BANSC RE 2010 187 TD Bank v Twila a Wolf 1 of 4 Defendants Case 05-29-2012 Compressed With Exhibits

5/20/2018 BANSC RE 2010 187 TD Bank v Twila a Wolf 1 of 4 Defendants Case 05-29-2012 Compressed With Exhibits

1/59

STATE OF MAINE COUNTY OF PENOBSCOTCIVIL SUPERIOR DISTRICT COURT

Butler&ButlerProse

44PattenSt.

BangorMaine.04401

207-249-5378

DEFENDANTS OBJECTION TO PLAINTIFFS MULTIPLE LATE AND UNTIMELY RESPONSES

AND MOTIONS; PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR SANCTIONS INCORPORATED MEMORANDUM

OF LAW; CONCERNING DEFENDANTS AFFIDAVIT AND REQUEST FOR AN ENTRY OF

DEFAULT AND DEFAULT JUDGMENT; AS REGARDS DEFENDANTS RESPONSE TO

PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO LIFT STAY AND FINAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT; INCORPORATEDMOTION TO STRIKE AND MEMORANDUM OF LAW.

TITLE TO REAL PROPERTY INVOLVED,

INJUNCTIVE RELIEF SOUGHT

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

Now, come Defendants, with objection and motion to strike yet another of Plaintiff

untimely, improper and incorrectly formatted responses, objections and motion

regarding; Defendants objections and responsive dispositive motions, to Plaintiff

Motion for a Lift of Stay and Final Summary Judgment.

MOTION TO SET ASIDE DEFAULT AND/OR DEFAULT JUDGMENT

DISCUSSION:

1.

This case, in predominant part, comes before the Court on Plaintiff's motion to s

aside a default judgment per M.R. Civ. P. 55(c).

TD BANK N.A. f/k/a FIRST

MASSACHUSETTS BANK N.A.

Plaintiff,

v.

TWIALA A. BUTLER f/k/a WOLF

AND

CHARLTON A. BUTLER JR.pro se

Defendant

and

Defendant-Intervenor.

Case No.: BANSC-RE-2010-187


DEFENDANTS OBJECTION TO PLAINTIFFS MULTIPL

LATE AND UNTIMELY RESPONSES AND MOTIONS;

PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR SANCTIONS INCORPORATMEMORANDUM OF LAW; CONCERNING DEFENDANT

AFFIDAVIT AND REQUEST FOR AN ENTRY OF DEFAU

AND DEFAULT JUDGMENT; AS REGARDS DEFENDAN

RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO LIFT STAY AN

FINAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT; INCORPORATED

MOTION TO STRIKE AND MEMORANDUM OF LAW

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

Judge/Magistrate: The Most Honorable JustiAnderson.

Date of Hearing: _________

Time of Hearing: _________


2/59


Butler&ButlerProse

44PattenSt.

BangorMaine.04401

207-249-5378

2. This matter, currently before the bar, Plaintiffs additional untimely response, throug

Plaintiffs Motion for Sanctions Incorporated Memorandum of Law, would follow

the same judicial breath as their default to allow Plaintiffs argument here would allo

them to circumvent the purpose and legislated result of their actions at bar.

3. Thus to allow opposing counsels motion judicial notice it would have to clear t

same two hurdles as counsels previous, untimely responses and motions an

therefore being even later than the last Defendants think the court can follow t

logic.

4. Defendants Affidavit and Request for Entry of Default and Default Judgment fa

within that required by rule of law and law; to make claim to, [t]hat, which has bee

noted by the court, as the result of a missed deadline to respond by Plaintiffs. Theresubsequently, did waive their opportunity to respond or object to and/or in additio

to and/or as the direct result of, Defendants submissions, to date, are therefo

deemed admitted, by operation of law.

5.

Plaintiffs failed to clear the hurdles required to get past their missed deadline b

failing to establish and show:

a.

Good Cause.

b.

Or the second hurdle, a Meritorious Defense.

c.

Without demonstrating the requisite Good Cause all else is moot and must b

stricken as untimely and improper.

d. Plaintiffs reason for missing the deadline is/was they, Plaintiffs counsel, lo

the properly, submitted, noticed and delivered copy of Defendants objectio

and responsive motions to Plaintiffs Motion for a Lift of Stay and Fin

Summary Judgment in their interoffice mail delivery system.

ARGUMENT:

6.

Defendants assert, again, from their last filing with the court; concerning Plaintif

counsels first untimely response.


3/59


Butler&ButlerProse

44PattenSt.

BangorMaine.04401

207-249-5378

7. Plaintiffs response; made to, Defendants Objections and Response to Plaintif

Untimely Response to Defendants Objections and Responsive motions to Plainti

Motion for a Lift of Stay and Final Summary Judgment.

8.

Additionally now and as well as Objections to Defendants Request for Entry of Defauand Default Judgment and for Sanctions all with Motions to Strike. A: We dont quali

by definition, to begin with and B: Defendants Case is evidentiarily, factually, soun

and is meritorious and the chances of Defendants prevailing are outstanding if n

here in this fine court, then certainly; on appeal to the Maine Supreme Judicial Court

9. Defendants have confidence, though, in Judge Andersons ability to understand wh

he sees when he sees it. The law is beautiful and the binding together of a chaot

world into one of order, stability and equity by way of redress and relief for crimand civil offenses and his Honor is the Gatekeeper and arbiter of the justice th

maintains that order and satbility.

10.

Judge Anderson understands his awesome responsibility. He also understands t

reports coming from other court rooms and courts across Maine and America.

11.

Defendants have confidence in our judicial system and feel assured that his Honor w

see that Defendants have dealt dispositively with Plaintiffs entire case and th

render his decision in Defendants favor.

12.Plaintiffs, through counsel, failed to timely respond, as prescribed by the rule of la

to Defendants responsive dispositive motions and for the sake of argumen

Defendants agree with Plaintiffs counsel when making the statement Plaintiffs a

not required to respond.

13.Yes you are not required to respond to Defendants; but, at the same time, you

certainly have to agree, then, that Plaintiffs have then waived any and all argumen

or objections and as Plaintiffs evidence has been decimated, this opinion based on t

most recent decisions of the Maine Supreme Judicial Court and the Law Court cited

recent submissions to this court.


4/59


Butler&ButlerProse

44PattenSt.

BangorMaine.04401

207-249-5378

14.Further opposing counsel has failed to provide an adequate reason; an adequa

reason being the pre-requisite for being allowed to make a late response, by reason

Good Cause and a Meritorious Defense.

15.

Plaintiffs counsels only reason for that failure, to act, being;

(a)

To first accuse Defendants of failing to send and/or serve a copy

Defendants response, to Plaintiffs motions, on Plaintiffs counsel.

(b)Then, when caught in that error, opposing counsel then states, simply an

completely, that the documents, in question, were lost in the interoffice m

redelivery system, at Perkins Thompson P.A., for at least 20 days, by their ow

reckoning.

(c)

Then, almost as an aside, they claimed that the 7(c) notice was not within t

documents sent based on that they had the right to make motion and argue.

