The Maine Crime: Mortgage Fraud In The Great State Of Maine

The Evidence continues in this mystery of WHY ARE STILL HERE or Part Three:

Rule 1002. Requirement of the Original
An original writing, recording, or photograph is required in order to prove
these rules or a federal statute provides otherwise.
Notes
(Pub. L. 93-595, §1, Jan. 2, 1975, 88 Stat. 1946; Apr. 26, 2011, eff. Dec. 1, 2011.)
Notes of Advisory Committee on Proposed Rules
The rule is the familiar one requiring production of the original of a document to prove its
contents, expanded to include writings, recordings, and photographs, as defined in Rule 1001(1)
and (2), supra.
Application of the rule requires a resolution of the question whether contents are sought to be
proved. Thus an event may be proved by nondocumentary evidence, even though a written
record of it was made. If, however, the event is sought to be proved by the written record, the
rule applies. For example, payment may be proved without producing the written receipt which
was given. Earnings may be proved without producing books of account in which they are
entered. McCormick §198; 4 Wigmore §1245. Nor does the rule apply to testimony that books or
records have been examined and found not to contain any reference to a designated matter.
The assumption should not be made that the rule will come into operation on every occasion
when use is made of a photograph in evidence. On the contrary, the rule will seldom apply to
ordinary photographs. In most instances a party wishes to introduce the item and the question
raised is the propriety of receiving it in evidence. Cases in which an offer is made of the
testimony of a witness as to what he saw in a photograph or motion picture, without producing
the same, are most unusual. The usual course is for a witness on the stand to identify the
photograph or motion picture as a correct representation of events which he saw or of a scene
with which he is familiar. In fact he adopts the picture as his testimony, or, in common parlance,
uses the picture to illustrate his testimony. Under these circumstances, no effort is made to prove
the contents of the picture, and the rule is inapplicable. Paradis, The Celluloid Witness, 37
U.Colo.L. Rev. 235, 249-251 (1965).
On occasion, however, situations arise in which contents are sought to be proved. Copyright,
defamation, and invasion of privacy by photograph or motion picture falls in this category.
Similarly as to situations in which the picture is offered as having independent probative value,
e.g. automatic photograph of bank robber. See People v. Doggett, 83 Cal.App.2d 405, 188 P.2d
792 (1948) photograph of defendants engaged in indecent act; Mouser and Philbin, Photographic
Evidence—Is There a Recognized Basis for Admissibility? 8 Hastings L.J. 310 (1957). The most
commonly encountered of this latter group is of course, the X-ray, with substantial authority
calling for production of the original. Daniels v. Iowa City, 191 Iowa 811, 183 N.W. 415 (1921);
Cellamare v. Third Acc. Transit Corp., 273 App.Div. 260, 77 N.Y.S.2d 91 (1948); Patrick &
Tilman v. Matkin, 154 Okl. 232, 7 P.2d 414 (1932); Mendoza v. Rivera, 78 P.R.R. 569 (1955)
DEFENDANTS
EXHIBITS
G
its content unless
It should be noted, however, that Rule 703, supra, allows an expert to give an opinion based on
matters not in evidence, and the present rule must be read as being limited accordingly in its
application. Hospital records which may be admitted as business records under Rule 803(6)
commonly contain reports interpreting X-rays by the staff radiologist, who qualifies as an expert,
and these reports need not be excluded from the records by the instant rule.
The reference to Acts of Congress is made in view of such statutory provisions as 26 U.S.C.
§7513, photographic reproductions of tax returns and documents, made by authority of the
Secretary of the Treasury, treated as originals, and 44 U.S.C. 5399(a), photographic copies in
National Archives treated as originals.
Committee Notes on Rules—2011 Amendment
The language of Rule 1002 has been amended as part of the restyling of the Evidence Rules to
make them more easily understood and to make style and terminology consistent throughout the
rules. These changes are intended to be stylistic only. There is no intent to change any result in
any ruling on evidence admissibility.

Rule 1003. Admissibility of Duplicates
A duplicate is admissible to the same extent as the original unless a genuine question is raised
about the original’s authenticity or the circumstances make it unfair to admit the duplicate.
Notes
(Pub. L. 93-595, §1, Jan. 2, 1975, 88 Stat. 1946; Apr. 26, 2011, eff. Dec. 1, 2011.)
Notes of Advisory Committee on Proposed Rules
When the only concern is with getting the words or other contents before the court with accuracy
and precision, then a counterpart serves equally as well as the original, if the counterpart is the
product of a method which insures accuracy and genuineness. By definition in Rule 1001(4),
supra, a “duplicate” possesses this character.
Therefore, if no genuine issue exists as to authenticity and no other reason exists for
requiring the original, a duplicate is admissible under the rule. This position finds support in
the decisions, Myrick v. United States, 332 F.2d 279 (5th Cir. 1964), no error in admitting
photostatic copies of checks instead of original microfilm in absence of suggestion to trial judge
that photostats were incorrect; Johns v. United States, 323 F.2d 421 (5th Cir. 1963), not error to
admit concededly accurate tape recording made from original wire recording; Sauget v.
Johnston, 315 F.2d 816 (9th Cir. 1963), not error to admit copy of agreement when opponent had
original and did not on appeal claim any discrepancy. Other reasons for requiring the original
may be present when only a part of the original is reproduced and the remainder is needed for
cross-examination or may disclose matters qualifying the part offered or otherwise useful to the
opposing party. United States v. Alexander, 326 F.2d 736 (4th Cir. 1964). And see Toho Bussan
Kaisha, Ltd. v. American President Lines, Ltd., 265 F.2d 418, 76 A.L.R.2d 1344 (2d Cir. 1959).
Notes of Committee on the Judiciary, House Report No. 93-650
The Committee approved this Rule in the form submitted by the Court, with the expectation that
the courts would be liberal in deciding that a “genuine question is raised as to the authenticity of
the original.”
Committee Notes on Rules—2011 Amendment
The language of Rule 1003 has been amended as part of the restyling of the Evidence Rules to
make them more easily understood and to make style and terminology consistent throughout the
rules. These changes are intended to be stylistic only. There is no intent to change any result in
any ruling on evidence admissibility.

Defendant and Butler filed a motion titled, "In Regards to Hearing Scheduled January 30, 2012’’
O'Def. Motion” ), notifying this Court of their pending appeal with the First Circuit Court of
Appeals and declaring their refusal to appear at the motion hearing. Del'. Motion at p. 1. I'D
Bank filed its Motion for Summary Judgment dated January 24, 2012. MSJ at pp. 2-4. On
January 27,2012, this Court issued an Order stating that TD Bank’s foreclosure action was
“ stayed pending federal appeal.”
II. LEGAL DISCUSSION
A. Plaintiff is Entitled to Continue its Foreclosure Action in this Court Despite
Defendant’s Pending Federal Appeal.
Generally, an appeal of an order or judgment issued by a United States District Court
does not operate as an automatic stay of proceedings. F.R. Civ. P. 62 (2011). Instead, a party
wishing to stay the execution of an order pending an appeal must move the District Court for a
stay of the proceedings. Id A failure to do so will result in the enforcement or execution of the
District Court's order, despite a pending appeal of that very order. Thomas v. United Stales,
2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11339. at *3 (D Me. Jun. 18, 2004) ( " If he wished to prevent the
enforcement of the [order] pending appeal, he was required to file a motion to stay the judgment
under Rule 62. He failed to do so and the [order] remained enforceable pending appeal” ). This
holds true even for orders remanding a ease back to state court. See FIA Card Services, N.A v
Riley, 748 F. Supp. 2d 31, 34 (D. Me. 2010).
Here, Defendant failed to move the Federal District Court for a stay of proceedings
during the pendency of her appeal. Thus, because the appeal itself docs not operate as an
automatic stay, TD Bank is permitted to proceed with its foreclosure action in this Court.
B. There is no Just Reason to Slav Proceedings in this Matter
"It is within the inherent power of the Superior Court, under its genera! supervisory
{SHintf-wr v - S
DEFENDANTS
EXHIBIT
H

P E R K I N S j T H O M P S O N
A ttorneys i. C ounselors a t Law
February 9, 2012
Penny H. Reckards, Clerk
Penobscot County Superior Court
Atten: Civil Clerk for Real Estate Matters
78 Exchange Street, Suite 350
Bangor, ME 04401
Re: TD Bank, N.A. v. Twila A. Wolf, el al.
Civil Action Docket No. RE-10-187
Dear Penny:
Enclosed for filing in the above-referenced matter please find the Plaintiffs Motion to
Lift Slay of Proceedings and Incorporated Memorandum of Law, along with a proposed
Order regarding the same.
Please let me know if you have any questions.
/ '" ^ e r e ly . <n ,
[JDayid B. McConnell
DBM/km
Enclosure
cc: Twila Wolf
Charlton A. Butler, Jr. DEFENDANTS
EXHIBIT
H-l
}HOTNX<:*

STATE OF MAINE
PENOBSCOT, SS.
SUPERIOR COURT
CIVIL AC TION
DOCKE T NO. RE-10-187
TD BANK, N.A., 17k/a First Massachusetts
B;mk. N.A.,
Plaintiff,
TWILA A. WOLF,
and
Defendant,
lAINi: STATE HOUSING AU THOR! TY,
CI TY OF BANGOR, and LVNV
FUNDING. LLC,
ORDER GRANTING
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO
LIFT STAY OF PROCEEDINGS
T itle to K eal Estate Involved
Partics-In-Interest.
The Court having before it Plaintiff’s Motion to Lift Stay of Proceedings and
Incorporated Memorandum of Law, dated February___ , 2012 (the “Motion” ), for good cause
shown, and with/without a hearing, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that:
(a) The Motion is hereby GRANTED in all respects;
(b) The stay is lifted and the case is restored lo the regular foreclosure docket; and
(c) In accordance with Maine Rule of Civil Procedure 79(a), at the specific direction
of the Court, the Clerk shall incorporate by reference this Order by proper notation on the dockct.
SO ORDERED at Bangor, Maine, this_____ day of_______ _______________, 2012.
I'D SAY THAT PUTTING IT BACK IN
THE FORECLOSURE DOCKET
INDICATES BELIEF THAT THE
MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT IS ALIVE
ior Court
r 'I
DEFENDANTS
EXHIBIT
H-2

