Fannie Mae (FNMA)

[Donotunderstand]

re WED 1:01 your post

that speaks to if HERA is constitutional or not

I thought we (the various plaintiffs with various avenues) were focused mostly on the Taking being a constitutional violation of the third amendment - and thus not protected by the indemnity clause

??

I guess if we are arguing HERA is unconstitutional and its so found then the clause inside it is killed too but

but

I thought the focus of the appeal is that Lamberth used an immunity clause to say he could not rule on the Takings because he was simply and completely precluded by the immunity clause

So that is the key - #1 - question
Was Lamberth right that given it is a constitutional issue (a takings) that on its face does not get stopped by an immunity clause as such clauses can not preclude the COURTS from ruling on constitutional issues

and/OR ...(as a second argument) that the actions involved are so contrary to the law in what they result in and in motive that the actions of the conservator again do fall under the purview of a court

Maybe things have moved on but I am hung up on that core to the Lamberth ruling being the laser focus of major (solid) arguments - while the plaintiffs also argue other reasons the Sweep should be stopped and maybe the entire HERA is in violation of the constitution (in purpose or as written or as administered ?)