ArrORNE •.•• [" COUNSELORS AT LAw S ON~ CANAL PlAZA PO ROX 426 PORTLAND t1£ 011 12 TEL 207.77,\ 26.SS FAX 20'/,871.8026


ftGG'I' L ~IcCEHfE ~IHISSA HANl~r f"'J;vt-Iy
pHN A 1-i(~1\\.~)N

T\\1Ia Wolf 44 Patten Street #2 Bangor, ME 04401 Re: Your Correspondence of April 27, 2011

,",1"11'5 N. KA l'$l~F.C""

FREDW. ilOlT' III '.1I>.PJ~F

Dear Ms. Wolf: This acknowledges receipt of your letter dated April 25, 20 II but postmarked April 27, 2011, that you titled "QUALIfiED WRiTTEN REQUEST" and addressed to Stephanie Williams of my office ("the Letter"). While the Letter purports to be a "qualified written request" (uQWR") pursuant to 12 U.S.c. §2605( e), it fails to satisfy the minimum requirements of a Q\VR. Among other things, despite the fact that the Letter is sixteen pages long, it fails to provide a clear statement of the reasons that you believe that the accounts described in the Letter are in error, nor does the Letter provide sufficient detailregarding other information that you seek. Furthermore, much of the information that you have requested is not related to loan servicing - the only proper subject of a QWR. In fact, the true purpose of the Letter appears to be nothing more than an attempt to abuse the mechanisms of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act. Please be advised that Maine State Housing Authority is no longer servicing the "Graystone" account that you identified in the Letter. Camden National Bank is now servicing that account. I have forwarded the Letter to John Stewart, a Loss Mitigation Team Leader at Camden National Bank, for his review. However, to the extent that the Letter is deemed a valid QWR (and TD Bank, N.A., Maine State Housing Authority and Camden National Bank do not agree that it is), this letter constitutes written acknowledgment of receipt of the Letter, pursuant to 12 U.S. C.
,.§...26~( )( I)(A). e


VvllllflN :.SHfJlS

a r-kCtJf\JNEll

RANDY J. r,,~,>Vvtll JUUANNf






, fOHN A (;kAlDO I~!="; -1010


/felY':r;/ -y ;/ ,(' :<~f)J/j/!/I'

t?3> ld B, McConndl!





From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Importance:

Frank Tuesday, February 22,2011 3:53 PM D'Alessandro, Frank

RE: Twila Wolf

Frank - Further to my emall. Ns. Wolf has been calling Mr. Roux about every 30 minutes and leaving messages threatening "to take action" if Ms. Roux does not contact Ms. Wolf and Mr. Butler today. As you can understand, Ms. Wolf's behavior is intimidating and harassing, and Ms. Roux and MSHA will consider their legal remedies if this behavior continues. I strongly suggest you convey to Ms. Wolf as soon as possible that her behavior is inappropriate and must stop immediately.

I understand that your office is closed this afternoon, but I will follow up with you tomorrow morning.
I appreciate your prompt attention to this issue. Thanks, Stephanie DEFENDANTS

Stephanie A. Williams


ONE CANAL PLAZA, PO Box 426 PORTLAND,ME 04112-0426 207.774 -, 635 x8122 2 FAX 207.871.8026


AND TAX ADVICE NOTICE: The information contained in this communication may be confidential or privileged. If you are not the intended recipient of this communication, any disclosure. copying, distribution or use of this communication is prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender and immediately destroy this communication. Any tax advice contained in this communication cannot be used to avoid tax penalties. CONFIDENTIALITY

-----Original Message----From: Stephanie A. Williams Sent: Tuesday, February 22,2011 3:25 PM To: '' Cc: David B. McConnell Subject: Twila Wolf Importance: High Hi FrankIn Dave's absence (he is on vacation this week), I am following up with you regarding this case. As you may know, rvls. Wolf and her friend, carleton Butler, have turned their attention to harassing MSHA, specifically, Stephanie Roux, about MSHA's involvement in this case. Ms. Roux has received several voicemail messages demanding that she respond to Mr. Butler's February 17, 2011 email (I believe that Ms. Roux forwarded you the emaillastweek).I.1s. Roux finds the




tone of the messages intimidating, and will not respond to them. I request that you convey to Ms. Wolf and Mr. Butler that they should not communicate directly with MSHA about this case. I understand that a similar message has been conveyed with respect to TD Bank. Thanks, Frank. I appreciate your help in this situation. Best, Stephanie
Stephanie A. Williams Attorney


www.perkinsthon1! swillia!
AND TAX ADVICE NOTICE: The information contained in this communication may be confidential or privileged. If you are not the intended recipient of this communication, any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of this communication is prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender and immediately destroy this communication. Any tax advice contained in this communication cannot be used to avoid tax penalties. CONFIDENTIALITY

