Some Material filed in my particular case and its fact set. If you see anything you can use feel free.
Part 1 of 4
STATE OF MAINE COUNTY OF PENOBSCOT
CIVIL SUPERIOR DISTRICT COURT
Butler & Butler Pro se
44 Patten St.
Bangor Maine. 04401
207-249-5378
Victim.of.crime.and.corruption@gmail.com
Page1
DEFENDANT’S OBJECTION TO PLAINTIFFS MULTIPLE LATE AND UNTIMELY RESPONSES
AND MOTIONS; PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR SANCTIONS INCORPORATED MEMORANDUM
OF LAW; CONCERNING DEFENDANTS AFFIDAVIT AND REQUEST FOR AN ENTRY OF
DEFAULT AND DEFAULT JUDGMENT; AS REGARDS DEFENDANTS RESPONSE TO
PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO LIFT STAY AND FINAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT; INCORPORATED
MOTION TO STRIKE AND MEMORANDUM OF LAW.
TITLE TO REAL PROPERTY INVOLVED,
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF SOUGHT
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
Now, come Defendant’s, with objection and motion to strike yet another of Plaintiffs
untimely, improper and incorrectly formatted responses, objections and motions
regarding; Defendants objections and responsive dispositive motions, to Plaintiffs
Motion for a Lift of Stay and Final Summary Judgment.
MOTION TO SET ASIDE DEFAULT AND/OR DEFAULT JUDGMENT
DISCUSSION:
1. This case, in predominant part, comes before the Court on Plaintiff's motion to set
aside a default judgment per M.R. Civ. P. 55(c).
TD BANK N.A. f/k/a FIRST
MASSACHUSETTS BANK N.A.
Plaintiff,
v.
TWIALA A. BUTLER f/k/a WOLF
AND
CHARLTON A. BUTLER JR. pro se
Defendant
and
Defendant-Intervenor.
Case No.: BANSC-RE-2010-187
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF SOUGHT
DEFENDANT’S OBJECTION TO PLAINTIFFS MULTIPLE
LATE AND UNTIMELY RESPONSES AND MOTIONS;
PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR SANCTIONS INCORPORATED
MEMORANDUM OF LAW; CONCERNING DEFENDANTS
AFFIDAVIT AND REQUEST FOR AN ENTRY OF DEFAULT
AND DEFAULT JUDGMENT; AS REGARDS DEFENDANTS
RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO LIFT STAY AND
FINAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT; INCORPORATED
MOTION TO STRIKE AND MEMORANDUM OF LAW.
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
Judge/Magistrate: The Most Honorable Justice
Anderson.
Date of Hearing: _________
Time of Hearing: _________
STATE OF MAINE COUNTY OF PENOBSCOT
CIVIL SUPERIOR DISTRICT COURT
Butler & Butler Pro se
44 Patten St.
Bangor Maine. 04401
207-249-5378
Victim.of.crime.and.corruption@gmail.com
Page2
2. This matter, currently before the bar, Plaintiffs additional untimely response, through
Plaintiffs Motion for Sanctions Incorporated Memorandum of Law, would follow in
the same judicial breath as their default to allow Plaintiffs argument here would allow
them to circumvent the purpose and legislated result of their actions at bar.
3. Thus to allow opposing counsels’ motion judicial notice it would have to clear the
same two hurdles as counsels’ previous, untimely responses and motions and
therefore being even later than the last Defendants think the court can follow the
logic.
4. Defendants Affidavit and Request for Entry of Default and Default Judgment falls
within that required by rule of law and law; to make claim to, [t]hat, which has been
noted by the court, as the result of a missed deadline to respond by Plaintiffs. Therein,
subsequently, did waive their opportunity to respond or object to and/or in addition
to and/or as the direct result of, Defendants submissions, to date, are therefore
deemed admitted, by operation of law.”
5. Plaintiffs failed to clear the hurdles required to get past their missed deadline by
failing to establish and show:
a. “Good Cause.”
b. Or the second hurdle, a “Meritorious Defense.”
c. Without demonstrating the requisite “Good Cause” all else is moot and must be
stricken as untimely and improper.
d. Plaintiff’s reason for missing the deadline is/was they, Plaintiff’s counsel, lost
the properly, submitted, noticed and delivered copy of Defendants objections
and responsive motions to Plaintiffs Motion for a Lift of Stay and Final
Summary Judgment in their interoffice mail delivery system.
ARGUMENT:
6. Defendants assert, again, from their last filing with the court; concerning Plaintiff’s
counsels first untimely response.
STATE OF MAINE COUNTY OF PENOBSCOT
CIVIL SUPERIOR DISTRICT COURT
Butler & Butler Pro se
44 Patten St.
Bangor Maine. 04401
207-249-5378
Victim.of.crime.and.corruption@gmail.com
Page3
7. Plaintiff’s response; made to, Defendant’s Objections and Response to Plaintiff’s
Untimely Response to Defendants Objections and Responsive motions to Plaintiffs
Motion for a Lift of Stay and Final Summary Judgment.
8. Additionally now and as well as Objections to Defendants Request for Entry of Default
and Default Judgment and for Sanctions all with Motions to Strike. A: We don’t qualify,
by definition, to begin with and B: Defendants’ Case is evidentiarily, factually, sound
and is meritorious and the chances of Defendants prevailing are outstanding if not
here in this fine court, then certainly; on appeal to the Maine Supreme Judicial Court.
9. Defendants have confidence, though, in Judge Andersons’ ability to understand what
he sees when he sees it. The law is beautiful and the binding together of a chaotic
world into one of order, stability and equity by way of redress and relief for crimes
and civil offenses and his Honor is the Gatekeeper and arbiter of the justice that
maintains that order and satbility.
10. Judge Anderson understands his awesome responsibility. He also understands the
reports coming from other court rooms and courts across Maine and America.
11. Defendants have confidence in our judicial system and feel assured that his Honor will
see that Defendants have dealt dispositively with Plaintiffs entire case and thus
render his decision in Defendants favor.
12. Plaintiffs, through counsel, failed to timely respond, as prescribed by the rule of law,
to Defendants responsive dispositive motions and for the sake of argument;
Defendants agree with Plaintiffs’ counsel when making the statement “Plaintiffs are
not required to respond….”
13. Yes you are not required to respond to Defendants; but, at the same time, you’d,
certainly have to agree, then, that Plaintiffs have then waived any and all arguments
or objections and as Plaintiffs’ evidence has been decimated, this opinion based on the
most recent decisions of the Maine Supreme Judicial Court and the Law Court cited in
recent submissions to this court.
STATE OF MAINE COUNTY OF PENOBSCOT
CIVIL SUPERIOR DISTRICT COURT
Butler & Butler Pro se
44 Patten St.
Bangor Maine. 04401
207-249-5378
Victim.of.crime.and.corruption@gmail.com
Page4
14. Further opposing counsel has failed to provide an adequate reason; an adequate
reason being the pre-requisite for being allowed to make a late response, by reason of
“Good Cause” and a “Meritorious Defense.”
15. Plaintiff’s counsels only reason for that failure, to act, being;
(a) To first accuse Defendants of failing to send and/or serve a copy of
Defendant’s response, to Plaintiffs motions, on Plaintiff’s counsel.
(b) Then, when caught in that error, opposing counsel then states, simply and
completely, that the documents, in question, were lost in the interoffice mail
redelivery system, at Perkins Thompson P.A., for at least 20 days, by their own
reckoning.
(c) Then, almost as an aside, they claimed that the 7(c) notice was not within the
documents sent based on that they had the right to make motion and argue.
16. A party may seek to set aside a default judgment for /good cause shown" per M.R. Civ.
P. 55(c). Whether good cause exists depends on a party's demonstration that there is
'" a reasonable excuse for the default and a meritorious defense to the underlying
action.'" Mariello v. Giguere, 667 A.2d 588, 589 (Me. 1995) (quoting Theriault v.
Gauthier, 634 A.2d 1255, 1256 (Me. 1993)).
