You are on page 1of 30

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Twila A. Wolf Pro se Charlton A. Butler Jr. Pro se 44 Patten Street #2 Bangor, Maine 04401 Telephone: (207) 249-5378 eMail: charltonbutler@aol.com eMail: twilaawolf@gmail.com Defendants Twila A. Wolf /k/a Twila A. Butler pro se& Defendant-Intervenor Charlton A. Butler Jr.pro se

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT


For the District of Maine
TD BANK N.A. f/k/a FIRST MASSACHUSETTS BANK N.A. Et al Plaintiff, v.

Case No.: 1:11-CV-00255-DBH

13 14 15 16
Defendant-Intervenor, TWILA A. WOLF (Butler) Defendants, CHARLTON A. BUTLER JR.

1. 2.

TITLE TO REAL ESTATE INVOLVED JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32

And/or MAINE STATE HOUSING AUTHORITY, CITY OF BANGOR, Et al Possible Parties-In-Interest And/or Plaintiffs LVNV FUNDING LLC. Possible Parties-In-Interest

Judge/Magistrate: Magistrate Hon. Margaret J. Kravchuk Date Action filed: July 5th 2011 (Defendants Notice of Removal) Date set for trial: Unknown

(DEFENDANTS RESPONSE TO THE COURTS ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE,) (AND VARIOUS MOTIONS AND OBJECTIONS OF OPPOSING COUNSEL) (WITH INCORPORATED MEMORANDUM OF LAW)
Title to 44 Patten Street Bangor, Maine is involved as recorded in the Penobscot County Registry of Deeds.

Now come Defendants Twila A. Butler f/k/a Wolf and Charlton A. Butler Jr. Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1441 et seq.1446 et seq. 1331 et seq. 1336et seq.18 U.S.C. 371, 18 U.S.C. 63 1341,18 U.S.C. 63 1343, 18 U.S.C. 63 1344, 18 U.S.C. 63 1348, 18 U.S.C. 63 1349, 18 U.S.C. 4, 18 U.S.C. 1001, 42 U.S.C. 1983 and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 17(b)(2), 8 and 9(b)with response to
1

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

order to show cause issued by this Honorable Court and response to various motions and objections of opposing counsel with incorporated memorandum of law.

Defendants state that at this time in consideration of F.R.C.P. 17(b)(2), Which states in TD Bank N.A.s Capacity to sue and to be sued that the deciding factor in the choice of court and law is the law the business in question was incorporated under. In TD Bank N.A.s case that would be Federal law as they are a Federally Chartered Bank and thrive on this fact when a case is involved where they can avoid state jurisdiction by claiming they are a Federally Chartered bank and are covered under federal not state law. It would seem then that no true and legal complaint has been submitted to the court.

Defendants are unsure at this point exactly how the court would like them to proceed as it would appear that opposing counsel deliberately filed this matter in the wrong court in an effort to evade the scrutiny and jurisdiction of the District Courts. Therefore any Statute of Limitations and other motions and objections of opposing counsel would not in fact be valid as they have not proceeded in the correct court under the correct law to begin. Thus no Foreclosure has been initiated against Defendants. Defendants feel that jurisdiction is firmly established in any suit Defendants bring

18

against Plaintiffs or any suit brought by Plaintiffs against Defendants in the future.
19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29

Further Defendants, contrary to what seems to be the common assumption amongst those adjudicating this matter or better said those involved in this matter against the Defendants, are not trying to get a free house from anyone. Defendants ask all involved what part of FRAUD do they not understand; Defendants are the victims of fraud at the hands of Plaintiffs and in being defrauded by the Plaintiffs; Plaintiffs in turn defrauded the Federal Government in the process. Defendants state that this assumption that Defendants only want a free house, on the part of the court and Plaintiffs counsel, is neither the point nor by law a question of or for these proceedings. Defendants also state that opposing counsel, doing due diligence as required by law and professional rule, as well as being emailed the particulars of this case and the fraud committed in the acquisition of

30

this mortgage contract in question. Plaintiffs and their counsel are aware of these facts stated by
31

Defendants and that counsel for the Plaintiffs is attempting to obfuscate the facts of this case from the
32 2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

court, obstruct justice and the proper legal function of the courts in dispensing justice and committing further felonies in the process of their efforts to hide their and their clients violations of the law and their attempt to fraudulently foreclose against the Defendants property. Under our Constitution no court, state or federal, may serve as an accomplice in the willful transgression of `the Laws of the United States,' laws by which `the Judges in every State [are] bound . . . .'" United States v. Peltier, 422, U.S. 531 (1975) This would seem what the Plaintiffs, through counsel, are trying to achieve in this court with the submission of questionable, at best, forged at worst, documentation filed to date and the fact that due diligence would disclose to a blind man the falsity of the contract(s) in question and their violations of law. Defendants have tried to deal with opposing counsel in good faith only to be rebuked. At this juncture, Defendants should, as of August 26th, have sufficient funds to rectify and cure this default and will continue to contribute to this fund as a testament to their good faith in this matter. But as this was not a problem started by Defendants but by the negligent and unconstitutional actions of a Federal Governmental entity the Social Security Administration (Herein after known as SSA), and opposing counsels clients, and the city of Bangors, actions prior to and after closing. SSAs actions were fixed once but since that rectification, from an illegal action they took in 2009, has once again, due to SSA negligence and incompetency, and consequently the reason we have all been brought together, put Defendants before SSAs administrative court to have SSA admit their mistake in 2010 when they again cut off Defendants funds, illegally, and have them refund withheld monies and

22

income returns that should have come to Defendants. Defendants are declaring that they will not be
23

curing this alleged default because as the record will prove, and a jury will agree, there is no default
24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32

to cure. Therefore with this in mind Defendants are still making answer the courts order to show cause and answer opposing counsels objections and motions to strike etc. in case the court should direct that this foreclosure case should proceed anew from this court. Or dismiss outright for fraud upon the court. Therefore Defendants state, contend and assert Pursuant to Public Law, Chapter 402 LD 1418, item 1, Defendants feel that mediation as a mandatory requirement by the State of Maine seeking to protect the citizens of Maine from possible fraudulent foreclosure, such as this one, and to have the parties meet and see if there is anything that can be done to resolve the issue. Defendants tried but were
3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

refused the right to speak and to have the fraud committed against them dealt with and a true accounting of their payments made. Defendants, without success, tried not to involve court resources and this should not be held against them as it relates to statute of limitations and/or other limits and time restraints. Defendants with all good faith entered into mediation that was apparently just a wasting of time to evade jurisdiction of the District Court by the Plaintiffs as Plaintiffs through counsel in violation of state and federal law that they enter mediation in good faith failed to do so. Defendant was denied the ability to speak or to have their concerns, as afforded by federal and state statute and state rule of civil procedure rule 93, heard and/or recognized and dealt with in total disregard for the Defendants rights. Defendants feel this in conjunction with other facts herein, should adequately explain why almost a year has transpired before Defendants sought to remove this matter to Federal court and that the threshold has been crossed into federal jurisdiction. Defendants feel that their efforts to not clog the courts with the refuse of litigation, such as that which this case represents, should not be held against them along with the preceding and such as: Defendants are not attorneys and as a matter of law are afforded wide latitude in matters before the court and stress they desire counsel but seem unable, as yet, to acquire an attorney nor have they been able to compel their Federally appointed attorneys Pine Tree Legal Aid particularly the individuals Nan Heald Director of Pine Tree Legal Aid, associates Frank DAlessandro and Judd Esty-Kendall. Judd Esty-Kendall in particularly over all as Esty-Kendall was first appointed by the Federal Government and has repetitiously failed to comply with his obligations to act on Defendants behalf in this matter of a foreclosure action brought by Plaintiffs counsel as a direct result of the Federal case Martinez v Astrue CASE NO. 08-CV-4735 CW. Defendants were depending on afore mentioned counsel who subsequently abandoned them despite

