AI
Monday, June 23, 2014 10:35:36 PM
Hmm... interesting statement:
"We have argued that FHFA acting as the conservator is not the United States, and there is ample case law to support that position, but we do not — we’re not imply — we don’t mean to imply or state that FHFA never acts as the United States."
Doesn't this make an 'opening' for the Judge to direct "The Conservator" for illegal treatment of the FnF (Amendment 3) while under conservator-ship... with little damage to Gov and also make it easy to release them? It seems it's getting complicated before this case begins the proceedings
"We have argued that FHFA acting as the conservator is not the United States, and there is ample case law to support that position, but we do not — we’re not imply — we don’t mean to imply or state that FHFA never acts as the United States."
Doesn't this make an 'opening' for the Judge to direct "The Conservator" for illegal treatment of the FnF (Amendment 3) while under conservator-ship... with little damage to Gov and also make it easy to release them? It seems it's getting complicated before this case begins the proceedings
