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.
It was nothing but straightforward b…shit
What happened to „Escrows can’t be deleted by the LT“?
Interestingly you never present any evidence for your claims
“Honi soit qui mal y pense“
Yep, then he should maybe explain why COOP is lying in their official proxy statements, which they have to file with the SEC.
Of course he can‘t do that.
There is no such proof of course.
On the contrary COOP‘s 2022 Proxy Statement (filed with the SEC) explicitly disproves your ridiculous statements that COOP is a subsidiary of a parent entity.
In a few weeks COOP will file again a legally binding proxy statement with the SEC which will again show that it is not the subsidiary of another parent entity.
You will continue to make the assertion that COOP is the sub of another entity (which however you don’t name)
Only one of these statements can be true - which one is it?
COOP is not the subsidiary of any other group or entity.
We KNOW this from the company‘s official proxy statement, which shows no parent holding a majority or other large chunk of COOP shares, the only large >5% shareholders identified are Blackrock with 14 and Vanguard with around 9%.
Of course you will continue to make these claims just like all the others.
https://s1.q4cdn.com/275823140/files/doc_financials/2022/sr/COOP-2022-Proxy-Statement.pdf
This of course has (again) nothing to do with Escrows or JP Morgan - because it relates to BROOKFIELD.
Is there any foreseeable point in time when you will stop making these ludicrous claims?
There are still many people who believe AZ simply because he is making (completely ridiculous) claims which they desperately WANT to be true.
And of course the LT didn‘t inform anyone but you about the “many qualifying actions“ which needed to be taken to receive payments, so that you could receive a payment
They ONLY told you because that‘s exactly how trustees work…
So you think that the LT would just completely change the rules and process on Escrow payouts without telling anyone other than AZ? Seriously, how credible is that?
So the LT was saying that non-US investors can get paid.
And AZ is now saying that they can‘t.
Obviously one of them is by defintion not telling the truth.
He can‘t show you such a document because it doesnt exist.
My guess is that he will either ignore the question, hoping that it will go away - or he will claim confidentiality reasons under his ^NDA^
2 weeks later not a shred of evidence that this actually happened or that anyone else also received payment
Also absolutely no information from the LT about this new process incl need to get vetted, the requirement for Rosen to instruct Doreen etc or the restriction of payouts to US ctizens etc.
Still people continue to believe her or AZ
amAZing…
Alice has (i) never presented a single piece of actual evidence for her claims (ii) lost all of her lawsuits (iii) had to withdraw all of her remaining lawsuits. I think she also paid a penalty.
There is no connection between the WMB Bonds and Escrows (and being US citizens).
I dont know why some people continue to believe someone who claims to be the sole and only recipient of such payments.
There is no interest rate on shares - among many other reasons because shares have no nominal amount which anyone could pay interest on.
It’s not plausible to claim that certain contractual private property rights won’t apply to non US citizens - without any such restriction ever having been made public over the last 10+ years.
And again not a shred of evidence from the ONLY person claiming to have received any payment - including any explanation why only US citizens would be eligible for a payout from their securities.
But of course this happened, right?
Had to be ordered to be vetted' by the "wmi-lt" (rooosssie' directed mine to be done by D')
Of course - if you can legally buy the bonds you have the same rights as any other holder.
AZ pretends that the rules who can receive smth (I.e. only accredited investors, only US citizens etc) can just be arbitrarily changed without any notice or documentation.
Can you imagine the sheer volume of litigation that would follow from any such restrictions?
Interesting, you continue to make reference to documents, but dont say what kind of documents or post a link to them - why is that?
There is (aside from your word) not a shred of evidence to support the thesis that the validity and enforceability of contractual rights to private property should be subject to US citizenship - without this massive restriction having been made public in the many many publically available documents since 2008.
AZ was very clear that his payment related to Common shares:
~ Related to Released WMI Common Shares' and the WMI Wells Fargo Property Trustee ... I Have Told You' / Everyone', the WMI Preferred were managed by a Sub' ... now managed by WMIH' ~
So the DTCC has told you that no payment was made - and AZ reports receiving such a payment.
Your evidence for the requirement (which you had NEVER mentioned before) to have US citizenship to receive Escrow payouts:
Absolutely none whatsoever.
And you continue to be the only one claiming to have received any money.
So the LT decided to make a one-off payment to one (!) claimant for old WaMu common shares based on Doreen‘s vetting - without disclosing anything about this required vetting process to any other potential claimants.
Interesting!
You mean that to have a valid claim you have to be a US citizen?
I guess that there no proof at all for this statement in any document because someone told you privately, right?
So the LT
(i) devised a whole new set of criteria for former Escrow holders to be paid
(ii) told no no one about this in any official communication
(iii) told you privately
(iv) vetted your claim
(v) forwarded your details to WF to get paid.
Seriously?
What a lucky coincidence that you (and only you) met all these criteria.
Interesting that you never mentioned before that only a “US Participating Member“ could receive anything
This surely will be news to many of your fans.
You did - but literally no one else.
And you expect people to believe this, right?
None of this happened in all likelihood - its just a way to explain why no-one else has received similar payments / will receive such payments.
Do you honestly believe that a (former) administrator of the LT would privately vet just one claim (particularly from a personal friend) and forward it to Wells Fargo to be paid?
Can you imagine the sheer number of lawsuits, if this were true?
So, ... it was Doreen L, ... that subsequently sent my "vetted" personal information, my WMI / WMB Note Holdings and my associated Wells Fargo Internal Accounts Routing and Account number, to the Washington Mutual Inc. Wells Fargo Indentured / Property Trustee ... in the event that any returns were to be distributed ...
Of course - and that explains why only you got paid, because only you got vetted by Doreen of course….
It looks like a fabrication - literally no one else reported any such Wamu-related payment.
The FDICs seizure only applied to WMB - so the FDIC wouldnt have seized off-BS assets because these by definition were not WMB assets.
Also the FDIC is not on the hook for anything, if in the end L > A (which seems virtually certain) the junior WMB bond holders will just carry the loss.
Why would the distribution of any off-balance sheet assets held on behalf of former WMI shareholders be contingent on the conclusion of the FDIC resolving the remaining WMB receivership issues?
Why can’t these assets (provided they exist) be distributed now instead of waiting many more years for the the FDIC to finish?
This again has nothing to do with WaMu, Escrows etc.
Its a dividend for Brookfield Asset Management - that‘s why it says
Brookfield Asset Management (NYSE: BAM) has declared $0.14/share quarterly dividend.
No idea, why you like to claim otherwise.
Because the FDIC is still pursuing claims against third party who originated faulty mortgages which WMB repackaged and sold - leading to financial liabilities
https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/fdic-seeks-to-recover-wamu-s-losses-for-9648976/
Ok, the 299B claim against JPM exists but simply doesn’t get reported anywhere, isn’t discussed by JPM investors on message boards, isn‘t mentioned in any 8-K by JPM, meaning that there is not a single source for this.
Interesting that there is literally ZERO news around a 299B claim against JPM.
Why do you think that is?