RE BANSC-2012-187 TD Bank N.A. V, Twila A. Wolf Case With Exhibits 09-18 and 22 2012 Submissions

Charlton A. Butler Jr. & Twila A.
Butler 44 Patten Street Bangor, ME 04401 September 18, 2012
Penny H. Reckards, Clerk Penobscot County Superior Court Attn: Civil Clerk for Real Estate Mattters 78 Exchange Street, Suite 350 Bangor ME 04401
0912112012
Dear Penny: Please find enclosed Defendants Motions, Amended Supplemental Material Facts. If you have any questions about this please let me know
Enclosure:
1. Notice Rule 7( c)(2)(3) 2. Defendants Motion for Leave to Amend. 3. Defendants Amended Supplemental Facts On support to Defendants Counter (Plaintiffs Motions, Objections, Requests and Affidavit.
Cover Copy To:
4. Judicial Notice Motion to Show Authority.
Stephanie A.Williams and David B. McConnell c/o Perkins Thompson P A. One Canal Plaza PO Box 426 Portland ME,04112-0426
& To:
Paul Nicklas Assistant City Attorney c/o The City of Bangor 73 Harlow Street. Bangor, ME04401
Thank You
Charlton A. Butler Jr. & Twila A. Butler
MAINE RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE RULE 7(c)(2)(3) PLEASE NOTE: If you wish to oppose this motion(s) you are required to file said opposition with the court not later than 21 days from receipt of said. If you fail to respond within this time you forfeit all right to do so later and all objections or otherwise. (2) Any party opposing any other motion shall file a memorandum and any supporting affidavits or other documents in opposition to the motion not later than 21 days after the filing of the motion, unless another time is set by the court. (3) A party failing to file a timely memorandum in opposition to a motion shall be deemed to have waived all objections to the motion.
Twila A. Wolf Pro per. & Charlton A. Butler Jr. Pro per. 44 Patten St Bangor Me, 04401 (207)-249-5378 Victim.ofJraud.and.corruption@gmail.com STATE OF MAINE PENOBSCOT, CIVILACTION TO BANK N.A. f/k/a FIRST MASSACHUSETTS BANK Plaintiffs v.
DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND DEFENDANTS SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL FACTS ON SUPPORT TO COUNTER-PLAINTIFFS/DEFENDANTS MOTIONS OBJECTIONS REQUESTS AND AFFIDAVITS ISSUE: ENTRY OF DEFAULT JURY TRIAL DEMANDED TITLE TO REAL PROPERTY AT ISSUE
SUPERIOR COURT DOCKET NUMBER BANSC-RE-2010-00187
TWILA A. BUTLER f/k/a WOLF & CHARLTON A. BUTLER JR. Defendant & Intervenor
DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND DEFENDANTS SUPPI.EMENTAI.
MATERIAL FACTS ON SUPPORT TO COUNTER-PLAlNTlFFSIDEFENDANTS MOTIONS OBJECTIONS REOUESTS AND AFFIDAVITS ISSUE: ENTRY OF DEFAULT
COMES NOW, Defendants TWILAA BUTLER fjkja WOLF and CHARLTONA. BUTLERJR. with
Defendants "Motion for Leave to Amend Defendants Supplemental Material Facts On Support to Defendants/Counter/Plaintiffs Motions, Objections, Requests and Affidavit Issue Entry of Default"
submitted by Defendants on September 18th, 2012 said, now amended. Wherein Defendants inadvertently submitted a draft copy of the Document Defendants, now, re-submit for the courts pleasure. Copies, of herein mentioned, and this missive have been remitted to opposing counsel. Respectfully submitted this 21st dayofSeptember 2012
Twila A. Butler fjkja Wolf Defendant
Charlton A. Butler Jr. Intervener VERIFICATION
We, the Defendants / Counter-Plaintiffs; Twila A Wolf & Charlton A Butler [r., do swear and affirm that all statements made herein are true and accurate, in all respects, to the best of our knowledge.
Twila A Butler f/k/a Wolf Defendant pro per
Charlton A. Butler Jr. Intevenor
pro per
The Persons above, who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person whose name is subscribed to this document and acknowledged to me that he/she executed the same in his/her authorized capacity and that by his/her signature on this instrument who is the person who executed this instrument. I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of this State that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct. Witness my hand and official seal.
NOTARY PUBLIC IN AND FOR THE STATE OF MAINE
Notary Seal CERTIFICA TE OF SERVICE
I, Twila A. Butler fjkja Wolf & Charlton A. Butler Jr. Pro-Per, certify that we mailed the preceding documents to the Clerk's office of the Maine State Superior Court in Bangor Maine and mailed a copy of same to be served to the following individuals below on this the 21st day of September, 2012. 1. Notice Rule 7(c)(2)(3) 2. Defendants Motion for Leave to Amend. 3. Defendants Amended Supplemental Facts
On support to Defendants Counter/Plaintiffs

Motions, Objections, Requests and Affidavit 4. Judicial Notice Motion to Show Authority.
To:
Stephanie A. Williams and David B. McConnell c/o Perkins Thompson P.A. One Canal Plaza PO Box 426 Portland ME, 04112-0426
To:
Paul Nicklas Assistant City Attorney c/o The City of Bangor 73 Harlow Street Bangor, ME 04401
&
Respectfully Submitted: 09-21-2012
Twila A. Butler fjkja Wolf Defendant Pro per
Charlton A. Butler Jr. Intervenor
Pro per
Twila A. Wolf Pro per. & Charlton A. Butler Jr. Pro per. 44 Patten St Bangor Me, 04401 (207)-249-5378 Victim.ofJraud.and.corruption@gmail.com STATE OF MAINE PENOBSCOT, CIVILACTION SUPERIOR COURT DOCKET NUMBER BANSC-RE-2010-00187
TD BANK N.A. fjkja FIRST MASSACHUSETTS BANK

Plaintiffs
v. DEFENDANTS AMENDED SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL FACTS ON SUPPORT TO COUNTERPLAINTIFFS/DEFENDANTS MOTIONS OBJECTIONS REQUESTS AND AFFIDAVITS ISSUE: ENTRY OF DEFAULT JURY TRIAL DEMANDED TITLE TO REAL PROPERTY AT ISSUE TWILA A. BUTLER fjkja WOLF & CHARLTON A. BUTLER JR. Defendant & Intervenor
8 o
u
DEFENDANTS AMENDED SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL FACTS ON SUPPORT TO COUNTER-PLAINTIFFS/DEFENDANTS MOTIONS OBJECTIONS REQUESTS AND AFFIDAVITS ISSUE: ENTRY OF DEFAULT
COMESNOW, Defendants TWlLA A BUTLERf/k/a WOLF and CHARLTONA. BUTLERJR..with Defendants "Motion to Reconsider" this honorable courts', July 30th, 2012 decision, made through separate motions herein filed concurrently with this notice of the courts authority and Defendants motion for leave to amend and to reconsider Defendants Motion for an Entry of Default. 1. Under Maine rules of Civil Procedure, a motion to reconsider an order: "shall not be filed
unless required to bring to the court's attention an error, omission or new material that could not previously have been presented." M.R. Civ. P. 7(b )(S). "The court may in its discretion deny
a motion for reconsideration without hearing and before opposition isfiled. " ld.
2. The Advisory Committee on Maine rules explains that Rule 7(b)(S) was added to: "makej]
clear that such motions are not to be encouraged. Too frequently, disappointed litigants bring motions to reconsider not to alert the court to an error ... but solely to reargue points that were
or could not have been presented to the court on the underlying matter." M.R. Civ. P. 7(b)(S) Advisory committee's Note to 2000 Amend. Me. Rptr., 746-7S4 A.2d XXVIII. 3. Defendants state, assert and maintain the court was and is in error in its July 30,2012, order of
denying Defendants motion for an entry of default and has and can fulfill all requirements
the law and rule to obtain such, despite, his honors prior ruling to the contrary Defendants feel the error was inadvertently contributed to by them.
4. That, the court, inundated by a, plethora, of information, supplied it, by Defendants, necessary for their probative value and this matters final disposition, left this honorable jurist with too much to take in, at one time. 5. That in attempting to deal with things succinctly and efficiently Defendants failed to note, how, so many motions and objections, in one document, would effect, if at all, an already overburdened and overwhelmed court. Defendants make a bow and request for forgiveness. 6. Defendants did not take into account the amount of work, exactly, your honor is under already, prior to this matter, and therefore, did not chunk the material up for the easier digestion for a sitting and overworked Judge in mind. 7. Defendants filed a counterclaim, in the form of a multi motion and objection omnibus, and an Entry for Default against the Plaintiffs on April 26th, 2012. According to the Maine Civil Rules of Procedure Plaintiffs had 21 days after Defendants filed to file their own opposition to Defendants counterclaim and motions. It also states that failing to file in a timely manner the party shall be deemed to have waived all objections to the motion(s). 8. Plaintiffs by their own admission lost, in their building, under their control, the motions, and the envelope they were contained in, at issue, in their own admission of the facts, declare, that the time to respond andf or objection had past and therefore, it is irrelevant, in the end result, if there indeed; was not, a Rule 7 Notice inserted with the documents, admittedly lost, until past time to respond and therefore it would have made no difference to the end result but for this courts allowing, said, and contraire to Maine settled law. 9. Plaintiffs would not be prejudiced; having lost the time to respond by their own actions, the courts' decision, here though, is and would be prejudicial to Defendants, in, at least, two ways: a) By allowing the opposition a "Second Bite at the Apple" without having, first, demonstrated both "Good Cause" and a "Meritorious Defense" and therefore, for that
reason alone, should not be allowed. Maine case law appears settled on the matter as the cases, previously cited, state simply put: no "Good Cause" equals, no "Meritorious Defense," equals no "Second Bite." b) Once again this court, in its actions, has conveyed upon Plaintiffs; without justification, not being based on the factual data and exhibits; submitted to this court, of record, Standing and Capacity. 8. This court, in doing so, prejudices the Defendants case by muddying the legal waters; where, judicial clarity is supposed to be the result and is antithetical to this courts clearly stated Judicial purpose.
9. Thus, making it harder, if not impossible, to address properly, legally, Plaintiffs attempt to convey Defendants Home,illegallyto parties that are "strangers to the transaction" at issue, as well any loan that Defendants were told they were at a closing, for, years ago which this loan agreement is, demonstrably, not. This is simply a "stranger" attempting to gain a credit bid and Defendants home. 10. Defendants thought that their prior submissions made the following points clear but will state here again so as to clarify and to stick to making but one point at a time, that point being the basis why their motion should be granted. 11. To begin with, while the name of the Plaintiff in the instant lawsuit is asserted in the caption of its Complaint, nowhere in the body of Plaintiffs Complaint does the Plaintiff set off or o u
describe in any way its entity-status, since this loan was sold into a trust, Defendants Exhibit "8" nor does the Plaintiff assert in what capacity does the Plaintiff contend it may avail itself to the jurisdiction of this Court. 12. A: Denotes 13. B: Denotes Defendants 14. C: Denotes 15. D: Denotes 16. E: Denotes Bond Series Sold Into the Pool of Mortgaged Backed Securities, this loan, allegedly made by was sold into. The Pool Certificates Number The Insurance On The Alleged Loan This Is A Servicers [S]ervicing Rights Purchase Report
17. Additionally,nowhere in the body of Plaintiffs Complaint does it assert the basis for its entityexistence or explain in any way the form of the entity that presents itself before the court. Therefore, the Plaintiff has failed to plead its capacity to the extent necessary to show the jurisdiction of this Court. 18. The Plaintiffs failure to plead a cause of action is bundled up in: (a) its failure to plead that it owns and holds the note and mortgage; or (b) adequately plead the requisite elements of agency relationship between itself and the true owner of the debt, as the true owner of the debt, real or not was sold to investors long ago, and that is what is being claimed here, as a foreclosable interest in real property, the true owner of which, is not listed here or in any court document thus far. 19. With respect to ownership of the note and mortgage, it is imperative that this Court note that the Plaintiffs cause of action is an in rem action in equity to foreclose a mortgage and not an in
personam
action at law for enforcement of the note for money damages. This debt having
been sold at a profit by the originator, at least according to claims on paper and due to the claim for relief, the Plaintiff must be both the owner and holder of the subject mortgage.
20. Moreover, Plaintiff has failed to plead: (1) who its principal is and therefore acknowledgment by the principal that Plaintiff will act for him or her, (2) Plaintiffs acceptance of the undertaking, and (3) control by the principal over the actions of Plaintiff. 21. There, because Plaintiff has failed to allege, sufficiently, that it either owns the note and mortgage or plead all requisite elements to establish an agency relationship, it is has failed to state a cause of action and Defendants motion should be granted. 22. As an addition to, or in the alternative, Defendants motion, should be granted because the subject note is non-negotiable and therefore Plaintiff cannot seek recourse pursuant to ME 11 3-1104 as, it appears, the attempt is to do here. 23. Your honor I present for you the statutory definition of a "negotiable instrument". Because
it's a statutory definition, it's black and white. We cannot alter or weave or color it with shades of gray here's what it is M.R.S.A.ll 3-1104. NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENT: (1). Except as provided in subsections (3) and (4), "negotiable instrument" means an unconditional promise or order to pay a fixed amount of money, with or without interest or other charges described in the promise or order, if it: (a). Is payable to bearer or to order at the time it is issued or first comes into possession of a holder; [1993, c. 293, Pt. A, 2 (NEW).] (b). Is payable on demand or at a definite time; and [1993, c. 293, Pt. A, 2 (NEW).] (c). Does not state any other undertaking or instruction by the person promising or ordering payment to do any act in addition to the payment of money, but the promise or order may contain: (i) An undertaking or power to give, maintain or protect collateral to secure payment; (ii) An authorization or power to the holder to confess judgment or realize on or dispose of collateral; or (iii) A waiver of the benefit of any law intended for the advantage or protection of an obligor. [1993, c. 293, Pt A, 2 (NEW).] 24. Specifically, the subject note is not negotiable because it contains several instructions or undertakings other than the payment of money, ad only one of many reasons, to wit, thus no "Holder" clause is available:
The instruction that the borrower pay a late charge if the lender has not received payment by the end offifteen calendar days after the date payment is due in clause 6(A); (Defs Hl) b. The obligation that the borrower to tell the lender, in writing, if borrower opts to may prepay in clause 4; (Defs H) c. The instruction that if applicable law "isfinally interpreted" so that the interest charged under the note or other loan charges exceed legal limits, then: (1) any such charge shall be reduced by the amount necessary to reduce the charge to be permitted, and (2) the lender shall refund such charges to the borrower in clause 5; (Dets Hl) d. The instruction that the lender send any notices that must be given to the borrower pursuant to the terms of the subject note by either delivering it or mailing it by first class mail in clause 7; and (Defs Hl) e. The instruction that the borrower send any notices that must be given to the lende pursuant to the terms of the subject note by either delivering it or mailing it by first class mail in clause 7. (Defs Hl) a.
eo
rn
OJ
25. Because the subject note is non-negotiable, Plaintiff cannot avail itself to ME 11 3-1104, et seq. Defendant's motion should be granted, if able to preserve Defendants rights for recourse and remedy under the same facts in this matter then Dismissal is proper. 26. No matter, if from the start, dismissed with prejudice, due to incurable defect for lack of Standing and Capacity or treat the debt as real and Plaintiffs case still fails for a lack of merit. The court is nevertheless required to make remedy not allow statute to deny equity in allowing fraud by statute or rule. 27. THEREFORE, Defendants pray this honorable court use this information in the contemplation of their reconsidering its July 30th 2012 Decision regarding an entry of default. Further that this court question why an in personam action is being pled as a in rem action. Further that lacking jurisdiction standing and capacity then Defendants motion is proper and apropos. Respectfully submitted this 18th of September 2012
Twila A. Butler fjkja Wolf Defendant
Charlton A. Butler Jr. Intervener
VERIFICATION
We, the Defendants / Counter-Plaintiffs; Twila A. Wolf & Charlton A. Butler [r., do swear
and affirm that all statements best of our knowledge.
made herein are true and accurate, in all respects, to the
Twila A. Butler f/k/a Wolf Defendant pro per
pro per
The Persons above, who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory person whose name is subscribed to this document and acknowledged
evidence
to be the
to me that he/sh
executed the same in his/her instrument
authorized
capacity and that by his/her
signature
on this
who is the person who executed this instrument.
I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of this State that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct.
Witness my hand and official seal.
Notary Seal
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Twila A. Butler f/k/a Wolf & Charlton A. Butler Jr. Pro-Per, certify that we mailed the preceding documents to the Clerk's office of the Maine State Superior Court in Bangor
Maine and mailed a copy of same to be served to the following individuals below on this the 18th day of September, 2012:
10. Defendants Supplemental Material Facts On Support to Defendants Motions, Objections, Responses and Affidavits Issue: Rule 7 Notice Violation 11. Defendants Supplemental Material Facts On Support to Defendants Motions, Objections, Responses and Affidavits Issue: Debt Collectors or Not?
1. Notice (Particularly for David McConnell) Rule 7 21 day right of response notice.
2. Counter-Complaint 3. Defendants Motion to Reconsider and Leave to Amend
4. Defendants Request for Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law 5. Defendants Objection to Plaintiffs Supplemental Material Facts 6. Defendant TwiIa A. Butler f/k/a Wolf Sworn Affidavit 7. Defendants Supplemental Material Facts On Support to Defendants Motions, Objections, Responses and Affidavits Issue: Standing 8. Defendants Supplemental Material Facts On Support to Defendants Motions, Ohjections, Res onses and Affidavits Issue: Ent of Default ml er21$2 112 rOT: 9. Defendants Supplemental Material Facts On Support to Defendants Motions, Objections, Responses and Affidavits Issue: Interpretation of the Rules
To:
Stephanie A.Williams and David B. McConnel! c/o Perkins Thompson P.A. One Canal Plaza PO Box 426 Portland ME,04112-0426
& To:
Paul Nicklas Assistant City Attorney c/o The City of Bangor 73 Harlow Street. Bangor, ME 04401
Respectfully Submitted:
09-18-2012
.~
]1
E
Charlton A. Butler Jr. Intervenor Pro per
Twila A. Wolf Pro per. & Charlton A. Butler Jr. Pro per. 44 Patten St Bangor Me, 04401 (207)-249-5378 Victim.ofJraud.and.corruption@gmail.com STATE OF MAINE PENOBSCOT, CIVILACTION SUPERIOR COURT DOCKET NUMBER BANSC-RE-2010-00187
TD BANK N.A. fjkja FIRST MASSACHUSETTS BANK Plaintiffs v.

DEFENDANT TWlLA A BUTLER'S SWORN AFFIDAVIT NO 2 ON SUPPORT TO DEFENDANTS AND COUNTERPLAINTTIFFS MOTION OBJECTIONS REQUESTS AND AFFIDAVITS JURY TRIAL DEMANDED TITLE TO REAL PROPERTY AT ISSUE
TWILA A. BUTLER fjkja WOLF & CHARLTON A. BUTLER JR. Defendant & Intervenor JUDICIAL NOTICE PURSUANT TO 20lfdl OF THE MAINE AND FEDERAL RULES OF EVIDENCE MANDATORY PURSUANT TO PUBLIC LAW 93-595: A COURT SHALL TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE IF REQUESTED BY A PATRY AND SUPPLIED WITH THE NECESSARY INFORMATION
COMENOW,Defendants TWILAA. BUTLERfjkja WOLF and CHARLTON BUTLERJR.,pro per, A. and moves this court to instruct the Plaintiffs Attorneys, allegedly, Perkins Thompson PA prove; pursuant to Rule 12 of the Maine Rules of Civil Procedure, from whom and how authority to represent was derived to represent the alleged owners of the subject note and mortgage. 1. That both, Stephanie A. Williams and David B. McConnell, show that they are duly authorized to represent the party of which they claim. Since, Stephanie A. Williams, at the first mediation meeting in December of 2010, had to get Defendants signatures to get files, of Defendants held by Maine State Housing Authority, she, if truly employed by Plaintiffs Maine State Housing Authority, should have had already. 2. That, opposing counsel. show, how they were hired to foreclose on the subject property and under what and whose authority, they, have been retained to act under and how it is that they are aware of, or, possess the knowledge that these Plaintiffs have authority to act and thus direct opposing counsel. 3. Defendants ask for a continuance until such and which time, opposing counsel does bring forth, said, and files, in and for the record, certified; documented, proof of such authority, agency, or 30 days whichever is the least, or, in the alternative, Defendants ask and move this
Q)
00 rn
honorable court for a Dismissal of all claims, of Plaintiffs, opposing counsel having proceeded without authority to act or proceed lacking standing, therefore the proper party, to proceed.
Respectfully Submitted this 21st day of September, 2012.
Twila A. Butler fjkja Wolf Defendant pro per
Charlton A. Butler Jr. Intervenor pro per VERIFICATION
We, the Defendants / Counter-Plaintiffs; Twila A. Wolf & Charlton A. Butler [r., do swear and affirm that all statements made herein are true and accurate, in all respects, to the best of our knowledge.
Charlton A. Butler Jr. Intevenor pro per
The Persons above, who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person whose name is subscribed to this document and acknowledged to me that he/she executed the same in his/her authorized capacity and that by his/her signature on this instrument who is the person who executed this instrument.
I certify, under penalty of perjury, under the laws of this State, that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct.
Notary Seal
I, Twila A. Butler f/kja preceding document
Wolf & Charlton A. Butler Jr. Pro-Per, certify that I mailed the Court in Bangor below on this
to the Clerk's office of the Maine State Superior
Maine and mailed a copy of same to be served to the following individuals the 18th day of September, 2012:
1. Defendants Amended Defendants Supplemental Material Facts On Support to Defendants Motions, Objections, Responses and Affidavits Issue: Entry of Default To:
2. Judicial Notice Motion to Show Authority
Stephanie A. Williams and David B. McConnell c/o Perkins Thompson P.A. One Canal Plaza PO Box 426 Portland ME, 04112-0426
& To: Paul Nicklas Assistant City Attorney cj 0 The City of Bangor 73 Harlow Street Bangor, ME 04401
Twila A. Butler f/k/a Wolf Defendant Pro per
Pro per
Charlton A. Butler Jr. & Twila A. Butler 44 Patten Street Bangor. ME 04401 September 18. 201:?
Penny H. Reckards, Clerk Penobscot County Superior Court Attn: Civil Clerk for Real Estate Mattters 78 Exchange Street, Suite 350 Bangor ME 04401
Dear Penny:
Please find enclosed Defendants Motions, Affidavit, Objections and Supplemental If you have any questions about this please let me know
Material Facts
Enclosure: Notice Rule 7 21 day right of response 1. Counter-Complaint 2. Defendants Amend Motion to Reconsider for Findings to Plaintiffs fjkja and Leave to of Fact and Supplemental Wolf Sworn notice.
Responses Violation
and
Affidavits
Issue:
Rule
7 Notice
10. Defendants Supplemental Material Facts On Support to Defendants Motions, Objections, Responses and Affidavits Issue: Debt Collectors or Not?
3. Defendants Request Conclusions of Law 4. Defendants Objection Material Facts 5. Defendant Affidavit
Twila A. Butler
6. Defendants Supplemental Material Facts On Support to Defendants Motions, Objections, Responses and Affidavits Issue: Standing 7. Defendants Supplemental Material Facts On Support to Defendants Motions, Objections, Responses and Affidavits Issue: Entry of Default 8. Defendants Supplemental Material Facts On Support to Defendants Motions, Objections, Responses and Affidavits Issue: Interpretation of the Rules 9. Defendants Support to Supplemental Material Facts On Defendants Motions, Objections,
Cover Copy To:
Stephanie A.Williams and David B. McConnell clo Perkins Thompson PA. One Canal Plaza PO Box426 Portland ME,04112-0426
&
To:
Paul Nicklas Assistant City Attorney c/o The City of Bangor 73 Harlow Street Bangor, ME04401
Thank You
Charlton A. Butler Jr. & Twila A. Butler
MAINE RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE RULE 7(c)(2)(3) PLEASE NOTE: If you wish to oppose this motion(s) you are required to file said opposition with the court not later than 21 days from receipt of said. If you fail to respond within this time you forfeit all right to do so later and all objections or otherwise. (2) Any party opposing any other motion shall file a memorandum and any supporting affidavits or other documents in opposition to the motion not later than 21 days after the filing of the motion, unless another time is set by the court. (3) A party failing to file a timely memorandum in opposition to a motion shall be deemed to have waived all objections to the motion.
Twila A. Wolf Pro per. & Charlton A. Butler Jr. Pro per. 404Patten St. Bangor Me, 04401 (207)-249-5378 Victim.ofJraud.and.corruption@gmail.com STATE OF MAINE PENOBSCOT, CIVILACTION SUPERIOR COURT DOCKET NUMBER BANSC-RE-2010-00187
TO BANK NA fjkja FIRST MASSACHUSETTS BANK

