Honest Commentary. Independent Thinking. Civic Responsibility.

We’re Both Getting Dirty
Honest
Politics
By Brent Lambi
OPINION |
Charlie Munger said it plain. “Never wrestle with a pig. You
both get dirty, and the pig likes it.” I want to say something
today that an opposing party in active litigation almost never
says. Berkshire Hathaway and I are both being hurt. By the
same thing. And it isn’t each other.
Case No. CI 26-1752, Douglas County District Court. I sued
Berkshire Hathaway HomeServices entities for breach of a
Buyer’s Listing Agreement and defamation. Separately, I have
a federal civil rights and FOIA enforcement case pending in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska, Case No.
8:26-cv-00101-SMB-RCC, against components of the DEA,
DOJ, and DHS.
–
want my state defamation case bogged down. Discovery in my
state case touches my federal case. If my state case never produces
discovery, their exposure shrinks. Delay protects them.
Resolution exposes them.
Now here is what most writers would never admit. Berkshire
is not the villain in this story. Berkshire is bleeding too.
Count the costs. Defense counsel fees, billed by the hour, in a
case the math says should have settled. Insurance reserves tied
up. Brand exposure every week the case stays in the news. Discomes
cheap. Every dollar Berkshire’s insurer spends defending
this case past the point where settlement made sense is a
dollar shareholders will not see. Charlie Munger could have
done that arithmetic on a napkin.
fronts at once. Filing fees, transcripts, expert costs, the unrecoverable
hours of my own life. Reputation hits in a small civic-
journalism market. Stress I will not pretend does not exist.
–
ing a return on this litigation is the federal actor who bene-
Which raises the only question that matters: why is this case
still being fought the way it is being fought?
I do not believe Berkshire Hathaway HomeServices, as a
–
tine state defamation and breach-of-contract case this way.
for delay, not resolution. Discovery resistance that costs more
than the underlying claim. A posture that drives up fees on
both sides while the actual exposure sits unchanged.
When the math does not work, somebody else is doing the
calculations.
I believe — and I will say it directly — that the defense stratinterests
outside the four corners of the Berkshire Hathaway
HomeServices contractual relationship. A third party. One
with its own reasons. One whose interests are not Berkshire’s
interests, and are certainly not mine.
If that is true, Berkshire is not the defendant. Berkshire is the
host. And I am the bait.
Charlie Munger warned about exactly this. When you wrestle
walks away clean while everyone else is covered in mud and
short on cash.
who keeps pushing for more depositions, more delay, more
motion practice in a case that should have closed months ago.
Whose money is paying for this? Whose strategy is this actually
serving?
And then look at the door. I am open to resolution. I have
always been open to resolution. A buyer’s agency dispute is
not a constitutional crisis. It is a contract and a duty of care,
–
sion-makers want to talk — not the defense apparatus, the
actual decision-makers — the door is open.
One actor laughing.
–
ers, and for every lawyer billing on this case, is whether anyone
is going to do the obvious thing: stop wrestling each other, and
look at who let the pig in.
–
las County District Court, and in the matter docketed as Case
No. 8:26-cv-00101-SMB-RCC, U.S. District Court for the District
author’s observation of the proceedings. Nothing herein is inare
presumed entitled to a full and fair adjudication on the
merits. Honest Politics welcomes responses for publication.
Archive
Reader Feedback
Podcasts
Much More
June 14, 2026
The Shareholder Cost of
Defending the Indefensible
Why What I Believe Was Serious Misconduct by a Federal Employee Can
Damage a Trillion-Dollar Holding Company—and Why I, as Both Shareholder
and Plaintiff, Am Asking Berkshire Hathaway to Choose Truth
OPINION | June 17, 2026
I am, simultaneously, two things in connection
with this matter. I am the plaintiff
in Case No. CI 26-1752, suing Berkshire Hathaway
HomeServices Ambassador Real
Estate, its parent chain, for the defamation
against me. I am also a Berkshire Hathaway
shareholder. I attended Berkshire’s annual
meeting in Omaha in May 2026. I hold stock
in the parent company my lawsuit names.
This dual standing is not a contradiction.
It is, in my opinion, the strongest argument
I can make to Berkshire’s senior leadership:
our interests are aligned, not opposed.
