Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Keeping the GSES in perpetual CONservatorships is a WIN/WIN for the FHFA:
(1). No complaints from the NAR, MBA, and the Financial Establishment as they can attempt to capture the FHFA's Sandra L Thompson into directing more subsidies for their direct and indirect beneficiaries.
(2). With NO POLITICAL PRESSURE, Sandra L Thompson can simply say, "We're working on exiting from the conservatorships, but there's a lot of work ahead!"
(3). The Gubmint gets $500m/yr FREE, extracted from the GSES capital to fund the FHFA (it's time for office remodeling for the FHFA executives !
(4). Sandra L Thompson can continue shelling out freebies through subsidized mortgage loan offerings to the current administrations target market voter base.
(5). By pretending that the federal government doesn't own 80% or more of the GSES, it keeps $7T + in MBS off the federal government balance sheet.
AMERIKA, MY KINDA PLACE !
Congress has delegated its law making functions to federal agencies and from 1995 through 2016, federal agencies wrote 88,899 total rules to Congress passing 4,312 laws.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/waynecrews/2017/08/15/how-many-rules-and-regulations-do-federal-agencies-issue/?sh=54a709b01e64
A majority of the Supreme Court Justices appear to be reigning in the federal government agencies (aka the 4th Branch of Government) through the Major Questions Doctrine in their June 2022 opinion, WV v EPA.
These UNELECTED BURAUCRATS in federal government agencies yearly produce Rules and Regulations that exceed the laws that the US Congress passes by 100 to 1.
These 10's of THOUSANDS of Rules and Regulations by UNELECTED BURAUCRATS YEARLY, impede and constrain the rights and economic lives of Americans and American Businesses.
Consolidating the Power of ALL 3 BRANCHES of Government in these federal agencies leads to what one Supreme Court Justice termed, "a junior varsity Congress".
Does the NWS violate the Major Questions Doctrine?
Here's what one of the framers of the US Constitution had to say about the consolidation of power in one place. https://www.yalelawjournal.org/feature/nondelegation-at-the-founding page 1496:
"In perhaps the most famous example, Madison wrote, “The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.” THE FEDERALIST NO. 47, at 301 (James Madison) (Clinton Ros siter ed., 1961)."
Here's the TBTF banks response:
MM 27:22 she talks about the 14 year+ "temporary" CONservatorships:
https://bipartisanpolicy.org/event/whats-next-for-fhfa-a-fireside-chat-with-acting-director-sandra-l-thompson/
SLT:
"Unwinding that is not a small undertaking..."
"They need capital to make sure that 08 never happens again"
"Some of these decisions are out of our control..."
Here's the March 31, 2022 Sandra L Thompson interview:
https://bipartisanpolicy.org/event/whats-next-for-fhfa-a-fireside-chat-with-acting-director-sandra-l-thompson/
The Net Worth Sweep implemented on August 17, 2012, prevented the GSES from ever going private again. In 2013-14, the Senate Banking Committee and the corresponding House Committee held meetings trying to decide the future of the structure of the Secondary Mortgage Market. Bills were introduced by our ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES in Congress and no consensus was reached.
DeMarco, the UNELECTED head of the FHFA in conjunction with the UST, decided to implement the NWS and Nationalize the GSES, a Major Economic and Political Question that should be decided by our ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES IN CONGRESS NOT by 2 heads of Unelected federal agency's.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/20-1530#
Clarence, the concurring opinion by Justice Gorsuch (just read it again, after the law review article you recommended) in WV v EPA is a pretty good description of the nondelegation doctrine (notice he mentions Philip Hamburger's work in addressing Elena Kagan's dissent) - Question : If the current round of litigation to reverse the NWS is not fruitful, would litigation using the Major Questions Doctrine to invalidate the NWS have any legs?
"In places, the dissent seems to suggest that we should not
be unduly “‘concerned’” with the Constitution’s assignment
of the legislative power to Congress. Post, at 29 (opinion of
KAGAN, J.). Echoing Woodrow Wilson, the dissent seems to
think “a modern Nation” cannot afford such sentiments.
Post, at 29–31. But recently, our dissenting colleagues
acknowledged that the Constitution assigns “all legislative
Powers” to Congress and “bar[s their] further delegation.”
