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.
Well to some extent, the Lamberth trial will be about dumbing it down a little to an easy comprehendible story or theme throughout the trial and for the target audience the 10 to 12 Jurors.
Most random citizens likely think Fannie Mae is a candy company and haven't a clue about the WTF these bone head experts are talking about when they get deep into the weeds of the financial analysis, especially as it relates to Damages.
Clearly the good guys in this soap opera is the Plaintiff Shareholders, who have seen the ENTIRETY OF THEIR ECONOMIC RIGHTS VAPORIZED by the evil federal government agency heads.
We'll see what happens and good luck to you Bro, and I hope you do well no matter what class you own and most importantly that this horrific assault on American Capitalism by our dear leaders does not go unnoticed.
The Lamberth trial is simply a breach of contract case. In all contract law, one party has a duty to perform and the other party has a duty to pay.
The Shareholders duty here was to provide equity cash to the corporations. The corporations duty here was to share any profits from the business with its shareholders, NOT TRANSFER ALL THOSE PROFITS IN PERPETUITY TO A 3RD PARTY IN RETURN FOR NOTHING!
Imagine over the weekend the Board of Directors of Microsoft passed a resolution to transfer ALL the corporations future profits into perpetuity to the US Treasury in return for nothing.
If you were a Shareholder wouldn't you be upset? Who would you sue? The corporations? Yes
If the corporation was being run by a Conservator who was in complete legal control of these decisions wouldn't you sue them?
What's shocking here is that the federal government through two agents, here, DeMarco (FHFA) and the US Treasury, doesn't think its done anything wrong.
We'll see what happens and GLTA.
I'm seriously doubt it, but we'll see.
Monday is my only fully available day as I'm booked up in the mornings Tuesday through Friday, but I will try to run down there and watch the Voir Dire proceedings and give you guys an update whenever I am able.
My only regret is that I will likely miss the testimony of 'our favorite dear leaders' whose fingerprints are all over the Net Worth Swipe and the subsequent wiping out of our Shareholder Economic Rights, those 2 'mental giants', former FHFA Director Ed DeMarco and his side kick, 'I'll be in pleasant retirement receiving $10,000/month Gubmint checks for the rest of my life if I lie under oath in a Deposition', Mario Uglioletti !
Ohhh, Good times, Good times!
Not on this one DoNot. Here, the Lamberth trial is about 1 issue ONLY - Did Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac breach the implied contract that ALL Shareholders have with the companies the Shareholders own shares in?
Any potential monetary (versus nominal) damages awarded by the Jury will likely be paid for by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac with cash to the JPS Shareholders and/or Freddie Mac common and a decrease to Retained Earnings on the Corporations balance sheets.
FHFA is the 3rd Defendant in this Litigation simply because the FHFA as the CONservator 'steps into the shoes' of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. I think they are Judgment proof on this one because of the SWEEPING POWERS that protect FHFA in HERA whenever they 'step into the shoes' of the enterprises!
Although I wonder if a Defacto Nationalization ruling one day might result in the federal government (the true culprit here) becoming liable and on the hook under Principal/Agent legal doctrine.
What will be fun to watch or later read the court transcript will be DeMarco and Uglioletti on the stand.
We'll see what happens. Good luck to you and I hope your JPS shares and/or any common do well AFTER the verdict and damages are announced.
When was this Litigation initiated in the Lamberth court, 2013, and finally we are beginning our 1st trial.
From what I gleaned from the hearing earlier this week, it sounds as if DeMarco was basically a yes man for the UST and didn't even bother to study all the implications of the Sweep nor completely understand exactly what he was doing.
Either that or all the relevant juicy disclosure can't see the light of day because Executive Privilege and/or the National Security applies to the answer of that question.
Will the trier of fact (here, the 8 member Jury with 2 alternates) be able to have a limited in camera view of these documents or are they buried forever in secrecy to protect our 'dear leaders' arses?
I'm guessing that from a legal strategy point of view the Fannie Mae common Plaintiff Shareholders are hedging against a loss in Lamberth's trial, but I could be wrong.
A tremendous amount of legal fees have been invested to date on these blue chip firms and so far the results have been pyrric victories at best.
