"maybe the entire HERA is in violation of the constitution (in purpose or as written or as administered ?)"
It's kind of a chain of cause and effect.
The only way that we can sue on Takings is if HERA is found unconstitutional. If HERA is constitutional, then shareholders can't sue for any reason. However, if HERA is found unconstitutional because it allows an unconstitutional taking, then HERA is unconstitutional which allows us to sue for Taking. Kind of a round robin. lol.
"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 "
As I've said to you before, this statement is incorrect. The immunity clause CAN preclude courts from ruling on constitutional issues, and in fact, immunities clauses have been used several times in the past on constitutional issues around the 6th Amendment. The wording says that IF a preclusion only precludes administrative suits, then the court can still rule on constitutional issues. That is a completely different statement.
"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 "
This is possible. But I'm not sure on the outcome it would have. If the actions are contrary to what a conservator can do, the next question would be if they are contrary to what a receiver can do. HERA precludes lawsuits against receivers as well. So, if the court finds that the government actions are outside of what both a conservator and receiver can do, then the actions may be outside of the statute. But I personally believe both would have to be found true.