Gundy, 588 U. S., at ___ (plurality opinion of KAGAN, J.)
(slip op., at 4) (internal quotation marks and alteration
omitted). To be sure, in that case we disagreed about the
exact nature of the “nondelegation inquiry” courts must em-
ploy to vindicate the Constitution. Id., at ___ (slip op., at
5). But like Chief Justice Marshall, we all recognized that
the Constitution does impose some limits on the delegation
of legislative power. See ibid.; Wayman, 10 Wheat., at 42–
43. And while we all agree that administrative agencies
have important roles to play in a modern nation, surely
none of us wishes to abandon our Republic’s promise that
the people and their representatives should have a meaningful say in the laws that govern them. Cf. Rucho v. Com-
mon Cause, 588 U. S. ___, ___ (2019) (KAGAN, J., dissenting)
(slip op., at 7) (“Republican liberty demands not only, that
all power should be derived from the people; but that those
entrusted with it should be kept in dependence on the peo-
ple” (internal quotation marks and alteration omitted)).6
Footnote 6: "6 In the course of its argument, the dissent leans heavily on two recent
academic articles. Post, at 29. But if a battle of law reviews were the
order of the day, it might be worth adding to the reading list. See, e.g.,
I. Wurman, Nondelegation at the Founding, 130 Yale L. J. 1490, 1493–
1494 (2021); D. Candeub, Preference and Administrative Law, 72 Admin.
L. Rev. 607, 614–628 (2020); P. Hamburger, Delegation or Divesting?,
115 Nw. L. Rev. Online 88, 91–110 (2020); M. McConnell, The President
Who Would Not Be King 326–335 (2020); A. Gordon, Nondelegation, 12
N. Y. U. J. L. & Liberty 718, 719 (2019); R. Cass, Delegation Reconsid-
ered: A Delegation Doctrine for the Modern Administrative State, 40
Harv. J. L. & Pub. Pol’y 147, 155–161 (2017); G. Lawson & G. Seidman,
“A Great Power of Attorney:” Understanding the Fiduciary Constitution
104–129 (2017); P. Hamburger, Is Administrative Law Unlawful? 377–
402 (2014); L. Alexander & S. Prakash, Reports of the Nondelegation
Doctrine’s Death are Greatly Exaggerated, 70 U. Chi. L. Rev. 1297,
1298–1299 (2003); G. Lawson, Delegation and Original Meaning, 88 Va.
L. Rev. 327, 335–343 (2002); D. Schoenbrod, The Delegation Doctrine:
Could the Court Give It Substance? 83 Mich. L. Rev. 1223, 1252–1255,
1260–1261 (1985); see generally P. Wallison & J. Yoo, The Administra-
tive State Before the Supreme Court: Perspectives on the Nondelegation
Doctrine (2022)."
I believe the government will wait until the amount in dispute of all remaining lawsuits has become less than $5 billion.
LuLe, I tend to agree with you on that one. There's more pros than cons on keeping them privately owned corporations with the SHAREHOLDERS CAPITAL AND NOT THE TAXPAYERS CAPITAL IN A 1ST LOSS POSITION.
Although Nationalizing the GSES via the Net Worth Swipe may make future investors in this public mission private capital partnership reluctant to invest.
Care to hazard a GUESS on the eventual outcome (if any) during our remaining lifetimes?
Well, what is that the federal government wants then, if what you say is always true? Originally they set up the GSES in 1968 and 1970 as private corporations but have Nationalized them lately while still maintaining publically that they are preparing them for exit some day down the road.
Does Uncle Suggy want:
(1) to have them back on the books of the federal government permanently?
OR
(2). return them to private Shareholders?
The problem is that the US Congress through HERA and endorsed by the SCOTUS in Collins, gave FHFA the authority to determine what's in the "public it serves or FHFA's best interests".
Does it violate the 5th Amendment Takings Clause when the NWS strips all of the Economic Rights of our property?
According to the last court to consider it, NO because we are in the CONservatorships and therefore have no property rights.
We'll find out if the SCOTUS takes the case next month probably.
Clarence, just finished the article (and remember this was pre Seila Law and Collins and ACB appointment), I learned quite a bit, and one of the most thorough indictments of the 4th Branch of Government I have ever read! Thanks again, recommend any others?