16.A party may seek to set aside a default judgment for /good cause shown" per M.R. C

P. 55(c). Whether good cause exists depends on a party's demonstration that there

'" a reasonable excuse for the default and a meritorious defense to the underlyin

action.'" Mariello v. Giguere, 667 A.2d 588, 589 (Me. 1995) (quoting Theriault

Gauthier, 634 A.2d 1255, 1256 (Me. 1993)).

17.

The excusable neglect standard for lifting default judgments under Rule 60(b) is mo

stringent than the good cause standard for lifting an entry of default under Rule 55(

Theriault, 634 A.2d at 1256-57; and one, would have to agree, that Plaintiffs a

receiving the benefit, here, by the governing of a less stringent rule and still they fa

to meet the standards and elements required.

18.

In Boit v. Brookstone Co., Inc., 641 A.2d 864, 865 (Me. 1994) the Supreme Judic

Court / Law Court upheld a trial court's refusal to vacate a default entered just eig

days after an answer was due when the defendant's insurer's excuse was only th

there had been a "delay in the mail room." (emphasis added) See also Conrad

Swan,2008 ME 2, 940 A.2d 1070.


5/59


Butler&ButlerProse

44PattenSt.

BangorMaine.04401

207-249-5378

19.These cases,Boit v. Brookstone Co., Inc.,641 A.2d 864, 865 (Me. 1994) and Conrad

Swan,2008 ME 2, 940 A.2d 1070., are directly on point and are, equal, in element an

situation, to the case before the bar today.

20.

Therefore it would logically follow that, Plaintiffs, having not been able to establiGood Cause, have nothing left to say or object to.

21.See also,Levine v. Key Bank Nat. Ass'n,2004 ME 131, f 13, 861 A.2d 678, 683 (failure

bank to respond to trustee process for three months after service on it because t

document did not get handled according to its ordinarily "efficient judgment processi

system" was not good cause). For the same holding, see R. C. Moore, Inc. v. Les-Ca

Kitchens, Inc.,2007 ME 138,^27-29,931 A.2d 1081, 1087-7.

22.

Plaintiffs claim; in this latest motion, objecting to Defendants Request for an Entry

Default and for Default Judgment, that, Defendants failed to raise certain affirmati

defenses, namely and first among them, standing, in a timely fashion and, there

and/or thereby did waive said affirmative defenses, apparently opposing council fee

thats all of them.

23.Opposing counsels interpretation here of the case, though, is a fail, when it comes

the facts, as unfortunately, and, as usual, opposing counsel failed to read Defendan

initial answer to this court. If they had, they would have found Defendants had, as

matter of fact.

(a)

Defendants, preservedALL(emphasis added) defenses, and

(b)

that Defendants DISAGREED (emphasis added) with, at LEAST, (emphas

added) some, of Plaintiffs complaint, and

(c)

it logically following then, particularly in light of Defendants submissions

bar, thus far, that defendants disagreed with all of Plaintiffs complaint, but, f

Defendants names and address.

(d)Defendants having not incurred this loan in the first place and there

established their counter claim and the reason they have ignored Plaintif

arguments. Why give credibility to opposing counsels incorrect interpretati

of the facts and its not like Defendants didnt try and tell him or werent mo


6/59


Butler&ButlerProse

44PattenSt.

BangorMaine.04401

207-249-5378

than agreeable in the beginning to fixing this mess. Opposing counsels ow

arrogance, and audacity, blinded him from the correct interpretation of t

matter.

24.

It is not Defendants fault, opposing counsel, didnt take into account; just exactly, tplethora, and/or multitude of affirmative defenses available under the circumstance

Therefore, opposing counsel erred by not taking into account how many and/or wh

affirmative defenses, had been, therefore, declared already, for the record, in th

simple declaration on that Maine State Judicial Court Form.

25.Therefore it would stand to reason, then, that it is Plaintiffs who are the vexatio

litigants, by way of, their ignorance to the facts of their own case, motions an

pleadings, that are frivolous and exactly what rule 11 sanctions are for. As thcontinue where they know, or should know, that they have no legal right to contin

yet they do knowing the percentages are on their side, and for the reasons provide

herein and previously submitted to this court and fully cited.

26.

Defendants, are, almost 100% assured and confident in their assessment, th

Plaintiffs are being less than forthright and/or, at the very least, are directly statin

their complete ignorance of the elements and facts of their own case and are exposin

their liability to their clients. Once again this is a case for malpractice and nDefendants concern. Defendants Exhibit A.

27.Further it should be noted, that, in the Federal District courts remanding of this ca

back to the State Superior Court. That Defendants motions, made there, and st

pending, were remanded to the Maine State Superior Court for action. (emphas

added).

28.

While this was a notice of removal and many things were discussed; nothing w

resolved, but the merits of the case for removal. Defendants Exhibit B.

29.How Defendants respond would be up to them, as Plaintiffs failed to advise them an

instruct them, as required by Rule 56(h), as noted in the notes of the Maine Rules

Civil Procedure Rule 7. Defendants Exhibit C.Defendants were in line with the pa


7/59


Butler&ButlerProse

44PattenSt.

BangorMaine.04401

207-249-5378

limit last submission as 20 pages is the limit for injunctive motions and dispositiv

motions.

30.

Plaintiffs, submission to the court, Defendants Exhibits D, demonstrates bo

opposing counsels argumentative attitude and incorrect interpretation of the laevidentiary of opposing counsels refusal to submit to facts, fair requests and fa

dealings with Defendants and thus opposing counsel redundantly argues the sam

issues regardless of their lack of merit.

31.Defendants Exhibit E is, Plaintiffs, Defendants assume, statement of the fact th

they are the servicer for some trust as; Defendants Exhibit E-1, in the upper le

hand corner, indicates, as the alleged loans, but very real to the securitizer wh

creating the technically fraudulent and counterfeit bond issue.

32.

Which were sold into the bond market; and opens yet another door of civil an

criminal liability, and is a rather nasty demonstration of the effects of the continuati

of sin and ignorance. On top of the use of instant claims and actions when a mo

personal touch and interaction is called for.

33.

As much esteemed and respected jurist, and former Banking Attorney; Thomas Co

arguably one of the best jurists in, Maine; mentor and personal hero of Defendan

would say about these foreclosure mills and their practices. We would like to conc

with his entire article and this quote specifically for one, but for the clients not serve

part of course.

Perhaps the largest frustration, for me, in this work, is to experience, on a daily basis, the gam

that the servicers play in the foreclosure process. I am constantly frustrated by how much of m

time is spent in dealing with the servicers' antics, thus reducing the number of homeowners th

I and my colleagues are able to help.Defendants Exhibit E-2

34.

Defendants are tired of the games and the all-around disrespect for Defendants th

Court, the law, and the rule of law. Defendants are tired of the deceptive, misleadi

and predatory actions of Plaintiffs through opposing counsel, who truly are the par

that makes baseless accusations, and then accuses Defendants, of doing the same.


8/59


Butler&ButlerProse

44PattenSt.

BangorMaine.04401

207-249-5378

35.Behavior that reminds Defendants of the psychology of the unfaithful wife, wh

accuses her husband of infidelity, to divert attention from her and her paramour. So

to assuage her conscious and divert attention from her activities keeping othe

always focused on the wrong thing(s).

36.Which further demonstrates, why Defendant C Butler, chose to pursue Engineering,

opposed to law after law school.