Either way I'm always rooting for the Rule of Law and the US Constitution and even though we are all portrayed by the media as, "evil hedge fund guys/evil mortgage banksters" and not hard working American Families and Retirees, I'm enjoying watching the significant legal, financial, and federal government implications of this bizarre chapter in American Capitalism versus Socialism.
But I don't really know the answer to your question, as I haven't done the research, but would imagine somehow a meaningful damages award in the Lamberth trial would be good for Fannie Mae common as well.
I see our Fulcrum friends are still peddling the Dilution Solution and Instant Recap theories. The current Litigation on 333 Constitution Avenue would only result in funds being transferred to JPS and/or Freddie Mac common shareholders from the GSES retained earnings of approximately $90B.
But even that scenario, a non pyrrhic win in the Lamberth trial will likely be appealed at least on procedural grounds to the next higher up court by Uncle Suggy (we are after all paying Uncle Suggy's bill here, a byproduct of this 15th year of CONservatorship).
Didn't Sandra L Thompson at her confirmation hearing tell us she's waiting for the US Congress to come up with a legislative solution for GSE Reform?
Isn't the Financial Establishment lobbying The Hill for an EXPLICIT GOVERNMENT GUARANTEE from the twins.
I think this status quo unfortunately will continue for awhile but how this saga ends is difficult to figure out.
Check it out Clarence, the MBA is still peddling the EXPLICIT GOVERNMENT GUARANTEE for the twins on the Hill and even admits that Sallie Mae's exit and the subsequent Nationalization of Student Loans is a disaster.
Minute Mark 21:00
Tim Rood's On the Hill Podcast:
https://www.situsamc.com/resources-insights/podcasts/hill-episode-17-bob-broeksmit-mba-president-ceo
This is a fundamental problem that the Financial Establishment in the United States continues to do a full court press on the Hill and with local politicians that, "Legislative Reform of the GSES WITH AN EXPLICIT GOVERNMENT GUARANTEE IS NECESSARY"
Sandra L Thompson and apparently Steve Munchin/Mark Calibria was too scared to release them WITHOUT MORE CAPITAL and absent Legislative Reform.
There was quite a bit of chuckling in the courtroom when Judge Lamberth uttered those words when Uncle Suggy was opposed to letting in Evidence proposed by Plaintiffs and objected to Uncle Suggy as not falling under the Hearsay Exception rules under the Federal Rules of Evidence.
Guess who he ruled in favor of on that one?
But I'm pretty sure Lamberth gets What's going on here.
NO QUESTION THAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS ABUSED THIS 14+ YEARS OF CONSERVATORSHIP FOR ITS OWN PERSONAL GAIN AT THE EXCLUSIVE EXPENSE OF THE SHAREHOLDERS.
Is there some type of legal theory that would result in a successful recovery by shareholders and/or the Corporations to challenge the 10 year NWS for what it really is and hold the federal government accountable for its federal governmental overreach?
Will any portion of any possible meaningful damages received in the Lamberth trial be used to hire some blue chip legal firms to look into launching new legal challenges against this arbitrary and capricious raping of American Capitalism by Uncle Suggy?
Stay tuned my friends, for the next episode of Days of Our CONservatorship Lives!
That's the Proposed DEFENDANTS JURY INSTRUCTIONS (AKA UNCLE SUGGY ! )
Notice how PLAINTIFFS JURY INSTRUCTIONS on DAMAGES don't mention WHERE the damages will come from.
Judge Lamberth's homework this weekend is to decide which of the NON AGREED TO Jury Instruction and Verdict Forms will be used by the Jury in Deliberations.
Since the CONservatorship began on September 06, 2008, the FHFA has 'stepped into the shoes' of the Corporations.
HERA has absolved FHFA of financial responsibility for irresponsible and reckless decision making like the Net Worth Swipe.
FHFA has clearly violated our implicit Shareholders Economic Rights by transferring them to the UST using their HERA granted power to implement the NWS.
But that implicit contract is between the Corporations and their Shareholders only, hence any monetary judgments will come from the cash side of the corporate balance sheet and into the pockets of JPS and/or Freddie Mac common shareholders and reduce Retained Earnings on a dollar for dollar basis.
