Replies to post #677679 on Fannie Mae-No Politics (FNMA)

[Commons_Cancelled]

Excellent FNMA Facts. Can we sticky this?

[ano]

The Supreme Court's Selia decision proves this statement incorrect because they only undid the single CFPB decision that the plaintiffs wanted reversed, not every decision the CFPB ever made.

this is not possible for the FHFA, the actions taken by the FHFA are not a cause of problem for “only” Collins, but a problem for the proper/legal functioning of the agency itself, and since the actions are questioned the FHFA itself will have to be properly established in order to give a remedy, as all actions it took are adverse to their statutory framework

Quote:
________________________________________
If the 3th is void the others are void too
________________________________________
Absolutely false. The Collins plaintiffs do not even make this claim! If your statement were true then there would have been no need for the Collins plaintiffs or lawyers to address at all the possibility of the rest of the SPSPAs being unwound.

JUSTICE BARRETT: Well, so who decides when the Third Amendment --when this arrangement should come to an end, if ever? Because, you know, Treasury viewed it as winding down the GSEs, winding down their assets, although, you know, it's been characterized not as a receivership but as a conservatorship. Could the confirmed director have said, okay, listen, now this is no longer serving to make the GSEs solvent, and so it's time to shift arrangements? Did the confirmed director have that authority under the Third Amendment.
MR. MOOPPAN: So, yes, just like the Second Amendment and the First Amendment and everything else that the agency does. That's WHY WE THINK THAT THEY'RE ENTITLED TO RELIEF PROSPECTIVELY that the FHFA director should be removable at will. And then, if the FHFA director wants to change any of these agreements and can get Treasury -¬
JUSTICE BARRETT: But -¬
MR. MOOPPAN: --to agree, they can.
“JUSTICE BARRETT: --but --but let me just ask you this. If the confirmed director could have taken that action at some point in the past, why isn't that an injury?
MR. MOOPPAN: Again, it's not --it's just not a problem with the Third Amendment any different than everything else, all right? That --that is essentially a challenge to agency inaction, the failure to amend the contract. ON THAT THEORY, ALL OF THE AGREEMENTS WOULD HAVE TO GO, NOT JUST THE THIRD AMENDMENT, THE SECOND AMENDMENT, THE FIRST AMENDMENT, THE ORIGINAL AMENDMENT. So you would have to -¬they --Fannie and Freddie would have to lose all of the money Treasury had ever given them and all of the capital that is backed by them. That's not the claim they've brought, and it would be disastrous.” (for the Government)

The plaintiffs themselves clearly think that this is all that needs to be done as remedy, and they clearly do not think that any other prior actions by FHFA must fall as a result (not even just the original SPSPAs), let alone all of them. You are making claims well above and beyond what the plaintiffs have claimed: if David Thompson and the rest of the Collins plaintiffs' legal team think that only the NWS should be overturned, that's what counts. Not only does their expertise dwarf yours or mine, they are the ones in front of the Supreme Court, not you or me.

Agree, but see above, nothing is like it seems

Quote:
________________________________________
if unconstitutional it could never enacted anything
________________________________________
Wrong again, see above (re: Selia). I think you're making the mistake of conflating FHFA's structure being unconstitutional (which both the plaintiffs and defendant agree that it is) with the agency itself being unconstitutional (which neither the plaintiff nor defendant claim).

The actions, outside the statute (putting in conservatorship/redacted files) and the 3th amendment are questioned, in order to receive credibility, the files need to be un-redacted and the 3th amendment will have to be void, if for cause changes to at will (most likely) the fiduciary duties also came back, this is again a problem for the PSPA, because the documentation on the conservatorships reasons are still redacted

Quote:
________________________________________
CFPB has legislative power (separation of power legal)
________________________________________
False. Once again, the Selia decision proves you wrong. This time it's on page 3:

NO NO, CFPB can only act upon the legislation given, if those are breached they have quasi-judicial and quasi-legislative power, so can invent something that protects the people, they cannot take over the company and put them out-of-business or fire people and wind up their affairs, the power of CFPB cannot be compared to FHFA and is quasi not executive

Quote:
________________________________________
Rather, the Director possesses significant administrative and enforcement authority, in-cluding the power to seek daunting monetary penalties against private parties in federal court—a quintessentially executive power not con-sidered in Humphrey’s Executor.
________________________________________
If CFPB's power wasn't executive then presumably there would have been no need to alter Dodd-Frank at all.

