Mr Cooper Group Inc (COOP)

[AZCowboy]

~ ItsMyOption, Yes, I Will Do My Best ~

So First ? I begin with the knowledge of all of the non-stop nonsense that ... we' ... have all put up with, ... by a group of "intertwined" BOD's and WMI-LT representatives' ... their combined silence regarding relevant issues ? is NOT appreciated'

Second, ... I have extensively studied and researched the, WMI II (the WMB Action) dual tracking litigation in Judge Collyer's Court' ... which as stated earlier, the Claims were originally filed on Dec 30th, 2008 and the actual litigation began in March 2009'

Third, ... I done my best to have followed and segregated all of the associated case numbers' ... Both' WMI and WMI II

Fourth, ... DB' had already actually filed with the Court, a request to be allowed to be an "intervenor" in WMI II, (the WMB Action) ... Document # 83 (Pacer) ... and, was specifically addressed by Judge Collyer, and, DENIED their request ... Document # 97' ... and' ... I found her reasoning stated, quite impressive' and interesting' ...

So, that is what I know ? and why I can not understand just how in the heck, DB appears to be inserting itself into a WMI II litigated result, where Judge Collyer, has already denied DB to be able to insert themselves as an "intervenor" (document # 97)

So, these are my reasons for referring to this Cal Probate issue as a "distraction" and that it would or should be considered to be "third party" ...

I hoped that helped'

AZ