TD Bank N.a. v. Twila a. Wolf Case No 1-11-CV-00255-DBH Defendants Response to Objection to Intervention, Motion to Remand Motion to Strike Motion for More Definite Statement Objection

8/4/2019 TD Bank N.a. v. Twila a. Wolf Case No 1-11-CV-00255-DBH Defendants Response to Objection to Intervention, Moti

1/30

1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

Twila A. Wolf Pro se

Charlton A. Butler Jr. Pro se

44 Patten Street #2Bangor, Maine 04401

Telephone: (207) 249-5378eMail: [email protected]: [email protected]

Defendants Twila A. Wolf /k/a Twila A. Butlerpro se& Defendant-Intervenor Charlton A. Butler Jr.pro se

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFor the District of Maine

(DEFENDANTS RESPONSE TO THE COURTS ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE,)

(AND VARIOUS MOTIONS AND OBJECTIONS OF OPPOSING COUNSEL)

(WITH INCORPORATED MEMORANDUM OF LAW)

Title to 44 Patten Street Bangor, Maine is involved as recorded in the Penobscot County Registry of Deeds.

Now come Defendants Twila A. Butler f/k/a Wolf and Charlton A. Butler Jr. Pursuant to 18 U.S.C.

1441 et seq.1446 et seq. 1331 et seq. 1336et seq.18 U.S.C. 371, 18 U.S.C. 63 1341,18 U.S.C. 63

1343, 18 U.S.C. 63 1344, 18 U.S.C. 63 1348, 18 U.S.C. 63 1349, 18 U.S.C. 4, 18 U.S.C.

1001, 42 U.S.C. 1983 and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 17(b)(2), 8 and 9(b)with response to

TD BANK N.A. f/k/a

FIRST MASSACHUSETTS BANK N.A.Et al

Plaintiff,

v.

TWILA A. WOLF (Butler)

Defendants,

CHARLTON A. BUTLER JR.

Defendant-Intervenor,

And/or

MAINE STATE HOUSING AUTHORITY,

CITY OF BANGOR,Et al

Possible Parties-In-Interest

And/or Plaintiffs

LVNV FUNDING LLC.

Possible Parties-In-Interest

Case No.: 1:11-CV-00255-DBH

. TITLE TO REAL ESTATE INVOLVED

. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

Judge/Magistrate: Magistrate

Hon. Margaret J. Kravchuk

Date Action filed: July 5th 2011 (Defendants

Notice of Removal)

Date set for trial: Unknown


2/30

2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

order to show cause issued by this Honorable Court and response to various motions and objections

of opposing counsel with incorporated memorandum of law.

Defendants state that at this time in consideration of F.R.C.P. 17(b)(2), Which states in TD Bank

N.A.s Capacity to sue and to be sued that the deciding factor in the choice of court and law is the

law the business in question was incorporated under. In TD Bank N.A.s case that would be Federal

law as they are a Federally Chartered Bank and thrive on this fact when a case is involved where they

can avoid state jurisdiction by claiming they are a Federally Chartered bank and are covered under

federal not state law. It would seem then that no true and legal complaint has been submitted to the

court.

Defendants are unsure at this point exactly how the court would like them to proceed as it would

appear that opposing counsel deliberately filed this matter in the wrong court in an effort to evade the

scrutiny and jurisdiction of the District Courts. Therefore any Statute of Limitations and other

motions and objections of opposing counsel would not in fact be valid as they have not proceeded in

the correct court under the correct law to begin. Thus no Foreclosure has been initiated against

Defendants. Defendants feel that jurisdiction is firmly established in any suit Defendants bring

against Plaintiffs or any suit brought by Plaintiffs against Defendants in the future.

Further Defendants, contrary to what seems to be the common assumption amongst those

adjudicating this matter or better said those involved in this matter against the Defendants, are not

trying to get a free house from anyone. Defendants ask all involved what part of FRAUD do they not

understand; Defendants are the victims of fraud at the hands of Plaintiffs and in being defrauded by

the Plaintiffs; Plaintiffs in turn defrauded the Federal Government in the process. Defendants state

that this assumption that Defendants only want a free house, on the part of the court and Plaintiffs

counsel, is neither the point nor by law a question of or for these proceedings.

Defendants also state that opposing counsel, doing due diligence as required by law and professional

rule, as well as being emailed the particulars of this case and the fraud committed in the acquisition of

this mortgage contract in question. Plaintiffs and their counsel are aware of these facts stated by

Defendants and that counsel for the Plaintiffs is attempting to obfuscate the facts of this case from the


3/30

3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

court, obstruct justice and the proper legal function of the courts in dispensing justice and committing

further felonies in the process of their efforts to hide their and their clients violations of the law and

their attempt to fraudulently foreclose against the Defendants property.

Under our Constitution no court, state or federal, may serve as an accomplice in the willfultransgression of `the Laws of the United States,' laws by which `the Judges in every State [are] bound

. . . .'" United States v. Peltier, 422, U.S. 531 (1975)

This would seem what the Plaintiffs, through counsel, are trying to achieve in this court with the

submission of questionable, at best, forged at worst, documentation filed to date and the fact that due

diligence would disclose to a blind man the falsity of the contract(s) in question and their violations

of law.

Defendants have tried to deal with opposing counsel in good faith only to be rebuked. At this

juncture, Defendants should, as of August 26th, have sufficient funds to rectify and cure this default

and will continue to contribute to this fund as a testament to their good faith in this matter. But as this

was not a problem started by Defendants but by the negligent and unconstitutional actions of a

Federal Governmental entity the Social Security Administration (Herein after known as SSA), and

opposing counsels clients, and the city of Bangors, actions prior to and after closing. SSAs actions

were fixed once but since that rectification, from an illegal action they took in 2009, has once again,

due to SSA negligence and incompetency, and consequently the reason we have all been brought

together, put Defendants before SSAs administrative court to have SSA admit their mistake in 2010

when they again cut off Defendants funds, illegally, and have them refund withheld monies and

income returns that should have come to Defendants. Defendants are declaring that they will not be

curing this alleged default because as the record will prove, and a jury will agree, there is no default

to cure. Therefore with this in mind Defendants are still making answer the courts order to show

cause and answer opposing counsels objections and motions to strike etc. in case the court should

direct that this foreclosure case should proceed anew from this court. Or dismiss outright for fraud

upon the court.

Therefore Defendants state, contend and assert Pursuant to Public Law, Chapter 402 LD 1418, item 1,

Defendants feel that mediation as a mandatory requirement by the State of Maine seeking to protect

the citizens of Maine from possible fraudulent foreclosure, such as this one, and to have the parties

meet and see if there is anything that can be done to resolve the issue. Defendants tried but were


4/30

4

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

refused the right to speak and to have the fraud committed against them dealt with and a true

accounting of their payments made. Defendants, without success, tried not to involve court resources

and this should not be held against them as it relates to statute of limitations and/or other limits and

time restraints.