17. The excusable neglect standard for lifting default judgments under Rule 60(b) is more
stringent than the good cause standard for lifting an entry of default under Rule 55(c).
Theriault, 634 A.2d at 1256-57; and one, would have to agree, that Plaintiffs are
receiving the benefit, here, by the governing of a less stringent rule and still they fail
to meet the standards and elements required.
18. In Boit v. Brookstone Co., Inc., 641 A.2d 864, 865 (Me. 1994) the Supreme Judicial
Court / Law Court upheld a trial court's refusal to vacate a default entered just eight
days after an answer was due when the defendant's insurer's excuse was only that
there had been a "delay in the mail room." (emphasis added) See also Conrad v.
Swan, 2008 ME 2, 940 A.2d 1070.
STATE OF MAINE COUNTY OF PENOBSCOT
CIVIL SUPERIOR DISTRICT COURT
Butler & Butler Pro se
44 Patten St.
Bangor Maine. 04401
207-249-5378
Victim.of.crime.and.corruption@gmail.com
Page5
19. These cases, Boit v. Brookstone Co., Inc., 641 A.2d 864, 865 (Me. 1994) and Conrad v.
Swan, 2008 ME 2, 940 A.2d 1070., are directly on point and are, equal, in element and
situation, to the case before the bar today.
20. Therefore it would logically follow that, Plaintiffs, having not been able to establish
“Good Cause,” have nothing left to say or object to.
21. See also, Levine v. Key Bank Nat. Ass'n, 2004 ME 131, f 13, 861 A.2d 678, 683 (failure of
bank to respond to trustee process for three months after service on it because the
document did not get handled according to its ordinarily "efficient judgment processing
system" was not good cause). For the same holding, see R. C. Moore, Inc. v. Les-Care
Kitchens, Inc., 2007 ME 138, ^27-29, 931 A.2d 1081, 1087-7.
22. Plaintiffs claim; in this latest motion, objecting to Defendants Request for an Entry of
Default and for Default Judgment, that, Defendants failed to raise certain affirmative
defenses, namely and first among them, standing, in a timely fashion and, therein
and/or thereby did waive said affirmative defenses, apparently opposing council feels
that’s all of them.
23. Opposing counsel’s interpretation here of the case, though, is a fail, when it comes to
the facts, as unfortunately, and, as usual, opposing counsel failed to read Defendant’s
initial answer to this court. If they had, they would have found Defendants had, as a
matter of fact.
(a) Defendants, preserved ALL (emphasis added) defenses, and
(b) that Defendants DISAGREED (emphasis added) with, at LEAST, (emphasis
added) some, of Plaintiffs complaint, and
(c) it logically following then, particularly in light of Defendants submissions to
bar, thus far, that defendants disagreed with all of Plaintiffs complaint, but, for
Defendants names and address.
(d) Defendants having not incurred this loan in the first place and therein
established their counter claim and the reason they have ignored Plaintiffs
arguments. Why give credibility to opposing counsel’s incorrect interpretation
of the facts and it’s not like Defendants didn’t try and tell him or weren’t more
STATE OF MAINE COUNTY OF PENOBSCOT
CIVIL SUPERIOR DISTRICT COURT
Butler & Butler Pro se
44 Patten St.
Bangor Maine. 04401
207-249-5378
Victim.of.crime.and.corruption@gmail.com
Page6
than agreeable in the beginning to fixing this mess. Opposing counsels own
arrogance, and audacity, blinded him from the correct interpretation of the
matter.
24. It is not Defendants fault, opposing counsel, didn’t take into account; just exactly, the
plethora, and/or multitude of affirmative defenses available under the circumstances.
Therefore, opposing counsel erred by not taking into account how many and/or what,
affirmative defenses, had been, therefore, declared already, for the record, in that
simple declaration on that Maine State Judicial Court Form.
25. Therefore it would stand to reason, then, that it is Plaintiffs who are the vexatious
litigants, by way of, their ignorance to the facts of their own case, motions and
pleadings, that are frivolous and exactly what rule 11 sanctions are for. As they
continue where they know, or should know, that they have no legal right to continue
yet they do knowing the percentages are on their side, and for the reasons provided
herein and previously submitted to this court and fully cited.
26. Defendants, are, almost 100% assured and confident in their assessment, that,
Plaintiffs are being less than forthright and/or, at the very least, are directly stating
their complete ignorance of the elements and facts of their own case and are exposing
their liability to their clients. Once again this is a case for malpractice and not
Defendants concern. Defendants Exhibit “A”.
27. Further it should be noted, that, in the Federal District courts remanding of this case
back to the State Superior Court. That Defendants motions, made there, and still
pending, were remanded to the Maine State Superior Court for action. (emphasis
added).
28. While this was a notice of removal and many things were discussed; nothing was
resolved, but the merits of the case for removal. Defendants Exhibit “B”.
29. How Defendants respond would be up to them, as Plaintiffs failed to advise them and
instruct them, as required by Rule 56(h), as noted in the notes of the Maine Rules of
Civil Procedure Rule 7. Defendants Exhibit “C”. Defendants were in line with the page
STATE OF MAINE COUNTY OF PENOBSCOT
CIVIL SUPERIOR DISTRICT COURT
Butler & Butler Pro se
44 Patten St.
Bangor Maine. 04401
207-249-5378
Victim.of.crime.and.corruption@gmail.com
Page7
limit last submission as 20 pages is the limit for injunctive motions and dispositive
motions.
30. Plaintiffs, submission to the court, Defendants Exhibits “D”, demonstrates both
opposing counsels argumentative attitude and incorrect interpretation of the law
evidentiary of opposing counsels refusal to submit to facts, fair requests and fair
dealings with Defendants and thus opposing counsel redundantly argues the same
issues regardless of their lack of merit.
31. Defendants Exhibit “E” is, Plaintiff’s, Defendants assume, statement of the fact that
they are the servicer for some trust as; Defendants Exhibit “E-1”, in the upper left
hand corner, indicates, as the alleged loans, but very real to the securitizer when
creating the technically fraudulent and counterfeit bond issue.
32. Which were sold into the bond market; and opens yet another door of civil and
criminal liability, and is a rather nasty demonstration of the effects of the continuation
of sin and ignorance. On top of the use of instant claims and actions when a more
personal touch and interaction is called for.
33. As much esteemed and respected jurist, and former Banking Attorney; Thomas Cox,
arguably one of the best jurists in, Maine; mentor and personal hero of Defendants,
would say about these foreclosure mills and their practices. We would like to concur
with his entire article and this quote specifically for one, but for the clients not served
part of course.
“Perhaps the largest frustration, for me, in this work, is to experience, on a daily basis, the games
that the servicers play in the foreclosure process. I am constantly frustrated by how much of my
time is spent in dealing with the servicers' antics, thus reducing the number of homeowners that
I and my colleagues are able to help.” Defendants Exhibit “E-2”
34. Defendants are tired of the games and the all-around disrespect for Defendants the
Court, the law, and the rule of law. Defendants are tired of the deceptive, misleading
and predatory actions of Plaintiffs through opposing counsel, who truly are the party
that makes baseless accusations, and then accuses Defendants, of doing the same.
STATE OF MAINE COUNTY OF PENOBSCOT
CIVIL SUPERIOR DISTRICT COURT
Butler & Butler Pro se
44 Patten St.
Bangor Maine. 04401
207-249-5378
Victim.of.crime.and.corruption@gmail.com
Page8
35. Behavior that reminds Defendants of the psychology of the unfaithful wife, who
accuses her husband of infidelity, to divert attention from her and her paramour. So as
to assuage her conscious and divert attention from her activities keeping others
always focused on the wrong thing(s).
36. Which further demonstrates, why Defendant C Butler, chose to pursue Engineering, as
opposed to law after law school.
37. Engineering is similar to law but for the fact, that, it has a sound structure and
hierarchy of citable authorities and rules that work without fail, but for, of course, a
small, reasonable, percentage of the time, due to Heisenberg’s theorem at work. There
is no circumventing or abusing the truth in engineering; 2+2=4 every single time.
