THIS IS NELSON Wong,” Oxley said to Loughman after the break. “He’s with the Treasury Department. I relied heavily on him to structure our case.”

     “Thank you for coming.” Loughman shook his hand. They all sat down.

     “The question we were discussing when we last left off was: Ameritrade shows a negative $5,400 on its first statement to Ruskjer. It also shows $13,305 as the ending cash balance. Is it your understanding that this represents the addition of a $10,000 deposit to the $3,305 gained through the sale of 14 AGIX calls?”

     “Yes,” Wong said.

     “Mr. Oxley has asserted,” Loughman continued, “that this $5,400 is a loss which must be subtracted from the $13,305 cash balance in order to ascertain the true value of Ruskjer’s account. When this is done, the value drops to below $8,000, which, when compared to the original $10,000 deposit, would represent a loss of 21 percent.”

     “That’s correct,” Wong confirmed.

     “My question to him -- and now to you,” Loughman posed, “is: where in the Daily Activity Report that you have before you can I find this $5,400 loss?”

     “Well, sir,” Wong responded, “we don’t reference the activity report. We use the numbers Ameritrade provides on its monthly statements.”

     “Let me ask you this then,” Loughman said. “Does or does not the Daily Activity Report show every transaction that ever occurred in Ruskjer’s account?”

     “Could you repeat the question?” Wong had been listening to Oxley during the last question.

     “I’ll rephrase it, Loughman said. “Are there any transactions Ruskjer made with respect to his Ameritrade trading account that are not listed in the Daily Activity Report?”

     “Sir, I’m not sure what you’re driving at,” Wong said. “The monthly statement summarizes all of the transactions that were made during the period covered by that statement.”

     “I’m going to ask you one more time,” Loughman said, peering over his reading glasses, “do you agree or disagree with the following statement: ‘All gains and losses can be traced directly back to the Daily Activity Report.’ Agree or disagree, but don’t pontificate.”

     Wong started, “I would have to--”

     “Agree or disagree are the only words I want to hear come out of your mouth,” Loughman said sternly.

     “Agree,” Wong said slowly.

     “Thank you,” Loughman said, with a satisfied look on his face. “Now that wasn’t so difficult, was it, Mr. Wong?”

     “But--,” Wong began, but was immediately cut off.

     “Inasmuch as you just agreed that all gains and losses can be traced back to the Daily Activity Report,” Loughman said, sliding some papers across the table, “here is that report for the period covered by the first statement -- and beyond, if you need it.

     “Please find for me the transaction or transactions that substantiate the $5,400 loss you and Mr. Oxley say occurred during the period covered by this first statement.”

     “I can’t do that, sir,” Wong said.

     “Can’t, or won’t?” Loughman queried.

     “Can’t,” Wong responded.

     “Because?” Loughman asked.

     “Because it’s not going to be there,” Wong stated.

     “And why might that be?” asked Loughman.

     “Because it’s a contingent liability,” Wong explained.

     “I thought we just agreed that all gains and losses would be traceable to the Daily Activities Report.” Loughman waited for the trap to spring.

     “We did,” Wong said, “but this is a different kind of loss.”

     “Different or not,” Loughman said, “it’s still some kind of loss. I just heard you use that word. I know you said it. I saw your lips move!”

     Wong lectured, “It’s a potential loss -- a loss that hasn’t happened yet. That’s why it won’t show up in the time period covered by this statement.”

     “Well, Mr. Wong, this is your lucky day,” Loughman responded, smiling. “That’s why I gave you all 1,600 pages of Ameritrade’s Daily Activity Reports for Ruskjer’s account from September 2004 through December 2008. Knock yourself out.”

     “But,” Wong complained, “it may never show up.”

     “Don’t these calls have expiration dates?” Loughman asked.

     “Yes,” Wong said. “In this case, they all would expire on the third Friday of the next month.”

     “And they each have names?” Loughman pressed. “So if Ruskjer did buy them back, they would be fairly easy to find?”

     “That’s true,” Wong squirmed, “but--”

     “Take your time, Mr. Wong.” Loughman sat back in his chair and folded his arms across his chest. “We’ll wait.”

     “He never bought these particular calls back, sir,” Wong said.

     "Now,” Loughman said, leaning forward, putting both hands on the table, “you knew that without even looking, didn’t you, Mr. Wong?”

     “I did,” Wong said, “but that’s not the point. The point is, the industry has a standard for evaluating the value of an account. This $5,400 number is at the very heart of that standard.”

     "Frankly, Mr. Wong, I could give a rat’s ass about the so-called value of this account.” Loughman was speaking more rapidly.

     “Ruskjer made $3,305. That’s an established fact.

     “He did not lose $5,400.

     “It took a little arm-twisting, but we both agree, now, that this, too, is an established fact.

     “In my book that’s a 33-percent gain -- not a 22-percent loss, just as Ruskjer asserted in court.

     “Would it be safe to assume, Mr. Wong, that all of the government’s charts alleging losses in forty-nine out of fifty-one periods are predicated on these same potential losses?”

     “Yes,” Wong said, “but to be fair, these contingent losses correct themselves in the next statement. The total amount in error would only be one month’s contingent liability.”

     “Really. Really? You really want to go there, Mr. Wong?” Loughman was animated. “I’m game. Let’s do it!”

     “You still have in front of you all of the Daily Activity Reports and all of the statements ever issued to Ruskjer by Ameritrade. Would you kindly show me the $5,400 correction on either set of documents of which you speak?”

     “You can see very clearly,” Wong said “that the negative $5,400 only shows up on the first statement. It is missing from all subsequent statements.”

     “That’s your proof?” Loughman bellowed. “It’s missing from the others? To be a correction, it would have to be added back in somewhere. Where does that occur, Mr. Wong?

     “Your proof is like saying I erroneously accused you of murder on the front page of The Washington Post, and because I don’t say anything about it in tomorrow’s edition, I’ve issued a retraction!”