But don't worry the money will be in the owners of the Corporations pockets and not added to the LP.
Plaintiffs Proposed Jury Instruction v. Defendant Proposed Jury Instruction (This is what J. Lamberth will decide over the weekend, which one, Skepi, looks like a new wager proposal for you to posit with your fellow board members ) !
PLAINTIFFS PROPOSED:
INSTRUCTION NO. 31
Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing3
In all contracts, each party to the contract has an obligation to comply with the implied
covenant of good faith and fair dealing.
A party to a contract violates the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing if it acts
arbitrarily or unreasonably, thereby frustrating the parties’ original expectations at the time of
contracting. Where a contract confers discretion on one of the parties to the contract, the other
party has a reasonable expectation that the party with discretion will not exercise that discretion
arbitrarily or unreasonably in a way that deprives the other party of the benefits of the bargain.
In this case, while the shareholder contracts allowed Defendants to exercise discretion as
it relates to the payment of dividends to the Plaintiffs (i.e., the private shareholders of Fannie Mae
and Freddie Mac), Defendants’ exercise of that discretion violated the implied covenant if it deprived Plaintiffs of the possibility of such dividends arbitrarily or unreasonably, thereby
frustrating the fruits of the bargain that the Plaintiffs reasonably expected.
Similarly, while the Housing and Economic Recovery Act (“HERA”) authorized the FHFA
to act in the best interests of the GSEs, the FHFA, or the public, the FHFA's exercise of that
statutory authority violated the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing if it arbitrarily or
unreasonably deprived Plaintiffs of the possibility of receiving future dividends, thereby
frustrating the fruits of the bargain that the Plaintiffs reasonably expected.
Thus, to establish a claim for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing,
Plaintiffs must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Defendants arbitrarily or
unreasonably deprived Plaintiffs of the possibility of receiving dividends in the future. In
determining whether Defendants acted arbitrarily or unreasonably, you should consider all
information available to Defendants when they agreed to the Net Worth Sweep.
VERSUS DEFENDANTS PROPOSED:
INSTRUCTION NO. 32
Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing
All contracts, including Plaintiffs’ shareholder contracts, are deemed to include a term
known as the “implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.”
9
In this context, the word
“implied” means that this term of the contract is not set out in any written document, but rather is
deemed by law to be a term of the contract.
10
The implied covenant requires a party in a
contractual relationship to refrain from arbitrary or unreasonable conduct that violates the
reasonable expectations of the other party to the contract at the time of contracting.
11
The implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing does not create duties outside the
contracting parties’ agreement.
12
Instead, “good faith” simply means that parties must be faithful
to the terms of their agreement and its purpose.
13
And “fair dealing” does not require contracting
parties to act fairly, but rather to act consistently with the agreement’s purpose and terms, even if
you think those terms are unfair.
14
In this case, Plaintiffs allege that FHFA, by entering into the Third Amendment, breached
the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by eliminating any future possibility of
dividends to private shareholders of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, thereby causing a decline in
the market price of Plaintiffs’ shares of the Companies. Defendants deny this claim.
To establish a breach of the implied covenant, each set of Plaintiffs has the burden to
prove that FHFA, in its role as the Companies’ Conservator, acted arbitrarily or unreasonably by
entering into the Third Amendment, thereby violating the reasonable expectations of Fannie Mae
and Freddie Mac shareholders at the time of contracting.
Each group of Plaintiffs must prove the alleged breach by a preponderance of the
evidence. If you find that any group of Plaintiffs failed to prove the alleged breach by a
preponderance of the evidence, then your verdict must be for Defendants as to that set of
Plaintiffs.
If you find that any group of Plaintiffs has proved the alleged breach by a preponderance
of the evidence, you must then determine whether the breach harmed that group(s) of Plaintiffs financially. If you find that any group of Plaintiffs has proved both a breach and financial harm
caused by that breach, then you must determine the amount of damages, if any, incurred by that
group of Plaintiffs. Damages means monetary compensation.