37.

Engineering is similar to law but for the fact, that, it has a sound structure an

hierarchy of citable authorities and rules that work without fail, but for, of course,

small, reasonable, percentage of the time, due to Heisenbergs theoremat work. The

is no circumventing or abusing the truth in engineering; 2+2=4 every single time.

38.

Plaintiffs ignoring of Defendants has left them nothing to take away from this action

39.Defendantsinitial answer, to Plaintiffs complaint, makes it their Summary Judgme

not Plaintiffs. Thus making all of Defendants motions, pleadings, affirmations, swo

statement, arguments and claims, to date and currently at bar, ripe and appropria

for adjudication now in Defendants favor as improper and untimely exactly

Plaintiffs argued for themselves against Defendants motions and objections.

40.

Thus Defendants submissions to court could not be considered vexatiou

impertinent, improper, or even close to sanctionable behavior, under rule 11.

41.

Unlike Plaintiffs continuation on a theme of their nothing from nothing equa

nothing line as they keep submitting, the same information, that failed to pass must

the first time they tried to use it. Its pathetic in that they seem to possess the beli

some, sad tiny hope, that this will actually allow them to prevail. This is not a sign of

healthy mental process or condition.

42.While Plaintiffs Lift of Stay of Proceedings is dead, Plaintiffs Motion for Summa

Judgment is alive, in Plaintiffs perception only. More to the point, as said before, a

Summary Judgment to be had, is Defendants, as stated from the start with Defendan

first submission to the court in this matter. Regardless of whether opposing couns

wishes to admit this fact, or not.


9/59


Butler&ButlerProse

44PattenSt.

BangorMaine.04401

207-249-5378

43.While Mr. McConnell may believe that he is not required to produce the note h

interpretation of the law is off track for the following five reasons:

(a)

He uses the wrong law to cite to and base his view of the matter on, due to th

fact he did not look closely at the documents before him. But, just asmachine, would [note the tell-tale mark of a pleadings and motions templa

database; case and motion/pleading etc with tied in case reference, numb

at the bottom of Plaintiffs motions. Such is indicative of his and his firms fili

this case by the numbers 1 2 3of the instant motions and actions practi

type.]

(b)

He instead plows ahead in his mistaken belief that he is on the right track an

not even concerned with the fact that he has failed to establish his case in tslightest. Of course thats what we are taught, that being, to always allow t

other side to think they are making all the right moves until the trap is ready

(c)

Even after, Defendants tore apart opposing counsels case, citing prevaili

Law Court and Maine Supreme Judicial Court case law and proving up th

legal in-sufficiency of Plaintiffs claims, as noted, recently, referenced to in

earlier submission, by Defendants, to this court and fully cited.

(d)

The Promissory Note and Mortgage Contract at dispute, is in material dispute, an

that would, in and of itself, deny any motion for summary judgment. If th

adjudication were truly available, in the first place, to Plaintiffs in this matter, no

before the bar.

(e)Failing to properly join all parties, so as, and to, allow for, the judgment of the

actions, as full participants, and not in mere interest only and unavailable but f

separate action would further deny Summary Judgment.

(f)

Maine State Housing Authority and The City of Bangor, are listed as Parties-In-Intere

when they are, and should have been, from the beginning, as Parties to the complain

noted in earlier submissions, by Defendants, of opposing counsels, Stephanie

Williams; Continuing Legal Education course, titled Maine Foreclosure Law, whe

she states that no major lien holder is listed as a Party-In-Interest. Then why d


10/59


Butler&ButlerProse

44PattenSt.

BangorMaine.04401

207-249-5378

opposing counsel list Maine State Housing Authority and The City of Bangor

Parties-In-Interest?

(g)

Defendants have retained all of their rights and waived none of their affirmati

claims, defenses, averments and/or avoidance claims and rights.

44.

In addition to a missed deadline, Plaintiffs, would be denied, at this point, the abili

to object to any, of, Defendants, motions and or pleadings. And or statements and/

of the style, of Defendants statement of material fact, motions and pleading

previously filed with this court.

45.

This goes as well for, The City of Bangor and LVNV Funding LLC, Camden Nation

Bank N.A. for the lack of interest shown in the result of this case. Lacking any state

position, objection or otherwise, they, therefore, should be thought of

nonresponsive and withdrawn from the matter or be realigned to the complaini

party and take the repercussions of their and their agents, partners, past and presen

and co-conspirators, past and present, actions.

46.

Since there is dispute as to the authenticity, validity and actuality of said allege

Promissory Note and Mortgage Contract; then, it would logically follow that, [t]his

the very time (emphasis added) that an original [i]s required. Defendants Exhibit

and G-1.

47.Defendants Exhibits H H-1 and H-2 demonstrate that while opposing couns

believes that the issue of a lifting of stay is moot and that [t]hat somehow affects h

original motion for summary judgment. Defendants fear opposing counsel has misse

something in the batch as these documents demonstrate actual intent to proceed

why talk about the lift being dead and ignoring the Summary Judgment completely?

48.Defendants Exhibit I is a letter from former Professor of Law and Attorney D

Gerald Petrucelli, which goes toward explaining the exact nature of Promissory Not

and the unbelievable ignorance that is being displayed, by the legal communit

around the country, as well, by some, here in Maine.

49.

This ignorance, when it is more than obvious, that, there is something more than

little wrong with the paperwork, these supposed lenders, are filing with t


11/59


Butler&ButlerProse

44PattenSt.

BangorMaine.04401

207-249-5378

Registrars of Deeds in the counties of Maine and the Courts of Maine and the perver

legal decisions these Plaintiffs, until recently, were receiving from the cour

Combined with the perverse incentive, and thus the moral hazard inherent in

system that allows someone the ability to pick fights that only they are getting pa

too fight regardless of the legality of that fight or whether they win or not and th

others must spend the farm to fight back is doing nothing but begging for trouble lik

we have today at bar.

50.Normally Mr. McConnell would be right in stating that a default judgment is n

available here as there is no counter-complaint at first glance. But for the fact that

long ago forfeited this case, and forfeited the right to object or otherwise mak

argument against Defendants.

51.Defendants made a counter claim and have argued their case as such from th

beginning and therefore a default judgment, based on their counter claim, is availab

as much as it is to the Plaintiffs in their motions for final judgment. His Honor, Jud

Anderson, is not stupid fellas he can read as well as the rest of us.

52.Defendants believe that Plaintiffs have just come to this realization and are therefo

attempting to again obfuscate, divert attention from and try and misdirect justice

their all-out attempt to win this case. No matter the cost.

53.

Among the many failures of the arguments concerning this alleged promissory note,

that the alleged note, when following the logically inferred direction of th

securitization route; as well as proof of such, in Defendants exhibits, to maturatio

[a]s a, bond issue, it would have been permanently converted into a stock. Defendan

note that they mentioned this in an earlier submission to this court with the requisi

authority and cite.

54.

The language on the mortgage and/or to some variation of thereon T

Mortgage/Security Instrument, secures a promissory note, but, if the promissory note

destroyed through permanent conversion; let alone, physically, as required by th

Generally Accepted Accounting Standards and the Federal Accounting Standar

Board, then the Mortgage/Security Instrument secures nothing even if the loan


12/59


Butler&ButlerProse

44PattenSt.

