WOW! DeMarco's answer fits the that description perfectly. It's almost like someone saw DeMarco's answer/actions then wrote that definition. Sounds like a slam dunk but I don't take court actions at face value any longer based on the decade plus experience with the GSEs. I sometimes feel the courts decisions have been Arbitrarily "and" Unreasonable.
This is beginning to sound promising. Ladies are getting down to the nitty gritty. No beating around the bush like past courts have done. Sounds like the 4 jurors in favor of P's are attempting to convince 4 jurors in favor of D's that DeMarco's NWS decision was arbitrary and unreasonable. I'm impressed. Also, definitions supplied by Lamberth appear to be untainted.
I find that explanation 100% understanable and VIOLATED by no research no notes no alternatives no... no ---- not researched or studied - so arbitrary
At same time - I think the Judge -- being asked (in essence told the prior did not do the trick) --- should have used a different sentence of some sort
Any reasonable person who can distinguish between those differences so conclude harm by the Government in there actions against shareholders rights. Be it common or JPS.