Quote: ________________________________________ The 3th amendment is not severable from the contract ________________________________________
Of course it is.
1) The NWS is an amendment. Severing it just means reverting back to the contract plus the first two amendments. It's that easy. 2) The Supreme Court severed part of a law that didn't have a severability clause in Free Enterprise Fund. That proves they can sever something that is not explicitly severable.
no that is not the way its work, the contract when amended reads, as contract+amendment= contract, if that contract says no act is severable, the amendment is not severable either, that is the problem, that is the whole issue
Quote: ________________________________________ if the NWS never happened all funds distributed to the treasury would be used to pay down the SPS ________________________________________ False. FnF never had the ability to voluntarily pay down the seniors while the funding commitment existed (which it did before the NWS and does).
If the 3th is voided the funds distributed under this illegal 3th, will have to come back to the companies, & Collins wants a SPS paydown
Quote: ________________________________________ 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 ________________________________________ Now you agree with me, that FnF couldn't pay down the SPS whenever they wanted. That contradicts your previous sentence.
this is indeed a difficult one as FnF could pay down the SPS before the 3th, after the 3th they could not, Collins claims $29.5B overpayments for Fannie (~$24B Freddie) however $3,7B of it will be interest they have to pay Fannie because of the 10%, not sure if this is something politics can handle, they rather pay $45.9B ($31,8B Freddie) but who knows
Quote: ________________________________________ the sum paid during the 3th amendment will be used as paydown on the SPS ________________________________________
This is what the Collins plaintiffs want. However, the original contract didn't allow for this, and the Supreme Court could very well rule as such and grant the less preferred remedy of Treasury paying $125B to FnF but getting to keep the seniors as-is.
The original contact did not, but soon will..
Quote: ________________________________________ 1) Violating the separation of powers, will mean ALL actions from the conservatorship are Void-Ab-Initio ________________________________________ Wrong. For at least the fifth time, the Supreme Court's Selia decision disproves this. If your argument were correct, the Supreme Court would have had no choice but to invalidate all decisions CFPB ever made. They didn't, and thus your argument is proven wrong.
The government’s position is pretty bad, nothing so far even gives a hint they have been acting in good faith, the more is kept in the decision the more biased the verdict is
Quote: ________________________________________ Both are a net negative for the government, Collins identified following as violating ________________________________________
Wrong again. YOU are the one who "identified the following as violating", without providing any logical support for many of the items on that list. The Collins plaintiffs did not identify that entire list as being violated. Just the opposite, they assume 4617(a), 4617(f), and 4617(b)(2)(A)(i) are fully legal in their allegations.
And they claim that only the NWS violates some of those sections. Not any other past decision by FHFA, including the original SPSPAs.
Quote: ________________________________________ 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)) ________________________________________
3) is correct as is. The other two are false because 4617(f) only applies to FHFA as conservator or receiver (not as regulator), and only applies to actions that are not ultra vires. If a court rules that an action is ultra vires (like the Fifth Circuit en banc majority did with the NWS), then 4617(f) no longer applies and is effectively moot.
Your crusade to somehow have 4617(f) invalidated is entirely misguided. Both the Collins plaintiffs and defendants assume that 4617(f) is fully legal, and the Supreme Court is not, in any way, shape, or form, being asked to invalidate it. 4617(f) is here to stay. Period. Get over it.
Lol, here it is
4617 (f)LIMITATION ON COURT ACTION Except as provided in this section or at the request of the Director, no court may take any action to restrain or affect the exercise of powers or functions of the Agency as a conservator or a receiver.
Not sure how I can make it more clear, “Request” is executive power, “no court can” is executive power thus illegal, 4617(f) has to go, we disagree, but I’m o.k. with that, never mind
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