Now DAMAGES:
DEFENDANTS PROPOSED INSTRUCTIONS:
INSTRUCTION NO. 34
Harm and Damages
Now I am going to talk to you about issues of harm and damages. If and only if you find
that any group of Plaintiffs has satisfied its burden to prove a breach of the implied covenant as
described above, then you must decide the question of financial harm as to that group of
Plaintiffs. Once again, each group of Plaintiffs has the burden to prove by a preponderance of
the evidence that they sustained financial harm caused by the Third Amendment. If you find that
any group of Plaintiffs failed to prove that they sustained financial harm caused by the Third
Amendment, then your verdict must be for Defendants as to that group of Plaintiffs.
If you find that any group of Plaintiffs has proved financial harm caused by the Third
Amendment, then you must determine the amount of damages (monetary compensation) to
award, if any, to that group. Each group of Plaintiffs has the burden to prove the amount of their
damages with reasonable certainty.30
Reasonable certainty in this context does not require exact
or mathematically precise proof of damages or that future damages are absolutely certain to
occur, but it does require a reasonable basis to make such an estimate.
31
But you may not award
damages that are speculative, based on guesswork, or dependent upon remote possibilities that
are not reasonably certain to occur.32
You may only award an amount of damages that you find
any group of Plaintiffs proved with reasonable certainty.
If you find that any group of Plaintiffs proved both a breach of the implied covenant and
financial harm from that breach, but that they have failed to prove the amount of damages with
reasonable certainty, then you may award a nominal sum of damages to that group of Plaintiffs,
such as $1.00. Nominal damages are not given as an equivalent for the wrong but rather merely
in recognition of a technical injury and by way of declaring the rights of Plaintiffs.
Any damages award that you make in this case will be the responsibility of Fannie Mae
and/or Freddie Mac. Neither FHFA nor the Director of FHFA nor the federal government will
be responsible for any damages award in this case.
It is up to you to decide the extent of any damages that have been proved and what the
appropriate measure of compensation is for those damages. In determining the amount of any
damages that you decide to award, you should be guided by dispassionate common sense. You
must use sound discretion in fixing the amount of damages, drawing reasonable inferences from
the facts in evidence. You may not award damages based on sympathy, prejudice, speculation,
or guesswork. A party that is harmed by a breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing
is entitled to damages in an amount calculated to compensate them for the harm caused by the
breach. The compensation should place the injured party in the same position they would have
been in if the breach had not occurred.
You may not award any punitive damages in this case. This means that you may not base
any monetary award on a desire to punish Defendants, to prevent their conduct from being
repeated in the future, or to warn others not to engage in such conduct. Any monetary award that
you make in this case must be calculated solely to provide fair compensation to Plaintiffs for any
actual injuries that you find they sustained, and on no other basis.
The fact that I have instructed you about the proper measure of damages should not be
considered as my suggesting which party is entitled to your verdict in this case, or that any of
Plaintiffs are entitled to any damages award at all. Instructions about the measure of damages
are given for your guidance only if you find that a damages award is in order.
VERSUS PLAINTIFFS PROPOSED:
INSTRUCTION NO. 34
Damages for Breach of the Implied Covenant6
A party that is harmed by a breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing
is entitled to damages in an amount calculated to compensate it for the harm caused by the breach.
Thus, if you find that Defendants breached the implied covenant, then Plaintiffs are entitled to
recover damages equal to the loss in the value of their shares that they prove was reasonably caused
by the Net Worth Sweep.
If you find that Plaintiffs are entitled to a verdict in accordance with these instructions, but
do not find that they have sustained actual damages, then you may return a verdict for them in
some nominal sum. Nominal damages are not given as an equivalent for the wrong but rather
merely in recognition of a technical injury and by way of declaring the rights of the party.
"The question of whether that implied covenant is breached depends on whether defendants took actions that unreasonably or
arbitrarily frustrated or interfered with the reasonable contractual expectations of shareholders."
Oh, this is going to be a lot of fun, exposing the federal government overreach to everyday Americans !
