<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>
	Comments on: Ninth Circuit Holds that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Are Not Agents of the Government Under the False Claims Act	</title>
	<atom:link href="https://4closurefraud.org/2016/10/04/ninth-circuit-holds-that-fannie-mae-and-freddie-mac-are-not-agents-of-the-government-under-the-false-claims-act/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://4closurefraud.org/2016/10/04/ninth-circuit-holds-that-fannie-mae-and-freddie-mac-are-not-agents-of-the-government-under-the-false-claims-act/</link>
	<description>- Fighting Foreclosure Fraud BY SHARING THE KNOWLEDGE</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 04 Oct 2016 16:18:46 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=7.0.2</generator>
	<item>
		<title>
		By: Randall Stephens		</title>
		<link>https://4closurefraud.org/2016/10/04/ninth-circuit-holds-that-fannie-mae-and-freddie-mac-are-not-agents-of-the-government-under-the-false-claims-act/#comment-670073</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Randall Stephens]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 04 Oct 2016 16:18:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://4closurefraud.org/?p=65673#comment-670073</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Did you ever wonder what it would be like to have your cake, and eat it, too?  

If a lowly grunt, or prole, or peon, attempted to utilize such divergent arguments they&#039;d be hit with judicial estoppel, chewed up, and spat into the gutter.  

For a SCOTUS discussion see New Hampshire v. Maine, 532 U.S. 742 (2001).]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Did you ever wonder what it would be like to have your cake, and eat it, too?  </p>
<p>If a lowly grunt, or prole, or peon, attempted to utilize such divergent arguments they&#8217;d be hit with judicial estoppel, chewed up, and spat into the gutter.  </p>
<p>For a SCOTUS discussion see New Hampshire v. Maine, 532 U.S. 742 (2001).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
