No, that is not at all how point 269 reads. Point 269 makes no mention of coercion whatsoever. In fact, it says that FnF's boards consented to conservatorship. Voluntarily. The exact opposite of coercion!
By the way, there is no such thing as non-mutual consent. Consent, by definition, requires the agreement of both parties.
Being factually wrong is independent of one's opinion.
No. "How the law works" is that a plaintiff brings a lawsuit alleging conduct that breaks the law, and the judge or jury decides whether or not such a violation has occurred, and if so what remedy to prescribe. Courts do not and cannot remedy every illegal act they find during the course of discovery or trial for a separate issue. A separate lawsuit is needed if new facts are uncovered, a lawsuit that nobody has yet brought.
All accusations of coercion here are meaningless without bringing such a lawsuit, and a highly respected poster has already shown that Sweeney lacks the jurisdiction to unwind the entire conservatorships:
The biggest mistake in your line of thinking, though, is tying the "mob" talk from the oral arguments into Counts XI and XII of Fairholme's case. The only case in which the legality of the original conservatorships (and potential coercion involved) is Washington Federal, and Sweeney has yet to rule on which of their claims to allow to proceed to trial.