PETRUCCELLI, MARTIN & HADDOW, LLP
Attorneys at Law
50 Monument Square
Post Office Box 17555
Portland, Maine 04112-8555
GERALD F. PETRUCCELLI
gpelruccelli@pmhlegal.com
April 8,2011
Senator David R. Hastings, III, Esq., Chair
Committee on Judiciary
c/o Legislative Information
100 State House Station
Augusta, ME 04333
Representative Joan M. Nass, Chair
Committee on Judiciary
c/o Legislative Information
100 State House Station
Augusta, ME 04333
RE: HP 128, LD 145 - An Act to Protect Homeowners Subject to Foreclosure by
Requiring the Foreclosing Entity to Provide the Court with Original Documents
Dear Senator Hastings and Representative Nass:
I am writing to express my support for LD 145 and in the hope that it may be helpful to the Committee to focus
particularly on the distinctive characteristics of a promissory note, as distinguished from documents generally.
Many years ago, I taught commercial law at the University of Maine School of Law School. In the course of
that work, I came to know something about promissory notes and I am writing to offer some observations that I
think might be helpful in thinking about these problems.
I do not currently represent any banks. One of my Partners has been involved in one or two of the foreclosure
disputes that have generated some of this discussion, but I am not writing on behalf of any client.
This is not simply a question of evidence law. The question is not whether the copy, or the photograph, or the
digital image, should suffice as proof that a loan was made, notwithstanding the best evidence rule. It is not a
question of modem technology concerning recordkeeping in the computer age. The note is not a record. The
promissory note, unlike other documents, is itself valuable property. A photograph of the promissory note is no
more valid or sufficient than a photograph of the mortgaged house. If it is sufficient for the bank to produce a
photocopy of the note, it ought to be sufficient for the homeowner to satisfy the foreclosure judgment by
producing a photograph of the property. This is the fundamental point.
There is a practical functional reality to all of this as a matter of negotiable instruments law. The promissory
note is negotiable and the holder in due course of a negotiable promissory note has preferred status in litigation
on the note. If the person seeking to enforce the note does not actually have it as a matter of physical possessory
fact, it is likely that somebody else does. It is only the holder of that original note who has any rights at all on
the note. Anyone may have a copy of it. But without the note itself, all that any plaintiff can actually accomplish
is to try to persuade the court that at one time somebody photographed it, not that at the current time the
plaintiff owns it, and possesses it, and has enforceable legal rights on the note. There is really no good reason
that a plaintiff claiming to be the holder of a note should be entitled to enforce it without bringing it to court.
DEFENDANTS
EXHIBIT
I
Because of this fundamental characteristic of the promissory note as property, carrying both substantive and
procedural rights for the holder in due course, every defendant in every case is at some risk of having to pay
twice, or at least defend twice, if the original note is not brought forward in every action. It may be statistically
unlikely that there will be a large number of these cases, but there ought not to be any of them. It is an important
protection for the makers of promissory notes that they not be subjected to this risk, simply because the bankers
now find it inconvenient to produce this essential item in the very process of enforcing rights that are bound up
in and rest upon this very item.
Another significant point follows from that. Because a promissory note is negotiable, the circumstances of its
negotiation are vitally important with respect to any determination of the rights of any plaintiff purporting to be
the holder by virtue of negotiation. The indorsements must be examined to determine not only their authenticity
but their legal sufficiency. As you know, there are various forms or kinds of indorsements and it is only by
examining the document itself that the court can determine whether any sequence of indorsements is regular and
in good order so as to confer the rights of a holder upon the plaintiff. A photograph of a note that does not
include both sides cannot possibly permit a court to determine whether or not all of the necessary indorsements
are provided. But even a photograph showing all of the purported indorsements does not address the
fundamental initial problem which is that the actual note may be in the possession of still another person,
carrying still another indorsement, a fact which cannot be determined by the court without examination of the
original. To return to the beginning, I do not mean to be flippant when I say that if the bank can foreclose by
producing a photograph of the note, the foreclosure judgment ought to be able to be satisfied by the homeowner
delivering a photograph of the house. In both instances, photographs of the property are not the property. In a
negotiable instruments setting, all of the issues relating to the sufficiency of photocopies of records or files, or
contracts, or documents are fundamentally irrelevant to the real point. Only the holder of the original note with
all proper indorsements in place is entitled to claim and enjoy the benefits of holder in due course status in
enforcing the obligations of the maker on the promissory note.
I respect and appreciate all of the hard work that is being done by all of the members of the Legislature on all of
these difficult problems. I hope this is of some assistance, and I thank you for the opportunity to comment.
Sincerely,
Gerald F. Petruccelli

