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.
Defense opens with a Don Layton video interview/deposition done in 2021 on the events leading up to the NWS and how he found out about.
Layton: "The GSES could NEVER PAY BACK PSPA BAILOUT MONEY UNTIL THE "BROKEN GSE MODEL' WAS FIXED. According to UST OFFICIALS
Plaintiffs rest. Uncle Suggy's turn.
Over for today! Heard more Expert Witnesses for Plaintiffs today after lunch Professor Mason and Akhlatar? Mason calculated lost value and Professor Ak said Pcf s/b 0.
I was thinking that YOU ESPECIALLY would like to hear the news! GLTA!
IF we win and IF it's 1.6B and IF approximately $770M for each class of JPS (that's TOTAL FOR EACH FANNIE AND FREDDIE) what's the dividend (less attorney fees?)?
Would a Gubmint appeal stop it?
Inquiring minds want to know!
Professor Mason testifys that JPS, FANNIE AND FREDDIE LOST VALUE EQUALS APPROXIMATELY 777M EACH AND LIKE 48M for Freddie common
The Gubmints arguments that somehow the NWS is justified via the financial aspect of it is a Loser.
They need to try to convince the Jury that somehow or someway the NWS is justified for public policy reasons.
Good luck with that, Uncle Suggy! Hey, Uncle Suggy are the Plaintiff Shareholders PAYING FOR ARNOLD AND PORTER HERE VIA THE ANNUAL OR SEMIANNUAL EXTRACTIONS FROM THE GSES?
Lunch Break! Uncle Suggy is struggling with trying to get McFarland to admit/imply somehow the NWS was necessary.
This is a losing argument on Cross for Defense they need to play up their "saving the world" card!
Old Lamberth has to go sentence one of these Jan 6th people at Lunch.
The federal government (just like stock market investors do) suffers from 'recency bias', walking away from court cases with pyrric wins for the Plaintiff Shareholders and/or just wins for the Gubmint.
When it's the Gubmints chance to present their case, they will play up how the public interest was somehow served by the NWS and that the "integrity of the MBS Market' was somehow saved by the NWS.
Will the Jurors buy what the federal government is selling? We'll see what happens.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recency_bias
The Professor of Accounting and Finance spent about 1/3 to 1/2 the day yesterday explaining the sheer magnitude of the DTA, the importance of the approximately $100B+ DTA, and that the federal government had acted in reckless manner by ignoring it.
The DTA coupled with the Reversing of the overinflated credit loss provisions which the FHFA regulator had the GSES book pre NWS were ALSO reversed (due to the rising USA home prices) and hence the $130B TRANSFER OF OUR WEALTH TO THE UST COFFERS IN 2013 IN RETURN FOR NOTHING!
I think that $130B NET INCOME by the GSES in 2013 by ANY 2 CORPORATIONS IS THE LARGEST IN WORLD HISTORY OF THE WORLD!
Talk about a Gubmint HEIST!
The financial aspects of the NWS is a losing battle for the Gubmint, they will turn to public interest justifications coupled with the HERA incorporated into the Shareholders Contract arguments, which they view as their strengths.
Something is better than nothing, but I haven't seen the final Instructions to the Jurors yet.
The Defense is going to play the 'Incidental Powers of HERA justified the NWS' and 'the MBS Investors won't invest in MBS without the Treasury Commitment and the future enterprises profits HAD to be sacrificed' cards when it's their turn and that may or may not save the day for them.
Professor Dharan gave Plaintiff Shareholders what has been missing in our legal quest for Justice for almost a decade. By so eloquently and painlessly explaining to the trier of fact what exactly happened here.
Almost all the board members and the long suffering Shareholders know exactly what took place here regarding the theft of our Economic Rights.
But Judges (and most lawyers) do not major in accounting and finance and terms like Deferred Tax Asset and the release of Credit Loss Reserves mean little or anything to them.
Here, Professor Dharan (with fantastic questioning by 'Professor' Hamish Hume) was able to educate the Jurors regular people on just how ridiculous the federal governments overreach is.
MIT and Harvard students are lucky to have him on the faculty and WE are fortunate to perhaps have found the missing link to Justice.
That's right, I think that's him! He did a very good job today and he REALLY HAS DUG DEEPER THAN ANYONE ON THE FINANCIALS AND ACCOUNTING!