26

having been appointed by the Federal Government to resolve all issues arising from and/or out of
27

and/or pertaining to and as relates to the settling of the case of Martinez v Astrue, CASE NO. 08-CV28 29 30 31 32 4

4735 CW and Ms. Wolf now Butlers, problems created by that case. Ms. Wolf n/k/a Butler was caught up, as were several other tens of thousands of other people, in that situation and was appointed counsel by the Federal Government to settle the matter for Defendant and that would include under

1 2 3

the basic concepts of law arising from, out of matters such as this foreclosure having arisen out of that case. Judd Esty-Kendall, Defendant Twila A Wolf n/k/a Butlers government appointed attorney, took care

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

of the first foreclosure that was initiated against his client. This same attorney, for some reason, felt no such compulsion when less than a month later the Social Security Administration, arising out of the settlement so far initiated by her Attorney at the time and for this matter,cut his clients money off again. He refused, when three months later TD Bank N.A. started foreclosure proceedings again, to assist her in the matter of this foreclosure citing no money or time to deal with the problem. He did continue to work on having Social Security reinstate her money and what they have withheld to date returned to her. He has ignored the federal mandated appointment and payment for and thus the requirement he defend Ms. Butler in this foreclosure matter. One would assume that all things being the same that this would have been included in this matter but you cannot make a person do their job. So since Judd Esty-Kendall having refused to do his job and his superior, at Pine Tree Legal Aid,

15

Nan Heald, having complied with this decision by sending an attorney, from the Portland office, who
16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

was hostile towards Defendants Ms. Wolf n/k/a Butler and Mr. Butler from the beginning and abandoned them when Defendants would not sign a new contract with Plaintiffs that was higher in payments and did not take into account all monies having been paid to the servicers of these loans and that these loans were not the loan (singular) that Defendant signed in the first place. After trying to limit, illegally I might add, their requirement to defend; sending Frank DAlessandro was an admission by Nan Heald of that debt to Ms. Wolf now Butler; Defendants attorney(s) would not listen nor would they ask any questions to clarify the issues Defendants brought up concerning a clear case of fraud. Defendants legal counsel patently ignored them and continuously failed to advocate for their rights under state law let alone their rights under the constitution in mediation or

26

what was supposed to pass for mediation. Defendants attorney thenhad the court agree with the
27

abandonment of Pine Tree Legal Aids client on the basis of a disagreement over how to proceed.
28 29 30 31 32

What question can there be when Defendants counsel is looking at the legal evidence to make their case? or would be if counsel would have looked. When you boil it all down and take into account attitude in the completion of a task then you cannot trust a job that was done grudgingly and with such rancor. So being abandoned we were left to defend ourselves.In Defendants motion to extend
5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32

time due to medical needs and the need to hire legal counsel. Defendants are legally afforded the right to acquire and/or hire the counsel of their choosing. In U.S. v. Gonzalez-Lopez, 05-352 (6/26/06) The Court held that the denial of a defendants right to hire the counsel of his choice is a structural error for which harmless error analysis does not apply. Thus, whenever a defendant is wrongfully denied the right to hire the counsel of his own choosing, reversal is required. While Defendants are not permitted to bring criminal charges they contend that their civil case could have derived from, and thus is original jurisdiction established again, the result of a criminal case having been brought by the Federal District Attorneys office and something the Federal District Attorney could still do. Defendants civil case is partially made on the back of the various criminal statutes broken to make their case period let alone for Federal jurisdiction. Whether Plaintiffs their co-conspirators and/or partners in equity past and/or present are prosecuted criminally is not within the authority of Defendants. Instead Defendants must make the case, by a preponderance of evidence, that Federal Law(s) was/were broken pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure rule 8, simple statement of the facts so as to reasonably alert the opposing counsel of the subject and nature of the complaint being made against their client(s), while also complying with the heightenedrequirements of rule 8 and 8s partner when fraud is the subject of the charge, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure rule 9(b), as required in cases, where a charge of fraud is being made, and therefore must be made with specificity and particularity and in this case is almost every other sentence. Only after, loosely I might add, so called mediation, and this mentioned in response to opposing counsels arguments as relates toany and all Statute of Limitation arguments, did Defendants realize what the elements of the case were exactly. Until this foreclosure action Defendants were unaware of the crime(s) perpetrated against them,and wasnt till just before filing their notice of removal, and thus the reason for that notice, that they realized and understood and were able to ascertain, having only been their own counsel for a short time after being abandoned, that (a) Defendants were deprived of their constitutional rights under color of law I.E. the mediators denial of Defendants right to speak and have the law and the rules of court apply to
6

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

them and opposing counsels agreement with this deprivation of Defendants civil rights under color of law by the agreement of his silence and/or by the berating of Defendants along the same grounds as mediators error(s); (b) the case as described, is indeed one for the Federal Courts in fact F.R.C.P. 17(b)(2) states this case as a matter of law should have originated in the District Courts. Money, as Defendants are aware and understand, to fund the New Neighbors Program of the Maine State Housing Authority was obtained through Federal Community Development Block Grants, one amongst a bevy of programs to stabilize urban areas and neighborhoods, in an effort to control and rehabilitate areas suffering from urban blight or another Federal program like it. The New Neighbors Program was a pilot or test program of the Maine State Housing Authority (Herein after known as MSHA) with the cities of Portland, Lewiston and Bangor Maine participating and what has since become an everyday offering of MSHA to date. The loan program participants loans would be insured, as far as Defendants currently are to

15

understand and believe as relates to first mortgages generated by the program, by the Federal
16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Government Entity Fannie Mae who would be insuring the lender against loss through loans taken under the auspices of MSHAs New Neighbor Program. That the guarantee of insurance on these loans was made upon certain conditions being met. One of whichwould be to follow the guidelines set out by the organization authorized to manage the States end of the Federally funded program concerning urban blighted areas, rehabilitation and mortgage loans; and to comply with all state and federal laws and regulations. Another would be to deliver the product advertised and sold to the customer also conditions required by state and federal law none of these three things, at the very least of what should have been done, were achieved. The program was then, and still is, being backed by the Governments good name the mortgages