DEFENDANTS
EXHIBIT
J
~M Butler &. Butler Pro Se
44 Patten Street #1
* Bangor Maine 04401
A ' * * '
May 27, 2012
Twila Wolf-Butler
44 Patten Street
Banaor, ME 04401
USA
Client Date Matter Staff Hours Rate Total
$0.00
Wolf-Butler. Twila 9/22/2010 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Twila A. Butler fka
Wolf
570.00 $375.00 $213,750.00
Wolf-Butler, Twila 10/22/2010 .Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
: Charlton A. Butler
' Jr.
570.00 $375.00 $213,750.00
Wolf-Butler, Twila 12/1/2010 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
■TD Bank North
Charlton A. Butler
Jr.
570.00 $375.00 $213,750.00
Wolf-Butler, Twila 12/1/2010 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Twila A. Butler fka
Wolf
570.00 $375.00 $213,750 00
Wolf-Butler, Twila 2/1/2011 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells $2,293.53
Wolf-Butler, Twila 2/1/2011 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Charlton A. Butler
Jr.
570.00 $375.00 $213,750.00
Wolf-Butler, Twila 2/1/2011 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Twila A Butler fka
Wolf
570.00 $375.00 $213,750.00
Wolf-Butler, Twila 2/18/2011 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 1.83 $115.00 $210.83
Wolf-Butler, Twila 3/1/2011 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells $2,293.53
Wolf-Butler. Twila 4/1/2011 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells $2,293.53
!
Wolf-Butler, Twila 4/1/2011 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Charlton A. Butler
Jr.
570.00 $375.00 $213,750.00]
Wolf-Butler, Twila 4/1/2011 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Twila A Butler fka
Wolf
570.00 $375.00 $213,750.00:
Wolf-Butler, Twila 5/1/2011 Twila A. Wolf Vs
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells
'
$2,293.53
Wolf-Butler. Twila 5/1/2011 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Charlton A. Butler
Jr.
570.00 $375.00 $213,750.00:
.
Client Date Matter Staff Hours Rate Total
Wolf-Butler, Twila 5/1/2011 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Twila A. Butler fka
Wolf
570.00 S375.00 $213,750.00
Wolf-Butler, Twila 6/1/2011 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells $2,293.53
Wolf-Butler, Twila 6/1/2011 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Charlton A. Butler
Jr.
570.00 S375.00 $213,750.00
Wolf-Butler, Twila 6/1/2011 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Twila A. Butler fka
Wolf
570.00 $375.00 $213,750.00
Wolf-Butler, Twila 7/1/2011 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells $2,293.53
Wolf-Butler, Twila 7/1/2011 Twila A Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Twila A. Butler fka
Wolf
570.00 S375.00 $213,750.00
Wolf-Butler, Twila 7/26/2011 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Charlton A. Butler
Jr.
570.00 $375.00 $213,750.00
Wolf-Butler, Twila 8/1/2011 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Charlton A. Butler
Jr.
570.00 $375.00 $213,750.00
Wolf-Butler, Twila 8/1/2011 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Twila A. Butler fka
Wolf
570.00 $375.00 $213,750.00
Wolf-Butler, Twila 9/1/2011 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells $2,293.53
Wolf-Butler, Twila 9/1/2011 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Charlton A. Butler
Jr.
570.00 $375.00 $213,750.00
Wolf-Butler, Twila 9/1/2011 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Twila A. Butler fka
Wolf
570.00 $375.00 $213,750.00
Wolf-Butler, Twila 10/1/2011 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells $2,293.53
Wolf-Butler, Twila 10/1/2011 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Charlton A. Butler
Jr.
570.00 $375.00 $213,750.00
Wolf-Butler, Twila 10/1/2011 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Twila A. Butler fka
Wolf
570.00 $375.00 $213,750.00
Wolf-Butler, Twila 11/1/2011 Rayford Nevells $2,293.53
Wolf-Butler, Twila 11/1/2011 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Charlton A. Butler
Jr.
570.00 $375.00 $213,750.00
Wolf-Butler, Twila 11/1/2011 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Twila A. Butler fka
Wolf
570.00 $375.00 $213,750.00
Wolf-Butler, Twila 12/1/2011 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells $2,293.53
Wolf-Butler, Twila 12/1/2011 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Charlton A. Butler
Jr.
570.00 $375.00 $213,750.00
Wolf-Butler, Twila 12/1/2011 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Twila A. Butler fka
Wolf
570.00 $375.00 $213,750.00
Wolf-Butler, Twila 1/1/2012 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells $2,293.53
Client Date Matter Staff Hours Rate Total
Wolf-Butler, Twila 1/1/2012 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Charlton A. Butler
Jr.
570.00 $375.00 $213,750.00
Wolf-Butler, Twila 1/1/2012 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Twila A. Butler fka
Wolf
570.00 $375.00 $213,750.00
Wolf-Butler, Twila 2/1/2012 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells $2,293.53
Wolf-Butler, Twila 2/1/2012 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Charlton A. Butler
Jr.
570.00 $375.00 $213,750.00
Wolf-Butler, Twila 2/1/2012 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Twila A. Butler fka
Wolf
570.00 $375.00 $213,750.00
Wolf-Butler, Twila 3/1/2012 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells $2,293.53
Wolf-Butler, Twila 3/1/2012 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Charlton A. Butler
Jr.
570.00 $375.00 $213,750.00
Wolf-Butler, Twila 3/1/2012 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Twila A. Butier fka
Wolf
570.00 $375.00 $213,750.00
Wolf-Butler, Twila 4/1/2012 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells $2,293.53
Wolf-Butler, Twila 4/1/2012 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Charlton A. Butler
Jr.
570.00 $375.00 $213,750.00
Wolf-Butler, Twila 4/1/2012 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Twila A. Butler fka
Wolf
570.00 $375.00 $213,750.00
Wolf-Butler, Twila 5/1/2012 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells $2,293.53
Wolf-Butler, Twila 5/1/2012 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Twila A. Butler fka
Wolf
570.00 $375.00 $213,750.00
Wolf-Butler, Twila 5/26/2012 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Charlton A. Butler
Jr.
$6,655.00
18811.83 $7,095,018.78
Wolf-Butler, Twila 2/16/2011 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 2.75 $115.00 $316.25
Wolf-Butler, Twila 2/20/2011 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 4.50 $125.00 $562.50
Wolf-Butler, Twila 2/21/2011 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 2.00 $125.00 $250.00
Wolf-Butler, Twila 2/22/2011 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 3.00 $125.00 $375.00
Wolf-Butler, Twila 2/24/2011 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 2.83 $125.00 $354.17
Wolf-Butler, Twila 2/26/2011 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 2.50 $125.00 $312.50
Wolf-Butler, Twila 2/27/2011 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 5.00 $125.00 $625.00
Client Date Matter Staff Hours Rate Total
Wolf-Butler, Twila 2/28/2011 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 2.50 5125.00 $312.50
Wolf-Butler, Twila 3/1/2011 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 3.00 $125.00 $375.00
Wolf-Butler, Twila 3/3/2011 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 2.00 $125.00 $250.00
Wolf-Butler, Twila 3/4/2011 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 1.00 $125.00 $125.00
Wolf-Butler, Twila 3/5/2011 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 4.00 $125.00 $500,001
Wolf-Butler, Twila 3/6/2011 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 2.50 $125.00 $312.50
Wolf-Butler, Twila 3/6/2011 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 3.50 $125.00 $437.50
Wolf-Butler, Twila 3/7/2011 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 2.33 $125.00 $291.67
Wolf-Butler, Twila 3/9/2011 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 1.75 $125.00 $218.75
Wolf-Butler, Twila 3/11/2011 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 2.00 $125.00 $250 00
Wolf-Butler, Twila 3/12/2011 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 5.00 $125.00 $625.00
Wolf-Butler, Twila 3/13/2011 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 5.50 $125.00 $687.50
Wolf-Butler, Twila 3/14/2011 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 2.75 $125.00 $343.75
Wolf-Butler, Twila 3/15/2011 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 2.25 $125.00 $281.25
Wolf-Butler, Twila 3/16/2011 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 3.00 $125.00 $375.00
Wolf-Butler, Twila 3/17/2011 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 2.50 $125.00 $312.50
Wolf-Butler, Twila 3/19/2011 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 4.00 $125.00 $500.00
Wolf-Butler, Twila 3/20/2011 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 6.00 $125.00 $750.00
Wolf-Butler, Twila 3/21/2011 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 1.25 $125.00 $156.25
Wolf-Butler, Twila 3/21/2011 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 2.00 $125.00 $250.00
Wolf-Butler, Twila 3/21/2011 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 0.25 $125.00 $31.25
Client Date Matter Staff Hours Rate Total
;Wolf-Butler, Twila 3/23/2011 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 2.50 $125.00 $312.50
Wolf-Butler, Twila 3/24/2011 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 2.00 $125.00 $250.00
. Wolf-Butler, Twila 3/25/2011 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 1.00 $125.00 $125.00
Wolf-Butler, Twila 3/26/2011 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 4.50 $125.00 $562.50
Wolf-Butler, Twila 3/27/2011 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 6.00 $125.00 $750.00
Wolf-Butler, Twila 3/27/2011 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 1.50 $125.00 $187.50
Wolf-Butler, Twila 3/28/2011 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 3.00 $125.00 $375.00
Wolf-Butler, Twila 3/31/2011 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 3.00 $125.00 $375.00
Wolf-Butler, Twila 4/2/2011 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 4.50 $125.00 $562.50
Wolf-Butler, Twila 4/3/2011 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 7.00 $125.00 $875.00
Wolf-Butler, Twila 4/7/2011 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 3.00 $125.00 $375.00
Wolf-Butler, Twila 4/9/2011 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 4.00 $125.00 $500.00
Wolf-Butler, Twila 4/11/2011 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 2.75 $125.00 $343.75
Wolf-Butler, Twila 4/12/2011 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 4.00 $125.00 $500.00
Wolf-Butler, Twila 4/13/2011 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 3.00 $125.00 $375.00
Wolf-Butler, Twila 4/14/2011 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 2.00 $125.00 $250.00
Wolf-Butler, Twila 4/16/2011 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 5.50 $125.00 $687.50
Wolf-Butler, Twila 4/17/2011 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 9.00 $125.00 $1,125.00
Wolf-Butler, Twila 4/19/2011 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 2.25 $125.00 $281.25
Wolf-Butler, Twila 4/20/2011 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 4.00 $125.00 $500.00
Wolf-Butler, Twila 4/21/2011 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 2.00 $125.00 $250.00
Client Date Matter Staff Hours Rate Total
i Wolf-Butler, Twila 4/23/2011 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 3.00 $125.00 $375.00
Wolf-Butler, Twila 4/24/2011 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 3.00 $125.00 $375.00
Wolf-Butler, Twila 4/26/2011 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 1.75 $125.00 $218.75
Wolf-Butler, Twila 4/27/2011 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 3.00 $125.00 $375.00
Wolf-Butler, Twila 4/28/2011 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 4.00 $125.00 $500.00
Wolf-Butler, Twila 4/30/2011 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 5.00 $125.00 $625.00
| Wolf-Butler, Twila 5/1/2011 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 5.00 $125.00 $625.00
Wolf-Butler, Twila 5/2/2011 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 2.00 $125.00 $250.00
Wolf-Butler, Twila 5/3/2011 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 2.00 $125.00 $250.00
Wolf-Butler, Twila 5/4/2011 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 4.00 $125.00 $500.00
Wolf-Butler, Twila 5/8/2011 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 9.00 $125.00 $1,125.001
Wolf-Butler, Twila 5/8/2011 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 1.75 $125.00 $218.75
Wolf-Butler, Twila 5/9/2011 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 2.00 $125.00 $250.00
Wolf-Butler, Twila 5/10/2011 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 3.00 $125.00 $375.00
Wolf-Butler, Twila 5/11/2011 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 3.00 $125.00 $375.00
Wolf-Butler, Twila 5/12/2011 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 3.00 $125.00 $375.00
Wolf-Butler, Twila 5/14/2011 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 5.00 $125.00 $625.00
Wolf-Butler, Twila 5/15/2011 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 6.75 $125.00 $843.75
Wolf-Butler, Twila 5/16/2011 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 3.00 $125.00 $375.00
Wolf-Butler, Twila 5/17/2011 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 2.00 $125.00 $250.00
Wolf-Butler, Twila 5/18/2011 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 4.50 $125.00 $562.50
Client Date Matter Staff Hours Rate Total
Wolf-Butler, Twila 5/22/2011 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 5.00 $125.00 $625.00
Wolf-Butler, Twila 5/23/2011 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 3.50 $125.00 $437.50
Wolf-Butler, Twila 5/24/2011 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 2.00 $125.00 $250.00
Wolf-Butler, Twila 5/24/2011 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 0.50 $125.00 $62.50
Wolf-Butler, Twila 5/27/2011 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 5.00 $125.00 $625.00
Wolf-Butler, Twila 5/29/2011 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 7.00 $125.00 $875.00
Wolf-Butler, Twila 5/29/2011 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 2.00 $125.00 $250.00
Wolf-Butler, Twila 5/30/2011 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 1.50 $125.00 $187.50
Wolf-Butler, Twila 6/1/2011 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 2.00 $125.00 $250.00
Wolf-Butler, Twila 6/2/2011 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 3.00 $125.00 $375.00
! Wolf-Butler, Twila 6/4/2011 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 4.50 $125.00 $562.50
Wolf-Butler, Twila 6/5/2011 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 5.00 $125.00 $625.00
Wolf-Butler, Twila 6/6/2011 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 2.00 $125.00 $250.00
Wolf-Butler, Twila 6/7/2011 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 3.00 $125.00 $375.00
Wolf-Butler, Twila 6/8/2011 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 3.00 $125.00 $375.00
Wolf-Butler, Twila 6/11/2011 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 4.00 $125.00 $500.00
Wolf-Butler, Twila 6/11/2011 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 1.00 $125.00 $125.00
Wolf-Butler, Twila 6/12/2011 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 6.00 $125.00 $750.00
i
Wolf-Butler, Twila 6/13/2011 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 2.00 $125.00 $250.00
Wolf-Butler, Twila 6/14/2011 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 2.00 $125.00 $250.00
Wolf-Butler, Twila 6/15/2011 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 3.50 $125.00 $437.50
Client Date Matter Staff Hours Rate Total
Wolf-Butler, Twila 6/18/2011 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 5.00 S125.00 $625.00
Wolf-Butler, Twila 6/19/2011 Twila A Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 8.00 $125.00 $1,000.00
Wolf-Butler, Twila 6/21/2011 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 2.00 $125.00 $250.00
Wolf-Butler, Twila 6/22/2011 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 3.00 $125.00 $375.00
Wolf-Butler, Twila 6/23/2011 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 1.50 $125.00 $187.50
Wolf-Butler, Twila 6/25/2011 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 4.75 $125.00 $593.75
Wolf-Butler, Twila 6/26/2011 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 4.75 $125.00 $593.75
Wolf-Butler, Twila 6/27/2011 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 2.00 $125.00 $250.00
Wolf-Butler, Twila 6/28/2011 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 0.42 S125.00 $52.08
Wolf-Butler, Twila 6/28/2011 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 2.00 $125.00 $250.00
Wolf-Butler, Twila 6/29/2011 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 2.00 $125.00 $250.00
Wolf-Butler, Twila 7/2/2011 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 5.00 $125.00 $625.00
Wolf-Butler, Twila 7/3/2011 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 6.00 $125.00 $750.00
Wolf-Butler, Twila 7/4/2011 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 3.50 $125.00 $437.50
Wolf-Butler, Twila 7/7/2011 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 2.50 $125.00 $312.50
Wolf-Butler, Twila 7/9/2011 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 3.50 $125.00 $437.50
Wolf-Butler, Twila 7/10/2011 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 4.75 $125.00 $593.75
Wolf-Butler, Twila 7/11/2011 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 3.00 $125.00 $375.00
Wolf-Butler, Twila 7/12/2011 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 3.50 $125.00 $437.50
Wolf-Butler, Twila 7/13/2011 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 2.25 $125.00 $281.25
Wolf-Butler, Twila 7/14/2011 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 1.75 $125.00 $218.75
Client Date Matter Staff Hours Rate Total
Wolf-Butler, Twila 7/16/2011 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 4.50 S125.00 $562.50
Wolf-Butler, Twila 7/17/2011 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 6.50 $125.00 $812.50
Wolf-Butler, Twila 7/21/2011 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 1.00 $125.00 $125.00
Wolf-Butler, Twila 7/21/2011 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 2.00 $125.00 $250.00
I Wolf-Butler, Twila
1]
7/23/2011 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 5.50 $125.00 $687.50
Wolf-Butler, Twila 7/24/2011 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 8.00 $125.00 $1,000.00 i
Wolf-Butler, Twila 7/25/2011 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 2.00 $125.00 $250.00
Wolf-Butler, Twila 7/26/2011 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 2.00 $125.00 $250.00]
Wolf-Butler, Twila 7/28/2011 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 3.00 $125.00 $375.00
Wolf-Butler, Twila 7/30/2011 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 4.00 $125.00 $500.00
Wolf-Butler, Twila 7/30/2011 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 1.50 $125.00 $187.50
Wolf-Butler, Twila 7/31/2011 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 2.75 $125.00 $343.75
Wolf-Butler, Twila 8/1/2011 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 2.50 $125.00 $312.50
Wolf-Butler, Twila 8/2/2011 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 4.00 $125.00 $500.00
Wolf-Butler, Twila 8/3/2011 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 2.50 $125.00 $312.50
Wolf-Butler, Twila 8/6/2011 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 5.00 $125.00 $625.00
Wolf-Butler, Twila 8/7/2011 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 7.00 $125.00 $875.00
Wolf-Butler, Twila 8/8/2011 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 2.00 $125.00 $250.00
Wolf-Butler, Twila 8/9/2011 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 3.00 $125.00 $375.00
Wolf-Butler, Twila 8/11/2011 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 2.75 $125.00 $343.75
Wolf-Butler, Twila 8/13/2011 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 4.50 $125.00 $562.50
Client Date Matter Staff Hours Rate Total
Wolf-Butler, Twila 8/14/2011 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 7.00 S125.00 $875.00
Wolf-Butler, Twila 8/15/2011 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 5.75 $125.00 $718.75
Wolf-Butler, Twila 8/18/2011 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 2.00 $125.00 $250.00
lj
Wolf-Butler, Twila 8/20/2011 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 3.00 $125.00 $375.00
Wolf-Butler, Twila 8/21/2011 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 5.00 $125.00 $625.00
Wolf-Butler, Twila 8/22/2011 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 2.00 $125.00 $250.00
Wolf-Butler, Twila 8/23/2011 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 2.00 $125.00 $250.00
Wolf-Butler, Twila 8/27/2011 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 4.00 $125.00 $500.00
Wolf-Butler, Twila 8/28/2011 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 7.00 $125.00 $875.00
Wolf-Butler, Twila 8/28/2011 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 1.25 $125.00 $156.25
Wolf-Butler, Twila 8/29/2011 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 2.00 $125.00 $250.00
Wolf-Butler, Twila 8/30/2011 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 1.25 $125.00 $156.25
Wolf-Butler, Twila 9/1/2011 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 4.00 $125.00 $500.00
Wolf-Butler, Twila 9/4/2011 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 4.75 $125.00 $593.75
Wolf-Butler, Twila 9/6/2011 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 3.50 $125.00 $437.50
Wolf-Butler, Twila 9/7/2011 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 2.00 $125.00 $250.00
Wolf-Butler, Twila 9/8/2011 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 2.00 $125.00 $250.00
Wolf-Butler, Twila 9/11/2011 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 6.25 $125.00 $781.25
Wolf-Butler, Twila 9/12/2011 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 3.00 $125.00 $375.00
Wolf-Butler, Twila 9/13/2011 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 3.00 $125.00 $375.00
Wolf-Butler, Twila 9/15/2011 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 4.00 $125.00 $500.00
Client
.
Date Matter Staff Hours Rate Total
! Wolf-Butler, Twila
f
9/17/2011 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 5.00 $125.00 $625.00
Wolf-Butler, Twila 9/18/2011 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 6.00 $125.00 $750.00
Wolf-Butler, Twila 9/19/2011 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 2.75 $125.00 $343.75;
Wolf-Butler, Twila 9/20/2011 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 2.00 $125.00 $250.00
Wolf-Butler, Twila 9/21/2011 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 2.00 $125.00 $250.00
Wolf-Butler, Twila 9/24/2011 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 4.75 $125.00 $593.75
Wolf-Butler, Twila i 9/25/2011 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 6.00 $125.00 $750.00
Wolf-Butler, Twila 9/26/2011 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 2.75 $125.00 $343.75
Wolf-Butler, Twila 9/27/2011 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 2.00 $125.00 $250.00
Wolf-Butler, Twila 9/29/2011 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 4.00 $125.00 $500.00
Wolf-Butler, Twila 10/1/2011 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 2.00 $125.00 $250.00
Wolf-Butler, Twila 10/2/2011 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 4.00 $125.00 $500.00
Wolf-Butler, Twila 10/3/2011 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 3.00 $125.00 $375.00
Wolf-Butler, Twila 10/5/2011 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 3.00 $125.00 $375.00
Wolf-Butler, Twila 10/8/2011 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 5.00 $125.00 $625.00
Wolf-Butler, Twila 10/9/2011 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 7.00 $125.00 $875.00
Wolf-Butler, Twila 10/10/2011 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 2.75 $125.00 $343.75
Wolf-Butler, Twila 10/12/2011 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevelis 3.50 $125.00 $437.50
Wolf-Butler, Twila 10/13/2011 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 2.00 $125.00 $250.00
Wolf-Butler, Twila 10/15/2011 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 4.00 $125.00 $500.00
Wolf-Butler, Twila
..
10/16/2011 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 5.50 $125.00 $687.50
Client Date Matter Staff Hours Rate Total
j Wolf-Butler, Twila 10/17/2011 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 2.00 S125.00 $250.00
Wolf-Butler, Twila 10/18/2011 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 2.00 $125.00 $250.00
Wolf-Butler, Twila 10/19/2011 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 2.00 $125.00 $250.00
Wolf-Butler, Twila 10/22/2011 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 5.00 $125.00 $625.00
Wolf-Butler, Twila 10/23/2011 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 4.00 $125.00 $500.00
Wolf-Butler, Twila 10/24/2011 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 2.00 $125.00 $250.00
Wolf-Butler, Twila 10/25/2011 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 2.00 $125.00 $250.00
Wolf-Butler, Twila 10/27/2011 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 3.00 $125.00 $375.00
Wolf-Butler, Twila 10/29/2011 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 4.00 $125.00 $500.00
Wolf-Butler, Twila 10/30/2011 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 6.00 $125.00 $750.00
Wolf-Butler, Twila 10/31/2011 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 2.75 $125.00 $343.75
Wolf-Butler, Twila 11/1/2011 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 2.50 $125.00 $312.50
Wolf-Butler, Twila 11/2/2011 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 2.25 $125.00 $281.25
Wolf-Butler, Twila 11/5/2011 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 4.75 $125.00 $593.75
Wolf-Butler, Twila 11/6/2011 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 6.50 $125.00 $812.50
Wolf-Butler, Twila 11/7/2011 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 2.50 $125.00 $312.50
Wolf-Butler, Twila 11/9/2011 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 3.00 $125.00 $375.00
Wolf-Butler, Twila 11/12/2011 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 4.00 $125.00 $500.00
Wolf-Butler, Twila 11/13/2011 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 7.25 $125.00 $906.25
Wolf-Butler, Twila 11/15/2011 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 2.00 $125.00 $250.00
Wolf-Butler, Twila 11/16/2011 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 4.00 $125.00 $500.00
Client Date Matter Staff Hours Rate Total
Wolf-Butler, Twila 11/19/2011 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 4.00 S125.00 $500.00
, Wolf-Butler, Twila 11/20/2011 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 5.00 $125.00 S625.00
Wolf-Butler, Twila 11/21/2011 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 2.00 $125.00 $250.00
Wolf-Butler, Twila 11/22/2011 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 1.50 $125.00 $187.50
Wolf-Butler, Twila 11/24/2011 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 2.50 $125.00 $312.50
Wolf-Butler, Twila 11/26/2011 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 3.25 $125.00 $406.25
Wolf-Butler, Twila 11/27/2011 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 3.75 $125.00 $468.75
Wolf-Butler, Twila 11/28/2011 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 2.00 $125.00 $250.00
Wolf-Butler, Twila 11/29/2011 Twila A. Wolf Vs
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 2.50 $125.00 $312.50
Wolf-Butler, Twila 11/30/2011 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 2.75 $125.00 $343.75
Wolf-Butler, Twila 12/3/2011 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 4.00 $125.00 $500.00
Wolf-Butler, Twila 12/4/2011 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 6.00 $125.00 $750.00
Wolf-Butler, Twila 12/5/2011 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 2.00 $125.00 $250.00
Wolf-Butler, Twila 12/6/2011 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 3.00 $125.00 $375.00
Wolf-Butler, Twila 12/7/2011 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 1.50 $125.00 $187.50
Wolf-Butler, Twila 12/10/2011 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 5.00 $125.00 $625.00
Wolf-Butler, Twila 12/11/2011 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 5.50 $125.00 $687.50
Wolf-Butler, Twila 12/12/2011 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 1.50 $125.00 $187.50
Wolf-Butler, Twila 12/13/2011 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 3.00 $125.00 $375.00
Wolf-Butler, Twila 12/15/2011 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 4.00 $125.00 $500.00
Wolf-Butler, Twila 12/17/2011 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 4.00 $125.00 $500.00
Client Date Matter Staff Hours Rate Total
Wolf-Butler, Twila 12/18/2011 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 3.75 $125.00 $468.75
Wolf-Butler, Twila 12/19/2011 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 2.00 $125.00 $250.00
Wolf-Butler, Twila 12/21/2011 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 4.00 $125.00 $500.00
Wolf-Butler, Twila 12/22/2011 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 2.00 $125.00 $250.00
Wolf-Butler, Twila 12/24/2011 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 3.00 $125.00 $375.00
Wolf-Butler, Twila 12/26/2011 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 2.00 $125.00 $250.00 l
Wolf-Butler, Twila 12/27/2011 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 3.00 $125.00 $375.00
Wolf-Butler, Twila 12/28/2011 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 2.00 $125.00 $250.00
Wolf-Butler, Twila 12/31/2011 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 5.00 $125.00 $625.00
Wolf-Butler, Twila 1/2/2012 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 3.00 $125.00 $375.00
Wolf-Butler, Twila 1/3/2012 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 2.00 $125.00 $250.00
Wolf-Butler, Twila 1/3/2012 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 2.00 $125.00 $250.00
Wolf-Butler, Twila 1/4/2012 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 3.00 $125.00 $375.00
Wolf-Butler, Twila 1/5/2012 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 1.00 $125.00 $125.00
Wolf-Butler, Twila 1/5/2012 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 1.75 $125.00 $218.75
Wolf-Butler, Twila 1/7/2012 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 4.00 $125.00 $500.00
Wolf-Butler, Twila 1/8/2012 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 5.00 $125.00 $625.00
Wolf-Butler, Twila 1/9/2012 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 2.00 $125.00 $250.00
Wolf-Butler, Twila 1/10/2012 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 4.75 $125.00 $593.75
Wolf-Butler, Twila 1/12/2012 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 2.25 $125.00 $281.25
Wolf-Butler, Twila 1/14/2012 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 4.25 $125.00 $531.25
Client Date Matter Staff Hours Rate Total
Wolf-Butler, Twila 1/15/2012 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 7.00 $125.00 $875.00
Wolf-Butler, Twila 1/19/2012 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 1.50 $125.00 $187.50
Wolf-Butler, Twila 1/19/2012 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 2.00 $125.00 $2513.00
Wolf-Butler, Twila 1/21/2012 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 3.00 $125.00 $375.00
Wolf-Butler, Twila 1/22/2012 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 5.00 $125.00 $625.00
Wolf-Butler, Twila 1/23/2012 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 4.00 $125.00 $500.00
Wolf-Butler, Twila 1/24/2012 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 2.25 $125.00 $281.25
Wolf-Butler, Twila 1/25/2012 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 2.00 $125.00 $250.00
Wolf-Butler, Twila 1/28/2012 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 4.50 $125.00 $562.50
Wolf-Butler, Twila 1/29/2012 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 5.00 $125.00 $625.00
Wolf-Butler, Twila 1/31/2012 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 2.75 $125.00 $343.75
Wolf-Butler, Twila 2/1/2012 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 2.00 $125.00 $250.00
Wolf-Butler, Twila 2/2/2012 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 3.50 $125.00 $437.50
Wolf-Butler, Twila 2/4/2012 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 3.00 $125.00 $375.00
Wolf-Butler, Twila 2/5/2012 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 7.00 $125.00 $875.00
Wolf-Butler, Twila 2/6/2012 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 3.00 $125.00 $375.00
Wolf-Butler, Twila 2/9/2012 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 1.00 $125.00 $125.00
Wolf-Butler, Twila 2/11/2012 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 4.25 $125.00 $531.25
Wolf-Butler, Twila 2/12/2012 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 5.00 $125.00 $625.00
Wolf-Butler, Twila 2/13/2012 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 2.50 $125.00 $312.50
Wolf-Butler, Twila 2/14/2012 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 2.42 $125.00 $302.08
Client Date Matter Staff Hours Rate Total
Wolf-Butler, Twila 2/17/2012 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 3.00 $125.00 $375.00
Wolf-Butler, Twila 2/18/2012 Twila A. Wolf Vs
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 5.00 $125.00 $625.00
Wolf-Butler, Twila 2/19/2012 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 4.50 $125.00 $562.50
Wolf-Butler, Twila 2/20/2012 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 2.75 $125.00 $343.75
Wolf-Butler, Twila 2/22/2012 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 3.00 $125.00 $375.00
Wolf-Butler, Twila 2/23/2012 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 2.75 $125.00 $343.75
Wolf-Butler, Twila 2/26/2012 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 8.00 $125.00 $1,000.00
Wolf-Butler, Twila 2/27/2012 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 3.00 $125.00 $375.00
Wolf-Butler, Twila 2/29/2012 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 3.00 $125.00 $375.00
Wolf-Butler, Twila 3/5/2012 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 3.25 $125.00 $406.25
Wolf-Butler, Twila 3/6/2012 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 3.00 $125.00 $375.00
Wolf-Butler, Twila 3/7/2012 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 2.00 $125.00 $250.00
Wolf-Butler, Twila 3/10/2012 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 4.00 $125.00 $500.00
Wolf-Butler, Twila 3/11/2012 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 5.50 $125.00 $687.50
Wolf-Butler, Twila 3/12/2012 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 2.00 $125.00 $250.00
Wolf-Butler, Twila 3/13/2012 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 3.00 $125.00 $375.00
Wolf-Butler, Twila 3/15/2012 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 2.00 $125.00 $250.00
Wolf-Butler, Twila 3/17/2012 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 2.00 $125.00 $250.00
Wolf-Butler, Twila 3/18/2012 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 7.00 $125.00 $875.00
Wolf-Butler, Twila 3/19/2012 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 1.75 $125.00 $218.75
Wolf-Butler, Twila 3/21/2012 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 2.00 $125.00 $250.00
!J
Client Date Matter Staff Hours Rate Total
Wolf-Butler, Twila 3/22/2012 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 3.00 $125.00 S375.00
Wolf-Butler, Twila 3/24/2012 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 3.50 $125.00 $437.50
Wolf-Butler, Twila 3/25/2012 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 6.00 $125.00 $750.00
Wolf-Butler, Twila 3/26/2012 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 2.00 $125.00 $250.00
Wolf-Butler, Twila 3/27/2012 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 2.50 S125.00 $312.50
Wolf-Butler, Twila 3/28/2012 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 3.00 $125.00 $375.00
Wolf-Butler, Twila 3/31/2012 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 4.50 $125.00 $562.50
Wolf-Butler, Twila 4/1/2012 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 4.75 $125.00 $593.75
Wolf-Butler, Twila 4/2/2012 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 2.75 $125.00 $343.75
1 Wolf-Butler, Twila 4/4/2012 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 3.00 $125.00 $375.00
Wolf-Butler, Twila 4/7/2012 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 5.75 $125.00 $718.75
Wolf-Butler, Twila 4/8/2012 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 3.00 $125.00 $375.00
Wolf-Butler, Twila 4/9/2012 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 4.00 $125.00 $500.00
Wolf-Butler, Twila 4/11/2012 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 2.00 $125.00 $250.00
Wolf-Butler, Twila 4/14/2012 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 3.00 $125.00 $375.00
Wolf-Butler, Twila 4/15/2012 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 6.00 $125.00 $750.00
Wolf-Butler, Twila 4/16/2012 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 2.75 $125.00 $343.75
Wolf-Butler, Twila 4/17/2012 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 1.00 $125.00 $125.00
Wolf-Butler, Twila 4/17/2012 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 2.75 $125.00 $343.75
Wolf-Butler, Twila 4/18/2012 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 3.00 $125.00 $375.00
Wolf-Butler, Twila 4/21/2012 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 4.00 $125.00 $500.00
Client Date Matter Staff Hours Rate Total
Wolf-Butler, Twila 5/19/2012 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 4.00 $125.00 $500.00
Wolf-Butler, Twila 5/20/2012 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 5.00 $125.00 $625.00
Wolf-Butler, Twila 5/21/2012 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 2.00 $125.00 $250.00
Wolf-Butler, Twila 5/22/2012 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 2.00 $125.00 $250.00
Wolf-Butler, Twila 5/24/2012 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 3.00 $125.00 $375.00
Wolf-Butler, Twila 5/26/2012 Twila A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North
Rayford Nevells 570.00 $125.00 $71,250.00
1678.92 $209,837.08
20490.75 $7,304,855.86
T h a n k Y n n l - R a la n r.p i<; Hu p nnnn renoint