In a typical defamation case, the plaintiff
and the corporate defendant pull in opposite
directions. The plaintiff wants maximum
recovery; the company wants minimum
payout. Each side burns through
years of legal expense to discover where
the truth lies. Both sides emerge poorer, regardless
of verdict.
My case is different. I do not want maximum
recovery at Berkshire’s expense, because
Berkshire’s expense is partly my expense.
Once as a plaintiff awaiting relief, and
once again as a shareholder paying for the
defense. Every additional month of delay by
defense counsel costs me twice. It costs every
other Berkshire shareholder once.
In my opinion, what is happening is this:
a single bad actor inside a federal agency
– specifically, what I believe to have been
a materially incorrect April 29, 2025 DEA
FOIA response concerning my own records
– has set in motion a cascade of damage
that now flows through one of the largest
holding companies in the world. None
of this had to happen. It is happening because,
somewhere in the federal apparatus,
my name was mishandled, my record was
distorted, and the distorted record leaked
downstream into commercial compliance
pipelines that touch every brokerage, every
bank, every counterparty.
Honest
Politics
By Brent Lambi
THE COST CASCADE
Let me describe how the damage flows, as
a shareholder would see it.
Litigation defense cost. The hours billed to
this case by outside counsel do not come
from nowhere. They are paid by a subsidiary,
consolidated into HomeServices of
America’s results, and rolled up into Berkshire.
The defensive posture in this matter,
which in my opinion, is to file a motion to
dismiss, refuse to identify counsel, and decline
pre-trial resolution, is itself the most
expensive option available. Honest engagement
would be cheaper. Settlement would
be cheaper still. Each escalation transfers
shareholder capital to outside counsel.
Executive bandwidth. HomeServices’ senior
leadership must be briefed on material
litigation. BHI’s general counsel’s office
must be briefed on litigation that could
reach the parent. Every hour spent on a defamation
case rooted in bad federal data is
an hour not spent on capital allocation, on
succession planning, on the operating businesses
Warren Buffett and Greg Abel exist
to oversee.
“I am not asking Berkshire to
defend what its subsidiary did.
I am asking Berkshire to let
its subsidiary tell the truth.”
Reputational exposure. Berkshire’s brand
is its most valuable single asset. Mr. Buffett’s
own formulation: “Lose money for
the firm and I will be understanding. Lose
a shred of reputation for the firm and I will
be ruthless” applies whether or not BHI’s
senior leadership is aware of this case today.
Defamation litigation paired with what
I believe is obstruction creates the precise
reputational headwind Berkshire’s culture
is supposed to prevent.
Reserve and disclosure consequences.
Material litigation eventually consumes
balance-sheet capacity. Even where
reserves stay below disclosable thresholds,
they affect insurance pricing on errorsand-
omissions and directors-and-officers
coverage. Banks and counterparties notice
the litigation profile.
Recruitment and retention. Quality real
estate agents, the people who actually generate
revenue for BHHS Ambassador, are
increasingly selective about culture and
compliance. A brokerage publicly defending
against unresolved defamation allegations
is a recruiting headwind. The cost
shows up as lost agent placements, lost listings,
and lost revenue per office.
Strategic distortion. Most consequentially,
every dollar and hour spent defending the
indefensible distorts strategy. Resources
that should go into expansion, technology,
and agent training go instead to outside
counsel. The opportunity cost is invisible,
but it is the largest line item of all.
THE UPSTREAM CAUSE
Now run the chain backwards. None of
these costs exist without the original injury.
If the federal record of me as a citizen
had been accurate, no compliance vendor
would have flagged me, no brokerage compliance
officer would have escalated, no
listing agent would have been primed to
believe what they were told. The contract
would have been honored. The alleged defamation
would not have occurred. There
would be no lawsuit. There would be no
defense costs, no executive distraction, no
reputational drag, no opportunity cost.
One bad federal employee and the costs
cascade through a trillion-dollar holding
company.
THE ASK
This is why, in my opinion, the argument
that honest testimony would clear my
name is not only personally important to
me. It is important from a fiduciary standpoint
to Berkshire Hathaway. The senior
leadership at BHI owes its shareholders,
including this one, a duty to take the cheapest,
fastest, most honest path through this
matter. That path runs through truthful
testimony. It does not run through continued
litigation tactics.
I am not asking Berkshire to defend what
its subsidiary did. I am asking Berkshire to
let its subsidiary tell the truth.