Defendants with all good faith entered into mediation that was apparently just a wasting of time to

evade jurisdiction of the District Court by the Plaintiffs as Plaintiffs through counsel in violation of

state and federal law that they enter mediation in good faith failed to do so. Defendant was denied

the ability to speak or to have their concerns, as afforded by federal and state statute and state rule of

civil procedure rule 93, heard and/or recognized and dealt with in total disregard for the Defendants

rights. Defendants feel this in conjunction with other facts herein, should adequately explain why

almost a year has transpired before Defendants sought to remove this matter to Federal court and that

the threshold has been crossed into federal jurisdiction. Defendants feel that their efforts to not clog

the courts with the refuse of litigation, such as that which this case represents, should not be held

against them along with the preceding and such as:

Defendants are not attorneys and as a matter of law are afforded wide latitude in matters before the

court and stress they desire counsel but seem unable, as yet, to acquire an attorney nor have they been

able to compel their Federally appointed attorneys Pine Tree Legal Aid particularly the individuals

Nan Heald Director of Pine Tree Legal Aid, associates Frank DAlessandro and Judd Esty-Kendall.Judd Esty-Kendall in particularly over all as Esty-Kendall was first appointed by the Federal

Government and has repetitiously failed to comply with his obligations to act on Defendants behalf in

this matter of a foreclosure action brought by Plaintiffs counsel as a direct result of the Federal case

Martinez v Astrue CASE NO. 08-CV-4735 CW.

Defendants were depending on afore mentioned counsel who subsequently abandoned them despite

having been appointed by the Federal Government to resolve all issues arising from and/or out of

and/or pertaining to and as relates to the settling of the case of Martinez v Astrue, CASE NO. 08-CV-

4735 CW and Ms. Wolf now Butlers, problems created by that case. Ms. Wolf n/k/a Butler was

caught up, as were several other tens of thousands of other people, in that situation and was appointed

counsel by the Federal Government to settle the matter for Defendant and that would include under


5/30

5

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

the basic concepts of law arising from, out of matters such as this foreclosure having arisen out

of that case.

Judd Esty-Kendall, Defendant Twila A Wolf n/k/a Butlers government appointed attorney, took care

of the first foreclosure that was initiated against his client. This same attorney, for some reason, felt

no such compulsion when less than a month later the Social Security Administration, arising out of

the settlement so far initiated by her Attorney at the time and for this matter,cut his clients money off

again. He refused, when three months later TD Bank N.A. started foreclosure proceedings again, to

assist her in the matter of this foreclosure citing no money or time to deal with the problem. He did

continue to work on having Social Security reinstate her money and what they have withheld to date

returned to her. He has ignored the federal mandated appointment and payment for and thus the

requirement he defend Ms. Butler in this foreclosure matter. One would assume that all things being

the same that this would have been included in this matter but you cannot make a person do their job.

So since Judd Esty-Kendall having refused to do his job and his superior, at Pine Tree Legal Aid,

Nan Heald, having complied with this decision by sending an attorney, from the Portland office, who

was hostile towards Defendants Ms. Wolf n/k/a Butler and Mr. Butler from the beginning and

abandoned them when Defendants would not sign a new contract with Plaintiffs that was higher in

payments and did not take into account all monies having been paid to the servicers of these loans

and that these loans were not the loan (singular) that Defendant signed in the first place.

After trying to limit, illegally I might add, their requirement to defend; sending Frank DAlessandro

was an admission by Nan Heald of that debt to Ms. Wolf now Butler; Defendants attorney(s) would

not listen nor would they ask any questions to clarify the issues Defendants brought up concerning a

clear case of fraud. Defendants legal counsel patently ignored them and continuously failed to

advocate for their rights under state law let alone their rights under the constitution in mediation or

what was supposed to pass for mediation. Defendants attorney thenhad the court agree with the

abandonment of Pine Tree Legal Aids client on the basis of a disagreement over how to proceed.

What question can there be when Defendants counsel is looking at the legal evidence to make their

case? or would be if counsel would have looked. When you boil it all down and take into account

attitude in the completion of a task then you cannot trust a job that was done grudgingly and with

such rancor. So being abandoned we were left to defend ourselves.In Defendants motion to extend


6/30

6

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

time due to medical needs and the need to hire legal counsel. Defendants are legally afforded the

right to acquire and/or hire the counsel of their choosing. In U.S. v. Gonzalez-Lopez, 05-352

(6/26/06)

The Court held that the denial of a defendants right to hire the counsel of his choice is a structural

error for which harmless error analysis does not apply. Thus, whenever a defendant is wrongfully

denied the right to hire the counsel of his own choosing, reversal is required.

While Defendants are not permitted to bring criminal charges they contend that their civil case could

have derived from, and thus is original jurisdiction established again, the result of a criminal case

having been brought by the Federal District Attorneys office and something the Federal District

Attorney could still do. Defendants civil case is partially made on the back of the various criminal

statutes broken to make their case period let alone for Federal jurisdiction.

Whether Plaintiffs their co-conspirators and/or partners in equity past and/or present are prosecuted

criminally is not within the authority of Defendants. Instead Defendants must make the case, by a

preponderance of evidence, that Federal Law(s) was/were broken pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure rule 8, simple statement of the facts so as to reasonably alert the opposing counsel of the

subject and nature of the complaint being made against their client(s), while also complying with the

heightenedrequirements of rule 8 and 8s partner when fraud is the subject of the charge, Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure rule 9(b), as required in cases, where a charge of fraud is being made, and

therefore must be made with specificity and particularity and in this case is almost every other

sentence.

Only after, loosely I might add, so called mediation, and this mentioned in response to opposing

counsels arguments as relates toany and all Statute of Limitation arguments, did Defendants realize

what the elements of the case were exactly. Until this foreclosure action Defendants were unaware of

the crime(s) perpetrated against them,and wasnt till just before filing their notice of removal, and

thus the reason for that notice, that they realized and understood and were able to ascertain, having

only been their own counsel for a short time after being abandoned, that

(a)Defendants were deprived of their constitutional rights under color of law I.E. themediators denial of Defendants right to speak and have the law and the rules of court apply to


7/30

7

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

them and opposing counsels agreement with this deprivation of Defendants civil rights under

color of law by the agreement of his silence and/or by the berating of Defendants along the

same grounds as mediators error(s);

(b)the case as described, is indeed one for the Federal Courts in fact F.R.C.P. 17(b)(2) states thiscase as a matter of law should have originated in the District Courts.

Money, as Defendants are aware and understand, to fund the New Neighbors Program of the

Maine State Housing Authority was obtained through Federal Community Development Block

Grants, one amongst a bevy of programs to stabilize urban areas and neighborhoods, in an effort to

control and rehabilitate areas suffering from urban blight or another Federal program like it. The

NewNeighbors Program was a pilot or test program of the Maine State Housing Authority (Herein

after known as MSHA) with the cities of Portland, Lewiston and Bangor Maine participating and

what has since become an everyday offering of MSHA to date.

The loan program participants loans would be insured, as far as Defendants currently are to

understand and believe as relates to first mortgages generated by the program, by the Federal

Government Entity Fannie Mae who would be insuring the lender against loss through loans taken

under the auspices of MSHAs NewNeighbor Program. That the guarantee of insurance on these

loans was made upon certain conditions being met. One of whichwould be to follow the guidelines

set out by the organization authorized to manage the States end of the Federally funded programconcerning urban blighted areas, rehabilitation and mortgage loans; and to comply with all state and

federal laws and regulations. Another would be to deliver the product advertised and sold to the

customer also conditions required by state and federal law none of these three things, at the very least

of what should have been done, were achieved.

