![](http://investorshub.advfn.com/images/default_ih_profile2_4848.jpg?cb=0)
Monday, June 02, 2014 1:35:59 PM
I guess "federal" was the key word regarding the protective order motion. For some reason I thought the DOJ's request was an admission that FHFA is the US, therefore was acting as the United States in its dealing with the PSPAs and not as an independent agency. But the "federal" interpretation threw some light on that. The 'back in the driver's seat' mention was also a reference to the self-dealing issue brought up by Ted Olson/Richard Epstein. But in light of your answer it doesn't appear so.
Freedom Holdings Corporate Update; Announces Management Has Signed Letter of Intent • FHLD • Jul 3, 2024 9:00 AM
EWRC's 21 Moves Gaming Studios Moves to SONY Pictures Studios and Green Lights Development of a Third Upcoming Game • EWRC • Jul 2, 2024 8:00 AM
BNCM and DELEX Healthcare Group Announce Strategic Merger to Drive Expansion and Growth • BNCM • Jul 2, 2024 7:19 AM
NUBURU Announces Upcoming TV Interview Featuring CEO Brian Knaley on Fox Business, Bloomberg TV, and Newsmax TV as Sponsored Programming • BURU • Jul 1, 2024 1:57 PM
Mass Megawatts Announces $220,500 Debt Cancellation Agreement to Improve Financing and Sales of a New Product to be Announced on July 11 • MMMW • Jun 28, 2024 7:30 AM
VAYK Exited Caribbean Investments for $320,000 Profit • VAYK • Jun 27, 2024 9:00 AM