We’re Both Getting Dirty
Honest
Politics
By Brent Lambi
OPINION |
Charlie Munger said it plain. “Never wrestle with a pig. You
both get dirty, and the pig likes it.” I want to say something
today that an opposing party in active litigation almost never
says. Berkshire Hathaway and I are both being hurt. By the
same thing. And it isn’t each other.
Case No. CI 26-1752, Douglas County District Court. I sued
Berkshire Hathaway HomeServices entities for breach of a
Buyer’s Listing Agreement and defamation. Separately, I have
a federal civil rights and FOIA enforcement case pending in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska, Case No.
8:26-cv-00101-SMB-RCC, against components of the DEA,
DOJ, and DHS.
–
want my state defamation case bogged down. Discovery in my
state case touches my federal case. If my state case never produces
discovery, their exposure shrinks. Delay protects them.
Resolution exposes them.
Now here is what most writers would never admit. Berkshire
is not the villain in this story. Berkshire is bleeding too.
Count the costs. Defense counsel fees, billed by the hour, in a
case the math says should have settled. Insurance reserves tied
up. Brand exposure every week the case stays in the news. Discomes
cheap. Every dollar Berkshire’s insurer spends defending
this case past the point where settlement made sense is a
dollar shareholders will not see. Charlie Munger could have
done that arithmetic on a napkin.
fronts at once. Filing fees, transcripts, expert costs, the unrecoverable
hours of my own life. Reputation hits in a small civic-
journalism market. Stress I will not pretend does not exist.
–
ing a return on this litigation is the federal actor who bene-
Which raises the only question that matters: why is this case
still being fought the way it is being fought?
I do not believe Berkshire Hathaway HomeServices, as a
–
tine state defamation and breach-of-contract case this way.
for delay, not resolution. Discovery resistance that costs more
than the underlying claim. A posture that drives up fees on
both sides while the actual exposure sits unchanged.
When the math does not work, somebody else is doing the
calculations.
I believe — and I will say it directly — that the defense stratinterests
outside the four corners of the Berkshire Hathaway
HomeServices contractual relationship. A third party. One
with its own reasons. One whose interests are not Berkshire’s
interests, and are certainly not mine.
If that is true, Berkshire is not the defendant. Berkshire is the
host. And I am the bait.
Charlie Munger warned about exactly this. When you wrestle
walks away clean while everyone else is covered in mud and
short on cash.
who keeps pushing for more depositions, more delay, more
motion practice in a case that should have closed months ago.
Whose money is paying for this? Whose strategy is this actually
serving?
And then look at the door. I am open to resolution. I have
always been open to resolution. A buyer’s agency dispute is
not a constitutional crisis. It is a contract and a duty of care,
–
sion-makers want to talk — not the defense apparatus, the
actual decision-makers — the door is open.
One actor laughing.
–
ers, and for every lawyer billing on this case, is whether anyone
is going to do the obvious thing: stop wrestling each other, and
look at who let the pig in.
–
las County District Court, and in the matter docketed as Case
No. 8:26-cv-00101-SMB-RCC, U.S. District Court for the District
author’s observation of the proceedings. Nothing herein is inare
presumed entitled to a full and fair adjudication on the
merits. Honest Politics welcomes responses for publication.
Archive
Reader Feedback
Podcasts
Much More
June 14, 2026
The Shareholder Cost of
Defending the Indefensible
Why What I Believe Was Serious Misconduct by a Federal Employee Can
Damage a Trillion-Dollar Holding Company—and Why I, as Both Shareholder
and Plaintiff, Am Asking Berkshire Hathaway to Choose Truth
OPINION | June 17, 2026
I am, simultaneously, two things in connection
with this matter. I am the plaintiff
in Case No. CI 26-1752, suing Berkshire Hathaway
HomeServices Ambassador Real
Estate, its parent chain, for the defamation
against me. I am also a Berkshire Hathaway
shareholder. I attended Berkshire’s annual
meeting in Omaha in May 2026. I hold stock
in the parent company my lawsuit names.
This dual standing is not a contradiction.
It is, in my opinion, the strongest argument
I can make to Berkshire’s senior leadership:
our interests are aligned, not opposed.
