Replies to post #351209 on Fannie Mae-No Politics (FNMA)

[navycmdr]

Porky Pig - JUDGE Lamberth's FAILED LEGACY of REVERSALS ...



The government argued that the string of reversals of Judge Lamberth's orders established a pattern of Judge Lamberth's failure to follow the D.C. Circuit’s guidance. The government also argued that the July 12, 2005 opinion was,

in its extended vitriol . . . "unlike any other judicial opinion that we have ever seen,”

that the tone and content of the opinion were such that Judge Lamberth had

compromised the appearance of his own neutrality,

and that the opinion thereby undermined the “appearance of justice”

(the government's formulation of one of the circuit-law bases for reassigning a case).

PORKY PIG Lamberth ...

http://prawfsblawg.blogs.com/prawfsblawg/2014/04/lamberth-in-cobell-part-4-pulling-the-judge.html

[whipstick]

he may very well have. What he didn't do is allow for further discovery which is turning out to be exceedingly material. And yes you did make a circular reference to another case that used the case being appealed as precedent. Don't try to wriggle out of that nonsense.

[rekcusdo]

"I beg to differ. There is considerable precedent, obviously including Judge Royce Lamberth's initial ruling. But there also is the subsequent dismissal ruled by Judge Robert W. Pratt in the Continental-Western case filed in the U.S. District Court, Southern District of Iowa, Central Division."

"I understand that dismissal was partly on the basis of similarity to Perry and questions of the parent company of C-W being involved in the Perry case, but I specifically refer you to the lengthy commentary from Judge Pratt that confirms the correctness of the Lamberth ruling. This can be found on page 19, footnote #6."

You quite clearly did reference Lamberth as "precedent". You also refer to Pratts reference of Lamberth as "precedent".

You are right that Im dismissing your argument. For one simple reason...ITS INSANE! You are claiming that the appeals court will rely on DIRECT RULINGS in opposition of what they are figuring out the legitimacy of.

I will repeat my original post before we went down this rabbit hole with Alice in Wonderland. There is NO existing precedent for the appellate court to rely on in determination of whether Lamberth is correct or not.