BANSC-RE-2010-187-Defendants Objection of Plaintiffs Motion To Lift Stay and Motion For Summary Judgment

STATE OF MAINE CIVIL
COUNTY OF PENOBSCOT SUPERIOR DISTRICT COURT
TD BANK N.A. f/k/a FIRST MASSACHUSETTS BANK N.A. Plaintiff, Case No.: BANSC-RE-2010-187 Judge: INJUNCTIVE RELIEF SOUGHT v.
DEFENDANTS OBJECTION TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO LIFT STAY AND MOTION FOR FINAL JUDGMENT WITH INCORPORATED MOTION FOR SANCTIONS, DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND MEMORANDUM OF LAW. [PROPOSED ORDER] JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
Twila A. Butler f/k/a Wolf Pro se And Charlton A. Butler Jr. Pro se. 44 Patten St. Bangor, ME. 04401 207-249-5378 Victim.of.crime.and.corruption@gmail.com
TWILA A. BUTLER f/k/a WOLF AND CHARLTON A. BUTLER JR. pro se Defendant and Defendant-Intervenor.
[Filed concurrently with Notice of Motion and Defendants Separate Statement of Undisputed Facts Motion to Disqualify Opposing Counsel Defendants Objection to Plaintiffs Witnesses, Affidavits and Exhibits, Sworn Affidavit of Defendant Twila A. Butler f/k/a Wolf, Defendants Motion For Compensation For Time Spent Preparing Submissions in the Defense of Their Home From Plaintiffs Fraudulent Foreclosure Attempt with Incorporated Motion to Strike, Memorandum of Law and Supporting Exhibits On Objection To Plaintiffs Motion For Lift of Stay And Motion For Summary Judgment On Defendants objection to Plaintiffs Motion to Lift Stay and Motion For Summary Judgment on Motion for Sanctions, Declaratory and Injunctive Relief. [Proposed Order Granting Defendants Motion] Date of Hearing: _________ Time of Hearing: _________
DEFENDANTS OBJECTION TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO LIFT STAY AND FINAL AND SUMMARY JUDGMENT WITH INCORPORATED MOTION FOR SANCTIONS, DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND MEMORANDUM OF LAW. [PROPOSED ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS MOTION] TITLE TO REAL PROPERTY INVOLVED INJUNCTIVE RELIEF SOUGHT JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
Defendant and Defendant-Intervenor with objection to Plaintiffs Motion for a Lifting of

