so catch 22 does not arise.
It most definitely does...and I didn't quote you wrong. Your quotes just don't seem to fit together.
Below are all quotes by you....
Plaintiff's allegation are considered to be true before court decides otherwise
First of all, let's make one thing clear. Plaintiff's allegations are NOT considered to be true before the court decides otherwise. If anything, Plaintiff's allegations are considered to be FALSE before court decides otherwise. That is the staple of "innocent before proven guilty".
Therefore, something can not be unlawful unless the court says it is.
Courts decide what is lawful and what is not lawful.
Very true...which is why this quote doesn't fit with the first quote I typed of yours.
9th/11th Circuits have ruled that 4617(f) does not bar judicial review of unlawful decisions by FHFA.
But it does bar judicial review of lawful decisions by FHFA.
Now try to follow me here, and it will lead to the catch 22 that you've proposed...
1. 4617(f) bars judicial review of lawful decisions by the FHFA.
2. Courts decide what is lawful and unlawful.
3. In order to be determined unlawful, a court has to hear it.
4. If the court hears it, and it is determined to be lawful, then 4617(f) bars it from being heard.
Conclusion: In order for the court to review the unlawful decisions of FHFA, the decision must first be ruled unlawful, which violates 4617(f) if the decision is ruled lawful, but you can't determine it to be lawful until it's been heard by the court, which would violate 4617(f).
Chicken...Egg....