The program was then, and still is, being backed by the Governments good name the mortgages

generated by this program, at the time, were then insured by Fannie Mae, securitized and placed into

tranches of Mortgage Backed Securities funds, at least one loan if not both were securitized.

Therefore as a securities matter alone shows sufficient cause for Federal Jurisdiction as Securities, as

in securities fraud, and Banking Regulation, as in regulations violated as concerns Federally chartered

banks,are the Federal Courts prerogatives.


8/30

8

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

All real value, was taken out of the house by the parties of whom owed a fiduciary duty to Defendant

Wolf n/k/a Butler, a self-imposed fiduciary duty but nevertheless a fiduciary duty and a great

example of what good human resource training tries to make sure doesnt occur in Banking.

The Plaintiffs by way of a scheme, legal definition of this and more to follow, of phony rehabilitation

projects, projects completed so poorly that they might as well not have been done at all having had in

the Defendants case, to repair all the work done by the contractors hired by plaintiffs, this so as to

qualify for the Governments program through MSHA. This done on homes owned by certain

individuals and then the unloading, in blighted areas of the city, those same properties by sale to

individuals with mental and physical disabilities; point in fact preying on those factors and others as a

profile of their victims; with loans made by a cohort in local banking all of which was facilitated by

the Community Development Department of and with The City of Bangors approval. On that

approval rehab money was lent and permanent home mortgages created. This to everyones

advantage but for that of the buyer(s) of said properties for whom, for all intent and purposes,were

buying junk and defrauded in the deal. Therein were/was buyer(s) defrauded and thus when the

Plaintiffs defrauded the Defendants they defrauded the federal government as well specifics and

examples to follow.

The funds were not loaned out by contract and dispersed under and abiding to the underwriting rules,

the law and the terms the Federal Government acting through MSHA, The City of Bangor andasDefendants agreed to. Nor in fact was the federally insured loan Defendants were promised, as

financing for the purchase of the property in question, as Defendants are just discovering, ever

delivered on. This promise about the loan made by TJ Martzial at The City of Bangors Community

Development Department, by the Representative of MSHA and Robert Brayson of TD Bank N.A. all

who Defendant T Butler was introduced to by Linda and Darrell Sproul and whom helped talk, along

with those mentioned already, her into buying the property she lives in now. That the loan as

promised by these people and as stated by the same people and Barry Cohen, at closing, as being

what she received,Defendants state that that loan was never delivered and that instead there appears

to be a case of fraud and forgery instead being represented as that which she agreed to be bound by.

Instead of a single fixed rate mortgage Defendant was given a package of several loans and is

presented as being that which represents what Defendant signed and agreed to be bound by. It is


9/30

9

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

Defendants contention and sworn statement that these documents do not represent what she signed

and agreed to be bound by and further said contract, the package of 3 loans, was materially altered

after the fact and closing by the City of Bangor, without the Defendants consent or knowledge, and

therefore the purported Note and Mortgage contract(s) in dispute are, as a matter of law, twice a

nullity. Now twice a fraud upon the court as well and as fraud upon the court has no Statute of

Limitations prosecution would be t imely.

As this is a case involving the Government, a victim of the conspiracy used to defraud Defendants,

Defendants contend Plaintiffs defrauded the Federal Government as well as and in addition to

Defendants. As people will have had to plan and work out the details of an audit controls fraud such

as this and therefore amongst others are a violation of Federal laws:

Conspiracy, by definition ongoing, to defraud the United States Government 18 U.S.C. 371 would be

a basis for Federal Jurisdiction.

The mails were used in order to complete the scheme, and therefore fall under the Mail Fraud statute

18 U.S.C. 63 1341,

Additionally charges of Wire Fraud 18 U.S.C. 63 1343 could be levied as MSHAs website was

and continues to be utilized to sell this program.

Bank Fraud 18 U.S.C. 63 1344 those involved derived or attempted to derive economic gain from

or obtained the assets of the Bank or other party E.g. Defendants, without the legal means to make

effective legal transfer.

Securities and Commodities Fraud 18 U.S.C. 63 1348, as, relates to the securities that were derived

from the fraudulently obtained mortgages. As no contract is formed in the commission of a crime, as

that would obviously be favoring the guilty for their ingenuity, therefore it is true then that no true

accurate and legally binding securitized mortgage contract was or could have ever been delivered towhatever trust it was sold into or Bank asset column it was added to.

Attempt and Conspiracy 18 U.S.C. 63 1349 all you have to do is try. Actual damage(s) or

completion of the scheme is not required. (Emphasis added)


10/30

10

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

18 U.S.C. 1346 (2006) Definition of scheme or artifice to defraud For these purposes, the term

scheme or artifice to defraud includes a scheme or artifice to deprive another of the intangible right

of honest services.

To obtain a conviction for a mail or wire fraud offense, the government must show beyond a

reasonable doubt, civilly Defendants need only prove by the preponderance of evidence, that

(1)the defendant was involved in a scheme or artifice to defraud which includes a materialdeception;

(2)with the intent to defraud;(3)while using the mail, private commercial carriers, and/or wires in furtherance of that

scheme;

(4)that did result or would have resulted in the loss of money or property or the deprivation ofhonest services.

Defendants, in a civil matter, must only show these things were accomplished by the preponderance

of evidence to the degree required for the Courts to find for Federal jurisdiction as pertains to a civil

action brought by the Plaintiffs against Defendants and the courts order to show cause. One example

of the use of the mail in furtherance of the scheme is Defendants exhibit TDBNOFFR received by

mail, hereto a copy of appended, and therein begs the question(s).

(1)How did an offer of two loans not one, evidencedhere as refused in writing, turn up asasserted by Plaintiffs counsel in their clients complaint as being representative of the

agreement Defendants made and agreed to be bound by?

(2)These loans were not in Defendants best interest financial or otherwise.(a)Why would she agree to be so onerously bound by or better yet

(i) why would those in a Fiduciary duty to Defendant advise Defendant todo something so antithetical to her best interest financially or otherwise

such as this obviously inequitable arrangement that due to further

alterations made by the city has made the loan(s) in question negatively

amortizing? As well as a nullity.


11/30

11

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

(3)Defendant Twila A Wolf n/k/a Butler asserts she only signed for one loan at an interest rateof 4.5%, and was reminded by TJ Martzial on more than one occasion Years after closing

told Defendant Twila A. Wolf n/k/a Butler what a good loan she had, this when a loan

company sought info on her loan so as to refinance her mortgage. TJ Martzial called

Defendant Twila A Wolf n/k/a Butler, showing he clearly felt he had some control over the

actions of Defendant and was watching his crime for cracks in its faade, a clear sign of a

consciousness of guilt, and asked what did she think she was doing?, and to remind her

what a good loan she had, it being only 4.5% interest for her home loan and as always

discussed in the singular form.

(4)Why is it so hard for anyone to understand these accusations? That the loans as presentedby Plaintiffs are not the loan, as explained by and/or as presented by Barry Cohen, of Cohen

& Cohen, at closing.

