Wow, Madclown!
You completely knocked this one out of the park!
I only wish that we (as a group on this Board), had found these little nuggets last week, so that our legal team (presumably, Hochman), could have further painted Chamberlain into a corner with her "minor little inconsistancies" between her "analyst reports" versus her sworn testimony.
In the first instance, she is putting out reports to the market, and omitting MATERIALLY ADVERSE INFORMATION that an ordinary investor would want to know. What other risk factor(s) are out there that you did NOT tell investors, Ms. Chamberlain? And you owned these securities at the time you put out these misleading reports?
She's committed a FRAUD ON THE MARKET by withholding this MATERIAL information that she so strongly testified about (i.e., that the Equity Risk of WaMu common was a DIRECT risk of the Dime Ltw, that there was a risk that in the event of a bankruptcy, that the Ltw's money reverts to a 3rd party such as JPMC, that WMI could wash away any Ltw liability simply through a §363 sale to a 3rd party, that the WMI BOD's owed NO FIDUCIARY DUTIES to the Ltw's, and in fact, had the option to nullify or void out any ownership interests of the holders of Ltw's at their own whims, etc.)
She must've forgotten to include that information her reports on these securities, where she was the only game in town, as far as analyst coverage was concerned. She also must've forgotten to tell Hochman about the seemingly diametrically opposed views that she has had (then vs. now), regarding the risks in the Ltw's, and how she now realizes that the risks were always there, she just kinda forgot to mention it. But she is emphatic NOW, that the above-refernced risks were ALWAYS there.
What we now know about "Dr." Charlotte "the TOTALITY of the Circumstances" Chamberlain, is that she is a BIG, FAT LIAR (and perhaps, a perjurer as well).
I would love to have heard the answer to Hochman asking her which of these two diametrically opposed views is the truth (if either), and which one(s) are the lie(s) (perhaps both). "We know that you are a liar, but were you lying THEN, or are you lying NOW? Or are you just such a liar that you wouldn't know the truth if it came up and bit you on your as.s?"
My hunch is that she would have explained that her answers are based on "the TOTALITY of the Circumstances," and that while each is mutually inconsistant with the other, that is what makes both (inconsistant) views true. Again, based on "the TOTALITY of the Circumstances," of course.
Some might equate this woman, with a common prostitute, a whore. But at least with a hooker, you know that you are going to get "F"ed in exchange for some money.
Here, we have this "lady" (who ain't no lady), getting paid to "F" investors back then, to "F" them now, or to have "F"ed them at any possible opportunity (without the counter-party knowing about it), so long as she could make a buck off of it. We know that she is a liar, and perhaps a perjurer as well. But then again, I'm just basing this on "the TOTALITY of the Circumstances" and the information available to us.
Is there anybody out there that wants to forward this to Team Steinberg? I'm assuming that they already have this, but I was just wondering if this should be forwarded, out of an abundance of caution.
Thoughts?
Ps: it might be too late for Steinberg to use this information, now that testimony has ended, but who knows if he can use it in his closing arguments, as part of the information that is out there for the entire world to see?