26

generated by this program, at the time, were then insured by Fannie Mae, securitized and placed into
27

tranches of Mortgage Backed Securities funds, at least one loan if not both were securitized.
28 29 30 31 32 7

Therefore as a securities matter alone shows sufficient cause for Federal Jurisdiction as Securities, as in securities fraud, and Banking Regulation, as in regulations violated as concerns Federally chartered banks,are the Federal Courts prerogatives.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32

All real value, was taken out of the house by the parties of whom owed a fiduciary duty to Defendant Wolf n/k/a Butler, a self-imposed fiduciary duty but nevertheless a fiduciary duty and a great example of what good human resource training tries to make sure doesnt occur in Banking. The Plaintiffs by way of a scheme, legal definition of this and more to follow, of phony rehabilitation projects, projects completed so poorly that they might as well not have been done at all having had in the Defendants case, to repair all the work done by the contractors hired by plaintiffs, this so as to qualify for the Governments program through MSHA. This done on homes owned by certain individuals and then the unloading, in blighted areas of the city, those same properties by sale to individuals with mental and physical disabilities; point in fact preying on those factors and others as a profile of their victims; with loans made by a cohort in local banking all of which was facilitated by the Community Development Department of and with The City of Bangors approval. On that approval rehab money was lent and permanent home mortgages created. This to everyones advantage but for that of the buyer(s) of said properties for whom, for all intent and purposes,were buying junk and defrauded in the deal. Therein were/was buyer(s) defrauded and thus when the Plaintiffs defrauded the Defendants they defrauded the federal government as well specifics and examples to follow. The funds were not loaned out by contract and dispersed under and abiding to the underwriting rules, the law and the terms the Federal Government acting through MSHA, The City of Bangor andas Defendants agreed to. Nor in fact was the federally insured loan Defendants were promised, as financing for the purchase of the property in question, as Defendants are just discovering, ever delivered on. This promise about the loan made by TJ Martzial at The City of Bangors Community Development Department, by the Representative of MSHA and Robert Brayson of TD Bank N.A. all who Defendant T Butler was introduced to by Linda and Darrell Sproul and whom helped talk, along with those mentioned already, her into buying the property she lives in now. That the loan as promised by these people and as stated by the same people and Barry Cohen, at closing, as being what she received,Defendants state that that loan was never delivered and that instead there appears to be a case of fraud and forgery instead being represented as that which she agreed to be bound by. Instead of a single fixed rate mortgage Defendant was given a package of several loans and is presented as being that which represents what Defendant signed and agreed to be bound by. It is
8

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

Defendants contention and sworn statement that these documents do not represent what she signed and agreed to be bound by and further said contract, the package of 3 loans, was materially altered after the fact and closing by the City of Bangor, without the Defendants consent or knowledge, and therefore the purported Note and Mortgage contract(s) in dispute are, as a matter of law, twice a nullity. Now twice a fraud upon the court as well and as fraud upon the court has no Statute of Limitations prosecution would be timely. As this is a case involving the Government, a victim of the conspiracy used to defraud Defendants, Defendants contend Plaintiffs defrauded the Federal Government as well as and in addition to Defendants. As people will have had to plan and work out the details of an audit controls fraud such as this and therefore amongst others are a violation of Federal laws: Conspiracy, by definition ongoing, to defraud the United States Government 18 U.S.C. 371 would be a basis for Federal Jurisdiction.

14 15 16 17 18 19 20

The mails were used in order to complete the scheme, and therefore fall under the Mail Fraud statute 18 U.S.C. 63 1341, Additionally charges of Wire Fraud 18 U.S.C. 63 1343 could be levied as MSHAs website was and continues to be utilized to sell this program. Bank Fraud 18 U.S.C. 63 1344 those involved derived or attempted to derive economic gain from

21

or obtained the assets of the Bank or other party E.g. Defendants, without the legal means to make
22

effective legal transfer.


23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 9

Securities and Commodities Fraud 18 U.S.C. 63 1348, as, relates to the securities that were derived from the fraudulently obtained mortgages. As no contract is formed in the commission of a crime, as that would obviously be favoring the guilty for their ingenuity, therefore it is true then that no true accurate and legally binding securitized mortgage contract was or could have ever been delivered to whatever trust it was sold into or Bank asset column it was added to. Attempt and Conspiracy 18 U.S.C. 63 1349 all you have to do is try. Actual damage(s) or completion of the scheme is not required. (Emphasis added)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

18 U.S.C. 1346 (2006) Definition of scheme or artifice to defraud For these purposes, the term scheme or artifice to defraud includes a scheme or artifice to deprive another of the intangible right of honest services. To obtain a conviction for a mail or wire fraud offense, the government must show beyond a reasonable doubt, civilly Defendants need only prove by the preponderance of evidence, that (1) the defendant was involved in a scheme or artifice to defraud which includes a material deception;

(2) with the intent to defraud;


10

(3) while using the mail, private commercial carriers, and/or wires in furtherance of that
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

scheme; (4) that did result or would have resulted in the loss of money or property or the deprivation of honest services.

Defendants, in a civil matter, must only show these things were accomplished by the preponderance of evidence to the degree required for the Courts to find for Federal jurisdiction as pertains to a civil action brought by the Plaintiffs against Defendants and the courts order to show cause. One example of the use of the mail in furtherance of the scheme is Defendants exhibit TDBNOFFR received by mail, hereto a copy of appended, and therein begs the question(s). (1) How did an offer of two loans not one, evidencedhere as refused in writing, turn up as

22

asserted by Plaintiffs counsel in their clients complaint as being representative of the


23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 10

agreement Defendants made and agreed to be bound by? (2) These loans were not in Defendants best interest financial or otherwise. (a) Why would she agree to be so onerously bound by or better yet (i) why would those in a Fiduciary duty to Defendant advise Defendant to do something so antithetical to her best interest financially or otherwise such as this obviously inequitable arrangement that due to further alterations made by the city has made the loan(s) in question negatively amortizing? As well as a nullity.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

(3) Defendant Twila A Wolf n/k/a Butler asserts she only signed for one loan at an interest rate of 4.5%, and was reminded by TJ Martzial on more than one occasion Years after closing told Defendant Twila A. Wolf n/k/a Butler what a good loan she had, this when a loan company sought info on her loan so as to refinance her mortgage. TJ Martzial called Defendant Twila A Wolf n/k/a Butler, showing he clearly felt he had some control over the actions of Defendant and was watching his crime for cracks in its faade, a clear sign of a consciousness of guilt, and asked what did she think she was doing?, and to remind her what a good loan she had, it being only 4.5% interest for her home loan and as always discussed in the singular form. (4) Why is it so hard for anyone to understand these accusations? That the loans as presented by Plaintiffs are not the loan, as explained by and/or as presented by Barry Cohen, of Cohen & Cohen, at closing. (5) Another question would be why would the monthly billing and statement letter each month on the fictitious accounts created in this fraudulent deception upon the Defendants not be considered as an action in the continuation and completion of their fraud upon the Government, this Honorable Court and Defendants? defendants filling out false affidavits of honorable military servitude during times of rebellion in order to obtain transferable property rights under a federal homestead act. Using affidavits to obtain valuable land claims from the government was found to be a scheme or artifice to defraud. Durland v. United States, 161 U.S. 306, 314 (1895).