(5)Another question would be why would the monthly billing and statement letter each monthon the fictitious accounts created in this fraudulent deception upon the Defendants not be

considered as an action in the continuation and completion of their fraud upon the

Government, this Honorable Court and Defendants?

defendants filling out false affidavits of honorable military servitude during times of rebellion in

order to obtain transferable property rights under a federal homestead act. Using affidavits to obtain

valuable land claims from the government was found to be a scheme or artifice to defraud.

Durlandv. UnitedStates, 161 U.S. 306, 314 (1895).

Defendants would assert that the two matters are similar and but for subject, false affidavits of

military service for property and in this case false affidavits and contracts for property, exactly the

same evidenced by the false documentation that has been presented by the Plaintiffs. First to the

Superior Court of Maine and now to the Federal District Courts as well as they assert before the

Federal Court that said documents are all in good order, proper and legal when they are nothing of thesort.

How could the documents be real Defendants ask?, Defendants state they are not and declare fraud,

Defendants dont even know that these people, TD Bank N.A., have the right to collect payments let


12/30

12

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

alone foreclose, as evidenced by the forged signature of Defendant on the HUD-1 Settlement sheet

that this and the corresponding note and mortgage contracts in question are based on and thus the

subject of Plaintiffs complaint and Defendants case for Federal Jurisdiction as well their case period.

Defendants couldnt get Plaintiffs to address this matter, in that joke called mediation, as is allowed

by rule 93 of the Maine Rules of Civil Procedure and State and Federal Law. Mediation failed

Defendants state and assert due to the Plaintiffs and the Mediator Robert Lingleys actions. Mr.

Lingley asthe mediator, with opposing counsels apparent approval, deprived Defendants of their

constitutional right to free speech and to due process and it would seem with opposing counsels

silence on the matter and therefore tacit if not outright support and agreement with the mediators

actions. This in defiance of his, David McConnells legal obligation to say or do something to stop or

prevent; same as the rules for the Mediator; a crime from being committed and to thwart a

deprivation of Defendants civil rights under color of law 42 U.S.C. 1983, instead Plaintiffs, through

counsel, helped with the denial of plaintiffs constitutional rights to due process with silence to the

mediators errors and begs the question was the mediator involved directly with Plaintiffs counsel?

It cannot be said that a persons rights were more than merely, as in as if from a distance with no

ability to effect, observed if all that is allowed is that the person must watch helplessly themselves

lose in court by being denied a proper legal voice to use in their defense. It is the same situation with

Defendant-Intervenor Charlton A. Butler in this matter. In addition to Rule 17(b)(2) then.

WHEREFORE Plaintiffs Motion to Remand should be denied.

Regarding opposing counsels arguments concerning Defendants Motion to Take Judicial Notice of

Exhibits pursuant to Rule 201(b).Defendants do not understand why the Plaintiffs have a problem

with the documents submitted for Judicial Notice. Defendants would assume that Plaintiffs counsel

must think the court is blind to miss the fact that it is an MSHA document, as admitted to byopposing counsel,Defendants suggest opposing counsel readF.R.C.P. 201(b)(2) the second part of

rule 201(b) that counsel must have missed.

It is pointedly noted by Defendants that the word either seems, to Defendants at least, to

beextremely confusing to Plaintiffs and their counsel since Plaintiffs and their counsel could not


13/30

13

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

seemto understand that word, as it applied to the contract in question, and their choices as regards

their security interestand the loan in question. Example; you can do either this OR(emphasis added)

thatbut by definition of the sentence you cannot do both or confuse the separate rules of either rule

with the other rule. They just seem incapable of understanding some of the very basics of the English

language that Defendants would assume that, like Defendants, thatEnglish is their first language.

A judicially noticed fact must be one not subject to reasonable dispute in that it is either(emphasis

added) (1) generally known within the territorial jurisdiction of the trial court or (2) capable of

accurate and ready determination by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be

questioned. (Emphasis added)

Defendants would think, strike that it is a no brainer, that opposing counsel could ask, no should ask,

their client, MSHA, for a copy of the NewNeighbors Program Processing Guide as they have

already admitted to it being a MSHA document.

Point in fact MSHA had these, New Neighbors Program Processing Guide , handed out to

participants in the Fannie Mae New Homeowners learning Program required by the Department of

Housing and Urban Development (herein after known as HUD) for the NewNeighbors Program

as required by the.MSHA and HUD, then, should, as a matter of rule in their case and just good

business period, have a copy to compare to.

There shouldnt be any question that opposing counsels own clientswould be considered sources

whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned. Opposing counsels argument is without

substantive merit and an example of Plaintiffs and opposing counsels consciousness of guilt. They

dont deny the documents outright, a much easier thing to do than their current argument, because

they know them to be valid. All around this argument is not understood by Defendants as being even

close to appropriate or accuratebutas per the past with Plaintiffs and their counselyet another waste of

Defendants health finances, and as with the Court as well, time.

Conversely the same theorem applies to the City of Bangor as well;as opposing counsel must have

missed the business card for the Director of the City of Bangors Community Development

Department attached to the front of the document referred to asProgram Highlights. But as


14/30

14

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

Defendants have pointed this out to opposing counselalready then, they, it would be considered a

reasonable demand, can ask the City of Bangors solicitor Norman S. Hietmann or Paul Niklas

Heitmanns assistant solicitor for the City of Bangor for a copy. I believe, and know from experience

that standard operating procedure in most offices, if not all offices let alone a city government office,

is to document everything and to keep a copy. The city should have a copy of a document, and

Defendants ask the court to under oath ask the City of Bangor if this is not the case with them as well.

They, the City of Bangor must have a copy, should they be called into court to defend their supported

programs or actions, E.g. liability, or just to refer to when others fail to comply with the programs

directives and rules or when they, the City of Bangor, wishes to instruct city personnel in how to

comply with a programs rules of which they are promoting or running. I dont think the citys

reputation is in question..yet. though their apparent cover up, it seems,for now, TJ Martzials

activities and liability incurring actions, as those actions appear to Defendants, by refusing to meet

with Defendants prior to this response from Defendants to the court for almost a month.From the time

Defendants learned who was representing the City,the City solicitors have refused to respond to

Defendants inquires and their requests for a meeting.

Update.The assistant city solicitor, PaulNiklas today, August 26

th2011, finally returnedmy call, seems

both he and his boss were out of townall this time and indicated his refusal to my offer to sitdown

and review the evidence against the City of Bangor their employee, whom they are strictly liable for,

and thatmaybe they didntwant to back that employee and his accomplices. The City of Bangor, by

and throu gh counsel Norman S Hietmann II and Paul Nikla s, indicated that that they will be

supportingand backing the criminal enterprise, and the current coverup inmotionnow before the

court, of their employee andhis friends andaccomplices in this scheme to defraud so many.

Thatm y offer to sitdown review the evidence and findawa y to not hold the city liable for their

employees actions this if they would only not back that employee, seemeda reasonable request to

Defendants at the time butapparently not, and his criminal enterprise alongwith his associates,

accomplices etc. in this matternow before the courtas Ididnotwant to have the city pay so much tobe so wrongand the situation createdby the rogue actions of one of their employees. Defendants say,

so be it, as you say; may it be. See you in court.

