Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Thanks AZ Always good hearing from you.
Thanks AZ and congrats!
It’s cool seeing you post again AZ . Thanks
Merry Christmas all!
Thanks for the updates AZ
Thanks Az always appreciate hearing from you!
Everything is fine.Thanks AZ.Appreciate it!
Thanks AZ.Always good to hear from you.
I received a 1099.Its a trading account no IRAs.
Yes boarddork.I was on board post a long time with same username.
I have mine boarddork from TD.
Merry Christmas everyone!
Thanks for sharing that goodietime.A guy like that in our corner is so awesome.
Thanks AZ good to hear from you.
Thanks Bban
Thanks Lodas
Thanks AZ.Appreciate it.
Appreciate it AZ Thanks!
Thanks AZ
Thanks AZ!
Thanks AZ
Thanks AZ!
Thanks AZ for all you do.When you speak of dividends paid will they be paid on cusips also?
Yes me too.Very interesting.
From Dmd this morning on bp : The following thread (LSF9 Master Participation Fund) was locked so I brought this info here:https://www.boardpost.net/forum/index.php?topic=13581.0___________________Per Neil Garfield post as of October 09, 2019:https://livinglies.me/2019/10/09/patrick-giunta-esq-scores-another-homeowner-win-in-south-florida-v-us-bank-trustee-lsf9-master-participation-trust-william-paatalo-expert-testifies/“ Patrick Giunta Esq. Scores Another Homeowner Win in South Florida v US Bank Trustee LSF9 Master Participation Trust: William Paatalo, Expert TestifiesPosted on October 9, 2019 by Neil GarfieldForeclosure volume has declined but that doesn’t reduce the number of cases that are deficient and even fraudulent.As more senior Judges have more time to review the evidence, the legal presumptions sought by foreclosure mills and come to conclusions about the facts, they are increasingly suspicious about the claimant, the claim and the failure of proof of real facts.Kudos again to trial lawyer Patrick Giunta, Esq. with offices in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida. Trial was held on October 7, 2019. This is the third time we have covered a win by Giunta. “Final Judgment for Defendant Case #50-2017-CA-012236, 10/8/19Circuit Court West Palm Beach, FloridaORDERED AND ADJUDGED AS FOLLOWS: Plaintiff failed to prove it had standing to enforce the note. On Count I, Mortgage Foreclosure, and Count II Re-establishment of Lost Note, Plaintiff US Bank as Trustee for the LSF9 Master Participation Trust take nothing by this action and the Defendants …. shall go hence without day.”Game set and match. The Judge here obviously sought to prevent the foreclosure mill from bringing another action.Some judges upon finding that standing was lacking follow precedent and dismiss without prejudice enabling the foreclosure mill to try again. But more judges are taking great pains to examine the evidence and are coming to the legal conclusion that the Plaintiff’s proof failed.Upon a factual finding of failure to prove a prima facie case, the court then enters Final Judgment, which for all purposes between that claimant and that borrower is a final determination on the merits. Any future attempts to foreclose by US Bank or the LSF9 Master Participation Trust are barred by res judicata, collateral estoppel and the Rooker Feldman Doctrine if it applies.If any attempt is made to bring another foreclosure action in the name of another entity, trust, LLC or corporation, they would also likely be barred without pleading and proving real facts that show that the Plaintiff is the owner of the debt and paid value for it and the previous parties had executed assignments and other documents without any right, justification or excuse and without notice to the new claimant. That isn’t going to happen.Giunta doesn’t take a lot of these cases but when he is engaged he tends to win. He understands securitization and relates it back to the failure to prove a prima facie case. He avoids trying to prove or even accepting the burden of proving who actually paid value for the debt, if anyone.He employed Bill Paatalo in this case whose testimony underscored the deficiencies in the allegations, the documents, and the proof. Paatalo appeared as an expert fact witness.”