Maybe you can help, but scotus saying nws is legal was based on a legitimate c-ship. So if c-ship is later revealed, officially, to be a fraud, then anything done within that fraud action is void.
So for now nws okay if c-ship is legit.
But revealed c-ship is not legit, then nws is not okay. Right?
Another question. Why would anyone expect a ruling to receive back dividends if gov is claiming to never have been paid. Wouldn't ruling back dividends to be paid out imply gov has been paid? How do some claim gov hasn't been paid while expecting back or current dividends? No one gets dividends while gov debt is still outstanding.
To be clear, I know they have been paid and dividends are owed, but as it stands it seems that some posts I read contradict themselves. Arguing that sps be converted to pay gov means they haven't been paid and if not paid then no one outside of treasury gets paid.
Also why would trump letter talk of theft socialism, scam, and travesty but want the gov to be paid twice on the sps and again with warrants? At best he referred to gov stake through warrants alone.
Trump saying theft implies money wasn't taken when it shouldn't have been. Meaning you (treasury) took more money than it was owed, meaning they have been paid what they were owed, meaning gov isn't owed that debt anymore. So excess money should be returned or at the least debt considered paid.
Now his call for warrants is wrong, but I still appreciate that letter and will cross the warrant bridge when we get to it.
Thoughts Guido or anyone else with some insight?
Thanks
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
