STATE OF MAINE CIVIL

TD BANK N.A. fjkja FIRST

COUNTY OF PENOBSCOT SUPERIOR DISTRICT COURT

MASSACHUSETTS BANK N.A. Case No.: BANSC-RE-2010-1B7

Plaintiff,
Judge: J!NJUNCTIYE RELIEF SOUGHT v. )[)EFENDANT'S MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFFS RESPOND TO )[)EFENDANT'S FUTURE DISCOVERY REQUESTS BY WAY OF COURT SUPERVISED DISCOVERY INCORPORATED I[)EFENDANTS EXHIBITS AND MEMORANDUM OF LAW. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED [Defendants filed concurrently the following: ]

TWILA A. BUTLER fjkja WOLF AND CHARLTON A. BUTLER JR. pro se

Defendant and Defendant-Intervenor.

Notice of Motion, Defendant's Separate Statement of Undisputed Facts, Defendants Objection to Plaintiffs Witnesses, Affidavits and Exhibits, Incorporated Motion To Strike and Memorandum of law, Sworn Affidavit of Defendant Twila A. Butler fjkja Wolf, Defendants Objection To Plaintiffs Motion for a Lifting of Stay And Motion For Summary Judgment, Defendant's Motion to Disqualify Opposing Counsel Incorporated Motion for Sanctions, Declaratory and Permanent Injunctive Relief Memorandum of Law and Supporting Exhibits. [Proposed Order Granting Defendants _ _ Motion]

Date of Hearing: Time of Hearing:

DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFFS RESPOND TO DEFENDANT'S FUTURE DISCOVERY REQUESTS BY WAY OF COURT SUPERVISED DISCOVERY INCORPORATED DEFENDANTS EXHIBITS AND MEMORANDUM OF LAW, TITLE TO REAL eROPEBTY INVOLVED
~~~~~~~

WRY IBI4L DEMANDEIl

NOW, come Defendants pursuant to local rules, particularly S(d), Defendant's hereby move this Court to compel Plaintiffs and counsel to respond to Discovery vis a vis by way of Court Supervised discovery; being based on the following facts:
Defendants Motion To Compel Court Supervised Discovery

STATE OF MAINE CIVIL -BACKGROUND-

COUNTY OF PENOBSCOT SUPERIOR DISTRICT COURT

1.

Request for information, Pre-Discovery phase, by way of Qualified Written Request,

hereinafter "QWR,"was submitted to Plaintiffs, through counsel, being obviously bound to a "Duty of Care" and "Due Diligence," as well the professional requirements, both as an officer of the court, and required by the Maine Bar. 2. Having received Defendant's QWRmailed on or about April 25th and received on or

about April 27th 2011; as referenced, in Plaintiffs, Response to Defendants, PreDiscovery, QWR, was argumentative and ultimately resulted in denying of credulous legal requests for edification as to who [exactly] are Plaintiffs? What is this loan they are speaking of and being told at mediation and by way of electronic data transmission, known in the common vernacular as email between both the Plaintiffs and, at the time Defendants attorneys from Pinetree Legal, emailing each other about that crazy who is asking about and pointing out the multiple acts of fraud and as such Defendants offer Defendants Exhibit "A." "Al" "A2" "A3" ami "A4".M-.6 liS 3.
It

If

Defendants never made, nor agreed to, nor were Defendants ever disclosed [to],

period, in any way, at all, not even remotely, as required by both TILAand RESPA, not to mention the numerous State and Federal common law frauds, currently at bar, that Plaintiffs despite being well aware, of the fact, [that] they, do not [i]n fact have, in hand; as a matter of law, that piece of real property, "The Note," as described by former law professor, and current attorney at Law. Defendants Exhibit "B.", 4. Plaintiffs must have in hand, the documents required, the original documents, by N
Q) C(

which to enforce their notion that they own the loan in question and that it was in fact
Q.,

ro

Defendants Motion To Compel Court Supervised Discovery

STATE OF MAINE CIVIL

COUNTY OF PENOBSCOT SUPERIOR DISTRICT COURT

made to Defendants and in that manner prove their right through the proving of standing they know they cannot do. 5. Plaintiffs are well aware of such, or should be, having done due diligence, one can

reasonably assume this was done; if one is going to assert and or contend something as true and the difference being the perception that they are either innocently gathering a witnesses testimony or guiltily of suborning perjured testimony, it would seem the person would do the "Due Diligence" required by law, it being just good common sense. 6. A simple reading and understanding of basic property law, contract law etc ...

providing work rules any practicing attorney has read and knows, as a matter of day to day work product generation, should know and should have applied that knowledge here. 7. Thus Plaintiffs, as can be reasonably inferred from their colorable actions, are nevertheless attempting to foreclose on a piece of property they know, or should know is currently on appeal, and are attempting, again, to defraud the State of Maine, their clients and this honorable court. Plaintiffs, counsel's actions, are questionable, ethically, at best. Criminal and actionable behavior that is sure to lead to their disbarment at worst and more a question for a jury to decide, in determining, scienter. 8. Scienter, being reasonably inferred from Plaintiffs actions in moving the court to lift

a stay and move to final judgment; on this matter, when they know, or should know, that outlined in HP 128 LD145, set for vote and enactment at the next seating of the Maine Legislature, will require, that Plaintiffs have in hand before they initiate a foreclosure the documents required to legally proceed; including all current actions before the court. Plaintiffs know or should know that these very set of facts, as outlined in Defendants M
b.C ell Q..
Q)

Defendants Motion To Compel Court Supervised Discovery

STATE OF MAINE CIVIL

COUNTY OF PENOBSCOT SUPERIOR DISTRICT COURT

appeal currently before that court, would be unable, any more there than here, to prove standing. 9. Plaintiffs, by way of a redacted Zerox, in response to Defendants QWR,the very form

needed most, by Defendants in the process, of invalidating, the legitimacy of Plaintiffs

~
"'J

claims, to make verification of the amounts and the loans that they clearly, on Zeroxed paper, TD Bank N.A.,are shown to be merely the servicer.

~ Q.; ~ ~ ~ ""'
~

Q .:::

< =
""'

~
.....

:-;::i
OJ

0 o

10. Mistakenly, Plaintiffs, it's assumed, believe that they had redacted any and all useful information, concerning a loan, predicated upon a fraud, on many levels, and part of Defendant's Federal Claims and complaint which is set and ready to be filed in the Federal District Court next week. 11. These alleged loans, as sworn to, by Plaintiffs and the counsel that represents them are a fraud upon this court and Defendants. The information they, mistakenly did not redact, is the fact that in the left hand corner you can see that the loan(s) in question were sold to another party, not represented here, and additionally would be the

