Replies to post #585965 on Fannie Mae-No Politics (FNMA)

[Donotunderstand]

this sounds new

I thought we had a more direct NWS related derivative claim ?

v


As a result of the removing the “for cause” and replacing it with “At-Will” the FHFA is no longer an independent agency, and can no longer be funded thru FnF, as the FHFA agency now is a government agency that receives it funding from the appropriation act, and of course the distributed funds from 12 years,(2008-2020), to operate the Agency(FHFA) need to be returned.
“FHFA issues assessment notices to the regulated entities semi-annually, with the collections occurring October 1 and April 1.”
https://www.fhfa.gov/AboutUs/Reports/ReportDocuments/FHFA-2019-PAR.pdf
really great stuff in this document start at page 27

[kthomp19]

As a result of the removing the “for cause” and replacing it with “At-Will” the FHFA is no longer an independent agency, and can no longer be funded thru FnF, as the FHFA agency now is a government agency that receives it funding from the appropriation act

Wrong. Changing only the removal clause in HERA does not change FHFA's funding apparatus, or any other part of HERA for that matter.

Another result is, HERA now is in conflict with the constitution, and all the frivolous payment demands in SEC. 1106. ASSESSMENTS. (page 2669) will be voided

Wrong again. Changing the removal clause is the remedy that the en banc majority deemed proper to remedy what they saw as unconstitutional. This has absolutely nothing to do with any payments of any kind, past, present, or future. The en banc panel did not see fit to grant relief based on the NWS (unwinding it, for example).

These two quoted assumptions do not have any grounding in law or precedent.