38. Plaintiffs ignoring of Defendants has left them nothing to take away from this action.
39. Defendants’ initial answer, to Plaintiffs complaint, makes it their Summary Judgment
not Plaintiffs. Thus making all of Defendants motions, pleadings, affirmations, sworn
statement, arguments and claims, to date and currently at bar, ripe and appropriate
for adjudication now in Defendants favor as improper and untimely exactly as
Plaintiffs argued for themselves against Defendants motions and objections.
40. Thus Defendants submissions to court could not be considered vexatious,
impertinent, improper, or even close to sanctionable behavior, under rule 11.
41. Unlike Plaintiffs continuation on a theme of their “nothing from nothing equals
nothing” line as they keep submitting, the same information, that failed to pass muster
the first time they tried to use it. It’s pathetic in that they seem to possess the belief,
some, sad tiny hope, that this will actually allow them to prevail. This is not a sign of a
healthy mental process or condition.
42. While Plaintiffs Lift of Stay of Proceedings is dead, Plaintiffs Motion for Summary
Judgment is alive, in Plaintiffs perception only. More to the point, as said before, any
Summary Judgment to be had, is Defendants, as stated from the start with Defendants
first submission to the court in this matter. Regardless of whether opposing counsel
wishes to admit this fact, or not.
STATE OF MAINE COUNTY OF PENOBSCOT
CIVIL SUPERIOR DISTRICT COURT
Butler & Butler Pro se
44 Patten St.
Bangor Maine. 04401
207-249-5378
Victim.of.crime.and.corruption@gmail.com
Page9
43. While Mr. McConnell may believe that he is not required to produce the note his
interpretation of the law is off track for the following five reasons:
(a) He uses the wrong law to cite to and base his view of the matter on, due to the
fact he did not look closely at the documents before him. But, just as a
“machine”, would [note the tell-tale mark of a pleadings and motions template
database; case and motion/pleading etc… with tied in case reference, number
at the bottom of Plaintiffs motions. Such is indicative of his and his firms filing
this case “by the numbers 1 2 3” of the instant motions and actions practice
type.]
(b) He instead plows ahead in his mistaken belief that he is on the right track and
not even concerned with the fact that he has failed to establish his case in the
slightest. Of course that’s what we are taught, that being, to always allow the
other side to think they are making all the right moves until the trap is ready.
(c) Even after, Defendants tore apart opposing counsel’s case, citing prevailing
Law Court and Maine Supreme Judicial Court case law and proving up the
legal in-sufficiency of Plaintiffs claims, as noted, recently, referenced to in an
earlier submission, by Defendants, to this court and fully cited.
(d) The Promissory Note and Mortgage Contract at dispute, is in material dispute, and
that would, in and of itself, deny any motion for summary judgment. If that
adjudication were truly available, in the first place, to Plaintiffs in this matter, now
before the bar.
(e) Failing to properly join all parties, so as, and to, allow for, the judgment of their
actions, as full participants, and not in mere interest only and unavailable but for
separate action would further deny Summary Judgment.
(f) Maine State Housing Authority and The City of Bangor, are listed as Parties-In-Interest
when they are, and should have been, from the beginning, as Parties to the complaint,
noted in earlier submissions, by Defendants, of opposing counsels’, Stephanie A.
Williams; Continuing Legal Education course, titled “Maine Foreclosure Law,” where
she states that “no major lien holder is listed as a Party-In-Interest”. Then why did
STATE OF MAINE COUNTY OF PENOBSCOT
CIVIL SUPERIOR DISTRICT COURT
Butler & Butler Pro se
44 Patten St.
Bangor Maine. 04401
207-249-5378
Victim.of.crime.and.corruption@gmail.com
Page10
opposing counsel list Maine State Housing Authority and The City of Bangor as
Parties-In-Interest?
(g) Defendants have retained all of their rights and waived none of their affirmative
claims, defenses, averments and/or avoidance claims and rights.
44. In addition to a missed deadline, Plaintiff’s, would be denied, at this point, the ability
to object to any, of, Defendants, motions and or pleadings. And or statements and/or
of the style, of Defendants statement of material fact, motions and pleadings,
previously filed with this court.
45. This goes as well for, The City of Bangor and LVNV Funding LLC, Camden National
Bank N.A. for the lack of interest shown in the result of this case. Lacking any stated
position, objection or otherwise, they, therefore, should be thought of as
nonresponsive and withdrawn from the matter or be realigned to the complaining
party and take the repercussions of their and their agents, partners, past and present,
and co-conspirators, past and present, actions.
46. Since there is dispute as to the authenticity, validity and actuality of said alleged
Promissory Note and Mortgage Contract; then, it would logically follow that, [t]his is
the very time (emphasis added) that an original [i]s required. Defendants Exhibit “G
and “G-1”.
47. Defendants Exhibits “H” “H-1” and “H-2” demonstrate that while opposing counsel
believes that the issue of a lifting of stay is moot and that [t]hat somehow affects his
original motion for summary judgment. Defendants fear opposing counsel has missed
something in the batch as these documents demonstrate actual intent to proceed so
why talk about the lift being dead and ignoring the Summary Judgment completely?
48. Defendants Exhibit “I” is a letter from former Professor of Law and Attorney Dr.
Gerald Petrucelli, which goes toward explaining the exact nature of Promissory Notes
and the unbelievable ignorance that is being displayed, by the legal community;
around the country, as well, by some, here in Maine.
49. This ignorance, when it is more than obvious, that, there is something more than a
little wrong with the paperwork, these supposed lenders, are filing with the
STATE OF MAINE COUNTY OF PENOBSCOT
CIVIL SUPERIOR DISTRICT COURT
Butler & Butler Pro se
44 Patten St.
Bangor Maine. 04401
207-249-5378
Victim.of.crime.and.corruption@gmail.com
Page11
Registrars of Deeds in the counties of Maine and the Courts of Maine and the perverse
legal decisions these Plaintiffs, until recently, were receiving from the courts.
Combined with the perverse incentive, and thus the moral hazard inherent in a
system that allows someone the ability to pick fights that only they are getting paid
too fight regardless of the legality of that fight or whether they win or not and that
others must spend the farm to fight back is doing nothing but begging for trouble like
we have today at bar.
50. Normally Mr. McConnell would be right in stating that a default judgment is not
available here as there is no counter-complaint at first glance. But for the fact that he
long ago forfeited this case, and forfeited the right to object or otherwise make
argument against Defendants.
51. Defendants made a counter claim and have argued their case as such from the
beginning and therefore a default judgment, based on their counter claim, is available
as much as it is to the Plaintiffs in their motions for final judgment. His Honor, Judge
Anderson, is not stupid fellas he can read as well as the rest of us.
52. Defendants believe that Plaintiffs have just come to this realization and are therefore
attempting to again obfuscate, divert attention from and try and misdirect justice in
their all-out attempt to win this case. No matter the cost.
53. Among the many failures of the arguments concerning this alleged promissory note, is
that the alleged note, when following the logically inferred direction of the
securitization route; as well as proof of such, in Defendants exhibits, to maturation
[a]s a, bond issue, it would have been permanently converted into a stock. Defendants
note that they mentioned this in an earlier submission to this court with the requisite
authority and cite.
54. The language on the mortgage and/or to some variation of thereon “This
Mortgage/Security Instrument, secures a promissory note”, but, if the promissory note is
destroyed through permanent conversion; let alone, physically, as required by the
Generally Accepted Accounting Standards and the Federal Accounting Standards
Board, then the Mortgage/Security Instrument secures nothing even if the loan in
STATE OF MAINE COUNTY OF PENOBSCOT
CIVIL SUPERIOR DISTRICT COURT
Butler & Butler Pro se
44 Patten St.
Bangor Maine. 04401
207-249-5378
Victim.of.crime.and.corruption@gmail.com
Page12
question had been taken out and/or made between the Defendants and Plaintiffs. It
would secure nothing but that which the law is willing to, trounce and circumvent, of
the law, to give the Plaintiffs favorable adjudication. This also continues to fail to take
into account the vitiating effects of the foundational fraud of this case, also cited in an
earlier submission to this court.