rN

u......:~~,p
-oCl.lOMO

..c

\::: !::::

<~::;E~8
~ Po. I-<~ ~ Q~or-!::::

=a=5p:j~E
Io,,~

-d
V

:= Q
~
~

Q.;

1;J

01)0 N

CIi

o::l

S 'C j
0
',p

~
""'

< ~

-=

.~ >-

absolute required elemental evidence of fraud and attempt, through counsel, of Plaintiffs to cover up and obfuscate the fact that thy sold a loan they know they never had an original for. 12. As the *wink* *wink* original is a Zerox, and was so from the start. The whole presented paperwork a fabrication being made of whole cloth from the start. This, so Plaintiffs could create securities / bonds and thus committed securities fraud, properly inferred, by Defendants. Defendants believe this is the case but leave that question for another day. Defendants Exhibit "c."

.~
Eo-;

-e0..

~ ell

DefendantsMotion CompelCourtSupervisedDiscovery To

STATE OF MAINE CIVIL

COUNTY OF PENOBSCOT SUPERIOR DISTRICT COURT

13. When trying to determine on, exactly, whose authority, do, they, Plaintiffs make claim to enforce the "rights and agreements" of an alleged Promissory Note and Mortgage, let alone attempting to enforce said. The Plaintiffs through counsel have done all they can to obfuscate and confuse both Defendants and this court.

-ARGUMENT-

14. When asking, by QWR,of Plaintiffs, for the information they possess, and the right of Defendants to possess, Plaintiffs counsel provided, generally un-useful for the

purpose( s), as, advertised, so to speak, being the same theory, different layout, that, discovery, again its name is its stated purpose, and [that] being, discovery, is being bypassed; by the colorable actions, of Plaintiffs and counsel. This requirement, for

Discovery, coincidentally, is also, that, which is required by this court, statutorily, Defendants lack of edification merely corollary, Plaintiffs intent in denying the lawful discovery of information deemed a land holder's right and provided for through RESPA, and an independent cause of action, by evasive actions and the redefining, of understood terms, said terms, having been lawfully defined previously by the Urban Housing Authority. 15. Plaintiffs response through counsel, to Defendants Qualified Written Request, hereinafter, "QWR"; by the redefining a clearly legal QWR, as interrogatories

unsupported, by either, agency rule or policy, and in fact completely antithetical to the HUD example, of a QWR, and that example being unlimited in nature; of both, the

DefendantsMotion CompelCourtSupervisedDiscovery To

STATE OF MAINE CIVIL

COUNTY OF PENOBSCOT SUPERIOR DISTRICT COURT

questions allowed to be asked and the number of said, attempted to evade the lawful questions placed before them. 16. This response, of Plaintiffs through counsel, while, more than useful, in ways, Defendants are sure, Plaintiffs; were and are, still, completely unaware of; and while, Defendants are grateful for [t]hat, which Plaintiffs, deigned, to send them, by way of their response to Defendant's, as outlined, on the Urban Housing Authority's website, QWR,nevertheless, did not answer Defendant's questions, as required by law. 17. Plaintiffs instead, choose, to evade any question at all, by the use of tortiously inequitable, again predicated on a deliberate misapplication of law, tantamount to a defrauding or a clear fraud upon the court, arguments that could not pass the

Governments highly subjective Matthews Test in avoiding due process error damaging to non-movants. Due process error not being the only, or most important, aspect of this matter but also including individual dignity, equality and tradition are also on the list in an equal and a fair application of the law 18. Plaintiffs have sought to redefine what is/was already defined by the Department of Urban Development as a QWR,which is unlimited in both number and the questions that can be asked. Plaintiffs are attempting to tell the Defendants "how the cow eats the cabbage" so to speak, to borrow a car salesman's phrase. When it is the position of Defendants that the law gives Defendants the right to determine said bovines eating habits. 19. A good faith effort has been made to utilize, what, opposing counsel deigned, to send as, discovery, but since the questions were not answered, as required by law, and the profusion of what opposing counsel did send was both; not, what was asked for, nor a

Defendants Motion To Compel Court Supervised Discovery

STATE OF MAINE CIVIL

COUNTY OF PENOBSCOT SUPERIOR DISTRICT COURT

decent, reasonable and qualified answer given regarding, why the questions were not answered. Defendants exhibits"
u " "

20. Plaintiffs reply stated Defendants questions, were interrogatories, and limited the number they would answer and refused to answer the questions in any manner as requested by Defendants and have made demands that Defendants proceed to an alternate address, as they state is allowed, to receive answers that could more easily, but more importantly, be answered by the written word, with a stylus and papyrus at the worst and a computer at best. The court cannot provide a remedy that fails to be a remedy if Defendants cannot or will not comply, reasonably, with the remedy provided in the rules. 21. This is unacceptable. Since Plaintiffs, through opposing counsel, started this action they are compelled to prove their point. Plaintiffs bear the burden of proof and this court should enforce this fact. 22. As Defendants do not have the staff and support of a law office. They must wait and fight each battle in the importance of the argument. Since Mr. Butler had to go back to law school, as much as if in class again, to get into the swing of things, after 20+ years without practicing law, and be capable of defending himself not counting the fact his wife, as well, had to make legal education a priority so as to defend herself in this matter, time she and her husband can never have back and time that is measure of life. This particular argument/motion was low on the list to submit; not that it was un-important,