Plaintiji:
v.
DEFENDANTS REOUEST FOR FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW PURSUANT TO M.R.C.P. 52 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED TITLE TO REAL PROPERTY AT ISSUE
TWILA A. BUTLER fjkja WOLF & CHARLTON A. BUTLER JR. Defendant & Intervenor
DEFENDANTS REOUEST FOR FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW PURSUANT TO M.R.Civ.P. 52
COMES NOW, Defendants Defendants predicated
TWILA A BUTLER fjkja WOLF and CHARLTON A. BUTLER JR; with, of Law pursuant of rule to M.R.Civ.P. 52 being M.R.Civ.P. 7(b)(S) for
Motion for Findings of Fact and Conclusions on demonstrable error fits the
requirement
reconsideration 1. Defendants
by the court having made said decision( s) at issue. having complied with the Courts decision of July 30th 2012 and waited until the material facts to make motion, objection or otherwise. error, Defendants, despite having read the Courts
Plaintiffs filed their supplemental 2. In the face of apparent
Court decisional
order, are without judicial insight into, why and how exactly, the court arrived at its conclusions. 3. Thus, in order to preserve required for any Appellant reviewable judicial opinion, theory, doctrine and law, said being
Courts de novo review on any appeal, made of this Courts decisions without clear understanding. in case
consists of only that which is a part of the record; therefore, Defendants disagree, there would be no argument of law.
to be had in said record unless the court
provides findings of fact and conclusions
4. While, findings of fact and conclusions of law are considered based on Rule 12 and 56 motions.
unnecessary,
when they are
" .... Findings of fact and conclusions of law are unnecessary on decisions of motions under Rules 12 or 56 or any other motion except as provided in Rule SO(d)."
5. Defendants contend that [t]hat is not the case; as pertains to this matter, Defendants point to the analysis in Camden National Bank v. William M. Peterson 2008 ME 85 Lin-07-516 where it was held;
"Here, neither, the reasons for the bank's delay nor the court's findings, related to excusable neglect, are, available on the record before us, and Peterson did not ask the court to articulate its findings. What we can determine from the record is that there was only a seven-day delay in filing the motion for enlargement, and this brief delay followed several other delays occasioned by Peterson's motions for enlargement of time, which the bank did not oppose, and which the court liberally granted. .... In the absence of a record demonstrating any other facts that formed the basis of the court's ruling, we assume that the court acted within its discretion in granting the motion to enlarge."
6. Judicial error is always important; to say otherwise, is to deprive the law, and its procedures, of meaning. Error, even in the pre-trial motion stage is relevant, it, all adds up to the eventual disposition of the case and therefore material to the final disposition of any matter at bar let alone this case. 7. Camden National Bank N.A.v. Petersen, is on point with Plaintiffs in this matter, as Plaintiffs in Camden seek the Courts discretion, the same as Plaintiffs here, in order, that arguments, could be made without the requisite "Good Cause" or "Meritorious Defense" and prejudicially compromising Defendants case. 8. Affording Standing to a party challenged on that standing without a decision on said standing makes Defendants case impossible to fight and denies them due process therefore justice by denying them their legitimate defense by simply ignoring the Defendants on the subject 9. Defendants, have a lack of clarity, judicially, of the decision, but one of many questions, to confer the Courts discretion, to hear Plaintiffs arguments. Arguments that lacked the "Good Cause" and "Meritorious Defense" required under rule and case law to date; but is side
Q)
-::
stepped, here, solely at the Courts discretion;
and without, consideration,
for Defendants
evidence and exhibits, in opposition, to the Court and Plaintiffs view on the matter now at bar, and of which had priority over Plaintiffs MSJ. 10. As Defendants submissions, filed concurrently with herein, make apparent, Defendants have
more than a few problems with the decisions of July 30th All herein relates to those motions directly, and in any prayer for relief in those motions is a prayer here as well and in addition to being interrelated for review purposes. to being limited to 5 pages per submission regardless of the
.-< o ~ ~ ;"0
Q,j
s o
--' '@
U
11. Defendants submission
take exception
and its normal size limit. This is prejudicial to Defendants as no real reason was
s
s:::
given while Defendants showed that case lw has a history of not imposing Sanctions on those for simply trying to comply with a command to respond. Defendants feel with all due respect, [t]hat if GMACMortgage Servicings' Attorneys weren't Sanctioned for turning in fraudulent affidavits, fraudulent without substance merit or probative value, then Defendants can hardly understand the limitation placed on them here, nor anyone else for that matter, with the to limit submissions of 5 pages, with all due respect.
~f:9
;..
~t5r---o
Q,j s::: 0;: ~
e ;:2
00
.S
OI)~
2
I-.
~t:>~-d ..1>01 C!) r'"'I'J
=~ ~
s:::
0'1
o s:::
::l
I-. 0 ~ ;.. .... "O N
Q,j U')
=2
c.l::
~ Po; ~
'Ci.
.~
~ ~
S
o
courts requirement
:>
12. Defendants therefore state, that, due to there being a dearth of available information, by way of an explanation; contained therein, therefore, find that a decision to make a motion for request. Defendants
findings of fact and conclusions of law is both a ripe and apropos therefore
state, again, that Defendants are filing several objections and motions due to the
following decisions of this Court; (a) With all due respect that this court and the law it serves deserve; Defendants, ask the following, with reference by line number, a little more clarity. Decision at lines 12-19 Here the Court was good enough to explain, to some degree, what controlled the
decision; yet, the court still seems to be including a local custom, that if Defendants
')
Q) Q.()
<:>
understand it correctly, threatens to deprive Defendants of "Due Process." Surly that's not the case? Defendants Exhibit "A." (b) Decision at lines 20-25 (c) Decision at line 26 (d) Decision at line 27 (e) Decision at line 28
(f) Decision at line 29
.... o "'" "' "'0 "

4J .
a o
.......
(g) Decision at lines 30-32 (h) Decision at line 35-42 (i) Decision at lines 44-47
'a S
00 .0
e... t--+=lc: ::2 ""

0 bJ}~ ~ (]) t-- c: ~ ... o~ ..... 01--0
4J C/)
~~
OJ Decision at line 49
(k) Decision at line 51 11. Defendants would ask that the Court please explain these decisions a little more in-depth with citations if that wouldn't be too much to ask. 12. While Defendants are sure the Court endeavored greatly to make these decisions and followed the law to the letter. Still; when and/or if, Defendants appeal these decisions; the appellate court, will need the Courts thoughts on this matter with a little, less, succinctness; as in, maybe a bit more than a simple denied, no merit or frivolous. Defendants like the Appeals Court, are going to need a little more as weJl. 13. Defendants, apologize if they misunderstood; but, the issue of standing never having come up in the courts decisions; therefore, Defendants think the Court can see the fairness in Defendants request. 14. Defendants with all due respect, ask is the Bankruptcy Court a better option. The Bankruptcy Court; maybe it's a matter of a stricter set of rules, but they take; particularly anymore when challenged, standing and capacity seriously when raised. Defendants think these issues, should
= =~
-
';:roO\o
(])
4J
c:
2
0
I ..
<::t
I
01-0
;:3
=~
=2
~
c:
4-<
tb
0
ro
"'"
"'" S
'B
;>
be of great import in any court, more so these days; considering
and in light of, the problems
experienced by both the courts in Maine and the rest of the country to date. 15. Plaintiffs' case they are well aware and know as fact the result of their actions make Defendants their victims again. 16. Defendants state [t]hat this is, just, not an option. This; matter, is a one of criminal fraud, Defendants. can and have proven it. 17. Plaintiffs after almost two years of denying the need to produce the complete original
contract and denying the legal basis for doing so. In Cutillo v. Gerstel 477 A.2d 750 (1984) it was held:
"On remand, it should be noted that no judgment by default may be entered unless the originals of the two promissory notes on which plaintiff sues are filed with the clerk or "unless the court for cause shown shall otherwise direct on such terms as it may fix. " M.R.Civ.P.55(b )(3).- copies of the notes satisfy neither the plain language nor the purpose of the rule. Before obtaining a default judgment, a plaintiff is required to give up the original of a negotiable instrument, in order that he may not recover on it twice, either by negotiating it or by suing elsewhere upon it. " M.R.Civ.P.55(b )(3) reads in full: (3) Judgment on Negotiable Obligation. No judgment by default shall be entered upon a claim based on a negotiable instrument or other negotiable obligation unless the instrument or obligation is filed with the clerk or unless the court for cause shown shall otherwise direct on such terms as it may fix."
18. While Defendants case is not a matter of default it is still unlike Keybank National Association v. Donald H. Goodridge et al, Maine Supreme Judicial Court Reporter of Decisions, 1999 ME, 146, Docket: Aro-99-108; Plaintiffs jurisdiction, negotiable instrument; wherein, here, unlike there, Defendants capacity and standing have vigorously challenged the
from the start and continue
now. If this is a
as it would appear is the case as claimed by Plaintiffs; then, this fact
should, be a source of alarm to the court as that would be impossible with the current fact set having been sold and made a security and no longer describing the transaction at issue.
19. Therefore Defendants find it odd standing and capacity, while raised as legitimate issues by Defendants, and threshold issues at that, having been sufficiently and properly plead by ~ ~
Defendants; nevertheless,
have not been given, by this court, the attention the subject deserves
:5b
as it relates to this matter and particularly to the end result being the determination this court has jurisdiction and thus the authority to make any decision at all, or not.
of whether
PRAYER
Prayer is incorporated with Defendants other submissions concurrently filed.
Respectfully Submitted this 18th day of September 2012
Charlton A. Butler Jr. Intervenor pro per
VERIFICATION We, the Defendants j Counter-Plaintiffs; Twila A. Wolf & Charlton A. Butler [r., do swear and affirm that all statements made herein are true and accurate, in all respects, to the best of our knowledge.
Charlton
A. Butler
Jr. Intevenor
pro per
The Persons above, who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory person whose name is subscribed executed the same in his/her instrument to this document and acknowledged capacity and that by his/her
evidence
to be the
to me that he/she signature on this
authorized
Notary Seal
CERTIFICATE
OF SERVICE
1, Twila A. Butler f/k/a preceding documents
Wolf & Charlton A. Butler Jr. Pro-Per, certify that we mailed the to the Clerk's office of the Maine State Superior Court in Bangor below on this
1. Notice (Particularly for David McConnell) Rule 7
21 day right of response notice. 2. Counter-Complaint 3. Defendants Motion to Reconsider and Leave to 8. Defendants
Supplemental Material Facts On Support to Defendants Motions, Objections, Responses and Affidavits Issue: Entry of Default
9. Defendants
Amend
4. Defendants Request for Findings of Fact and
Supplemental Material Facts On Support to Defendants Motions, Objections, Responses and Affidavits Issue: Interpretation of the Rules 10. Defendants Supplemental Material Facts On Support to Defendants Motions, Objections, Responses and Affidavits Issue: Rule 7 Notice Violation 11. Defendants Supplemental Material Facts On Support to Defendants Motions, Objections, Responses and Affidavits Issue: Debt Collectors or Not?
Conclusions of Law
5. Defendants Objection to Plaintiffs Supplemental
Material Facts
6. Defendant Twila A. Butler f/k/a Wolf Sworn Affidavit 7. Defendants
Supplemental Material Facts On Support to Defendants Motions, Objections, Responses and Affidavits Issue: Standing To: Stephanie A. Williams and David B. McConnell c/o Perkins Thompson P.A. One Canal Plaza
PO Box426 Portland ME, 04112-0426 &
To:
Twila A Wolf Pro per. & Charlton A Butler Jr. Pro per. 44 Patten St Bangor Me, 04401 (207)-249-5378 victim.ofJraud.and.corruption@gmail.com STATE OF MAINE PENOBSCOT, CIVIL ACTION SUPERIOR COURT DOCKET NUMBER BANSC-RE-2010-00187
TO BANK N.A. fjkja FIRST MASSACHUSETTS BANK

Plaintiffs
v. DEFENDANTS MOTION TO RECONSIDER AND LEAVE TO AMEND INCORPORATED MEMORANDUM OF LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED TITLE TO REAL PROPERTY AT ISSUE TWlLA A BUTLER fjkja WOLF & CHARLTON A. BUTLER JR. Defendant & Intervenor
DEFENDANTS MOTION TO RECONSIDER AND LEAVE TO AMEND INCORPORATED MEMORANDUM OF LAW
COMESNOW, Defendants TWILAA BUTLERfjkja WOLF and CHARLTONA. BUTLERJR. with Defendants "Motion to Reconsider" this honorable courts', July 30th, 2012 decision, made through separate motions herein filed concurrently with this notice of the courts authority and Defendants motion for leave to amend their objections, responses and dispositive motions titled to Defendants Counter-Complaint. 1. Under Maine rules of Civil Procedure, a motion to reconsider an order: "shall not be filed
unless required to bring to the court's attention an error, omission or new material that could not previously have been presented." M.R. Civ. P. 7(b)(5). "The court may in its discretion deny
a motion for reconsideration without hearing and before opposition isfiled." Id.
2. The Advisory Committee on Maine rules explains that Rule 7(b)(5) was added to: "makej]
clear that such motions are not to be encouraged. Too frequently, disappointed litigants bring motions to reconsider not to alert the court to an error ... but solely to reargue points that were or could not have been presented to the court on the underlying matter." M.R. Civ. P. 7(b )(5)
Advisory committee's 3. Note to 2000 Amend. Me. Rptr., 746-754 A.2d XXVIII.
Defendants state, assert and maintain the court was and is in error in its July 30,2012, order denying Defendants motion for an entry of default and has and can fulfill all requirements of
the law and rule to obtain such, despite, his honors prior ruling to the contrary Defendants feel the error was inadvertently contributed to by them.
4. That, the court, inundated by a, plethora, of information, supplied it, by Defendants, necessary for their probative value and this matters final disposition, left this honorable jurist with too much to take in, at one time.
oj
~ C1l
5. That in attempting to deal with things succinctly and efficiently Defendants failed to note, how, so many motions and objections, in one document, would effect, if at all, an already overburdened and overwhelmed court. Defendants make a bow and request for forgiveness. 6. Defendants did not take into account the amount of work, exactly, your honor is under already, prior to this matter, and therefore, did not chunk the material up for the easier digestion for a sitting and overworked Judge in mind. Defendants filed a counterclaim, in the form of a multi motion and objection omnibus, and an Entry for Default against the Plaintiffs on April 26th, 2012.
ARGUMENT
7. In North Star Capital Acquisition v. Victor 984 A.2d 1278 (2009) 2009 ME 129 The high court appears, to Defendants at least, to be stating that a Defendants submissions don't have to be letter perfect, but, in fact; it, would seem [t]hat Defendants, as non attorneys, by simply showing an attempt to comply and conform with the Maine Rules of Civil Procedure, and more particularly Rule 12 & 56 motions, would be and is considered enough. That any attempt at, and a reasonable construction of, the elements, arguments and references to said is otherwise, defects aside, sufficient to compel action on the courts part as would be expected of the pleadings of practicing attorneys. "[1[ 7J While Victor's response to the North Star motion for summary judgment was not a perfect one, it does quote specific claims in the North Star statement of material facts and then indicates that those claims are denied and why. Further, those denials are supported by an affidavit, although the affidavit is not cited in Victor's opposing statement of material facts. [1[ 8] Whether or not there has been sufficient compliance with the requirements of Rule 56(h)(2) is a close question in this case. North Star is the plaintiff; it has the ultimate burden of proof See generally Watt v. UniFirst Corp.,2009 ME 47, 1[ 21, 969 A.2d 897, 902. When the plaintiff is the moving party on a motion for summary judgment, the plaintiff has the burden to demonstrate that each element of its claim is established without dispute as to material fact within the summary judgment record. See Deutsche Bank Nat'l Trust Co.v. Raggiani, 2009 ME 120, 1[1[ 6-7, 985 A.2d L 3, 2009 WL 4604649; Pierce v. Goodman,665 A.2d 1004, 1005 (Me.1995). We review the entry of summary judgment de novo, "viewing the evidence in the parties' statements of material facts and any record references therein in the light most favorable to" Victor, as the party against whom judgment was entered, and "drawall reasonable inferences" in his favor. See Watt, 2009 ME 47, 1[ 21, 969 A.2d at 902 (quotation marks omitted)"
rr
8. On appeal, it would seem to Defendants, that the picking apart of a Defendants case and the ignoring of properly pleaded issues of a threshold nature would be an unsupportable position.
<:>
9. So if, the simple act of renaming a defense, to, a counterclaim; and vice a versa, would fix the problem, then the court, in the interest of "Serving Justice," as referred to in Defendants Supplemental Material Facts in reference to that very quote in the Maine Rules of Civil Procedure, particularly in cases of misnamed defenses andf or motions, and a foreclosure wherein, so much resides on that decision, being fair, impartial and helpful to both parties.
10. With that in mind, then, the Court should have stepped in and fixed it, as authorized by rule
to do, so as to comport with the Courts desire on the matter and the rules of Maine Civil Procedure to the purpose of doing substantial justice.
11. Defendants opposition to TD Bank N.A.'s motion sufficiently placed in issue, at the very least,
the terms, conditions, and interest rates of the alleged agreement, and additionally, by
.... o ~
.
~ ~~
~
-
~ :"'0
.ro
o .....
swearing under oath, by affidavit to all previous submissions to this court, to the fact that this alleged loan contract package is a fraud and a forgery.
12. Additionally Defendants made clear the simple fact that Defendants did not make this loan
S
~
Q.;5t'--"5
bJ)~
~ I
~ ;:2
00
.s
2
I-
with Plaintiffs.
13. Plaintiffs have shown no assignment to TD Bank N.A.,for the sake of argument while the loan
':roO\o
~""'<i'-o ....".(\)t'--~
-
=~ ~
~
is a fraud on Defendants side, it is a reality, and therein a fraud upon the court and the State of Maine Office of Securities and thus a regulation and penalty issue as well for the Federal SECviolations incurred; therefore this loan, fraudulent as can be, nevertheless is reality to a group of investors somewhere due to Plaintiffs and their co-conspirators. 14. Due to Plaintiffs actions it would seem that Borrowers and Investors, who need to get together, apart and aside from the servicers and others in the middle with no discernible legal interest in these matters; those who are bleeding the two parties dry, and create work outs and principle write downs, are destined, it would appear, to never sort out the paperwork to do so. Some feel, and Defendants would agree, that this is deliberately so. Defendants, as well a host of experts whose number appears to be growing, 15. Thus those with the power and authority as well the interest and desire to negotiate a peaceful and non court involved settlement and agreement with the real party in interest, are destined to not do so to the detriment of everyone involved but the Plaintiffs and their ilk.
16. This assignment, then, would have had to been made, due to the fact this Note and Mortgage
~ ~ 0 ~ ... N"O Q,l (/) ;:::l
~:g
p.
':(\)
ro <.!::
~
~
S .
>
real or not was sold along with all rights and no recourse. It's assignment or the receipt for the purchase of this loan promissory note and mortgage, either one; would have to occur, after, having sold, the alleged loan, in question into the secondary mortgage market. The
Q)
eo
rn
burden of demonstrating a lack of dispute of material facts on the issues then shifted back to Plaintiffs where it should have been all along.
"(1f 1OJNeither in the summary judgment record nor in the filings in support of its motion for summary judgment did North Star provide any documentation or other proof of the original loan, the terms and conditions of the original loan, or its assignment to North Star. These materials were not included or referenced, even in North Star's response to Victor's opposition to summary judgment, after North Star was on notice that Victor asserted there were factual disputes about these issues. Thus, the summary judgment record did not support North Star's claim that it was the assignee of the loan and did not disclose the terms and conditions of that loan. See Deutsche Bank Nat'l Trust Co.,2009 ME 120, 1f 6, 985 A.2d at 3. [1f llJ Victor's denial of the statements about these facts in the North Star statement of material facts sufficiently complied with Rule 56(h)(2) and, therefore, the facts asserted in that statement cannot be deemed admitted. See id. 1f 8."
17. Plaintiffs after having been challenged, repeatedly as to the validity of their claim, at the threshold level, have produced nothing of probative or material value nor have Plaintiffs substantively and dispositively dealt with Defendants claims, in furtherance of, their claim currently at bar.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
Therefore, Defendants, having shown good cause and evidence of, for, are therefore deserving of the courts reconsideration of its July 30th 2012 decision regarding Defendants arguments motions and objections. Respectfully Submitted this 18th day of September 2012
Charlton A. Butler [r. Intervenor pro per
VERIFICATION
We, the Defendants j Counter-Plaintiffs; TWILA A. BUTLER fjkja WOLF & CHARLTONA. BUTLERJR.., do swear and affirm that all statements made herein are true and accurate, in all respects, to the best of our knowledge.
Twila A. Butler fjkj a Wolf Defendant pro per
Charlton A. Butler Jr. Intevenor pro per The Persons above, who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person whose name is subscribed to this document and acknowledged to me that he/she executed the same in his/her authorized capacity and that by his/her signature on this instrument who is the person who executed this instrument. I certify under PENALTYOF PERJURY under the laws of this State that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct. Witness my hand and official seal.
NOTARYPUBLICIN ANDFOR THE STATEOF MAINE
Notary Seal
I, Twila A. Butler f/kja Wolf & Charlton A. Butler Jr. Defendant and Intervenor Pro-Per, certify that I mailed the preceding document to the Clerk's office of the Maine State Superior Court 78 Exchange St. Bangor, ME 04401 and mailed a copy of same, by certified mail, with return receipt to be served to the following individuals below on this the 18th day of September, 2012:
j
(])
co
2. Counter-Complaint 3. Defendants to Amend
Motion to Reconsider
and Leave
10. Defendants Supplemental Material Facts On Support to Defendants Motions, Objections, Requests and Affidavits Issue: Rule 7 Notice Violation
4. Defendants Request for Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law 5. Defendants Supplemental 6. Defendant Affidavit Objection to Plaintiffs Material Facts Twila A. Butler f/k/a Wolf Sworn
11. Defendants Supplemental Material Facts On Support to Defendants Motions, Objections, Requests and Affidavits Issue: Debt Collectors or Not? To: Stephanie A. Williams and David B. McConnell C/O Perkins Thompson P.A. One Canal Plaza PO Box 426 Portland ME, 04112-0426
&
7. Defendants Supplemental Material Facts On Support to Defendants Motions, Objections, Requests and Affidavits Issue: Standing 8. Defendants Supplemental Material Facts On Support to Defendants Motions, Objections, Requests and Affidavits Issue: Entry of Default
9. Defendants
Supplemental Material Facts On Support to Defendants Motions, Objections, Requests and Affidavits Issue: Interpretation of the Rules
To: Paul Nicklas Assistant City Attorney C/O The City of Bangor 73 Harlow Street. Bangor, ME 04401
09-18-2012
Twila A. Butler f/k/ a Wolf Coun ter- Plai n tiff
Charlton A. Butler Jr. Counter-Plaintiff
Twila A. Wolf Pro per. & Charlton A. Butler Jr. Pro per. 44 Patten St. Bangor Me, 04401 (207)-249-5378 Victim.ofJraud.and.corruption@gmail.com STATE OF MAINE PENOBSCOT, CIVILACTION SUPERIOR COURT DOCKET NUMBER BANSC-RE-2010-00187
TD BANK N.A. f/k/a FIRST MASSACHUSETTS BANK Plaintiffs v. DEFENDANTS OBJECTIONS TO SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL FACTS JURY TRIAL DEMANDED TITLE TO REAL PROPERTY AT ISSUE TWILA A. BUTLER f/k/a WOLF & CHARLTON A. BUTLER JR. Defendant & Intervenor PLAINTIFFS
DEFENDANTS OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL FACTS
COMES NOW, DEFENDANTS TWILA A BUTLER fjkja WOLF Defendant pro per and CHARLTON A
BUTLER JR. Defendant-Intervener Supplemental pro per with their Objection and Response to Plaintiffs
Material Facts and Renewing, by amendment,
their Motion for an Entry of Default
ARGUMENT Plaintiff has filed an action for the Foreclosure of Defendants home and a subsequent decisional
Motion for Summary Judgment which, both, relied on factually inapplicable law; ignored the dispositive Jurisdiction. dispositive threshold
issues of Standing; Capacity and this Courts very of Defendants to be supported answer, responses, by
As well they fail to justify ignoring motions and objections; and purports
by a Certification
Affidavit; of one Tonya Daignaeult,
for Plaintiffs, which
is not made on personal
knowledge and which is in fact based on incompetent In addition Plaintiffs supplemental
hearsay. as the first anything
Material Facts are equally as irrelevant
from Ms. Daigneault
has failed as much or more than the first to establish
more than the evidence of a possible debt predicated does nothing to towards apparent paying proving Defendants
on an ongoing case of fraud. This of Defendants no more in the an

