Fannie Mae (FNMA)

[ano]

Quote:
________________________________________
The removal of “for cause“ in HERA did not fix the constitutional defect
________________________________________
Yes it did. From page 26 of the Collins opinion:

Cannot find anything on page 26 that says HERA’s independent and single director are allowed per the constitution

Quote:
________________________________________
The Recovery Act’s for-cause restriction on the Presi-dent’s removal authority violates the separation of powers.
...
A straightforward application of our reasoning in Seila Law dictates the result here.
________________________________________
The Supreme Court made a ruling that there was a constitutional defect in HERA, and they prescribed the remedy. It's over.

What was the remedy in HERA? , please quote

Quote:
________________________________________
the SCOTUS knows it is not severable, and therefore did not rule on it
________________________________________
False. Free Enterprise Fund shows that the Supreme Court can, and will, sever or change part of a statute even when the statute in question is non-severable. They did rule on the constitutional defect in HERA, and they cured it by making the FHFA director removable at will.

free enterprise https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-861.ZS.html sets the precedent is it wishful, not that per se is a fact that the remainder survives, as all details differ, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 cannot be compared to HERA

Quote:
________________________________________
now after SCOTUS it is not legal for an independent agency to be headed by a single director
________________________________________
False. CFPB is an independent agency headed by a single director, and that has the Supreme Court's explicit blessing via the Selia ruling. FHFA is now in the same boat.

This is incorrect as the SCOTUS did not ask the parties in this case if it is severable, so is isn’t, otherwise they would have asked the same question

Quote:
________________________________________
in CFPB it concluded it could be severed for the Dodd-Frank act but it did not in FHFA
________________________________________
Read page 26 of the Collins ruling again. The lack of a severability clause in HERA didn't matter, the Supreme Court applied the same remedy as in Selia anyway.

Agree it sure looks that way, but eventually, they did not say anything on the severability of “for cause” in HERA

Quote:
________________________________________
These 3 branches operate independent from each other and cannot prevent actions of another branch, so when something is decided by the legislative branch it cannot exclude the Judicial branch
________________________________________
False. The Supreme Court upheld 4617(f) in dismissing the Collins statutory claims.

Agree but it did not rule on 4617(f) it only said the 3rd amendment was within their power as the legislative branch gave them that power, so it was legal, it did not rule on the fact is 4617(f) legal or not with added at-will power

Quote:
________________________________________
and when the Executive branch does something it CAN be challenged by the judicial branch, so the Legislative and Executive branch are controlled by the Judicial branch
________________________________________
"Controlled" is 100% wrong. The judicial branch has checks on the executive and legislative branches, but certainly no "control".

Control as a Controlling Mechanism

Quote:
________________________________________
the law says 44 USC 3502(5) an independent agency IS headed by a board of governors
________________________________________
FALSE. No amount of you repeating this will make it true. I will quote the actual law once again to drive the point home:

Quote:
________________________________________
(5) the term “independent regulatory agency” means the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, the Consumer Product Safety Commission, the Federal Communications Commission, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the Federal Housing Finance Agency, the Federal Maritime Commission, the Federal Trade Commission, the Interstate Commerce Commission, the Mine Enforcement Safety and Health Review Commission, the National Labor Relations Board, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission, the Postal Regulatory Commission, the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection, the Office of Financial Research, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, and any other similar agency designated by statute as a Federal independent regulatory agency or commission;
________________________________________
NOWHERE in there does it say that an independent agency must be headed by a board of governors.

In fact, the CFPB disproves your statement because it is on that list and has a single director. Dodd-Frank's constitutional defect was fixed in the Selia case.

Perception but if it says “Independent MEANS a board” independent probably MEANS the Board and not a single director, if it does not mean this, it should not explicitly tell it means a board, it should state instead “a board/ or a single director”
“the term “independent regulatory agency” means the Board of Governors of the FHFA”

Quote:
________________________________________
The Novel style single director and independent executive powers did not make it thru the SCOTUS and is illegal, so now the FHFA has to choose either between a dependent/executive or an independent agency with a board of governors
________________________________________
You have repeated this falsehood enough times at this point. Put it to the test: where in the Supreme Court's Collins ruling (there is a link above for convenience) is your assertion supported?

The SCOTUS did not ask the parties if “for cause” is severable from HERA, that has yet to be figured out, and is exactly what I say in above, the SCOTUS did not mention anything on the severability in HERA the power now however is only legal if it is independent and headed by a multimember board

Quote:
________________________________________
any lawsuit challenging 12 U.S.C. § 4617(b)(2)(J)(ii) would win
________________________________________
False. Collins itself challenged 12 USC 4617(b)(2)(J)(ii)! See Section D, starting on page 77, of their Supreme Court brief:

Correct this provision is legal in HERA by SCOTUS(ridicules if you ask me but still), however, it is NOWHERE legal in conservatorship statute, this provision breaches the common law conservatorship statute, a conservator cannot take actions that are not beneficial to conservatee, and when tested will fail in court (If the question raised is “can a conservator act in the best interest of somebody else as the conservatee”)

Quote:
________________________________________
D. HERA’s “Best Interests” Provision Cannot be Severed from the Director’s For-Cause Removal Protection.
________________________________________
They challenged 4617(b)(2)(J)(ii) up and down, and the Supreme Court ignored this argument and used (J)(ii) to defeat the statutory claims.

no it did not if you remove for-cause you will also have to remove 4617(f) those two provisions conflict with each other in common law/ constitution (separation of powers) and why they did not ask is it severable

you said "you are under the impression individual rights disappear by court order", and I asked you to show me which post of mine makes you think I have that impression. Which one was it?

I do not recall a specific post, but we talked about this dozens of times, you think the FHFA and Treasury do not own fiduciary duty towards the shareholders only to the companies, because the judge said so, and I replied dozens of times the (shareholder/)rights do not disappear into thin air, they have to go somewhere and cannot be taken, but you still insisted if the judge says so, the rights disappear into thin air, you really said this dozen of times