That's a circular reference to the appeal.
The courts at that time, were not as fully briefed on the subject as they are today, nor did anyone in the Lamberth case question the need for executive privilege at the time of the ruling, as Judge Sweeney has in her case.
The Saxton case pointed out by Mr. Bradford today did a great job of separating the FHFA's claim that they acted as conservator, they didn't. They acted outside of what a conservator is allowed to do, and as such the unchallengeable law in HERA does not apply to their claim, as the investor suits are not challenging actions that are allowed inside of HERA, they're challenging what was done by FHFA outside of their mandate which was a defacto nationalization and far outside of the well established precedent of private ownership rights. It is a direct claim as Mr. Hume put it.
Hence, Judge Lamberth's precedent is what is in question and one can easily argue it is not persuasive for a court, and so it should not be considered precedent.
Clearly, the appellate court allowing for further discovery is evidence that they at least find the reasoning of the lower court ruling questionable at best and not persuasive enough to dismiss outright, so calling the Lamberth ruling a precedent for the appellate court is yet another misdirection by our forum's favorite misdirector.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