Defendants would assert that the two matters are similar and but for subject, false affidavits of military service for property and in this case false affidavits and contracts for property, exactly the same evidenced by the false documentation that has been presented by the Plaintiffs. First to the Superior Court of Maine and now to the Federal District Courts as well as they assert before the Federal Court that said documents are all in good order, proper and legal when they are nothing of the sort.

How could the documents be real Defendants ask?, Defendants state they are not and declare fraud,
31

Defendants dont even know that these people, TD Bank N.A., have the right to collect payments let
32 11

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

alone foreclose, as evidenced by the forged signature of Defendant on the HUD-1 Settlement sheet that this and the corresponding note and mortgage contracts in question are based on and thus the subject of Plaintiffs complaint and Defendants case for Federal Jurisdiction as well their case period.

Defendants couldnt get Plaintiffs to address this matter, in that joke called mediation, as is allowed by rule 93 of the Maine Rules of Civil Procedure and State and Federal Law. Mediation failed Defendants state and assert due to the Plaintiffs and the Mediator Robert Lingleys actions. Mr. Lingley asthe mediator, with opposing counsels apparent approval, deprived Defendants of their constitutional right to free speech and to due process and it would seem with opposing counsels silence on the matter and therefore tacit if not outright support and agreement with the mediators actions. This in defiance of his, David McConnells legal obligation to say or do something to stop or prevent; same as the rules for the Mediator; a crime from being committed and to thwart a deprivation of Defendants civil rights under color of law 42 U.S.C. 1983, instead Plaintiffs, through counsel, helped with the denial of plaintiffs constitutional rights to due process with silence to the mediators errors and begs the question was the mediator involved directly with Plaintiffs counsel?

It cannot be said that a persons rights were more than merely, as in as if from a distance with no
18

ability to effect, observed if all that is allowed is that the person must watch helplessly themselves
19

lose in court by being denied a proper legal voice to use in their defense. It is the same situation with
20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29

Defendant-Intervenor Charlton A. Butler in this matter. In addition to Rule 17(b)(2) then.

WHEREFORE Plaintiffs Motion to Remand should be denied. Regarding opposing counsels arguments concerning Defendants Motion to Take Judicial Notice of Exhibits pursuant to Rule 201(b).Defendants do not understand why the Plaintiffs have a problem with the documents submitted for Judicial Notice. Defendants would assume that Plaintiffs counsel must think the court is blind to miss the fact that it is an MSHA document, as admitted to by opposing counsel,Defendants suggest opposing counsel readF.R.C.P. 201(b)(2) the second part of rule 201(b) that counsel must have missed.

30 31 32

It is pointedly noted by Defendants that the word either seems, to Defendants at least, to beextremely confusing to Plaintiffs and their counsel since Plaintiffs and their counsel could not
12

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

seemto understand that word, as it applied to the contract in question, and their choices as regards their security interestand the loan in question. Example; you can do either this OR(emphasis added) thatbut by definition of the sentence you cannot do both or confuse the separate rules of either rule with the other rule. They just seem incapable of understanding some of the very basics of the English language that Defendants would assume that, like Defendants, thatEnglish is their first language. A judicially noticed fact must be one not subject to reasonable dispute in that it is either(emphasis added) (1) generally known within the territorial jurisdiction of the trial court or (2) capable of accurate and ready determination by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned. (Emphasis added)

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29

Defendants would think, strike that it is a no brainer, that opposing counsel could ask, no should ask, their client, MSHA, for a copy of the New Neighbors Program Processing Guide as they have already admitted to it being a MSHA document.

Point in fact MSHA had these, New Neighbors Program Processing Guide, handed out to participants in the Fannie Mae New Homeowners learning Program required by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (herein after known as HUD) for the New Neighbors Program as required by the.MSHA and HUD, then, should, as a matter of rule in their case and just good business period, have a copy to compare to.

There shouldnt be any question that opposing counsels own clientswould be considered sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned. Opposing counsels argument is without substantive merit and an example of Plaintiffs and opposing counsels consciousness of guilt. They dont deny the documents outright, a much easier thing to do than their current argument, because they know them to be valid. All around this argument is not understood by Defendants as being even close to appropriate or accuratebutas per the past with Plaintiffs and their counselyet another waste of Defendants health finances, and as with the Court as well, time.

Conversely the same theorem applies to the City of Bangor as well;as opposing counsel must have
30

missed the business card for the Director of the City of Bangors Community Development
31

Department attached to the front of the document referred to asProgram Highlights. But as
32 13

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

Defendants have pointed this out to opposing counselalready then, they, it would be considered a reasonable demand, can ask the City of Bangors solicitor Norman S. Hietmann or Paul Niklas Heitmanns assistant solicitor for the City of Bangor for a copy. I believe, and know from experience that standard operating procedure in most offices, if not all offices let alone a city government office, is to document everything and to keep a copy. The city should have a copy of a document, and Defendants ask the court to under oath ask the City of Bangor if this is not the case with them as well. They, the City of Bangor must have a copy, should they be called into court to defend their supported programs or actions, E.g. liability, or just to refer to when others fail to comply with the programs directives and rules or when they, the City of Bangor, wishes to instruct city personnel in how to comply with a programs rules of which they are promoting or running. I dont think the citys reputation is in question..yet. though their apparent cover up, it seems,for now, TJ Martzials activities and liability incurring actions, as those actions appear to Defendants, by refusing to meet with Defendants prior to this response from Defendants to the court for almost a month.From the time Defendants learned who was representing the City,the City solicitors have refused to respond to Defendants inquires and their requests for a meeting.
Update.

17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29

The assistant city solicitor, Paul Niklas today, August 26th 2011, finally returned my call, seems

both he and his boss were out of town all this time and indicated his refusal to my offer to sit down and review the evidence against the City of Bangor their employee, whom they are strictly liable for, and that maybe they didnt want to back that employee and his accomplices. The City of Bangor, by and through counsel Norman S Hietmann II and Paul Niklas, indicated that that they will be supporting and backing the criminal enterprise, and the current cover up in motion now before the court, of their employee and his friends and accomplices in this scheme to defraud so many. That my offer to sit down review the evidence and find a way to not hold the city liable for their employees actions this if they would only not back that employee, seemed a reasonable request to Defendants at the time but apparently not, and his criminal enterprise along with his associates, accomplices etc. in this matter now before the court as I did not want to have the city pay so much to be so wrong and the situation created by the rogue actions of one of their employees. Defendants say, so be it, as you say; may it be. See you in court.

