It reads as: Before Fannie was placed into conservatorship on September 6, 2008, FHFA and Treasury Forced Fannie into conservatorship by forced consent, the board was forced to accept this offer. The FHFA did not find anything of insolvency, undercapitalization, or any other ground to impose conservatorship, so FHFA entered on a coercion basis, because without Fannie’s forced consent it was not possible.
No, that is not at all how point 269 reads. Point 269 makes no mention of coercion whatsoever. In fact, it says that FnF's boards consented to conservatorship. Voluntarily. The exact opposite of coercion!
By the way, there is no such thing as non-mutual consent. Consent, by definition, requires the agreement of both parties.
please note your point of view is only one of the many
Being factually wrong is independent of one's opinion.
and I’m under the impression that if something is found in the discovery that is illegal, it will be stopped immediately forced or voluntary, that’s how the law works ... But again if something is found in the discovery process that is illegal for instance the forced entry of FHFA into FnF, it can and will to be stopped, in or out of the lawsuits, if it is illegal it can and will stop
No. "How the law works" is that a plaintiff brings a lawsuit alleging conduct that breaks the law, and the judge or jury decides whether or not such a violation has occurred, and if so what remedy to prescribe. Courts do not and cannot remedy every illegal act they find during the course of discovery or trial for a separate issue. A separate lawsuit is needed if new facts are uncovered, a lawsuit that nobody has yet brought.
All accusations of coercion here are meaningless without bringing such a lawsuit, and a highly respected poster has already shown that Sweeney lacks the jurisdiction to unwind the entire conservatorships:
The Fairholme Plaintiffs and those related cases have made no claim for and do not seek in the US Court of Federal Claims an unwinding of the conservatorships.
The US Court of Federal Claims for purposes of the Tucker Act does not have jurisdiction to enact such a ruling.
The biggest mistake in your line of thinking, though, is tying the "mob" talk from the oral arguments into Counts XI and XII of Fairholme's case. The only case in which the legality of the original conservatorships (and potential coercion involved) is Washington Federal, and Sweeney has yet to rule on which of their claims to allow to proceed to trial.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