Defendants Objection To Plaintiffs Motion To Lift Stay And Motion For Final Judgment
Page
NOW, come, Defendants TWILA A. BUTLER f/k/a WOLF AND CHARLTON A. BUTLER JR.
Stay and Motion for Summary Judgment. Defendants do not owe this debt, Defendant Homeowner T. Butler f/k/a Wolf, did not sign any agreement even close to this most egregious act of false testimony and lie, and particularly, this, agreement currently in issue at bar. Twila A. Butler f/k/a Wolf Pro se And Charlton A. Butler Jr. Pro se. 44 Patten St. Bangor, ME. 04401 207-249-5378 Victim.of.crime.and.corruption@gmail.com 1. Twila A. Butler, f/k/a Wolf, as sworn to, asserted to and declared to be the truth, in
her affidavit, concurrently filed with this motion. Defendant Twila A. Butler will again in case anyone missed it state for the record that she; Twila A. Butler f/k/a Wolf, DID NOT SIGN FOR THIS LOAN. SHE DID NOT AGREE TO THIS LOAN; SHE IN NO WAY, LEGALLY OR OTHERWISE, IS, OR CAN BE, MADE RESPONSIBLE FOR THIS LOAN. 2. There was never a time, in which, Defendant T Butler, was told of, nor disclosed to;
nor counseled about the facts of the loan currently considered in default and pursued as a fraudulent foreclosure. As dictated by an imaginary mortgage and promissory note. This fact and more will be shown by evidentiary proofs and fact, as was the requirement at the time and, currently is, still, required under TILA, the U.C.C. and RESPA as well other applicable State and Federal law. Plaintiffs, have committed; and continue to be allowed, to commit, multiple criminal acts in violation of the FDCPA. This in addition to TILA and RESPA violations. 3. 4. A Stay has been rightfully and correctly granted, Defendants Exhibits A. Defendants point out to opposing counsel [that] this and sua sponte, ex parte, and
such actions, are antithetical to Defendants interest and if made would be outside of Defendants presence and just plain unfair; we do all remember what fair is.dont we? Besides, sua sponte, exparte, and any reversible error, period, is and/or are, what rule 60
Page
is for anyway.
STATE OF MAINE CIVIL 5.
Rule 60, among many reasons, would include this matter in the event of reversible
error granting a lift of stay and subsequent granting of Plaintiffs motion for final and summary judgment. 6. Twila A. Butler f/k/a Wolf Pro se And Charlton A. Butler Jr. Pro se. 44 Patten St. Bangor, ME. 04401 207-249-5378 Victim.of.crime.and.corruption@gmail.com Defendants point out to the court that Defendants have made demand for a jury trial
since, the inception of this matter with their responses to opposing counsel, and reiterate that demand at this time. 7. This action is being brought and maliciously pursued by a debt collector well aware
of, as well their counsel, its lack of legal basis for complaint. 8. 9. The debt is not a consumer debt. Plaintiffs, in addition, being informed that Defendants never made this loan, are
aware that it is not a consumer debt as well, and that, consumers, dispute the validity of said debt. 10. Plaintiffs have made no attempt; but for the; by rote recitation of that required to semantically qualify, as to having initiated a foreclosure action, but is neither colorable nor valid past that point. 11. Plaintiffs, have attempted, to criminally take Defendants property, nevertheless, through fraudulent conveyance, by way of multiple acts; of fraud upon the court, fraudulent filings with the Penobscot County Registry of Deeds, depriving the city of their funds on numerous and uncountable transactions unknown but to Plaintiffs. Additionally Plaintiffs have sought, through relaxed local rules of discovery, to further circumvent the law, deprive Defendants of their constitutional rights and to further defraud this court and for all intents and purposes, no offense to this court and your honor, Plaintiffs are calling this court an idiot.
Page Defendants Objection To Plaintiffs Motion To Lift Stay And Motion For Final Judgment
12. Defendants file concurrently their motion to order discovery through the court from this point on in addition to their motion for sanctions and for legal action for Plaintiffs and counsels egregious illegal actions to date. Plaintiffs entire complaint should be stricken, in this action, and permanent injunctive Twila A. Butler f/k/a Wolf Pro se And Charlton A. Butler Jr. Pro se. 44 Patten St. Bangor, ME. 04401 207-249-5378 Victim.of.crime.and.corruption@gmail.com and declaratory relief granted, due to; A: there is no debt owed to Plaintiffs and B: the egregious and malicious acts of Plaintiffs and counsel, for, the perpetrating of foreclosure fraud, extortion, and tortuous conduct as well their multiple acts of fraud upon the court. C. Plaintiffs and their counsel are nothing more than vexatious litigants raping the courts, states and counties of fees and resources; while, simultaneously doing the same to Defendants. D. No matter what the outcome, opposing counsel expects to be paid and will be paid by their clients. Even if Defendants prevail they have borne the weight and cost of litigation for a fight they didnt start and against a person who gets paid no matter what. Defendants bear the entire expense of dispute. E. This matter, no insult to this court, is more suited and in fact a Federal Case as the answer here, in a Federal Adjudication on such a pervasive Nationwide RICO Enterprise level display of colorable action, by these Plaintiffs and their co-conspirators across America, as witnessed in countless courts across the country begs the old saw, if it walks like a duck.. must be a duck. F. As the result of this case at bar would reflect the very reason for the current
Page
problems, here in Maine, due to predatory servicing and fraudulent
action in the Maine Legislature; and their expectation of a resolution, to, any