I think he had access to the Discovery Evidence (and remember we had to work for YEARS getting this discovery with the Gubmint resisting at every turn!)
That's why I think that some of these Motions/Rulings are under seal, you know Executive Privilege and National Security.
Of course the Gubmint attorneys are as recalcitrant as ever and are resisting and kicking and screaming all the way!
GLTA!
Not sure of his name, dude is cool as a cucumber, an excellent listener, experienced trial finance and accounting expert witness, and in TOTAL CONTROL OF THE FACTS!
Our Expert Witness did an outstanding job not getting beat up on Cross! When asked about the "Risks" section of the 2Q12 by Da Gubmint lawyers (I think they are from a relatively blue chip firm, whom ironically the Shareholders maybe paying for) which states that Fannie Mae sees having to take draws in the future, the Professor correctly schooled the legal eagles (including the Judge I suspect) about what these "Risks" sections in 10q's really are and not to put so much strength in them.
The Defendants WANT THE JURY TO BELIEVE THAT ED DEMARCO RELIED ON THE 10q to justify the NWS.
Now, Gubmint gets to cross...
The Professor did an excellent job, HE HAS LIKE 39 YEARS EXPERIENCE IN FINANCE AND ACCOUNTING AND POURED OVER EVERY ASPECT OF THE DISCOVERY DOCUMENTS AND TESTIFIED MOST OF TODAY.
THE DR. ALSO HELPED EDUCATE THE JURORS IN THE BEGINNING OF THE DAY. HELL EVEN I LEARNED A THING IOR TWO. For instance the PCF, REQUIRES THE FEDERAL RESERVE TO APPROVE IT.
THIS FURTHER UNDERMINES DEMARCOS TESTIMONY.
Check out the theft: UST PUTS IN $191.4B (all cash but for $2B): gets back from the GSES: $385.4B. Final slide bar graph to Jury, wraps up the Professor of Finance and According Expert testimony.
Yes, the Jury was paying attention.
They seem like they are paying attention and some are even jotting down notes, I'm sure they would rather be doing something else. They will have quite a bit of evidentiary docs to review if they want to upon deliberations.
Remember this is our opportunity to influence the Jurors and the Gubmint goes after us. So GLTA!
Lunch Break! HH AND THE DR. OF FINANCE AND ACCOUNTING ARE CRUSHING IT AND THE JURY IS ACTUALLY PAYING ATTENTION!
Look out for Food Coma induced Jury later...
10 minute break. Hamish and the expert Witness on the stand are doing a GREAT JOB, EXPLAINING THE THEFT IN DETAILS TO THE JURY, AND THEY ARE ACTUALLY PAYING ATTENTION!
HH is a very effective communicator!
Too late now I think. After 8 YEARS OF PRETRIAL LITIGATION, the trial itself is typically a snoozefest, as all the cards are laid out on table and most parties realize the strengths and weaknesses of their trial hand and settle.
But not Uncle Suggy here, he needs to feel a defeat and yet like a Teflon Don, continues to walk away unharmed.
We'll see what happens.
That's right BB, but doesn't FHFA recover their legal expenses from the annual or semiannual extraction from the GSES?
I wanted to ask those 2 attorneys behind me Friday afternoon who are part of the defense (who could ACTUALLY BE GETTING PAID FROM OUR PROFITS TO DEFEND ITSELF IN A LAWSUIT PAID FOR AND BROUGHT BY THE CLASS PLAINTIFFS!) BUT THEY WON'T ANSWER EVEN IF I ASKED!
This whole fact pattern is so bizarre!
I think you missed the defense opening Statements BUT THEIR STRATEGY IS TO GIVE THE JURY A HOOK TO HANG A FINDING FOR THEM OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE WE WIN AGAIN BUT ONLY RECEIVE NOMINAL DAMAGES, LIKE $1 (another pyrrhic victory).
Here's what the Defense will spew on the Jury when they present their case, they will make the following arguments:
(1). Oh, sure Shareholders didn't like Acting Director DeMarcos decision to avoid future United States Treasury Draws with the 3rd Amendment, BUT ED IS A HERO, SAVING THE MBS WORLD BY MAKING SURE THAT NO MATTER WHAT THE TREASURY COMMITMENT WILL BE THERE! (Hamish did a great job debunking that one!)