30 31 32

Once again it is hard to understand the argument of opposing counsel as the very easy proof they claim there is a lack of is either A. their client or B. attached to the front of the document in question,
14

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

and Defendants refuse to believe that the City of Bangor would not be considered sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned. Thus these documents are the very definition of easy to check and are easy to verify and therefore opposing counsels argument of the inapplicability of rule 201(b)is invalid, improper and without merit.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Objection to the taking of judicial notice of Defendants exhibits should be denied. In regards to opposing counsels arguments objecting to intervention by Charlton A. Butler Jr. and the representation of Mr. Butlers rights before the court by Mr. Butler. Opposing counsels argument that Mrs. Butler,f/k/a Wolf, by representing her rights in this matter pro se has also,by some unknown magical extension of the law, represented lawfully and competently Mr. Butlers rights before the court. While Mrs.Butlers f/k/a Wolfs rights are being represented by her, and while those rights are the same rights as Defendant-Intervenor Charlton A. Butler they, nevertheless, are not Ms. Butlers rights but Mr. Butlers rights and his and his alone to represent and/or speak for or about before the court.Opposing counsel asks Defendant-Intervenor Charlton A. Butler Jr. to explain what difference or why there is any difference between Mrs. Butlers rights represented by her and why Mr. Butlers rights require him to wax eloquent onthem. This being the area that opposing counsel has focused on as the area Defendant-Intervenor Charlton Butler failed to prove in his motion to intervene. Its as if opposing counsel is saying that just because two peoples rights are the same that by representing one persons rights you represent everyones rights in similar cases. While this may be true when an

22

attorney represents a corporation or a person Defendants state there is no such rule or statute
23

available as relates to those representing themselves before the court pro se.
24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32

No one, but an attorney or Mr. Butler, may represent, speak for, on or about his rights in a court of law, state or federal or any matter of and/or for those courtspursuant to: Rule 82.1 Only members of the bar of this Court may appear as counsel in civil cases. Only individuals who are parties in civil cases may represent themselves. All other non-attorneys are not permitted to represent a party before this Court. Individuals representing themselves are responsible for performing all duties imposed upon counsel by these Rules and all other applicable federal rules of procedure. All parties other than individuals must be represented by counsel. This would be as I tell the children, the end of the discussion.
15

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs objection to the intervention of Charlton A. Butler Jr. should be denied.

Defendants hereby respond to opposing counsels Motion to Strike, saying: 1. The Defendant's Notice of Removal contains statements which the Plaintiffs apparently do not like and have moved to have these stricken from Defendants notice of removal and Defendants sworn basis for removal. Claiming that they are redundant, immaterial, impertinent and scandalous. 2. None of the statements referred to by Defendants are scandalous. Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, at page 1334, defines "scandal" as: Defamatory reports or rumors; aspersion or slanderous talk, uttered recklessly or maliciously. Scandalous matter may be ordered stricken from the pleadings by a motion to strike. Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(f).See also Defamation. The Florida case of Wolfson v. Kirk, 273 So.2d 774 (4 D.C.A., 1973), provides:

16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29

Defamation (libel and slander) may generally be defined as the unprivileged publication of false statements.., page 776. Since there is nothing false about Plaintiffs statements, the allegations are not scandalous. 2. The offending portions of Defendants arguments are all obviously material to the cause of action under The authority of Harrison v. Perea, 168 U.S. 311 (1897), which states at page 319 "(a)ll matter not material to the suit is regarded as impertinent." Since the several offending portions of the Defendants arguments are material to the cause of action, none of them should be stricken as impertinent. 3. Perhaps there are causes of action where the details provided by Defendants are unnecessary and so might be redundant. However, the Circuit Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit, has ruled in Oladeinde v. City of Birmingharn, 963 F.2d 1481 (11th Cir. 1992): In pleading a section 1983 action, some factual detail is necessary, especially if we are able to

30

see that the allegedly violated right was clearly established when the allegedly wrongful acts
31 32 16

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

occurred. We also stress that this heightened Rule 8 requirement - as the law of the circuit must be applied by the district courts. . . page 1485. Defendants are thus required to plead with much greater factual detail when bringing federal civil rights actions. The details provided by Defendants Twila A. Butler and Defendant-Intervenor Charlton A. Butler Jr. are necessary to meet this heightened standard and so are not unnecessary or redundant. 4. The materiality of the portions of the Complaint to which the Defendants object have been shown to have an essential relationship to the cause of action in accord with the Oladeinde case (supra), and also underWhite v. Florida Highway Patrol, 928 F.Supp. 1153 (M.D.FIa 1996).In addition to Lucas v Cannon, 848 F.Supp. 168 (M.D.Fla.1994). Ina civil rights action, more than mere conclusory allegations are required; a complaint will be dismissed where allegations are vague and conclusory. In 42 U.S.C. 1983 actions against individuals, factual details must be provided that demonstrate a violation of a clearly established right. Oladeinde v. City of Birmingham, 963 F.2d 1481 (11th Cir.1992). Thus there is no reason to strike any of Defendants pleading on the basis of being immaterial. 5. Defendants have avoided the name-calling,threats of violence and general disorder and lack of comportment often seen in foreclosure cases where the partiesoutright become socially unacceptable

19

in behavior. Quotations and statements are meant to comply with pleading requirements in effect in
20

this circuit.
21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

Defendants do state for the record in what should be obvious to all with common sense. (a) Plaintiffs must stop acting scandalously or any report of their behavior by anyone let alone Defendants will, by definition of most of society, be scandalous and thus complaints such as these are a waste of the courts time and a complete disregard for the Defendants time, health and finances. (b) As to redundancy Defendants feel that they must not have said it enough times or described the matter in enough scandalous detail. If opposing counsel had gotten the point they would not be wasting the Courts time having Defendants respond to Plaintiffs arguments about a subject far from moot and that only as is proper as required by rule 9(b) and only makes

31 32 17

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

apparent that felonies have been committed and thatDefendants civil rights have been denied them under color of law 42 U.S.C. 1983. (c) Contrary to opposing counsels argument otherwise. Defendants are making claim of a constitutional violation based on the actions, words and silence ofStephanie Williams, David McConnell and Robert Lingley, agent of the state, and the denial of Defendants rights by the mediator whom opposing counsel in silence agreed with and in fact supported with that silence when obligated to do otherwise by law and ABA Model Rule. (d) Defendants have only described in detail, as required by law and rule, in specificity and with particularity events surrounding this matter sufficient for the Courts understanding according to the Courts requirements.

WHEREFORE, the Motion to Strike should be denied.