Once again it is hard to understand the argument of opposing counsel as the very easy proof they

claim there is a lack of is either A. their client or B. attached to the front of the document in question,


15/30

15

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

and Defendants refuse to believe that the City of Bangor would not be considered sources whose

accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned. Thus these documents are the very definition of easy to

check and are easy to verify and therefore opposing counsels argument of the inapplicability of rule

201(b)is invalid, improper and without merit.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Objection to the taking of judicial notice of Defendants exhibits should be

denied.

In regards to opposing counsels arguments objecting to intervention by Charlton A. Butler Jr. and

the representation of Mr. Butlers rights before the court by Mr. Butler. Opposing counsels argument

that Mrs. Butler,f/k/a Wolf, by representing her rights in this matter pro se has also,by some unknown

magical extension of the law, represented lawfully and competently Mr. Butlers rights before the

court. While Mrs.Butlers f/k/a Wolfs rights are being represented by her, and while those rights are

the same rights as Defendant-Intervenor Charlton A. Butler they, nevertheless, are not Ms. Butlers

rights but Mr. Butlers rights and his and his alone to represent and/or speak for or about before the

court.Opposing counsel asks Defendant-Intervenor Charlton A. Butler Jr. to explain what difference

or why there is any difference between Mrs. Butlers rights represented by her and why Mr. Butlers

rights require him to wax eloquent onthem. This being the area that opposing counsel has focused on

as the area Defendant-Intervenor Charlton Butler failed to prove in his motion to intervene. Its as if

opposing counsel is saying that just because two peoples rights are the same that by representing one

persons rights you represent everyones rights in similar cases. While this may be true when an

attorney represents a corporation or a person Defendants state there is no such rule or statute

available as relates to those representing themselves before the court pro se.

No one, but an attorney or Mr. Butler, may represent, speak for, on or about his rights in a court of

law, state or federal or any matter of and/or for those courtspursuant to:

Rule 82.1 Only members of the bar of this Court may appear as counsel in civil cases. Only

individuals who are parties in civil cases may represent themselves. All other non-attorneys are

not permitted to represent a party before this Court. Individuals representing themselves are

responsible for performing all duties imposed upon counsel by these Rules and all other

applicable federal rules of procedure. All parties other than individuals must be represented by

counsel. This would be as I tell the children, the end of the discussion.


16/30

16

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs objection to the intervention of Charlton A. Butler Jr. should be denied.

Defendants hereby respond to opposing counsels Motion to Strike, saying:

1. The Defendant's Notice of Removal contains statements which the Plaintiffs apparently do notlike and have moved to have these stricken from Defendants notice of removal and Defendants

sworn basis for removal. Claiming that they are redundant, immaterial, impertinent and

scandalous.

2. None of the statements referred to by Defendants are scandalous. Black's Law Dictionary, SixthEdition, at page 1334, defines "scandal" as:

Defamatory reports or rumors; aspersion or slanderous talk, uttered recklessly or maliciously.

Scandalous matter may be ordered stricken from the pleadings by a motion to strike. Fed.R.Civ.P.

12(f).See also Defamation.

The Florida case ofWolfson v. Kirk, 273 So.2d 774 (4 D.C.A., 1973), provides:

Defamation (libel and slander) may generally be defined as the unprivileged publication of false

statements.., page 776.

Since there is nothing false about Plaintiffs statements, the allegations are not scandalous.

2. The offending portions of Defendants arguments are all obviously material to the cause of action

under The authority ofHarrison v. Perea, 168 U.S. 311 (1897), which states at page 319 "(a)ll matter

not material to the suit is regarded as impertinent." Since the several offending portions of the

Defendants arguments are material to the cause of action, none of them should be stricken as

impertinent.

3. Perhaps there are causes of action where the details provided by Defendants are unnecessary and

so might be redundant. However, the Circuit Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit, has ruled in

Oladeinde v. City of Birmingharn, 963 F.2d 1481 (11th Cir. 1992):

In pleading a section 1983 action, some factual detail is necessary, especially if we are able to

see that the allegedly violated right was clearly established when the allegedly wrongful acts


17/30

17

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

occurred. We also stress that this heightened Rule 8 requirement - as the law of the circuit -

must be applied by the district courts. . . page 1485.

Defendants are thus required to plead with much greater factual detail when bringing federal civil

rights actions. The details provided by Defendants Twila A. Butler and Defendant-IntervenorCharlton A. Butler Jr. are necessary to meet this heightened standard and so are not unnecessary or

redundant.

4. The materiality of the portions of the Complaint to which the Defendants object have been shown

to have an essential relationship to the cause of action in accord with the Oladeinde case (supra), and

also underWhite v. Florida Highway Patrol, 928 F.Supp. 1153 (M.D.FIa 1996).In addition to Lucas v

Cannon, 848 F.Supp. 168 (M.D.Fla.1994). Ina civil rights action, more than mere conclusory

allegations are required; a complaint will be dismissed where allegations are vague and conclusory.In 42 U.S.C. 1983 actions against individuals, factual details must be provided that demonstrate a

violation of a clearly established right. Oladeinde v. City of Birmingham, 963 F.2d 1481 (11th

Cir.1992). Thus there is no reason to strike any of Defendants pleading on the basis of being

immaterial.

5. Defendants have avoided the name-calling,threats of violence and general disorder and lack of

comportment often seen in foreclosure cases where the partiesoutright become socially unacceptable

in behavior. Quotations and statements are meant to comply with pleading requirements in effect in

this circuit.

Defendants do state for the record in what should be obvious to all with common sense.

(a)Plaintiffs must stop acting scandalously or any report of their behavior by anyone let aloneDefendants will, by definition of most of society, be scandalous and thus complaints such

as these are a waste of the courts time and a complete disregard for the Defendants time,

health and finances.

(b)As to redundancy Defendants feel that they must not have said it enough times or describedthe matter in enough scandalous detail. If opposing counsel had gotten the point they would

not be wasting the Courts time having Defendants respond to Plaintiffs arguments about a

subject far from moot and that only as is proper as required by rule 9(b) and only makes


18/30

18

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

apparent that felonies have been committed and thatDefendants civil rights have been

denied them under color of law 42 U.S.C. 1983.

(c)Contrary to opposing counsels argument otherwise. Defendants are making claim of aconstitutional violation based on the actions, words and silence ofStephanie Williams,

David McConnell and Robert Lingley, agent of the state, and the denial of Defendants

rights by the mediator whom opposing counsel in silence agreed with and in fact supported

with that silence when obligated to do otherwise by law and ABA Model Rule.

(d)Defendants have only described in detail, as required by law and rule, in specificity andwith particularity events surrounding this matter sufficient for the Courts understanding

according to the Courts requirements.

WHEREFORE, the Motion to Strike should be denied.

Defendants assert and state that the City of Bangor by and/or through their employees in Bangor have

decided that being informed of a felony committed against the United States Government the fine

and/orboth 3 year penalty for failing to report said felony does not apply to them.