~
intent or motivation files/records are
of said. But in fact these different
than
amalgamation
of three
or more Banks records
of which this most recent
compilation is solely for the purpose of prosecuting this foreclosure and not records kept in the ordinary course of business and hearsay. Affiant has failed to state, about, this true and attested copy of the purported original document, how, it is, personally, that, she knows this to be a true and accurate copy; or where and when it was that she had a true and attested copy made. She knows nothing of a personal knowledge nature of this document but for the statement document that says what it purports to be therefore hearsay and inadmissible. Nor does she state or otherwise indicate how it is that she has seen; said, complete contract of Promissory note and Mortgage and/or how she came to know that it is in 8 o
o
on the
the Plaintiffs possession, when she saw it and under what circumstances; nor, how she knew it was the note in question or even whether or not it was not a fake and how would she know? The decision in Beneficial v. Carter defines; an almost brightline, the requirements for Ms. Daignueault's being found capable of giving testimony. That if this employee did not work for each of the preceding former Banks, First Massachusetts Bank N.A., Peoples Heritage N.A., and was not involved with the up to and
consolidation of the Banknorth records with all the preceding banks including the TD Banknorth N.A. to TD Bank N.A. name change.
As well as be able to give a qualified and supported statement of knowledge of the accounting systems, network storage and overall network structure for data and the accounting standards followed at each and why she is qualified she would, therefore, as before; for all the same reasons, as these herein, is incapable of qualifying to give testimony in this matter her statements are still hearsay and of non probative value. But if she could do all that she might be able testify to something; but that's debatable. As it stands now she wouldn't be able to give testimony because this is supposed to be predicated on her personal knowledge of an, alleged, underlying transaction she is, in fact, a stranger to. Defendants would have to ask when was it that she came by this personal information as a Mortgage Foreclosure Specialist; and not, a Vice President of TD Bank N.A.bu merely, just, another hourly employee assisting, like so many today in their jobs in the
<1J
eo
<'tl
'---'
'-.../"
banking industry, in and participating,
because, the rent has to be paid and food bought,
fully in this deceptive action hourly employee of TD Bank Servicing as a quick google shows Defendants Exhibit "E". O.Therein discrediting the Plaintiffs only, apparent, witness. In whom so much was
placed and such an inadequate
vessel it was. for court. Plaintiffs have
1. Nor where that location is and why it cannot be produced failed to demonstrate
the absence of genuine issues of material fact and have failed to
sustain Plaintiffs burden to be entitled to the entry of summary judgment. 2. Plaintiffs

o 'T
l.,O
own submissions
and admissions
therein
demonstrate
that the Defendants
,.....,
.~
o ,......,
are entitled to the entry of summary judgment and entry of default. 3. Plaintiffs submissions are legally thus far state that "many of the answers and defenses proffered as they fail to challenge and fail to interpose the essential elements of the
'T
~.
.}o. ~
~
00 ._
~ ~
insufficient
io.l.;Bt--p 2 Q,l bf)~ s::

0;: ~
I
mortgagee's foreclosure
right to foreclosure
a validly recognized
defense in
1-0
= ~ <;l-d .....
'T
0\
suits". It is of record that the Defendants have challenged the Plaintiffs very
ab initio and
~~(l)t--S::
~~o~ 01"0 _ ....

-
standing to foreclose and thus its right to seek the remedy of foreclosure as set forth more fully herein. 4. A Plaintiff seeking Summary Judgment on a complaint for Foreclosure upon satisfying the independent refer to evidence, admissible obligation to provide a statement in court, supporting all elements
=2
~
Q,l CI:l
:l
s::
p..
'T
;
4-<
C?
o
can prevail only
8 .;::l
of material facts that of its claim. See HSBC
>
Bank USA N.A. v. Gabay, 2011 ME 101.
5. It should be further evidence of ownership. acceptable
noted that whether
or not the court was alerted to provide evidentiary,
to the lack of as would be
The Plaintiffs are required
at trial, support for their statement
that they are the owner of the Note and judgment.

See Gabay, 201t ME
Mortgage. In order to prevail to prevail on summary
un. 98, 28 A3d.

arguments
1158, Raqqiani, 2009 ME 120, 5-8 985 A2d. 1 did not provide this evidentiary support and thus their
6. The Bank or Plaintiffs
fail. See Levine v. RBK Caly Corp; 2001 ME 77 9 770 A2d. 653
'j <Ii eo
rn
7. The Defense of the Defendants states that Plaintiffs were not, at the time of the filing of the Complaint, possession nor ever have been, as you cannot sell what you do not own, in
of any legal interest in the mortgage sufficient to institute a foreclosure. of the Defendants requests the entry of a
8. The First Count of the Counterclaim Declaratory
Judgment for dismissal of the foreclosure and proper proofs
complaint based on the absence requirements to
of the necessary institute Injunctive
to satisfy the legal standing
a foreclosure.
The Second Count of the Counterclaim the entry of a judgment
requests
the entry of and the sale,
Relief prohibiting
of foreclosure
conveyance, or transfer
o
of the real property
the subject of this action based on the lack to institute a foreclosure. The
8
u
of legal standing Separate
of the Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant are "germane"
Defense and Counterclaim
to the foreclosure
action as they issue
arise out of the subject matter of the mortgage transaction, of the legal standing of the Plaintiff to institute
going to the threshold
this foreclosure
action. As such,
Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment should be denied. 9. Plaintiffs have failed to cite a single case which precludes counterclaim standing for declaratory and injunctive a foreclosure the assertion of an equitable the very legal
relief which challenges
of a plaintiff to institute
action, and have also failed to cite a a foreclosure action when it has no action claim. Any as being
single case which permits
a plaintiff to institute
legal interest in the mortgage Motion for Summary
and note at the basis of its foreclosure by Plaintiffs, should thus
Judgment,
be denied
unsupported
by any decisional law on the specific facts of this case.

CONCLUSION
Plaintiffs
have, by their very own submissions,
let alone
Defendants
submissions,
exhibits and evidence, demonstrated when, if ever, Plaintiffs Mortgage. material mortgage possession Defendant's
that there are genuine issues of material fact as to interest in either the Note or issue of
came into any ownership submissions demonstrate
that there
is no genuine
fact that Plaintiff did not have any legal interest at the time it filed this foreclosure of the Promissory
in either the note or the
action, nor could ever be legally in contract at issue and has thus
Note and Mortgage
demonstrated
that it was without legal standing to institute this action. Summary
judgment for Plaintiffs is thus inappropriate.

PRAYERFOR RELIEF Therefore, Defendants, having shown good cause and evidence of, for, are therefore deserving of the courts reconsideration of its July 30th 2012 decision regarding Defendants arguments motions and objections now titled Counter-Plaintiffs Complaint.
VERIFICATION We, the Defendants / Counter-Plaintiffs; TWILA A. BUTLER fIkIa WOLF & CHARLTON A. BUTLER JR., do swear and affirm that all statements made herein are true and accurate, in all respects, to the best of our knowledge.
Twila A. Butler fIkIa Wolf Defendant pro per
Charlton A. Butler Jr. Intevenor pro per The Persons above, who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person whose name is subscribed to this document and acknowledged to me that he/she executed the same in his/her authorized capacity and that by his/her signature on this instrument who is the person who executed this instrument. I certify, under Penalty of Perjury, under the laws of this State that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct. Witness my hand and official seal.
NOTARY PUBLIC IN AND FOR TIIE STATE OF MAINE
Notary Seal
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE L Twila A. Butler f/k/a Wolf & Charlton A. Butler Jr. Defendant and Intervenor Pro-Per, certify that I mailed the preceding document to the Clerk's office of the Maine State Superior Court 78 Exchange St. Bangor, ME 04401 and mailed a copy of same, by certified mail, with return receipt to be served to the following individuals below on this the 18th day of September, 2012:
1. Notice (Particularly for David McConnell) Rule 7 21 day right of response notice. 2. Counter-Complaint 3. Defendants Motion to Reconsider and Leave to Amend 10. Defendants Supplemental Material Facts On Support to Defendants Motions, Objections, Requests and Affidavits Issue: Rule 7 Notice Violation 11. Defendants Supplemental Material Facts On Support to Defendants Motions, Objections, Requests and Affidavits Issue: Debt Collectors or Not? To: Stephanie A Williams McCOlmell C/O Perkins Thompson P.A One Canal Plaza PO Box 426 Portland ME, 04112-0426 and David B.

Conclusions of Law 5. Defendants Objection to Plaintiffs Supplemental Material Facts
6. Defendant Twila A Butler fIkIa Wolf Sworn Affidavit

7. Defendants Supplemental Material Facts On Support to Defendants Motions, Objections, Requests and Affidavits Issue: Standing 8. Defendants Supplemental Material Facts On Support to Defendants Motions, Objections, Requests and Affidavits Issue: Entry of Default 9. Defendants Supplemental Material Facts On Support to Defendants Motions, Objections, Requests and Affidavits Issue: Interpretation of the Rules
&
To: Paul Nicklas Assistant City Attorney C/O The City of Bangor 73 Harlow Street. Bangor, ME 04401
09-18-2012
Twila A. Butler fjkja Wolf Counter-Plaintiff
Pro per
Pro per
:>
Q)
00
rn
Twila A. Wolf Pro per. & Charlton A. Butler Jr. Pro per. 44 Patten St. Bangor Me, 04401 (207)-249-5378 Victim.ofJraud.and.corruption@gmail.com STATE OF MAINE PENOBSCOT, CIVIL ACTION SUPERIOR COURT DOCKET NUMBER BANSC-RE-2010-00187
TD BANK N.A. fjkja FIRST MASSACHUSETTS BANK N.A.

Plaintiffs
v.
COUNTER-PLAINTIFFS COMPLAINT STYLED SO AS TO COMPORT WITH THE COURTS WISHES MADE IN ITS JULY 30TH 2012 DECISION JURY TRIAL DEMANDED TITLE TO REAL PROPERTY AT ISSUE
TWlLA A. BUTLER fjkja WOLF & CHARLTON A. BUTLER JR.

Counter-Plaintiffs, Defendant & Intervenor
v.
TO BANK N.A. fjk(a FIRST MASSACHUSETTS BANK N.A. etal