Defendants assert and state that the City of Bangor by and/or through their employees in Bangor have decided that being informed of a felony committed against the United States Government the fine and/orboth 3 year penalty for failing to report said felony does not apply to them. Defendants then feel that they must therefore enjoin them in their forthcoming suit against TD Bank N.A., MSHA.Pine Tree Legal Aid Frank DAlessandro of Pine Tree Legal Aid, Nan Heald, director of Pine Tree Legal Aid, Judd Esty-Kendall of Pine Tree Legal Aid and Robert Lingley in his capacity as a Director on the Board of Pine Tree Legal Aid and in his capacity as mediator and an agent of the state by way of the State of Maine Superior Court. Lingley who, by the way, should have not been running mediation for Defendants but for some

24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32

reason, Lingley, took it upon himself to take this case from a fellow named Zachery. Defendants makean official requestof the court to authorize the Federal District Attorneys office to investigate these claims and review the Defendants evidence and file appropriate indictments. Defendants would assert that the following statutes apply to the Plaintiffs, their counsel, the City of Bangor and their counsel and the Federal District Attorneys office and any and all of their employees, agents, or assigns and all mentioned herein. Defendants assert this provides further argument and proof to statements so far made herein and as these statutes apply to the preceding mentioned and forthcoming.
18

1 2 3

18 U.S.C. 4 Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both. There can really be no argument that anyone doing due diligence, as required by law and rule of profession, can see that more than a few felonies had been committed.

18 U.S.C. 1001makes it a crime to: (1) knowingly and willfully; (2) make any materially false, fictitious or fraudulent statement or representation; (3) in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative or judicial branch of the United States. The lie does not even have to be made directly to an employee of the national government as long as it is "within the jurisdiction" of the federal bureaucracy. Though the falsehood must be "material" this requirement is met if the statement has the "natural

18

tendency to influence or [is] capable of influencing, the decision of the decision making body to
19

which it is addressed." United States v. Gaudin , 515 U.S. 506, 510 (1995). (In other words, it is not
20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32

necessary to show that a particular lie ever really influenced anyone.) Defendants would suggest it is absolutely assured that the lies would influence a court in the taking of Defendants property illegally.

Although the individual(s) must know that their statement is false at the time its made, in order to be guilty of this crime and Defendants state and contend this is the case that due diligence requirements demand and would and did make apparent the crimes of Plaintiffs and now counsel for them as well as the City of Bangor and the federal District attorneys office, it is not required to know that lying to the government is a crime or even that the matter being lied about is "within the jurisdiction" of the government or one of its agencies. United States v. Yermian , 468 U.S. 63, 69 (1984). What exactly did opposing counsel and the rest involved with this fraudulent foreclosure think they were doing but lying when they submitted documentation known, and putting to rest any doubt by the
19

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32

court of this fact, these folks amongst others were informed of such by email and Defendants would ask the court to demand the emails from opposing counsel, MSHA Stephanie Roux and anyone and everyone else these emails that were circulated amongst parties discussing emails sent by DefendantIntervenor Charlton A. Butler Jr. notifying them all that a felony had been committed and another felony or two or three or more was/were being committed, currently, by those already mentioned, now.

Defendants further argue that Under U.S. federal Law, anyone who engages in fraudulent activity and uses telephones, telegraph and/or the Postal Service to discuss or either send or receive correspondence or documents in furtherance of the fraud, can be prosecuted for felony mail fraud and/or wire fraud; and if two or more persons act in collusion to defraud, U.S. federal conspiracy statutes also apply as Defendant has stated already.

A conflict of interest occurs when a person or organization acts on behalf of another individual or organization; and has, or appears to have, a hidden bias or self-interest in the activity undertaken; and the hidden bias or self-interest is actually or potentially adverse to the interests of the individual or organization being represented; and the hidden bias or self-interest is not made known to the individual or organization being represented Defendants contend that there were many conflicts of interest between the City of Bangor and the Defendants and that there were those whom were unknown to Defendant to have any interest in the property but of that as a friend to Defendants when in truth they had a personal, financial and business monetary interest, unbeknownst to Defendants, in the sale of the property located at 44 Patten Street Bangor Maine amongst others. When a person's conflict of interest results in economic or financial loss to the individual or organization on whose behalf the person is acting, then fraud has occurred. Conflict of interest can exist on its own, or can be an intricate part of other frauds such as bribery and illegal gratuities. Conflict of interest laws apply to government employees and those doing business with government. In the non-public sector, conflict of interest may not be a prosecutable offense, although the criminal results of such conflict would be. (i) Bribery and illegal gratuities are examples of conflict of interest resulting in fraud.
20

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

(ii)

Conflict of interest can also occur and result in fraud without the presence of bribery and illegal gratuities. This happens when an individual or organization acting on behalf of another individual or organization has a hidden financial interest in the outcome of an event or transaction.

The typical example is that of a company official or employee, or an immediate relative of an official or employee, who has a hidden financial interest (stock or direct ownership) in a vendor doing business with the company. If the official or employee is in a position to influence the amount of business the vendor does with the company, then a conflict of interest exists. If that conflict of interest results in unnecessary orders being made and filled, or paying higher than fair market prices for goods and/or services, then fraud has occurred. This is because the involved individuals will benefit financially through higher valuation of stock or

14

direct distribution of proceeds from doing business with the company. The victims here are those
15

who expect company officials and employees to, rather than in self-interest, act in the best interests of
16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 21

the company and/or their client(s) to whom they have pledged a fiduciary duty and/or as their relationship with their client and/or occupation, as a matter of law, demands or creates said duty for the purpose of their job function(s). The present loss is dollars needlessly spent on overpriced or unnecessary goods and services while future loss could and/or would, depending on the crime committed, deprive the victim(s) of real property without the basis to affect a legal transfer of said property and/or asset(s). (iii) Conflict of interest can also exist and result in fraud when an organization has a hidden interest or benefit, as is the case in Defendants arguments, from the outcome of an event or transaction. In a government environment, for example, this more subtle type of conflict of interest could occur if government officials, acting on behalf of the government, either alone or in conspiracy with providers of services, obtain state and federal funds and use those funds for other than intended program purposes. In this instance, the government agency, in acting as the conduit of state and federal funds, has a hidden self-interest that is actually or potentially adverse to the interests of the state and federal government. An example of this would be the following situation:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

Example: An agency official directs the owner of a company doing business under contract with the agency to provide the agency with equipment and contractor staff that will be used to perform work for the agency that is unrelated to the terms and conditions of the contract, and unrelated to the federal program under which the contract is funded. This favor and benefit creates a conflict of interest because there is no longer an arms-length relationship between the agency, which acts on behalf of the government, and the contractor. When seeking payment; (a) If the contractor intentionally bills the hours for non-contract work as having been expended on contract related activity, (b) then the contractor has committed fraud. (c) If the fraudulent billing occurs with the knowledge of the agency official; (d) and/or the agency official instructs lower level staff to approve the bill for payment from agency accounts; (e) and the agency in turn files a claim for reimbursement with the federal government, (f) which the federal government, in good faith, pays, (g) then the agency official has also committed fraud under federal law. The example given is a fraudulent act resulting from conflict of interest because the actions of selfinterest by the contractor and the official acting on behalf of the agency are hidden from the state and federal governments, and constitutes obtaining state and federal funds under false pretense (see False Statements and False Claims, below). The victims are the state and the federal government, from which the funds were obtained, and the loss is the funds illegally obtained. Defendants state, assert and contend that Plaintiffs, counsel for plaintiffs, the City of Bangor and

23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32

representatives of TD Bank N.A. MSHA and their servicers, agents assigns accomplices and partners have made many false statements and claims. A false statement fraud and false claims fraud occur whenever anyone knowingly and willfully falsifies a material fact or makes a false or fictitious representation or files a false or fictitious claim that results in or could possibly result in economic or financial loss to the party to whom the false representation has been made as it concerns both victims. The Defendants, as conduit, for the fraud and/or defrauding of the other victim, in this action brought by Plaintiffs counsel, the United States Government.