"In short, by traveling from Schechter to Chevron, the Supreme Court has
profoundly undermined the democratic accountability central to the
Constitution’s conception of self-government. To be sure, there are
arguments for why lawmaking is best left in the hands of the unelected. Some
say bicameralism and presentment take too long. Some say elected officials
lack the necessary expertise.381 Some say the people are too likely to elect
poor policymakers.382 I do not agree with these arguments. More to the point,
I do not believe the Constitution allows for them. And the thesis of this
Article is that the Supreme Court no longer believes it either.
So what will the Court do? In short term, as described above, I expect the
Supreme Court to create exceptions to permissible delegation,383 exceptions to Chevron deference,384 and exceptions to Humphrey’s Executor.
385 Then,
over time, the exceptions will likely swallow the rules.
If so, major delegations will be limited to delegations that include detailed
guidance from Congress. Major rules will not receive Chevron deference and
may instead require a clear statutory statement authorizing them. Minor rules
will require authorization from the best reading of the statute, which may or
may not be read to delegate minor policy-making decisions to the agency,
depending on the statutory language and structure. And for-cause removal
restrictions will be limited to agencies like the Federal Reserve, where
reliance interests in Humphrey’s Executor’s stare decisis effect are unusually
strong.
Leading the way will be Justice Brett Kavanaugh, whose extensive
writings in these areas show an extreme sensitivity to the relation between
separation of powers, democratic accountability, and liberty. As Professor
Jonathan Adler recently wrote, “In Brett Kavanaugh, President Trump may
not have found a justice to ‘deconstruct the administrative state’—in Steve
Bannon’s formulation—but he has found one who will help bring it to
heel.”386
Of course, Justice Kavanaugh and his like minded colleagues will be able
to go only as far as the cautious Chief Justice John Roberts will travel with
them. His writings do not display Kavanaugh’s blatant disgust with what
makes the administrative state so democratically unaccountable. But
Roberts’s writings do reveal a skepticism of the administrative state’s
excesses, an openness to limiting the precedents that have fueled those
excesses, and, I believe, a willingness to severely cut back on each of those
precedents once they are ripe for reconsideration.
Their days are not over. But they are numbered. And with Justice
Kavanaugh’s ascension to the Supreme Court, that number looks smaller than
ever."
That's what SCOTUS said in WV v EPA, a federal agency is prohibited from enacting a rule or regulation that is of a Major Question that is reserved for the US Congress. The Congress could enact the failed proposed EPA regulation mandating which type of fuels our nations utility producers use.
But it would be hard to build consensus and the drafters of the US Constitution wanted it that way to protect your liberty and mine.
WV v EPA, in essence, reigned in the federal agencies who believe that Chevron gives them complete deference to interpret as broadly as they please their enabling statutes.
Do you think Nationalizing the 2 private corporations that are the lynchpins of the American Secondary Mortgage Market is something that the FHFA should have decided OR is that a matter strictly reserved for the peoples representatives in the Congress, since it is a Major National Economic Question?
This is well said, "In Dodd-Frank, Congress simply signed away its power of the purse and created what Justice Antonin Scalia once called “a sort of junior-varsity Congress.” The Fifth Circuit got it right, and if the Supreme Court takes up the case, it should return the constitutional purse to Congress, the people’s trustee."
Thanks, Navy! I would imagine that the USSCT will take this important national matter up at one of their conferences by the end of January.
These federal agencies, ACCOUNTABLE TO NO ONE, are just getting out of control, and I suspect that the SCOTUS may be ready to do something my meaningful about it, THAT HAS TEETH!
The POTUS gets control in our lives as the sole head of the EXECUTIVE BRANCH BUT ALSO CAN DIRECTLY CONTROL MANY OF THESE FEDERAL AGENCIES.
Since the US Congress had delegated its law making functions to federal agencies AND the Judiciary in the Chevron decision granted these federal agencies super deference to interpret their broad mandates, like, "in the public interest", THE POTUS SINCE HE IS THE UNITARY EXECUTIVE IN CHARGE OF FEDERAL AGENCIES CAN DIRECT THEM TO PASS LAWS, RULES AND REGULATIONS THAT COULD NEVER MAKE IT THROUGH CONGRESS.