207.774.2635 x8122 F 207.871.8026





Page 1 01'4

D'Alessandro, Frank
From: Sent: To: Subject: Wednesday, February 09,2011 6:08 PM D'Alessandro, Frank Fwd: We need to talk


Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Attachments: Red 1.jpg; 2.jpg; 3.jpg; 4.jpg; 5.jpg; 6.jpg; 7.jpg; 8.jpg; 9.jpg; 10.jpg; 11.jpg; 12.jpg; 13.jpg; 14.jpg; 15Jpg; 16Jpg; 17Jpg; 18.jpg; 19.jpg;20jpg

I am not sure why you feel that there is no problem here and you disagree with my assessment of the situation but never the less you will find that it doesn't save your license in the end when they decide you should could and would have known if you had opened you eyes. We are not giving up on mediation but we are prepared to cause enough heat that people come to the table with real solutions and a desire to get out of being the co-conspirator and be part of the victims. Dear Frank, As I said I am unwilling to wait for JUST mediation I am ready to try them in the press and mediate things once they decide that they will lose in the courts particularly when this turns into a class action suit. I am not nor is Twila giving up on mediation we are just encouraging people to act like this is more than their time and sanity at risk. You may not agree with my assessment but my constitutional law prof does my uncle and a tew others in the legal field. Sorry but your plan has us committing fraud and I refuse to commit fraud. -----Original M essage----From: charlton butler <> To: swilliams <> Sent: Wed, Feb 9, 2011 5:12 pm Subject: Fwd: We need to talk I misunderstood who the attorney for the plaintiff was so this went to Dagenault instead of you I have also sent a press release out as well press release. Your Contact Information: Name: Charlton Butler Contact Phone Number: (207)249-5378 . Contact Email (ifsubmitted):char! Headline: Citizen set to sue TO Banknorth for fraud. City/Town: Bangor Category: Business Region: Penobscot Description: Preparations are being made to take TO Banknorth to court to court for fraudulent and predatory lending practices against the citizens of Maine. Are you in foreclosure? In reviewing the paperwork of you loan has it become obvious that through illegal means you are being charged double to triple the amount of interest that was agreed on and mandated by federal law? If so please stay tuned for an announcement as to where you can call to join in the rectification of our mortgage world with the




Page 2 af4

criminal prosecution and incarceration of the criminals responsible for the current economic melt down. Example: You have a loan that fits under a federal program to help young first time buyers and the poor afford a home. The interest rate should have been 4.5% instead it turns out that you are paying one 4.5% loan and one 8.6% loan for a grand total of 13.01 % interest supposedly a loan and interest rate for a federal program requiring no more than 4.5% interest so much help for the poor. Good luck in getting so much for getting this straightened out even though its a crime to do what the banks are doing to you they refuse to fix it. SO: Please stay tuned for the person and number to call to join in a class action suit since this is what they want. They seem to have no fear of the 1000\'s of these loans out there and the damage they are causing. As long as no one complains no one goes to jail everyone continues to get screwed.

For More Information Contact:

Charlton Butler Private Citizen Kane (207)249-5378 http://


-----Original M essage----From: charlton butler <> To: tdagenault <> Sent: Tue, Feb 8, 2011 12:59 pm Subject: We need to talk Dear Mr. D'allessandro Dear Ms. Wiliams, Dear Ms. Dagenault, We need to talk without the mediator or Frank from Pinetree Legal. I will have no choice but to file a Qui Tam claim otherwise as neither Twila nor I will engage in an ONGOING, which resets the statute clock, conspiracy to defraud the state the feds and the city of Bangor. 18 USC 371 is quite clear on this subject. Your clients are engaging in theft through a government program ongoing with malice and intent. When your client(s) decided in greed to take shared priority they in effect made two notes for ONE 1st mortgage. The first mortgage, not a promise to pay for servicing a portion of the note but the first mortgage which your clients effectively made their 2 separate agreements into can only charge 4.5% according to the federal guidelines, of which I have. They therefore should have been sharing 4.5% between the two of them or 2.25% for each. Your first words to me showed me that you had made the same first mistake I did which was to think the contract was off by 4%. but it's not it's off by 8.5%. I am sorry but your clients are co-conspirators or they are victims and since Ms Wolf is the victim here I think you see the problem and intent on your clients part their agents and assigns is the least of my problems to have to prove. This is black letter law and I am aghast that you the supposed mediator and Ms Wolfs supposed counsel don't understand this and are trying to foist off on Ms Wolf and myself something that everyone at that point would become liable for and enjoined in a felony act of conspiracy to defraud. (governmental instrumentality is the key phrase in this case)

