Replies to post #593564 on Fannie Mae-No Politics (FNMA)

[krab]

They already have appealed to SCOTUS !!!
Delay tactics by Treasury, playing the same game for the past several years.

[ano]

The Collins Lawsuits

No it can’t be appealed ones Seila is decided, the 5th circuit en banc decided the NWS was a statutory violation (count I) and the “for cause” removal was unconstitutional(count IV) , and remanded it back to Judge Atlas

When the 5th was decided Collins, plaintifs filed a writ of certiorari "to be more fully informed." In the SCOTUS were they ask on count IV if it indeed is unconstitutional, and on count IV if backward relief should be given(on the statutory violations):

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.

And Treasury also “surprisingly”(see below) filed a writ of certiorari “to be more fully informed” were they ask on count I

1. Whether the statute’s anti-injunction clause,
which precludes courts from taking any action that
would “restrain or affect the exercise of powers or functions
of the Agency as a conservator,” 12 U.S.C. 4617(f ),
precludes a federal court from setting aside the Third Amendment.
2. Whether the statute’s succession clause—under
which FHFA, as conservator, inherits the shareholders’
rights to bring derivative actions on behalf of the
enterprises—precludes the shareholders from challenging the Third Amendment.

What the Collins plaintiffs ask for is “for cause” removal legal and should backward looking relief be applied to the case, so even though the 5th circuit en Banc already ruled it was illegal they want certainty or “be more informed” and want to make sure when atlas rules that the backward looking relief is not forgotten or neglected, defendant on the other hand is asking if 4617(F)(count I)(see below) is legal which already is ruled illegal by the 5th circuit because the “for cause” removal violates the separation of powers(count IV)
the separation of power system has 3 branches:
1) Legislative Power (the power to pass laws) to Congress
2) Executive Power (the power to administer the laws) to the President
3) Judicial Power (the power to interpret and enforce the laws) to the Courts.

So 1) 4617(F) prevents 2) and 3), so 4617(F) is unconstitutional, the case in front of the SCOTUS was supposed to proceed the beginning of this year, but a lawsuit with the same question as Collins is also pending in SCOTUS under the CFPB Seila lawsuit, so the Collins case is waiting on resolution in Seila
and because count IV is unconstitutional, Count I is also unconstitutional as you can not claim in Law(HERA) that forbids judical power in 3

On Jun 28 2019 Seila filed a writ of certiorari “to be more fully informed”
https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/seila-law-llc-v-consumer-financial-protection-bureau/
Seila is asking the SCOTUS:

1) Whether the vesting of substantial executive authority In the consumer financial protection bureau, an independent Agency led by a single director, violates the separation Of powers.

Then the SCOTUS added a second question:
can for cause be severed from Dodd-Frank Act
Plaintiff and the government AGREE on the first question,
but disagree on the second question
Plaintiffs contends reverse the judgment and either decline to reach the question of severability or declare it is NOT severable.
The government argues that the Court should remand for further proceedings.
It is Set for argument on Tuesday, March 3, 2020. Decision in the last 2 weeks of June -2020

So to understand the “surprisingly” fact between Seila and Collins ,
THE GOVERNMENT AGREES WITH PLAINTIFFS THAT THE “FOR CAUSE” VIOLATES THE SEPARATION OF POWER, while they in our case have asked if they have power under 4617(F) they already agreed in Seila they do not have the power, So because they agree in Seila “for cause” violated the separation of power, they must now know 4617(F) “No provision of law shall limit the power of the Agency” is unconstitutional as well, because it is a separation of power problem due to the 3 branches:
1) Legislative Power (the power to pass laws) to Congress
2) Executive Power (the power to administer the laws) to the President
3) Judicial Power (the power to interpret and enforce the laws) to the Courts.

So ones Seila is decided in favor of plaintiffs(no other possibility possible) because it is the wish of both parties, the FHFA also becomes unconstitutional and independent needs to be detached from HERA, but not only the “independent” also ALL lines that give power to independent, but also the lines that give direct power to the director, and the lines that have direct power because of the independent power the director has, and the lines that give power to the act or paragraph because other regulation or constitutional law has power that conflict the power of the independent director
And lines that now(because of the removal) become meaningless/ powerless/ without merit


12 U.S.C. 4617(f ), (F)Clarification
No provision of law shall be construed as limiting the right or power of the Agency, or authorizing any court or agency to limit or delay in any manner, the right or power of the Agency to transfer any qualified financial contract in accordance with paragraphs (9)(see below) and (10)(see below), or to disaffirm or repudiate any such contract in accordance with subsection (d)(1).(see below)
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/12/4617

Paragraph (9)POWERS OF LIMITED-LIFE REGULATED ENTITIES
(A)In generalEach limited-life regulated entity created under this subsection shall have all corporate powers of, and be subject to the same provisions of law as, the regulated entity in default or in danger of default to which it relates, except that—
(i)the Agency may—
(I) remove the directors of a limited-life regulated entity;
(II) fix the compensation of members of the board of directors and senior management, as determined by the Agency in its discretion, of a limited-life regulated entity; and
(III) indemnify the representatives for purposes of paragraph (1)(B), and the directors, officers, employees, and agents of a limited-life regulated entity on such terms as the Agency determines to be appropriate; and
(ii)the board of directors of a limited-life regulated entity—
(I)shall elect a chairperson who may also serve in the position of chief executive officer, except that such person shall not serve either as chairperson or as chief executive officer without the prior approval of the Agency; and
(II) may appoint a chief executive officer who is not also the chairperson, except that such person shall not serve as chief executive officer without the prior approval of the Agency.
(B)Stay of judicial action
Any judicial action to which a limited-life regulated entity becomes a party by virtue of its acquisition of any assets or assumption of any liabilities of a regulated entity in default shall be stayed from further proceedings for a period of not longer than 45 days, at the request of the limited-life regulated entity. Such period may be modified upon the consent of all parties.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/12/4617

(10)NO FEDERAL STATUS
(A)Agency status
A limited-life regulated entity is not an agency, establishment, or instrumentality of the United States.
(B)Employee statusRepresentatives for purposes of paragraph (1)(B), interim directors, directors, officers, employees, or agents of a limited-life regulated entity are not, solely by virtue of service in any such capacity, officers or employees of the United States. Any employee of the Agency or of any Federal instrumentality who serves at the request of the Agency as a representative for purposes of paragraph (1)(B), interim director, director, officer, employee, or agent of a limited-life regulated entity shall not—
(i) solely by virtue of service in any such capacity lose any existing status as an officer or employee of the United States for purposes of title 5 or any other provision of law; or
(ii)receive any salary or benefits for service in any such capacity with respect to a limited-life regulated entity in addition to such salary or benefits as are obtained through employment with the Agency or such Federal instrumentality.
(D)Powers as conservatorThe Agency may, as conservator, take such action as may be—
(i)necessary to put the regulated entity in a sound and solvent condition; and
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/12/4617

(d)PROVISIONS RELATING TO CONTRACTS ENTERED INTO BEFORE APPOINTMENT OF CONSERVATOR OR RECEIVER
(1)AUTHORITY TO REPUDIATE CONTRACTSIn addition to any other rights a conservator or receiver may have, the conservator or receiver for any regulated entity may disaffirm or repudiate any contract or lease—
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/12/4617

I thought the remand came from the en banc ruling, so if gov't doesn't like resulting decision from 5th on remand, can't they appeal to SCOTUS? tia