BangorMaine.04401

207-249-5378

question had been taken out and/or made between the Defendants and Plaintiffs.

would secure nothing but that which the law is willing to, trounce and circumvent,

the law, to give the Plaintiffs favorable adjudication. This also continues to fail to tak

into account the vitiating effects of the foundational fraud of this case, also cited in a

earlier submission to this court.

55.

Then, as now, under rule of law and procedure, it has also been fully discharged an

only one reason, besides vitiating fraud, among the many reasons, why these fine fol

at Perkins Thompson are arguing so hard against its production. The impossibili

reason being the dominate one.

56.

The Promissory Note and Mortgage contract, in dispute, has a pre-arraigned deal

compensate each of the parties in interest, as well the named party TD Bank N.A. frothe proceeds of any foreclosure sale. So therefore in actuality, they would all be f

partners and should then be adjudged on the merits of the case entire.

57.

As much as they are full partners behind the scene let them, be so, in front of the b

and jury. This way Maine State Housing Authority and the City of Bangor cannot pro

from;

(a)

a loan never made

(b)

from an inside deal that requires foreclosing on a nonexistent loan.

(c)

When in a loan it would appear Maine State Housing Authority and The City

Bangor may have had interest right in, as maybe a quasi-legal contract, no

due to their misdeeds, they are unable to legally collect on.

(d)

So just as much as TD Bank N.A. and Maine State Housing Authority cannot

equity gain from this matter due to the vitiating foundational fraud of th

matter.

(e)Neither can the parties in interest, either on their own, or as they a

attempting now.

(f) If Plaintiffs were to prevail, though, they would, if this were left unchallenge

and thus they would profit from their crime and misdeeds through this litt


13/59


Butler&ButlerProse

44PattenSt.

BangorMaine.04401

207-249-5378

back deal and a crime then is covered by a statute. Seems, just a littl

inequitable.

(g)

being Defendants interpretation, of the facts and events around this case,

why they, Maine State Housing Authority, and the City of Bangor, make nargument either way about this matter When fence straddling is as offensiv

or more so, than the outright breaking of the law. Defendants Exhibit I.

58.

Even if Plaintiffs claim they were following the guidelines for the program Defenda

T Butler, was/is a part of, they are not within those boundaries, either, at a total

16% interest, as opposed to 4.5%, with a blended rate of roughly 14% interest. This

the deal Defendant T Butler turned down in writing. Earlier submission to this cou

fully cited.

59.

This agreement would violate Federal law; [t]hat, due to violations, of federal law, b

the servicers both TD Bank N.A. and Graystone Solutions Inc.; recompense has be

denied to them.

60.

It would be why at mediation they, Maine State Housing Authority, kept stressing th

they were not foreclosing. But, if they are allowed to receive the benefit of TD Ban

N.A.s adjudication here; when they know, they are precluded from doing so, for caus

So, whats the reason for, and the full effect of, Maine State Housing Authoriti

denying foreclosing on defendants and the City of Bangor being silent? Nada.

61.So who cares if they dont admit, upfront, their role in the matter right? Not to b

flippant or show any disrespect to this honorable court; Defendants mirthless veno

is for the Plaintiffs only. Thats only fraudulently representing ones self to the cou

isnt it? This is in, addition to, the fraudulent representations, to date, by Plaintiffs,

the holder and/or person with standing and legally able to collect, on this alleg

loan, or demand payment for it.

62.The choice of servicer for Maine State Housing Authorities alleged portion of

bifurcated loan that Defendants; before a notary, did swear out said affidavit of fa

attesting; under penalty of perjury, that Defendant T Butler did not take out this lo

and that there is evidence of fraud and forgery in the creation of this alleged loan.


14/59


Butler&ButlerProse

44PattenSt.

BangorMaine.04401

207-249-5378

63.Defendants attempted to discuss this fact at mediation but the conversation was ma

impossible due to the mediator, Robert Lingley, telling Defendants to Shut up this

not what we are here for. when rule 93 says the opposite.

64.

Defendants did email their concerns to plaintiffs counsel and plaintiffs as no ted in earlier submission to this court and fully cited. Where Defendants were laughed

and ridiculed for advising these attorneys with, Pinetree Legal Aid and Perki

Thompson, along with the court mediator and bank administrators, of the crimes th

were committing by conspiring to continue in these contract suggestions/extortions

65.It would follow, then, that, if, the actions that had Graystone removed for cause, und

federal law, and truly denies Maine State Housing Authority recompense in th

matter, then, this, Party-In-Interest mess, must be an end run around statute, equiand the rule of law and yet another display of Plaintiffs belief in their ability to p

themselves beyond the judge and justices reach.

66.

This is exactly what they have been trying to do all along. Therefore PlaintiffsCouns

must be stopped before Plaintiffs and their counsel bring additional harm to th

already wrought on Defendant Homeowners.

67.

LVNV Funding LLC. Whom Plaintiffs moved for removal of, due to no response, as

party to this alleged contract.

68.This all beside the point and irrelevant moot and frivolous as the Defendants point o

they have raised standing, as but one example of the threshold issues Defendants ha

raised; as well as and in addition to:

(a) the total loan amount is not correct,

(b)

the contract term, and total amount due are not fixed and wrong and cann

be determined as the alleged, loan for the city is running at 3% compound

over 30 years. Defendants have no control of this as they have had the

credit ruined and had their means of making payment to that account, deni

them, as the city decided to not accept payment, instead choosin

unilaterally, to wait until the house sells.


15/59


Butler&ButlerProse

44PattenSt.

BangorMaine.04401

207-249-5378

(c) This without asking Defendants, notifying them of such or asking for the

consent to be responsible for the up keep, taxes and insurance, of a hom

while being nothing more than defrauded victim borrowers, now renters, s

to fail from the start; if the paperwork is to be believed, with a crushing de

load.

(d)

This of which disqualifies this from being a negotiable instrument and is

further bifurcation of the underlying propertys clouded title,a direct resu

of Plaintiffs actions.

(e) This from the beginning in Defendants submissions before this court. No M

McConnell the law says you must, present the Original Note, as a matter

fact. You argue vehemently against doing so because you cant. Ill give youhint it doesnt exist besides in the vitiating foundational fraud it was creat

under and in you and your clients imagination.

CONCLUSION:

69.All of opposing counsels comments motions and pleadings should be stricken f

exactly the reasons, opposing counsel, has stated and contended; as the basis f

adjudication in their clients favor, as his motions list regarding Defendants pleadin

motions etc

70.Defendants apologize for any pages over on the page count, if any, Defendan

honestly believe an objection, motion to strike and memorandum of law, together,

not go over at 22 -23 pages as the total would have been 25 pages complete.

71.Defendants cant help it that opposing counsel has nothing for evidence and therefo

has no problem making a page count.

72.Besides Plaintiffs forfeited their right to complain or object long ago.

73.Defendants apologize for the length of exhibits, as well, but opposing counsel seem

to feel that defendants do not provide enough evidence of their claims. Therefore

an effort to be conciliatory have thus provided at great expense more than usu

evidence to back up our opinions and claims.


16/59


Butler&ButlerProse

44PattenSt.

