meaning the actions he took cannot be withdrawn by anyone, not the constitution, not the courts, and not the president, if those powers are illegal he could not have put the entities into conservatorship in the first place, because the powers he used to accomplish the conservatorship are declared illegal
FHFA is not accountable to:
1) The Constitution (courts cannot rule it to be illegal (4617(f))
2) The Courts cannot rule (4617(f))
3) The President (cannot remove (4512(b)(2))

Quote:
________________________________________
the whole PSPA might be voided
________________________________________
The Collins plaintiffs say they wouldn't be against this, but it's not the relief they seek. At least you're correctly saying "might" now instead of "must" or "will".

The actions SCOTUS will take will have more impact on FHFA as Collins is asking for, all the plaintiffs do it this way, they say look the 3th is illegal, knowing that when the 3th is declared illegal it is not severable from the contract, and they cannot do whatever they want, and they so cannot act outside their statutory framework etc etc, it is the snowball effect all know that sooner or later is going to happen, the government cannot win with this kind of actions