55. Then, as now, under rule of law and procedure, it has also been fully discharged and
only one reason, besides vitiating fraud, among the many reasons, why these fine folks
at Perkins Thompson are arguing so hard against its production. The impossibility
reason being the dominate one.
56. The Promissory Note and Mortgage contract, in dispute, has a pre-arraigned deal to
compensate each of the parties in interest, as well the named party TD Bank N.A. from
the proceeds of any foreclosure sale. So therefore in actuality, they would all be full
partners and should then be adjudged on the merits of the case entire.
57. As much as they are full partners behind the scene let them, be so, in front of the bar
and jury. This way Maine State Housing Authority and the City of Bangor cannot profit
from;
(a) a loan never made
(b) from an inside deal that requires foreclosing on a nonexistent loan.
(c) When in a loan it would appear Maine State Housing Authority and The City of
Bangor may have had interest right in, as maybe a quasi-legal contract, now,
due to their misdeeds, they are unable to legally collect on.
(d) So just as much as TD Bank N.A. and Maine State Housing Authority cannot in
equity gain from this matter due to the vitiating foundational fraud of the
matter.
(e) Neither can the parties in interest, either on their own, or as they are
attempting now.
(f) If Plaintiffs were to prevail, though, they would, if this were left unchallenged,
and thus they would profit from their crime and misdeeds through this little
STATE OF MAINE COUNTY OF PENOBSCOT
CIVIL SUPERIOR DISTRICT COURT
Butler & Butler Pro se
44 Patten St.
Bangor Maine. 04401
207-249-5378
Victim.of.crime.and.corruption@gmail.com
Page13
back deal and a crime then is covered by a statute…. Seems, just a little,
inequitable.
(g) being Defendants interpretation, of the facts and events around this case, of
why they, Maine State Housing Authority, and the City of Bangor, make no
argument either way about this matter When fence straddling is as offensive,
or more so, than the outright breaking of the law. Defendants Exhibit “I”.
58. Even if Plaintiffs claim they were following the guidelines for the program Defendant
T Butler, was/is a part of, they are not within those boundaries, either, at a total of
16% interest, as opposed to 4.5%, with a blended rate of roughly 14% interest. This is
the deal Defendant T Butler turned down in writing. Earlier submission to this court
fully cited.
59. This agreement would violate Federal law; [t]hat, due to violations, of federal law, by
the servicers both TD Bank N.A. and Graystone Solutions Inc.; recompense has been
denied to them.
60. It would be why at mediation they, Maine State Housing Authority, kept stressing that
they were not foreclosing. But, if they are allowed to receive the benefit of TD Bank
N.A.’s adjudication here; when they know, they are precluded from doing so, for cause.
So, what’s the reason for, and the full effect of, Maine State Housing Authorities
denying foreclosing on defendants and the City of Bangor being silent? Nada.
61. So who cares if they don’t admit, upfront, their role in the matter right? Not to be
flippant or show any disrespect to this honorable court; Defendants mirthless venom,
is for the Plaintiffs only. That’s only fraudulently representing one’s self to the court
isn’t it? This is in, addition to, the fraudulent representations, to date, by Plaintiffs, as
the holder and/or person with standing and legally able to collect, on this alleged
loan, or demand payment for it.
62. The choice of servicer for Maine State Housing Authorities alleged portion of a
bifurcated loan that Defendants; before a notary, did swear out said affidavit of fact
attesting; under penalty of perjury, that Defendant T Butler did not take out this loan
and that there is evidence of fraud and forgery in the creation of this alleged loan.
STATE OF MAINE COUNTY OF PENOBSCOT
CIVIL SUPERIOR DISTRICT COURT
Butler & Butler Pro se
44 Patten St.
Bangor Maine. 04401
207-249-5378
Victim.of.crime.and.corruption@gmail.com
Page14
63. Defendants attempted to discuss this fact at mediation but the conversation was made
impossible due to the mediator, Robert Lingley, telling Defendants to “Shut up this is
not what we are here for….” when rule 93 says the opposite.
64. Defendants did email their concerns to plaintiff’s counsel and plaintiffs as noted in an
earlier submission to this court and fully cited. Where Defendants were laughed at
and ridiculed for advising these attorneys with, Pinetree Legal Aid and Perkins
Thompson, along with the court mediator and bank administrators, of the crimes they
were committing by conspiring to continue in these contract suggestions/extortions.
65. It would follow, then, that, if, the actions that had Graystone removed for cause, under
federal law, and truly denies Maine State Housing Authority recompense in this
matter, then, this, Party-In-Interest mess, must be an end run around statute, equity
and the rule of law and yet another display of Plaintiffs belief in their ability to put
themselves beyond the judge and justices reach.
66. This is exactly what they have been trying to do all along. Therefore Plaintiffs’ Counsel
must be stopped before Plaintiffs and their counsel bring additional harm to that
already wrought on Defendant Homeowners.
67. LVNV Funding LLC. Whom Plaintiffs moved for removal of, due to no response, as a
party to this alleged contract.
68. This all beside the point and irrelevant moot and frivolous as the Defendants point out
they have raised standing, as but one example of the threshold issues Defendants have
raised; as well as and in addition to:
(a) the total loan amount is not correct,
(b) the contract term, and total amount due are not fixed and wrong and cannot
be determined as the alleged, loan for the city is running at 3% compounded
over 30 years. Defendants have no control of this as they have had their
credit ruined and had their means of making payment to that account, denied
them, as the city decided to not accept payment, instead choosing,
unilaterally, to wait until the house sells.
STATE OF MAINE COUNTY OF PENOBSCOT
CIVIL SUPERIOR DISTRICT COURT
Butler & Butler Pro se
44 Patten St.
Bangor Maine. 04401
207-249-5378
Victim.of.crime.and.corruption@gmail.com
Page15
(c) This without asking Defendants, notifying them of such or asking for their
consent to be responsible for the up keep, taxes and insurance, of a home,
while being nothing more than defrauded victim borrowers, now renters, set
to fail from the start; if the paperwork is to be believed, with a crushing debt
load.
(d) This of which disqualifies this from being a negotiable instrument and is a
further bifurcation of the underlying property’s’ clouded title, a direct result
of Plaintiffs actions.
(e) This from the beginning in Defendants submissions before this court. No Mr.
McConnell the law says you must, present the “Original Note”, as a matter of
fact. You argue vehemently against doing so because you can’t. I’ll give you a
hint it doesn’t exist besides in the vitiating foundational fraud it was created
under and in you and your client’s imagination.
CONCLUSION:
69. All of opposing counsel’s comments motions and pleadings should be stricken for
exactly the reasons, opposing counsel, has stated and contended; as the basis for
adjudication in their clients favor, as his motions list regarding Defendants pleadings
motions etc…
70. Defendants apologize for any pages over on the page count, if any, Defendants
honestly believe an objection, motion to strike and memorandum of law, together, do
not go over at 22 -23 pages as the total would have been 25 pages complete.
71. Defendants can’t help it that opposing counsel has nothing for evidence and therefore
has no problem making a page count.
72. Besides Plaintiffs forfeited their right to complain or object long ago.
73. Defendants apologize for the length of exhibits, as well, but opposing counsel seems
to feel that defendants do not provide enough evidence of their claims. Therefore in
an effort to be conciliatory have thus provided at great expense more than usual
evidence to back up our opinions and claims.
STATE OF MAINE COUNTY OF PENOBSCOT
CIVIL SUPERIOR DISTRICT COURT
Butler & Butler Pro se
44 Patten St.
Bangor Maine. 04401
207-249-5378
Victim.of.crime.and.corruption@gmail.com
Page16
74. Further, are they more interested in the merits of this case or its minutia? That kind
of attention, to detail, and intense focus, would have been the right thing to do in the
beginning of the Market, that became the financial meltdown, and the same applied
towards securitization, as well would have been truly grand. In doing so then many of
the elderly now and in the coming years wouldn’t be facing that future with no means
of support.
