Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Save to My Library
Look up keyword
Like this
8Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
RE-BANSC-2010-187 TD Bank N.A. v. Twila A. Wolf Case W/All Exhibits A-K as Filed 10-05-2012

RE-BANSC-2010-187 TD Bank N.A. v. Twila A. Wolf Case W/All Exhibits A-K as Filed 10-05-2012

Ratings: (0)|Views: 103 |Likes:
Published by Charlton Butler
Case as filed on 10-05-2012 responding to and making Objection to Plaintiffs Supplemental Material Reply as the farce it is and taking the Plaintiffs and court to task for not settling the issue of standing that naturally effects Jurisdiction as well and if not settled makes all decisions of that court a nullity and void ab initio wonderful they are definitely not gonna like this at all.
Case as filed on 10-05-2012 responding to and making Objection to Plaintiffs Supplemental Material Reply as the farce it is and taking the Plaintiffs and court to task for not settling the issue of standing that naturally effects Jurisdiction as well and if not settled makes all decisions of that court a nullity and void ab initio wonderful they are definitely not gonna like this at all.

More info:

Published by: Charlton Butler on Oct 05, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

12/22/2012

pdf

text

original

 
Charlton A. Butler Jr. & Twila A. Butler
 
44 Patten Street
 
Bangor, ME 04401
 
September 18,2012Penny H. Reckards, Clerk
 
Penobscot County Superior Court
 
Attn: Civil Clerk for Real Estate Mattters
 
78 Exchange Street, Suite 350
 
Bangor ME 0440110/05/2012Dear Penny:Please find enclosed Defendants Objection to Plaintiffs Supplemental Reply.
 
If you have any questions about this please let me know
Enclosure:1. Defendants Objection to Plaintiffs ReplyCC: To: Stephanie A. Williams and David B. McConnellc/o Perkins Thompson P.A.One Canal PlazaPO Box 426Portland ME, 04112-0426
&
To: Paul NiklasAssistant City Attorneyc/o The City of Bangor73 Harlow StreetBangor, ME 04401
 
    B   u    t     l   e   r    &    B   u    t     l   e   r
    P   r   o    P   e   r
     4     4     P   a    t    t   e   n     S    t   r   e   e    t     B   a   n   g   o   r     M     E .     0     4     4     0     1     2     0     7  -     2     4     9  -     5     3     7     8     V     i   c    t     i   m .   o     f .     f   r   a   u     d ,   a   n     d .   c   o   r   r   u   p    t     i   o   n     @ ,   e   m   a     i     l .   c   o   m
Twila A. Wolf Pro per. & Charlton A. Butler Jr. Pro per.44 Patten St.Bangor Me, 04401(207)-249-5378Victim.of.fraud.and.corruption@gmail.comSTATE OF MAINE PENOBSCOT, SUPERIOR COURTCIVIL ACTION DOCKET NUMBERBANSC-RE-2010-00187TD BANK N.A. f/k/a FIRST MASSACHUSETTS BANK
Plaintiffs
v.
DEFENDANTS OBJECTION TO PLAINTIFFSSUPPLEMENTAL REPLYJURY TRIAL DEMANDEDTITLE TO REAL PROPERTY AT ISSUE
TWILA A. BUTLER f/k/a WOLF & CHARLTON A. BUTLER JR.
 Defendant & Intervenor 
DEFENDANTS OBJECTION TO PLAINTIFFS SUPPLEMENTAL REPLYComes Now,
Defendant TWILA A. BUTLER f/k/a WOLF and CHARLTON A. BUTLER JR.
 pro per 
 with their response to Plaintiffs Counsels inaccurate, rant and whining rambling reply toDefendants submissions to this court in response to Plaintiffs Supplemental Material Facts andDefendants need for findings of fact and conclusions of law as well perceived errors of thecourt.1. Plaintiffs’ current arguments are without even a hint of merit, as is the case with all of Plaintiffs arguments to date, and are the very definition of frivolous.2. Plaintiffs’ Counsel, David B. McConnell, has, in his very actions, proven Defendantsposition regarding Plaintiff's actual position in this matter with the addition of the “DebtCollector Announcement” verbiage required by statute to the end of his missives toDefendants and this court. Defendants Exhibit “A”3. Defendants contend that as childish and outlandish as it may sound the court must regardthis matter as one might; when, dealing with children and determining whether or notthey cleaned their room as claimed.4. When checking to see if the child did indeed clean their room, we, check to see whetherthey cleaned and put away all their things. Or did they just stuff things out of sight sothat things look correct? But in reality are really just a matter of concealed messes; whenwe find behind the closet door and under the bed that which the child has stuffed out of sight; so, while it may have looked right on first glance; it was, in reality a ruse that no r"*
    P   a   g   e
 
    B   u    t     l   e   r    &    B   u    t     l   e   r
    P   r   o    P   e   r
matter what, sooner or later has to be done right, that, has to be dealt with, I.e. cleanedup, in the end.5. Defendants contend this is the case in this matter at bar. Plaintiffs are providing the courtwith; what, on the surface, appears correct. The Plaintiffs paperwork and declarations allseem to be the same, as it always has been in the past, in foreclosures.6. The difference here is that [t]he Plaintiffs that are appearing before this court are not theproper party at issue; as, they would have been in the past.7. They are merely the servicers; and in a majority of cases, coming to light plain old debtbuyers like NVLV Funding LLC. And their ilk in the market; these servicers and debtbuyers, are trying to take advantage of a current blind side of the legal system.8. As exampled in Defendants Exhibits “E” “F” and “G”, wherein the Attorney didn’tactually represent the party captioned in the action at bar that said attorney until that timehad made every indication of quite the opposite.9. G is the transcript of the exchange between the Judge and the as already mentionedattorney, and an analysis of the problem as represented in the market and the courts bytwo other attorneys, of the growing numbers every day, who have in the past been sayingthat is and was exactly the case and worse in other cases they have worked on. That it isa very common example and evidential of the games being played, by servicers, in courtsacross the Nation.10. Additionally and unbeknownst to Plaintiffs is the fact that this alleged loan was afraudulent loan to begin with. Plaintiffs’ counsels’ actions only confirm this fact andmake transparent their subterfuge.11. Plaintiffs’ Counsel fails to include, in Plaintiffs quoting of the Court, the, one word thatis definitional, in relation to the quote of the Court, being cited and offered up to thecourt, as evidence, Plaintiffs assert, of Defendants non-compliance of a portion withinthe order and decisions of this court of July, 30th 2012.
“This Court’s Order permitted Defendant to respond to new information contained 
 
in Plaintiffs supplemental summary judgment pleading within 21 daysafter that 
 
 filing. Order at 4. ”
This is the actual and complete court statement;
“...the plaintiff may supplement its summary judgment pleadings in this regard 
 
within 21 days, and the defendant may respond within 21 days thereafter. The
    '    P   a   g   e

Activity (8)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 hundred reads
Charlton Butler liked this
leolamboy6954 liked this
leolamboy6954 liked this
leolamboy6954 liked this
leolamboy6954 liked this
packagingwiz liked this
vharrison_3 liked this

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->