1. In many ways the lay definition of conservator has changed.
The lay definition of conservator is not relevant to and is not used in the US Court of Appeals, DC Perry opinion. The lay definition of conservator, remains written and defined as it is in the dictionary and elsewhere. The lay definition may have changed in some people's heads, where anything can be "rewritten."
2. Similar to the concept of "Police" - we all have our very own thought of what police can and can't do. Or should and shouldn't. Sure, its spelled out in some law some where and written down by some 2 year aspiring law grad writing this - but to the far and many, if asked the concept of "police" will migrate to an average thought.
Similar to conservator, many believe the concept is; as I've been lead to believe in general that that individual or appointee would work in the best interest of the entity being conserved - thus the word conservator. For the benefit of those they owe duty to; being whomever;
Unless one can find conservator specifically defined in the prefatory materials of the opinion or in specific sections or notes as a lay term or dictionary definition, it is otherwise, a clear fact and without doubt that lay definitions are not used as a reference in the US Court of Appeals, DC Perry opinion. Lay definitions and concepts of conservator are not relevant to the case or the majority or dissenting opinions of the Circuit Judges.
3. But, in this case that concept has largely been abandoned to instead be as interpreted by the judges as anything goes, pursuant to no constraints of Hera.
It was not abandoned jeddiemack. A lay and/or non-relevant legal definition of conservator was never considered or used in the majority or dissenting opinions of the Circuit Judges. You cannot abandon what never was held.
4. So, in my view, its a re-write of the conceptual job duties and description of what a conservator is...
The statutory authorities, powers, duties, and purposes of the conservator are given in law and all of the relevant laws were provided but wholly ignored ( They are provided again below). These statutory authorities, powers, duties, and purposes of the conservator cannot be rewritten by Circuit Judges conceptually or in fact. if one chooses to accept conceptually what the Judges wrote, that is a individual prerogative. Rewriting the statutory authorities, powers, duties, and purposes of the conservator is the right and responsibility of the US Congress.
5. ...and what they may or may not do.
One of the decided points in the majority opinion of the US Court of Appeals, DC Perry case was that the given statutory duties of the FHFA as conservator were not specifically mandated ("may" vs. "shall" argument) to act in specific way as outlined by the Plaintiffs and Dissent. Therefore, FHFA as conservator is permitted, but not compelled, "in any judicially enforceable sense, to preserve and conserve Fannie’s and Freddie’s assets and to return the Companies to private operation."
So the preservation and conservation of Fannie’s and Freddie’s assets and allowing the return of the GSEs to private operation remains defined in law and remains as a possibility in law, but, for these Judges, FHFA is not compelled to do this by law.
This is an interpretation of FHFA actions and possible actions under the HERA 2008. The law remains unchanged. There is has been no rewrite of the definition.
That being so, a different interpretation and application of the same law to the same facts of the case, can be given in an US Court of Appeals, DC en banc rehearing or a hearing in the US Supreme Court. Also, the law can be clarified ("shall" over "may") to remove ambiguities over duties and timing by a congressional amendment to the law or the law can be rewritten in part or wholly by the US Congress.
For Millett and Ginsburg, the FHFA as conservator cannot do that which is outside of the statutory authorities, powers, duties, and purposes. The majority decided that the FHFA acted within its statutory authorities, powers, duties, and purposes in the best interest of the companies or Agency.
6. Which is what you wrote The definitions provided above and below are not related to the use of the term conservator or conservatorship in HERA 2008 its more or less a redefinition of the word pursuant to a written law that took well heeled words and twisted them....
The definitions provided above and below are not related to the use of the term conservator or conservatorship in HERA 2008 means what it says. The definitions provided in post http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=129220260 were not related to the the use of the term conservator or conservatorship in HERA 2008. The law was not rewritten.
7. They've taken a regular word and altered the definition for purposes of the statute.
This is not so. The regular word and its definition was never used in the US Court of Appeals, DC Perry case and opinion. The regular word's definition was not altered for the purpose of the statute. The Perry case was not about altering the regular word's definition using HERA 2008.
The regular word, conservator, remains defined as it is in the dictionary and elsewhere.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