(2). THE PERIODIC COMMITMENT FEE WOULD HAVE GOOBLED UP ALL FUTURE PROFITS ANYWAY THE NWS IS OUR SAVIOR! (I missed that AM argument where you there? Was P's argument persuasive?)
(3). Shareholders knew that HERA WAS INCORPORATED INTO THE SHAREHOLDERS IMPLICIT CONTRACT WITH THE COMPANIES AND THAT ACTING DIRECTOR DEMARCO COULD ACT IN A WAY THAT WHILE NOT BENEFITING THEM WOULD SERVE THE PUBLIC INTEREST, HERE, SAVING THE INTEGRITY OF THE MBS MARKET BY UNQUESTIONABLY PERSERVING THE ALL MIGHTY TREASURY COMMITMENT!
(4). Some BS stretch of the imagination argument like above but possibly believable by the Jury.
1 unelected federal government agency official in conjunction with the Treasurer of the UST, decided to Nationalize the 2 largest private financial intermediaries in the nations Secondary Mortgage Market, thus disrupting a system that was established by the US Congress in 1968 and 1970.
Does that sound right or am I missing something here?
Thank you! I think in Collins, Roberts and/or another Justice(s) pointed out the potential funding issue in HERA with a federal agency that receives funding other than Congressionally appropriated.
We'll see how this goes!
Wonder what James Madison, George Mason, and Thomas Jefferson would have thought about DeMarcos abusive and coercive use of power in implementing the NWS?
I'll have the bulldozer delivered on a flatbed with the sign on it and parked in a Conspicuous location near Clarence and Ginnys abode.
Does that work for ya? Or are you gonna take away my freedom of expression/1st Amendment Rights? !
HeeeeHeeee! I've NEVER HAD SO MUCH FUN WITH A STOCK HOLDING BEFORE, HAVE YOU? HeeeeHeeee!
The Periodic Committee Fee, under the PSPAs, the UST has an option to waive it or set it, and with the UST'S ability to increase the commitment for future funding increases expiring at the end of 2012 and given the UST said they were planning on initiating the PCF, our 'dear leader' Ed DeMarco decided to trade ALL FUTURE PROFITS INTO PERPETUITY IN LIEU OF THE PCF.
I don't buy that bullsh*t, but what I think doesn't matter, IT'S WHETHER OR NOT THE JURY IS GULLIBLE ENOUGH TO BE DUPED.
The CFPB case in the 5th Circuit will either be appealed to a full EnBanc Panel Petition or I believe that the Gubmint can skip that and petition the SCOTUS for a Writ of Certerrori (or do both?)
At any rate, this is a major Separation of Powers case and likely applicable to the FHFA as well (under the assumption that BOTH HERA/FHFA and Dodd Frank bypass Congressional appropriations and therefore usurp power from the Legislative Branch into the Executive Branch). Here's from the WSJ Editorial posted earlier today: "The law evades the Constitution's dictate that "no money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law." The Founders viewed "Congress's exclusive 'power over the purse' as an indispensable check on 'the overgrown prerogatives of the other branches of the government,'" Judge Cory Wilson writes for the unanimous appellate panel, citing the Federalist Papers.
Alexander Hamilton warned that uniting Congress's power of the purse with the executive's sword would "destroy that division of powers on which political liberty is founded, and would furnish one body with all the means of tyranny." The CFPB "is the epitome of the unification of the purse and the sword in the executive," writes Judge Wilson, in an opinion that seems destined for the Supreme Court.
Ms. Warren didn't take this well. She tweeted that the ruling will "stop the CFPB from enforcing rules that prevent debt collectors from harassing you" and "financial firms charging you outrageous junk fees." No, it will merely subject the bureau to proper supervision by Congress, as the Constitution intended."
Here, FHFA bypasses Congressional oversight by EXTRACTING ITS OPERATIONS EXPENSES FROM THE GSES (allegedly 2 private corporations), therefore HERA IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL!
What do the Supremes do WHENEVER A STATUTE LIKE HERA IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL? They wrestled with it in Collins, remember? Bulldozer (my fav !) OR Scalpel (Elizabeth's fav).