_______________Per previous thread on LSF9:https://www.boardpost.net/forum/index.php?topic=13581.0“ IMO...My conclusions as of December 26, 2018:1) JPMC did not own the portfolio mortgages ($231 billion within the bankruptcy proceedings which the FDIC had legal rights to seize)but rather only owned the rights to service the portfolio loans.https://mfi-miami.com/2017/11/jpmorgan-chase-1/"Faulty Mortgage AssignmentsIn the early years of the financial crisis, foreclosure mill attorneys hired by JPMorgan Chase argued they had Operation of Law. Attorneys argued JPM-Chase was not required to record mortgage assignments. They argued JPMorgan Chase bought Washington Mutual lock, stock, and barrel. This was not entirely true. JPMorgan Chase purchased Washington Mutual assets within days of Washington Mutual going into FDIC receivership. Lawyers made these arguments until December of 2012 when the Michigan Supreme Court ruled in Kim v JPMorgan Chase. The Court ruled that JPMorgan Chase was required to record mortgage assignments on the public record. The court ruled JPMorgan Chase did not acquire Washington Mutual as a corporate entity. Instead, they acquired assets of the company through a third party, the FDIC. The court ruled a chain of ownership of the mortgage must be recorded with the Register of Deeds. Other states soon followed. This created a mad dash by JPMorgan Chase lawyers to record mortgage assignments.In their mad dash to cover their ass, JPMorgan Chase lawyers ignored the white elephant in the room. That elephant was the Washington Mutual bankruptcy that was playing out in federal court in Delaware. The Bankruptcy Court finalized plans to transfer all of all remaining Washington Mutual assets to WMI Liquidating Trust. This order went into effective 3/19/2012. This was months before the Kim ruling in Michigan. The order also set a date to close out the FDIC responsibilities as the Receiver for Washington Mutual. The court set the date of 12/23/2014 as the final day the FDIC could act as Attorney-In-Fact for Washington Mutual. The lawyers used by MFI-Miami successfully argued that mortgages assigned after 3/19/2012 needed to come from WMI Liquidating Trust. They argued the FDIC no longer had an interest."2) JPMC proceeded to sell the portfolio loans to LSF9 Master Participation Fund3) LSF9 Master Participation Fund doe not have a clear chain of title.4) Ultimately, US Bank, N.A. is the legal trustee of LSF9 Master Participation Fund not US Bank Trust, N.A.5) This is just more proof that the "House of Cards" that the underwriters and originating lenders started is all rigged.What does this all have to do with WMI?My answer: 1) JPMC did not have legal ownership of the portfolio loans ($231 billion) within the jurisdiction of bankruptcy proceedings (FDIC receivership). JPMC only owned the servicing rights. JPMC still needs to compensate WMI for the portfolio loans.2) The WMILT/WMI Escrow Marker Holders are the rightful owners of the portfolio loans ($231 billion) along with all the beneficial interests in the bankruptcy remote securitized loans that were transferred to MBS Trusts ($692 billion securitized between 2000-2008 & I calculated that WMI participated in about 26.24% of all the securitized loans).“______________________IMO...my conclusions as of October 09, 2019 @ 0900 CST:1) The post by Neil Garfield as of October 09, 2019, is proof of another defective chain of title within the LSF9 Master Participation Fund.2) I contend that all the chains of title are defective within the LSF9 Trusts3) JPMC never owned the legal title to any securitized loans created by WMI SUBSIDIARIES.4) The rightful ownership of the securitized loans revert back to the last verifiable owners in the chain of title (WMI subsidiaries who acted as originators/sponsors/depositors)5) IMO...the rightful owners of the WMI subsidiaries are the WMI Escrow Marker Holders. on bp
Thanks AZ
Thanks Bbanbob.Still haven't forgotten got chair and cake!Enjoy your posts!
So true Boris,well said!
Thanks AZ for your postings.They are much appreciated.
Thanks AZ appreciate it and all your help.
AZ you think the debentures will be released by the 26th ? That would be awesome!
Thanks Royal Dude
Royal appreciate your posts.What should this mean to us? Thanks onward