Especially for Mario Uglioletti:
INSTRUCTION NO. 18
Impeachment by Prior Inconsistent Statements18
You have heard evidence that a witness previously made statements and that these
statements may be inconsistent with the witness’ testimony here at trial. It is for you to decide
whether any of these prior statements was made and, if one or more was made, whether it is
inconsistent with the witness’ testimony during this trial. If you find that any prior statement is
inconsistent with the witness’ testimony here in court, you may consider this inconsistency in
judging the credibility of the witness.
In one respect, the law treats prior statements that are inconsistent with court testimony
differently depending on whether or not the prior statement was made under oath. If the prior
inconsistent statement was made under oath, you may consider the statement as evidence that
what the witness originally said was true. If the prior inconsistent statement was not under oath,
you may not consider it as evidence that what the witness said in the earlier unsworn statement
was true. Whether or not the prior inconsistent statement was under oath, you may consider the
inconsistency in judging the witness’ credibility.
And here's one for my favorite Gubmint overreach official, Jimmy P. :Indeed, the testimony of a single witness, which you
believe to be the truth, is enough to prove any fact.
Looks like we will finally be able to have our first trial, will a Jury be as outraged from the outrageous federal government overreach as we are? Time will tell and sooner than later.
Stay tuned my friend and make sure you let me know what day you will be selling.
That's Yuge!
The TBTF are smiling all the way with the status quo, TRIPLE THE GFEES, CRIPPLE THEIR BUSINESS COMPETITIVENESS AND BUY TIME TO TRY TO CONVINCE THE US CONGRESS TO ADD $8T+ IN MBS ON THE FEDERAL BALANCE SHEET AND MAKE THE MBS GUARANTEE EXPLICIT NOT IMPLICIT!
Oh Grumpy Grandpa, there's a light at the end of tunnel here. Don't worry if this 1st Round of Litigation fails (it's got the Skepi guarantee to fail after all), we'll just go to Round 2, wait until you see what I've got cooking for Uncle Suggy in Round 2 !
Sure go ahead and pooopooo it! But I'm fortunate enough to not be concerned about something as trivial as pecuniary gain or loss and INSTEAD am more concerned with the type of federal government my kids and grandkids will have to endure!
You may initiate the b*tching and moaning in 3, 2, .....
Exactly! No man or Gubmint agency is above the law! Not in my country, sir!
Sandra, by now, WE ALL KNOW that DeMarco and Watt were TOTALLY CLUELESS HOW THE GSES WORK, YOU'RE MUCH BETTER THAN THEY WERE! You understand and appreciate American Capitalism and respect the banking system, realizing that Privately Run Corporations do a better job at delivering value for hard working American Families than HUD.
Let's start working on a Plan B, centered around compromise NOT being adversaries!
Hugs and kisses - the 'Evil Shareholders' !
Sandra L Thompson baby, not only did the Net Worth Swipe breach the shareholders implicit covenant with the GSES, likely violated the 5th Amendment Takings Clause, and was a major Executive Branch overreach into the Legislative Branches powers to determine National Economic Policy but you and your self appointed Legal Counsel need to start planning on a PLAN B to settle with us 'EVIL AMERICAN CAPITALIST SHAREHOLDERS!'
Sandra can you tell Sherrod Brown's right hand man that the Shareholders are starting to keep you up at night and maybe we need to come up with a COMPROMISE HERE?
Historically unprecedented! Uncle Suggy breaches the implicit contract between Shareholders and their Corporations and takes ALL THE COMPANIES ECONOMIC RIGHTS FOR ITSELF!
(only in Amerika my friends!).
Let's GO TO THE VIDEO on "the DAY AFTER", August 18, 2012:
“You guys did a remarkable job on the PSPAs this week. You delivered on a policy change of enormous importance that’s actually being recognized as such by the outside world (or the reasonable parts anyway), and as a credit to the Secretary and the President. It was a very high risk exercise, which could have gone sideways on us any number of ways, but it didn't – great great work.”vi
Another internal e-mail from Mario Ugoletti (former Senior Advisor to the Director at FHFA, and previously a senior official at Treasury), clearly shows that Treasury – not FHFA – was clearly calling the shots:
“Close Hold: As a heads up, there appears to be a renewed push to move forward on PSPA amendments. I have not seen the proposed documents yet, but my understanding is that largely the same as previous versions we had reviewed in terms of net income sweep, eliminating the commitment fee, faster portfolio wind down, and a de minimis safe harbor for ordinary course transactions.”
