Fannie Mae (FNMA)

[ano]

________________________________________

it is now also clear the president obstructed Judicial review in 4617(f) from the beginning
________________________________________
This betrays a sad ignorance of the actual separation of powers. The legislative branch gave an independent agency limited protection from the judicial branch. The executive branch had and has nothing to do with that.

The president (executive branch) by “at-will” removal blocks judicial review (4617(f), it is all about what the president's current powers are and if those powers are in line with the separation of powers, so currently the “at-will” removal power breaches the separation of powers, not sure what your argument is

________________________________________

in short the Director of the FHFA did NOT have the power granted by congress to put the companies into conservatorship
________________________________________
Wrong. The boards acquiesced, and that gave FHFA the authority to appoint itself a conservator. If the Collins plaintiffs had challenged the constitutionality of this action the Supreme Court might have looked at it. But they didn't. All of FHFA's past actions other than the NWS have now been upheld by the Supreme Court.

Yes the boards acquiesced but the powers are given to the single director removable “for cause” are unconstitutional, as SCOTUS ruled the “for cause” removal protection is illegal, so it should have been a board of governors who decided the faith of the companies, so the board agreed to something that is no longer constitutional and absents the power from congress the past actions are void as SCOTUS said “we don’t do harmless error in constitutional law”

________________________________________

OFHEO did not have this power for a reason
________________________________________
WRONG!
Here is a link to the text of the Safety and Soundness Act of 1992, which established the OHFEO. This is from Section 1369 on page 311:

OFHEO DID NOT HAVE THE POWER TO PUT THE ENTITIES INTO CONSERVATORSHIP other than “(A) that the amount of core capital of the enterprise is less than the minimum capital level established for the enterprise under section 1362” page 308 and only after a written “ (A) that alternative remedies available to the Director under this title are not satisfactory” this all did not happen as HERA changed this to: “4617(a)(3)(G) The regulated entity has incurred or is likely to incur losses that will deplete all or substantially all of its capital, and there is no reasonable prospect for the regulated entity to become adequately capitalized (as defined in section 4614(a)(1) of this title).”

You mix-up voluntary agreeing and statutory provisions that grant conservatorship, yes they voluntary agreed, but nothing was told to shareholders, so it was an ad hoc decision and not because the capital was insufficient, so HERA 4617(a)(3)(G) applies (spoiler alert the documents surrounding the financials to put into conservatorship under 4617(a)(3)(G) are still redacted)

OHFEO had the exact same authority to appoint a conservator (which could be the OHFEO Director themselves, see (4) QUALIFICATIONS on the same page) that FHFA does when it comes to board consent.

No OFHEO only had power if the capital was below the minimum, and they had a written warning and the director thought the actions taken by the companies are insufficient, OFHEO could not put into conservatorship upon wishes of the executive director, only upon the legislative boundaries the OFHEO had the power to put into conservatorship, so only after the capital was depleted

The Safety and Soundness Act of 1992 even has its own limitation on judicial review similar to 4617(f):
Quote:
________________________________________
4) LIMITATION ON JURISDICTION.—Except as otherwise pro-vided 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.
________________________________________

No, it had not, only it only could have blocked judicial power after the capital was below the minimum and if above the minimum “(2) MANDATORY.—The Director shall terminate a conservatorship initiated pursuant to section 1366 or 1367 upon a determination by the Director that the enterprise has maintained an amount of core capital that is equal to or exceeds the minimum capital level for the enterprise established under section 1362, and may by written order prescribe such terms, conditions, and limitations on the enterprise as the Director
Considers appropriate.

That means your entire argument goes down in flames