but not wanting to get into a spitting contest, without an army of staff to assist, on a subject that should involve no confusion. Defendants waited until they were in a position to bring this information to the courts attention and adjudication.

Defendants Motion To Compel Court Supervised Discovery

STATE OF MAINE CIVIL

COUNTY OF PENOBSCOT SUPERIOR DISTRICT COURT

23. Defendants state now, for the record, as the information is now and was then of vital importance to the resolution of this dispute, a dispute, again, noted here for the record by Defendant, started by Plaintiffs, and thus the burden of proof is upon plaintiffs, NOT DEFENDANTSand the law demands they respond to discovery with something other than bull defecation, a profusion of documents known as an avalanche, and an overall attempt to overwhelm defendants with a plethora of nothing documents and hide any useful information, and the obvious time wasting arguments, in place of responses, they have made thus far would argue that Plaintiffs do not deserve the gift of relaxed discovery. 24. Plaintiffs have refused to provide adequate, legal and reasonable responses and have not indicated that they will provide such information now or in the future in a manner acceptable to Defendants. 25. Since Plaintiffs, through counsel, have refused to respond in a timely manner to legal requests of Defendants. Defendants move the court to compel the Plaintiffs and counsel to respond to Defendants Discovery requests and provide the requested information. 26. Defendants state, for the record, they will not be running around in circles trying to get answers and fighting about useless matters; thus wasting their and this honorable courts time. 27. While this may be the normal behavior of Attorneys, as it would appear from this mess, they are actions, that are, nevertheless, colorable and determinative of the

probative value of said documents and information asked for is the fact that the Plaintiffs are more than just unhelpful, here, but also demonstrably delinquent in their upholding of the law.

Defendants Motion To Compel Court Supervised Discovery

STATE OF MAINE CIVIL

COUNTY OF PENOBSCOT SUPERIOR DISTRICT COURT

28. Therefore this court can see that a relaxed discovery rule, while personally understood and agreed with, by Defendants, as a course of action, chosen and utilized by honorable men and women, and in a better world, a world more and more it appears, now, gone and lost forever, Defendants would agree with its useful nature to the courts in determining matters before said court, in a manner relaxed and cost efficient to the system; that attempts to serve the public in maintaining the public peace. 29. Defendants assert this is not the case here but, instead that the relaxed action and rule, as, used by honorable people, is here used as a tool, by Plaintiffs, to thwart the justice of this court. 30. The game of letting the other side think they are making all the right moves is over and the axe is now in full swing; no more "Crazy man with hands waving in air" and no longer will the game of semantics and attorneys folly be played out here. The court should take over the supervision of all Discovery, in any future deliberation of this matter, if it decides for some reason to deny Defendants their motions, as it is clearly demonstrated that in a relaxed format Plaintiffs cannot be trusted to conform to the rules of a decent, social and law abiding community. If not granted, Defendants motion, Defendants, for the record, make objection to and make Motion for the preservation all State and Federal rights to be used in any subsequent appeal. -PRAYERTHEREFORE,Defendants humbly and respectfully request this court grant this motion to compel Plaintiffs to respond appropriately to discovery requests and humbly ask that all, future, discovery be court supervised as the relaxed discovery rule only makes for fools and bad bed fellows as this current example proves.

Defendants Motion To Compel Court Supervised Discovery

STATE OF MAINE CIVIL

COUNTY OF PENOBSCOT SUPERIOR DISTRICT COURT

It would appear that a "Win by dazzling 'em with brilliance or baffle and drown 'em in Bull Defecation" is the unofficial creed of attorneys here, and best expressed by Perkins Thompson Attorneys, flatulently with great pomposity, in colorable actions at bar. Fraud vitiates everything; let us prove it for these sad representations, of the profession, I chose NOT to pursue, for exactly the reasons displayed, so egregiously here, by these people attempting, and failing at, their attempt to be attorneys. Dated this 28th day of February, 2012.

Twila A. Butler fjkja Wolf Defendant pro se.

Charlton A. Butler Jr. DefendantIntervenor pro se.

Defendants Motion To Compel Court Supervised Discovery