foreclosures, with the enactment of HP 128, LD 145 - An Act to Protect Homeowners Subject to Foreclosure by Requiring the Foreclosing Entity to Provide the Court with Original Documents. Pricelessly makes apparent to all but the morally blind, and a matter of law already, even more apparent to Twila A. Butler f/k/a Wolf Pro se And Charlton A. Butler Jr. Pro se. 44 Patten St. Bangor, ME. 04401 207-249-5378 Victim.of.crime.and.corruption@gmail.com those visually challenged in their moral turpitude. 13. Counsel, for Plaintiffs, is covered by the FDCPA as observed by their FDCPA declaration Defendants Exhibits B C D E F and G. 14. If their arguments, for arguments sake alone, are true, then, Plaintiffs and counsel, have admitted being covered by the act and would have to fit within a narrow statutory set of constructed and interpreted guidelines; of which opposing counsel and Plaintiffs have failed to adhere to; neither in spirit nor in letter nor with the requisite good faith and fair dealings. 15. Counsel for the Plaintiffs, debt collector declaration, is, prima facie, an open and honest admission, regarding the unsecured nature of this fraudulent loan and corresponding debt, and truly Plaintiffs and counsels, only, honest statement to date. As such the following is true, unarguably so, in regards to Plaintiffs and counsel.
-ARGUMENTSTATUTORY BACKGROUND AND PREEMPTION 16. In 1977, Congress moved to protect the rights of the individual from abusive collection practices. Specifically, Congress found that [a]busive debt collection practices contribute to the number of personal bankruptcies, to marital instability, to the loss of
Page
jobs, and to invasions of individual privacy. 15 U.S.C.A. 1692(a).
17. Furthermore, it decided that current laws, of the day, were woefully inadequate in protecting the rights of the consumer. Thus, the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) was adopted in 15 U.S.C.A. 1692. The legislative history supports the contention that a debtor has standing to complain of violations of the Act, regardless of Twila A. Butler f/k/a Wolf Pro se And Charlton A. Butler Jr. Pro se. 44 Patten St. Bangor, ME. 04401 207-249-5378 Victim.of.crime.and.corruption@gmail.com whether a valid debt exists. 18. During the debate of this bill the chairman of the subcommittee reported (t)hat every individual, whether or not he owes the debt, has a right to be treated in a reasonable and civil manner. Baker v. G. C. Services Corporation, 677 F.2d 775, 777 (9thCir. 1982). The Act, however, was not intended to shield consumers from the embarrassment and inconvenience which are the natural consequences of debt collection. Dalton v. FMA Enterprises, Inc., 953 F.Supp. 1525, 1531 (Dist. Ct. M.D. Fla. 1997); citing Higgins v. Capitol Credit Services, Inc., 762 F.Supp. 1128, 1135 (D.Del. 1991) (cite omitted). 19. Finally, the FDCPA does state that it preempts any state law which is inconsistent with the mandates of the Act itself. 15 U.S.C.A. 1692n. But that any state law that gives more protection than what is afforded by the Act is allowed. SCOPE OF THE FAIR DEBT COLLECTION PRACTICES ACT 20. 15 U.S.C.A. 1692a specifically states that the FDCPA only applies to a consumer debt.15 U.S.C.A. 1692 Congressional findings and declaration of purpose sets out a relatively narrow definition and statement of purpose. Specifically it states: (e) Purposes; it is the purpose of this subchapter to eliminate abusive debt collection practices, by debt collectors, to insure that those debt collectors, who refrain from using abusive debt collection practices, are not
Page
protect consumers against debt collection abuses.
competitively disadvantaged, and to promote consistent State action to
Thus, Congresss intent was to limit abusive behavior from debt collectors attempting to collect a consumer debt. A consumer debt arises out of a transaction in which the money, property, insurance or services are primarily personal, family, or household purposes. Thus, an entity collecting any business debt or other commercial debt is not subject to the Twila A. Butler f/k/a Wolf Pro se And Charlton A. Butler Jr. Pro se. 44 Patten St. Bangor, ME. 04401 207-249-5378 Victim.of.crime.and.corruption@gmail.com FDCPA. 21. A debt collector does not include the creditor or a creditors employees. 1. 15 U.S.C.A. 1692a (6), specifically states that the term debt collector does not include; (A) any officer or employee of a creditor while, in the name of the creditor, collecting debts for such creditor. 22. Thus, a creditor and its employees are not debt collectors under the meaning of the FDCPA and the actions alleged in the Plaintiffs Complaint do not violate the FDCPA. Case law is well settled on this issue. In Scott v. Wells Fargo Home Mortgage Inc., 326 F.Supp.2d 709 (E.D. Va. 2003), the Court succinctly stated, creditors are not liable under the FDCPA for communications with the debtor. Citing Perry v. Stewart Title Co., 756 F.2d 1197 (5thCir. 1985); See Also Ray v. Citibank (South Dakota), N.A., 187 F.Supp.2d 719 (W.D. Ky. 2001). 23. Plaintiffs, and their counsel, are debt collectors demonstrable by their freely given, open and clear declaration, but; 24. By statute, and Plaintiffs instant suit declarations and assertions, declare counsel assert and contend, under penalty of perjury, to be employees of and acting in their employer, TD Bank N.As, name. (Herein attached Defendants Exhibit H) 25. The FDCPA does not encompass mortgage servicers. 26. Many of an, attorneys clients, today, are simply servicers for a pool of mortgages that have been securitized. The servicer, frequently; anymore is more often, than not,
Page
many times over, and is the case with TD Bank Servicing Department here, and is not the actual creditor. Instead they are simply, and more and more often, criminals, of a RICO criminal enterprise, displaying such by attempting to collect a debt, not owed them; in the creditors, name, illegally while using the wire and mail services. Twila A. Butler f/k/a Wolf Pro se And Charlton A. Butler Jr. Pro se. 44 Patten St. Bangor, ME. 04401 207-249-5378 Victim.of.crime.and.corruption@gmail.com 27. The FDCPA also specifically exempts a servicer. 15 U.S.C.A.1692a(6)(F) states that any person collecting or attempting to collect any debt owed or due or asserted to be owed or due another to the extent such activity (iii) concerns a debt which was not in default at the time it was obtained by such person.(Camden National Bank N.A. Servicing bought this debt in default and is precluded from making claim, for many reasons, but particularly here, against homeowner from whom serving was moved for cause, from Graystone Solutions Inc. for cause consisting of the predatory Servicing action of their employees (homeowners were un-notified, as well all the other things they were not notified of and good reason you cant notify someone of moving a loan that they dont know they have the way it is setup now, as required) Defendants Exhibits Combination Multiple Page Exhibit [I-1 I-45 ] 28. This provision specifically applies to servicing agents and has been upheld as long as the loan was not in default when it was transferred to the servicing agent to service. 29. This is why Maine State Housing Authority is allowing TD Bank to call them a party in interest. They are legally ineligible for payment or compensation, for their servicers actions, in fact they are entitled to any return at all. This is a clear example of the fraudulent and predatory actions of TD Bank Servicing as exampled by their counterpart at MSHA Graystone Mortgage Solutions Inc. but instead counsel sought to *slip* this past the court doing exactly the opposite of the direct on point instruction of CLE instructor; on MAINE FORECLOSURE LAW, and Perkins Thompson Attorney Stephanie A. Williams. Defendants Exhibit J