Defendants then feel that they must therefore enjoin them in their forthcoming suit against TD Bank

N.A., MSHA.Pine Tree Legal Aid Frank DAlessandro of Pine Tree Legal Aid, Nan Heald, director

of Pine Tree Legal Aid, Judd Esty-Kendall of Pine Tree Legal Aid and Robert Lingley in his capacity

as a Director on the Board of Pine Tree Legal Aid and in his capacity as mediator and an agent of the

state by way of the State of Maine Superior Court.

Lingley who, by the way, should have not been running mediation for Defendants but for some

reason, Lingley, took it upon himself to take this case from a fellow named Zachery. Defendants

makean official requestof the court to authorize the Federal District Attorneys office to investigate

these claims and review the Defendants evidence and file appropriate indictments.

Defendants would assert that the following statutes apply to the Plaintiffs, their counsel, the City of

Bangor and their counsel and the Federal District Attorneys office and any and all of their

employees, agents, or assigns and all mentioned herein. Defendants assert this provides further

argument and proof to statements so far made herein and as these statutes apply to the preceding

mentioned and forthcoming.


19/30

19

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

18 U.S.C. 4

Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United

States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge or other person

in civil or military authority under the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not

more than three years, or both. There can really be no argument that anyone doing due diligence, as

required by law and rule of profession, can see that more than a few felonies had been committed.

18 U.S.C. 1001makes it a crime to:

(1) knowingly and willfully;(2)make any materially false, fictitious or fraudulent statement or representation;(3)in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative or judicial branch of the United

States.

The lie does not even have to be made directly to an employee of the national government as long as

it is "within the jurisdiction" of the federal bureaucracy.

Though the falsehood must be "material" this requirement is met if the statement has the "natural

tendency to influence or [is] capable of influencing, the decision of the decision making body to

which it is addressed." United States v. Gaudin , 515 U.S. 506, 510 (1995). (In other words, it is not

necessary to show that a particular lie ever really influenced anyone.) Defendants would suggest it is

absolutely assured that the lies would influence a court in the taking of Defendants property illegally.

Although the individual(s) must know that their statement is false at the time its made, in order to be

guilty of this crime and Defendants state and contend this is the case that due diligence requirements

demand and would and did make apparent the crimes of Plaintiffs and now counsel for them as well

as the City of Bangor and the federal District attorneys office, it is not required to know that lying to

the government is a crime or even that the matter being lied about is "within the jurisdiction" of the

government or one of its agencies. United States v. Yermian , 468 U.S. 63, 69 (1984).

What exactly did opposing counsel and the rest involved with this fraudulent foreclosure think they

were doing but lying when they submitted documentation known, and putting to rest any doubt by the


20/30

20

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

court of this fact, these folks amongst others were informed of such by email and Defendants would

ask the court to demand the emails from opposing counsel, MSHA Stephanie Roux and anyone and

everyone else these emails that were circulated amongst parties discussing emails sent by Defendant-

Intervenor Charlton A. Butler Jr. notifying them all that a felony had been committed and another

felony or two or three or more was/were being committed, currently, by those already mentioned,

now.

Defendants further argue that Under U.S. federal Law, anyone who engages in fraudulent activity and

uses telephones, telegraph and/or the Postal Service to discuss or either send or receive

correspondence or documents in furtherance of the fraud, can be prosecuted for felony mail fraud

and/or wire fraud; and if two or more persons act in collusion to defraud, U.S. federal conspiracy

statutes also apply as Defendant has stated already.

A conflict of interest occurs when a person or organization acts on behalf of another individual or

organization; and has, or appears to have, a hidden bias or self-interest in the activity undertaken; and

the hidden bias or self-interest is actually or potentially adverse to the interests of the individual or

organization being represented; and the hidden bias or self-interest is not made known to the

individual or organization being represented Defendants contend that there were many conflicts of

interest between the City of Bangor and the Defendants and that there were those whom were

unknown to Defendant to have any interest in the property but of that as a friend to Defendants when

in truth they had a personal, financial and business monetary interest, unbeknownst to Defendants, in

the sale of the property located at 44 Patten Street Bangor Maine amongst others.

When a person's conflict of interest results in economic or financial loss to the individual or

organization on whose behalf the person is acting, then fraud has occurred. Conflict of interest can

exist on its own, or can be an intricate part of other frauds such as bribery and illegal gratuities.

Conflict of interest laws apply to government employees and those doing business with government.

In the non-public sector, conflict of interest may not be a prosecutable offense, although the criminal

results of such conflict would be.

(i) Bribery and illegal gratuities are examples of conflict of interest resulting in fraud.


21/30

21

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

(ii) Conflict of interest can also occur and result in fraud without the presence of bribery andillegal gratuities. This happens when an individual or organization acting on behalf of another

individual or organization has a hidden financial interest in the outcome of an event or

transaction.

The typical example is that of a company official or employee, or an immediate relative of an official

or employee, who has a hidden financial interest (stock or direct ownership) in a vendor doing

business with the company.

If the official or employee is in a position to influence the amount of business the vendor does with

the company, then a conflict of interest exists. If that conflict of interest results in unnecessary orders

being made and filled, or paying higher than fair market prices for goods and/or services, then fraud

has occurred.

This is because the involved individuals will benefit financially through higher valuation of stock or

direct distribution of proceeds from doing business with the company. The victims here are those

who expect company officials and employees to, rather than in self-interest, act in the best interests of

the company and/or their client(s) to whom they have pledged a fiduciary duty and/or as their

relationship with their client and/or occupation, as a matter of law, demands or creates said duty for

the purpose of their job function(s). The present loss is dollars needlessly spent on overpriced or

unnecessary goods and services while future loss could and/or would, depending on the crimecommitted, deprive the victim(s) of real property without the basis to affect a legal transfer of said

property and/or asset(s).

(iii) Conflict of interest can also exist and result in fraud when an organization has a hiddeninterest or benefit, as is the case in Defendants arguments, from the outcome of an event or

transaction. In a government environment, for example, this more subtle type of conflict of

interest could occur if government officials, acting on behalf of the government, either alone

or in conspiracy with providers of services, obtain state and federal funds and use those fundsfor other than intended program purposes. In this instance, the government agency, in acting

as the conduit of state and federal funds, has a hidden self-interest that is actually or

potentially adverse to the interests of the state and federal government. An example of this

would be the following situation:


22/30

22

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

Example: An agency official directs the owner of a company doing business under contract with the

agency to provide the agency with equipment and contractor staff that will be used to perform work

for the agency that is unrelated to the terms and conditions of the contract, and unrelated to the

federal program under which the contract is funded. This favor and benefit creates a conflict of

interest because there is no longer an arms-length relationship between the agency, which acts on

behalf of the government, and the contractor.

When seeking payment;

(a) If the contractor intentionally bills the hours for non-contract work as having been expended oncontract related activity,

(b)then the contractor has committed fraud.(c) If the fraudulent billing occurs with the knowledge of the agency official;(d)and/or the agency official instructs lower level staff to approve the bill for payment from

agency accounts;

(e)and the agency in turn files a claim for reimbursement with the federal government,(f) which the federal government, in good faith, pays,(g)then the agency official has also committed fraud under federal law.