Broken Promises: Pensions All Over America Are
Being Savagely Cut Or Are Vanishing Completely
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. Many Americans that have been basing their financial
futures on their pensions are waking up one day and finding that their pensions are either gone or have
been cut back dramatically. 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 ail over America or taxes will need to be raised dramatically. Either way, we are all going to feel
the pain of these broken promises.
There simply is not enough money out there to keep all of the pension commitments that have been
made. Something has got to give. In the end, millions of elderly Americans will likely be plunged into
poverty as pensions disappear.
Some local governments around the nation are already declaring bankruptcy and are either eliminating
pensions or are cutting them very deeply. Just check out what just happened in Central Falls, Rhode
Island...
For years, city officials promised robust union contracts and pensions without raising revenue to pay
for them. Last August, the math caught up with them. Central Falls was broke, its pension fu n d short
S46 million. It declared bankruptcy.
"My daughters grew up here, went to school here. It's all gone," said Mike Geoffroy, a retired
firefighter.
He said he could not make the payments on his house after his pension was cut by SI. 100 a month.
When will the math catch up with the city where you are living?
r 1
DEFENDANTS
EXHIBIT
K
For years and years most of our state and local politicians have been ignoring this problem. But
eventually a day comes when you simply cannot ignore it any longer.
Check out what Pensacola Mayor Ashton Hayward said about the situation in his city recently....
"When our annual pension liability is more than our yearly property tax revenues, we have to do
something"
Keep in mind that taxpayers don't get any new services for money spent on pensions. It is money that
goes straight into the pockets of retired workers. State and local governments are desperately trying to
pay retired workers what they are owed and fund ongoing government functions at the same time, but
many have reached the breaking point.
All over the country, state and local governments are going broke. The following is from a recent
article by Duff McDonald....
Alabama's Jefferson County
has actually gone bankrupt.
Stockton, California is all
but ready to do the same.
And all you have to do is
look to Detroit—or any o f
the nearby auto towns
named after a Buick model
o f one sort or another—and
you see fiscal crisis playing
out right now. Look in your
own backyard—or at the
potholes on your
neighborhood roads—and
you will likely find the same.
Things are so bad in Stockton, California that they are actually skipping debt payments....
The city o f 290,000 that rode the wave o f the housing boom in the late 1990s and early 2000s now
finds itself littered with foreclosed homes, saddled with pension, health care and other obligations it
can't afford, and unable to pay its bills.
The City Council voted last month to suspend $2 million in bond payments and begin negotiations with
bond holders, creditors and unions.
And did you notice what is being blamed for the financial problems in Stockton?
Pension and healthcare benefits.
Sadly, we are seeing pension nightmares erupt all over the nation right now.
For example, check out what is happening to the Public School Employees' Retirement System and
State Employees' Retirement System in Pennsylvania...
PSERS had an accrued unfunded liability o f nearly $26.5 billion, the amount o f money the fund is
short to cover existing retirement benefits. That hole is expected to grow to $43 billion by 2019. SERS
is $12.5 billion in the red, and that shortfall is expected to climb to nearly $18 billion by 2018. Unless
the stock market makes giant sustained gains, taxpayers will have to refill those funds.
That doesn't sound good at all.
In California, the Orange County Employees Retirement System is estimated to have a 10 billion dollar
unfunded pension liability.
How in the world can a single county be facing a 10 billion dollar hole?
This is madness.
The state of Illinois is facing an unfunded pension liability of more than 77 billion
dollars. Considering the fact that the state of Illinois is flat broke and on the verge of default, it is
inevitable that a lot of those pension obligations will never be paid.
In fact, there are going to be a whole lot of broken promises all over the country.
Pension consultant Girard Miller told California's Little Hoover Commission that state and local
government bodies in the state of California have $325 billion in combined unfunded pension
liabilities.
That comes to about $22,000 for every single working adult in the state of California.
So where is all of that money going to come from?
But at least most state and local government employees are still covered by pension plans, even if they
are failing.
In the private sector, pension plans are vanishing at lightning speed.
According to the Boston College Center for Retirement Research, the percentage of workers in
America covered by a traditional pension plan fell from 62 percent in 1983 to 17 percent in 2007.
That isn't just a trend.
That is a tidal wave.
And many of the private pension plans that still exist are massively underfunded. For example,
Verizon's pension plan is underfunded by 3.4 billion dollars.
So what should Americans do in light of all this?
Well, the number one thing to realize is that the pension plan you have been counting on could
disappear at any time.
We live in an economic environment that is extremely unstable, and about the only thing you can count
on in this environment is rapid and dramatic change.
Do not plan your financial future around a pension plan. If you do, you are likely to be bitterly
disappointed.
Americans that plan to retire in the coming years should do their best to try to fund their own
retirements.
Unfortunately, most Americans are not putting away much of anything for retirement. As I have
written about previously, one study found that American workers are $6.6 trillion short of what they
need to retire comfortably.
Ouch.
Over the next 20 years approximately 10,000 Baby Boomers will be retiring every single day.
A lot of them are going to be blindsided by empty pension funds and broken promises.
We are facing a retirement crisis of unprecedented magnitude, and there is not much hope in sight.
And if there is a major stock market crash, things are going to be much, much worse.
Most pension funds and retirement plans are heavily invested in the stock market. If we were to see a
major financial crisis like we saw back in 2008 it would be absolutely devastating. Millions of
Americans could see their retirement plans wiped out in short order.
Once again, please do not place your faith in the system.
If you do, you are likely to end up holding a bag of broken promises.
A gigantic tsunami of unfunded pension obligations is coming. A lot of state and local governments
are going to go broke. A lot of promises are going to be broken.
If you hope to retire any time soon, you better plan on being able to take care of yourself.