Page Defendants Objection To Plaintiffs Motion To Lift Stay And Motion For Final Judgment
30. Plaintiffs ARE the servicing arm, department, and/or subsidiary, of TD Bank N.A. TD Ameritrade, TD Bank US Holdings N.A., Toronto-Dominion Bank. 31. The Loan is not in default, nor could it ever be in default according to the meager discovery provided by Plaintiffs counsel, that is tantamount to denying Defendants their Twila A. Butler f/k/a Wolf Pro se And Charlton A. Butler Jr. Pro se. 44 Patten St. Bangor, ME. 04401 207-249-5378 Victim.of.crime.and.corruption@gmail.com right to discovery. Discovery that could be characterized, and so is characterized, as UNRESPONSIVE, on Plaintiffs part, would seem to indicate, as best Defendants can make out looking past the redacting pen that, after closing, TD Bank Servicing Department was retained as the servicer. Nothing says uncooperative like a redacting pen. Exhibit K herein attached. 32. Defendants love all the redaction, but, have no fear the information of these loans conversion to bonds is indicated on the top of the first sheet opposing counsel sent, in what they termed interrogatories, in an attempt to circumvent the law and otherwise refuse Defendants, discovery, the courts have repeatedly stated is the Defendants right to know and the DUTY of servicers and their counsel to provide. 33. But since no chain of title evidence or assignment history, or any other such required evidence, other than the original assignments made at closing which are insufficient to demonstrate a lawful assignment or true sale to the trust they are in and for which counsel truly represents. In fact that would make it a straight one shot sale made directly to the trust of which MSHA and TD Bank, in this case, are acting as Trustees. 34. This is insufficient for the creation of a Trust, as designed in this case to evade taxes so as to create a REMIC that passes on the tax liability to the client and to be bankruptcy remote, which is the whole idea in a REMIC and the only reason to do so. These trusts were designed this way so, when the music stopped there was sure to be a few left sitting and therefore in-blank allows for the shadow banking system, overnight loans off and on
Page
Lehman Brothers referred to them, quarterly reports sold back to themselves from their
the books near Q1-Q4 and reporting time, then back on the books after, repo-105s, as
subsidiaries in England, in Lehmans Case, so as to appear more solvent and reap more bonuses that did not exist and should not have been paid. Afterwards it was back to cooking the books. With the fallout from the bubble allowing, they thought, anyone to robo-sign and fabricate their way to profits and land ownership. Twila A. Butler f/k/a Wolf Pro se And Charlton A. Butler Jr. Pro se. 44 Patten St. Bangor, ME. 04401 207-249-5378 Victim.of.crime.and.corruption@gmail.com Problem is that others were fabricating this loan from the beginning and they, Plaintiffs had no clue they were fabricating redundantly a fabrication already. When this bubble burst, those who really created this crisis with malice and intent thought they would walk away with all the money and all the land? Besides tax evasion and avoiding paying anyone at all; would anyone, do the things done here and across America, and so obviously, fraudulently entered these frauds into the permanent land records here in the Penobscot County Registry of Deeds as a final insult to the county and the state from the Banks and in land recorders offices nationwide, because they could and because the system is gamed. No one, it would appear, has wanted to say anything, as, everyone has a mortgage and a pension and no one, Defendants guess, wanted to rock the fraudulent boat. 35. One can only assume that by repeating himself, despite having been provided proof positive to the contraire and having been made aware that Defendant; T Butler, did not make this loan, therefore any claim of a lack of material fact, on motion to lift stay; as much as the original and now reworked piece of instant claim crap, plaintiffs counsel, filed the first time. This, would, prelude any claim of a lack of material fact and in and of its self alone would deny Plaintiffs their Motion for Summary Judgment. 36. The claim, therefore of a lack of material fact, would be both, disingenuous and a bold face lie, I believe under penalty of perjury. Opposing counsel is indirectly, but just as
circumstantial evidence is called a conviction, stating that he has verified the facts of his case, as his assertions state, directly, by affidavit and by motion, and therein certifying,
Page
10
viably and colorable as directly; as any District Attorney would agree, enough
under penalty of perjury, and failing to provide, as will soon be illegal under soon to be enacted under Maine Law HP 128, LD 145 - An Act to Protect Homeowners Subject to Foreclosure by Requiring the Foreclosing Entity to Provide the Court with Original Documents, will make it illegal for Plaintiffs, for current and any future foreclosures, to Twila A. Butler f/k/a Wolf Pro se And Charlton A. Butler Jr. Pro se. 44 Patten St. Bangor, ME. 04401 207-249-5378 Victim.of.crime.and.corruption@gmail.com not have or provide the documents and the information; Defendants, have asked for from the beginning. 37. Having quite a long time, almost 2 years to find what they need, and Plaintiffs are no closer to proving up their claims to the court, that the facts, counsel claims, as good as stating directly, is the truth and he has personally vetted, with due diligence, his claims tan the day Defendants first challenged them and therefore would be, in fact a lie. 38. After almost two years has yet to provide any proof of, opposing counsels, questionable at best; and thats being charitable, facts, other, than a certified copy of a copy of a copy of a mortgage and promissory note and an affidavit of some unknown, faceless, Defendants personally feel, cretin, who, seems quite willing to swear about what she can absolutely, positively testify to, and [that] being in total, completely, fully, absolutely nothing of any evidentiary value or otherwise, to the matter at hand. 39. The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him.--Leo Tolstoy, 1897 40. Once again Defendant homeowners repeat; they did not make this loan, Plaintiffs