In a typical defamation case, the plaintiff
and the corporate defendant pull in opposite
directions. The plaintiff wants maximum
recovery; the company wants minimum
payout. Each side burns through
years of legal expense to discover where
the truth lies. Both sides emerge poorer, regardless
of verdict.
My case is different. I do not want maximum
recovery at Berkshire’s expense, because
Berkshire’s expense is partly my expense.
Once as a plaintiff awaiting relief, and
once again as a shareholder paying for the
defense. Every additional month of delay by
defense counsel costs me twice. It costs every
other Berkshire shareholder once.
In my opinion, what is happening is this:
a single bad actor inside a federal agency
– specifically, what I believe to have been
a materially incorrect April 29, 2025 DEA
FOIA response concerning my own records
– has set in motion a cascade of damage
that now flows through one of the largest
holding companies in the world. None
of this had to happen. It is happening because,
somewhere in the federal apparatus,
my name was mishandled, my record was
distorted, and the distorted record leaked
downstream into commercial compliance
pipelines that touch every brokerage, every
bank, every counterparty.
Honest
Politics
By Brent Lambi
THE COST CASCADE
Let me describe how the damage flows, as
a shareholder would see it.
Litigation defense cost. The hours billed to
this case by outside counsel do not come
from nowhere. They are paid by a subsidiary,
consolidated into HomeServices of
America’s results, and rolled up into Berkshire.
The defensive posture in this matter,
which in my opinion, is to file a motion to
dismiss, refuse to identify counsel, and decline
pre-trial resolution, is itself the most
expensive option available. Honest engagement
would be cheaper. Settlement would
be cheaper still. Each escalation transfers
shareholder capital to outside counsel.
Executive bandwidth. HomeServices’ senior
leadership must be briefed on material
litigation. BHI’s general counsel’s office
must be briefed on litigation that could
reach the parent. Every hour spent on a defamation
case rooted in bad federal data is
an hour not spent on capital allocation, on
succession planning, on the operating businesses
Warren Buffett and Greg Abel exist
to oversee.
“I am not asking Berkshire to
defend what its subsidiary did.
I am asking Berkshire to let
its subsidiary tell the truth.”
Reputational exposure. Berkshire’s brand
is its most valuable single asset. Mr. Buffett’s
own formulation: “Lose money for
the firm and I will be understanding. Lose
a shred of reputation for the firm and I will
be ruthless” applies whether or not BHI’s
senior leadership is aware of this case today.
Defamation litigation paired with what
I believe is obstruction creates the precise
reputational headwind Berkshire’s culture
is supposed to prevent.
Reserve and disclosure consequences.
Material litigation eventually consumes
balance-sheet capacity. Even where
reserves stay below disclosable thresholds,
they affect insurance pricing on errorsand-
omissions and directors-and-officers
coverage. Banks and counterparties notice
the litigation profile.
Recruitment and retention. Quality real
estate agents, the people who actually generate
revenue for BHHS Ambassador, are
increasingly selective about culture and
compliance. A brokerage publicly defending
against unresolved defamation allegations
is a recruiting headwind. The cost
shows up as lost agent placements, lost listings,
and lost revenue per office.
Strategic distortion. Most consequentially,
every dollar and hour spent defending the
indefensible distorts strategy. Resources
that should go into expansion, technology,
and agent training go instead to outside
counsel. The opportunity cost is invisible,
but it is the largest line item of all.
THE UPSTREAM CAUSE
Now run the chain backwards. None of
these costs exist without the original injury.
If the federal record of me as a citizen
had been accurate, no compliance vendor
would have flagged me, no brokerage compliance
officer would have escalated, no
listing agent would have been primed to
believe what they were told. The contract
would have been honored. The alleged defamation
would not have occurred. There
would be no lawsuit. There would be no
defense costs, no executive distraction, no
reputational drag, no opportunity cost.
One bad federal employee and the costs
cascade through a trillion-dollar holding
company.
THE ASK
This is why, in my opinion, the argument
that honest testimony would clear my
name is not only personally important to
me. It is important from a fiduciary standpoint
to Berkshire Hathaway. The senior
leadership at BHI owes its shareholders,
including this one, a duty to take the cheapest,
fastest, most honest path through this
matter. That path runs through truthful
testimony. It does not run through continued
litigation tactics.
I am not asking Berkshire to defend what
its subsidiary did. I am asking Berkshire to
let its subsidiary tell the truth.