“How would you feel if you worked for a state or local government for 20 or 30
years only to have your pension slashed dramatically or taken away entirely?
Well, this exact scenario is playing out from coast to coast and in the years
ahead millions of elderly Americans are going to be affected by broken
promises and vanishing pensions. In the old days, things were much different.
You would get hired by a big company or a government institution and you
knew that the retirement benefits that they were promising you would be there
when you retired in a few decades. Unfortunately, we have now arrived at a
time when government institutions and big companies have promised far more
than they are able to deliver, and "pension reform" has become one of the hot
button issues all over the nation. ……. According to Northwestern University
Professor John Rauh, the latest estimate of the total amount of unfunded
pension and healthcare obligations for state and local governments across the
United States is 4.4 trillion dollars. America is continually becoming a poorer
nation and all of that money is simply not going to magically materialize
somehow. So where is that 4.4 trillion dollars going to come from? Well, either
pension benefits are going to have to be cut a lot more all over America or
taxes will need to be raised dramatically. Either way, we are all going to feel
the pain of these broken promises.” Broken Promises: Pensions All Over
America Are Being Savagely Cut Or Are Vanishing Completely | 03/12/2012
| The Economic Collapse by Michael Snyder.
STATE OF MAINE COUNTY OF PENOBSCOT
CIVIL SUPERIOR DISTRICT COURT
Butler & Butler Pro se
44 Patten St.
Bangor Maine. 04401
207-249-5378
Victim.of.crime.and.corruption@gmail.com
Page17
75. Doing so would have gone a long way towards, if not outright preventing, entirely,
the devastating damages to Defendants lives, their credit and our country. Maybe
then, after a lifetime of work, People, like, our Judges, Teachers, Firemen Doctors,
Nurses, Policemen, County Registrars, Municipal Employees of all descriptions our
neighbors, people we all know and care about, who now, because of Plaintiffs
business model; a business model shared by the financial industry they are a part of
as an industry wide corporate culture.
76. These people, including people in the State of Maine’s; State Employee Pension Plan
as noted in a suit, now, before the courts, have been unlawfully deprived of their
pensions and most will end up having to work, like a dog, some common cur, till they
take their final dying breath and no one, no one, (emphasis added) it seems, is willing
to make the responsible part/y/ies pay either that or the courts have been deceived
up to now into not accepting the facts as they are.
77. It seems that we have not learned our lesson; or more accurately, people think the
wrong things will solve the current problem. What’s lost on most is that mortgage
defaults and foreclosures are but a symptomatic result of the, afore mentioned,
business model. A problem that the “Great Depression” taught us, that, inaction, and
incorrect action, not enough resources, to get the job done and partisan politics; that
appear to be working in and for the favor of corporations and their sycophants will
not yield a result that will favor this country nor its people.
78. This defeats us in this great endeavor to correct and prevent this problem now, but,
more importantly, prevention in the future as well until we can face the hard facts.
79. As it is, Defendants, are un-encouraged by projected views of the future as it stands
and the legal fights while heartening; are also so many as to be scary as, it’s, but a
drop in the bucket of what’s around the, proverbial, corner. These 25 examples are
but a fraction of the suits being brought by investors and of the 3000+ pension plans
across the country against but a couple of banks that the very things they are being
sued for these Plaintiffs have done as well. They have no excuse though as what the
others in their industry blame on third parties mismanaged subsidiaries or just
STATE OF MAINE COUNTY OF PENOBSCOT
CIVIL SUPERIOR DISTRICT COURT
Butler & Butler Pro se
44 Patten St.
Bangor Maine. 04401
207-249-5378
Victim.of.crime.and.corruption@gmail.com
Page18
purchased dogs like Countrywide; Plaintiffs do all they do everything in-house.
Defendants Exhibits “K“ and “K-1” through “K-25”.”
80.Minutia, that in the long run, neither advances the case or the common cause of our
judiciary as expressed in the first sentence of the United States Constitution. Where
justice; first, amongst the many freedoms liberty has purchased, the right, for us to
exercise; in our attempt to build a more perfect Union. Justice, number one in line,
without justice it’s a revolution on simmer as man rebels against tyranny.
“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect
Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for
the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the
Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and
establish this Constitution for the United States of America”
81. Nor does this case, as set out by Plaintiff’s counsel, seek to illuminate the rocky path
that justice is the guiding light for. That, it doesn’t allow the best, that, the law has to
offer, among those, instruction, to find its way from the lofty perches of the Judiciary
to the hands of the common man where it might serve humanity in that great shared
endeavor, in the work of the continuation of the species and our country.
82. If the law fails to instruct or make right that which is obviously wrong and criminal
then justice has devolved to pre-equity days, like those prior to the 15th century.
Where the laws’ response to “No Writ, No Remedy,” due in large part to the negative,
and untoward influence, exercised, on both court and jury, by the wealthy, was the
Chancery Court, developed to provide equity and fairness to the English and
ultimately American, in the end, as well, system of law.
83.Mr. McConnell should consider the negative position, it would appear, he has created
for himself, his firm and most importantly his clients, of whom, he and his firm have
obviously, openly, brazenly and idiotically, failed, to serve said clients best interests.
Defendants wish to thank opposing counsel though, give credit where credit is due
mind you; as he has so graciously made Defendants case for them.
84. That being; the legal reasons, statutes, rules and law with cites, for the most part, on
how to handle all of Plaintiffs, motions pleadings and or submissions to this court, as
STATE OF MAINE COUNTY OF PENOBSCOT
CIVIL SUPERIOR DISTRICT COURT
Butler & Butler Pro se
44 Patten St.
Bangor Maine. 04401
207-249-5378
Victim.of.crime.and.corruption@gmail.com
Page19
the situation is opposite of what opposing counsel thought, just as opposing counsel
wanted done with Defendants submissions.
85. Defendants would ask that these fine folks at Perkins Thompson, Maine State
Housing Authority, The City of Bangor, TD Bank N.A., Camden National Bank N.A., and
the anyone else culpable in this mess. Please pay your premiums people, and tighten
up your seat belts. It’s gonna get real bumpy from here on out.
86. Defendants have a huge balance running on the expense account to date, for the work
resources and assistant. Required to fight and to legally destroy Plaintiffs and their
Counsel Perkins Thompson. Of whom, the firm, and its employees, specifically, will be
paying it.
87. No one takes almost 2 years of Defendants time, which seems a little like
impressment or theft of services, as life is time and time is life and no one may
deprive Defendants, or any other citizen of this fine country; that my family helped
fight for and found.
88. Nor can Defendants be deprived of life/time without due process. No one just walks
away without paying the piper for the theft of so much of so many peoples time, or
their life, better said. They try, though, as we have seen with Plaintiffs and others like
them every day.
89. Plaintiffs and those like them will continue to do this sort of thing and anything else
they desire to do, as they wish, until, and only until, we as a people say no and the
courts make said criminals pay for their crimes like any other common criminal.
Defendants would put their own Mothers in jail, if responsible, for this mess.
90. Herein submitted is Defendants bill for the life/time wasted by M’s McConnell and
Talbot along with Mlle. Williams and their firm, Perkins Thompson P.A., and of course
Plaintiffs. Defendant’s time, may be up for debate; not in Defendants opinion, but it
cannot be argued that Defendant’s assistant’s time, costs and expenses are
unarguable. Defendants Exhibit “J”
STATE OF MAINE COUNTY OF PENOBSCOT
CIVIL SUPERIOR DISTRICT COURT
Butler & Butler Pro se
44 Patten St.
Bangor Maine. 04401
207-249-5378
Victim.of.crime.and.corruption@gmail.com
Page20
91. Defendants can’t help it that they had to go back to school and had to work an
agreement for help in quashing this fraudulent foreclosure and that doing so
required 15 hour days 7 days a week.
92. While opposing counsel may have more to do in a day. Defendants only have
Plaintiffs and their attorneys as the subject dictating their day.