and counsel, first, in the beginning, at closing, committed fraud of multiple flavors, and then, continued in additional multiple acts of fraud to submit said as frauds upon the
intervention and remedy.
Page
11
court, being entered as legal binding contracts in default and worth of the courts
41. Additionally Plaintiffs submitted these same forged, or otherwise fabricated, fraudulent documents, into evidence through Maines Relaxed discovery rule, as well as having had them entered, into the official records for the County of Penobscot, of the State of Maine with the Penobscot County Registry of Deeds. Twila A. Butler f/k/a Wolf Pro se And Charlton A. Butler Jr. Pro se. 44 Patten St. Bangor, ME. 04401 207-249-5378 Victim.of.crime.and.corruption@gmail.com 42. Plaintiffs additionally refuse to comply with discovery, in any meaningful way, or to provide information of the/and/or/any, supposed, owner; because they cant. 43. As Defendants have repeatedly stated, this, loan was never, ever, under any circumstances, but, those of common law fraud, of multiple flavors, at any time a loan, made by Defendant homeowners, as stated in writing, Defendant homeowners denial of this loan package.(herein attached Defendants Exhibits L M N) 44. The FDCPA does encompass an attorney performing a foreclosure regarding
collateralized consumer debt. 45. The Fourth Circuit in Wilson v. Draper & Goldberg, P.L.L.C., 443 F.3d 373 (4thCirc. 2006) clarified that a foreclosure firm is attempting to collect a debt, even though the foreclosure file was in rem and they were attempting to foreclose on a deed of trust. The debtor filed suit against the law firm that had filed the foreclosure action alleging, several, violations of the FDCPA. 46. Specifically the debtor alleged that the law firm failed to verify the debt, even though she had requested verification in writing; the law firm continued its, collection, efforts even though the debt had been contested and the firm communicated with the debtor even though she was represented by counsel. Id. at 375. 47. The law firm filed a motion to dismiss arguing that it was not acting in connection
Specifically, the law firm argued that it was a substitute trustee for a deed of trust and that it was acting as the trustee, therefore, it was not a debt collector.
Page
12
with a debt and that it was not a debt collector within the definition of the statute. Id.
48. However, the Fourth Circuit ruled that the law firm was attempting to collect a debt and that it did fall under the definition of a debt collector. Specifically, the Court stated that [s]ince a foreclosure is a method of collecting a debt by acquiring and selling secured property to satisfy a debt, those who engage in such foreclosures are included Twila A. Butler f/k/a Wolf Pro se And Charlton A. Butler Jr. Pro se. 44 Patten St. Bangor, ME. 04401 207-249-5378 Victim.of.crime.and.corruption@gmail.com within the definition of debt collectors if they otherwise fit the statutory definition. Id. at 379, citing Shapiro &Meinhold v. Zartman, 823 P.2d 120 (Colo. 1992). Further, the Court stated that while not every law firm filing foreclosure actions may fall under the FDCPA, it is well-established that the Act applies to Lawyers who regularly engage in consumerdebt-collection activity, even when that activity consists of litigation. Id. at 379, citing Heintz v. Jenkins, 514 U.S. 291, 115 S.Ct. 1489 (1995). 49. While this decision simply clarifies a split within the Fourth Circuit, it is the
overwhelmingly majority view throughout the Circuits and it is the most recent decision to discuss how, more particularly, when, a law firm, performing foreclosures, should consider itself to be a debt collector. 50. As this case isnt one for an a attorney collecting a consumer debt attached to real
property, unless of course they are debt collectors and TD Bank is lying as well as their counsel Perkins Thompson attorneys (named and unnamed) 51. Plaintiffs and their counsel are not attorneys collecting on a consumer debt of
which said debt was derived through a loan acquired by accessing, by said loan, the equity in a consumers home, thereby encumbering/attachment [mortgage] for the benefit of consumers debt the property of consumer, by definition as noted on the fraudulent HUD-1 settlement sheets. This 17,880.00 dollar loan was supposedly the first of three loans. As facts support; if you have an argument for TWO, HUD-1 settlement sheets you definitely have a NEED for THREE. UNDERSTANDING THE ACTIONS PERMITTED OR RESTRICTED BY THE ACT.
Page
13
STATE OF MAINE CIVIL 52. 53. Communication with the Debtor
An attorneys initial communication with the debtor must include a notice that the
attorney is a debt collector attempting to collect a debt. Twila A. Butler f/k/a Wolf Pro se And Charlton A. Butler Jr. Pro se. 44 Patten St. Bangor, ME. 04401 207-249-5378 Victim.of.crime.and.corruption@gmail.com 54. Generally, in government speak means do it this way, this warning, or mini-
Miranda is listed at the beginning of any letter demanding the debt, any pleading that is sent, and any other document that is mailed to the debtor. 55. It must be placed, conspicuously, your document and be written in such a way so as