We’re Both Getting Dirty
Honest
Politics
By Brent Lambi
OPINION |
Charlie Munger said it plain. “Never wrestle with a pig. You
both get dirty, and the pig likes it.” I want to say something
today that an opposing party in active litigation almost never
says. Berkshire Hathaway and I are both being hurt. By the
same thing. And it isn’t each other.
Case No. CI 26-1752, Douglas County District Court. I sued
Berkshire Hathaway HomeServices entities for breach of a
Buyer’s Listing Agreement and defamation. Separately, I have
a federal civil rights and FOIA enforcement case pending in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska, Case No.
8:26-cv-00101-SMB-RCC, against components of the DEA,
DOJ, and DHS.
–
want my state defamation case bogged down. Discovery in my
state case touches my federal case. If my state case never produces
discovery, their exposure shrinks. Delay protects them.
Resolution exposes them.
Now here is what most writers would never admit. Berkshire
is not the villain in this story. Berkshire is bleeding too.
Count the costs. Defense counsel fees, billed by the hour, in a
case the math says should have settled. Insurance reserves tied
up. Brand exposure every week the case stays in the news. Discomes
cheap. Every dollar Berkshire’s insurer spends defending
this case past the point where settlement made sense is a
dollar shareholders will not see. Charlie Munger could have
done that arithmetic on a napkin.
fronts at once. Filing fees, transcripts, expert costs, the unrecoverable
hours of my own life. Reputation hits in a small civic-
journalism market. Stress I will not pretend does not exist.
–
ing a return on this litigation is the federal actor who bene-
Which raises the only question that matters: why is this case
still being fought the way it is being fought?
I do not believe Berkshire Hathaway HomeServices, as a
–
tine state defamation and breach-of-contract case this way.
for delay, not resolution. Discovery resistance that costs more
than the underlying claim. A posture that drives up fees on
both sides while the actual exposure sits unchanged.
When the math does not work, somebody else is doing the
calculations.
I believe — and I will say it directly — that the defense stratinterests
outside the four corners of the Berkshire Hathaway
HomeServices contractual relationship. A third party. One
with its own reasons. One whose interests are not Berkshire’s
interests, and are certainly not mine.
If that is true, Berkshire is not the defendant. Berkshire is the
host. And I am the bait.
Charlie Munger warned about exactly this. When you wrestle
walks away clean while everyone else is covered in mud and
short on cash.
who keeps pushing for more depositions, more delay, more
motion practice in a case that should have closed months ago.
Whose money is paying for this? Whose strategy is this actually
serving?
And then look at the door. I am open to resolution. I have
always been open to resolution. A buyer’s agency dispute is
not a constitutional crisis. It is a contract and a duty of care,
–
sion-makers want to talk — not the defense apparatus, the
actual decision-makers — the door is open.
One actor laughing.
–
ers, and for every lawyer billing on this case, is whether anyone
is going to do the obvious thing: stop wrestling each other, and
look at who let the pig in.
–
las County District Court, and in the matter docketed as Case
No. 8:26-cv-00101-SMB-RCC, U.S. District Court for the District
author’s observation of the proceedings. Nothing herein is inare
presumed entitled to a full and fair adjudication on the
merits. Honest Politics welcomes responses for publication.
Archive
Reader Feedback
Podcasts
Much More
June 14, 2026
The Shareholder Cost of
Defending the Indefensible
Why What I Believe Was Serious Misconduct by a Federal Employee Can
Damage a Trillion-Dollar Holding Company—and Why I, as Both Shareholder
and Plaintiff, Am Asking Berkshire Hathaway to Choose Truth
OPINION | June 17, 2026
I am, simultaneously, two things in connection
with this matter. I am the plaintiff
in Case No. CI 26-1752, suing Berkshire Hathaway
HomeServices Ambassador Real
Estate, its parent chain, for the defamation
against me. I am also a Berkshire Hathaway
shareholder. I attended Berkshire’s annual
meeting in Omaha in May 2026. I hold stock
in the parent company my lawsuit names.
This dual standing is not a contradiction.
It is, in my opinion, the strongest argument
I can make to Berkshire’s senior leadership:
our interests are aligned, not opposed.