BangorMaine.04401

207-249-5378

74.Further, are they more interested in the merits of this case or its minutia? That kin

of attention, to detail, and intense focus, would have been the right thing to do in t

beginning of the Market, that became the financial meltdown, and the same appli

towards securitization, as well would have been truly grand. In doing so then many

the elderly now and in the coming years wouldnt be facing that future with no mea

of support.

How would you feel if you worked for a state or local government for 20 or 30

years only to have your pension slashed dramatically or taken away entirely?

Well, this exact scenario is playing out from coast to coast and in the years

ahead millions of elderly Americans are going to be affected by broken

promises and vanishing pensions. In the old days, things were much different.

You would get hired by a big company or a government institution and you

knew that the retirement benefits that they were promising you would be there

when you retired in a few decades. Unfortunately, we have now arrived at a

time when government institutions and big companies have promised far more

than they are able to deliver, and "pension reform" has become one of the hot

button issues all over the nation. . According to Northwestern University

Professor John Rauh, the latest estimate of the total amount of unfunded

pension and healthcare obligations for state and local governments across the

United States is4.4 trillion dollars. America is continually becoming apoorer

nation and all of that money is simply not going to magically materialize

somehow. So where is that 4.4 trillion dollars going to come from? Well, either

pension benefits are going to have to be cut a lot more all over America or

taxes will need to be raised dramatically. Either way, we are all going to feel

the pain of these broken promises. Broken Promises: Pensions All Over

America Are Being Savagely Cut Or Are Vanishing Completely | 03/12/2012

| The Economic Collapse by Michael Snyder.
http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2012/02/16/the_state_and_local_pension_crisis_99520.htmlhttp://endoftheamericandream.com/archives/america-is-being-transformed-from-a-wealthy-nation-into-a-poor-nation-at-breathtaking-speedhttp://endoftheamericandream.com/archives/america-is-being-transformed-from-a-wealthy-nation-into-a-poor-nation-at-breathtaking-speedhttp://endoftheamericandream.com/archives/america-is-being-transformed-from-a-wealthy-nation-into-a-poor-nation-at-breathtaking-speedhttp://endoftheamericandream.com/archives/america-is-being-transformed-from-a-wealthy-nation-into-a-poor-nation-at-breathtaking-speedhttp://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2012/02/16/the_state_and_local_pension_crisis_99520.html


17/59


Butler&ButlerProse

44PattenSt.

BangorMaine.04401

207-249-5378

75.Doing so would have gone a long way towards, if not outright preventing, entirel

the devastating damages to Defendants lives, their credit and our country. May

then, after a lifetime of work, People, like, our Judges, Teachers, Firemen Doctor

Nurses, Policemen, County Registrars, Municipal Employees of all descriptions o

neighbors, people we all know and care about, who now, because of Plainti

business model; a business model shared by the financial industry they are a part

as an industry wide corporate culture.

76.These people, including people in the State of Maines; State Employee Pension Pla

as noted in a suit, now, before the courts, have been unlawfully deprived of the

pensions and most will end up having to work, like a dog, some common cur, till th

take their final dying breath and no one, no one, (emphasis added) it seems, is willi

to make the responsible part/y/ies pay either that or the courts have been deceive

up to now into not accepting the facts as they are.

77.

It seems that we have not learned our lesson; or more accurately, people think t

wrong things will solve the current problem. Whats lost on most is that mortga

defaults and foreclosures are but a symptomatic result of the, afore mentione

business model. A problem that the Great Depression taught us, that, inaction, an

incorrect action, not enough resources, to get the job done and partisan politics; th

appear to be working in and for the favor of corporations and their sycophants w

not yield a result that will favor this country nor its people.

78.

This defeats us in this great endeavor to correct and prevent this problem now, bu

more importantly, prevention in the future as well until we can face the hard facts.

79.As it is, Defendants, are un-encouraged by projected views of the future as it stan

and the legal fights while heartening; are also so many as to be scary as, its, but

drop in the bucket of whats around the, proverbial, corner. These 25 examples abut a fraction of the suits being brought by investors and of the 3000+ pension pla

across the country against but a couple of banks that the very things they are bein

sued for these Plaintiffs have done as well. They have no excuse though as what t

others in their industry blame on third parties mismanaged subsidiaries or ju


18/59


Butler&ButlerProse

44PattenSt.

BangorMaine.04401

207-249-5378

purchased dogs like Countrywide; Plaintiffs do all they do everything in-hous

Defendants Exhibits Kand K-1 through K-25.

80.

Minutia, that in the long run, neither advances the case or the common cause of ou

judiciary as expressed in the first sentence of the United States Constitution. Whejustice; first, amongst the many freedoms liberty has purchased, the right, for us

exercise; in our attempt to build a more perfect Union. Justice, number one in lin

without justice itsa revolution on simmer as man rebels against tyranny.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect

Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for

the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the

Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and

establish this Constitution for the United States of America

81.

Nor does this case, as set out by Plaintiffs counsel, seek to illuminate the rocky pa

that justice is the guiding light for. That, it doesnt allow the best, that, the law has

offer, among those, instruction, to find its way from the lofty perches of the Judicia

to the hands of the common man where it might serve humanity in that great share

endeavor, in the work of the continuation of the species and our country.

82.

If the law fails to instruct or make right that which is obviously wrong and crimin

then justice has devolved to pre-equity days, like those prior to the 15th centur

Where the laws response to No Writ, No Remedy, due in large part to the negativ

and untoward influence, exercised, on both court and jury, by the wealthy, was t

Chancery Court, developed to provide equity and fairness to the English an

ultimately American, in the end, as well, system of law.

83.Mr. McConnell should consider the negative position, it would appear, he has creat

for himself, his firm and most importantly his clients, of whom, he and his firm hav

obviously, openly, brazenly and idiotically, failed, to serve said clients best interes

Defendants wish to thank opposing counsel though, give credit where credit is d

mind you; as he has so graciously made

Defendants case for them.

84.

That being; the legal reasons, statutes, rules and law with cites, for the most part, o

how to handle all of Plaintiffs, motions pleadings and or submissions to this court,


19/59


Butler&ButlerProse

44PattenSt.

BangorMaine.04401

207-249-5378

the situation is opposite of what opposing counsel thought, just as opposing couns

wanted done with Defendants submissions.

85.

Defendants would ask that these fine folks at Perkins Thompson, Maine Sta

Housing Authority, The City of Bangor, TD Bank N.A., Camden National Bank N.A., athe anyone else culpable in this mess. Please pay your premiums people, and tight

up your seat belts. Its gonna getreal bumpy from here on out.

86.

Defendants have a huge balance running on the expense account to date, for the wo

resources and assistant. Required to fight and to legally destroy Plaintiffs and the

Counsel Perkins Thompson. Of whom, the firm, and its employees, specifically, will

paying it.

87.

No one takes almost 2 years of Defendants time, which seems a little li

impressment or theft of services, as life is time and time is life and no one m

deprive Defendants, or any other citizen of this fine country; that my family help

fight for and found.

88.

Nor can Defendants be deprived of life/time without due process. No one just walk

away without paying the piper for the theft of so much of so many peoples time,

their life, better said. They try, though, as we have seen with Plaintiffs and others li

them every day.