The example given is a fraudulent act resulting from conflict of interest because the actions of self-

interest by the contractor and the official acting on behalf of the agency are hidden from the state and

federal governments, and constitutes obtaining state and federal funds under false pretense (see False

Statements and False Claims, below). The victims are the state and the federal government, from

which the funds were obtained, and the loss is the funds illegally obtained.

Defendants state, assert and contend that Plaintiffs, counsel for plaintiffs, the City of Bangor and

representatives of TD Bank N.A. MSHA and their servicers, agents assigns accomplices and partners

have made many false statements and claims. A false statement fraud and false claims fraud occur

whenever anyone knowingly and willfully falsifies a material fact or makes a false or fictitious

representation or files a false or fictitious claim that results in or could possibly result in economic or

financial loss to the party to whom the false representation has been made as it concerns both victims.

The Defendants, as conduit, for the fraud and/or defrauding of the other victim, in this action brought

by Plaintiffs counsel, the United States Government.

Examples of False Statements and False Claims:


23/30

23

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

(a)An employee prepares and submits a monthly payroll time report, and intentionally falsifies thedocument by not reporting unpaid leave taken while the supervisor was away on business. As a

result, the employee is paid for the time not worked. The same principle applies to an employee

who falsifies a travel voucher by reporting expenses that were not incurred. The victim is the

employer, and the loss is the money wrongfully paid to the employee.

(b)A senior company official disagrees with a court decision for which all legal remedies have been exhausted, and which the company must therefore comply with. The decision has a

significant financial impact on operations. The senior official knowingly and intentionally

continues practices that the court decision has prohibited. The failure to comply with the ruling

results in the chief operating officer filing false statements, reports and vouchers with the

government. The victims are those who rely on accurate reporting to the government, and the

loss is funds illegally obtained or expended; or economic or property losses incurred because of

the improper reporting.

(c)A company performs contract work for a government agency. Under the direction of companymanagers and staff charge time to a government program that reimburses 75% of incurred

costs, instead of charging the time to the actual government program that they worked on,

which only reimburses 50% of incurred costs. The employees recognize that the wrong

program is being charged for their time, but are unaware of the differing reimbursement

percentages. When the employees question their instructions, the company managers tell them

not to worry since both programs are paid from government funds, and the cross-charging

doesn't really matter. The government is subsequently fraudulently mischarged as a result. The

company managers have engaged in fraudulent activity that results in false statements, false

claims, and probably mail fraud. Under U.S. law, the employees who filed the false time

reports are guilty of conspiracy to defraud. Though the employees neither benefited from the

mischarging, nor were aware that the mischarging was illegal, they are also parties to false

statements, false claims, mail fraud and conspiracy statutes. The employees knew they were

improperly charging their time, and by falsely preparing the time documents, the employees

concealed the fraud. Whether they knew that the mischarging was illegal is not a consideration.

As a result of the employees' actions, when the government was billed for reimbursement, the


24/30

24

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

company managers were able to defraud the government of costs that should have been borne

by the company.

Defendants contend that what they are complaining of and about is not new and/or that strange

anymore. Nor is it an isolated event but, instead,has become commonplace and a sad commentary on

the state of morals in this country and the demise of the rule of law and the financial market today as

a whole evidenced by:

Mortgage fraud may be perpetrated by one or more participants in a loan transaction, including the

borrower; a loan officer who originates the mortgage; a real estate agent, appraiser, a title or escrow

representative or attorney; or by multiple parties as in the example of the fraud ring described above.

Dishonest and un-reputable stakeholders may encourage and assist borrowers in committing fraud

because most participants are typically compensated only when a transaction closes.1In Defendants

case the felonious actions were of such a nature that only those on the other side of the table from

Defendant would have had the access and authority to alter or circumvent safeguards in the financing

process. The process was, in fact, subject to security and access restrictions that completely placed

Defendants out of the sphere of influence to influence the outcome of the loan currently in dispute

and thus association with these thieves was as their victim in this transaction and nothing more.

During 2003 The Money Program of the BBC in the UK uncovered systemic mortgage fraudthroughout HBOS. The Money Program found that during the investigation brokers advised the

undercover researchers to lie on applications for self-certified mortgages from, among others, The

Royal Bank of Scotland, The Mortgage Business and Birmingham Midshires Building Society.2

In 2004, the FBI warned that mortgage fraud was becoming so rampant that the resulting "epidemic"

of crimes could trigger a massive financial crisis. According to a December 2005 press release from

the FBI, "mortgage fraud is one of the fastest growing white collar crimes in the United

States".3White collar, meaning, in this case, the Bank employee(s) in a traditional White collar job of

banking, attorney, company management, company president etc. and not a Blue collar worker

making application for a loan under a state and federally sponsored program for the handicapped,

mentally ill and the working poor.


25/30

25

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

The number of FBI agents assigned to mortgage-related crimes increased by 50 percent between

2007 and 2008. 4 In June 2008, The FBI stated that its mortgage fraud caseload has doubled in the

past three years to more than 1,400 pending cases.5Between March1st and June 18th2008, 406 people

were arrested for mortgage fraud in an FBI sting across the country. People arrested include buyers,

sellers and others across the wide-ranging mortgage industry. 6

In May 2009, the Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act of 2009, or FERA, Pub.L. 111-21, 123 Stat.

1617, S. 386, public law in the United States, was enacted. The law takes a number of steps to

enhance criminal enforcement of federal fraud laws, especially regarding financial institutions,

mortgage fraud, and securities fraud or commodities fraud.

Significant to note, Section 3 of the Act authorized additional funding to detect and prosecute fraud at

various federal agencies, specifically:

(a)$165,000,000 to the Department of Justice,(b)$30,000,000 each to the Postal Inspection Service and the Office of the Inspector General at

the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD/OIG)

(c)$20,000,000 to the Secret Service(d)$21,000,000 to the Securities and Exchange Commission.

These authorizations were made for the federal fiscal years beginning October 1, 2009 - 2011, after

which point they expire, and are in addition to the previously authorized budgets for these agencies. 7

Defendants expect that a budget excuse, as basis for failing to prosecute these offenders of common

decency and rule of lawin this country. That with the proceeds of FERA there should not be an

excuse to not prosecuting the criminals here.Defendants will, in great detail, be further defining these

events in Defendants amended answer.

Defendants for the record have not filed an answer besides the answer to summons that agreed to

mediation per State mandate and denial of the debt in whole or in part, as stated on the document

itself and hereby reserve the right and leave to file an amended answer in the future.


26/30

26

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

Defendants are still seeking legal counsel to represent their rights before this court and still ask for 30

days, excluding weekends and holidays, to seek said counsel while tolling all Statutes of Limitations

and waiving time requirements for responses to the Court and opposing counsels motions, petitions

objections Etc. As would be afforded those of a protected class of people who by Legislative act,

Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, are afforded access as they require to not only buildings and

bathrooms or extra time to complete exams public schools, Universities and Colleges but also to the

very foundation of our system of justice, and consequently a real aspect of afore mentioned act

contemplated by legislators as well as the founders of this country, access to the courts as well as

access to a bathroom is meaningless compared to access to the court on terms that any individual

regardless of their handicap can meet.