Later that day, in a separate email, Mr. Parrott states that Wallison’s comments to Bloomberg News about the Net Worth Sweep were “exactly right on substance and intent.”x The comments to which Mr. Parrott appears to refer are Mr. Wallison in a Bloomberg News article: “The most significant issue here is whether Fannie and Freddie will come back to life because their profits will enable them to re-capitalize themselves and then it will look as though it is feasible for them to return as private companies backed by the government . . . What the Treasury Department seems to be doing here, and I think it’s a really good idea, is to deprive them of all their capital so that doesn’t happen.”xi In other emails sent around the same time, Parrott said that under the Net Worth Sweep, the “Dividend is variable, set at whatever profit for quarter is, eliminating ability to pay down principal (so they can’t repay their debt and escape as it were).”xii Parrott also indicated that the aim of the Net Worth Sweep was “ensuring that [the Companies] can’t recapitalize” by “clos[ing] off the possibility that they ever go ... private again.”xiii"
Consistent with Parrott’s statements, in a deposition transcript released last week, Fannie’s Chief Financial Officer Susan McFarland testified that she “didn’t believe that Treasury would be too fond of a significant amount of capital buildup inside the enterprises.”xv Indeed, a February 2012 Treasury document on housing finance reform proved her correct, as it reveals that Treasury’s actions were premeditated and motivated by a desire to “restructure the PSPAs to allow for variable dividend payment based on net worth” as a transition step towards winding down the Companies.xvi The day before the announcement of the Third Amendment, an internal Treasury document makes clear that the Administration’s goal was tied to its willingness to violate HERA and “desire to wind down the GSEs as quickly as possible ... by taking all of their profits going forward, we are making clear that the GSEs will not ever be allowed to return to profitable entities at the center of our housing finance system.”
"They'll NEVER GO PRETEND PRIVATE AGAIN!". Jim Parrott UST
"We will SALT THE EARTH WITH THE SHAREHOLDERS CARCASSES"
Jimmy, Jimmy, Jimmy, don't you think that's an abusive and coercive use of governmental power? Wouldn't that be a breach of the implied contract the GSES have with their Corporations and Shareholders?
I know right! Maybe if the injustice to shareholders is eventually remedied I will remodel one of the bathrooms in my office with the foot pedal lavatory (that's urinal to us little people !)
Sidebar:. The floor tiles were retro as well and I might duplicate that as well! "Hey bailiff, I saw a man taking a picture of the luvee in the bathroom, seems suspicious, DOESN'T IT!"
That would have been hilarious! No, I looked around the audience and either I am getting a lot older (HeeeHeee!) or they all looked like law students taking notes in suits! A couple of people were wearing casual wear. Almost everyone in there was taking copious notes, the guy behind me said he worked for a NY real estate news service and when I was walking out of the courtroom I ran into the Bloomberg reporter. I asked if his name was Joe Light and he never said who he was but he did ask if I was a Shareholder and I said "Yes" and I told him that "you guys have to stop with the Evil hedge fund guys' narrative, and I told him there is a bigger story here for what Uncle Suggy did to us."
At which point I flushed the foot pedal on the urinal (that urinal must be from the 1950's BUT STILL WORKS GREAT!) having concluded my business with BOTH Michael Bloombergs biased reporter AND the matter immediately at hand !
I hear you there, but the reason I am perhaps more optimistic is that I have come to the realization that the wheels of Justice move slowly in the court system and although it takes plenty of time to figure out bizarre fact patterns like this one, they USUALLY do the right thing in the end.
Will that happen here? Don't know, but you're skepticism has been spot on and given the well reasoned opinion of the 5th Circuit EnBanc Panel 16 Judge opinion, many of us were optimistic that Collins was the perfect case (on a Silver Platter) for SCOTUS to rein in this type of unacceptable Gubmint overreach.
SCOTUS are textualists and refused that one, but will they hold up our Constitutional Rights in the Takings Cases eventually?
I think I already know your answer but that's not really the one that matters here is it?