Counter-Defendants And
MAINE STATE HOUSING AUTHORITY et aJ

THE CIlY OF BANGOR etal

DOES 1-1000, Inclusive

Counter-Defendants
COUNTER-PLAINTIFFS COMPLAINT STYLED SO AS TO COMPORT WITH THE COURTS WISHES MADE IN ITS DECISION OF JULY 30TH 2012
COME NOW, Defendants
now Counterclaimants,
Counter-Plaintiffs
TWlLA A. BUTLER f/k/a this courts filed
WOLF and CHARLTON A. BUTLER JR. with Counter-Plaintiffs July 30th 2012 decision concurrently 1. with herein. are, ignorant through motions, supplemental
"Motion to Reconsider" material
facts and objections,
Counter-Plaintiffs,
of the, true, names and capacities
of Counter-Defendants by the ficti-
sued as DOES 1-1000, inclusive and therefore, tious name of DOE. Counter-Plaintiffs and capacities when ascertained.
sues these Counter-Defendants
will amend this complaint
to allege their true name
VENUE AND IURSIDICTION
2. Jurisdiction and venue are proper in Penobscot County Maine because Counter-Plaintiffs alleged Promissory Note and Mortgage Note were signed and Counter-Defendants chose to initiate the Foreclosure action; that prompted this Counter-Complaint; in Penobscot county and relates to property located in Penobscot county 3. Counter-Plaintiffs thought that their prior submissions made these particular points, among others, perfectly clear but will state here; for the record, again, so as to clarify, by indicating unequivocally by merely applying the title of COUNTER-COMPLAINT Counter-Plaintiffs, to Counter-Complaint. COUNT-I REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
4. Counter-Plaintiffs request the entry of a Declaratory Judgment for dismissal of the foreclosure complaint based on the absence of the necessary and proper proofs to satisfy the legal standing requirements to institute a foreclosure.
COUNT-II REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
5. Counter-Plaintiffs request the entry of Injunctive Relief prohibiting the entry of a judgment of foreclosure and/or the sale, conveyance, or transfer of the real property at the subject of this action based on the lack of legal standing of the Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant to institute a foreclosure.
COUNT-III FAILURE TO PLEAD CAPACITY: 6. To begin with, while the name of the Counter-Defendants in the instant lawsuit is asserted in the caption of Counter-Defendants Complaint, nowhere in the body of Counter-Defendants Complaint do they, Counter-Defendants, set off or describe; in any way, their entity-status, which since this loan was sold into a trust; Counter-Plaintiffs assert, that this; proof of status, then, would be a requirement to continue, then, wouldn't it? Counter-Plaintiffs Exhibit
liB"
7. Nor do Counter-Defendants assert under what authority, it is, they move this honorable court, but, once questioned must then be proven. That being, in what capacity do, they, CounterQ)
eo
Defendants, contend, accurately would be good, it is, that; they, feel they may avail themselves of the jurisdiction of this Court? 8. Counter-Defendants lack standing thus capacity thus they, by default, lack the jurisdiction of
this court to ajudge this matter and thus any decision made, by this court, would consequently and conversely be a waste of this courts already limited resources by being a nullity void ab
initio.
9.
Once jurisdiction addressed
is challenged;
no matter the route taken to do so, then said must be
and disposed of before moving on. This is; but, a short list of citations on the subcould have cited caselaw on the subject 'til the proverbial cows came
ject. Counter-Plaintiffs
home or the proverbial hen froze over but, instead, left it at this, in the interest of brevity.
See "Once jurisdiction jurisdiction, is challenged, the court cannot proceed when it clearly appears that the court lacks
the court has no authority to reach merits, but, rather, should dismiss the action. " Melo v. US,
505 F2d 1026. 'ft judgment judgment rendered by a court without personal jurisdiction over the defendant is void. It is a nullity. [A is a nullity.]" Sramek v. Sramek, (l993). asserted." Latana v. Hop-
shown to be void for lack of personal service on the defendant
17 Kan. App. 2d 573,576-77,840
P2d 553 {l992J, rev. denied 252 Kan.l093
"Court must prove on the record, all jurisdiction facts related to the jurisdiction per, 102 F. 2d 188; Chicago v. New York, 37 FSupp.150. "The law provides that once State and Federal jurisdiction v. Thiboutot, 100 S. Ct 2502 (l980).
has been challenged, it must be proven." Main
'Jurisdiction can be challenged at any time." and 'Jurisdiction, once challenged, cannot be assumed and must be decided." Basso v, Utah Power & Light Co; 495 F 2d 906, 910. "Defense of lack ojjurisdiction over the subject matter may be raised at any time, even on appeal." Hill Top
Developers v. Holiday Pines Service Corp; 478 So. 2d. 368 (Fla 2nd DCA 1985)"Once challenged, jurisdiction cannot be assumed, it must be proved to exist" Stuck v. Medical Examiners, 389. "There is no discretion to ignore that lack ofjurisdiction."joyce "The burden shifts to the court to prove jurisdiction." principle as old as the law is that a proceedings v. Us, 474 F2d 215. v, Lambert, 469 F2d 416.'ft universal 94 Ca 2d 751. 211 P2d
Rosemond
of a court without jurisdiction
are a nullity and its judg-
ment therein without effect either on person or property." Norwood v. Renfield, 34 C 329; Ex parte Giam-
bonini, 49 P. 732.
'jurisdiction
is fundamental
and a judgment
rendered by a court that does not have jurisdiction
to hear is
void ab initio." In Re Application
of Wyatt, 300 P. 132; Re Cavitt, 118 P2d 846. nn
10. Additionally, nowhere in the body of Counter-Defendants Complaint, as Counter-Defendants, does it assert the basis for its entity-existence or explain in any way the form of the entity that presents itself before the court. Therefore, Counter-Defendants have failed to plead their
capacity to the extent necessary to show the jurisdiction of this Court. COUNT-IV-FAILURE STATEA CAUSEOFACTION TO 11. Counter-Plaintiffs reaffirm and re-allege all paragraphs above, as if specifically set forth more fully herein below. 12. The Counter-Defendants failure to plead a cause of action is bundled up in: (a) its failure to sufficiently plead that it owns and holds the note and mortgage; or (b) adequately plead the requisite elements of an agency relationship between itself and the true owner of the debt at issue here. 13. The true owner, of which, is not listed here or in any court document filed with this court thus far and would be again prima facie evidence of fraud upon the court; debt, that real or not, was sold long ago; thus, making this an additional act of fraud on Counter-Defendants part as well as and in addition to Securities Fraud on both State and Federal grounds. 14. Debt, that unfortunately Counter-Defendants; by their actions, have made it sparkling clear that they have been proceeding, in their attempt to foreclose on Counter-Plaintiffs property without any clear or convincing authority to do so. 15. If Counter-Defendants have indeed done due diligence as required. Then Counter-Defendants actions cannot, therefore, be construed, then, as any less than those made with malice and fore thought As this debt was sold long ago to a group of investors what less could any reasonable person think about it? 16. That, here, Counter-Defendants are claiming they both possess and own the note and
mortgage at issue here, after having sold, said, subject note and mortgage along with all the rights of in 2001. 17. That it is this same note and mortgage that Counter-Defendants now claim they are now claiming, magic apparently, without any supporting evidence of such, to own.
18. A note and mortgage; [T]hat, let me repeat, Counter-Defendants sold all rights to in 2001, without recourse; but are, here, in 2012, fraudulently representing to this court and to Counter-Plaintiffs and apparently upon yet another party, at this time as yet unrecognized here, that what they sold long ago, they wish the court and Counter-Plaintiffs to believe they have the right to claim even if they have nothing to show for that belief. 19. Due to and in response to the State's rate of mortgages in foreclosure rising to such unprecedented and obscene levels, the Maine Legislature enacted PL 2009 ch. 402, An Act to Preserve
Home Ownership and Stabilize the Economy by Preventing Unnecessary Foreclosures, effective
June 15, 2009 20. Recognizing that some foreclosures were being filed by entities that did not actually own the note at the time the foreclosure was filed the Legislature amended 14 M.R.S.A.6321 to require that foreclosure Counter-Defendants certify their ownership of the note and mortgage being sued upon. 21. What, Counter-Defendants and this court; have to know, is an invalid complaint, both
frivolous and without merit; that, Counter-Defendants have nevertheless, without leave motioned for, time or otherwise asked of this court, Counter-Defendants plow on ahead. 22. Additionally, Counter-Defendants, without the requisite standing or capacity to maintain a cause of action, have been given said by this court, post de facto validity, and prejudiced Counter-Plaintiffs case since Counter-Plaintiffs case is predicated on a complete and total lack of standing of Counter- Defendants. 23. The continued misrepresentations made by Counter-Defendants in this case, and others of
their industry as well in other cases of both Counter-Defendants and others in the Financial Sector, to the courts in foreclosure actions violates the evidentiary requirements established by the judiciary to ensure that judgments are based on accurate and verified information and threatens the very foundational integrity of the judicial system. 24. For arguments sake alone if this debt were not a fraud. The closest to a holder this or any other court could come to, would be a group of investors having purchased securities in a REMICTrust; in the best of scenarios, who; themselves, have, more than likely, already been paid by; or, are in the process of making claim for and obtaining payment for any loss that could be attributed to Counter-Plaintiffs through a variety of insurance products and IRS deductions, derivatives credit default swaps and a plethora of other like products for the prevention of and therefore the maintenance of stability in the markets and the like for an )
<lJ tlO
losses Investors mayor may not have suffered as a result of any loss from investment in a rn
MBSfunded REMICtrust to which Counter-Defendants are complained of for having shorted or caused damages to. 25. Counter-Plaintiffs then ask the court to please explain exactly the laws and statutes concerning how this is possible without either the Court, Counter-Plaintiffs Defendants breaking the law? 26. Counter-Plaintiffs have never admitted to being in default, in fact, Counter-Plaintiffs have, from the beginning, declared such and made notice to opposing counsel of; quite, the opposite. Counter-Plaintiffs therefore again for the courts pleasure; do state, for the record as a fact; period, and that fact being, that one cannot be in default of that; which by definition, of the events and evidence, of said transaction, declares it to be a fraud and therefore the transaction at issue has fraud as its foundation.
"For it is well settled in this jurisdiction that if not intending to sign a promissory note she was by fraud and deceit and without negligence on her own part tricked into signing that which afterwards proved to be a note the instrument is a forgery and void as to all parties. And whether she is estopped by her own negligence from denying her signature was a question for the ... Universal CIT Credit Corporation v. Cyr, 1964" "If so the instruments amounted in law to forgeries and the purported obligation of appellees under them could be terminated, notwithstanding the notes had come into the ownership of appellant as a holder in due course. Millrose Corporation v. Brent, 1959" "Nevertheless, there may be such mitigating circumstances, eq, a low degree of intelliqence, lack of familiarity with commercial transactions, or confidence justifiably placed in the defrauder, as will excuse the failure to read, and hence not estop the maker from asserting the defense of fraud in the factum. NJ MTGE. AND INVEST. CO.v. Dorsey, 1960"
or the Counter-
27. Thus the true holder(s) of any possible interest in the subject property at issue, besides Counter-Plaintiffs, would be Investors in the Mortgage Backed Securities' funded REMICs,and they are being deceived and robbed by this servicing company. 28. Defrauded of their rights; seemingly on its face, assisted by this court, as the servicing company, is assuming, without the authority or knowledge of any said, investors, with the court failing to demand proof thereof, despite several attempts by Counter-Plaintiffs to have the court ascertain exactly this set of facts of Counter-Defendants standing and capacity. The court therefore, albeit without malice one would assume, is then assisting this servicing company in robbing the investors of their rights and any profits from, a loan, these same CounterDefendants fabricated and sold, a long time ago, to these very same investors while apparently defrauding everyone else in between.
29. Sold all interest
and rights in this alleged foreclosable with the Courts permission,
interest
in real property
and yet are
here, today, attempting,
to carry on with this crime. Is this the would think and pray not. is divided beyond permissible and
Courts true mission to aid and abet? Counter-Plaintiffs 30. Investors, discernible countries property, again in a best case scenario,
as their interest
limits and under the laws arguing against perpetuities, penchant for an anti-fragmentation doctrine;
as but one example of this of for. laws
and our desire for the alienability or doctrine mentioned
a theory or doctrine suggest
of which there is no formal school of thought there is plenty of example, such as prior
But Counter-Plaintiffs against perpetuities
to suggest maybe the judiciary should formalize this thought. of the note and mortgage, it is imperative that this Court note that are led to assume,
31. With respect to ownership the Counter-Defendants understand
cause of action is, the Court and Counter-Plaintiffs therefore
and believe; Counter-Plaintiffs
direct the court for clarity. under 14 M.R.S.A. 6321? Or is this an, governed by Article 9 of the
32. Is this action in rem, in equity, to foreclose a mortgage in personam action at law whereby
under a security agreement;
Uniform Commercial Code, this would then be for enforcement
of the note for money damag-
es under 11 M.R.S.A 9-503 (1964)? Where sections 9-504 and 9-505 would apply:
"specifically provide, however, that the disposition of the property must be in compliance with strict notification and commercial reasonableness standards. [d. 9-504, 9-505 (1964 & Supp.1992). The failure to comply with the notification requirement precludes a secured party from collecting a deficiency judgment Camden Nat Bank v. St. Clair, 309 A.2d 329, 333 (Me.1973); see also 11 MR.5.A. 9-507 (1964).
It would appear to Counter-Plaintiffs under 11 M.R.S.A. 9-503 (1964), ter-Plaintiffs that Counter-Defendants as, they are trustees, should be coming in personam that Coun-
well that's an assumption
have made and must retain until proven otherwise, documentation
at best, and that is what the
Counter-Defendants
would suggest is actually the correct and proper course. at least according to claims on paper must
33. This debt having been sold at a profit by the originator, and due to what would then be the appropriate
claim for relief, the Counter-Defendants
be both the owner and holder of the subject mortgage and note. 34. Moreover, Counter-Defendants is or should be; a principle. have failed to plead: (1) who its principal is, or even that there (Note: and therefore a fraud upon the court, by, coming in their
own name on the possible, as yet unproven,
default on a loan they don't own and CounterMassachusetts Courts have said basically fines, penalties and or a
Plaintiffs never took out with Counter-Defendants; in agreeing
.
i5'o
rn
with Maine law, that, which is illegal; cannot generate
legal requirement of any kind, when they said "you cannot sell what you don't own.") or as we all have learned in our past this is a case of Nemo Dat. 35. Nor do Counter-Defendants therefore have any acknowledgment by the, as yet mentioned or listed anywhere in documents of record, unnamed principal; that Counter-Defendants will act for him or her, (2) Counter-Defendants acceptance of said undertaking, and (3) control by the as yet un-named principal over the actions of Counter-Defendants. 36. There, because Counter-Defendants have failed to allege, sufficiently, that it either owns the note and mortgage, with sufficiently qualified and permissible evidence, or plead all requisite elements to establish an agency relationship, Counter-Defendants have therefore failed to state a cause of action upon which relief may be granted and Counter-Plaintiffs motion(s) should be granted.
COUNT-V-NOTE NON-NEGOTIABLE IS 37. Counter-Plaintiffs reaffirm and re-allege all paragraphs above, as if specifically set forth more fully herein below. 38. As an addition to, or in the alternative, Counter-Plaintiffs motion, should be granted because the subject note is non-negotiable and therefore Counter-Defendants cannot seek recourse pursuant to ME 11 3-1104 as, it appears, there is an attempt to do here. 39. As in from any angle you look at this from. 40. Your honor I present, for you, the statutory definition of a "negotiable instrument". Because it's a statutory definition, it's black and white. We cannot alter, weave or color, it, with shades of gray. Therefore; M.R.S.A11 3-1104. NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENT:
(l). Except as provided in subsections (3) and (4), "negotiable instrument" means an unconditional promise or order to pay a fixed amount of money, with or without interest or other charges described in the promise or order, if it: (a). Is payable to bearer or to order at the time it is issued or first comes into possession of a holder; [1993, c. 293, Pt A, 2 (NEW).} (b). Is payable on demand or at a definite time; and [1993, c. 293, Pt A, 2 (NEW).) (c). Does not state any other undertaking or instruction by the person promising or ordering payment to do any act in addition to the payment of money, but the promise or order may contain: (i) An undertaking or power to give, maintain or protect collateral to secure payment; (iiJAn authorization or power to the holder to confess judgment or realize on or dispose of collateral; or (iiiJ A waiver of the benefit of any law intended for the advantage or protection of an obligor. [1993, c. 293, Pt A, 2 (NEW).]
41. Specifically, the subject note is not negotiable because it contains several instructions or undertakings other than the payment of money, only one of many reasons, thus no "Holder" clause is available: Defendants Exhibit "H," "H1," & "H2" Copy of Plaintiffs Exhibit "A" from Plaintiffs Complaint.
a. b. c. The instruction that the borrower pay a late charge if the lender has not received payment by the end of fifteen calendar days after the date payment is due in clause 6(A); [Def's Hl) The obligation that the borrower to tell the lender, in writing, if borrower opts to may prepay in clause 4; (DefsH) The instruction that if applicable law "isfinally interpreted" so that the interest charged under the note or other loan charges exceed legal limits, then: (l) any such charge shall be reduced by the amount necessary to reduce the charge to be permitted, and (2) the lender shall refund such charges to the borrower in clause 5; (Defs Hl) The instruction that the lender send any notices that must be given to the borrower pursuant to the terms of the subject note by either delivering it or mailing it by first class mail in clause 7; and (Defs Hl) The instruction that the borrower send any notices that must be given to the lender pursuant to the terms of the subject note by either delivering it or mailing it by first class mail in clause 7. [Dej's Hl)
d. e.
42. Because the subject note is non-negotiable, Counter-Defendants cannot avail themselves to ME 11 3-1104, et seq. Counter-Plaintiffs motion should be granted, in alternative, if able to preserve Counter-Plaintiffs rights for recourse and remedy under the same fact set, as in this matter now before the bar, then Dismissal is equally if not judicially more proper and appropriate. 43. No matter, if from the start, dismissed with prejudice, due to incurable defect for lack of Standing and Capacity, and therefore jurisdiction, or treat the debt as real and CounterDefendants case still fails for a lack of merit 44. The court, nevertheless, is required to make remedy. The court is not allowed to make decisions that make folly of statute and deny equity through fraud by statute or rule. 45. Counter-Defendants have, by their very own submissions, demonstrated that there are
genuine issues of material fact as to when, if ever, Counter-Defendants came into any ownership interest in either the Note or Mortgage. Questions raised about the legitimacy of obligations and transfers derived after the alleged closing and initial assignments in the securitization of the subject loan. 46. Nevertheless there should be a trail to follow if Counter-Defendants are compliant with the law. Counter- Plaintiffs would assert that this is part and parcel the problem and why CounterDefendants chose to initiate an in REM action, as if they owned said loan outright, as in ie. A portfolio lender as opposed to the temporary table funded loan this apparently was. 47. That in fact it would appear, from the reports in and from the Industry Journals of the field of securitization, that securitizations is turning out to be a scam; a Ponzi scheme of outrageous
eo
rn
'I)
and completely unbelievable proportions, consisting of closed trusts and foreclosures in those Trusts names when the Trust, in question, needs to be active and the loan to be performing for that all to work. That being that Counter-Defendants chose this flawed method, as opposed to, the more correct and legal route of assignment and indorsement, of the Uniform Commercial Code Article 9, and its corresponding paper trail, or hell, even that there be a loan to
begin with, period, would be good, I'm sure, to most people. 48. Counter-Defendants submissions, demonstrate that they have no genuine issue of material fact, that Counter-Defendants, did not have any legal interest in either the note or the mortgage at the time they filed this foreclosure action and thus demonstrating that they were
without legal standing, therein, to initiate this action. Any request for relief or motion in Counter-Defendants favor; let alone an order granting final summary judgment, is thus inappropriate and legally contraindicative. COUNTVI:VIOLATIONS REALESTATESETTLEMENT OF PROCEDURES ACT 49. Counter-Plaintiffs reaffirm and re-allege all paragraphs above, as if specifically set forth more fully herein below. 50. As, alleged, mortgage lenders, Counter-Defendants are subject to the provisions of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act ("RESPA"),12 USCsec. 2601 et seq. 51. In violation of12 USCsec. 2607 and in connection with the alleged, mortgage loan to CounterPlaintiffs, Counter-Defendants accepted charges for the rendering of real estate services which were in fact charges for other than services actually performed. 52. As a result of the Plaintiffs violations ofRESPA, Plaintiffs are liable to Counter-Plaintiffs in an amount equal to three (3) times the amount of charges paid by Counter-Plaintiffs for "settlement services" pursuant to 12 USCsec. 2607(d)(2). COUNTVlI: VIOLATIONS FEDERALTRUTH-IN-LENDING OF ACT 53. Counter-Plaintiffs reaffirm and re-allege paragraphs above hereinabove as if set forth more fully herein below. 54. Counter-Defendants failed to include and disclose certain charges as required by Statute. Point in fact, Counter-Defendants failed, to disclose the loan, at all. Criminal Fraud, CounterPlaintiffs believe, is how the Crlmmal Courts descrtbe this type of behavior. Counter-Plaintiffs, judging from the Courts decisions, of July 30th 2012, are, at this point, unsure how the Civil Courts refer to this, particular, set of facts.
55. Counter-Defendants, again for the record, failed to disclose, the entire loan; this has to count, those of reasonable mind would have to agree, the matter now at bar is a definitional material disclosure violation. "A material fact is one that can affect the outcome of the case and there is a genuine issue when there is sufficient evidence for a fact finder to choose between competing versions of the fact" North East Ins. Co.v. Young 2011 ME 89, 17, 26 A.3d 794. Counter-Defendants would assert that no matter how you define this or from what angle, non disclosure of a loan, and in particular in its entirety, which was argued about from CounterPlaintiffs Material Facts submitted previously from which they referred to their objections, exhibits and responsive dispositive motions. 56. Thus this figure does not appear in the finance charge shown on the TIL statement, which said charges were imposed on Counter-Plaintiffs incident to the extension of credit to the CounterPlaintiffs and were required to be disclosed pursuant to 15 USCsec. 1605 and Regulation Z sec. 226.4, thus resulting in an improper disclosure of finance charges in violation of 15 USC sec. 1601 et seq., Regulation Z sec. 226.18(d). Such undisclosed charges include a sum identified on the Settlement Statement listing the amount financed which is different from the sum listed on the original Note. 57. By calculating the annual percentage rate ("APR") based upon improperly calculated and disclosed amounts, Counter-Plaintiffs are in violation of 15 USCsec. 1601 et seq., Regulation Z sec. 226.18(c), 18(d), and 22. 58. That Counter-Defendants failed to account for, make adjustments
II
for, or otherwise the
disclose the Adjustable Rate Mortgage ARM"aspect of this loan, nor the negative amortization aspect of said loan due to a unilateral decision of the city, apparently, to further obfuscate the problems arising under a falling, crashing is a better term, real estate housing market 59. Wherein the City having discovered the malfeasance of a prior employee, T J Martzel, is the only reasonable deduction from the facts, chose to hide those facts and hope, for a resurgence in the market before the loan matured in 30 years. 60. As if Counter-Plaintiffs would not have noticed, but at that time it would really be too late, 30 years worth of compounded interest; due to the cities choice in how to manage crime. Ie The City of Bangor's "Silent Loan" of $9,646 (Nine Thousand Six Hundred Forty Six) dollars maturing at a hefty and princely sum of3% compounded over 30 years for a total of 40K+ profit
61. All because
the City of Bangor got soft on interdepartmental
crime? Choosing to defer
payment, therein making a victim further of the victim in this matter, until the home sold, years later, when there would be no one to prosecute and Counter-Plaintiff Wolf/Butler
would be as defenseless, then, as she was the day these jackals closed on a classic apparent loan for another "bait and switch" scheme. 62. Counter-Plaintiffs know only that the package presented here is one Counter-Plaintiff, previous submissions T.
Butler, declined to accept, in writing, part of Counter-Plaintiffs
of exhib-
its, just prior to the time in question, that this one loan she agreed to, for which no closing is possible to have occurred; if Counter-Plaintiffs allegations concerning this note and mortgage
are considered true. One would assume, with all the active covering up of the matter, that this was left, and covered up, for one dark rainy day, long, after Counter-Defendants Conspirators would be gone. 63. Counter-Defendants failure to provide the required disclosures provides Counter-Plaintiffs, in and their Co-
addition to the outright fraud in the construction
of the loan( s) at issue, with Court afforded may have to rescind said
adjudication of void ab initio along with any right Counter-Plaintiffs transaction(s), construed,
and Counter-Plaintiffs, through this public Complaint which is intended to be
for purposes of this claim, as a formal Notice of Rescission, hereby elect to serve
notice of the rescinding of this transaction, where applicable. COUNTVIII: VIOLATIONOF FAIR CREDIT REPORTING ACT 64. Counter-Plaintiffs below. 65. At all times material, Counter-Defendants qualified as a provider of information to the Credit reaffirm and re-allege paragraphs above as if set forth more fully herein
Reporting Agencies, including but not limited to Experian, Equifax, and Transllnion, under the Federal Fair Credit Reporting Act 65. Counter-Defendants wrongfully, improperly, and illegalto one or more Credit Reporting on their credit reports
ly reported negative information as to the Counter-Plaintiffs Agencies, resulting in Counter-Plaintiffs and the lowering of their FICO scores. 66. Pursuant to 15 USC sec. 1681(s)(2)(b), Counter-Plaintiffs
having negative information
are entitled to maintain a private
cause of action against Counter-Defendants
for an award of damages in an amount to be prov-
en at the time of trial for all violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act which caused actual damages to Counter-Plaintiffs, including emotional distress and humiliation.
67. Counter-Plaintiffs are entitled to recover damages from Counter-Defendants
for negligent
non-compliance with the Fair Credit Reporting Act pursuant to 15 USCsec. 1681(0). 68. Counter-Plaintiffs are also entitled to an award of punitive damages against CounterDefendants for their willful noncompliance with the Fair Credit Reporting Act pursuant to 15 USCsec. 1681(n)(a)(2) in an amount to be proven at time of trial.
COUNT IX: FRAUDULENT MISREPRESENTATION
69. Counter-Plaintiffs reaffirm and re-allege paragraphs above as if set forth more fully herein below. 70. Counter-Defendants knowingly and intentionally concealed material information from
Counter-Plaintiffs which is required by Federal Statutes and Regulations to be disclosed to the Counter-Plaintiffs both before and at the closing. 71. Counter-Defendants also materially misrepresented material information to the Counterwere false,
Plaintiffs with full knowledge by Plaintiffs that their affirmative representations
fraudulent, and misrepresented the truth at the time said representations were made. 72. Under the circumstances, the material omissions and material misrepresentations Counter-Defendants were malicious. 73. Counter-Plaintiffs, not being investment bankers, securities dealers, mortgage lenders, of the
mortgage brokers, or mortgage lenders. Having been approached by the State of Maine Housing Authority and The City of Bangor to participate in their government Community Development Block Grant funded program. Counter-Plaintiffs reasonably relied upon the representations of the Counter-Defendants in agreeing to execute any mortgage loan document 74. Counter-Defendants failed to demonstrate or otherwise, for the benefit of Counter-Plaintiffs, Counter-Defendants expertise, knowledge and skills and/or financial acuity in this matter at bar despite the requirement to do so. 75. Had Counter-Plaintiffs known of the falsity of Counter- Defendants' representations, Counter-
Plaintiffs would not have agreed to even consider entering into the alleged transactions that has led to the involvement of the courts in this matter. 76. This loan is not the loan that Counter-Plaintiffs were informed they were participating in and have no idea where the paperwork for the loan they did take out is. 77. This, again for everyone not paying attention the first time, is not the loan Counter-Plaintiffs took out. This is an unknown loan as much the "Silent Loan," which Counter-Plaintiffs ques(])
tion the validity of as well, that the City of Bangor appears to be holding.
co
78. This package in its entirety; is, point in fact, a loan package Defendant, T. Butler, sent a letter to the Counter-Defendants, Counter-Plaintiffs declining. Counter-Plaintiffs submitted the denial letter, as a minus here, as
exhibit and a copy of the same letter from the Counter-Defendants declined the loan package offered as presented
the bottom stating Counter-Plaintiffs
the basis for, and legitimacy behind, foreclosure on the subject property, lers' Sworn Affidavit Number Two. 79. As a direct and proximate cause of the Counter-Defendants' misrepresentations,
Defendant, T. But-
material omissions and material
Counter-Plaintiffs have suffered damages. COUNTX: BREACHOF FIDUCIARYDUTY
80. Counter-Plaintiffs below. 81. Counter-Defendants, loan program
reaffirm and re-allege paragraphs
above as if set forth more fully herein
by their actions in contracting to provide mortgage loan services and a which, was not only to be best suited to the Counterwould also be able
to Counter-Plaintiffs;
Plaintiffs, given their income and expenses, but by which Counter-Plaintiffs
to satisfy their obligations without risk oflosing their home; were "fiduciaries" in which Counter-Plaintiffs reposed trust and confidence. 82. Especially given that Counter-Plaintiffs were not, and are not, investment bankers, securities
dealers, mortgage lenders, mortgage brokers, or mortgage lenders and the program CounterPlaintiff, T. Butler, chose to participate and those with mental illnesses. 83. A program meant to help educate and find and acquire a portion of the "American Dream," for its protected class member, while at the same time, all due to the assistance of the City of in was a by definition a "Help" program for the poor
Bangor and The State of Maine doing so at avery, very, reduced and attractive rate. 84. In this case, in acquiring housing for the citizens of this state, being the charter goal of Maine State Housing Authority, while laudable seems only to have been a dining table for ravenous wolves. That in the combined assistance of the State Housing Authority the City of Bangor and cheap, 4.5% interest, government cess, contribute City. 85. Counter-Defendants breached their fiduciary duties to the Counter-Plaintiffs to enter into a mortgage transaction by fraudulently ~ money Counter-Plaintiff, T. Butler, would also, in this proof "Urban Blight" in her neighborhood and
to the clean up and eradication
inducing Counter-Plaintiffs Counter-Plaintiffs'
which was contrary to the interests; and contra
stated intentions; contrary to the Counter-Plaintiffs'
ry to the Counter-Plaintiffs' p reservation of their home.
r
Q)
-1
0.0
means, and to commit one or more overt acts in furtherance of the conspiracy to defraud the Counter-Plaintiffs. 96. Counter-Defendants agreed between and among themselves to engage in the conspiracy to defraud for the common purpose of accruing economic gains for themselves at the expense of and detriment to the Counter-Plaintiffs. 97. The actions of the Plaintiffs were committed intentionally, willfully, wantonly, and with reckless disregard for the rights of the Counter-Plaintiffs. 98. As a direct and proximate result of the actions of the Counter-Defendants in combination
resulting in fraud and breaches of fiduciary duties, Counter-Plaintiffs have suffered damages. 99. Counter-Plaintiffs thus demand an award of actual, compensatory, exemplary and punitive damages.
COUNT-XIV CIVIL RICO
00.
Counter-Plaintiffs reaffirm and re-allege paragraphs above as set forth more fully herein below.
01. 02.
Counter-Defendants are "persons" as defined by MRS The conspiracy the subject of this action has existed from date of application to the present, with the injuries and damages resulting there from being continuing.
03.
Counter-Defendants actions and use of multiple corporate entities, multiple parties, and concerted and predetermined acts and conduct specifically designed to defraud Counter-
Plaintiffs constitutes an "enterprise", with the aim and objective of the enterprise being to perpetrate a fraud upon the Counter-Plaintiffs, and others like them, through the use of intentional nondisclosure, material misrepresentation, uments. 04. Each of the Counter-Defendants is an "enterprise Defendant/Counter-Defendant" Counter-Plaintiffs Complaint 05. As a direct and proximate result of the actions of the Counter-Defendants, Plaintiffs have and continue to suffer damages.
COUNT-XV NEGLIGENCE
and creation of fraudulent loan doc-
under
Counter-
06.
Counter-Plaintiffs reaffirm and re-allege paragraphs above as set forth more fully herein below.
07.
Counter-Plaintiffs
must show that the actions of Counter-Defendants
were directly
relational to the financial harm brought on Counter-Plaintiffs.
08.
Counter-Defendants supervision mistaken
actions, through and by failing, to, account for the training and proper and! or those who could otherwise accurate records be to
of their staff and third party contractors as Counter-Defendants employee.
Their failure at keeping
Counter-Plaintiffs
alleged account allowed and actively assisted in the degradation
of their
credit rating, their health, financial stability and their, already frail, mental well being. 09. Counter-Plaintiffs and therefore submissions have been more than dispositive judicially in their met and mettle with those
fail to understand
that which keeps them arguing
whose negligent actions have so egregiously brought harm to Counter-Plaintiffs.
"the question of causation is generally one offact to be determined by the fact Jinder, and ajudgment as a matter of law is improper if any reasonable view of the evidence could sustain aJinding of proximate cause. Webb v. Haas 1999 ME 74 20, 728 A. 2d
1261
However; "if the evidence produced by the plaintiff in opposition to a motion for summary judgment would, ifproduced at trial, entitle the defendant to a judgment as
a matter of law, the defendant is entitled to a summary judgment. A defendant is enti-
tled to a summary judgment if there is so little evidence tending to show that the defendant's acts or omissions were the proximate cause of the plaintiffs injuries that the jury would have to engage in conjecture or speculation in order to return a verdict for the plaintiff The mere possibility of such causation is not enough, and when the matter remains one of pure speculation or conjecture" Dyer v. Me Drilling & Blasting Inc. 2009 ME 12632 984 A. 2d 210
10.
Therefore
it would seem that the law is rather obviously in favor of Counter-Plaintiffs would, therefore, expect adjudication in their favor.
and
Counter-Plaintiffs
PRAYER AND RELIEF SOUGHT
WHEREFORE,
having
set forth numerous
legally sufficient
causes
of action
against
the
Counter-Defendants, Defendants
Counter-Plaintiffs
pray for an entry of Final Judgment
against all Counter
jointly and severally in an amount, not yet quantified,
but to be proven at trial an fees; that the Court find
such other amounts
to be proven at trial, and for costs and attorneys'
that the transactions;
the very heart, soul and subject of this action are illegal and are deemed which was instituted be deemed and declared be enjoined; illegal and void and that and for any other and
void; that the foreclosure further proceedings
in connection
with the foreclosure
further relief which is just and proper that this court in its judicial heart knows to be right.
Respectfully submitted,
This 18th Day of September
2012.
Twila A Butler f/k/ a Wolf Counter-Plaintiff
pro per
pro per
VERIFICATION We, the Defendants / Counter-Plaintiffs; TWILA A. BUTLER fjk/a WOLF & CHARLTON A. BUTLER JR.., do swear and affirm that all statements made herein are true and accurate, in all respects, to the best of our knowledge.
Twila A. Butler f/k/ a Wolf Defendant pro per
pro per
The Persons above, who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person whose name is subscribed to this document and acknowledged to me that he/she executed the same in his/her authorized capacity and that by his/her signature on this instrument who is the person who executed this instrument I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of this State that the foregoing paragraph true and correct. Witness my hand and official seal. is
NOTARY PUBLIC IN AND FOR THE STATE OF MAINE CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Notary Seal
I, Twila A. Butler f/k/a Wolf & Charlton A. Butler Jr. Defendant and Intervenor Pro-Per, certi that I mailed the preceding document to the Clerk's office of the Maine State Superior Court 7
Exchange St. Bangor, ME 04401 and mailed a copy of same, by certified mail, with return receipt to be served to the following individuals below on this the 17th day of September, 2012:
1. Notice (Particularly for David McConnell) Rule 7 21 day right of response notice. 2. Counter-Complaint 3. Defendants Motion to Reconsider and Leave to Amend 4. Defendants Request for Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law 5. Defendants Objection to Plaintiffs Supplemental Material Facts 6. Defendant Twila A. Butler f/k/a Wolf Sworn Affidavit 10. Defendants Supplemental Material Facts On Support to Defendants Motions, Objections, Requests and Affidavits Issue: Rule 7 Notice Violation 11. Defendants Supplemental Material Facts On Support to Defendants Motions, Objections, Requests and Affidavits Issue: Debt Collectors or Not? To: Stephanie A.Williams and David B. McConnell C/O Perkins Thompson P.A. One Canal Plaza PO Box 426 Portland ME,04112-0426
&
8
,.....,
0
~ .......
;..
-r
~
'8
7. Defendants Supplemental Material Facts On Support to Defendants Motions, Objections, Requests and Affidavits Issue: Standing 8. Defendants Supplemental Material Facts On Support to Defendants Motions, Objections, Requests and Affidavits Issue: Entry of Default 9. Defendants Supplemental Material Facts On Support to Defendants Motions, Objections, Requests and Affidavits Issue: Interpretation of the Rules
To: Paul Nicklas Assistant City Attorney C/O The City of Bangor 73 Harlow Street. Bangor, ME04401
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ... ro =o::l ~ .... ~ .l:l ~ o: ... ~ = ..... ~ .... ro ~ ~ <:t-
2
I-
Respectfully
Submitted:
09-18-2012
(]) (])
(])
::
r.H
0
-d ~ ro -d ~
Twila A. Butler f/k/a Wolf Counter-Plaintiff
8 ......
>
t)
Twila A. Wolf Pro per. & Charlton A. Butler Jr. Pro per. 44 Patten St Bangor Me, 04401 (207)-249-5378 Victim.ofJraud.and.corruption@gmaiLcom STATE OF MAINE PENOBSCOT, CIVILACTION SUPERIOR COURT DOCKET NUMBER BANSC-RE-2010-00187
TD BANK N.A fjkja FIRST MASSACHUSETTS BANK Plaintiffs v. DEFENDANTS SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL FACTS ON SUPPORT TO COUNTER-PLAINTIFFSjDEFENDANTS MOTIONS OBJECTIONS REQUESTS AND AFFIDAVITS ISSUE: DEBT COLLECTORS OR NOT? JURY TRIAL DEMANDED TITLE TO REAL PROPERTY AT ISSUE TWILA A. BUTLER fjkja WOLF & CHARLTON A. BUTLER JR. Defendant & Intervenor
DEFENDANTS SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL FACTS ON SUPPORT TO COUlflER: PLAINTIFFS/UEFENDANTS MOTIONS OBJECTIONS REQUESTS AND AFFIDAVITS ISSUE: DEBT COLLECTORS OR NOT?
COMESNOW, Defendants TWILAA BUTLERfjkja WOLF and CHARLTONA BUTLERJR. with Defendants Supplemental Material Facts on support to Defendants Motion to Reconsider. Perkins Thompson P.A., associates, are debt collectors, as defined by, the "Maine Fair Debt Collection Practices Act," Title 32 109-A M.R.S.A. et seq and the Federal, "Fair Debt Collection Practices Act" (Herein after "FDCPA"), 15 use. 1692 et seq. BACKGROUND 1. Defendants noted to this Court, in their previous submissions to this court, that Plaintiffs
have stated for the record that they are debt collectors statute. 2. Defendants
as defined by both state and federal
noted to this court; in great detail the fact, that at best, Plaintiffs are sending a incomprehensible but for the fact that after 60
very mixed signal. This would be completely
days in arrears; the servicers ofloans, become debt collectors, as defined by statute. ARGUMENT 3. Defendants are confused and disturbed that while Plaintiffs clearly state they are debt
collectors the Court fails to note this fact 4. Plaintiffs are further attesting have admitted to the fact that; if, the debt were, indeed, real; then, Plaintiffs real property and this would then be, by'
oj
to having no security in Defendants
definition, a self admission
of those facts and prima facie evidence of fraud.
5. Defendants therefore ask this court to reconsider its decisions of July 30th 2012; in light of, this more clearly demonstrated fact. 6. The only confusion to be had here is why Ms. Stephanie Williams of Perkins Thompson P.A., and a subordinate of Mr. David McConnell, feels the need to add the debt collectors required legal announcement, to the end, of all her correspondence with Defendants and the Court;
Defendants Exhibit "F"&"Fl" but yet, her superior, David B. McConnell, fails to do so; Defendants Exhibit "G,"why is this? 7. Plaintiffs are the servicers of mortgage debt in general, and if not for the invalid nature of this loan to start with would only be the servicers of Defendants debt and not the owner. 8. Plaintiffs do not own or possess the note in question; and, even if it were real, could not legally produce it for this court, as, this would be in violation of several laws and statutes, state and federal. 9. Laws and Statutes, that, in conjunction with IRS code 860 authorize the formation of, and the establishing and running of, a Real Estate Mortgage Investment Conduit, (Herein after "REMIC) or its less profitable cousin a Real Estate Investment Trust (Herein after "REIT") both of which are generally; anymore, as relates to Residential Mortgages, what are known as off balance sheet entities better known amongst financiers as Special Purpose Vehicles, (Hereinafter "SPV") or Special Purpose Entity, (Herein after "SPE
JI )
or Qualified Special
Purpose Entity Special Purpose Entity, (Herein after "QSPE") or Qualified Special Purpose Vehicle, (herein after "QSPV"). 10. Laws, Rules, Statutes and Pooling and Servicing Agreements, that, dictate every aspect of a Securitization deal. Trusts abide by, under normal market conditions, the law strictly and comport themselves in the highest standard, that their actions, be above reproach so as to not jeopardize the trust and its assets. To have the Promissory Note and Mortgage Note at issue would call into question the Plaintiffs right and probable criminal culpability. 11. Plaintiffs have not demonstrated agent authority to; (a) Initiate, bring or in any fashion prosecute and maintain a foreclosure on Defendants real property. (b) Plaintiffs have not shown that they have repurchased this mortgage note and promissory note contract from the party that bought the securities of the, afore, mentioned Trusts. Doing so now would be prima facie evidence of fraud upon the court and an outright admission of criminal activity.
Cc) Nor have Plaintiffs shown any type of trail of assignments that would lead to even the appearance of agent authority, [d] Nevertheless Plaintiffs are attempting to, with the Courts assistance, by; adhesion, attach Defendants real property and or otherwise reform said, fraudulent, ab initio, contract at issue to Plaintiffs unjust enrichment. 12. Defendants therefore believe and think the Court should agree that Plaintiffs have attempted to pull the wool over both the Court and Defendants eyes. At best Plaintiffs are finessing the law and rules trying to see just how little they have to put forth, to, in appearance only, qualify for the courts favor and a seemly lawful adjudication; the result, by allowing the sale of and disposing of Defendants real property in disregard for the relevant law at bar. 13. Defendants would note, for the record, that apparently more proof is required by the Department of Motor Vehicles; wherein it is required to have an original birth certificate, to obtain a Drivers License, than the proof; required, to take someone's home. 14. This in addition to, the fact, that due to Defendants raising the issues of Standing and Capacity, repeatedly, this Court having not decided said question of jurisdiction raised by Defendants and that, when raised, must be determined there being no discretion to it. 15. As there is no discretion to this; the Court therefore, and any decisions made by it, having failed to even make mention of standing let alone a decision on said, would make the decisions, on appeal, of this court without the weight and authority of statute or the rule of law; point in fact, a nullity or void ab initio.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF Therefore, Defendants, having shown good cause and evidence of, for, are therefore deserving of the courts reconsideration ofits July 30th 2012 decision regarding Defendants arguments motions and objections.
Q)
Charlton A. Butler Jr. Intervenor pro per ~
'---""
<:
VERIFICATION
We, the Defendants / Counter-Plaintiffs; TWILA A. BUTLER f/k/a WOLF & CHARLTONA. BUTLERJR.., do swear and affirm that all statements made herein are true and accurate, in all respects, to the best of our knowledge.
Charlton A. Butler Jr. lntevenor pro per
.....-<
o
""" """ ,0
o ....
a o
The Persons above, who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person whose name is subscribed to this document and acknowledged to me that he/she executed the same in his/her authorized capacity and that by his/her signature on this instrument who is the person who executed this instrument.
~
J-. "'-i
c ~ 00 .-+=1 r0 0I-<
loo 01)
= ~ e0
...'>j
~ C ';roO\o
i;; 2
I
I-<
I certify under PENALTYOF PERJURY under the laws of this State that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct. Witness my hand and official seal.
P4 """ o ~.;-><"";l--d
<L> r-C
~ o:
loo+-'C"'l-o
ro
;:l
~ro
=~
C <L>
ro
I-<
c.H
'-
""" a """ B
;>
Notary Seal
I, Twila A. Butler f/k/a Wolf & Charlton A. Butler Jr. Defendant and Intervenor Pro-Per, certify that I mailed the preceding document to the Clerk's office of the Maine State Superior Court 78 Exchange st. Bangor, ME 04401 and mailed a copy of same, by certified mail, with return receipt to be served to the following individuals below on this the 18th day of September, 2012:
1. Notice (Particularly for David McConnell) Rule 7 21 day right of response notice. 2. Counter-Complaint 3. Defendants Motion to Reconsider and Leave to Amend 4. Defendants Request for Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law 5. Defendants Objection to Plaintiffs Supplemental Material Facts 6. Defendant Twila A. Butler f/k/a Wolf Sworn Affidavit 7. Defendants Supplemental Material Facts On Support to Defendants Motions, Objections, Requests and Affidavits Issue: Standing 8. Defendants Supplemental Material Facts On Support to Defendants Motions, Objections, Requests and Affidavits Issue: Entry of Default 9. Defendants Supplemental Material Facts On Support to Defendants Motions, Objections, Requests and Affidavits Issue: Interpretation of the Rules 10. Defendants Supplemental Material Facts On Support to Defendants Motions, Objections, Requests and Affidavits Issue: Rule 7 Notice Violation
Q)
11. Defendants Supplemental Material Facts On Support to Defendants Motions, Objections, Requests and Affidavits Issue: Debt Collectors or Not? To; Stephanie A. Williams and David B. McConnell C/O Perkins Thompson P.A. One Canal Plaza PO Box 426 Portland ME,04112-0426
&
To; Paul Nicldas Assistant City Attorney C/O The City of Bangor 73 Harlow Street. Bangor, ME04401
09-18-2012
Twila A. Butler fjkja Wolf Counter-Plaintiff
TD BANK N.A. f/k/a FIRST MASSACHUSETTS BANK Plaintiffs v. DEFENDANTS SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL FACTS ON SUPPORT TO COUNTER-PLAINTIFFS/DEFENDANTS MOTIONS OBJECTIONS REQUESTS AND AFFIDAVITS ISSUE: STANDING JURY TRIAL DEMANDED TITLE TO REAL PROPERTY AT ISSUE TWILA A. BUTLER ttw WOLF & CHARLTON A. BUTLER JR. Defendant & Intervenor
DEFENDANTS SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL FACTS ON SUPPORT TO COUNTERPLAINTIFFS/DEFENDANTS MOTIONS OBJECTIONS REQUESTS AND AFFIDAVITS ISSUE: STANDING
Come Now, Defendants decision interest
with their motion for the courts reconsideration
of its July 30th 2012 lack of entrance
and the lack of, consideration, in establishing this Constitutional
the Court has, thus far, shown in its complete and Prudential requirement for all persons
to court and the taking of the courts time let alone the conveyance 1. The Court has, thus far, shown little interest establishing Defendants, Defendants. 2. Despite repeated attempts to focus the Court's counter attention, the elements, and conversely
of real property. and the necessity at producing, of
in the issue of standing
of said, that Plaintiffs have failed miserably
for the
the Court; who should at this point desire the proof sought by
on the issue of standing, charge
this
predicated Defendants concurrently
on the basis of Defendants
claim to Plaintiffs Defendants
of debt, being
claim, Defendant T Butler fjkja Wolf; reference and Defendants Exhibit "0," "01," & "02",]
Sworn Affidavit [filed
".../ did not take out this loan; infact, this is the loan that / signed a letter, about, and sent it back declining the Banks offer as I didn't understand .... so I didn't see how I could not qualify, due to, debt to income ratios- and this on a fixed rate 4.5% loan; that would have had a payment of about $180.00 [One Hundred eighty] dollars, a month, roughly but the letter, said, / did qualify for two loans ..... I'm no genius but I knew there's no wqy could / ~
(!)
eo
rn
qualify for, let alone afford, two loans that would be way over 300.00 dollars a month, with taxes and insurance ....." 3. Provided evidence proving said, and Defendants can only assume they have failed at this attempt to focus the Courts attention on the matter- of standing as defined by this Court's ruling(s) July 30th 2012. 4. Plaintiffs have not established standing to enter this honorable court let alone proceed forward, with litigation, having had challenged; properly and sufficiently, their right to do so, to allow Plaintiffs to go forward would be, without, validation of Plaintiffs legal right to do so. 5. The Supreme Court has made it clear that the burden of establishing standing rests on the plaintiff. DaimlerChrysler Corp.,547 U.S.at 342, n.3; FWIPBS Inc.v. Dallas,493 U.S.215, 231 (1990 At each stage of the litigation-from judgment, and trial-the 561. 6. Standing must exist on the date the complaint is filed and throughout the litigation. Davis v. F.E.C., 28 S.Ct.2759,2768 (2008). 1 7. Moreover, standing cannot be conferred by agreement and can be challenged at any time in the litigation, induding on appeal, by the defendants or, in some circumstances, by the court sua sponte. [While the Supreme Court reviews standing sua sponte "where [it] [has been erroneously assumed below," it does not examine standing "simply to reach an issue for which standing has been denied below....". a conclusion not challenged in the appellant's petition for certiorari. Adarand Constructors Inc.v. Mineta, 534 U.S.103, 110 (2001). 8. By contrast, courts of appeal are obliged to examine standing under all circumstances. See, e.g.,Wyo.Outdoor Councilv. U.S.Forest Serv., 165 F.3d 43, 47 (D.C.Cir. 1999).] 9. Finally,plaintiffs must demonstrate standing for each claim and each request for relief. Davis, 128 S.Ct at 2769; City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 105 (1983). There is no "supplemental" standing: standing to assert one claim does not create standing to assert claims arising from the same nucleus of operative facts. DaimlerChrysler, 547 U.S.at 353. 10. Maine's attitude towards standing, being prudential, one would assume that some degree of importance would be attached. 11. The "Standing of a party to maintain a legal action is a "Threshold Issue" and our courts are only open to those who meet this basic requirement." Ricci v. Superintendent, Bureau of Banking, 485 A.2d 966,968 (Me. 1984) J
Q)
the initial pleading stage, through summary
plaintiff must carry that burden. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S.at
00
12. "Because standing to sue in Maine is prudential, rather than of constitutional dimension, [the Court] may limit access to the courts to those best suited to assert a particular claim." (quoting Fletcher v. Feeney, 400 A.2d 1084, 1089 (Me.1979)). Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. v. Saunders, 2010 ME 79, , 14, _A.2d _(quotations and citations omitted). "A party's standing to bring a Rule 80C appeal is reviewed de novo." Lindemann v. Comm'n on Governmental Ethics & Election Practices, 2008 ME 187, -7, 961 A.2d 538, 541. 13. While the standard may be prudential in Maine, if the proscriptive, afforded by Maine State Rule/Law /Custom, is not equal to; or if, there is no comparable State law, equally protective as the Federal Rule/Law, then Federal Law/Rule governs. 14. According to the Supremacy Clause (Article VI, clause 2) of the United States Constitution, "this Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof ... shall be the supreme Law of the Land; ... any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state to the Contrary notwithstanding." 15. As the Supreme Court stated in Altria Group v. Good, 555 U.S. 70 (2008), a federal law that conflicts with a state law will trump, or "preempt", that state law: "Consistent with that command, we have long recognized that state laws that conflict with federal law are "without effect:' Maryland v. Louisiana, 451 U. S. 725, 746 (1981)" 16. Implied preemption, a source for preemptive action, can occur in two ways: field preemption or conflict preemption. Massachusetts Ass'n of HMOsv. Ruthardt, 194 F.3d 176, 179 (1st Cir. 1999). 17. Under the Supremacy Clause, any state law that conflicts with a federal law is preempted. Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U.S.1 (1824). Conflict arises when it is impossible to comply with both the state and federal regulations, or when the state law interposes an obstacle to the achievement of Congress's discernible objectives. Gade v. National Solid Wastes Mgmt. Ass'n, 505 U.S.88,98 (1992). 18. Actual conflict. A conflict exists if a party cannot comply with both state law and federal law (for example, if state law forbids something that federal law requires). Florida Lime & Avocado Growers, Inc. v. Paul, 373 U.S.132, 142-43 (1963). Obstacle. 19. In addition, even in the absence of a direct conflict between state and federal law, a conflict exists if the state law is an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress. Crosby v. Nat'l Foreign Trade Council, 530 U.S. 363, 372-73 (2000).
20. The question for the Court here, then, is; is Maine unable to determine afforded to a party under Federal Law? 21. Is there some conflict that Defendants are unaware of? 22. Even without preemption, a conflict between federal and state
Standing as would be
law or an express
provision
for
the courts will infer an intention to preempt state law if the federal regulatory an
scheme is so pervasive as to "occupy the field" in that area of the law, i.e. to warrant inference that Congress did not intend the states to supplement
it. Gade v. National Solid
Wastes Mgmt. Ass'n, 505 U.S. 88,98 (1992). See also Rice v. Santa Fe Elevator Corp. For example, the courts have held that the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) preempts state laws directed at conduct actually or arguably prohibited or protected by the NLRA or
conduct Congress intended to leave unregulated.
San Diego Bldg. Trades Council v. Garmon,
359 U.S. 236, 244 (1959); Machinists v. Wisconsin Emp. ReI. Commission, 427 U.S. 132, 14048 (1976). 23. One would have to agree, and this Court, would have to as well, that when it comes to the protection of an Americans Constitutional rights, to the Affording of "Due Process" in both
the Federal Courts and the States Courts; that, the Federal Court, has the dominate position in this "Field". 24. Question two for the Court. How can this Court, be, the constitutionally proscribed for, unbiased finder of fact, if it ignores Defendants, and statutorily challenge of
meritorious,
Plaintiffs standing and capacity, to sue?
VERIFICATION
We, the Defendants / Counter-Plaintiffs; Twila A. Wolf & Charlton A. Butler [r., do swear
made herein are true and accurate, in all respects, to the
The Persons above, who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person whose name is subscribed to this document and acknowledged to me that he/she executed the same in his/her authorized capacity and that by his/her signature on this instrument who is the person who executed this instrument. I certify under PENALTYOF PERJURYunder the laws of this State that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct. Witness my hand and official seal.
NOTARYPUBLICINANDFOR THE STATEOF MAINE
Notary Seal
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Twila A. Butler f/k/a Wolf & Charlton A. Butler Jr. Pro-Per, certify that we mailed the preceding documents to the Clerk's office of the Maine State Superior Court in Bangor Maine and mailed a copy of same to be served to the following individuals below on this the 18th day of September, 2012:
2. Counter-Complaint
7. Defendants Supplemental Material Facts On Support to Defendants Motions, Objections, Responses and Affidavits Issue: Standing 8. Defendants Supplemental Material Facts On Support to Defendants Motions, Objections, Responses and Affidavits Issue: Entry of Default 9. Defendants Supplemental Material Facts On Support to Defendants Motions, Objections, Responses and Affidavits Issue: Interpretation of the Rules 10. Defendants Supplemental Material Facts On Support to Defendants Motions, Objections,
3. Defendants Motion to Reconsider and Leave to Amend

