News Focus
News Focus
icon url

YanksGhost

03/06/19 10:04 PM

#510518 RE: RickNagra #510515

Just a point of order in the Collins en banc... the GOV are plaintiffs. They brought the suit.
icon url

Guido2

03/06/19 10:35 PM

#510520 RE: RickNagra #510515

Can’t add to a masterpiece. Great post Rick.
icon url

bradford86

03/06/19 10:51 PM

#510521 RE: RickNagra #510515

that's one way to look at it.

the en banc to me is a win, but i don't think we'll get a ruling.
icon url

Doc.007

03/07/19 12:19 AM

#510525 RE: RickNagra #510515

Hi Rick - Thank You. For me it's also nice to see that you can do such a good post.

Today as seen in the Chart, it was a typical Shorts Day demonstrating well what they can do and resulting even by Increased Volume ended in The Red.
Please help promoting The Cost-Free Stocks Protection Against Shorts I introduced, because it's the only thing we can do something to reduce them. We have Daily about 40 - 50 % Shorts Volume instead only Max. 10% !

Beside, maybe You should speak with your Brother Viagara for not spending too much time with his Girlfriend Niagara.

icon url

Release us

03/07/19 1:59 AM

#510528 RE: RickNagra #510515

Great post!! It's good to remind everyone of our very real possibility of a win in this case.

I guess we're about a month and a half into their deliberation.

So that's approx. 43 days. Someone said earlier that about 60 days is the normal time for a verdict.

So I guess in about 17 more days they will announce. Lol jk
icon url

Golfbum22

03/07/19 2:41 AM

#510529 RE: RickNagra #510515

Nice post

But what if this admin wants to lose en banc?

They sure did play the cards they want to with pulling the challenge of constitutional part of FHFA

This would be the biggest Trump play of them all if they wait for en banc ruling and then blame all on Obama for NWS and stealing etc etc

I know I am saying a pipe dream

But what if it's true?

It might be. Who knows

Lol
icon url

Donotunderstand

03/07/19 9:32 AM

#510572 RE: RickNagra #510515

I agree - that is the reason for the enbanc

however - a part of me remembers the GOV wanted it too>

was it this case where the GOV was not happy with the split of obligations and did not want any obligations (a ruling that denied all but specific obligations - expectations)

was it this case where initially the GOV was arguing about the legality of the FHFA structure?

help
icon url

jcromeenes

03/07/19 3:17 PM

#510670 RE: RickNagra #510515

I certainly hope you are correct. There have been times in the past that I thought, nearly 100%, we had a win. We all know how those have gone. I surely is time justice is served. Let's see how it goes.