Tuesday, June 11, 2013 11:40:35 PM
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).
Glidelogic Corp. Becomes TikTok Shop Partner, Opening a New Chapter in E-commerce Services • GDLG • Jul 5, 2024 7:09 AM
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