Plaintiffs motion for a more definite statement will follow in Defendants First Amended Answer to

come, within a reasonable time frame,when this court rules as to Federal Jurisdiction. Defendants will

not respond to an obvious fishing expedition, by opposing counsel, so as to have Defendants lay their

case out before Plaintiffs and their counsel before Defendants are, indeed, willing to do so.

This before discovery has even ended and that area, discovery, being the prerogative of Defendants as

to exactly when, they, feel that, they, are ready to present in toto their case. Defendants are the sole

arbiter, albeit at the courts final arbitration lest abuse on the courts resources were to ensue, enough

documentation to support what physical evidence they currently possess to finally put their case

before the court and jury.

Defendants ask the court to agree that at this time [that] to demand the Defendants reveal the totality

of their case would be prejudicial and destructive to Defendants case and would therefore appeal to

the court to put off a more definite statement, motioned for by opposing counsel, until Defendants

have made a defensive claim and/or counter-suit or an outright action and demand for relief

complaint.

As it is, currently, the case is confusing at best, since Defendants are not truly sure whether a

foreclosure has indeed been legally, lawfully and properly constitutionally initiated against them or


27/30

27

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

not, as what has been initiated, thus far, was filed in the wrong court, against Defendants by Plaintiffs

in their complaint filed in the Maine State Superior court, Penobscot County Maine.

This, it would appear, without regard for the fact that a state court would be the court one would file a

complaint for foreclosure in involving private parties and a State Chartered Bank not a FederallyChartered one as TD Bank N.A.

Thus Defendants repeat their request for the courts order forestalling opposing counsels motion for

more definite statement by a reasonable amount of time and in consideration of the health, finances

and handicaps Defendants face in mounting a defense to the Plaintiffs affront to the rule of law and

moral decency.

It is the Defendants contention and assertion that if the handicapped, E.g. Defendants, cannot obtain

counsel then to in turn hold Defendants to a schedule its understood they, by reason of their

handicap(s), cannot achieve then denial of access to the courts has transpired. For if truth is what we

seek and justice for all is what we claim we believe in, fight and die for then whats a little more time

amongst adversaries?

Defendants pray this honorable courtissue an order demanding the presence of Nan Heald, director of

Pine Tree Legal Aid, Frank DAlessandro, Judd Esty Kendall associates of Pine Tree Legal Aid,

Robert Lingley Chairman of the Board for the board of directors of Pine Tree Legal Aid and Maine

State Superior Court agent, and/or employee of said, acting as mediator for the mediation arm of the

Maine State Superior Court to explain, when appointed, directly or by referral, as per settlement

agreement made in the Martinez v Astrue settlement, to settle a matter for the United States

Government and that would include any and all matters that arise out of the case for which the

Government has appointed them to settle for the Defendant.

Why they feel that a foreclosure arising directly out of the matter they have been retained by the

Government to settle is not their responsibility patently refusing to handle this matter. What makes

this time different from the first foreclosure? Initiated by Plaintiffs counsel after the first time SSA

shut off Defendants money illegally due to the Martinez v Astrue case. Why do they think that


28/30

28

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

arising out of does not apply here? Why do they think that this didnt arise out of the Martinez v

Astrue caseas did the first foreclosure proceedings?

Defendants ask, while we are all here, of Plaintiffs when it was that they planned to comply with rule

26(f) and meet and confer with Defendants? As of now,it being much longer than the 99 days stated

by rule. Defendants would suggest that opposing counsel try a phone or letter to schedule this

meeting with Defendants and that they await your call or letter by say Wednesday the 31st

of August?

Defendants on a personal note to Plaintiffs counsel, in response to opposing counsels quip about how

it appeared Defendants cut and pasted something they, opposing counsel, just couldnt figure out

what it was or what we, Defendants, were saying blah blahblah etc. etc.Defendants state that they

wish they had the software available to attorneys such as opposing counsel who have in products like,

American Jurisprudence 2nd

Edition Practice forms and Pleadings on Desklaw from Westlaw and

similar Lexisnexis product, or Lexisnexis products like Casesofts Casemap from which to cut and

paste and thus boilerplate Defendants way through this matter as Plaintiffs have tried to do.

As much as Defendants would like such ease in taking to task those who so blithely ignore their

responsibilities, both to the law and this court, but also to each other in common decencyof which it

is Defendants contention that decency seems to be something Plaintiffs and opposing counsel seem in

short supply of. Defendants state nevertheless no they, Defendants, must write each word from that

creative spot where the law resides in their heads and from upon printed word in the law library.

Therefore Defendants humbly pray this Honorable Court enter a judgment indicating Defendants

response has met the satisfaction of this Court concerning afore mentioned arguments of opposing

counsel and this Courts order to show cause on both accounts taking into account Defendants Doctors

report and need to obtain competent counsel.Defendants retain leave to amend and to make an

amended answer both as information is acquired and as the Court may direct according to Defendants

or Plaintiffs deficiencies.


29/30

29

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

Dated this 24th day of August 2011,

____________________________________

Defendant Twila A. Wolf n/k/a Butlerpro se.

________________________________________

Defendant-Intervenor Charlton A. Butler Jr.pro se

__________________________________________________________________________________

REFERENCES FROM ABOVE:

1 Reported Suspicious Activities http://www.fincen.gov/MortgageLoanFraud.pdf

2

http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2003/10_october/29/money_programme_mortgage.shtml

3 "FBI warns of mortgage fraud 'epidemic'". CNN. February 6, 2004.http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/09/17/mortgage.fraud/

4 http://www.fbi.gov/pressrel/pressrel05/quickflip121405.htm

5 "FBI Cracks Down On Mortgage Fraud".CBS news. 2008-06-19.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/06/19/national/main4194649.shtml

6 FBI Mortgage Fraud Takedown - Press Room - Headline Archives 06-19-08

http://www.fbi.gov/page2/june08/malicious_mortgage061908.html

7 FERA section 3


30/30

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

8 "Mortgage fraud: New and improved Lenders have tightened standards, but scam artists have foundnew ways to beat the system.", CNN Money. October 17. 2008.

http://money.cnn.com/2008/10/17/real_estate/new_mortgage_fraud/?postversion=2008101715

9 "Stimulus gives rise to consumer scams".Philadelphia Inquirer. March 7, 2009.

http://www.philly.com/philly/business/homepage/40889177.html

10 Semi-Annual Reports to Congress and other mortgage fraud information from the Office of

Inspector General, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.http://www.hudoig.gov/reports/sars.php

11 For example, http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/gan/press/2006/04-19-06b.pdf

12 Mortgage Assets Research Institute (MARI). (2009). Eleventh Periodic Mortgage Fraud Case

Report To: Mortgage Bankers Association. http://www.marisolutions.com/pdfs/mba/mortgage-fraud-report-11th.pdf

13 For example, http://www.legis.state.ga.us/legis/2005_06/pdf/sb100.pdf

Documents

TD Bank N.a. v. Twila a. Wolf Case No 1-11-CV-00255-DBH Defendants Response to Objection to Intervention, Motion to Remand Motion to Strike Motion for More Definite Statement Objection