Conclusions of Law 5. Defendants Objection to Plaintiffs Supplemental Material Facts 6. Defendant Twila A Butler fjkja Affidavit Wolf Sworn
Responses Violation
and Affidavits Issue: Rule 7 Notice
Responses and Affidavits Issue: Debt Collectors or Not?
11. Defendants Supplemental Material Facts On Support to Defendants Motions, Objections,
To:
Stephanie A.Williams and David B. McConnell c/o Perkins Thompson PA One Canal Plaza PO Box 426 Portland ME, 04112-0426
&
To:
Paul Nicklas Assistant City Attorney c/o The City of Bangor 73 Harlow Street Bangor, ME 04401
09-18-2012
Charlton A.Butler}r. Intervenor Pro per
TO BANK N.A. f/k/a FIRST MASSACHUSETTS BANK Plaintiffs v. DEFENDANTS SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL FACTS ON SUPPORT TO COUNTER-PLAINTIFFS/DEFENDANTS MOTIONS OBJECTIONS REQUESTS AND AFFIDAVITS ISSUE: RULE 7 NOTICE VIOLATION JURY TRIAL DEMANDED TITLE TO REAL PROPERTY AT ISSUE TWlLA A. BUTLER f/k/a WOLF & CHARLTON A. BUTLER JR. Defendant & Intervenor
DEfENDANTS SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL FACTS ON SUPPORT TO COUNTERPLAINTIfFS/DEFENDANTS MOTIONS OBJECTIONS REQUESTS AND AFFIDAVITS ISSUE; RULE 7 NOTICE VIOLATION
COMES NOW, DEFENDANTS TWILA A BUTLER fjkja WOLF Defendant pro per and CHARLTON A
BUTLER JR. Defendant-Intervener July 30th 2012 concerning proof of service by mail 1. Defendants Exhibits "A" and "Al " of, this Courts, July 30th 2012 decision, with line numbers, and pro per with their motion to reconsider the Courts opinion of
the opinion of the court that Defendants
did not provide the court with
2. A: is a reformatting highlighting 3. 4.
for ease of viewing, as reference of Defendants
for citations to the record. prior motion, used, or referenced herein. the
A2: Is a copy of prior arguments
In the Courts July 30th 2012 decision the court erred in its statement Court declared that the proper notice for certification motions submitted
at line 16 wherein
of service by mail (Cover Letter) had to this court did indeed provide the Court
not been provided with Defendants 5.
This is in error as it is easy to go back and find that Defendants with a Certification submission
of Service by Mail, on all parties to the action before the Court, with their put it on the bottom of the files to be submitted. and sign a certification of service by mail for each
at filing. Defendants saw no reason submitted in order.
6.
Defendants document
to print
to the court; as, it was all concerning
one case and would be time and
date stamped
7. Predicated on experience, now 25+ years old, when Counter-Plaintiff/Defendant
C Butler
clerked, the only time more than one certification letter was used, when heading to the court, to file at the end of the day, would be in the case of multiple cases, of obviously different parties. 8. As for the certification, one would assume any reasonable and intelligent person would see, when at the end, of a stack, of similarly dated documents, all time stamped, sequentially, one after another, with the last one being a certification of service by mail letter, one would assume again, that one would know, that the entire file, the preceding, was served on opposing counsel; as stated. 9. Defendants did not see the reasoning, until now, of providing the court with a Rule 7 notice with their submission to the court. 10. Defendants did not see anywhere in the rules that this notice must be in the file submitted to the court, just, that they must submit a Rule 7 notice to opposing counsel on the number of days they have to respond when the type of submission requires it. 11. Further if one looks at the caption wherein it says" Filed Concurrently With Notice ..." one would safely assume that a Notice was placed within the package since a check list was attached in the caption. 12. Defendants further assert that Plaintiffs were on Notice and of notice to reply, provided that having lost the documents that time of being lost did not extend past the time to respond they could have asked about it and discovered, as if they didn't know already, they had 21 days to respond and, further, could have had the time extended upon making a motion to expand time; or even asking Defendants, but they didn't. 13. Defendants don't believe the Plaintiffs and their counsel and ask, why, dose, the Court? 14. It never occurred to Defendants that someone would, lie in court, thus why the world of law is safer with Defendant Butler as an Engineer, and/or that there would be a question at all, all present; but, Defendants are attorneys and surely, dealing with this every day, day in, and day out, that they'd know their own business. 15. Defendants were not informing the court they had 21 days to respond to Defendants; Defendants, were informing the opposing party that [they] had 21 days to respond. 16. Defendants now see that if you do not provide the court with a copy of each item sent to the other party; including warning notices, the other side can claim you didn't, which never occurred to Defendants they approach things truthfully; with the attitude, that, something either happened, or it didn't
17. But that does not seem to be everyone, these days and thus they were unaware of the level of dishonesty that the courts must have to deal with each day and the degree, to which, one must, therefore, cover their rears, so as, not, to lose a meritorious case on the twist of a rules violation claim. Therein returning us to the days of "No writ no remedy" and/or the days of "Strict Pleading." 18. Defendants have no defense but to make sworn notice of their insertion of a Rule 7, 21 day notice to respond, in packets requiring such; including, the Defendants motions before the court, now, that the Court, feels, Defendants [d]id not include this notice in. 19. Nevertheless it is irrelevant, on appeal, to the Appellate Court, Defendants, feel, reversal would be a reasonable expectation, based on rulings recently made as regards this matter such as JP Morgan v. Harp or MERSv. Saunders. 20. The Plaintiffs, by their own admission did not find the documents at issue until after the time to respond or make objection had expired to do so. 21. Thus nothing would be lost and the Plaintiffs, case, would not be prejudiced by a denial of their arguments. 22. Quite frankly, this, is what should be done otherwise the court is providing a "second bite at the apple" without just cause. 23. Thus this would have to be considered an error in judicial judgment in use of the Courts discretion; further appealed, as it is quite prejudicial to Defendants case, and thus on further appeal, upon negative consideration, would be sought for cause and a favorable decision the return expected. a) By providing: standing and capacity to sue; which Plaintiffs have yet to prove they posses, but have had the validity of challenged, sufficiently, so that the court, in fairness, must demand they do so, now. b) The Maine Supreme Judicial Court has ruled consistently that standing is important and must be proven. c) Giving an undeserved "second bite at the apple" when Plaintiffs failed to establish the requisite "Good Cause" with their excuse, that the documents at issue, were lost
interoffice, misfiled and recently found, thus they are denied their "Meritorious Defense" based on an apparent prima facie claim; of a Rule 7 notice violation, of 21 days to respond as is required by rule. 24. If Counter-Defendants-Plaintiffs found these documents after their time, in which, to respond or make objection to, Defendants motions, had expired.
25. The question for the court [t]hen, is, Plaintiffs, would have, had [t]hen; how many, of their 21 days, in which, to respond, left to them? 26. The answer is none; and thus, the relevance, of this possible omission, at best, is equally zero and otherwise moot. 27. In addition to and as well as Defendants in the caption of their motions list the Notice as part of that they sent Plaintiffs. Therefore ifit (Rule 7 Notice) was indeed not inserted before being sent to Plaintiffs; Plaintiffs, were nevertheless on Notice to the Notice as indicated in the captions of the motions in their hands. Engineering redundancy at its best. PRAYERFOR RELIEF Therefore, Defendants, having shown good cause and evidence of, for, are therefore deserving of the courts reconsideration of its July 30th 2012 decision regarding Plaintiffs arguments motions and objections.
Twila A.Butler fjkja Wolf Defendant pro per
VERIFICATION We, the Defendants j Counter-Plaintiffs; Twila A. Wolf & Charlton A. Butler [r., do swear and affirm that all statements made herein are true and accurate, in all respects, to the best of our knowledge.
The Persons above, who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person whose name is subscribed to this document and acknowledged to me that he/she executed the same in his/her authorized capacity and that by his/her signature on this instrument who is the person who executed this instrument. I certify under PENALTYOF PERJURYunder the laws of this State that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct. Witness my hand and official seal.
Notary Seal
I, Twila A. Butler f/k/a Wolf & Charlton A. Butler Jr. Pro-Per, certify that we mailed the preceding documents to the Clerk's office of the Maine State Superior Court in Bangor Maine and mailed a copy of same to be served to the following individuals below on this the 18th day of September, 2012:
2. Counter-Complaint 3. Defendants Motion to Reconsider and Leave to Amend 9. Defendants Supplemental Material Facts On Support to Defendants Motions, Objections, Responses and Affidavits Issue: Interpretation of the Rules
4. Defendants Request for Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law