CFPB does NOT have executive power, like stated above “the Director possesses SIGNIFICANT administrative and enforcement authority, in-cluding the power to seek daunting monetary penalties against private parties in federal court” this is quasi-judicial and quasi-legislative not executive, with executive you can do whatever pleases you, like FHFA, upon the determination of the director of the FHFA, the agencies can be placed into conservatorship, meaning no legislation, no financial report, just upon the wishes, and then he cannot be fired by the president and the courts cannot take action, that is executive pur sang

Quote:
________________________________________
not exactly sure what amicus is trying to accomplish, it’s just incorrect, I should send an E-mail to [e-mail] “The FHFA’s ACTIONS as conservator do not implicate executive power” LMAO
________________________________________
The amicus was appointed by the Supreme Court to argue that FHFA is constitutionally structured because both the plaintiffs and defendants think it is not. They want to hear both sides of that case.
I would love to be a fly on the wall when Professor Nielson reads that email, though I will probably be able to hear his laughter from where I live.

you misunderstood, As Amicus, you should not lie to the court either, he should have chosen the government’s position, “both the director and treasury are removable by the president” that because of that the agency is not independent is something you do not tell, the concept to just lie in front of SCOTUS is stupid you don’t do it, that is not what SCOTUS asked him to do

Quote:
________________________________________
if FHFA was executive it would have a fiduciary duty, if it is independent it also has a fiduciary duty
________________________________________
A fiduciary duty only to the companies, not to the shareholders. For the umpteenth time, those are not even close to being the same thing.

Something we disagree on, let me try again
1) Treasury and independent FHFA go into contract on behalf of FnF, FHFA-C now received the fiduciary duty from the BOD, if it is not possible to save something the FHFA-C should not care about the shareholders, if the company is profitable it should not be in conservatorship, and actions that are adverse to shareholders then while being profitable are not allowed, as the BOD only could have agreed to the FHFA-C to act in the best interest of the shareholder
2) Treasury and executive FHFA go into contract on behalf of FnF, both Treasury and FHFA are serving the president, and can only act with fiduciary duty towards the shareholders as the BOD could otherwise not agree, and because it is executive it cannot enter into any deal that is unconstitutional in the first place, the conservatorship would not have been possible as the companies still had enough funds (more than 1.25%)

Quote:
________________________________________
By the way If the 3th is voided, it did not succeed to all the rights and powers
________________________________________
False. The succession clause is part of HERA (and is assumed to be fully legal due to the nature of question 1), while the NWS is merely an amendment to a contract, which (as the plaintiffs want!) can be unwound while leaving the original contract and first two amendments intact.

when the 3th is voided the powers granted in the succession clause are withdrawn by the court, so it did not succeed to all the right, those are then taken away by the court

Quote:
________________________________________
Free enterprise is a “Board” not a single director
________________________________________
You missed the point. I will quote the relevant sentence again:

Quote:
________________________________________
Petitioners’ complaint argued that the Board’s “freedom from Presidential oversight and control” rendered it “and all power and authority exercised by it” in violation of the Constitution. App. 46. We reject such a broad holding.
________________________________________


The plaintiffs tried to argue that all the Board's actions and authority violated the Constitution, and the Supreme Court rejected it.

You seem to be arguing that all of FHFA's actions and authority violate the Constitution, and by the above precedent the Supreme Court will reject your argument too. That's if they even consider it.

free enterprise is a board so it is not outside the separation of powers, would be unlogical to think all actions violated, those actions are made by a board and thus constitutional, in FHFA however there is no board (it does say so in 44 U.S.C. § 3502 (5)), the actions taken are without any control, and uncontrolled actions are illegal per the constitution