In a typical defamation case, the plaintiff
and the corporate defendant pull in opposite
directions. The plaintiff wants maximum
recovery; the company wants minimum
payout. Each side burns through
years of legal expense to discover where
the truth lies. Both sides emerge poorer, regardless
of verdict.
My case is different. I do not want maximum
recovery at Berkshire’s expense, because
Berkshire’s expense is partly my expense.
Once as a plaintiff awaiting relief, and
once again as a shareholder paying for the
defense. Every additional month of delay by
defense counsel costs me twice. It costs every
other Berkshire shareholder once.
In my opinion, what is happening is this:
a single bad actor inside a federal agency
– specifically, what I believe to have been
a materially incorrect April 29, 2025 DEA
FOIA response concerning my own records
– has set in motion a cascade of damage
that now flows through one of the largest
holding companies in the world. None
of this had to happen. It is happening because,
somewhere in the federal apparatus,
my name was mishandled, my record was
distorted, and the distorted record leaked
downstream into commercial compliance
pipelines that touch every brokerage, every
bank, every counterparty.
Honest
Politics
By Brent Lambi
THE COST CASCADE
Let me describe how the damage flows, as
a shareholder would see it.
Litigation defense cost. The hours billed to
this case by outside counsel do not come
from nowhere. They are paid by a subsidiary,
consolidated into HomeServices of
America’s results, and rolled up into Berkshire.
The defensive posture in this matter,
which in my opinion, is to file a motion to
dismiss, refuse to identify counsel, and decline
pre-trial resolution, is itself the most
expensive option available. Honest engagement
would be cheaper. Settlement would
be cheaper still. Each escalation transfers
shareholder capital to outside counsel.
Executive bandwidth. HomeServices’ senior
leadership must be briefed on material
litigation. BHI’s general counsel’s office
must be briefed on litigation that could
reach the parent. Every hour spent on a defamation
case rooted in bad federal data is
an hour not spent on capital allocation, on
succession planning, on the operating businesses
Warren Buffett and Greg Abel exist
to oversee.
“I am not asking Berkshire to
defend what its subsidiary did.
I am asking Berkshire to let
its subsidiary tell the truth.”
Reputational exposure. Berkshire’s brand
is its most valuable single asset. Mr. Buffett’s
own formulation: “Lose money for
the firm and I will be understanding. Lose
a shred of reputation for the firm and I will
be ruthless” applies whether or not BHI’s
senior leadership is aware of this case today.
Defamation litigation paired with what
I believe is obstruction creates the precise
reputational headwind Berkshire’s culture
is supposed to prevent.
Reserve and disclosure consequences.
Material litigation eventually consumes
balance-sheet capacity. Even where
reserves stay below disclosable thresholds,
they affect insurance pricing on errorsand-
omissions and directors-and-officers
coverage. Banks and counterparties notice
the litigation profile.
Recruitment and retention. Quality real
estate agents, the people who actually generate
revenue for BHHS Ambassador, are
increasingly selective about culture and
compliance. A brokerage publicly defending
against unresolved defamation allegations
is a recruiting headwind. The cost
shows up as lost agent placements, lost listings,
and lost revenue per office.
Strategic distortion. Most consequentially,
every dollar and hour spent defending the
indefensible distorts strategy. Resources
that should go into expansion, technology,
and agent training go instead to outside
counsel. The opportunity cost is invisible,
but it is the largest line item of all.
THE UPSTREAM CAUSE
Now run the chain backwards. None of
these costs exist without the original injury.
If the federal record of me as a citizen
had been accurate, no compliance vendor
would have flagged me, no brokerage compliance
officer would have escalated, no
listing agent would have been primed to
believe what they were told. The contract
would have been honored. The alleged defamation
would not have occurred. There
would be no lawsuit. There would be no
defense costs, no executive distraction, no
reputational drag, no opportunity cost.
One bad federal employee and the costs
cascade through a trillion-dollar holding
company.
THE ASK
This is why, in my opinion, the argument
that honest testimony would clear my
name is not only personally important to
me. It is important from a fiduciary standpoint
to Berkshire Hathaway. The senior
leadership at BHI owes its shareholders,
including this one, a duty to take the cheapest,
fastest, most honest path through this
matter. That path runs through truthful
testimony. It does not run through continued
litigation tactics.
I am not asking Berkshire to defend what
its subsidiary did. I am asking Berkshire to
let its subsidiary tell the truth.