5. Defendants Objection to Plaintiffs Supplemental Material Facts
10. Defendants Supplemental Material Facts On Support to Defendants Motions, Objections, Responses and Affidavits Issue: Rule 7 Notice Violation 11. Defendants Supplemental Material Facts On Support to Defendants Motions, Objections, Responses and Affidavits Issue: Debt Collectors or Not?
6. Defendant Twila A. Butler fjkja Affidavit
Wolf Sworn
7. Defendants Supplemental Material Facts On Support to Defendants Motions, Objections, Responses and Affidavits Issue: Standing 8. Defendants Supplemental Material Facts On Support to Defendants Motions, Objections, Responses and Affidavits Issue: Entry of Default
To:
Stephanie A.Williams and David B. McConnell c/o Perkins Thompson P.A. One Canal Plaza PO Box 426 Portland ME,04112-0426
& To:
Twila A. Wolf Pro per. & Charlton A. Butler Jr. Pro per. 44 Patten St. Bangor Me, 04401 (207)-249-5378 Victim.oHraud.and.corruption@gmail.com STATE OF MAINE PENOBSCOT, CIVILACTION SUPERIOR COURT DOCKET NUMBER BANSC-RE-2010-00187
TD BANK N.A. f/k/a FIRST MASSACHUSETTSBANK Plaintiffs v. DEFENDANTS SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL FACTS ON SUPPORT TO COUNTER-PLAINTIFFS/DEFENDANTS MOTIONS OBJECTIONS REQUESTS AND AFFIDAVITS ISSUE: INTERPRETATION OF THE RULES JURY TRIAL DEMANDED TITLE TO REAL PROPERTY AT ISSUE TWILA A. BUTLER f/k/a WOLF & CHARLTON A. BUTLER JR. Defendant & Intervenor
8 o
u
DEFENDANTS SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL FACTS ON SUPPORT TO COUNTERPLAINTIFFS/DEFENDANTS MOTIONS OBJECTIONS REQUESTS AND AFFIDAVITS ISSUE: INTERPRETATION OF THE RULES
Come Now, Defendants with their motion for the reconsideration
of the Courts decision(s)
concerning the rules, how employed in the Courts decisions of [uly 30th 2012. 1. Defendants, after a review of the rules particular to this case; and indeed all civil cases, in Maine have question of the rules and the application said Defendants Exhibit "C" sectioned and highlighted for easier review and reference. Section: (a) Defendants that in answering Plaintiffs complaint with Defendants complete
denial accepting of this loan package is by definition a counter complaint as we prayed for relief in every submission and we counter complained of the Plaintiffs actions and complaint In fact your honor mentioned this fact and complained of redundancy. "Once done covers all..." I believe your words were. (i) Defendants maintain that they could not be redundant if your honor
did not get the point as that would be an impossible situation to claim. (ii) Redundant repetition; contextually is not just repetition, or repetitious, construed because there's a word for that,
Redundant,
in the negative context, is reiterating of th
to mean the repetitious
same sentence or sentence's meaning for a useless, and/or without merit, basis. (iii) Having not favored Defendants in the Courts decisions of July 30th 2012. Defendants have no choice but to disagree with this analysis, as Defendants could agree, if, his honor, had, agreed with Defendants, as then, yes, it would have been redundant; and Defendants would have apologized. (iv) But, having missed the point it could be equally argued that Defendants didn't say it enough, and/or the correct way, for the right and Defendant favorable, interpretation, of this matter now at issue. (b) Defendants have complied with this and all other rules to date. (c) We allowed for ex parte hearing on our motions doesn't this exception cover that. You could have heard it ex parte so how does that differ by the definition given, it says "Ifthe Motion" may be heard ex parte, then we'd like to know how that definition is not a and/or [t]he correct one. (d) Basis for appealing your honors decision. (e) Rules end up in conflict at time but fer the use of this exception as well.
(t) The basis for the fact that if they did not argue in opposition then they gave up
the chance. (g) They failed to file in a timely manner of which was not our fault (h) Reinforces everything Defendants feel about why his honors ruling was in error July 30th 2012. (i) Defendants did this to the letter with particularity as required for fraud and what his honor referred to as Gratuitous attacks on the opposite side are in reality, merely the application of another rule, and the result is the fact that Plaintiffs are just that wrong, in their behavior particularly, and this, if the Court has missed this point, your honor, is why Defendants would argue that [t]his is not what is meant by "BlindJustice" blind to, bias, yes; blind to fact, no.
Defendants believe that this is the method they chose in their motions and objections to counter Plaintiffs claims.
(k) Defendants did so with gusto.

(1) "If Justice So Requires," wouldn't you say that this would qualify as a case where
"Justice so Requires".
(m) Plaintiffs failed to respond, besides the second bite given to the Plaintiffs, how did they comport themselves, being professional attorneys? They lost the documents to respond to and then got angry with Defendants over the fact as if it was their fault they lost something sent to them and therefore all opportunity would have expired, and all chance to respond was lost by their own actions and fault. They did not depend on Defendants warning, or lack thereof, in missing their deadline. Which will be the appeals courts point as well; in Defendants opinion; judging from recent rulings. (n) Pleadings were concise as possible given the rules and the importance of the data to impart to the Court. Or,with all due respect, please excuse the reference, to borrow from the vernacular "you can't cram five pounds of crap in a two pound sack" (o) Defendants believe that they have complied with this rule as their submissions are definitely being made for the purpose of doing "Substantial Justice." (p) Defendants believe that they "negatively" averred the Plaintiffs complaint as required by this rule. (q) Particularity, is required when making a complaint of fraud. The gratuitous remarks, claim, here, are inappropriate, as the comments and claims of Defendants were about the state of mind and the general malice and contemptuous behavior of Plaintiffs and their counsel and is allowed to be vague and brief and therefore; would not, and could not, be construed as gratuitous. (r) Defendants adopted the style of referencing exhibits whenever possible. Is this court really complaining that Defendants, as non attorneys, have not met and complied with the rules to the degree that an attorney has? Is that really what this court is saying? (s) Having said we didn't take this loan with you, Plaintiffs, had 20 days to respond with their objection to and or their motion to dismiss etc etc etc. Seems no matter how, the Court, could or would, Like,to view this; it is, a clear case of fact, that Plaintiffs, have deprived themselves of every rule of opportunity by their own actions. (t) We tried to consolidate our motions and doing such were battered over the head because of length. Without any reference to why, or conversely any legal reason why, Defendants were limited to 5 five pages for their responses to i5b
opposing counsel and this Court. Defendants take this time to formally complain. That when there's "No cite can't be right." (u) Defendants would say that unless this is a case of pure "Blind Justice" then it appeared long ago that the court lacks jurisdiction here. (v) Where have we violated this? Better asked where is it that your honor says we violated this rule? (w) Defendants, state, for the record, damages, done by Plaintiffs to Defendants, outweighs, by immeasurable degree, any possible harm Defendants could have legally incurred against Plaintiffs. (x) In reference to section "L" as well at the same time. The court offers a free "second Bite" and third bite at the apple, to Plaintiffs, but can't tell Defendants of this option and offer it to them or the rule in section "L",this would seem to lend to Defendants, at least on their part, a feeling or feelings of bias, if to continue, as a pattern of decisions, of this court. This is not Defendants argument, here, mind you, with all due respect to this court; but, simply an observation of this matter and for consideration by all sides. Respectfully Submitted this 18th day of September 2012
VERIFICATION We, the Defendants j Counter-Plaintiffs; Twila A. Wolf & Charlton A. Butler Jr., do swear and affirm that all statements made herein are true and accurate, in all respects, to the best of our knowledge.
TwilaA. Butler fjkja Wolf Defendant pro per
evidence
to be the
authorized
Notary Seal
I, Twila A. Butler fJkJa Wolf & Charlton A. Butler Jr. Pro-Per, certify that we mailed the preceding documents to the Clerk's office of the Maine State Superior Court in Bangor below on this
Maine and mailed a copy of same to be served to the following individuals the 18th day of September, 2012
1. Notice (Particularly for David McConnell) Rule 7 21 day right of response notice. 2. Counter-Complaint 3. Defendants Motion to Reconsider and Leave to Amend 4. Defendants Request for Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law 5. Defendants Objection to Plaintiffs Supplemental Material Facts 6. Defendant Twila A. Butler fjkja Affidavit Wolf Sworn
8. Defendants Supplemental Material Facts On Support to Defendants Motions, Objections, Responses and Affidavits Issue: Entry of Default 9. Defendants Supplemental Material Facts On Support to Defendants Motions, Objections, Responses and Affidavlts Issue: Interpretation of the Rules 10. Defendants Supplemental Material Facts On Support to Defendants Motions, Objections, Responses and Affidavits Issue: Rule 7 Notice Violation 11. Defendants Supplemental Material Facts On Support to Defendants Motions, Objections, Responses and Affidavi.ts Issue: Debt Collectors or Not?
7. Defendants Supplemental Material Facts On Support to Defendants Motions, Objections, Responses and Affldavtts Issue: Standing
To:
Stephanie A. Williams and David B. McConnell c/o Perkins Thompson P.A.
'-..--./
One Canal Plaza PO Box 426 Portland ME,04112-0426

&
To:
Twila A. Butler fjkja

,......
Wolf Defendant Pro per
a o
o
10..0
"" ""
Pro per
~ ~~ Q.;I-r-'
~ s:: I I";:roO\o P=l "" o ~+-'~-o ~ (])r- c ~(])oro . .):::01-0
.. b~ 2
C/) :jj ro
;:l
-. s:: (])
~
ro :
<.....,,
p.,
"" ""
a '-8
;>
::>
IJ.)
eo
rn
TO BANKN.A. fjkja FIRST MASSACHUSETTS BANK Plaintiffs v.

DEFENDANT TWILA A BUTLER'S SWORN AFFIDAVIT NO 2 ON SUPPORT TO DEFENDANTS AND COUNTERPLAINTTIFFS MOTION OBJECTIONS REQUESTS AND AFFIDAVITS JURY TRIAL DEMANDED TITLE TO REAL PROPERTY AT ISSUE
E
o
o
TWILA A. BUTLER fjkja WOLF & CHARLTON A. BUTLER JR. Defendant & Intervenor
DEFENDANT TWILA A BUTLER'S SWORN AFFIDAVIT NO 2 ON SUPPORT TO DEFENDANTS/COUNTER-PLAINTIFFS MOTION OBJECTIONS REQUESTS AND AFFIDAVITS
Comes Now, Defendant TWILAA. BUTLERfjkja WOLF pro per after being duly sworn does attest and make her sworn testimony to the following, by affidavit, on support to Defendants Motions, Objections and Responses regarding this courts July 30th 2012 Decisions. 1. I, Twila A Butler fjkja Wolf, being duly sworn do freely and with intent to make
determinative and indicative of my belief in the veracity and validity of the following and all that has preceded this submission, foregoing, herein and all other documents that have been filed in connection with this case, now, before the court, and make my sworn affidavit out in support of said. 2. I did not take out this loan; in fact, this is the loan that I signed a letter, sent to me by TD Bank N.A.,offering me a loan, and sent it back declining the Banks offer as I didn't understand what kind of math they could be using to make me eligible for Two loans when they denied me for one loan. 3. So r didn't see how r could not qualify, due to, debt to income ratios, on a fixed rate loan, and this on a fixed rate 4.5% loan; that would have had a payment of about $180.00 [One Hundred eighty] dollars, a month, roughly. But the letter, said, I did qualify for two loans. 4. Now, again, how that works I don't know. I am not a financier, and I am not the smartest person in the world but I know when something doesn't smell right.
'---"
<:>
5. As I said I'm no genius but I knew there's no way could I qualify for, let alone afford, two loans that would be way over 300.00 dollars a month, with taxes and insurance that would be way more than I could pay each month and so I didn't take the loan and that, your honor is the letter I sent, in Defendants, last round, of motions and objections, stating I did not accept this loan package, and it is this very letter that ends up with the bottom cut off and used as a Plaintiffs exhibit in attempting to show that I accepted this loan package? No way sorry didn't happen. 6. So maybe your honor can understand why Defendants are confused by and otherwise have a problem with the unknown method or what reason you chose in the way you have chosen to deliberate the information, exhibits, motions, objections and other pleadings of 6
~
~
"1" 1...0
o "1"
.
l-<
.ro
o
o
Defendants as you, yourself, said, at the motion hearing prior to your July 30th decision at issue here, now, that "you would read in its entirety" and concluded as you have. 7. With so many variables that would seem in Defendants favor in the rules that the decisions rendered, seem to hang on but (1) a discretionary choice of the Court and (2) an apparent, but yet unproven, on its face rule 7 violation. 8. While there were, at least, three places from my point of view, your honor, and my
6
I=: 0 00 r- ...... .....
I
~~ ~
~ OJ)~ I=: ";roO\o
2
l-<
,.,'>II '-.;.I
""' ..... 01'"0

(I) l-<
==~"1"
(I) r- I=: I ro
0 .
husbands, where there was an opportunity for, the Court, to, allow Defendants to amend or fix their motions objections and defenses and one where the court should have, "In The Interest of Iustice," fixed this mistake, as the Court saw it "sua sponte." 9. These three, were, in our opinion your honor, direct on point, the rest required, more interpretation, that may have been at issue, here at bar in this matter, but on the face, in at least three places, your honor could have chosen to help the "non-moving party" Defendants, "In The Interest of justice," yet only made decision, for all intents, effects and purposes, for the Plaintiffs, by allowing yet another, third to be exact, "Bite at the Apple." 10. Being a very busy sitting judge maybe your honor has not read these rulings, as relates to, Defendants concerns. 11. Here presented highlighted for your honors convenience. 12. "Litigants can be assisted by unlicensed laymen during judicial proceedings." Brotherhood of Trainmen v. Virginia ex rel. Virginia State Bar, 377 U.S. 1; v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335; Argersinger v. Hamlin, Sheriff 407 U.S.425 13. "Following the simple guide of rule 8(f) that all pleadings shall be so construed as to do substantial justice" ... "Thefederal rules reject the approach that pleading is a game of skill in
r
..... 01'"0 ~ if) ;:l
- (1) I=: :t:: ~ro Po;
==
ro :: . 4-< ~
"1" "1"
'B
>
which one misstep by counsel may be decisive to the outcome and accept the principle that the'
purpose of pleading is to facilitate a proper decision on the merits." 8(t) FRCP, which holds that all pleadings v. Gibson, 355 14. "The assertion shall be construed
The court also cited Rule justice. Conley
to do substantial
us 41 at 48
(1957) made, are not to be defeated v. California,
of federal rights, when plainly and reasonably
under the name of local practice." Davis v. Wechler, 263 U.S. 22, 24; Stromberb 283 U.S. 359; NAACP v. Alabama, 375 U.S. 449 15. Elmore v. McCammon (1986) 640 F. Supp. 905 16. "Allegations such as those asserted by petitioner,
however inartfully pleaded, are sufficient" ...
"which we hold to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers." Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972) 17. Pro se pleadings are to be considered without regard to technicality; pro se litigants' pleadings are not to be held to the same high standards of perfection as lawyers. Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1959); Picking v. Pennsylvania 233 His honor is not really attempting standard as practicing barred attorneys R. Co., 151 Fed 2nd 240; Pucket v. Cox, 4562nd to the same pleading and rules
to hold Defendants is he? of arriving
18. "Pleadings are intended controversies
to serve as a means
at fair and just
settlements
of
between litigants.
They should not raise barriers which prevent the achievement but its importance consists in its effectiveness as a
of that end. Proper pleading is important,
means to accomplish the end of a just judgment" (1938) 19. "Members of groups who are competent
Maty v. Grasselli Chemical Co., 303 U.S. 197
non-lawyers
can assist other members
of the group practice of
achieve the goals of the group in court without being charged with "unauthorized law. "" NAACP v. Button, 371 U.S. 415); United Mineworkers and Johnson v. Avery, 89 S. Ct 747 (1969) 20. "The plaintiffs Nevertheless,
of America v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715;
civil rights pleading was 150 pages and described by a federal judqe as "inept". it was held "Where a plaintiff pleads pro se in a suit for protection of civil rights,
the Court should endeavor to construe Plaintiffs Picking v. Pennsylvania
Pleadings without regard to technicalities. ""
Railway, 151 F.2d. 240, Third Circuit Court of Appeals requires a less stringent reading than one drafted by a in Puckett v, Cox. 456 F. 2d 233
21. "It was held that a pro se complaint
lawyer per Justice Black in Cantey v: Gibson" and repeated (1972) (6th Cir. USCA) 22. "Due to sloth, inattention
or desire to seize tactical advantage,
lawyers have long engaged in with the Federal ~

t'tl
dilatory practices ... the glacial pace of much litigation
breeds frustration
Courts and ultimately, disrespect for the law." Roadway Express v. Pipe, 447 U.S.752 at 757 (1982) 23. "There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of his exercise of Constitutional Rights." Defendants seem to have been sanctioned for doing just this. Sherar v. Cullen,481 F. 2d 946 (1973) 24. "The practice of law cannot be licensed by any state/State. " Defendants state yet we appear to do this very thing every day and then hold people back from court because they cannot afford an attorney. In civil or criminal cases would seem an abuse of the Constitutions afforded protections. Schware v. Board of Examiners, United State Reports 353 U.S.pages 238,239. 25. "Court errs if court dismisses pro se litigant without instruction of how pleadings are deficient and how to repair pleadings." Defendants would argue that this would apply to simply dismissing motions, complaints and objections is equal to and the same as.
Twila A.Butler f/k/a Wolf Defendant pro per
Charlton A.Butler Jr. Intervenor pro per
VERIFICATION
We, the Defendants j Counter-Plaintiffs; Twila A. Wolf & Charlton A. Butler [r., do swear to the
made herein are true and accurate, in all respects,
pro per
evidence
to be the
authorized
Notary Seal
I, Twila A. Butler f/k/a preceding document
Wolf & Charlton A. Butler Jr. Pro-Per, certify that I mailed the Court in Bangor below on this
to the Clerk's office of the Maine State Superior
2. Counter-Complaint 3. Defendants Motion to Reconsider and Leave to
8. Defendants Supplemental Material Facts On Support to Defendants Motions, Objections, Responses and Affidavits Issue: Entry of Default 9. Defendants Supplemental Material Facts On Support to Defendants Motions, Objections, Responses and Affidavits Issue: Interpretation of the Rules 10. Defendants Supplemental Material Facts On Support to Defendants Motions, Objections, Responses and Affidavits Issue: Rule 7 Notice Violation 11. Defendants Supplemental Material Facts On Support to Defendants Motions, Objections, Responses and Affidavits Issue: Debt Collectors or Not?
Amend
Conclusions of Law 5. Defendants Objection to Plaintiffs Supplemental Material Facts

6. Defendant Twila A. Butler f/k/a Wolf Sworn Affidavit 7. Defendants Supplemental Material Facts On Support to Defendants Motions, Objections, Responses and Affidavits Issue: Standing
To:
Stephanie A. Williams and David B. McConnell c/o Perkins Thompson P.A. One Canal Plaza
PO Box426 Portland ME,04112-0426

&
To:
1
2
3 4 5 6
7
STATE OF MAINE COURT 'CIVIL
SUPERIOR PENOBSCOT SS. DOCKET NO:
RE-I0-187
TD BANK, NA,
8 9
10 11
Plaintiff v,
TWILA WOLF,et ai,
12 13
Defendant
14 15 16
In this Order, the Court will address the motion for summary judgment that plaintiff has filed in this case, but it will first address errors that it has made in ruling on motions that the defendant has filed.
17
18
Ilot.re a~~lmaloma~ "ndkating 'tPtf:te..'O'laimiff. aving been H
19
20 21 22
23
alerted by mail on March 28, 2012 that the plaintiff asserted that defendant had not served the motions, the Rule r) waFnin an ,the-p}aintif.6
m:tl
denied the motion
fOli
ae tha th enaas a bee erszed Of}
24
25 26
On April 12, 2012, the 'Plaintiff file defendant's -eounsel ha

metteRs fo
motions for relief from
e orders that denied laintitiG
four
otions, indicating that the motions had he en served, bu