93. In the end even if, normally, Plaintiff’s Counsel’s, [Perkins Thompson P.A.] mail
redelivery system, is the epitome of efficient interoffice mail and USPS (United States
Postal Service) redelivery, it doesn’t amount to “excusable neglect” or “good cause” as
defined by Maine rule of procedure and case law to date.
94. Wherefore, Plaintiffs, by way of counsel, having not established and cleared the first
requisite hurdle, “Good Cause,” any claim to, let alone the making of, a “meritorious
Defense,” or arguments about, regarding or concerning Defendants affidavit and
request for an entry of default and default judgment is irrelevant, moot, untimely and
improper.
95. Plaintiff’s defensive, spiteful, untimely and improper, response to Defendants Affidavit
and Request for an entry of Default and Default Judgment, by calling for sanctions for
the filing of, [t]hat, required, by statute and rule of law is, as stated before, spiteful,
venomous and a true display of the vexatious nature of Plaintiff litigants.
96. It, Defendants affidavit and request, is not a motion per se, but the paperwork, backed
up with adequate and reasonable evidence as would be admissible at trial and
required, to, claim, that, which Plaintiffs lost right to, and conversely lost any right to
argue about and/or make objection to.
97. If Plaintiffs and their counsel would like Defendants to more adequately prove their
case, than they have already, against Plaintiffs and Counsel, then they will have to wait
for Defendants coming complaint.
98. Defendants, state that maybe opposing counsel should have read their clients file and
done more than little or no “Due Diligence,” as required by professional rule and
statute. Particularly in light of the fact, and after they were put on notice, as to the
vitiating fraud involved in, the supposed, formation of this alleged contract. In
STATE OF MAINE COUNTY OF PENOBSCOT
CIVIL SUPERIOR DISTRICT COURT
Butler & Butler Pro se
44 Patten St.
Bangor Maine. 04401
207-249-5378
Victim.of.crime.and.corruption@gmail.com
Page21
addition to the lack of a loan, between Defendants and Plaintiffs period. That the
evidence being presented by Plaintiffs is a fraud upon the court, as the note and
mortgage, are a fraudulent promissory note and mortgage being presented as
legitimate.
99. Any action after that, it would then logically follow, would be a conspiracy to continue
said initial fraud, by way of this continued action, with plaintiffs predecessors and the
current management and administration team of the Plaintiffs respective businesses
and corporate entities on board and fully culpable and complicitory in this crime by
their ascent to continue on with this suit when they know, or should know, they
should stop.
100. Nothing in Defendants observation of, statements about and the events, documents,
and/or otherwise, of this case, as relates to this case, is untrue or unsupported and/or
unsupportable by evidence, both admitted as exhibits and yet to be admitted exhibits
of Defendants.
101. Evidence, of which, only a portion have Defendants entered in support of their
position and contentions and maybe Plaintiffs and their counsel would be better
served by the thought, and reflection on the fact that, that, while truthful, accurate and
devastating to Plaintiffs case. Plaintiffs should focus on, and should be glad, that it is
Defendants, making these claims, with all this available evidence, and not the
Penobscot County District Attorney.
102. Evidence, that nevertheless, as entered, is sufficient for the job of establishing the
facts as laid out by Defendants in their arguments.
103. “Momma always said count your blessings, Papa always said, know when to cut bait;
even son if that lure, is the most expensive one you have, or even if your, most favorite. ”
104. Ignorance of one’s, own, case is akin and comparable to the legal maxim, “ignorance
of the law is no excuse.” Also known as being dumb as a hammer when you have to
know you’re wrong.
STATE OF MAINE COUNTY OF PENOBSCOT
CIVIL SUPERIOR DISTRICT COURT
Butler & Butler Pro se
44 Patten St.
Bangor Maine. 04401
207-249-5378
Victim.of.crime.and.corruption@gmail.com
Page22
105. Plaintiff’s case is nothing but an argument for the bringing of criminal charges and
malpractice; and as such, yet another source and basis for the right and correct
decision for adjudication in favor of Defendants.
106. Other than that, simply put, this is not Defendants concern. That is but for the
reparations for the damages incurred against them by Plaintiffs, their counsel, and
any and all prior partners and/or co-conspirators in crime, one and all.
107. Does anyone find it odd that Plaintiffs are willing to spend more on attorney fees
than they are allegedly owed on the face of the loan?
108. More than the house is worth, even more so, particularly now that Plaintiffs and
their partners in the Financial Industry have destroyed the value of it with their
negligent and unlawful behavior in the markets.
109. “It took decades of bad policies and bad ideas to get us into this depression – bad
policies and bad ideas that …. flourished because for a long time they worked very well,
not for the nation as a whole but for a handful of very wealthy, very influential people.”
Paul Krugman – End This Depression Now! pp. 23-4
110. “For tyranny to rein, all, that must be done, is, that all good men, do nothing.”
PRAYER:
Therefore, Defendants Pray this honorable court strike and deny Plaintiffs Motion for
Sanctions and Incorporated Memorandum of Law and each and every other; and equally
untimely, improper motion of Plaintiffs, in their entirety. In the alternative Defendants
make their continued demand for Jury Trial; as they have requested, from the beginning,
pursuant to Maine Rules of Civil Procedure 38.
Humbly and respectfully, submitted, this 29th day of May 2012
___________________________________________________________
Twila A. Butler f/k/a Wolf Defendant Pro se
___________________________________________________________
Charlton A. Butler Jr. Defendant-Intervenor Pro se
STATE OF MAINE COUNTY OF PENOBSCOT
CIVIL SUPERIOR DISTRICT COURT
Butler & Butler Pro se
44 Patten St.
Bangor Maine. 04401
207-249-5378
Victim.of.crime.and.corruption@gmail.com
Page23
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE BY MAIL
Defendants hereby certify they have this day, or the following as allowed by rule,
served the foregoing document upon the parties of record in this proceeding set forth
below (by delivering a copy thereof in person) and/or (by mailing a copy thereof, prepaid
and properly addressed by first class mail).
Perkins Thompson Attorneys: Paul Niklas
Stephanie A. Williams Assistant Solicitor City of Bangor.
David B. McConnell 73 Harlow St.
Joseph G. Talbot One Canal Plaza
P.O. Box 426 Bangor Me. 04401
Portland Me. 04112-0426
DATED this 29th, day of May 2012.
____________________________________________
____________________________________________
STATE OF MAINE COUNTY OF PENOBSCOT
CIVIL SUPERIOR DISTRICT COURT
DEFENDANTS RESPONSE TO APPEARANCE OF JOSEPH G. TALBOT AND PLAINTIFFS
NEWEST OBJECTIONS AND MOTIONS Butler &
Butler Pro se
44 Patten St.
Bangor Maine. 04401
207-249-5378
Victim.of.crime.and.corruption@gmail.com
Page1
DEFENDANTS RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS ANNOUNCEMENT OF APPEARANCE BY JOSEPH
G. TALBOT AND OBJECTIONS AND CLAIM OF LACK OF DEFAULT AVAILABLE THE LACK
OF A COUNTER-CLAIM FILED CONCURRENTLY WITH NOTICE, DEFENDANTS OBJECTIONS
TO PLAINTIFFS OBJECTION TO DEFENDANTS REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT AND
DEFAULT JUDGMENT; DEFENDANTS BILL OF COSTS.
TITLE TO REAL PROPERTY INVOLVED,
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF SOUGHT
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
Now, come Defendants in response and predominately before the bar, today, in yet
another time wasting fishing trip and delay tactic, by an already beaten, and disgraced
firm and its attorneys, with this newest addition to the fray, M. Talbot and his
objections and motions.
1. Unfortunately changing the batter will not avail Perkins Thompson of much.
Defendants are aware this change has to do with the nature of contractual
foreclosure contracts with attorney firms. Dictating, the, who, what and how
much of flat fee contract foreclosure mill work. Predicated on whether there is
TD BANK N.A. f/k/a FIRST MASSACHUSETTS
BANK N.A. Plaintiff,
v.