Uncle Suggy has, let me put this as eloquently as I can, ""Fuc**d the sh*t out of us and this is the 15th year of this!"
How much longer injustice will be prevail and whether or not justice will prevail at all is the question.
This is one of the most bizarre conservatorships in world history and quite frankly the fact that Uncle Suggy refuses ANY CULPABILITY HERE AND REMAINS SO RECALCITRANT is quite disturbing for this particular hard working American Shareholder.
GLTU!
But guess what, it only matters what the 'expert witnesses' can and cannot say to the Jurors. But no question, WE'VE LOST VALUE IN THE BILLIONS!
I'm pretty booked up next Tuesday through Friday in the morning, but I'll try to get down there in the afternoon if I have time and the trial is still going on that particular afternoon.
BTW, anyone can attend and (at least for now !) don't forget to bring a mask, luckily they had extra (not previously used either ).
But EVERYONE HAD THEIR MASK ON EXCEPT FOR THE BIG GUY AND ATTORNEYS AT THE LECTURN, and Judge Lamberth made it sound like next week will be super busy at the courthouse with multiple trials going on (I think he said over 1,000 prospective Jurors will be called to show up next week!)
I'm quite sure that they will see the injustice inflicted upon the shareholders, part 2 is for them to come up with a figure for damages with 'reasonable certainty', as I understand it.
No question we've lost value here, but tell me what you think your peers on the Jury will decide?
Why are you in a hurry? Do you really believe that the wheels of Justice are going to move quickly just because you need your stolen retirement funds back from Uncle Suggy?
Hint:. Uncle Suggy has already spent it's ill gotten bounty and last time I checked his checking account had a balance of -$31,000,000,000,000.00.
Although the UST has a printing press that produces little pieces of paper that could cover any monetary judgments against him.
Ugoletti and DeMarco are being thrown under the bus by Uncle Suggy after a DECADE PLUS of injustice, I'm interested to see what he has to tell the Jury.
I just hope I don't miss the real star appearance in this trial, the 'mental giant' Ed DeMarco, who together with UST, GAVE AWAY OUR COMPANIES FOR NOTHING IN RETURN!
He will probably end up testifying in the morning next week and I'm booked up in the mornings, but there will be court transcripts to read at some point in the future.
GLTA! And say what you will about American Democracy BUT at least we have an opportunity to question our 'dear leaders'in a public forum and have a Jury of our peers decide whether or not Uncle Suggy stole our Economic Rights!
No question about it. Look at the original complaint filed in what like 2013. We are watching Uncle Suggy get away with a tremendous amount of Shareholder wealth. This Nationalization of private American corporations right in front of our noses does not bode well for the future of American Capitalism and look at what happens when countries incorporate Nationalization, it backfires and produces very unpleasant results for its Citizens and the Economic well being of a country.
When I worked at Fannie Mae between 1988 and 1993, the average Guaranty Fee paid by the American Family mortgagor was 20 to 25 BPS , today its approximately 60 BPS.
One of the byproducts of all this litigation is that we are pinning down legal precedence in these cases and the Judiciary is drawing boundaries that may or may not be beneficial in pending and future litigation.
Hamish and another very good Plantiffs lawyer argued that (and it's in the reply brief to one of the final pretrial evidentiary motions) that emdedded in the post NWS Shareholder value is that investors believe something as outrageous as the NWS will be overturned by a court eventually. So there's kind of a mini debate today in Judge Lamberth's courtroom about what type of expert witness reports and/or witnesses will be allowed to testify or include into evidence this 'lost value' calculation.
I think part of the problem here is, "what is the 'lost value' of our shares from immediately prior to the NWS and figure that amount out with 'reasonable certainty'? At least I think that's what the Jury will try to decide.
Does Navy or anyone have the proposed Jury Instructions which Judge Lamberth will decide on this weekend? They were one of the latest filings.
What do you think Uncle Suggy was arguing about all afternoon to Judge Lamberth asking to exclude the emails for evidentiary reasons (mainly hearsay!). But Lamberth cracked a joke degrading the Gubmint counsel about it, yeah Lamberth gets it but he will rule by what the law says and that is not always black and white.