Even IF the SCOTUS uses the Scalpel (and in essence REWRITES LEGISLATION LIKE THEY DID IN COLLINS, A POWER RESERVED EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE LEGISLATURE USED ALOT IN CASES LIKE THIS) THEN THAT MEANS THAT THE FHFA WILL HAVE TO GET FUNDING FROM CONGRESSIONAL APPROPRIATIONS AND THEY MAY NOT GET IT!
Does that help any?
Not sure how to read Lamberth at this point, I think on the one hand he recognizes that HERA granted the FHFA tremendous powers for dealing with the 2008 financial crisis, but Nationalization of the twins compounded by the federal governments inability to take an inch of culpability here may have kept him neutral.
I don't think this case will be the final legal case as it relates to the federal government and the shareholders of the two financial intermediaries nationalized.
Stay tuned and we'll see what happens in the next episode of "As the never ending CONservatorship turns".....
Here's a fun WSJ Editorial from yesterday: CFPB Funding Is Unconstitutional
"The originalist legal revolution continues to pay dividends, and the latest evidence is a bombshell appellate ruling on Wednesday that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's (CFPB) funding scheme is unconstitutional. Congress's attempt to end-run political accountability for financial regulators has suffered a direct hit.
In 2010, before she was a Senator, Elizabeth Warren designed the CFPB to have extraordinary independence, and it passed as part of Dodd-Frank. In 2020 the Supreme Court struck down the law's limit on the President's ability to remove the CFPB director. But Democrats also severed its budget from Congressional appropriations by giving it an automatic funding draw on the Federal Reserve.
Each year the CFPB director simply requests funding from the Fed, which must transfer the money as long as it doesn't exceed 12% of the central bank's operating expenses. Most other regulatory agencies are subject to Congress's annual appropriations.
Companies challenged the CFPB payday lending rule in court and argued that the agency's unique funding scheme violates the separation of powers (Community Financial Services Assn. v. CFPB). A three-judge Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals panel agreed this week, explaining that the bureau's "double insulation from Congress's purse strings" is "unprecedented." It is double insulated because the Fed finances itself through bank assessments and earnings on its bond portfolio, not through Congress.
Dodd-Frank even dictates that "funds derived" from the Fed "shall not be subject to review by the Committees on Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the Senate." If Congress doesn't like what the CFPB is doing, tough. Members can't use appropriations to rein in the agency the way it can, say, the Internal Revenue Service.
The law evades the Constitution's dictate that "no money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law." The Founders viewed "Congress's exclusive 'power over the purse' as an indispensable check on 'the overgrown prerogatives of the other branches of the government,'" Judge Cory Wilson writes for the unanimous appellate panel, citing the Federalist Papers.
Alexander Hamilton warned that uniting Congress's power of the purse with the executive's sword would "destroy that division of powers on which political liberty is founded, and would furnish one body with all the means of tyranny." The CFPB "is the epitome of the unification of the purse and the sword in the executive," writes Judge Wilson, in an opinion that seems destined for the Supreme Court.
Ms. Warren didn't take this well. She tweeted that the ruling will "stop the CFPB from enforcing rules that prevent debt collectors from harassing you" and "financial firms charging you outrageous junk fees." No, it will merely subject the bureau to proper supervision by Congress, as the Constitution intended.
Ms. Warren added that the Fifth Circuit's logic "endangers the funding of numerous other bank regulators, including the Fed, OCC, and FDIC, which monitor our entire financial system." Possibly, if they were also insulated from political accountability in the same way. But they aren't. The opinion also stresses that these agencies don't wield "enforcement or regulatory authority remotely comparable to the authority the [bureau] may exercise throughout the economy."
The Senator denounced the "extreme right-wing" judges who wrote the opinion -- an attack on the political motives of judges that she may have learned from Donald Trump. But those same judges rejected the plaintiffs' other arguments that the payday lending rule violates the Administrative Procedure Act and the Constitution's nondelegation doctrine. We'd have ruled with the plaintiffs on those issues too, but the judges were hardly acting like a partisan wrecking crew.
The CFPB ruling continues the trend of originalist judges attempting to restore the proper understanding of the Constitution's separation of powers. This means reining in the administrative state and requiring Congress to reassert its powers in writing laws with specificity and funding the government.