TWIALA A. BUTLER f/k/a WOLF
AND
CHARLTON A. BUTLER JR. pro se
Defendant
and
Defendant-Intervenor.
Case No.: BANSC-RE-2010-187
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF SOUGHT
DEFENDANTS RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS
ANNOUNCEMENT OF APPEARANCE BY JOSEPH G.
TALBOT AND OBJECTIONS AND CLAIM OF LACK OF
DEFAULT AVAILABLE FOR LACK OF A COUNTERCLAIM;
FILED CONCURRENTLY WITH NOTICE,
DEFENDANTS OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS
OBJECTION TO DEFENDANTS REQUEST FOR
ENTRY OF DEFAULT AND DEFAULT JUDGMENT;
DEFENDANTS BILL OF COSTS.
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
Judge/Magistrate: The Most Honorable Justice
Anderson.
Date of Hearing: _________
Time of Hearing: _________
STATE OF MAINE COUNTY OF PENOBSCOT
CIVIL SUPERIOR DISTRICT COURT
DEFENDANTS RESPONSE TO APPEARANCE OF JOSEPH G. TALBOT AND PLAINTIFFS
NEWEST OBJECTIONS AND MOTIONS Butler &
Butler Pro se
44 Patten St.
Bangor Maine. 04401
207-249-5378
Victim.of.crime.and.corruption@gmail.com
Page2
opposition to the foreclosure or not and whether or not Plaintiffs have to go to
trial and whether or not Plaintiffs have to go on appeal.
2. But this is getting beyond Defendants understanding; when it is already a
matter of procedural fact, that, they have no objections available to them and
any and all affirmative defenses and claims were preserved at the beginning of
this affair, before the bar, by Defendants, in their first submission, to this court,
with their answer to Plaintiffs Summons and Complaint.
3. Defendants simultaneously counter-claimed (emphasis added) as well, with
even a partial disagreement; let alone, complete disagreement but for names
and address.
4. On which Defendants base their claim to an adjudicatable result in Defendants
favor in this matter before the bar.
5. For that reason, while default judgment, is not normally available. That would
not be the case in this matter; as counter claims have been raised, by
Defendants in every pleading before the bar.
6. Plaintiffs every submission, improper and untimely or fails to state a claim on
which to base relief.
7. Therefore is available with Defendants counterclaim. Defendants stated that
“they disagreed with of at least,” (emphasis added) meaning not all and not an
amount of zero” some of Plaintiffs Complaint.” While preserving of all
Affirmative Defenses, applicable, to their case” standing but one.
8. Defendants, then, pressed their case for summary judgment, to opposing
counsels, for all appearances, ignoring the subject and emphasis of invalidity of
claim by and through repeated demonstrations of various documents received
from Plaintiff’s counsel, in what was supposed to be a Qualified Written
Request, turned into interrogatories, erroneously, which allowed counsel to
side step the issue.
STATE OF MAINE COUNTY OF PENOBSCOT
CIVIL SUPERIOR DISTRICT COURT
DEFENDANTS RESPONSE TO APPEARANCE OF JOSEPH G. TALBOT AND PLAINTIFFS
NEWEST OBJECTIONS AND MOTIONS Butler &
Butler Pro se
44 Patten St.
Bangor Maine. 04401
207-249-5378
Victim.of.crime.and.corruption@gmail.com
Page3
9. Through the repeated raising of threshold issues, filing of dispositive motions
affidavits and pleadings and the repeating of these matters and with cites and
evidence; while, again, all appearances, opposing counsel failed to get the point.
10. Opposing counsel argues and gripes, throughout Federal and State proceedings
that Defendants, failed to engage with opposing counsel on the subjects and
points he was on.
11. Obviously Defendants waste no time and give no validity to incorrect
assumptions and Defendants are not obligated to explain to Plaintiffs their case
or what they missed. Not at first anyway.
12.What Plaintiffs are missing and fail to see, about opposing counsels’ arguments,
is, never once in their incredible arrogance, ever, not even once, realize that
maybe Defendants had a reason for not bending and wasting this courts time by
arguing such useless matters with Plaintiff’s counsel about things of no
consequence.
13. As Defendants do not have the resources of a large firm such as Perkins
Thompson, a multitude of assistants, legal research data bases and the like of a
modern and large firm, had to therefore define their case a little differently than
usual, in an effort to shorten this incredible mess down to its lowest time frame
so chose to lay their foundation and wait for now.
14. Thus any and all defenses have been claimed and it was Plaintiff’s counsel’s
responsibility to see that fact and to defend against it.
15. But, as that did not happen, then estoppel, and res judicata, would preclude
Plaintiffs from taking another approach to prosecute this foreclosure again.
16. The relief Defendants have sought does not preclude Defendants from
prosecuting their own complaint afresh and from the four corners of their own
complaint. Defendants are thinking of putting Defendants future legal matters,
against Plaintiffs, in the hands of a friend of Defendants, Pat Ferguson, an
attorney of good repute, from South Carolina if she has the time.
STATE OF MAINE COUNTY OF PENOBSCOT
CIVIL SUPERIOR DISTRICT COURT
DEFENDANTS RESPONSE TO APPEARANCE OF JOSEPH G. TALBOT AND PLAINTIFFS
NEWEST OBJECTIONS AND MOTIONS Butler &
Butler Pro se
44 Patten St.
Bangor Maine. 04401
207-249-5378
Victim.of.crime.and.corruption@gmail.com
Page4
17. This is Black Letter law gentlemen, Defendants arguments were chosen from,
and modeled on, decisions of the Supreme Judicial Court of Maine and the Law
Court of Maine. Drafted in Defendants own words but using the courts decisions
and authorities as base.
18. Defendants wish that Plaintiffs and their attorneys could see their way to
understanding some simple facts. If Defendants were wrong they would have
settled or begged for peace long ago.
19. But Defendants are not wrong. Perkins Thompson Attorneys and their client
the Plaintiffs, made this an all or nothing affair, instead of fixing their fraud and
covering up their crime; before Defendants realized what had occurred, before
at and after closing, when they had a chance.
20. Having chosen not to do that Plaintiffs, and their counsel, it would seem,
instead, have chosen to go down in blazing glory, flames, humiliation, glory,
disbarment and all. Ya ‘gotta’ respect that …… I guess.
21. It would appear, but for the crying, Plaintiffs have lost. Nevertheless we can
argue in front of a jury, at worst, and see how that works out for the fine folks at
Perkins Thompson P.A. First, though, we must argue why Defendants will not
be going down that route at all.
22. This is just another sign of the Foreclosure Mills doing what they do.
Foreclosure Mills who push and push, with or without any cognizable res or
rem.
23. They have pushed this case right to litigation, and the litigation charges; and not
the flat fee they normally get for bulk foreclosures. Small money for unlawfully
throwing people to the curb.
24. Litigation fees, is what these attorneys, have been after, all along. Perversely,
regardless of whether they win or lose they get paid and that’s one hell of a
perverse incentive to not act in your client’s best interest; as they are now.
Defendants point out the basis for moral hazard, here, is huge and apparently it
STATE OF MAINE COUNTY OF PENOBSCOT
CIVIL SUPERIOR DISTRICT COURT
DEFENDANTS RESPONSE TO APPEARANCE OF JOSEPH G. TALBOT AND PLAINTIFFS
NEWEST OBJECTIONS AND MOTIONS Butler &
Butler Pro se
44 Patten St.
Bangor Maine. 04401
207-249-5378
Victim.of.crime.and.corruption@gmail.com
Page5
would appear opposing counsel has succumbed to the sirens call, and
percentage wise very profitable as very few of people are like Defendants and
argue when they know they are right.
25. Thus Defendants want to make an example here and want to stop this
destruction, of the United States by Wall Street that Defendants are tired of
watching occur.
26. From Congress to our Judiciary by a watering down of our regulations, to taking
advantage of the trust of harried justices, in overburdened court systems,
across the country, and here in Maine, as Murphy, Carter and Bradbury, as but a
few of the cases available, would show.