the least sophisticated consumer would understand it. You also must state that they are entitled to dispute the debt and that they must do so in writing within thirty (30) days of receipt of the document. Normally, the mini-Miranda will state the following: THIS COMMUNICATION IS AN ATTEMPT TO COLLECT A DEBT AND ANY INFORMATION OBTAINED WILL BE USED FOR THAT PURPOSE. UNLESS YOU, WITHIN 30 DAYS AFTER RECEIPT OF THIS DOCUMENT, DISPUTE THE VALIDITY OF THE DEBT, OR ANY PORTION THEREOF, THIS FIRM WILL ASSUME THAT THE DEBT IS VALID. IF, YOU, NOTIFY, ME, IN WRITING, WITHIN THE ABOVE 30 DAY PERIOD, THAT THE DEBT, OR ANY PORTION THEREOF, IS DISPUTED, I WILL OBTAIN VERIFICATION OF THE DEBT AND A COPY OF SUCH VERIFICATION WILL BE MAILED TO YOU BY THIS FIRM. IF YOU SO REQUEST WITHIN THE ABOVE 30 DAY PERIOD, THIS FIRM WILL INFORM YOU OF THE IDENTITY OF THE ORIGINAL CREDITOR, IF DIFFERENT FROM THE CURRENT CREDITOR. 56. Any subsequent communication with the debtor should also include a statement to the effect that:
Page
14
THIS COMMUNICATION IS FROM A DEBT COLECTOR AND ANY INFORMATION YOU PROVIDE CAN BE USED FOR THE PURPOSE OF COLLECTING THAT DEBT 57. Finally, an attorneys communication with the debtor may not take place during odd Twila A. Butler f/k/a Wolf Pro se And Charlton A. Butler Jr. Pro se. 44 Patten St. Bangor, ME. 04401 207-249-5378 Victim.of.crime.and.corruption@gmail.com hours, typically 8:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. are acceptable hours. 58. An attorney may not communicate with the debtor if counsel knows they are
represented by counsel, all communication from an attorney or from their client must cease. 59. And third, an attorney may not contact the debtor at their place of employment
particularly if attorney knows or should reasonably know that the employer prohibits such communication. 60. Further, the Second and Seventh Circuit also have adopted safe harbor language to add the validation notice: THIS ADVICE PERTAINS TO YOUR DEALINGS WITH ME AS A DEBT COLLECTOR. IT DOES NOT AFFECT YOUR DEALINGS WITH THE COURT, AND IN PARTICULAR IT DOES NOT CHANGE THE TIME AT WHICH YOU MUST ANSWER THE COMPLAINT. THE SUMMONS IS A COMMAND FROM THE COURT, NOT FROM ME, AND YOU MUST FOLLOW ITS INSTRUCTIONS EVEN IF YOU DISPUTE THE VALIDITY OR AMOUNT OF THE DEBT. THE ADVICE IN THIS LETTER ALSO DOES NOT AFFECT MY RELATIONS WITH THE COURT. AS A LAWYER, I MAY FILE PAPERS IN THE SUIT ACCORDING TO THE COURTS RULES AND THE JUDGES INSTRUCTIONS.
Page
15
STATE OF MAINE CIVIL 61. Telephonic Communication.
62. If the debtor contacts via telephone and [the] attorney is not sure that they, the debtor, has received another form of communication from the attorney or their office, it is safest to proceed to tell them that I work for a debt collector and any information we Twila A. Butler f/k/a Wolf Pro se And Charlton A. Butler Jr. Pro se. 44 Patten St. Bangor, ME. 04401 207-249-5378 Victim.of.crime.and.corruption@gmail.com discuss over the phone can be used for the purposes of collecting that debt. While there is no requirement to warn the debtor, the attorney must assume that they have not received any prior warnings. 63. Harassment or Abuse prohibited. 64. A debt collector may not harass or abuse a debtor. More specifically a debt collector may not: 65. The use or threat of the use of violence or other criminal means to harm the physical person, reputation, or property of any person. 66. The use of obscene or profane language or language the natural consequence of
which is to abuse the hearer or reader. 67. The publication of a list of consumers who allegedly refuse to pay debts, except to a consumer reporting agency or to persons meeting the requirements of section 1681aill or 1681b ill of this title. 68. 69. The advertisement for sale of any debt to coerce payment of the debt. Causing a telephone to ring or engaging any person in telephone conversation
repeatedly or continuously with intent to annoy, abuse, or harass any person at the called number. 70. Except as provided in section 1692b of this title, the placement of telephone calls
Page
without meaningful disclosure of the callers identity.
16
71. While an attorneys client may use some coercion in attempting to collect the debt, an attorney may not proceed with anything that is intended to harass or abuse the debtor. 72. The safest way to avoid any of these practices is to communicate with the debtor via written materials and make sure they, the debtor, understand that, you, the attorney, in Twila A. Butler f/k/a Wolf Pro se And Charlton A. Butler Jr. Pro se. 44 Patten St. Bangor, ME. 04401 207-249-5378 Victim.of.crime.and.corruption@gmail.com question, are a debt collector attempting to collect a debt. 73. Defendants were not aware of the debt collector status of Attorneys from Perkins
Thompson and were not legally made aware of such or properly noticed of this fact as statutorily defined. 74. 15 U.S.C.A. 1692f Unfair Practices 75. 15 U.S.C.A. 1692f, lists, the unfair practices, that cannot be used to attempt to collect a debt. Specifically this section states: 76. A debt collector may not use unfair or unconscionable means to collect or attempt to collect any debt. Without limiting the general application of the foregoing, the following conduct is a violation of this section: 77. The collection of any amount (including any interest, fee, charge, or expense
incidental to the principal obligation) unless such amount is expressly authorized by the agreement creating the debt or permitted by law. 78. The acceptance by a debt collector from any person of a check or other payment
instrument postdated by more than five days unless such person is notified in writing of the debt collectors intent to deposit such check or instrument not more than ten nor less than three business days prior to such deposit. 79. The solicitation by a debt collector of any postdated check or other postdated
Page
payment instrument for the purpose of threatening or instituting criminal prosecution.
17
Depositing or threatening to deposit any postdated check or other postdated
payment instrument prior to the date on such check or instrument. 81. Twila A. Butler f/k/a Wolf Pro se And Charlton A. Butler Jr. Pro se. 44 Patten St. Bangor, ME. 04401 207-249-5378 Victim.of.crime.and.corruption@gmail.com Causing charges to be made to any person for communications by concealment of
the true purpose of the communication. Such charges include, but are not limited to, collect telephone calls and telegram fees. 82. Taking or threatening to take any non-judicial action to effect dispossession or
disablement of property if 83. there is no present right to possession of the property claimed as collateral through