Madoff Repeat Odds Rise With Neutered Watchdog: Susan Antilla - B... http://www.bloomberg.com/news/print/2011-02-25/madoff-repeat-odd-.
DEFENDANTS
EXHIBIT
K-l Bloomberg
Madoff Repeat Odds Rise With Neutered Watchdog: Susan
Antilla
■Bi\\ Sudani AiffliEfca- lFc!lr>34L 2t^BII
Bloomberg Opinion
I don’t want to shock anyone, but I think there’s a lot of cheating going on in Corporate America.
I’m not talking about the Enrons and Lehmans or the Madoffs and Stanfords.
I’m wondering what else is going on that’s got the biggest guns in finance and commerce apoplectic about a
new whistle- blower proposal.
Businesses are fighting full-tilt to defang a plan that could make it easier to expose skeletons in the closet.
That’s not how people behave unless they’re hiding something.
In November, the Securities and Exchange Commission published a proposal that would provide financial
incentives to whistle-blowers who have information about large financial frauds. Along with bounties, the
agency also proposed new protections for snitches, who often lose their jobs once they divulge what they
know.
In the months since then, dozens of companies, business groups and defense lawyers have barraged the SEC
with objections.
“This is the most intense corporate lobbying I’ve seen in 27 years,” says Stephen M. Knhn executive director
at the National Whistleblowers Center “They have to be afraid of something.”
Among the provisions of the Dodd-Frank financial overhaul bill that became law last year was a bounty'
program to reward whistle-blowers who had knowledge of substantial wrongdoing. If an informant tipped
off the SEC on a case that wound up yielding $1 million or more in sanctions, the whistle-blower could
receive as much as 30 percent of the penalties.
Keep It Local
There are lots of things critics don’t like about the proposal, but one detail puts them over-the-top: letting
whistle-blowers bypass a company’s internal tip program and go straight to the SEC.
Opponents offer many reasons why that’s a bad idea. There's some nonsense about wanting to assist the
I of 3 5/28/2012 8:50 AM
SEC, given its limited resources. There are concerns about greedy plaintiffs’ lawyers who will inundate the
agency with frivolous claims that companies are best suited to weed out. Finally, there is the estimable
corporate goal to learn about misconduct pronto so that management can clean things up. And if those
greedy whistle-blowers seeking bounties are hiking off to the SEC with the dirt before the company can find
out, how are virtuous corporate citizens ever going to be able to do the right thing?
Hate Mail
That’s only part of the story. Some opponents of the proposal told the SEC in a Dec. 7, 2010, letter that the
agency should amend its definition of retaliation to exclude cases where a company’s rules instructed
workers to use in-house departments to report wrongdoing. Under that sort of scenario, the employee who
spilled the beans to a regulator, but not to the company, could risk being fired for cause, and the company
might avoid being liable for retaliation.
Another idea that could pretty much shut things down for whistle-blowers: Some critics of the SEC proposal
want to bar lawyers who represent whistle-blowers from being entitled to a contingency fee based on any
award. Good luck finding a lawyer who doesn’t care about getting paid.
For all the corporate talk about the admirable clean-ups that result when employees use internal compliance
systems, real life can fall short. A former JPMorgan Chase & Co. broker sued the firm on Feb. 14, alleging
she was fired after giving her bosses a report in which she suggested they “immediately exit the relationship”
with a client she suspected of money laundering, according to the complaint. Jennifer Sharkey alleged that
she submitted the report on July 30, 2009, and was fired six days later.
Suing Your Employer
JPMorgan spokesman Douglas Morris said that Sharkey’s related claims had previously been dismissed by
both the U.S. Department of Labor and the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York and
that the bank has asked the court to dismiss Sharkey’s recent complaint as well.
Her claims are only allegations, but if it turns out to be true that she was the second-highest producer in her
department, but then was fired less than a week after suggesting the firm dump a lucrative client, the timing
sure will look funny.
In the whistle-blower community, people like Kohn see signs that business will win this fight. Last week the
SEC named Sean McKessy, corporate secretary for cigarette maker Altria Group Inc. and a former SEC
enforcement lawyer, to run its new whistle-blower office. It was a disappointment to advocates who hoped
that a more experienced watchdog would get the job. “Even if he’s the right man, it’s sending the wrong
message,” Kohn says.
WikiLeaks Option
Madoff Repeat Odds Rise With Neutered Watchdog: Susan Antilla - B... http://www.bloomberg.com/news/print/2011-02-25/madoff-repeat-odd-...
2 of 3 5/28/2012 8:50 AM
Should the SEC cave to demands that informants be forced to tell all to the company if they want to qualify
for a bounty, it will only be a short-term fix for business. “The more pressure you put on the SEC to force
people to report directly to the company, the more likely these people will go to places like WikiLeaks,” said
Lynn E. Turner, former chief accountant at the SEC.
It makes for great sound bites to yap about greedy plaintiffs’ lawyers and frivolous whistle-blowers, but in
the end, it turns out some employees witness bad things and want to see them fixed, not covered up.
Snsan Antilla is a Bloomberg News columnist. The opinions expressed are her own.)
To contact the writer of this column: Susan Antilla in New York at santilla(Sbloomberg.net
To contact the editor responsible for this column: James Greiff at igreiff@bloomberg.net
©2012 BLOOMBERG L.P. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Madoff Repeat Odds Rise With Neutered Watchdog: Susan Antilla - B... http://www.bloomberg.com/news/print/2011 -02-25/madof'f-repeat-odd-...
3 Of 3 5/28/2012 8:50 AM