Examples of False Statements and False Claims:


22

1 2 3 4 5 6

(a) An employee prepares and submits a monthly payroll time report, and intentionally falsifies the document by not reporting unpaid leave taken while the supervisor was away on business. As a result, the employee is paid for the time not worked. The same principle applies to an employee who falsifies a travel voucher by reporting expenses that were not incurred. The victim is the employer, and the loss is the money wrongfully paid to the employee. (b) A senior company official disagrees with a court decision for which all legal remedies have

7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

been exhausted, and which the company must therefore comply with. The decision has a significant financial impact on operations. The senior official knowingly and intentionally continues practices that the court decision has prohibited. The failure to comply with the ruling results in the chief operating officer filing false statements, reports and vouchers with the government. The victims are those who rely on accurate reporting to the government, and the loss is funds illegally obtained or expended; or economic or property losses incurred because of the improper reporting. (c) A company performs contract work for a government agency. Under the direction of company managers and staff charge time to a government program that reimburses 75% of incurred costs, instead of charging the time to the actual government program that they worked on, which only reimburses 50% of incurred costs. The employees recognize that the wrong

19

program is being charged for their time, but are unaware of the differing reimbursement
20

percentages. When the employees question their instructions, the company managers tell them
21

not to worry since both programs are paid from government funds, and the cross-charging
22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 23

doesn't really matter. The government is subsequently fraudulently mischarged as a result. The company managers have engaged in fraudulent activity that results in false statements, false claims, and probably mail fraud. Under U.S. law, the employees who filed the false time reports are guilty of conspiracy to defraud. Though the employees neither benefited from the mischarging, nor were aware that the mischarging was illegal, they are also parties to false statements, false claims, mail fraud and conspiracy statutes. The employees knew they were improperly charging their time, and by falsely preparing the time documents, the employees concealed the fraud. Whether they knew that the mischarging was illegal is not a consideration. As a result of the employees' actions, when the government was billed for reimbursement, the

1 2 3 4

company managers were able to defraud the government of costs that should have been borne by the company. Defendants contend that what they are complaining of and about is not new and/or that strange anymore. Nor is it an isolated event but, instead,has become commonplace and a sad commentary on

the state of morals in this country and the demise of the rule of law and the financial market today as
6

a whole evidenced by:


7 8 9 10 11 12 13

Mortgage fraud may be perpetrated by one or more participants in a loan transaction, including the borrower; a loan officer who originates the mortgage; a real estate agent, appraiser, a title or escrow representative or attorney; or by multiple parties as in the example of the fraud ring described above. Dishonest and un-reputable stakeholders may encourage and assist borrowers in committing fraud because most participants are typically compensated only when a transaction closes.1In Defendants case the felonious actions were of such a nature that only those on the other side of the table from

14

Defendant would have had the access and authority to alter or circumvent safeguards in the financing
15

process. The process was, in fact, subject to security and access restrictions that completely placed
16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 24

Defendants out of the sphere of influence to influence the outcome of the loan currently in dispute and thus association with these thieves was as their victim in this transaction and nothing more.

During 2003 The Money Program of the BBC in the UK uncovered systemic mortgage fraud throughout HBOS. The Money Program found that during the investigation brokers advised the undercover researchers to lie on applications for self-certified mortgages from, among others, The Royal Bank of Scotland, The Mortgage Business and Birmingham Midshires Building Society.2

In 2004, the FBI warned that mortgage fraud was becoming so rampant that the resulting "epidemic" of crimes could trigger a massive financial crisis. According to a December 2005 press release from the FBI, "mortgage fraud is one of the fastest growing white collar crimes in the United States".3White collar, meaning, in this case, the Bank employee(s) in a traditional White collar job of banking, attorney, company management, company president etc. and not a Blue collar worker making application for a loan under a state and federally sponsored program for the handicapped, mentally ill and the working poor.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

The number of FBI agents assigned to mortgage-related crimes increased by 50 percent between 2007 and 2008.
4

In June 2008, The FBI stated that its mortgage fraud caseload has doubled in the

past three years to more than 1,400 pending cases.5Between March1st and June 18th2008, 406 people were arrested for mortgage fraud in an FBI sting across the country. People arrested include buyers, sellers and others across the wide-ranging mortgage industry. 6

In May 2009, the Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act of 2009, or FERA, Pub.L. 111-21, 123 Stat. 1617, S. 386, public law in the United States, was enacted. The law takes a number of steps to enhance criminal enforcement of federal fraud laws, especially regarding financial institutions, mortgage fraud, and securities fraud or commodities fraud.

Significant to note, Section 3 of the Act authorized additional funding to detect and prosecute fraud at various federal agencies, specifically:

(a) $165,000,000 to the Department of Justice, (b) $30,000,000 each to the Postal Inspection Service and the Office of the Inspector General at the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD/OIG)

18

(c) $20,000,000 to the Secret Service


19

(d) $21,000,000 to the Securities and Exchange Commission.


20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 25

These authorizations were made for the federal fiscal years beginning October 1, 2009 - 2011, after which point they expire, and are in addition to the previously authorized budgets for these agencies. 7

Defendants expect that a budget excuse, as basis for failing to prosecute these offenders of common decency and rule of lawin this country. That with the proceeds of FERA there should not be an excuse to not prosecuting the criminals here.Defendants will, in great detail, be further defining these events in Defendants amended answer.

Defendants for the record have not filed an answer besides the answer to summons that agreed to mediation per State mandate and denial of the debt in whole or in part, as stated on the document itself and hereby reserve the right and leave to file an amended answer in the future.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

Defendants are still seeking legal counsel to represent their rights before this court and still ask for 30 days, excluding weekends and holidays, to seek said counsel while tolling all Statutes of Limitations and waiving time requirements for responses to the Court and opposing counsels motions, petitions objections Etc. As would be afforded those of a protected class of people who by Legislative act, Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, are afforded access as they require to not only buildings and bathrooms or extra time to complete exams public schools, Universities and Colleges but also to the very foundation of our system of justice, and consequently a real aspect of afore mentioned act contemplated by legislators as well as the founders of this country, access to the courts as well as access to a bathroom is meaningless compared to access to the court on terms that any individual regardless of their handicap can meet.