89.Plaintiffs and those like them will continue to do this sort of thing and anything el

they desire to do, as they wish, until, and only until, we as a people say no and th

courts make said criminals pay for their crimes like any other common crimin

Defendants would put their own Mothers in jail, if responsible, for this mess.

90.Herein submitted is Defendants bill for the life/time wasted by Ms McConnell an

Talbot along with Mlle. Williams and their firm, Perkins Thompson P.A., and of cour

Plaintiffs. Defendants time, may beup for debate; not in Defendants opinion, but

cannot be argued that Defendants assistants time, costs and expenses a

unarguable. Defendants Exhibit J


20/59


Butler&ButlerProse

44PattenSt.

BangorMaine.04401

207-249-5378

91.Defendants cant help it that they had to go back to school and had to work a

agreement for help in quashing this fraudulent foreclosure and that doing

required 15 hour days 7 days a week.

92.

While opposing counsel may have more to do in a day. Defendants only haPlaintiffs and their attorneys as the subject dictating their day.

93. In the end even if, normally, Plaintiffs Counsels, [Perkins Thompson P.A.] m

redelivery system, is the epitome of efficient interoffice mail and USPS (United Stat

Postal Service) redelivery, it doesnt amount to excusable neglect or good cause

defined by Maine rule of procedure and case law to date.

94.Wherefore, Plaintiffs, by way of counsel, having not established and cleared the fir

requisite hurdle, Good Cause, any claim to, let alone the making of, a meritoriou

Defense, or arguments about, regarding or concerning Defendants affidavit an

request for an entry of default and default judgment is irrelevant, moot, untimely an

improper.

95.Plaintiffs defensive, spiteful, untimely and improper, response to Defendants Affidav

and Request for an entry of Default and Default Judgment, by calling for sanctions f

the filing of, [t]hat, required, by statute and rule of law is, as stated before, spitefu

venomous and a true display of the vexatious nature of Plaintiff litigants.

96.It, Defendants affidavit and request, is not a motion per se, but the paperwork, back

up with adequate and reasonable evidence as would be admissible at trial an

required, to, claim, that, which Plaintiffs lost right to, and conversely lost any right

argue about and/or make objection to.

97.If Plaintiffs and their counsel would like Defendants to more adequately prove the

case, than they have already, against Plaintiffs and Counsel, then they will have to wa

for Defendants coming complaint.

98.

Defendants, state that maybe opposing counsel should have read their clients file an

done more than little or no Due Diligence, as required by professional rule an

statute. Particularly in light of the fact, and after they were put on notice, as to t

vitiating fraud involved in, the supposed, formation of this alleged contract.


21/59


Butler&ButlerProse

44PattenSt.

BangorMaine.04401

207-249-5378

addition to the lack of a loan, between Defendants and Plaintiffs period. That th

evidence being presented by Plaintiffs is a fraud upon the court, as the note an

mortgage, are a fraudulent promissory note and mortgage being presented

legitimate.

99.Any action after that, it would then logically follow, would be a conspiracy to contin

said initial fraud, by way of this continued action, with plaintiffs predecessors and th

current management and administration team of the Plaintiffs respective business

and corporate entities on board and fully culpable and complicitory in this crime b

their ascent to continue on with this suit when they know, or should know, th

should stop.

100.

Nothing in Defendants observation of, statements about and the events, documenand/or otherwise, of this case, as relates to this case, is untrue or unsupported and/

unsupportable by evidence, both admitted as exhibits and yet to be admitted exhib

of Defendants.

101.

Evidence, of which, only a portion have Defendants entered in support of the

position and contentions and maybe Plaintiffs and their counsel would be bett

served by the thought, and reflection on the fact that, that, while truthful, accurate an

devastating to Plaintiffs case. Plaintiffs should focus on, and should be glad, that it Defendants, making these claims, with all this available evidence, and not t

Penobscot County District Attorney.

102.Evidence, that nevertheless, as entered, is sufficient for the job of establishing t

facts as laid out by Defendants in their arguments.

103.Momma always said count your blessings, Papa always said, know when to cut ba

even son if that lure, is the most expensive one you have, or even ifyour, most favorite.

104.

Ignorance of ones, own, case is akin and comparable to the legal maxim, ignoran

of the law is no excuse. Also known as being dumb as a hammer when you have

know youre wrong.


22/59


Butler&ButlerProse

44PattenSt.

BangorMaine.04401

207-249-5378

105.Plaintiffs case is nothing but an argument for the bringing of criminal charges an

malpractice; and as such, yet another source and basis for the right and corre

decision for adjudication in favor of Defendants.

106.

Other than that, simply put, this is not Defendants concern. That is but for treparations for the damages incurred against them by Plaintiffs, their counsel, an

any and all prior partners and/or co-conspirators in crime, one and all.

107.

Does anyone find it odd that Plaintiffs are willing to spend more on attorney fe

than they are allegedly owed on the face of the loan?

108.

More than the house is worth, even more so, particularly now that Plaintiffs an

their partners in the Financial Industry have destroyed the value of it with the

negligent and unlawful behavior in the markets.

109.It took decades of bad policies and bad ideas to get us into this depression b

policies and bad ideas that . flourished because for a long time they worked very we

not for the nation as a whole but for a handful of very wealthy, very influential people

Paul Krugman End This Depression Now! pp. 23-4

110.For tyranny to rein, all, that must be done, is, that all good men, do nothing.

PRAYER:

Therefore,Defendants Pray this honorable court strike and deny Plaintiffs Motion f

Sanctions and Incorporated Memorandum of Law and each and every other; and equa

untimely, improper motion of Plaintiffs, in their entirety. In the alternative Defendan

make their continued demand for Jury Trial; as they have requested, from the beginnin

pursuant to Maine Rules of Civil Procedure 38.

Humbly and respectfully, submitted, this 29thday of May 2012

__________________________________________________________

Twila A. Butler f/k/a Wolf Defendant Pro s

__________________________________________________________

Charlton A. Butler Jr. Defendant-Intervenor Pro s


23/59


Butler&ButlerProse

44PattenSt.

BangorMaine.04401

207-249-5378

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE BY MAIL

Defendants hereby certify they have this day, or the following as allowed by rule

served the foregoing document upon the parties of record in this proceeding set forth

below (by delivering a copy thereof in person) and/or (by mailing a copy thereof, prepaid and properly addressed by first class mail).

Perkins Thompson Attorneys: Paul Niklas

Stephanie A. Williams Assistant Solicitor City of Bangor.

David B. McConnell 73 Harlow St.

Joseph G. Talbot One Canal Plaza

P.O. Box 426 Bangor Me. 04401

Portland Me. 04112-0426

DATED this 29th, day of May 2012.

____________________________________________

____________________________________________


24/59

STATE OF MAINE COUNTY OF PENOBSCOT

CIVIL SUPERIOR DISTRICT COURT

DEFENDANTS RESPONSE TO APPEARANCE OF JOSEPH G. TALBOT AND PLAINTIFFS

NEWEST OBJECTIONS AND MOTIONS

Butler&ButlerProse

44PattenSt.

