Not a lawyer either. But in a prior discussion about this same topic
I was arguing if the admission by the government and the assessment
by the judge that "in factual terms" (not facial) CWIC complain about the
3rd amendment is valid (it's true) will actually mean that the government
may win this battle (Iowa) but could lose the war (either Lamberth or Sweeney).
The win for the government here is "no discovery". BUT, Sweeney already
granted discovery in her court. Why would she reverse now? She has already
established the need for it. It will be a contradiction to follow Iowa's case.
For this win, the government used a technicality but in my complete layman
view this technicality was based in "facial terms". They are not contesting "facts",
so they argue that no discovery is needed and apparently the judge agrees with this.
But then, the judge also says that since "factual terms" are not contested by the
government she must assume they are true. This is where I ask myself if the
government has established the seeds of their own destruction regarding the other cases.
Agree with Rosen62. Treasury & FHFA admitting they are slimeball communists "
solely for the purpose of this motion" is a rather risky strategy, IMO. They technically
preserve for later their ability to deny that they are slimeballs, but the simple fact that
they refuse to contest it now must have some implications for later, if only in the judge's
perception of the case. To do this to fight a simple motion to dismiss, which is unlikely
anyway to be granted, seems ill-advised to me, unless the slimeballs are convinced they
will win the motion.
- PVCT shareholder blog
- GILD shareholders blog
- FANNIE FREDDIE GOOGLE GROUP
- Bill Maloni GSE
- FNMA - YAHOO message board
- FNMA Real Time QUOTE
- $60 per share, target
- Throwing out the case: Perry Injunction
- Why the FHFA took over Fannie and Freddie and AIG
- homesteading off grid planning
- Save on Your Electric Bill