Tuesday, August 30, 2011

Response to Opposing Counsel: Or "Why I think you'd rather back up and punt"

This whole mess started a couple of years ago, and is why ladies and gentlemen when you leave a partner remember to severe your responsibility to the checking account, due to a narrow and rather circumspect reading of a Social Security Administration rule (Herein after known as "SSA"). Subsequently leaving the individual in question without the means to survive as all income was derived from a fixed income from SSA.

The defendants in this matter filed a rather nice response to opposing counsels objections and motions. The culmination of which would have been to deprive the defendants of all their evidence and force them to face the Plaintigffs in the wrong court of law.  It would appear that filing this matter in the State Superior Court of Maine was inappropiate as TD Bank N.A. is a Federally chartered bank. According to rule 17(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, in TD Bank N.A.'s capacity to sue and to be sued, that the deciding factor for an incorporated business, TD Bank N.A., is the law used to incorporate that business and inTD Bank N.A.'s case that would be federal law.

I link it from the Scribd account it was found at: Enjoy these people basically put everyone on the hot seat and answerable for federal felonies connected to the non reporting of a felony committed against the United States Government if they try and just wave this aside they get bitten by the requirements of reporting as mandated by statute 18 U.S.C. 4 and lying as defined in 18 U.S.C. 1001.


I like this case as it is a clear case of fraud and the screwed up reaction of local law enforcement and local leadership in that apparently it's easier to take illegally someones property than to prosecute the well defended Banks doing the fraudulent foreclosures that pas for due process today in most areas.

No comments:

Post a Comment