BangorMaine.04401

207-249-5378

DEFENDANTS RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS ANNOUNCEMENT OF APPEARANCE BY JOSEPH

G. TALBOT AND OBJECTIONS AND CLAIM OF LACK OF DEFAULT AVAILABLE THE LACK

OF A COUNTER-CLAIM FILED CONCURRENTLY WITH NOTICE, DEFENDANTS OBJECTIONS

TO PLAINTIFFS OBJECTION TO DEFENDANTS REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT AND

DEFAULT JUDGMENT; DEFENDANTS BILL OF COSTS.


INJUNCTIVE RELIEF SOUGHTJURY TRIAL DEMANDED

Now, come Defendants in response and predominately before the bar, today, in ye

another time wasting fishing trip and delay tactic, by an already beaten, and disgraced

firm and its attorneys, with this newest addition to the fray, M. Talbot and hi

objections and motions.

1.

Unfortunately changing the batter will not avail Perkins Thompson of much

Defendants are aware this change has to do with the nature of contractua

foreclosure contracts with attorney firms. Dictating, the, who, what and how

much of flat fee contract foreclosure mill work. Predicated on whether there is

TD BANK N.A. f/k/a FIRST MASSACHUSETTS

BANK N.A. Plaintiff,

v.


AND


Defendant

and




DEFENDANTS RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS

ANNOUNCEMENT OF APPEARANCE BY JOSEPH G

TALBOT AND OBJECTIONS AND CLAIM OF LACK OF

DEFAULT AVAILABLE FOR LACK OF A COUNTER-

CLAIM; FILED CONCURRENTLY WITH NOTICE

DEFENDANTS OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS

OBJECTION TO DEFENDANTS REQUEST FOR

ENTRY OF DEFAULT AND DEFAULT JUDGMENT

DEFENDANTS BILL OF COSTS.

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

Judge/Magistrate: The Most Honorable Justice

Anderson.




25/59





Butler&ButlerProse

44PattenSt.

BangorMaine.04401

207-249-5378

opposition to the foreclosure or not and whether or not Plaintiffs have to go to

trial and whether or not Plaintiffs have to go on appeal.

2.

But this is getting beyond Defendants understanding; when it is already a

matter of procedural fact, that, they have no objections available to them and

any and all affirmative defenses and claims were preserved at the beginning o

this affair, before the bar, by Defendants, in their first submission, to this court

with their answer to Plaintiffs Summons and Complaint.

3. Defendants simultaneously counter-claimed (emphasis added) as well, with

even a partial disagreement; let alone, complete disagreement but for name

and address.

4.

On which Defendants base their claim to an adjudicatable result in Defendant

favor in this matter before the bar.

5. For that reason, while default judgment, is not normally available. That would

not be the case in this matter; as counter claims have been raised, by

Defendants in every pleading before the bar.

6.

Plaintiffs every submission, improper and untimely or fails to state a claim on

which to base relief.

7. Therefore is available with Defendants counterclaim. Defendants stated tha

they disagreed with of at least,(emphasis added) meaning not all and not an

amount of zero some of Plaintiffs Complaint. While preserving of al

Affirmative Defenses, applicable, to their case standing but one.

8.

Defendants, then, pressed their case for summary judgment, to opposing

counsels, for all appearances, ignoring the subject and emphasis of invalidity o

claim by and through repeated demonstrations of various documents received

from Plaintiffs counsel, in what was supposed to be a Qualified Written

Request, turned into interrogatories, erroneously, which allowed counsel to

side step the issue.


26/59





Butler&ButlerProse

44PattenSt.

BangorMaine.04401

207-249-5378

9. Through the repeated raising of threshold issues, filing of dispositive motion

affidavits and pleadings and the repeating of these matters and with cites and

evidence; while, again, all appearances, opposing counsel failed to get the point

10.

Opposing counsel argues and gripes, throughout Federal and State proceeding

that Defendants, failed to engage with opposing counsel on the subjects and

points he was on.

11.Obviously Defendants waste no time and give no validity to incorrec

assumptions and Defendants are not obligated to explain to Plaintiffs their cas

or what they missed. Not at first anyway.

12.

What Plaintiffs are missing and fail to see, about opposing counsels arguments

is, never once in their incredible arrogance, ever, not even once, realize tha

maybe Defendants had a reason for not bending and wasting this courts time by

arguing such useless matters with Plaintiffs counsel about things of no

consequence.

13.

As Defendants do not have the resources of a large firm such as Perkins

Thompson, a multitude of assistants, legal research data bases and the like of

modern and large firm, had to therefore define their case a little differently than

usual, in an effort to shorten this incredible mess down to its lowest time frame

so chose to lay their foundation and wait for now.

14.

Thus any and all defenses have been claimed and it was Plaintiffs counsel

responsibility to see that fact and to defend against it.

15.

But, as that did not happen, then estoppel, and res judicata, would preclud

Plaintiffs from taking another approach to prosecute this foreclosure again.

16.

The relief Defendants have sought does not preclude Defendants from

prosecuting their own complaint afresh and from the four corners of their own

complaint. Defendants are thinking of putting Defendants future legal matters

against Plaintiffs, in the hands of a friend of Defendants, Pat Ferguson, an

attorney of good repute, from South Carolina if she has the time.


27/59





Butler&ButlerProse

44PattenSt.

BangorMaine.04401

207-249-5378

17.This is Black Letter law gentlemen, Defendants arguments were chosen from

and modeled on, decisions of the Supreme Judicial Court of Maine and the Law

Court of Maine. Drafted in Defendants own words but using the courts decision

and authorities as base.

18.

Defendants wish that Plaintiffs and their attorneys could see their way to

understanding some simple facts. If Defendants were wrong they would hav

settled or begged for peace long ago.

19.But Defendants are not wrong. Perkins Thompson Attorneys and their clien

the Plaintiffs, made this an all or nothing affair, instead of fixing their fraud and

covering up their crime; before Defendants realized what had occurred, before

at and after closing, when they had a chance.

20.Having chosen not to do that Plaintiffs, and their counsel, it would seem

instead, have chosen to go down in blazing glory, flames, humiliation, glory

disbarment and all. Ya gotta respect that I guess.

21.

It would appear, but for the crying, Plaintiffs have lost. Nevertheless we can

argue in front of a jury, at worst, and see how that works out for the fine folks a

Perkins Thompson P.A. First, though, we must argue why Defendants will no

be going down that route at all.

22.

This is just another sign of the Foreclosure Mills doing what they do

Foreclosure Mills who push and push, with or without any cognizable res o

rem.

23.

They have pushed this case right to litigation, and the litigation charges; and no

the flat fee they normally get for bulk foreclosures. Small money for unlawfull

throwing people to the curb.

24.

Litigation fees, is what these attorneys, have been after, all along. Perversely

regardless of whether they win or lose they get paid and thats one hell of

perverse incentive to not act in your clients best interest; as they are now

Defendants point out the basis for moral hazard, here, is huge and apparently i


28/59





Butler&ButlerProse

44PattenSt.

BangorMaine.04401

207-249-5378

would appear opposing counsel has succumbed to the sirens call, and

percentage wise very profitable as very few of people are like Defendants and

argue when they know they are right.

25.

Thus Defendants want to make an example here and want to stop thi

destruction, of the United States by Wall Street that Defendants are tired o

watching occur.