an enforceable security interest; 84. there is no present intention to take possession of the property; or 85. the, property is exempt by law from such dispossession or disablement. 86. Communicating with a consumer regarding a debt by post card. 87. Using any language or symbol, other than the debt collectors address, on any
envelope when communicating with a consumer by use of the mails or by telegram, except that a debt collector may use his business name if such name does not indicate that he is in the debt collection business. -CONCLUSION88. There is no, legally secured, security instrument on which to base Plaintiffs instant claim for foreclosure by order for a lifting of stay and an order granting final and summary judgment. 89. Plaintiffs bear no cognizable res.
Page
18
Plaintiffs by way of counsel have submitted materially altered and/or forged and/or
counterfeited documents in this matter therein and thereby are and have committing/committed a fraud upon the court and attempting such on Defendants Exhibits L M N O and P herein attached. Plaintiffs, as well their co-conspirators; Twila A. Butler f/k/a Wolf Pro se And Charlton A. Butler Jr. Pro se. 44 Patten St. Bangor, ME. 04401 207-249-5378 Victim.of.crime.and.corruption@gmail.com the city of Bangor, stole every bit of equity, the City of Bangor, who arbitrarily in coconspiratorial unilateral action rewrote the terms of Defendants alleged contract with the city agreement in an effort to hide the facts of this case. In addition the alterations of that contract makes this loan negatively amortizing and thus Plaintiffs and their coconspirators stole every single ounce of equity from this home at sale and then for the future with the Cities unilateral move making Mrs. Butler a renter with the obligations of taxes, insurance and upkeep. 91. Therefore, by definition, and physical material facts there are material matters of substance, on which to base an adversarial action at the very least, let alone a simple, instant case for foreclosure, such as this of Plaintiffs and their counsel. 92. Therefore an order for final summary judgment would be statutorily counter indicative and would statutorily be without the binding effect of law if then so ordered. 93. Appeal would be instant for the full effect of any and all legal remedies available to Defendants. 94. Defendants are currently finishing their class complaint and their attorneys certification for class action against Plaintiffs and their counsel and other people, such as Barry Cohen of Cohen & Cohen LLP, Attorneys previously associated with this matter, for common law fraud, Fraud in the inducement, and factum amongst the many crimes civil and otherwise of Plaintiffs their attorneys and all previously participating people in this
Page
19
fraud upon the court and Defendants.
95. As, well several tort claims for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty to name but a few of the actionable charges and claims in equity Defendants have levied at Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs counsel. 96. Furthermore, as this being the case, all aforementioned, then a fraud upon the court Twila A. Butler f/k/a Wolf Pro se And Charlton A. Butler Jr. Pro se. 44 Patten St. Bangor, ME. 04401 207-249-5378 Victim.of.crime.and.corruption@gmail.com charge would redundant in statement and left but with action. 97. Defendants visual graphic displays; explaining, their points, as succinctly as possible. Defendants Exhibits Q and R 98.
It Does Not Require A Majority To Prevail But Rather An Irate and Tireless Minority Keen
To Set Brush Fires In Peoples Minds. Samuel Adams.
99. In, the words of my ancestor Mininutis vasis vitutus consistit perfecta victoriae suae actiones subtilis. Pierce Butler, Founding father, Signer of The Constitution of the United States, Creator of the Electoral College and Co-creator and designer of the American Judicial System. 100. You must be the change you want to see in the world Mahatma Ghandi.
101. Any and all, realistic, effective change; starts, with an honest, assessment of ones self and
with ones own reflection in the mirror. To change what, one, has only imagined, to, be reality, [is] to change nothing at all. Charlton A Butler Jr.
102. U.S.
Fraud destroys the validity of everything into which it enters, Nudd v. Burrows, 91
103. Fraud vitiates everything, Boyce v. Grundy, 3 Pet. 210. 104. Fraud vitiates the most solemn of contracts, documents and even judgments, U.S. v.
Throckmorton, 98 U.S. 61.
Page
20
-PRAYER-
Therefore, Defendants pray this honorable court order permanent injunctive and declaratory relief. Plaintiffs entire complaint; being one long continuous fraud upon the court, in this action, and should, for that fraud, for just this one fraudulent action alone, provide, for relief, as Defendants make prayer for. Defendants humbly pray this honorable for sanctions, permanent injunctive and declaratory relief sanctions and, any, and all other relief deemed appropriate by this honorable court for these most egregious and criminal actions against Defendants. In the alternative Defendants demand a Jury Trial all while preserving Defendants right to counsel Gideon and Lassiter aside, all Federal claims and any and all rights that must be claimed or risk being waived for a lack of preservation named and unnamed. Defendants would humbly remind this court that the law is not about BEING right it is about having the right answer and doing the right thing. Until we heal what illness, aches, the human soul, this, and all other courts, I am afraid, will be subject to the, understandable, attitude, of the public, as being the source of a lack of justice for all but the very wealthy with what is fast becoming obvious colorable intent on both sides the judicial bench. Plaintiffs actions, as well, the bench, across America.. We can change that today your honor with the right and correct adjudication of this matter and Therefore an order granting Permanent Injunction from Plaintiffs and their
Page
21
counsel attempting any and all further actions against Defendants, Declaratory relief, relating to the unscrupulous nature of Plaintiffs and Counsel, and Sanctions for those actions.
Respectfully submitted this 29th day of Febuary 2012. __________________________________________________________ Twila A. Butler f/k/a Wolf Defendant pro se __________________________________________________________ Charlton A. Butler Jr. Defendant-Intervenor pro se
Page
22

