I keep repeating the same thing, over and over, and you keep dodging the point from the onset of this thread. Another poster asked, quite respectfully, if the Fannie Mae Appeal matter wasn't simple to resolve as a basic question of whether government acted within or beyond the bounds of HERA. You told him that nothing was simple because there are no legal precedents on which to base a decision. I stated that Judge Lamberth's ruling and Judge Pratt's ruling provide substantial basis for a decision. YOU then the devolved into name calling of me being confused and ignorant for stating the truth.
I understand that neither Lamberth or Pratt are binding precedent on the Court of Appeals. I stated that at least 3 times. But you just look for some platform to proclaim you are right and I am wrong, so you just say the same misleading junk repetitively. The truth is and will remain as follows:
1. Judge Lamberth's ruling was comprehensive, well presented, logical, and relied heavily on judicial precedent. The appeals court can choose to affirm his ruling without requiring any further legal precedent.
2. Judge Pratt's ruling to dismiss Continental-Western's complaint comments extensively on that court's agreement with the Lamberth ruling. This opinion can certainly be considered as corroborative of the validity contained in Lamberth.
3. Judge Cacheris' decision tends to dismiss many of the claims active in the Perry Appeal, as revealed by the exchange of letters filed by opposing legal teams before the court. This decision may also serve as yet another validation of Lamberth.
The judicial panel may, also, rule in a totally opposite way, and that decision would overrule Lamberth if that becomes their decision.
Your claim that no precedent exists, in answer to the original question asked, is false. There is no BINDING precedent. And your claims that lower court rulings are somehow meaningless and offer no clue to the Appeals process are misleading and untruthful. Read the Pratt decision as I posted it multiple times, yesterday. Page 19 is very condemning of the Perry plaintiff's claims. The better word, actually, might be compelling. I believe the appeals panel will rely on such content as worthwhile precedent. You can disagree... your right.
JMHO.