Plaintiffs motion for a more definite statement will follow in Defendants First Amended Answer to come, within a reasonable time frame,when this court rules as to Federal Jurisdiction. Defendants will not respond to an obvious fishing expedition, by opposing counsel, so as to have Defendants lay their case out before Plaintiffs and their counsel before Defendants are, indeed, willing to do so.

This before discovery has even ended and that area, discovery, being the prerogative of Defendants as
19

to exactly when, they, feel that, they, are ready to present in toto their case. Defendants are the sole
20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29

arbiter, albeit at the courts final arbitration lest abuse on the courts resources were to ensue, enough documentation to support what physical evidence they currently possess to finally put their case before the court and jury. Defendants ask the court to agree that at this time [that] to demand the Defendants reveal the totality of their case would be prejudicial and destructive to Defendants case and would therefore appeal to the court to put off a more definite statement, motioned for by opposing counsel, until Defendants have made a defensive claim and/or counter-suit or an outright action and demand for relief complaint. As it is, currently, the case is confusing at best, since Defendants are not truly sure whether a

30

foreclosure has indeed been legally, lawfully and properly constitutionally initiated against them or
31 32 26

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

not, as what has been initiated, thus far, was filed in the wrong court, against Defendants by Plaintiffs in their complaint filed in the Maine State Superior court, Penobscot County Maine. This, it would appear, without regard for the fact that a state court would be the court one would file a complaint for foreclosure in involving private parties and a State Chartered Bank not a Federally Chartered one as TD Bank N.A. Thus Defendants repeat their request for the courts order forestalling opposing counsels motion for more definite statement by a reasonable amount of time and in consideration of the health, finances and handicaps Defendants face in mounting a defense to the Plaintiffs affront to the rule of law and moral decency.

It is the Defendants contention and assertion that if the handicapped, E.g. Defendants, cannot obtain counsel then to in turn hold Defendants to a schedule its understood they, by reason of their handicap(s), cannot achieve then denial of access to the courts has transpired. For if truth is what we seek and justice for all is what we claim we believe in, fight and die for then whats a little more time amongst adversaries?

Defendants pray this honorable courtissue an order demanding the presence of Nan Heald, director of Pine Tree Legal Aid, Frank DAlessandro, Judd Esty Kendall associates of Pine Tree Legal Aid, Robert Lingley Chairman of the Board for the board of directors of Pine Tree Legal Aid and Maine State Superior Court agent, and/or employee of said, acting as mediator for the mediation arm of the

22

Maine State Superior Court to explain, when appointed, directly or by referral, as per settlement
23

agreement made in the Martinez v Astrue settlement, to settle a matter for the United States
24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 27

Government and that would include any and all matters that arise out of the case for which the Government has appointed them to settle for the Defendant.

Why they feel that a foreclosure arising directly out of the matter they have been retained by the Government to settle is not their responsibility patently refusing to handle this matter. What makes this time different from the first foreclosure? Initiated by Plaintiffs counsel after the first time SSA shut off Defendants money illegally due to the Martinez v Astrue case. Why do they think that

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

arising out of does not apply here? Why do they think that this didnt arise out of the Martinez v Astrue caseas did the first foreclosure proceedings?

Defendants ask, while we are all here, of Plaintiffs when it was that they planned to comply with rule 26(f) and meet and confer with Defendants? As of now,it being much longer than the 99 days stated by rule. Defendants would suggest that opposing counsel try a phone or letter to schedule this meeting with Defendants and that they await your call or letter by say Wednesday the 31st of August?

Defendants on a personal note to Plaintiffs counsel, in response to opposing counsels quip about how
10

it appeared Defendants cut and pasted something they, opposing counsel, just couldnt figure out
11

what it was or what we, Defendants, were saying blah blahblah etc. etc.Defendants state that they
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 28

wish they had the software available to attorneys such as opposing counsel who have in products like, American Jurisprudence 2ndEdition Practice forms and Pleadings on Desklaw from Westlaw and similar Lexisnexis product, or Lexisnexis products like Casesofts Casemap from which to cut and paste and thus boilerplate Defendants way through this matter as Plaintiffs have tried to do.

As much as Defendants would like such ease in taking to task those who so blithely ignore their responsibilities, both to the law and this court, but also to each other in common decencyof which it is Defendants contention that decency seems to be something Plaintiffs and opposing counsel seem in short supply of. Defendants state nevertheless no they, Defendants, must write each word from that creative spot where the law resides in their heads and from upon printed word in the law library.

Therefore Defendants humbly pray this Honorable Court enter a judgment indicating Defendants response has met the satisfaction of this Court concerning afore mentioned arguments of opposing counsel and this Courts order to show cause on both accounts taking into account Defendants Doctors report and need to obtain competent counsel.Defendants retain leave to amend and to make an amended answer both as information is acquired and as the Court may direct according to Defendants or Plaintiffs deficiencies.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

Dated this 24th day of August 2011,

____________________________________ Defendant Twila A. Wolf n/k/a Butler pro se.

________________________________________ Defendant-Intervenor Charlton A. Butler Jr.pro se

__________________________________________________________________________________
19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 29

REFERENCES FROM ABOVE: 1 Reported Suspicious Activities http://www.fincen.gov/MortgageLoanFraud.pdf 2 http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2003/10_october/29/money_programme_mort gage.shtml 3 "FBI warns of mortgage fraud 'epidemic'". CNN. February 6, 2004. http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/09/17/mortgage.fraud/ 4 http://www.fbi.gov/pressrel/pressrel05/quickflip121405.htm 5 "FBI Cracks Down On Mortgage Fraud".CBS news. 2008-06-19. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/06/19/national/main4194649.shtml 6 FBI Mortgage Fraud Takedown - Press Room - Headline Archives 06-19-08 http://www.fbi.gov/page2/june08/malicious_mortgage061908.html 7 FERA section 3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32

8 "Mortgage fraud: New and improved Lenders have tightened standards, but scam artists have found new ways to beat the system.", CNN Money. October 17. 2008. http://money.cnn.com/2008/10/17/real_estate/new_mortgage_fraud/?postversion=2008101715 9 "Stimulus gives rise to consumer scams".Philadelphia Inquirer. March 7, 2009. http://www.philly.com/philly/business/homepage/40889177.html 10 Semi-Annual Reports to Congress and other mortgage fraud information from the Office of Inspector General, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. http://www.hudoig.gov/reports/sars.php 11 For example, http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/gan/press/2006/04-19-06b.pdf 12 Mortgage Assets Research Institute (MARI). (2009). Eleventh Periodic Mortgage Fraud Case Report To: Mortgage Bankers Association. http://www.marisolutions.com/pdfs/mba/mortgage-fraudreport-11th.pdf 13 For example, http://www.legis.state.ga.us/legis/2005_06/pdf/sb100.pdf

30

You might also like