BANSC-RE-2010-187-Defendants Objection of Plaintiffs Motion To Lift Stay and Motion For Summary Judgment

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Judul Asli

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

BANSC-RE-2010-187-Defendants Objection of Plaintiffs Motion To Lift Stay and Motion For Summary Judgment

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

STATE OF MAINE CIVIL

COUNTY OF PENOBSCOT SUPERIOR DISTRICT COURT

Defendant and Defendant-Intervenor with objection to Plaintiffs Motion for a Lifting of

STATE OF MAINE CIVIL

COUNTY OF PENOBSCOT SUPERIOR DISTRICT COURT

STATE OF MAINE CIVIL 5.

COUNTY OF PENOBSCOT SUPERIOR DISTRICT COURT

STATE OF MAINE CIVIL

COUNTY OF PENOBSCOT SUPERIOR DISTRICT COURT

problems, here in Maine, due to predatory servicing and fraudulent

STATE OF MAINE CIVIL

COUNTY OF PENOBSCOT SUPERIOR DISTRICT COURT

jobs, and to invasions of individual privacy. 15 U.S.C.A. 1692(a).

STATE OF MAINE CIVIL

COUNTY OF PENOBSCOT SUPERIOR DISTRICT COURT

protect consumers against debt collection abuses.

competitively disadvantaged, and to promote consistent State action to

STATE OF MAINE CIVIL

COUNTY OF PENOBSCOT SUPERIOR DISTRICT COURT

STATE OF MAINE CIVIL

COUNTY OF PENOBSCOT SUPERIOR DISTRICT COURT

STATE OF MAINE CIVIL

COUNTY OF PENOBSCOT SUPERIOR DISTRICT COURT

STATE OF MAINE CIVIL

COUNTY OF PENOBSCOT SUPERIOR DISTRICT COURT

STATE OF MAINE CIVIL

COUNTY OF PENOBSCOT SUPERIOR DISTRICT COURT

intervention and remedy.

STATE OF MAINE CIVIL

COUNTY OF PENOBSCOT SUPERIOR DISTRICT COURT

STATE OF MAINE CIVIL

COUNTY OF PENOBSCOT SUPERIOR DISTRICT COURT

STATE OF MAINE CIVIL 52. 53. Communication with the Debtor

COUNTY OF PENOBSCOT SUPERIOR DISTRICT COURT

STATE OF MAINE CIVIL

COUNTY OF PENOBSCOT SUPERIOR DISTRICT COURT

STATE OF MAINE CIVIL 61. Telephonic Communication.

COUNTY OF PENOBSCOT SUPERIOR DISTRICT COURT

without meaningful disclosure of the callers identity.

STATE OF MAINE CIVIL

COUNTY OF PENOBSCOT SUPERIOR DISTRICT COURT

payment instrument for the purpose of threatening or instituting criminal prosecution.

STATE OF MAINE CIVIL 80.

COUNTY OF PENOBSCOT SUPERIOR DISTRICT COURT

Depositing or threatening to deposit any postdated check or other postdated

STATE OF MAINE CIVIL 90.

COUNTY OF PENOBSCOT SUPERIOR DISTRICT COURT

fraud upon the court and Defendants.

STATE OF MAINE CIVIL

COUNTY OF PENOBSCOT SUPERIOR DISTRICT COURT

To Set Brush Fires In Peoples Minds. Samuel Adams.

Throckmorton, 98 U.S. 61.

STATE OF MAINE CIVIL

COUNTY OF PENOBSCOT SUPERIOR DISTRICT COURT

STATE OF MAINE CIVIL

COUNTY OF PENOBSCOT SUPERIOR DISTRICT COURT

Anda mungkin juga menyukai