WM
of their service due to a filing error. Th eeide defendant

I
bGJ
27 28
nUll
etiDn
29
J;iginaL.,fJlut"., motions within 21
Aays
of filing, th
OU'tt::WlJi.l:.fSl.nsitie:lld:lre;1;obiek-tio
30
1geeause1:hemotio
lacked a Rute"'Zwarni
g.
31
32
1. Defendant's Motion to Strike - Denied pursuant to M.R.Civ.P.56(i). 2. Defendant's Motion to Compel Plaintiffs (sic) Respond to Defendant's Future
33
34 35 36 4. . 3.
Discovery Requests by way of Court Supervised Discovery - Denied. Defendant's Motion to Disqualify Opposing Counsel and for Sanctions - Denied as frivolous. Defendant's Objection to Plaintiffs Motion to Lift Stayl and Summary Judgment Motion for Sanctions - The motion contained in this pleading is
37 38
39 40
with Incorporated
Denied, while the objection will be considered in deciding the motion for summary judgment. The Court decides the additional motions as follows:
41
42
43 44
1. On April 26, 2012, the defendant filed a request/motion
seeking "an entry for default
judgment" in which she complains that the plaintiff filed a late objection to the four motions that defendant had filed on Mal" w~at h Cou fler.ei;v;es be..an;oQbtecti t
,
~'~.:@1!P);tav!::S;,2:():n~,:J:hj~,efend dgmWlt
45
48 49 50
51
ugh
52
53
2. Plaintiff'-s Motion for: Sanctions - In this motion, plaintiff requests that the Court enjoin the defendant from filing motions in the future. 1I:l:re-ec;n:n=t r.an:tS!ithe intrusive medy order mat :efentlan she
'limi all.futune submission millYe;:pag; ffai
54 55
56
gtigU$ut sea ess
oMmbet:bmouofiS within
57
58 59 60 61 62
. Defendant
I<
filed a ohje.ctio
0
newed motion
flO
mateEi
aets ihuie
0
63
64
65 66 67 68
malt
mtgag
mak~
monthlyi flay.:.mentsJ 'he GOUlet d believes that this
1 The Court's original Order with regard to the motion to lift stay will not be revisited. At oral argument, the plaintiff
represented, and the defendant did not disagree, that defendant's appeal to the First Circuit Court of Appeals has been denied.
69 70 71 72 73 74
statement
accompanied by the elevant
eCQI: eve
'ng-mmpayment
is inadmis 'l2le
hearsay because its obvious source is an out-of-court statement. As such, the testimony ef Ms. Daigneault constitute estimony of an out-ofecourt statement offered to prove the of recent cas
truth of the matter asserted. In order to comply with the rigid requiremen
law, the plaintiff may supplement its summary judgment pleadings in this regard within 21 days, and the defendant espomi-t-{]~ler M
CIl
may respond within 21 days thereafter.
'titJte.:a)efend
75
ctI c,
be
: UO\ r~RU \50 11IIH, I NA TOR : 00 I THfIU 200 - 03/ PURCHASE DATE: 03/1S/01
MAIllS SUlE SERVICEII
"reSUlt;
AUTMllillil
PAGf. Ii
REPOlIIT Ii
PUIICHASE REPORT 8Y SERIES
DATE
flUll
30RD SERIES 124 2000-0 HPP

Q~IIWIATOIt LOAN IOS BAII(1I0ltTtI !o!ORfGAGE N~E LOAN TYPE fEII14 PURCHASE oue TNT Pro FIRST MATURITY
~RTGAGO~
rsr !I.ATE
lEVEl. PIIT
PIIIN
PUIIell
SRV FEE SE1fV POOL i'OOI. RATE HBIE 141
eEI'IT HIIR
'N8R
SERV REF H6~
PfoIT DATE!
LClAN A!IIT
I liS REF HUM8E1!
o21D71~ 01/01/31
02/01/01
A: Denotes Bond Series Sold Into B: Denotes the poor of Mortgaged Backed Securities, this loan, allegedly made by Defendants was sold into. C: Denotes The Pool Certificates Number 0: Denotes The Insurance On The Alleged Loan E: Denotes This Is A Servicers [S]ervicing Rights Purchase Report
--
For the purpose of this subdivision legal holidays shall include days on which the Chief Justice of the Superior Court or Chief Judge of the District Court pursuant to Rule 77(c) specifically orders the clerk's office closed. (b) Enlargement When by these rules or by a notice given thereunder or by order of court an act is required or allowed to be done at or within a specified time, the court for cause shown may at any time in its discretion (I) with or without motion or notice order the period enlarged if request therefor is made before the expiration of the period originally prescribed or as extended by a previous order or (2) upon motion made after the expiration of the specified period permit the act to be done where the failure to act was the result of excusable neglect, but it may not extend the time for taking any action under Rules 50(b), 52(b), 59(b ), (d), and (e), and 60(b), except to the extent and under the conditions stated in those rules. (c) Additional Time After Service by Mail. Whenever a party has the right or is required to do some act or take some proceedings within a prescribed period after the service of a notice or other paper upon the party and the notice or paper is served upon the party by mail, 3 days shall be added to the prescribed period. III. PLEADINGS AND MOTIONS RULE 7. PLEADINGS ALLOWED: FORM OF MOTIONS
P.leadings. There shall be a complain an an answer, and a diselosnr der oath, iltmstee process is 00; and .there shall be a.reply to a counterclaim nominated as such; an ans 0 a cross-claim, if the answer contains a cros G aim denominated as su ; a third-party complaint, if a person who was not an original party is summoned under Ru1e 14; and there shall be a third-party answer, if a third-party complaint is served. No other pleading shall be allowed, except that the court may order a reply to an answer or a third-party answer. (b) Motions and Other Papers.
d the rule or statute invoked the motion is brought pursuant to a rule or statute,
m!!!:!!:!!!l~S!:~.*~~~!ia
22
c -
The notice shall also state that failure to file timely opposition will be deemed a waiver of all objections to the motion, which may be granted without further notice or hearing. If the notice is not included in the motion, the opposing party may be heard even though matter in opposition has not been timely filed. (B) In addition to the notice required to be filed by subparagraph (l)(A) of this subdivision, a motion for summary judgment served on a party shall include a notice (i) that opposition to the motion must comply with the requirements of Rule 56(h) including specific responses to each numbered statement in the moving party's statement of material facts, with citations to points in the record or ill affidavits filed to support the opposition; and (ii) that not complying with Rule 56(h) in opposing the motion may result in entry of judgment without hearing. (C) A prejudgment motion to decide a case on the merits, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), 12(c), or Rule 56, and a post-judgment motion for relief, to modify, to reconsider, to enforce by contempt, for a new trial, or for a stay, pursuant to Rules 59, 60(b), 62, 66, or SOCk) shall be accompanied by a fee set in the Court Fees Schedule which shall be paid when the motion is filed. A pre-judgment motion to decide a case based on res judicata or any defense that is addressed in Rule 12 (b) (1), (2), (3), (4), or (5), is not subject to payment of a fee. (2) The rules applicable to captions, signing, and other matters of form of pleadings apply to all motions and other papers provided for by these ru les. (3) Any party filing a motion, except motions for enlargement of time to act under these rules, for continuance of trial or hearing, or any motion agreed to in writing by all counsel, shall file with the motion or incorporate within said motion (1) a memorandum of law which shall include citations of supporting authorities, (2) a draft order which grants the motion and specifically states the relief to be granted by the motion, and (3) unless the motion may be heard ex parte, a notice of hearing if a hearing date is available. When a motion is supported by affidavit, the affidavit shall be served with the motion.
4) Any party filing a motion for enlargement of time to act under these rules or for continuance of trial or hearing. shall include in the motion 2 statement that (I) the motion is opposed; or (2) the motion can be presentee without objection; or (3) after reasonable efforts, which shall be indicated, tne position of an opposing party regarding the motion cannot be determinec
(5) Motions fOT reconsideration of an order shan not be filed unless required to bring to the court's attention an error, omission or new material that could not previously have been presented. The COUTt may in its discretion deny a motion for reconsideration without hearing and before opposition is filed. (6) If a motion is pursued OT opposed in circumstances where the moving or opposing party does not have a reasonable basis for that party's position, the court, upon motion or its own initiative, may impose the sanctions provided by Rule 11 upon the party, the party's attorney, or both.
(7) Except as otherwise provided by law or these rules, after the opposrtion is filed the court may in its discretion rule on the motion WIthout hearing. The fact that a motion is not opposed does not assure that the requested relief will be granted.
(c) Opposition to Motions.
(1) Any party opposing a motion that was filed prior to or simultaneously with the filing of the complaint shall file a memorandum and any supporting affidavits or other documents in opposition to the motion not later than the time for answer to the complaint, unless another time is set by the court.
(2) Any party opposing any other motion shall file a memorandum and any supporting affidavits or other documents in opposition to the motion not later than 21 days after the filing of the motion, unless another time is set by the court. (3) A party failing to me a timely memorandum in opposition lotion shall be deemed to have waived all objections to the motion. (d) In addition to the requirements of this rule, motions judgment are subject to the requirements of Rule 56. to a
for summary
24
:e) Reply Memorandum. Within 7 days of filing of any memorandum in opposition to a motion, or, if a healing has been scheduled, not less than 2 days prior io the hearing, the moving party may file a reply memorandum. which shall be strictly confmed to replying to new matter raised in the opposing memorandum .. (f) Form and Length of Memoranda of Law. All memoranda shall be typed or otherwise printed on one side of the page of 8 J 12 x II inch paper. The typed matter must be double spaced in at least 12 point type, except that footnotes and quotations may appear in 1] point type. AU pages shall be numbered. Except by prior leave of court, no memorandum of law in support of or in opposition to a nondispositive motion shall exceed 10 pages. Except by prior leave of court, no memorandum of law in support of or in opposition to a motion to dismiss, a motion for judgment on the pleadings, a motion for summary judgment, or a motion for injunctive relief shall exceed 20 pages. No reply memorandum shall exceed 7 pages. (g) The use of telephone or video conference calls for conferences and nontestimonial hearings is encouraged. The court on its own motion, or upon request of a party, may order conferences or non-testimonial hearings to be conducted by telephone conference cans or with the use of video conference equipment. The court shall determine the party or patties responsible for the initiation and expenses of a telephone or video conference or non-testimonial hearing.
D :h'CI: If the party information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of so state and this has the effect of a denial. Denials shall the averments denied. When a pleader intends in good a qualification uf an averment, the pleader shall specify material and shall deny only the remainder.
is without knowledge or an averment, the party shall fairly meet the substance of faith to deny only a part or so much of it as is true and aae S 0
t:oead
25
J -
make denials as specific denials of designated averments or paragraphs, or the pleader may generally deny an the averments except such designated averments or paragraphs as the pleader expressly admits; but, when the pleader does so intend to controvert all its averments, e QleadefJIlay do 0 b}( generaLgema subje 0 the biiga ions-se foJ1h in R-uk J
n
Wt::ftlAfl~m..MQ . ,
'1
L -
ccord and satisfaction, arbitration and award, assumption of risk, comparative fault, discharge in bankruptcy, duress, estoppel, failure of consideration, fraud, illegality, immunity, injury by co-employee, laches, license, ., tutl;am imit re- r . When a party has mistak-enly designated a de ease as 8. coun ere rom Of' Gounterdaim a. a defense, the COUlt, 'fjustice so requires, shan tr-eat he pleading as if there had been a proper designation.
- ens other than those as to the amount of damage, are admitted when not denied in the responsive pleading. Averments in a pleading to which no responsive pleading is required or permitted shall be taken as denied or avoided.
(2) A party may set forth two or more statements of a claim or defense alternatively or hypothetically, either in one count or defense or in separate counts or defenses. When two or more statements are made in the alternative and one of them if made independently would be sufficient, the pleading is not made insufficient by the insufficiency of one or more of the alternative statements. A party may also state as many separate claims or defenses as the party has regardless of consistency and whether based on legal or on equitable grounds or on both. All statements shall be made subject to the obligations set forth in Rule 11.
(f) Construction of Ple-adings. AU pleadings shall be so construed as to do substantial justice.
26
;g) Pleadings by Agreement. An action may be commenced and issue joined therein. without the tiling or service of a complaint and answer, by the filing of a statement, signed and acknowledged by all the parties or signed by their attorneys. specifying plainly and concisely the claims and defenses between the parties and the rei ief requested. Signing constitutes a certificate that the issues are genume.
RULE 9. PLEADING SPECIAL MATTERS (a) Capacity . It is not necessary to aver the capacity of a party to sue or be sued or the authority of a party to sue or be sued in a representative capacity or the legal existence of an organized association of persons that is made a party. When a party desires to raise an issue as to the legal existence of any party or the capacity of any party to sue or be sued or the authority of a party to sue or be sued in a ~re:Q~r=es~e:n~tat~iYieica~Pla~C~jtyi"' ~<l~e~sl:'r=ini~to~raise b such the issue. supporting
!~~~.
e I are
g
(c) Conditions Precedent. In pleading the performance or occurrence of conditions precedent, it is sufficient to aver generally that all conditions precedent have been performed or have occurred. A denial of performance or occurrence shall be made specifically and with particularity, but when so made the party pleading the performance or occurrence has the burden of establishing it. (d) Official Document or Act. In pleading an official document or official act it is sufficient to aver that the document was issued or the act done in compliance with law. (e) Judgment. In pleading a judgment or decision of a domestic or foreign court, judicial or quasi-judicial tribunal, or of a board or officer, it is sufficient to aver the judgment or decision without setting forth matter showing jurisdiction to render it. (f) Time and Place. For the purpose of testing the sufficiency of a pleading, averments of time and place are material and shall be considered like all other averments of material matter.
27
g) Special Damage. oe specificallv stated
When items of special damage are claimed they shall
RULE 10. FORM OF PLEADING~ (a) Caption; Names of Parties. Every pleading shall contain a caption .emng forth the name of the court, the county in the Superior Court, the location of .ne District Court. the title of the action, the docket number, and a designation as in Rule 7(a). In the complaint the title of the action shall include the names of all the parties, but in other pleadings it is sufficient to state the name of the first party on each side with an appropriate indication of other parties. Each pleading shall be dated. If a pleading contains a claim or defense involving title to real estate, the words "TITLE TO REAL ESTATE IS INVOLVED" shall be included directly beneath the designation of the pleading. (b) Paragraphs; Separate Statements. All averments of claim or defense shall be made in numbered paragraphs, the contents of each of which shall be limited as far as practicable to a statement of a single set of circumstances; and a paragraph may be referred to by number in all succeeding pleadings. Each claim founded upon a separate transaction or occurrence and each defense other than denials shall be stated in a separate count or defense whenever a separation facilitates the clear presentation of the matters set forth.
RULE 11. SIGNING OF PLEADINGS AND MOTIONS; SANCTIONS (a) Attorney Signature Required; Sanctions. Subject to subdivision (b), every pleading and motion of a party represented by an attorney shall be signed by at least one attorney of record in the attorney's individual name, whose address shall be stated. A party who is not represented by an attorney shall sign the party's pleading or motion and state the party's address. Except when otherwise specifically provided by rule or statute, pleadings need not be verified or accompanied by affidavit. The signature of an attorney or party constitutes a representation by the signer that the signer has read the pleading or motion; that to
28
tile best of the signer's knowledge, information, and belief there is good ground to support It; and that it is 110t interposed for delay, [f a pleading or motion is not signed, it shall not be accepted for filing. If a pleading or motion is signed with intent to defeat the purpose of this rule, the court, upon motion or upon its owr initiative, may impose upon the person who signed it, upon a represented party, O~ upon both, an appropriate sanction, which may include an order to pay to the other party or parties the amount of the reasonable expenses incurred because of the filing of the pleading or motion, including a reasonable attorney's fee, (b) Limited Appearance of Attorneys. To the extent permitted by the Maine Bar Rules, an attorney may file a limited appearance on behalf of an otherwise unrepresented litigant. The appearance shall state precisely the scope of the limited representation. The requirements of subdivision (a) shall apply to every pleading and motion signed by the attorney. An attorney filing a pleading or motion outside the scope of the limited representation shall be deemed to have entered an appearance for the purposes of the filing. (c) Documents Filed in Federal Court Any document originally filed in the United States District Court for the District of Maine or any other federal court, and transferred to a court subject to these rules, shall be deemed to be signed if the document is signed or signing of the document is indicated in a manner that is acceptable for filing in the court from which the document is transferred, RULE 12. DEFENSES AND OBJECTIONS--WHEN AND HOW PRESENTED BY PLEADING OR MOT10N---MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON PLEADINGS (a) When Presented. A defendant shall serve that defendant's answer within 20 days after the service of the summons and complaint upon that defendant, unless the COUli directs otherwise when service of process is made pursuant to an order of court under Rule 4(d) or 4(g), and provided that a defendant served pursuant to Rule 4(e), 4(f), or 40) outside the Continental United States or Canada may serve the answer at any time within 50 days after such service. A party who is served with a pleading stating a cross-claim against that party shall serve an answer thereto within 20 days after the service upon that party. ft l18!'I,.t@ 3@@tmteNls.' nsw itbi ~t 1',
~~~~M~
tli8 8,148
~~~~~~~~.~~
8 . ~eti~.anitl~md0.lioi~~~ie.~iM:8;o ~aH08~~1~~~cmMim . flI(~'V"''1_!FIIIl1~'I'l'! '8e-1Ii't. '(1) if tMe=e(')tli'Hlenies-l:he-m6ti~&H~e~~1

29
(b) How Presented. Every defense, in law or fact, to a claim for relief in any pleading, whether a claim, counterclaim, cross-claim, or third-party claim, shall be asserted in the responsive pleading thereto if one is required, except that the following defenses may at the option of the pleader be made by motion: (1) lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter; (2) lack of jurisdiction over the person; (3) improper venue; (4) insufficiency of process; (5) insufficiency of service of process; (6) failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted; and (7) failure to join a party under Rule 19. A motion making any of these defenses shall be made before pleading if a further pleading is permitted. No defense or objection is waived by being joined with one or more other defenses or objections in a responsive pleading or motion. If a pleading sets forth a claim for relief to which the adverse party is not required to serve a responsive pleading, the adverse party may assert at the trial any defense in law or fact to that claim for relief If, on a motion asserting the defense numbered (6) to dismiss for failure of the pleading to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, matters outside the pleading are presented to and not excluded by the court, the motion shall be treated as one for summary judgment and disposed of as provided in Rule 56, and all patties shall be given reasonable opportunity to present all material made pertinent to such a motion by Rule 56. (c) Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. After the pleadings are closed but within such time as not to delay the trial, any party may move for judgment on the pleadings. If, on a motion for judgment on the pleadings, matters outside the pleadings are presented to and not excluded by the court, the motion shall be treated as one for summary judgment and disposed of as provided in Rule 56, and aJl parties shall be given reasonable opportunity to present aU material made pertinent to such a motion by Rule 56. (d) Preliminary Hearings. The defenses specifically enumerated (l )-(7) in subdivision (b) of this rule, whether made in a pleading or by motion, and the motion for judgment in subdivision (c) of this rule shall be heard and determined before trial on appli ation of any party, unless the court orders that the hearing and determination thereofbe deferred until the trial.
}O
.e) Motion for More Definite Statement. If a pleading to which a responsive pleading is permitted is so vague or ambiguous that a party cannot reasonably be required to frame a responsive pleading, the party may move for a more definite statement before filing a responsive pleading. The motion shall point out the defects complained of and the details desired. If the motion is granted and the order of the court is not obeyed within 10 days after notice of the order or within such other time as the court may fix, the court may strike the pleading to which the motion was directed or make such order as it deems just.
(f) Motion to Strike. Upon motion made by a party before responding to a pleading or, if no responsive pleading is permitted by these rules, upon motion made by a party within 20 days after the service of the pleading upon the party or upon the court's own initiative at any time, the court may order stricken from any pleading any insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter.
(g Consolidation of Defenses in Motion. A party who makes a motion under this rule may join with it any other motions herem provided for and then available to the party. If a party makes a motion under this role but omits therefrom any defense or objection then available to the party which this rule ermits to be raised by motion, the party shall not thereafter make a motion based on the defense or objection so omitted, except a motion as provided in subdivision (h)(2) hereof on any of the' grounds there stated.
(h) Waiver or Preservation of Certain Defenses.
(I) A defense of lack of jurisdiction over the person, improper venue, insufficiency of process, or insufficiency of service of process is waived (A) if omitted from a motion in the circumstances described in subdivision (g), or (B) if it is neither made by motion under this rule nor included in a responsive pleading or an amendment thereof permitted by Rule 15(a) to be made as a matter of course.
(2) A defense of failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, a defense of failure to join a party indispensable under Rule 19, and an objection of failure to state a legal defense to a claim may be made in any pleading permitted or ordered under Rule 7(a), or by a motion for judgment on the pleadings, or at the trial on the merits.
(3) Whenever it appears by suggestion of the parties or otherwise that the court lacks jurisdiction of the subject matter, the court shall dismiss the actio
31
RULE 13. COUNTERCLAIM

(a) Compulsory Counterclaims.
ANn CROSS-CLAIM
(1) Pleadings. Unless otherwise specifically provided by statute 0:unless the relief demanded in the opposing party's claim is for damage arising out of the ownership, maintenance or control of a motor vehicle by the pleader, a pleading shall state as a counterclaim any claim which at the time of serving the ~Jeading the pleader has against any opposing party, if it arises out of the transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the opposing party's claim, and does not require for its adjudication the presence of third parties of whom the court cannot acquire jurisdiction. But the pleader need not state the claim if (A) at the time the action was commenced the claim was the subject of another pending action, or (B) the opposing party brought suit upon the claim by attachment or other process by which the court did not acquire jurisdiction to render a personal judgment on that claim, and the pleader is not stating any counterclaim under this Rule 13. (2) Removal of Claims Not Within the Subject-Matter Jurisdiction of the District Court. If a compulsory counterclaim filed in the District Court is not within the subject-matter jurisdiction of that court, the pleader shall simultaneously file and serve notice of removal and pay the required removal fee under Ru1e 54A, and the action shall be removed to the Superior Court as provided in that rule. (0) Permissive Counterclaims. A pleading may state as a counterclaim any claim against an opposing party that is within the subject-matter jurisdiction of the cou .
~JknJlay.-.ela.
1IHbllbe.pieadi
(d) Counterclaim Against the State. These rules shall not be construed to enlarge beyond the limits now fixed by law the right to assert counterclaims or to claim credits against the State of Maine or an officer or agency thereof: (e) Counterclaim Maturing or Acquired After Pleading, A claim which either matured or was acquired by the pleader after serving a pleading may, with
32
the permission of the court, be presented

pleading.
as a counterclaim
by supplemental
terow
(g) Cross-Claim Against Co-party .. A pleading may state as a cross-claim any claim by one party against a co-party that is within the subject-matter jurisdiction of the court and arises out of the transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter either of the original action or of a counterclaim therein or relating to any property that is the subject matter of the original action. Such cross-claim may include a claim that the party against whom it is asserted is or may be liable to the cross-claimant for all or part of a claim asserted in the action against the crossclaimant. (h) Joinder of Additional Parties. Persons other than those made parties to the original action may be made parties to a counterclaim or cross-claim in accordance with the provisions of Rules 19 and 20. (i) provided rendered opposing Separate Trials; Separate Judgment. If the court orders separate trials as in Rule 42(b), judgment on a counterclaim or cross-claim may be in accordance with the terms of Rule 54(b) even if the claims of the party have been dismissed or otherwise disposed of.
33
--
------_.
August 10,2000
. .. ~~
477~Stmet P.O. BOx 9540

PortIand,ME 04112-9540
./
.'-
Twila A. Wolf 44 Patten~Street

. Bangor, ME 04401
Dear.,Ms. Wolf,
you credit en
. .
Thank you for your recent appflCation for a mortgage loan. We are unable to offer lhe..tem1s that you~ueste~Hor..the fQIl~llgtfeasontsp' - ;,.. '. excessiVe debnatio foi=N8N'NeighbbrS program. ".' -'';- : ., .'.: . ' ..
".
-:
We can, .however, offer you credit on the following terms: $26,820/$17,880 NEw Neighbors loans, the bank will require you payoff and close out your Axys account to quafify. Please contact your loan officer to detennine the rate and any points that apply to thiS'program"since the terms.e.siabUshed at thetime ofyour.-originallqan application a~ no.longel' applicable:-' If this .effer Is--ac.ceptable to you, please notify us withil10 bus~ess.:lis at the following address: Banknorth Mortgage. 477 Congress:5treet, Suite' ".~frH~nd. E 04101, M
. ., , __._~,o .. , .: ..::" , ., '. .' . .
ii'lformation
on your;applieatian obtainecHn:a reporffrom POrttand, ME Q4103.