Here's some examples:
DJT instructs a federal agency to do a rent moratorium on every single residence in the US during COVID with zero funding for landlords.
JB promises student loan forgiveness while campaigning and directs Education to find a sentence in the 9/11 HEROES ACT to make it happen, EVEN THOUGH THERE IS NO WAY TO GET IT THROUGH CONGRESS.
The problem is how will the Judicial Branch Judge OVER 1 MILLION RULES AND REGULATIONS BY ALL THESE FEDERAL AGENCIES? What cognizable standard would they even use? The courts would be crammed with Litigants.
The problem is (and it's a big problem), our elected representatives in the US Congress pass laws like HERA that create federal agencies that have broad authority over certain sectors of the economy or social programs (e.g., EEOC).
The US Congress, instead of making tough and often times unpopular decisions about taxes, regulations, and the law, give these federal agencies broad sweeping authority to act.
For instance, in HERA, whenever FHFA acts during the never ending CONservatorships, it can do "WHATEVER IS IN ITS BEST INTERESTS OR THAT OF THE PUBLIC"
The US Supreme Court in the 1984 Chevron decision decided to give federal agencies great deference in determining what obscure phrases like "in the best interests of the public" means, and since these federal agencies are ACCOUNTABLE TO NO ONE, not everyone is happy with the sometimes bizarre actions taken by these agencies.
Like the NWS for instance.
It's a fundamental problem when our elected representatives delegate their law making functions to federal agencies whom are accountable to NO ONE.
It simply results in rules and regulations and taxes being imposed on the 333 million Americans by these UNELECTED BURAUCRATS LIKE DEMARCO.
I think that David Thompson updated one of his pleadings to include the CFPB SOP issue, but I can't remember if it was for Collins.
Yet ANOTHER problem with the Administrative State: "The scope of federal regulations is so vast that no one even knows how
many exist. Estimates of criminally enforceable regulations range from
10,000 to more than 300,000.44 That’s as much as sixty-seven times the number of statutory federal crimes.45 Add to this number civilly enforceable
regulations and the total number of federal regulations exceeds one million."
44. Gary Fields & John R. Emshwiller, Many Failed Efforts to Count Nation’s
Federal Criminal Laws, WALL STREET J. (July 23, 2011),
https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB1000142405270230431980457638960107972892
0; see also United States v. Baldwin, 745 F.3d 1027, 1031 (10th Cir. 2014) (“[T]he
Code of Federal Regulations today finds itself crowded with so many ‘crimes’ that
scholars actually debate their number.”).
45. John S. Baker, Revisiting the Explosive Growth of Federal Crimes,
HERITAGE FOUND. (June 16, 2008), https://www.heritage.org/report/revisiting-the-
explosive-growth-federal-crimes (noting 4450 statutory crimes).
WHERE THE HELL ARE OUR ELECTED LEGISLATORS?
(1) What do you think the remedy will be, if any in the CFPB case from the 5th Circuit, assuming the SCOTUS hears it?
This is from Professor Walkers excellent Law Review Article: "Congress does retain some power over the administrative state through the
spending power. See Office of Pers. Mgmt. v. Richmond, 496 U.S. 414, 425 (1990)
(“Any exercise of a power granted by the Constitution to one of the other branches of Government is limited by a valid reservation of congressional control over funds
in the Treasury.”). But it has no direct ability to hold bureaucrats accountable."
I'm sure Seila Law and Collins was no surprise to Professor Walker: "The Conclusion of this Article ties the previous Parts together and explains
how the principle of democratic accountability informs the jurisprudential
earthquake that is coming to this area of separation-of-powers doctrine."
Let's see if the trend continues in CFPB v CFSA on a Petition for a Writ of Certerrori from the 5th Circuit.
But won't this upset Elizabeth Warren and Elena Kagan ! "The result will be a federal government that is still vast and still powerful but
no longer unaccountable to the people."
I. DELEGATION + DEFERENCE + INDEPENDENCE = THE ABSENCE OF DEMOCRATIC
ACCOUNTABILITY
Clarence, I haven't read that yet, but Philip Hamburger gave a speech at CATO in 2014 and what I found especially enlightening and prescient was the question posited by a British guy from the CEI (1hr; 15 minute mark) asking Professor Hamburger and the DC Appealate Judge, "Couldn't the US Congress Power of the Purse be used to rein in the Administrative State?"!