SHEPHERD SMITH
EDWARDS &KANTAS
L T D L L P
i opics
s Fargo, Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan Chase, Citigroup, UBS Secur... http://www.stockbrokerfraudblog.com/2009/03/wells_fargo_goldman ..
Home > Bank of America Broker Fraud Citigroup Credit Ratings Agencies Credit Suisse Deutsche
Bank Financial Firms Fitch J P Morgan - Chase Moody's Morgan Stanley Weis Fargo, CciSTrisi
Saitts. J? Wrngan (Otase.GtiGjnau0). -SS2ennne^ ferritin Wsodlt's Invascmanc SirjicES
Bitr' Sadr mjK jrt? Aittuito QwemtarrE iifirt (3&nUeiT^ffof Wajife Farc[a.CertiffeatE I nvsstors- for
■^ilagiai Soon&es ?rmirt~ ifcasnarrs
POSTED ON: MARCH 5, 2009 BY t KANTA5 17D 1 1 P
Wells Fargo, Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan Chase, Citigroup, UBS
Securities, Bank of America, Moody's Investment Services, and
Fitch Ratings are Among Defendants Sued On Behalf of Weils
Fargo Certificate Investors for Alleged Securities Fraud
Violations
Share j J^Tweet f f i l ; -1 n Like 0
The Boilermaker-Blacksmith National Pension Trust is suing a number of investment
banks, credit rating agencies, and underwriters, including Wells Fauu WFASC,
Morgan Stanley & Co. Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC Barclays Capital Inc. Bear
Stearns & Co. Countrywide Securities Corp. Deutsche Bank Securities inc. IPMoroan
Chase Inc. Bank of America Corp. Citioroup Global Markets Inc. McGraw-Hill Cos.,
Moody's Investor Services Inc., and Fitch Ratings Inc., over allegations that they made
false statements in the prospectus and registration statement for certificates that
were collateralized by Wells Fargo Bank, NA. The lawsuit, filed on behalf of thousands
of investors that bought the certificates from Wells Fargo Asset Securities Corp.,
accuses the defendants of violating the l 933 Securities Act by engaging in these
alleged actions.
According to the securities fraud lawsuit, the defendants concealed from investors
that Wells Fargo revised its underwriting practices in 2005 and became involved in
high risk subprime mortgage lending. The complaint contends that WFASC and a
number of defendants submitted to the Securities and Exchange Commision
prospectus and registration statements representing that the mortgages were backed
by certificates that were subject to specific underwriting guidelines for evaluating a
borrower's creditworthiness. The plaintiffs contend that these prospectuses and
registration statements were false because they neglected to reveal that the Wells
Fargo-originated certificates were not in accordance with the credit, underwriting,
and appraisal standards that Wells Fargo, per the companies, had supposedly used to
approve mortgages.
The lawsuit also claims that because Wells Fargo decided to enter the subprime
Call for a Free Consultation
(800) 259-9010
T-h 5 v D d i '?£ f : , - ! r t t
nrmecirDr of vnu;
imDrmaniir.
TOPICS RY DATE SEARCH
Accounting aFf rans
Accountino Fraud
Affmirv. Fraud
Aagpr Panz i Scheme
Analysts
Annuities
Annum** ana insurance
A-bitratior
I of 9 5/28/2012 8:14 AM
mortgage mortgage market in 2005, the investment bank had to take significant
write-downs in 2008 because of its massive exposure to the subprime market and the
WFASC certificates that these mortgages backed dropped significantly in value. The
Boiler-Blaksmith fund reports that it lost about $5 million, which is more than half of
what it invested.
Related Web Resources:
Read the Complaint
The Boilermakers National Funds
Please contact our securities fraud lawyers at Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas LTD
LLP if you believe you were the victim of investment fraud.
Wells Fargo, Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan Chase, Citigroup, UBS Secur... http://www.stockbrokerfraudblog.com/2009/03/wells_fargo goldman ...
Posted by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas LTD LLP I Permalmk I Email This Post
Posted In: Bank of America. Broker Fraud. Citigroup. Credit Ratings Agencies . Credit Suisse.
Deutsche Bank., Financial Firms. Fitch. I P Morgan - Chase . Moody’s . Morgan Stanley
Asset-Backed Securities
Attorneys
Auction-Rate Securities
Bond Dealers
Bond Funds
Broker Fraud
Broker-Dealers
CFTC
Churaircg
Class Action Lawsuits
1 Closed-E^d Funds
Collateral Debt Obligation
Collateralized Mortgage
Obligations
Collateralized loan obligations 1
Commercial Lender:i
CIT Group
GMAC
Prudential Financial
Commodity Options Fraud f
Credit Default Swaps (CDS) I
Credit Ratings
Credit Ratings Agencies
Fitch
Fust Moniauk 5kcu rities
Corp.
Moody's
Standard and Poor’s
Crime
Derivatives
Direct Access Systems
Dodd-Frank
ERISA Lawsuits
Enron
Exchange Traded Funds
Exchange-Traded Notes 1
FINRA
Financial Advisers
Bernard L Madoff Investment 1
Securities
Fisher Investments
financial firms
2 of 9 5/28/2012 3:48 PM