decision
Our credit
was ~ased m..whole Dr.inparton Credt/ Bureau of-Maine; 276 C8nco Road, .
Yolt.li.ave a right under the Fair.Credit Reporting Act to know the information
'. .contaIned in your credit file at tI'lfi consumer reporting agency. '1be reporting agency played no part in our decision and is unable to supply specific reasons
why we--have denie9 credit to you. You also have a righUo &ke~copy .of-YOtlf reportfrom the reportjng:agencydf'Y9U-reque.s1it-no Iatw-than,60 -days after you
. receiveihis notice. ,1tt8ddition:'if-YOU find thatanyfnformationcontained in the report you receive is inaccurate or incomplete, you have the right to dispute the
matter.withthe-repomngagency.:.'" '.' ...
You have a'righHo a copy of the,appraisal report used in connection with.your application for :Credit If;YOu wishw'have a copy; please write to us anhe mailing address we have provklect: We must hear from you no later than 90 days after this notification.
You should know that the federal Equal Credit Opportunity Act prohibits creditors, such as ourselves, from discriminating against credit applicants on the basis of their race(co/or, religion, national origin, sex. marital status, age, because they receive iifcOrtJEHrom'a pubtiC:a~~etf'~m, or?ti'eta~ ~y may have exercised their rights under the Consumer Crec,1it Protection Act. If yQU believe there has been discrimination in handling your application you should contact the Office. of the Comptroller of the Currency, Customer Assistance Unit, 1301 McKinney Avenue, Suite 3710, Houston, TX 77010. Yours truly.
6.~J,. ~-Caroline l. Sullivan "f\ Senior Mortgage Underwriter
IlWeQAcce
Date
COUNTER
iJ Banknorth
Mortgage
August
1\ . . ila
10, 2000
~volf 44 Patten Street Bangor, ME 04401
Dear Twila
Wolf, for a mortgage on the
We are pleased to inform you that you have been approved property located at 44 Patten Street, Bangor, ME 04401.
RATE AND TEIUtl: Your financing will be a Fixed rate, for 30 years. Your interest 8.560% with 3 points. The rate quoted in this letter will expire 2000. LOAN AMOUNT;
The amount of your mortgage will be $17,880.00.
rate will be on October 9,
PAYMENT:
Based on the rate quoted above, your initial principal and interest payment: will be $138.24. Escrows for your taxes, insurance, and mortgage insurance will be added to your payment, if applicable. You will receive a first payment letter at closing which will indicate your total pa}~ent.
CLOSING:
Your closing is tentatively scheduled for August 31, 2000. ~e attorney who will handle your closing is Cohen & Cohen. Please contact the attorney's office at 207-945-5601 to set the time for your closing.
QUESTIONS? :
Your customer satisfaction team members are: Tim Heggeman, processor at 800-462-3666 at ext. 8554; Caroline L Sullivan, underwriter at 800-462-3666 at ext. 7350; and Robert Brayson, mortgage consultant at 207-945-3477_ Please do not hesitate to contact us if we can be of assistance to you in this process. Our goal is to make this process as smooth as possible for you. In order to close on or before August 31, 2000, the Bank or the attorney may need additional information. Please refer to the following pages for any conditions concerning your loan. We expect you will promptly notify us in the event there is any adverse change in your financial condition between now and the date of your closing. We will consider the absence of any notification to constitute a representation that no change has occurred. Please confirm your acceptance of these terms and the conditions on the following pages, by signing the last page and returning this letter to the bank within 7 business days. If we do not receive your signed letter within the time frame, we will assume you wish to withdraw your application. Sincerely,
Caroline L Sullivan Underwriter
1"
~ anknorth
Mortgage
August 10, 2000 Twila A Wolf 44 Patten Street Bangor, ME 04401
Dear Twila A Wolf, We are pleased to inform you that you have been approved property located at 44 Patten Street, Bangor, ME 04401. for a mortgage on the
RATE AND TERM: Your financing will be a Fixed rate, for 30 years. Your interest 4.500% .rith 3 points. The rate quoted in this letter will expire 2000. LOAN AMOUNT: The amount of your mortgage PAYMENT: Based on the be $135.89. added to your closing which
rate will be on October 9,
will be $26,820.00.
rate quoted above, your initial principal and interest payment will Escrows for your taxes, insurance, and mortgage insurance will be payment, if applicable. You will receive a first payment letter at will indicate your total payment.
CLOSING: Your closing is tentatively scheduled for August 31, 2000. The attorney who will handle your closing is Cohen & Cohen. Please contact the attorney's office at 207-945-5601 to set the time for your closing.
QUESTIONS?:
Your customer satisfaction team members are: Tim Heggeman, processor at 800-462-3666 at ext. 8554; Caroline L Sullivan, underwriter at 800-462-3666 at ext. 7350; and Robert Brayson, mortgage consultant at 207-945-3477. Please do not hesitate to contact us if we can be of assistance to you in this process. Our goal is to make this process as smooth as possible for you. In order to close on or before August 3~, 2000, the Bank or the attorney may need additional information. Please refer to the following pages for any conditions concerning your loan. We expect you will promptly notify us in the event there is any adverse change in your financial condition between now and the date of your closing. We will consider the absence of any notification to constitute a representation that no change has occurred. Please confirm your acceptance of these terms and the conditions on the following pages, by signing the last page and returning this letter to the bank within 7 business days. If we do not receive your signed letter within the time frame, we will assume you wish to withdraw your application. Sincerely,
Caroline L Sullivan Underwriter
~~
Tanya Daigneault I Linkedln
http://www.linkedin.comlpub/tonya-daigncault/29/521/3b9
Tanya Daigneault
Foreclosure Supervisor at TO Bank
Portland. Maine Area Banking
Join Linkedln and access Tonya Daigneault's
full profile.
As a Linkedln member, you'll join 175 million other professionals who are sharing connections. ideas, and opportunities. And it's freel You'll also be able to: See who you and Tonya Daigneault know in common Get introduced to Tanya Daigneauit Contact Tanya Daigneault directly
View Full Profile-
Tonya Daigneault's
Current Connections
Overview !"" ~ .,~ '~"
Foreclosure Supervisor at TO Bank 5 connections
.;:>:- -: ,"".-.'
--
Tonya Daigneault's
Experience
-
-~
--
Foreclosure Supervisor TO Bank

Public Company; 10,001+ employees; TO; Banking industry
Currently holds this position
Contact Tonya for:

career opportunities new ventures expertise requests reference requests consulting offers job inquiries business deals getting back in touch
View Tonya Daigneault's full profile to ...

See who you and Tanya Daigneault know in common Get introduced to Tanya Daigneault Contact Tonya Daigneault directly
View Full Profile
\..in\l:edln member directory
- Browse members
by country a bed
e f g h ij k Im n 0 p q r s t u v w x y z n
Linkedln Corporation
2011
lofl
9/18/20127:12 AM
PERKINS .. THOMPSON
ArrORNEYS & COUNSELORS AT LAw
ESTABLISHED 1871
April 13,2012 Penny H. Reckards, Clerk Penobscot County Superior Court Attn: Civil Clerk for Real Estate Matters 78 Exchange Street, Suite 350 Bango~~ 04401 Re: TD Bank, NA. v. Twila A. Wolf, et al. Civil Action Docket No. RE-IO-187
ONE CANAL PLAZA PO BOX 426 PORTLAND ~1E 041 \2 TEL 207.774.2635 . FAX 207.87\.8026
PHlllPC. HUNT JOHNS UPTON
PEGGY L McGEHEE MEL~SA HANlEY MURPHY JOHN A HOBSON JAMES N. KATSIAFIOS TIMOTHY J GORDON
p.
r: ,.''\~ ,\.
~tf:'~::; .~~~.~ ':,' tf;; ~;~,.: ji '

:., .
",.1, , ,..'
BENOIT
SCANNELL JR FRED W. BOP? III

/"'tARKP SNOW
Dear Penny: Enclosed please find a check in the amount of $180.00 to cover the cost of the filing fees for the Plaintiff s 60(b) motions previously sent to you in the above referenced matter. If you have any questions about this, please let me know. Sincerely,
WILLIAM J. SHEIl5 DAVID B McCONNELL PAUL D. PiETROPAOlI HOPE CREAL JACOBSEN RANDY
J CRESWELL
/JLIANNE C RAY
DAWN M HARMON
CHRISTOPHER M. DARGIE ANTHONY
J MANHART
STEPHANIE A WILLIAMS PETER I. McDONEll KEITH I. DUNLAP SARA NMOP?N IEFFREYA COHEN SHAWN K.LEYDEN IOSEPH G. TALBOT LAUREN Ii WELiVER
)fVVlayV~
cc:
Stephanie. A. Williams Enclosure
',j
Twila Wolf Butler Charlton A. Butler, Jr.
OF COUNSEL DOUGLAS S '.:AM
JOHN
ClRAlOO 1956 2010
This is a communication from a debt collector. This is an attempt to collect a debt by foreclosure of a mortgage. Any information obtained will be used for that purpose. If you are in bankruptcy or have received a discharge of this debt in bankruptcy, this is not an attempt to collect a debt.
(POI01626.11
PEFIKINS
~!!2~~!~~
ESTABLISHED 1871
ONE CANAL PLAZA PO BOX 426 PORTLAND ME 041 12
(
Twila A. Wolf Butler Charlton Butler 44 Patten Street Bangor, ME 04401
'PERKINS THOMPSON
.,.,~ " '.""'-', -,I
n \ ELECTRO'l;lC
vila \\t)\:"
!)~!U\:n ='{rt~!
\~O J'OsTAI
MAl
C'
~ .i.
r:
j
"~:lI1t!-ur.
~"H {J4..J.LI
{his J.,",knt).''~dgt~~~.. .:e'pt ,"d':...:lI~ :t...r d~lkd '\prii .::.:~201 n" k

~lli
hUt ~"I,.sfnlrk\....1 . \prd
..".
!. that" "Li 'ilkd

L'" ill':
i\'iiliam,
'"\)I.:.\UF1i:P \\'kIT11:1\: RH)l orticc i ",h>2 i.cner"].
ESr' .md .lddrc:';scd ", S[""iJ.mie
\\'hiie the l etn..r purports It) be a "LJuJ.!if1t.:J written re..uest" j"'tJ\YR'.l f'ltf\'!l;ml l'l J ~ L .S,l'. ~:Y'v5\<!I. it laib t\, satis(\ llw minimum requirements of'u QWR, Arn. ,II!! ";, .:r lin!!s. despite the' Iac: that th: Letter is sixteen pag..:s bug. it iaib to rr~'\ iJ,' a cic: r :-.:Iatemt:nt of tnc rt.:':.lSOHS that ~'{\U believe (hat the accourus tlcsi..:iiiJc(i in i.ik' i.cncr ~n\. in error. nor does the Letter pro- ide sufficient derail regarding other inlorrnaticn th:.ti \.lU seek. Furthermore. much the information :hat) DB have !\.'\.1UCSlcd is nul. related IL hXlJ1 servicing . the only prupt:i subject or u Q\VR. hi fact, the true PiliPOS;.:' ntlh ~ f .erter appears to be notr.ing more than an attempt i(' a!"u:-:~the mechanisms nf ::~iCRl.!n! r:,,,,IC <; rtlcmcnt Procedures Act.
or
iha; \,;a!n~ State Housing ,\urhu:;iIY i~ HC' kmht;! !>cl'\.i.:in}-' the iJ\.!ntifit-d in the l euer. (umder Na!loD\!! Bnnk ':-:'1\'\', ~l:n icinz 'hat a~~L\UnL ! have Iorwanlcd till' I ctter h} John SiC".'.':!)"!. !1 ~.i.l:-:~ \!it!!.!:1i!U: I earn Lcaue ..n rumden ~a(i'Jl1"j !i.m\. for l,j~ revi ",\.
"l;rl~:,lt~f\r.." . tt.:_Olm: th:.n you
c.
PtC:'~L' 11("advised
However, loth:: extern t;1at th.: t.cucr is dceu.cd a valid ()WR \~_nd in Hank. ~ ,\ .. vlainc 'i(llt<.: Housing :\l1.!!loril.; ant! (';lmkn i\atinn<lj' Hunk do not agree !ll.H ii i:;;, !iIi, h.:IIt.'r constitutes written at'knp\.d~dgnH ..nt t,f rcccip: or Ihe Lerrcr. pursuunt u) 1:2 L i.:-:,f ~ '::605! cl( Iii .:\ I.
l)<!'. 1(\ lJ,
,'l<;1 onncn
NOTE
December 4. 2000
[Dale)
Bangor
iCily}
Maille
[Stste]
44 Patten Street
Bangor
(Propl!!ty Address]
Maine
04401
I.
BORROWER'S PROMISE TO PAY

(this amount is called
In return for a loan that I have received. I promise to pay US. $ ** . 17.880.00 'principal"), plus interest, to the order of the Lender. The Lender is First Massachusetts Bank, N.A.
I understand that the Lender may transfer this Note. The Lender or anyone wbo takes this Note by transfer and who is entitled 10 receive payments under this Note is called the "Note Holder." INTEREST Interest will be charged on unpaid principal until the full amount of principal has been paid. I will pay interest at a yearly rate of 8.5600 9h. The interest rate required by this Section 2 is the rate I will pay both before and after any default described in Section 6(B) of this Note. PAYMENTS (A) Time and Place or Payments I will pay principal and interest by making payments every month. I will make my monthly payments on the 1st day of each month beginning on February 1,2001 I will make these payments every month until I have paid all of the principal and interest and any other charges described below thai I may owe under this Note. ~)Im~~BBi.paI. If, on January 1, 2031 , I still owe amounts under this Note. I will pay those amounts in full on that date, which is called we "maturity date. " I will make my monthly payments at P.O. Box 5400 Lewiston, ME 04241-5400 or at 11 different place if required by the Note Holder.
(8) Amount of Monthly Payments
2.
3.
My monthly payment will be in the amount or U.S. $ *"''''13&.24
4. BORROWER'S RIGHf TO PREPAY

I bave the right to make payments of principal at any rime before they are due. A payment of principal only is known as a "prepayment," When I make a prepayment. I wiil tell the Notc Holder in writing diat I am doing so. I may make a full prepayment or partial prepayments without paying any prepayment charge. The Note Holder will use all of my prepayments to reduce the amount of principal that I owe under this Note. If! make a partial prepayment. there will be no changes in the due date or in the amount of my monthly payment unless the Note Holder agrees in writing [0 those changes.
-
~~ .
.,
,
,,t~
_~__ _ ,,__
-~~
~J
MUL nST
ITEM 164&..1
ATE FIXED RATE NOTE - Single FamDy - FNMAJFHLMC

(ss,t)
Uallenu lastnuneat
FOnD 3200 1l1ll3
(Page J of3 pages)
i
,$
5.
LOAN CHARGES !fa i-ll"'. dlieh applies l~~tub'if o m connec on

WI
100001'"tiJ\1ig~I5-inEeFpret.ee's~e-i!il~r S oan excel! e permi
ab~~~~B6~6H~~~~~~Ud~~~a~~.~e.F~~eddH~se~~'b~~~.c~~~~aEg&gCp~~ttcd-UEnu..aR~~&rYRm~
~.,.
-ey
~i
IfEEftleiJl8 IRe fWwipaI
"hieh e.teeeded permilteli tilfri!'SCWfl' be n,fulro~e:o:FheoNee..HeHle~eese-t~S"'f~ i G""e'!B"'~~aJaa~~~..-fund.Jeduce~lincipal,..th.c:be trpled-as 2 pastial PR""fl2DlG8t.
6. BORROWER'SFAlLURETOPAYASREQUIRED 'illS (be rrfu@h calendar ~~~~apgest~elde~ __ UDflIg~~ of my overdue payment of principal and interest. I will pay Ibis late charge promptly but only once on each late payment.
(A) Late Cbarge ror Overdue Payments 14E&- blase Ho'der h?&.nfill rnttiued,tbc,full.gm~afl~w~t
OO~.
.
overdue amount by a not been paid and all notice is delivered or
If I do not pay the full amount of each monthly payment on the date it is due. I will be in default.
(C) Notice of Dci'ault If I am in default, the Note Holder may send me a written notice telling me thar if I do not pay the certain dale, the Note Holder may require me to pay immediately Ihe full amount of principal which bas the interest that I owe on that amount, That date must be at least 30 days after the date on which the mailed to me. (0) No Waiver By Note Holder Even if, at a time when I am in default, the Note Holder does not require me to pay immediately above, the Note Holder will still have the right to do so jf! am in default at a later time, (E) Payment or Note Holder's Costs and Expenses If the Nole Holder has required me [0 pay immediately in full as described above. the Note Holder be paid .back by me for all of its costs and expenses in enforcing this Note to the extent not prohibited Those expenses include. for example, reasonable attorneys' fees. 7.
in full as described
will have the right [0 by applicable law.
GIVING OF NOTICES Unless applicable law requires a different method, any notice that must be given to me under this Nore will be given by delivering it OJ' by mailing it by first class mail to me at the Property Address above or at a different address if I give the Note Holder a notice of my different address. Any notice that must be given to the NOIe Holder under this Note will be given by mailing it by first class mail to the Note Holder at the address stated in Section 3(A) above or at a different address if I am given a notice of that different address. OBLIGA nONS OF PERSONS UNDER THlS NOTE ~~~~n4~~lig~IJ.0~~il' tln ., ineladinll pn>mi.se>to"P~~am"l:!ttn" p~ll"WIfG.:ic~ gtill!faIlto, urety_oor-sCl' o1*tbis Nee>"' is''aBO ebli~9 ~ . Il39fC!l'ret!'W.filmIC~~eserEMigmio . erU~tDe \')t1~i=gmi_sef.i.a guarantor";' .w . ~SO<OO\i.gaoo.cOokeepoal~mi ~ T~ete-HeldeFmay-enfur ilS"ri~miflp..thT~gainstoeactJn~9iidtJalJ.y p.-again~1 ~s~ 't/~a any-e~us-ma"""'tl-require to pay all of'tfie'fui'lblllltS"'owed'ilnffilRlii Ne . 8.
WAIVERS I and any other person who bas obligations under this Note waive the rights of presentment and notice of dishonor. "Presentment" means the right to require the Note Holder to demand payment of amounts due. "Notice of dishonor" means the right to require me Note Holder to give nonce to other persons thai amounts due have not been paid. 10. UNIFORM SECURED NOTE This Note is a uniform instrument with limited variations in some jurisdictions. In addition to the protections given to the Note Haider under this Note, a Mortgage, Deed of Trust or Security Deed (the "Security Instrument"), dated the same date as this Note, protects the Note Holder from possible losses which might result in do not keep the promises which I make in this Note. That Security Instrument describes how and under what conditions I may be required to make immediate payment in full of all amounts I owe under this Note, Some of those conditions are described as follows:
9.
ITEM 1&4:m.21951
I>
(Page 2 0/3 pages]
Transfer of the Property or a Beneficial IR~ in Brower. If all or any part of the Property or any interest in it is sold or transferred (or if a beneficial interest in Borrower is sold or transferred and BOJTOWCf is not a natural person) without Lender's prior written consent, Lender may, at its option. require immediate payment in full of all sums secured by this Security Instrument. However, this option shall not be exercised by Lender if exercise is prohibited by federal Jaw as of the date of this Security Instrument, If Lender exercises this option. Lender shall give Borrower notice of acceleration. The notice shall provide a period of not less than 30 days from the date me notice is delivered or mailed wibin which Borrower must pay all sums secured by this Security .Instrument, If Borrower fails to pay these sums prior to me expiration of this period. Lender may invoice any remedies permitted by this Security Instrument without further notice or demand on Borrower. Borrower has executed and acknowledges receipt of pages 1 through 3 of this Note. WJ1NESS TIlE HAND(S) AND SEAL(S) OF THE UNDERSIGNED. ________________________________ ~~(S~)
BotroWl:r
___________________
={Seal)
-Borrower
----------------------------------------~-B~~~2
----------------------------------------~-B~~~
{Sign Original Only]
(Seal) -----------------------------------------~BOtt~cr
F_3211D
1TEM 1 i>46L31951 l'
l2JlI3
(Page 3 if:! pages)
To OnlorCall:
HIOO530.;l3ll30f
GREAnAND II 61&-71IH131

RE BANSC-2012-187 TD Bank N.A. V, Twila A. Wolf Case With Exhibits 09-18 and 22 2012 Submissions

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

RE BANSC-2012-187 TD Bank N.A. V, Twila A. Wolf Case With Exhibits 09-18 and 22 2012 Submissions

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Charlton A. Butler Jr. & Twila A.

Butler 44 Patten Street Bangor, ME 04401 September 18, 2012

4. Judicial Notice Motion to Show Authority.

Charlton A. Butler Jr. & Twila A. Butler

SUPERIOR COURT DOCKET NUMBER BANSC-RE-2010-00187

Twila A. Butler fjkja Wolf Defendant

Charlton A. Butler Jr. Intervener VERIFICATION

Twila A Butler f/k/a Wolf Defendant pro per

Charlton A. Butler Jr. Intevenor

NOTARY PUBLIC IN AND FOR THE STATE OF MAINE

Notary Seal CERTIFICA TE OF SERVICE

On support to Defendants Counter/Plaintiffs

Respectfully Submitted: 09-21-2012

Twila A. Butler fjkja Wolf Defendant Pro per

Charlton A. Butler Jr. Intervenor

TD BANK N.A. fjkja FIRST MASSACHUSETTS BANK

Twila A. Butler fjkja Wolf Defendant

Charlton A. Butler Jr. Intervener

and affirm that all statements best of our knowledge.

made herein are true and accurate, in all respects, to the

Twila A. Butler f/k/a Wolf Defendant pro per

Charlton A. Butler Jr. Intevenor

executed the same in his/her instrument

capacity and that by his/her

who is the person who executed this instrument.

Witness my hand and official seal.

NOTARY PUBLIC IN AND FOR THE STATE OF MAINE

Twila A. Butler fjkja Wolf Defendant Pro per

Charlton A. Butler Jr. Intervenor Pro per

TD BANK N.A. fjkja FIRST MASSACHUSETTS BANK Plaintiffs v.

Respectfully Submitted this 21st day of September, 2012.

Twila A. Butler fjkja Wolf Defendant pro per

Charlton A. Butler Jr. Intervenor pro per VERIFICATION

Twila A. Butler f/k/a Wolf Defendant pro per

Charlton A. Butler Jr. Intevenor pro per

Witness my hand and official seal.

NOTARY PUBLIC IN AND FOR THE STATE OF MAINE

I, Twila A. Butler f/kja preceding document

to the Clerk's office of the Maine State Superior

2. Judicial Notice Motion to Show Authority

Respectfully Submitted: 09-18-2012

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

Charlton A. Butler Jr. Intervenor

Cover Copy To:

Charlton A. Butler Jr. & Twila A. Butler

TO BANK NA fjkja FIRST MASSACHUSETTS BANK

COMES NOW, Defendants Defendants predicated

Plaintiffs filed their supplemental 2. In the face of apparent

to be had in said record unless the court

provides findings of fact and conclusions

when they are

stepped, here, solely at the Courts discretion;

and without, consideration,

11. Defendants submission

~t:>~-d ..1>01 C!) r'"'I'J

I-. 0 ~ ;.. .... "O N

.... o "'" "' "'0 "

e... t--+=lc: ::2 ""

be of great import in any court, more so these days; considering

and in light of, the problems

from the start and continue

as it would appear is the case as claimed by Plaintiffs; then, this fact

Respectfully Submitted this 18th day of September 2012