Replies to post #22377 on Mesa Offshore Trust (fka MOSH)

[boxsterX]

Further observation on the Trustee's opposition:

Mr. Stamper is not trying to rewrite the trust indenture, rather merely recognizing the long-standing principle that a fiduciary trustee cannot profit (even by avoiding the cost of paying for its own legal fees) by its own misdeeds to the trust for which it is acting as trustee [e.g. its breach of fiduciary duty]. Obviously, the settlement cannot be approved at this stage, as it would preclude a finding on whether or not the trustee breached this fiduciary duty, even by taking its fees out of the trust when it was in a conflict of interest position (e.g. when it was being sued by the trust for damages it caused the trust). Amazingly, the settling parties are nevertheless asking for a Court finding on this very issue in their ill-conceived motion, WITHOUT THAT VERY TRIAL OF THIS ISSUE. How can you have it both ways? If a trial is needed on this issue for Stamper, it is therefore also needed on the findings requested by the settling parties.

[free_beer]

This point and your observations need to be pointed out to the court somehow. I read that and thought the same thing.

[ican70]

I thought it was pathetic too Boxster. They opened their arguments with nothing relevant to the case- the character assination phrase is one of my father's favorite line.

The trustee's lawyers attempt to discredit Mr. Stamper and lower folk's opinion of him using nothing relevant to the case. The trustee's lawyers attempt to address the facts of the case long after the open. Nasty tatics, if you ask me. The whole filing reeks of desperation. They are going to start throwing out the kitchen sink and everything after him. He will not be welcome in Texas this Thursday.

I will not be able to go. I am hoping there will be some of us from the area to lend their support.

I read JPM's filing and tossed it aside.

ican