PRAYER
Therefore, for the reasons here, and in Defendants other submission, submitted prior to
now and today. That, Plaintiffs motions and pleadings, currently at bar, filed by
Stephanie A. Williams and David B. McConnell of Perkins Thompson P.A., on behalf of
their clients, and now Joseph G. Talbot, should be stricken in their entirety. That
Plaintiffs take nothing away from this action, but, criminal charges, punitive and
exemplary damages, actual damages, costs, and any attorney’s fees and costs available,
the exact amount to be decided at a later hearing for that purpose or a later law suit. In
the alternative Defendants reiterate their demand for a jury trial pursuant to Rule 38 of
the Maine Rules of Civil Procedure.
Humbly and respectfully, submitted this 29th day of May 2012
___________________________________________________________
Twila A. Butler f/k/a Wolf Defendant Pro se
___________________________________________________________
Charlton A. Butler Jr. Defendant-Intervenor Pro se
STATE OF MAINE COUNTY OF PENOBSCOT
CIVIL SUPERIOR DISTRICT COURT
DEFENDANTS RESPONSE TO APPEARANCE OF JOSEPH G. TALBOT AND PLAINTIFFS
NEWEST OBJECTIONS AND MOTIONS Butler &
Butler Pro se
44 Patten St.
Bangor Maine. 04401
207-249-5378
Victim.of.crime.and.corruption@gmail.com
Page6
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE BY MAIL
Defendants hereby certify they have this day, or the following as allowed by rule, served
the foregoing document upon the parties of record in this proceeding set forth below (by
delivering a copy thereof in person) and/or (by mailing a copy thereof, pre-paid and
properly addressed by first class mail).
Perkins Thompson Attorneys:
Stephanie A. Williams
David B. McConnell
Joseph G. Talbot
One Canal Plaza
P.O. Box 426
Portland Me. 04112-0426
Paul Niklas
Assistant City Solicitor
The City of Bangor Maine.
73 Harlow St.
Bangor Me. 04401
DATED this 29th, day of May 2012 .
____________________________________________
_____________________________________________
STATE OF MAINE COUNTY OF PENOBSCOT
CIVIL SUPERIOR DISTRICT COURT
DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT (M. R. Civ. P. 55(b))
Butler & Butler Pro se
44 Patten St.
Bangor Maine. 04401
207-249-5378
Victim.of.crime.and.corruption@gmail.com
Page1
MOTION TO COMPELL THE PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
TITLE TO REAL PROPERTY INVOLVED,
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF SOUGHT
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PURSUANT TO RULE 38.
Now, come, Defendants Twila A. Butler f/k/a Wolf and Charlton A. Butler Jr. with request
and demand for the compelling of the production of documents, that after almost two
years, Plaintiffs have still not produced the alleged original promissory note and
mortgage. Documents, required, due to a material dispute of the validity of the
documents in question. Plaintiffs have done nothing, but, show the same tired copy, of a
promissory note and mortgage, they claim to possess and of which entitles them the
right to foreclose. As much as a copy of a check is insufficient to compel payment so,
then, is a copy of a promissory note, insufficient to establish and compel payment as well
both being a unique and one of a kind instrument with only one (emphasis added) set of
TD BANK N.A. f/k/a FIRST
MASSACHUSETTS BANK N.A.
Plaintiff,
v.
TWIALA A. BUTLER f/k/a WOLF
AND
CHARLTON A. BUTLER JR. pro se
Defendant
and
Defendant-Intervenor.
Case No.: BANSC-RE-2010-187
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF SOUGHT
MOTION TO COMPELL THE PRODUCTION
OF DOCUMENTS
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
Judge/Magistrate: The Right Most Honorable
Justice Anderson.
Date of Hearing: _________
Time of Hearing: _________
STATE OF MAINE COUNTY OF PENOBSCOT
CIVIL SUPERIOR DISTRICT COURT
DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT (M. R. Civ. P. 55(b))
Butler & Butler Pro se
44 Patten St.
Bangor Maine. 04401
207-249-5378
Victim.of.crime.and.corruption@gmail.com
Page2
legal presentment and payment. Plaintiffs are encouraging the establishment of never
ending payment and you only earn the right to payment and fill out the paperwork once.
1. Defendants make request or otherwise make demand of Plaintiffs, TD Bank N.A.,
Maine State Housing Authority and the City of Bangor, be compelled to produce,
within thirty (30) days of the service hereof, at 44 Patten St. Bangor Maine 04401, or
schedule a time at 78, Exchange Street. Bangor, Maine 04401the original Promissory
Note and mortgage. Plaintiffs, proof to their claim was allegedly signed by Defendant
on December 04, 2000 and without of which this action cannot go forward as it is
absolutely required to dispose of this matter now at bar.
2. The documents supposedly, according to the paperwork, that were created in less
than one business day.
3. Defendant T Butler, according to the testimony of Plaintiffs documents,
(i) arrived at the closing, late in the afternoon close to closing time, and was
being rushed as the seller had a flight out of town and had to hurry, where,
(ii) Defendant T Butler, according to Plaintiffs, by way of the date on the
paperwork,
(iii) made application for a loan,
(iv) was approved for this alleged loan, this, prior to the age of high speed online
loan origination.
(v) had an appraisal scheduled and
(vi) performed and
(vii) Defendants then paid for that appraisal;
STATE OF MAINE COUNTY OF PENOBSCOT
CIVIL SUPERIOR DISTRICT COURT
DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT (M. R. Civ. P. 55(b))
Butler & Butler Pro se
44 Patten St.
Bangor Maine. 04401
207-249-5378
Victim.of.crime.and.corruption@gmail.com
Page3
(viii) not Plaintiffs as claimed by opposing counsels documents,
(ix) Paid off taxes
(x) got an abstract and title search done and paid for
(xi) closed on the alleged loan and
(xii) then managed, if the paperwork is to be believed, to get said paperwork to the
County Registrars office before it closed.
(xiii) This was accomplished, according to Plaintiffs documents,
(xiv) despite the fact that it was after 5:00 when the closing concluded.
4. For these reasons and more do Defendants demand of Plaintiffs the paperwork that
they say Defendant T Butler signed and thereby did commit or otherwise indebt
herself contractually to Plaintiff’s.
5. This despite having told Plaintiffs she had done no such thing willing or knowingly or
otherwise and Plaintiffs would therefore need to provide the original as she does not
believe it exists. How could it? She never, knowingly, with contractual intent to be
bound after a meeting of the minds, for the exchange of value, signed any such thing.
Respectfully submitted to this Honorable Court this 29th day of May 2012.
___________________________________________________________
Twila A. Butler f/k/a Wolf Defendant Pro se
___________________________________________________________
Charlton A. Butler Jr. Defendant-Intervenor Pro se
STATE OF MAINE COUNTY OF PENOBSCOT
CIVIL SUPERIOR DISTRICT COURT
DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT (M. R. Civ. P. 55(b))
Butler & Butler Pro se
44 Patten St.
Bangor Maine. 04401
207-249-5378
Victim.of.crime.and.corruption@gmail.com
Page4
NOTICE: Pursuant to M. R. Civ. P. 7(c), opposition to this Motion must
be filed not later than 21 days after the filing of the Motion unless
otherwise directed by the court to do differently. Otherwise you waive
you right to object or move to strike and could lose the basis of the
case you received this warning for.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE BY MAIL
Defendants hereby certify they have this day, or the following as allowed by rule,
served the foregoing document upon the parties of record in this proceeding set forth
below (by delivering a copy thereof in person) and/or (by mailing a copy thereof, prepaid
and properly addressed by first class mail).
Perkins Thompson Attorneys: Paul Niklas
Stephanie A. Williams Assistant Solicitor City of Bangor.
David B. McConnell 73 Harlow St.
Joseph G. Talbot One Canal Plaza
P.O. Box 426 Bangor Me. 04401
Portland Me. 04112-0426
DATED this 29th, day of May 2012.
____________________________________________
____________________________________________