26.From Congress to our Judiciary by a watering down of our regulations, to takin

advantage of the trust of harried justices, in overburdened court systems

across the country, and here in Maine, as Murphy, Carter and Bradbury, as but

few of the cases available, would show.

PRAYER

Therefore, for the reasons here, and in Defendants other submission, submitted prior t

now and today. That, Plaintiffs motions and pleadings, currently at bar, filed by

Stephanie A. Williams and David B. McConnell of Perkins Thompson P.A., on behalf o

their clients, and now Joseph G. Talbot, should be stricken in their entirety. Tha

Plaintiffs take nothing away from this action, but, criminal charges, punitive and

exemplary damages, actual damages, costs, and any attorneys fees and costs available

the exact amount to be decided at a later hearing for that purpose or a later law suit. In

the alternative Defendants reiterate their demand for a jury trial pursuant to Rule 38 o

the Maine Rules of Civil Procedure.

Humbly and respectfully, submitted this 29thday of May 2012

________________________________________________________

Twila A. Butler f/k/a Wolf Defendant Pro

________________________________________________________

Charlton A. Butler Jr. Defendant-Intervenor Pro


29/59





Butler&ButlerProse

44PattenSt.

BangorMaine.04401

207-249-5378


Defendants hereby certify they have this day, or the following as allowed by rule, serve

the foregoing document upon the parties of record in this proceeding set forth below (delivering a copy thereof in person) and/or (by mailing a copy thereof, pre-paid an

properly addressed by first class mail).

Perkins Thompson Attorneys:

Stephanie A. Williams

David B. McConnell

Joseph G. Talbot

One Canal Plaza

P.O. Box 426


Paul Niklas

Assistant City Solicitor

The City of Bangor Maine.

73 Harlow St.

Bangor Me. 04401

DATED this 29th, day of May 2012 .

____________________________________________

_____________________________________________


30/59


DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT (M. R. Civ. P. 55(b))

Butler&ButlerProse

44PattenSt.

BangorMaine.04401

207-249-5378

Victim.o

f.crime.and.corrution

ma

il.com

MOTION TO COMPELL THE PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS



JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PURSUANT TO RULE 38.

Now, come, Defendants Twila A. Butler f/k/a Wolf and Charlton A. Butler Jr. with reque

and demand for the compelling of the production of documents, that after almost tw

years, Plaintiffs have still not produced the alleged original promissory note an

mortgage. Documents, required, due to a material dispute of the validity of t

documents in question. Plaintiffs have done nothing, but, show the same tired copy, o

promissory note and mortgage, they claim to possess and of which entitles them th

right to foreclose. As much as a copy of a check is insufficient to compel payment s

then, is a copy of a promissory note, insufficient to establish and compel payment as w

both being a unique and one of a kind instrument with only one (emphasis added) set

TD BANK N.A. f/k/a FIRST

MASSACHUSETTS BANK N.A.

Plaintiff,

v.


AND


Defendant

and




MOTION TO COMPELL THE PRODUCTION

OF DOCUMENTS

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

Judge/Magistrate: The Right Most Honorable

Justice Anderson.




31/59



Butler&ButlerProse

44PattenSt.

BangorMaine.04401

207-249-5378

Victim.o


ma

il.com

legal presentment and payment. Plaintiffs are encouraging the establishment of nev

ending payment and you only earn the right to payment and fill out the paperwork onc

1.

Defendants make request or otherwise make demand of Plaintiffs, TD Bank N.

Maine State Housing Authority and the City of Bangor, be compelled to produc

within thirty (30) days of the service hereof, at 44 Patten St. Bangor Maine 04401,

schedule a time at 78, Exchange Street. Bangor, Maine 04401the original Promisso

Note and mortgage. Plaintiffs, proof to their claim was allegedly signed by Defenda

on December 04, 2000 and without of which this action cannot go forward as it

absolutely required to dispose of this matter now at bar.

2. The documents supposedly, according to the paperwork, that were created in le

than one business day.

3.

Defendant T Butler, according to the testimony of Plaintiffs documents,

(i)

arrived at the closing, late in the afternoon close to closing time, and w

being rushed as the seller had a flight out of town and had to hurry, where,

(ii)

Defendant T Butler, according to Plaintiffs, by way of the date on t

paperwork,

(iii) made application for a loan,

(iv)

was approved for this alleged loan, this, prior to the age of high speed onli

loan origination.

(v) had an appraisal scheduled and

(vi) performed and

(vii)

Defendants then paid for that appraisal;


32/59



Butler&ButlerProse

44PattenSt.

BangorMaine.04401

207-249-5378

Victim.o


ma

il.com

(viii) not Plaintiffs as claimed by opposing counsels documents,

(ix)

Paid off taxes

(x)

got an abstract and title search done and paid for

(xi)

closed on the alleged loan and

(xii)

then managed, if the paperwork is to be believed, to get said paperwork to t

County Registrars office before it closed.

(xiii)

This was accomplished, according to Plaintiffs documents,

(xiv)

despite the fact that it was after 5:00 when the closing concluded.

4. For these reasons and more do Defendants demand of Plaintiffs the paperwork th

they say Defendant T Butler signed and thereby did commit or otherwise inde

herself contractually to Plaintiffs.

5.

This despite having told Plaintiffs she had done no such thing willing or knowingly

otherwise and Plaintiffs would therefore need to provide the original as she does n

believe it exists. How could it? She never, knowingly, with contractual intent to

bound after a meeting of the minds, for the exchange of value, signed any such thing

Respectfully submitted to this Honorable Court this 29thday of May 2012.

________________________________________________________

Twila A. Butler f/k/a Wolf Defendant Pro

________________________________________________________

Charlton A. Butler Jr. Defendant-Intervenor Pro


33/59



Butler&ButlerProse

44PattenSt.

BangorMaine.04401

207-249-5378

Victim.o


ma

il.com

NOTICE: Pursuant to M. R. Civ. P. 7(c), opposition to this Motion mu

be filed not later than 21 days after the filing of the Motion unles

otherwise directed by the court to do differently. Otherwise you waivyou right to object or move to strike and could lose the basis of th

case you received this warning for.


Defendants hereby certify they have this day, or the following as allowed by rule

served the foregoing document upon the parties of record in this proceeding set forthbelow (by delivering a copy thereof in person) and/or (by mailing a copy thereof, pre

paid and properly addressed by first class mail).

Perkins Thompson Attorneys: Paul Niklas

Stephanie A. Williams Assistant Solicitor City of Bangor.

David B. McConnell 73 Harlow St.

Joseph G. Talbot One Canal Plaza

P.O. Box 426 Bangor Me. 04401


DATED this 29th, day of May 2012.

____________________________________________

____________________________________________


34/59


35/59


36/59


37/59


38/59


39/59


40/59


41/59


42/59


43/59


44/59


45/59


46/59


47/59


48/59


49/59


50/59


51/59


52/59


53/59


54/59


55/59


56/59


57/59


58/59


59/59

BANSC RE 2010 187 TD Bank v Twila a Wolf 1 of 4 Defendants Case 05-29-2012 Compressed With Exhibits

Documents

Transcript of BANSC RE 2010 187 TD Bank v Twila a Wolf 1 of 4 Defendants Case 05-29-2012 Compressed With Exhibits