JPMorgan Chase to Pay S2I IM to Settle Charges It Rigged Municipal... http://www.stockbrokerfraudblog.com/201 l/07/jpmorgan_chase_to_p... r
m
Home Financial Firms J P Morgan - Chase Municipal Bonds - jR/fargarr Chase Kr “a* S2ITM a
S e r e Ctia r a s t£ ggjsd W imcpa "-arsaaciT Sadimx Cairjiencans
JPMorgan Chase to Pay 5211M to Settle Charges It Rigged
Municipal Bond Transaction Bidding Competitions
• Share I J^Tweet K] Like
IPMoroan Chase & Co.will pay $211 million to settle charges that its IP Morgan
Securities LLCDivision rigged dozens of bidding competitions for reinvesting the
proceeds from municipal bond transactions to win business from local and state
governments. The settlement is for complaints that the US Securities and Exchange
Commission, the Justice Department, the Internal Revenue Service, 25 state attorneys
general, and bank regulators had filed against the investment bank. JPMorgan has
also agreed to give back approximately $129.7 million to the municipalities that were
harm.
JP Morgan Securities is accused of making at least 93 secret deals with companies that
take care of the bidding processes in 31 states. The arrangement let the investment
bank see competitors’ offers.
According to regulators, between I 997 and 2005, members of JPMorgan's municipal
derivatives desk made misrepresentations and omissions in the secret deals, which
impacted the prices the governments ended up paying while jeopardizing the
tax-exempt position of billions of dollars worth of securities in the billions. This
alleged misconduct also undermined JP Morgan's competitors, who, along with the
financial firm, are supposed to offer cities and states the opportunity to bid for
competitive interest rates when they invest their tax-exempt proceeds from municipal
bonds in municipal reinvestment products. JPMorgan is accused of also sometimes
turning in nonwinning bids on purpose to meet tax requirements.
While The New York Time reports that by agreeing to settle JPMorgan Chase is not
denying or admitting to wrongdoing, Yahoo reports that the financial firm has
admitted to the illegal conduct and agreed to cooperate with the Justice Department’s
probe as long as it wasn’t prosecuted. JPMorgan, however, did blame the illegal
activity on ex-employees at a division that is no longer in operation.
To settle, JPMorgan will pay S5 1.2 million to the SEC, $35 million to the Office of the
Comptroller of the Currency, $50 million to the IRS, and $75 million to a number of
state attorneys general. It also reached a settlement with the Federal Reserve Bank of
New York.
DEFENDANTS
EXHIBIT
SHEPHERD SMITH
EDWARDS & KANTAS
Call for a Free Consultation
(800) 259-9010
-n*-.-3D3S aOOPr 11 "!~>r
otoie.nicjTVD* v:>ir
TTT.rmsnon
| BY DATE ! SEARCI
Accoun 11 firms
Accpuntino Fraud
A fn n rTv r r a u s
Aaar>i f ia n r ; S c h sm *
A n n u . i: ie s a n d in s u ra n c e
|| of 9 5/28/2012 7:52 AVI
JPMorgan Chase to Pay $211M to Settle Charges It Rigged Municipal.. http://www.stockbrokerfraudblog.com/2011 /07/jpmorgan_chase to_p...
Asset-Backed Securities
Attornevs
Auction-Rate Securities
Bond Dealers
Bond Funds
Broker Fraud
Broker-Dealers
CFTC
C h u rn in g
Class Action Lawsuits
Closed-End i-unds
Collateral Debt Obliqation
Collateralized Mortqaqe
Obliqations
Collateralized loan obliqations
Commercial Lender;
CIT Croup
CM AC
Prudential Financial
Commodity Options Fraud
Credit Default Swaps (CDS)
Credit Ratinqs
Credit Ratinqs Aqencies
Fitch
first v.ontauk Securities
Corp.
Moody's
Standard and Poor's
Crime
Derivatives
Direct Access Systems
Dodd-Frank
ERISA Lawsuits
Enron
Exchanqe Traded Funds
Exchanqe-Traded Notes
FINRA
Financial Advisers
Bernard L Madoff Investment
Securities
Fisher Investments
Financial Firms
Related Web Resources:
IPMorqan Settles Bond Bid-Riqqinq Case for 5211 Million. NY Times, July 7, 2011
IPMorqan pavs S211M to settle bid-riqqinq charges. Yahoo, July 7, 2011
More Blog Posts:
IP Morgan Chase Agrees to Pay S861M to Lehman Brothers Trustee. Stockbroker
Fraud Blog, June 28, 2011
Citigroup Ordered by FINRA to Pay S54.1 M to Two Investors Over Municipal Bond
Fund Losses. Stockbroker Fraud Blog, April 1 3, 201 1
UBS Financial Reaches $160M Settlement with the SEC and lustice Department Over
Securities Fraud. Antitrust, and Other Charges Related to Municipal Bond Market. May
16, 2011
Contact our stockbroker fraud law firm today.
Posted by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas LTD LLP | Permalink I Email This Post
Posted In: Financial Firms. I P Morgan - Chase. Municipal Bonds
2 of 9 5/28/2012 7:52 AM

JP Morgan Chase To Pay SI50M to Settle Securities Lawsuit Over Le... http://www.stockbrokerfraudblog.com/20I2/03/jp_morgan_chasc_to_..
Home ERISA Lawsuits Financial Firms J P Morgan - Chase Securities Fraud - _'F Vcrgart Grose c
J ' S D V i D S e n t r S «2rc« s la«scc©»=T _ » h S i t c r r 2 c r a m c n Q m t in - Sferacrr S x n c s
POSTED ON: MARCH 26, 2012 BY
JP Morgan Chase To Pay $1 50M to Settle Securities Lawsuit
Over Lending Program Losses of Union Pension Funds
1 Share J JfrTweet J J J f ] Like
To settle a securities lending lawsuit filed by the AFTRA Retirement Fund, the
Investment Committee of the Manhattan and Bronx Surface Transit Operating System,
and the Imperial County Employees' Retirement System, JPMorgan Chase & Co. will
pay $1 50 million. The union pension funds are blaming the financial firm for losses
that they sustained through its securities lending program. A district court will have
to approve the settlement.
JPMorgan had invested their money in Sigma Finance Corp. medium term notes, which
is a financial instrument that has since failed. However, billions of dollars of
repurchase financing was extended to Sigma in the process.
The securities claims accused JPMorgan of violating the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act and its state-imposed fiduciary obligations when it invested in Sigma.
The plaintiffs contend that financial firm should have known that the investment was
a poor one.
Per the union pension funds’ contracts with JPMorgan, the investment bank is only
supposed to put their money in investment vehicles that are low-risk and
conservative. They believe that the Sigma vehicle did not meet that standard.
The consolidated class action alleges that JPMorgan foresaw Sigma’s impending
failure, took part in predatory repo arrangements with significant discounts in order
to pick the best of Sigma’s assets in its portfolio, and reduced the quality and
quantity of these assets by taking title to assets in an amount that was nearly a billion
dollars more than the financing it gave.
The Board of Trustees of the American Federation of Television and Radio Artists
(AFTRA) Retirement Fund, which initially brought the class action case, contended that
JPMorgan made close to $2 billion profit, even as the notes were left with almost no
value. Last year, a year after the court certified the class action case, a judge gave
partial summary judgment to the financial firm.
The plaintiffs believe that the securities lawsuit brought up a number of key factual
and legal matters under New York common law and ERISA and that this made the case
“ nr ::or siicvs ti
DtDierriDr d? o j -
irirarmahpr:
['SUBMIT
Tcjpics j BY DATF. I SEARCt
Topics
Accountina Firm;
Accoun:ino -rau;:
ArSnirv z"aud
Aaape Pan;' Sihsmt
Aaaivsts
Annufci«
Annuities sn: nsursnce
Aran-anon
I of 9 5/28/2012 7:54 AM
very hard to litigate. They say the $1 50 million proposed settlement is a
representation of 30 - 1 00% of the potential provable losses if liability were to be set
up for a certain breach date. Therefore, seeing as a trial could have led to a wide
range of potential damage results, the settlement figure represents an appropriate
range of recovery
IPMorqan Agrees to Pay SI 50M To Settle Securities Lending Lawsuit, Bomberg, March
20, 2012
JPMorgan to pay 51 50 million over failed Sigma SIV. Reuters, March 20, 201 2
More Blog Posts:
IPMorqan Chase to Pay 5211M to Settle Charges It Rigged Municipal Bond Transaction
Bidding Competitions, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, July 9, 201 1
IP Morgan Chase Agrees to Pay 5861M to Lehman Brothers Trustee, Stockbroker
Fraud Blog, June 28, 2011
Investors Want IP Morgan Chase & Co. To Explain Over S95S of Mortgage-Backed
Securities. Institutional Investor Securities Blog, December 1 7, 2011
Our securities fraud lawyers represent individual and institutional investors with
claims of losses sustained because financial firms engaged in broker misconduct or
made certain errors that breached their duty and other responsibilities to their clients.
Contact Shepherd Smith Edwards and Kantas. LTD. LLP today.
Posted by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas LTD LLP I Permalink I Email This Post
Posted In: ERISA Lawsuits. Financial Firms. I P Morgan - Chase. Securities Fraud
JP Morgan Chase To Pay S150M to Settle Securities Lawsuit Over Le... http://www.stockbrokerfraudblog.com/2012/03/jp_morgan_chase to ...
Asset-Backed Securities
Attorneys
Auction-Rate Securities
Bond Dealers
Bond Funds
Broker Fraud
Broker-Dealers
CFTC
Churning
Class Action Lawsuits
Closed-End Funds
Collateral Defat Obligation
Collateralized Mortgage
Obligations
Collateralized loan obligations
Commercial Lenders
CIT Croup
CMAC
Prudential Financial
Commodity Options Fraud
Credit Default Swaps (CDS)
Credit Ratings
Credit Ratinqs Agencies
Fitch
First Montauk Securities
Corp.
Moody's
Standard and Poor’s
Crime
Derivatives
Direct Access Systems
Dodd-Frank
ERISA Lawsuits
Enron
Exchanqe Traded Funds
Exchange-Traded Notes
FINRA
Financial Advisers
Bernard L Madoff Investment 1
Securities
Fisher Investments
Pinanrial Firm^
2 of 9 5/28/2012 7:54 AM

Home Financial Firms J P Morgan - Chase IF /ta-iarr G tese “tafSHS Hr PSy. S551M to L-inrran
Sfcrtfters ~*iS0?5
JP Morgan Chase Agrees to Pay $861 M to Lehman Brothers
Trustee
( Share I JfrTweet D Like 0
A bankruptcy settlement has been reached between IP Morgan Chase & Co and the
trustee of Lehman Brothers Per the agreement, JP Morgan will pay $106 million in
securities and $755 million in cash—that’s $861 million. This will go to the customers
of the now defunct Lehman Brothers Holding. The settlement comes after a two-year
probe by trustee James Giddens in the Securities Investor Protection Act liquidation
proceedings.
Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc., which is Lehman Brothers Inc.’s parent company, filed
for bankruptcy in 2008. JP Morgan served as its clearing bank. Some 1 25,000
customers have filed claims worth about $ 1 80 billion total, of which about $ 1 30
billion are resolved. The claims that are left include those involving Lehman Brothers
Holdings, Lehman Brothers International, and a number of hedge funds. JP Morgan
and Lehman Brothers Holdings are still involved in two multibillion-dollar lawsuits.
JP Morgan Chase Agrees to Pay S86IM to Lehman Brothers Trustee
'h
http://www.stockbrokerfraudblog.com/20l l/06/jp _morgan_chase_agr...
Per court papers, the majority of the trustee’s claims against JP Morgan come from
securities that the bank held but failed to liquidate following the collapse of Lehman
brothers. While JP Morgan did not agree with all of the trustee’s- findings, they
consented to turning over the majority of the funds to resolve the dispute.
Lehman Brothers Holdings claims that JP Morgan Chase abused its role as a clearing
house firm when it forced the former to surrender $8.6 billion in cash collateral.
Lehman believes that if it could have held on to the funds, it wouldn’t have needed to
file for bankruptcy and that even if it still had to shut down, it could have done so in a
more orderly fashion.
ludoe Clears 5B6I Million I.P. Moroan-Lehman Settlement Wall Street Journal, June
23, 201 1
JP Morgan to Pay Lehman Brokeraoe SBb' Million in Bankruptcy Court SEttlement
FNN, June 23, 201 1
Securities Investor Protection Act, US Courts
“ hr ::>d*.arov* c t r*r
BToiettisr. x vrujT
inrc’rrisiior,
• SUBMIT
■ TOPICS | BY DATE | SEARCH
Topics
Ac counting Firms
Accounting fraud
Affinity Frau3
Aaape Ponzi Scnam*
Analysis
Annumes
A nnuities anrc in su rance
• Arbitrator
5/28/2012 7:56 AM