This speech was 2014, 6 to 8 years later, Judge Jones writes an opinion in the 5th Circuit that is quoted by the 3 Judge Appealate Panel in the 5th in the CFPB decision, currently pending a decision from the Justices upcoming conferences on a Petition for a Writ of Certerrori from the government.
I mean great stuff!
What's scary as an American, is just how pervasive and penetrating an unlawful Administrative State can have on all of our lives!
Listening to the real life examples listed by Professor Hamburger was SHOCKING! And it's happened to us here, having our Economic Rights destroyed by an unaccountable Administrative State.
In the Video, one of Professor Hamburger's professional colleagues said he couldn't review the draft of his book because, IT WAS TOO DEPRESSING!
Wow!
https://www.cato.org/events/administrative-law-unlawful
Here's a speech Philip Hamburger gave at the CATO Institute (Notice the original mention of the Obama administrations EPA controversial directive that was finally shot down by the US Supreme Court in June 2022 in WV v EPA as a violation of the Major Questions Doctrine, this speech is 2014):
https://www.cato.org/events/administrative-law-unlawful
I read that yesterday. It's a left leaning publication that isn't to happy about the 5th Circuit's latest ruling on the impact of the Administrative State.
The Elizabeth Warrens of the world realize that the 4th Branch of Government can do things like forgive $20,000 in student loans and accomplish an array of other left leaning social agenda policies that would never make it through the US Congress and they are unhappy that the US Constitution is getting in their way as they believe that the US Constitution is a "living document" that needs to bend to the times. VOX never complains about the 9th Circuit do they?
During the Lamberth trial, the thought occurred to me that Obama and the UST were pressing DeMarco for mortgage loan forgiveness and when he refused they said here's the NWS. But we may never know as those discussions are not for public consumption.
-------
Professor Chris Hamburger wrote an excellent book outlining the inherent problems with the federal government agency structure in America.
Thanks again for finding J. Jones speech which allowed me to discover both Chris Hamburger's treatise on the 4th branch of government and the NCLA!
https://nclalegal.org/
These are great resources!
The final decision of whether or not the double insulated funding mechanism in the CFPB case will likely be made by the US Supreme Court if they grant the federal government's Petition for a Writ of Certerrori, which seems likely.
A seperate ancillary question is whether or not the double insulated funding mechanism in HERA is similar enough to Dodd Frank to merit similar treatment in the remedy, which according to the 5th Circuit Appealate Panel is to invalidate the agency action.
The Administrative State (i.e., federal agencies) have been steamrolling American business and individual constitutional rights for almost 100 years.
The NWS and the 14+ year CONservatorships are merely byproducts of the Unlawful Administrative State in America.
J. Jones understood the problem and articulated it 1st in a speech she made and then applied it in the recent CFPB decision that will either be decided by the Supremes or remain the law in the 5th Circuit.
Can you think of any other federal agency that is double insulated from the Congressional Appropriations Oversight Process?
This is from a 2015 Texas Law Review article:
"If consistency with the Constitution is the relevant species of
lawfulness, then much, and indeed most, of federal administrative law is
rather plainly unlawful. There are more than occasional suggestions in the
book that this is precisely what Professor Hamburger has in mind by
unlawfulness.41"
2015 The Return of the King 1529
"Like the English Crown before the development of English
constitutional law, the American executive seeks to exercise power
outside the law and the adjudications of the courts. . . .
Constitutional law, however, developed precisely to bar this sort of
consolidated extra- and supralegal power. . . . The [English]
constitution . . . clarified that the government had to rule through
regular law and adjudication. Indeed, it was understood to place the
lawmaking and judicial powers in specialized institutions and to
subject these powers to specific processes and rights.
Americans echoed all of this in their constitutions. They made
clear that their governments enjoyed power only under the
constitutional law made by the people and that the law of the land
was supreme. They specified that their governments were to
exercise legislative power through the acts of their legislatures, and
judicial power through the adjudications of their courts, and they
subjected these powers to constitutional processes and rights. . . ."