In creating the CFPB, Congress abdicated its duty and created an agency that has too much unaccountable power. The Fifth Circuit has done its duty to call out the CFPB as Congress's illegitimate child."
I've told you this numerous times but you just don't believe me or you Donotunderstand, BUT THE MBS FANNIE/FREDDIE GUARANTEE IS IMPLICIT NOT EXPLICIT READ THE FIRST PAGE OF ANY FANNIE/FREDDIE MBS, IT SAYS SO RIGHT ON THE FRONT PAGE IN BOLD!
I wouldn't be so sure, the Supremes majority may feel like it's time to reign in the 4th Branch of Gubmint and their inherent abuses of power against the American People and their businesses.
Whenever you get a chance, read WV v EPA decided in June, it is a long standing trend of where the USSCT seems headed.
And post Collins, this wouldn't be the first time that the Supremes would have to decide whether or not to whip out the bulldozer on FHFA, right?
Since Clarence and Ginny live right down the street from me, maybe for Sh*ts and Giggles, I'll rent a John Deere for the weekend and drive by their house with "DO THIS TO FHFA" SIGN ATTACHED TO THE BULLDOZER!
HeeeHeee! This saga is SO MUCH FUN, ISN'T IT!
Well, here's a new twist in this ongoing soap opera of a clusterfu*k for shareholders: Will the Supremes eventually whip out the bulldozer on CFPB (and subsequently FHFA) in the latest 3 Judge Appealate Panel ruling in the 5th Circuit? P.S. Elizabeth Warren and Elena Kagan will be upset I'm sure !
AA in yesterdays WSJ:. "Ruling Casts Shadow on Work of CFPB
WASHINGTON -- An appellate court ruling that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is unconstitutionally funded could undermine the agency's work over its nearly 12 years of existence, legal experts said, including rules that ensure smooth functioning of the $13 trillion mortgage market.
The decision, by a three-judge panel of the Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans, is the latest blow to the consumer financial regulator that has long been politically polarizing.
If upheld, the decision would impede the bureau's ability to operate effectively, said Joann Needleman, a partner at the law firm Clark Hill PLC in Philadelphia. "It's going to cause havoc, it's going to cause a lack of clarity and massive confusion," she said.
The ruling could upend an array of current regulations and also invite fresh challenges to new rules from the agency, including planned restrictions around checking-account overdraft fees and lending to small businesses.
Wednesday's decision said the CFPB's funding structure violated the Constitution's doctrine of separation of powers, which sets the authority of the three branches of government. Congress has the sole power of the federal purse, and the bureau's funding structure undercuts that authority, the court said.
Under the agency's funding method, the CFPB director sets a budget he or she determines is necessary to fund the agency's mission and the funding comes from the Federal Reserve, subject to certain caps. The cap for the fiscal year that began Oct. 1 is $750.9 million, according to a bureau budget document.
While the court said the bureau didn't exceed its authority in writing 2017 restrictions on payday lenders, it nonetheless tossed out the rule as a product of the agency's "unconstitutional funding scheme."
That line of thinking could undermine the bureau's past rulemaking efforts and any steps to enforce those rules, particularly in the Fifth Circuit, which includes Mississippi, Louisiana and Texas, though financial firms would likely have to raise individual challenges to those measures.
"A payday lender in Louisiana or Texas could go to a court and say, 'I want you to enjoin the CFPB from examining me,' and I don't know how a lower court could avoid agreeing with that given this opinion," said Adam Levitin, a law professor at Georgetown University.
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and other industry groups sued the bureau in the Fifth Circuit last month over the agency's recent steps to combat potential discrimination in banking services. The groups argued in part that the initiative was funded unlawfully.
CFPB spokesman Sam Gilford disputed the reasoning behind Wednesday's ruling, saying other federal financial regulators are funded outside annual spending bills, as are programs such as Medicare and Social Security. "The CFPB will continue to carry out its vital work enforcing the laws of the nation and protecting American consumers," Mr. Gilford said.
The bureau could ask all the active judges on the appeals court to reconsider the decision or it could seek review by the Supreme Court.
Republican lawmakers cheered Wednesday's ruling, saying they agreed that Congress erred when it carved out the consumer bureau from the annual appropriations process in the 2010 Dodd-Frank financial law, which created the agency.
