InvestorsHub Logo
Followers 206
Posts 2082
Boards Moderated 0
Alias Born 08/03/2008

Re: mrfence post# 64654

Tuesday, 06/11/2013 11:40:35 PM

Tuesday, June 11, 2013 11:40:35 PM

Post# of 797213
Interesting that they chose the Court of Federal Claims; i assume because the terms of their conservatorship statutorily limits any other form of legal confrontation. The CoFC is primarily a mechanism where Government contractors can file claims against the Government, accrued in performance of contractual obligations with the Government. I wouldn't call this your typical courtroom...

I also read that the actual conservatorship was by itself, without precedent. Meaning something like this, with the statutory terms and conditions of the conservatorship in place, has never been done before. Not allowing a path to any form of remediation?

No precedence. Bizzare path to court. Terms and conditions that in essence state you can't sue the Government (the whole Sovereign Immunity thing must have slipped Congress's mind if they felt they had to include such terms). That or the person drafting it was nervous about the legality and felt they needed to include some extra provisioning...

I have a feeling this one's going to go down in history. May see it moved to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and possibly beyond..

Lots of talk about Eminent Domain also, but I'm not sure that applies to this case. I'm not a legal expert but I think Eminent Domain has to do more with private ownership of land, and just compensation (5th amendment) that follows the seizure of it.

By the way for those who are interested: Washington Federal v. U.S., 13-cv-00385, U.S. Court of Federal Claims (Washington).