"It thus is not a coincidence that administrative law looks remarkably
similar to the sort of governance that thrived long ago in medieval
and early modern England under the name of the “prerogative.” In
fact, the executive’s administrative power revives many details of
[the] king’s old prerogative power. Administrative law thus turns
out to be not a uniquely modern response to modern circumstances,
but the most recent expression of an old and worrisome
development.17
The administrative state is not something that the founding generation
simply could not have imagined. The founders did not need to imagine it,
because they and their ancestors lived it—and resoundingly rejected it."
Here's an introductory to the book I believe J.Jones was referring to:
"Is administrative law unlawful? This provocative question has become all the more significant with the expansion of the modern administrative state. While the federal government traditionally could constrain liberty only through acts of Congress and the courts, the executive branch has increasingly come to control Americans through its own administrative rules and adjudication, thus raising disturbing questions about the effect of this sort of state power on American government and society.
With Is Administrative Law Unlawful?, Philip Hamburger answers this question in the affirmative, offering a revisionist account of administrative law. Rather than accepting it as a novel power necessitated by modern society, he locates its origins in the medieval and early modern English tradition of royal prerogative. Then he traces resistance to administrative law from the Middle Ages to the present. Medieval parliaments periodically tried to confine the Crown to governing through regular law, but the most effective response was the seventeenth-century development of English constitutional law, which concluded that the government could rule only through the law of the land and the courts, not through administrative edicts. Although the US Constitution pursued this conclusion even more vigorously, administrative power reemerged in the Progressive and New Deal Eras. Since then, Hamburger argues, administrative law has returned American government and society to precisely the sort of consolidated or absolute power that the US Constitution—and constitutions in general—were designed to prevent.
With a clear yet many-layered argument that draws on history, law, and legal thought, Is Administrative Law Unlawful? reveals administrative law to be not a benign, natural outgrowth of contemporary government but a pernicious—and profoundly unlawful—return to dangerous pre-constitutional absolutism."
https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/I/bo17436684.html
"It is time for the Court to clarify the issue and overrule Chevron."
https://www.yalejreg.com/nc/chevron-ended/
Harvard Law School article from a very comprehensive article from the Hoover Institute at Stanford University about Administrative Agency Law 2017 (I added bold):
"Appellate courts emphatically do not defer to the statutory interpretations of trail courts or prosecutors; that they should do so for regulatory agencies is a dramatic instance of rule-of-law traditions giving way to the dynamics of the administrative state."
https://academic.oup.com/jla/article/8/1/121/1751551
I'm sure KT knows. As I recall, one of the conditions in HERA was for the corporate boards to volunteer and/or concede to the conservatorship. Judge Sweeney as I recall said, the government made the board members, "an offer that they couldn't refuse".
And here we are, despite billions in Net Income yearly, in the 15th year of CONservatorship.
All of these federal agencies (mostly here in DC) have rule making authority (like a legislative branch), enforcement authority (like the executive branch), AND administrative law judges (like the Judicial Branch).
These federal agencies became more prolific during the FDR and LBJ administrations and continue to grow in size and power even today.
The idea seemed benign at first. Who better to decide on rules, administer and enforce those rules, and adjudicate those rules than a federal agency consisting of highly paid lifetime Bureaucrats with the requisite expertise in these areas of mostly business regulations.
But mixing power with human beings and unchecked oversight leads to the steamrolling of individual and corporate rights by the people in charge of these federal agencies. Look at what Ed DeMarco did for example.
This type of unchecked governmental power is what led to the creation of the US Constitution to begin with and some believe need to be reigned in, like the CFPB and possibly the FHFA.
Thanks FOFreddie! Judge Jones points out the unpleasant reality that when the 3 branches of federal government abrogates so many of their respective responsibilities in our American Republic to a 4th Branch of Government, it violates the very foundational principles set out in the US Constitution.
This has predictable results such as never ending conservatorships, disappearance of property rights, and other coercive and abusive governmental overreach.
Will the US Supreme Court reign in the Administrative State?
Happy Holidays everyone! We've got to get the government boot off our necks, otherwise 2008 was the final year of dividends after a very long period were they consistently delivered predictable returns.
Sounds like Tim Pagliara is still holding JPS. He also appears to believe that an administrative solution is possible, although until we get some clarity from the courts, that could take some time.