"The CFPB has been an unconstitutional and unaccountable agency since its inception," Sen. Pat Toomey (R., Pa.), said. "As the Constitution requires, the people's representatives shall determine how their tax dollars are spent. I'm glad to see the court agrees."
The bureau has largely survived legal challenges to its creation, and it didn't halt its work while separate litigation challenging its constitutionality wound its way to the Supreme Court, culminating in a ruling two years ago. While that 2020 ruling found that the bureau's structure was unconstitutional because its director held too much unchecked power, the court held the solution was to allow the president to remove the director for any reason. The court rejected broader legal arguments that it should strike down the bureau altogether.
Some legal experts and former bureau officials said the current case could pose a bigger threat to the agency than the 2020 litigation because there is no simple remedy for altering the bureau's funding source, especially with the likelihood of split power in Washington after the midterm elections.
"There is no fallback position here," said John Coleman, a partner at the law firm of Buckley LLP and a former CFPB deputy general counsel. "If the Supreme Court strikes down the CFPB's funding mechanism, it will likely be up to Congress to decide how to fix it."
If Wednesday's appellate court ruling were applied to the bureau's mortgage rules, it could bring the housing-finance industry grinding to a halt, some industry officials said. Those rules, among other things, ease the ability of lenders to comply with legal requirements that a borrower can repay their mortgage. Without those rules, lenders would face heightened legal exposure that could make them averse to issuing new loans, some officials said."
It seems pretty clear to me after listening to DeMarco on the stand that he and Uglioletti (I think these guys are Bush 2 appointments) saw an opportunity to kill the 'flawed GSE model' developed by the US Congress in 1968 and figured they are just doing the US Congress a favor by Nationalizing the GSES and that the bipartisan Warner/Corker bill would pass the Senate (which it did, but NOT THE HOUSE) would become law.
But guess what, that's not what HERA told him to do.
Now, Lamberth seemed to give the Jury a way to find for the federal government when he asked DeMarco in the trial (from his powerful position on the bench looking down), "So by agreeing to the NWS you eliminated the pcf?"
We'll see what happens with the jury, they are after all the ultimate deciders of the facts here.
Of course if the Judge is going to try the case for the Gubmint, I HOPE HE LOSES!
DeMarco said more than once that "policy considerations" were a major factor in implementing the NWS.
For the Plaintiff Shareholders the outcome of the NWS clearly violated the implicit contract between Shareholders and the corporation.
The government maintains that no, the shareholders should have incorporated HERA in their implicit contract and foreseen the NWS.
We'll see which one the Jury believes in a little while.
GLTA!
Thanks Bill! DeMarco went from ofheo to become the man with unchecked power to Nationalize the two major lynchpins of the Secondary Mortgage Market.
Quite an ascent in raw power from the largely limited and toothless ofheo to single handedly deciding on the future of the Secondary Mortgage Market for all Americans.
Todays WSJ calls Freddie Mac A FEDERAL AGENCY: "The Fed's rate increases have fueled higher mortgage rates. The average rate on a 30-year fixed-rate mortgage is the highest level in two decades, housing-finance agency Freddie Mac said Thursday."
DeMarco and Uglioletti WERE HELL BENT ON DESTROYING OUR ECONOMIC RIGHTS AND SHRINKING THE GSES AND PAVING THE WAY FOR THE US CONGRESS TO 'FIX THE BROKEN GSE MODEL'.
Guess what though, that's NOT WHAT HERA TOLD THEM TO DO AND UNELECTED DC BUREAUCRATS SHOULDN'T BE DECIDING MAJOR ECONOMIC QUESTIONS LIKE THE FUTURE OF THE SECONDARY MORTGAGE MARKETS IN THE US. CONGRESS SHOULD!
Well, let's see what my schedule looks like, M-F, unavailable in am but I'll probably get down there usually in the afternoons if I can.
Of course I'll update you the best as I can.
But the real culprits of the wiping out of our Economic Rights have made their appearances and it is shocking that Ed DeMarco would sign off the Plaintiff Shareholders Economic Rights into Perpetuity without even doing any economic modeling on the NWS and that he says that the NWS preserves and conserves the GSES.