The original PSPA were to wind down FnF, it only contains a liquidation end date and not the 4th amendment “terminate conservatorship end date” the PSPA has an open end to the end date, and that is the “liquidation end date”
that would have been pretty stupid right, the goal of conservatorship is to put in sound and solvent condition, if treasury would have refused this duty it makes the Treasury unreliable a party of last resort, this is something treasury would NEVER EVER want their name attached to
I’m not sure how to point this out more clearly to you but “no court may take any action at the request of the director” or because “HERA says no court may take any action” then HERA is not answerable to the separation of powers ?
Yes well that is the beauty of it, if you do not “conserve and preserve” and siphon of all profits and fail to prevent this action or “now we know” fail to amend this “now we know” 9 years later, it is an inaction of the FHFA, this inaction violates the duty the FHFA has to conserve and preserve, so because it failed to perform their duty, the conservatorship itself is at stake
Here we 4 things: 1) The 3rd is ultra vires 2) The 3rd is inaction a failure to amend 3) 4617(f) no court can take action 4) “courts can always take action if ultra vires”
When in 2012 the 3rd was put in place it was not sure how the companies would perform in the future according to the government, then after the companies became profitable the FHFA should have ended the deal in 2013/2014 as it is their statutory duty to put in sound and solvent condition, failing to do this is “inaction”, so to come back on 1) yes it could have made this deal only not in perpetuity, that makes it illegal, then on 2) it should have acted after the companies became profitable again, this is an inaction, also illegal, then 3) because 4617(f) says no court can take any action, how are the shareholder rights protected if it acted upon regulation but it is illegal in common law? Right thus also illegal 4) if something is beyond the powers granted in the legislative branch, the courts can take action per the constitution, the 3th is therefore illegal, was those power are not given to siphon off all profits in perpetuity
So because 4617(f) says it cannot take action, and the 3th is an inaction & ultra virres, the court takes an action to the prohibited action, and therefore it has to go(not only because of this, but also as “for cause” is also an issue in this)
The RFP1-30 are from the Fairholme case 13-1053 in the district court granted on Nov 18, 2019 by judge Lamberth claiming the government must produce RFPs 1-8, 10-14, 15(a)-(d), 16-26, and 29-30
I guess you are talking about 4617(a)(3), the thing is as long as the documents are redacted the action is executive, as nobody can see them the action is sealed for the public, so executive, if indeed the companies would have failed, the reports on that were wrong from the beginning as “now we know” the companies became profitable again, this question is really hard to comprehend and deserves a separate post, as is intervenes on multiple levels of statutory rights
Assumption, you will find no document pre-2008 claiming the implicit needs to change to explicit, pure fantasy
Yes well that is the thing, the government also thinks the 3rd is legal, while we know it isn’t, claiming is different than being able to say it is legal, on legal grounds, conservatorship was a good idea, now we have a SCOTUS case that claims it was not such a good idea, all a matter of perception and on which side you are, but the warrants cannot be exercised as long as the litigation is outstanding, as the litigation might have a consequence on the warrants, the government doesn’t want to make this stupid move again as it later must correct.
The mess the government makes is huge, it is so huge the conservatorship itself is already unsustainable, I see no forward path for the government, legal/illegal redact/unredact, coercion/free will, statutory/not statutory, authority/ no authority
These claims are not really the easy ones to win for the government, Lucky enough the SCOTUS will soon let us know what is legal and illegal for the FHFA to do