Motion for Class Certification in Lawsuit Against J.P. Morgan Securiti... http://www.stockbrokerfraudblog.com/2010/07/motion_for_class_certi..
Home Bear Stearns Financial Firms J P Morgan - Chase > Meecr far Class GsrcfiaiSc:? iir Lsn.sa.it
Agassi j-=. Morga- Sacanexs C vtr AJaged Manes IW { r iM K Sanr. Canoasi rrr Sart ijjv (Dram
POSTED ON: JU L Y 23, 2010 BY SHEPHERD SMirTHEDVWHDS AKAtJTAS LTP LLP
Motion for Class Certification in Lawsuit Against J.P. Morgan
Securities Inc. Over Alleged Market Manipulation Scam Granted
in Part by Court
t 5hare I jfrTweet D Like 0
A district court has granted in part the motion for class certification in the securities
fraud iavv'v-i.1 against .?. MoraanClearing Corp. and J.P. Morgan Securities Inc.
involving an alleged investment scam with Sterling Foster & Co. The alleged scheme
involves the manipulation of the the market for ML Direct Inc. securities during and
after an IPO. The JPM entities are named in their capacity as Bear 5teai ■ Co. Inc.
and Bear Stearns Securities Corp. successors.
The court says that one day after the IPO’s start, ML Direct stock’s price more than
doubled because Sterling Foster had bought most of it. The firm then sold over 3.375
million ML Direct at about S 14 to $ 1 5 a share. Because only 1.1 million shares in the
IPO were for sale, the court says that Sterling Foster sold 2.3 million more shares than
it owned. The other available ML Direct shares were held by insiders, who had a
lock-up agreement barring them from selling their shares within the first year of the
IPO unless they obtained underwriter Patterson Travis Inc.’s consent.
Sterling Foster and the insiders allegedly became involved in an undisclosed
agreement that allowed the brokerage firm to buy the insiders' stock at the
$3.25/share offering. Sterling Foster then bought their securities, which were
delivered to Bear Stearns. The court says that as a result, the brokerage firm made a
$24 million profit.
The plaintiffs are saying that the offering documents misled the investing public into
thinking that significantly less ML Direct shares were being offered and that the
market had set the $ 13 to $ 1 5/share price when Sterling Foster had artificially
created it and then bought shares from insiders at the lower share price. The plaintiffs
claim that Bear Stearns, as Sterling Foster's clearing house, knowingly took part in the
investment scam.
The plaintiffs moved to certify a class so they could pursue their Section 10(b) and
Section 20(a) claims. The court granted the motion as to the Section 10(b) antifraud
claims but denied the latter, which involves claims for control person liability.
_ "-= r?j»r ''.rcvr ; *:• :~r
:ir:>r?rior x vniii!
iirtrErmiiiffr
j / : TOPICS I BY DATE I SEARCH
Topics
Accounting ? irrn5
Accountmc r^aitd ' Arfi nirv Fraud
Aaar>e Pons- Scheme
Analysis
Annuities
Annuities ana insurance
Arjainatior
of 9 5/28/2012 7:56 AM
Related Web Resource:
Levitt v. IP Morgan Securities Inc. Law.com
Our stockbroker fraud law firm represents individual and institutional investors
throughout the US.
Posted by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas LTD LLP | Permalink I Email This Post
Posted In: Bear Stearns . Financial Firms . I P Morgan - Chase
Motion for Class Certification in Lawsuit Against J.P. Morgan Securiti... http://www.stockbrokerfraudblog.com/2010/07/motion for class certi...
Asset-Backed Securities
Attorneys
Auction-Rate Securities
Bond Dealers
Bond Funds
Broker Fraud
Broker-Dealers
CFTC
Churrvrtg
Class Action Lawsuits
Cies-d-Enc! Funds
Collateral Debt Obligation
Collateralized Mortgage
Obliqations
Collateralized loan obligations
Commercial Lenders
CIT Group
CMAC
Prudential Financial
Commodity Options Fraud
Credit Default Swaps (CDS)
Credit Ratings
Credit Ratinqs Agencies
Fitch
First Montauk Secui
Corp.
Moody's
Standard and Poor's
Crime
Derivatives
Direct Access Systems
Dodd-Frank
ERISA Lawsuits
Enron
Exchange Traded Funds
Exchange-Traded Notes
FINRA
Financial Advisers
Bernard L Madoff Investment
Securities
Fisher Investments
Financial f irms
2 of 9 5/28/2012 7:56 AM

f
SECURITIES FRAUD WEB SITE PRACTICE AREAS CONTACT US
Analysi;
Annuities
A a p i lra n o r .
Lehman Brolhers Lawsuit Claims Its Bankruptcy Was In Part Due to ... http://www.stockbrokerrraudblog.com/2010/06/lehman_brothers_laws...
Home Financial Firms J P Morgan - Chase Lehman Brothers Securities Fraud i_eitrci3iT 3rutfrers
_3*3ue Ofams Its Bsnvsignr. «.£s n ^^3^: Owe 82>H? Hfenjar C h a se 'S Saaaat of SS.S Sllion in Css/r
Call for a Free Consultation
(800)259-9010
Share ] jfrTweet a
r.£ ::>3r i;
-nTc-vrnsrrc'r
TOPICS BY DATF.' SF.ARC
Topics
A c c o u n tm a H rm s
A.-:cpunting Fraud
Amnirv -rauD
4 c a n s ? o r .2 ^rhemf-
A n n u it« e ? i in c in » u r£inrr
The estate of Lehman Brothers Holdings is claiming that IP Motaan Chaseabused its
position as a clearing firm when it forced Lehman to give up $8.6 billion in cash
reserve as collateral. In its securities fraud lawsuit, Lehman contends that if it hadn’t
had to give up the money, it could have stayed afloat, or, at the very least, shut down
its operations in an orderly manner. Instead, Lehman filed for bankruptcy in
September 2008.
JP Morgan was the intermediary between Lehman and its trading partners. Per
Lehman's investment fraud lawsuit, JP Morgan used its insider information to obtain
billions of dollars from Lehman through a number of “one sided agreements." The
complaint contends that JP Morgan threatened to stop serving as Lehman’s clearing
house unless it offered up more collateral as protection. Lehman says it had to put up
the cash because clearing services were the “lifeblood" of its “broker-dealer business.”
JP Morgan’s responsibilities, in relation to Lehman, included providing unsecured and
secured intra-day credit advances for the broker-dealer’s clearing activities, acting as
Lehman’s primary depositary bank for deposit accounts, and serving in the role of
administrative agent and lead arranger of LBHI's $2 billion unsecured revolving credit
facility.
Lehman says that the $8.6 billion in collateral was billions more than what was
needed to protect JP Morgan from such losses. As a result, Lehman claims that it was
unable to explore other options besides bankruptcy. It is seeking the return of the
extra cash so that the money can be used to pay creditors that are still awaiting
payment in the wake of its bankruptcy proceedings. Not only was Lehman's
bankruptcy case the largest bankruptcy filing in US history, but it also helped instigate
the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression.
Meantime, JP Morgan spokesperson Joseph Evangelisti has told BNA that the securities
fraud complaint has no merit. A court-appointed examiner has said that Lehman's
Lehman Brothers Lawsuit Claims Its Bankruptcy Was In Part
Due toJP Morgan Chase’s Seizure of $8.6 Billion m Cash
Reserves
5/28/2012 7:58 AM
collapse can be blamed on accounting irregularities. However, Lehman CEO Richard
Fuld has said that he has no knowledge of such irregularities.
You can still seek financial recovery for Lehman structured products. Contact our
securities law firm to discuss your case.
Related Web Resources:
Lehman Brothers estate sues I P. Morgan Chase. Washington Post, May 28, 2010
Lehman Brothers Sues IPMorqan Chase & Co. (NYSE: IPM), Daily Trend, June 12, 2010
Lehman Files Biggest Bankruptcy After Suitors Balk, Bloomberg.com, September 1 5,
2008
Posted by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas LTD LLP | Permalink | Email This Post
Posted In: Financial Firms . I P Morgan - Chase . Lehman Brothers . Securities Fraud
Lehman Brothers Lawsuit Claims Its Bankruptcy Was In Part Due to ... http://www.stockbrokerfraudblog.com/2010/06/lehman_brothers_laws...
Asset-Backed Securities
Attorneys
Auction-Rate Securities
Bond Dealers
Bond Funds
Broker Fraud
Broker-Dealers
CFTC
Churning
Class Action Lawsuits
Closed-End Funds
Collateral Debt Obligation
Collateralized Mortgage
Obligations
Collateralized loan obligations
Commercial Lenders
CfT Croup
CM AC
Prudential Financial
Commodity Options Fraud
Credit Default Swaps (CDS)
Credit Ratings
Credit Ratings Agencies
Fitch
First Montauk Securities 1
Corp.
Moody's
Standard and Poor':s
Crime
Derivatives
Direct Access Systems
Dodd-Frank
ERISA Lawsuits
Enron
Exchanqe Traded Funds
Exchange-Traded Notes
FINRA
Financial Advisers
Bernard L Madoff Investment
Securities
Fisher Investments
Financial Firms
2 Of 9 5/28/2012 3:59 PM

J.P.Morgan Securities Ltd. Ordered by UK's Financial Services Author... http://www.stockbrokerfraudblog.com/2010/06/jpmorsan securities
I f -
Home Financial Firms J P Morgan - Chase __=.'«rcrrar 3tcinfc*s Unt entered by UK's HrsaneiaJ
Ss-ucss ■Sucicro, tdS S i S i*.- W:for Eraser,mr,'Giert'Hfene* ®iles
J.P.Morgan Securities Ltd. Ordered by UK’s Financial Services
Authority to Pay $48.7 M for Breaching Client Money Rules
I Share jfrTweet I ] Like 0
Upon issuing its largest fine ever, the United Kingdom's Financial Services Authority
says it is ordering J.P.Morgan Securities Ltd. to pay $48.7 million for breaching Client
Money Rules that are there to make sure that financial organizations properly protect
clients’ funds. FSA claims that between November 1, 2002 and July 8, 2009, JPMSL
failed to segregate billions of dollars—between $1.96 billion and $23 billion—that
belonged to its clients.
PER FSA’s Final Notice on May 25, JPMSL, one of the largest holders of client money in
the UK, held its futures and options business’s client in aJPMorgan Chase Bank N.A.
unsegregated account. The mistake was a breach of the financial service regulator’s
Principle 1 0 and the Client Money Rules. The rules require that client funds be held in
a segregated account overnight.
Call for a Free Consultation
(800) 259-9010
FSA says that when determining JMPSL’s penalty, the facts that JMPSL's misconduct
wasn’t intentional and that no clients sustained any financial losses because of the
mistake were factored into account.
Related Web Resources:
FSA levies largest ever fine of £B3.32m on l.P.Morqan Securities Ltd for client money
breaches FSA.Cov.UK, June 3, 2010
F .S .A . Clamps Down on Client Money Rules New York Times, June 8, 2010
Please contact our securities fraud lawyers regarding any financial losses you
sustained because o f broker misconductor error. Shepherd Smith £dwards & Kamas
LTDJ_LPhas helped thousands of investors get their money back.
i opics
Accounting Firms
Accounting fraud
Affinity frauc
Aaans ?pr.;i Schem;
AnaKrsrs
Annmnes
Ann jm e f anc lr.>.uranee
A-b itra :io r.
FSA says that JPMSL's error would have placed clients at "significant risk" if the
investment bank were to ever become insolvent. During the insolvency process, the
clients would not have been able to claim from a “pool of protected client money"
because they would have been "classed as general unsecured creditors.
”?*** £335 atC'tf* t:r t:ir
:.--DT-=*::ior y v o l t
mTcrrriariDr,
3U9Mr
TOPICS | BY DATE I SEARCH
1 of 9 5/28/2012 7:58 AM

The Maine Crime: Mortgage Fraud In The Great State Of Maine

Tuesday, October 9, 2012

No comments:

Post a Comment