18 U.S.C. § 371-Conspiracy to Defraud the United States The general conspiracy statute, 18 U.S.C. § 371, creates an offense "[iJf two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose. (emphasis added). See Project, Tenth Annual Survey of White Collar Crime, 32 Am. Crim. L. Rev. 137, 379-406 (1995)(generally discussing § 371). The operative language is the so-called "defraud clause," that prohibits conspiracies to defraud the United States. This clause creates a separate offense from the "offense clause" in Section 371. Both offenses require the traditional elements of Section 371 conspiracy, including an illegal agreement, criminal intent, and proof of an




Page jot 4

overt act. Although this language is very broad, cases rely heavily on the definition of "defra Court in two early cases, Hass v. Henkel, 216 U.S. 462 (1910), and Hammerschmid •••••••••IiIIIIi_lliiliiiiil 182 (1924). In Hass the Court stated: preme U.S.


The statute is broad enough in its terms to include any conspiracy for the purpose of impairing, obstructing or defeating the lawful function of any department of government ... (A)ny conspiracy which is calculated to obstruct or impair its efficiency and destroy the value of its operation and reports as fair, impartial and reasonably accurate, would be to defraud the United States by depriving it of its lawful right and duty of promulgating or diffusing the information so officially acquired in the way and at the time required by law or departmental regulation. Hass, 216 U.S. at 479-480. In Hammerschmidt, Chief Justice Taft, defined "defraud" as follows:

To conspire to defraud the United States means primarily to cheat the Government out of property or money, but it also means to interfere with or obstruct one of its lawful governmental functions by deceit, craft or trickery, or at least by means that are dishonest. It is not necessary that the Government shall be subjected to property or pecuniary loss by the fraud, but only that its legitimate official action and purpose shall be defeated by misrepresentation, chicane or the overreaching of those charged with carrying out the governmental intention. Hammerschmidt, 265 U.S. at 188.

The general purpose of this part of the statute is to protect governmental functions from frustration and distortion through deceptive practices. Section 371 reaches "any conspiracy for the purpose of impairing, obstructing or defeating the lawful function of any department of Government." Tanner v. United States, 483 U.S. 107, 128 (1987); see Dennis v. United States, 384 U.S. 855 (1966). The "defraud part of section 371 criminalizes any willful impairment of a legitimate function of government, whether or not the improper acts or objective are criminal under another statute." United States v. Tuohey, 867 F.2d 534, 537 (9th Cir. 1989). The word "defraud" in Section 371 not only reaches financial or property loss through use of a scheme or artifice to defraud but also is designed and intended to protect the integrity of the United States and its agencies, programs and policies. United States v. Burgin, 621 F.2d 1352, 1356 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1015 (1980); see United States v. Herron, 825 F.2d 50, 57-58 (5th Cir.); United States v. Winkle, 587 F.2d 705, 708 (5th Cir. 1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 827 (1979). Thus, proof that the United States has been defrauded under this statute does not require any showing of monetary or proprietary loss. United States v. Conover, 772 F.2d 765 (11th Cir. 1985), affd, sub. nom. Tannerv. United States, 483 U.S. 107 (1987); United States v. Del Toro, 513 F.2d 656 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 826 (1975); United States v. Jacobs, 475 F.2d 270 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 821 (1973). Thus, if the defendant and others have engaged in dishonest practices in connection with a program administered by an agency of the Government, it constitutes a fraud on the United States under Section 371. United States v. Gallup, 812 F.2d 1271, 1276 (10th Cir. 1987); Conover, 772 F.2d at 771. In United States v. Hopkins, 916 F.2d 207 (5th Cir. 1990), the defendants' actions in disguising contributions were desiqned to evade the Federal Election Commission's reporting requirements and constituted fraud on the agency under Section 371. The intent required for a conspiracy to defraud the government is that the defendant possessed the intent (a) to defraud, (b) to make fa Ise statements or representations to the government or its agencies in order to obtain property of the government, or that the defendant performed acts or made statements that he/she knew to be false, fraudulent or deceitful to a government agency, which disrupted the functions of the agency or of the government. It is sufficient for the government to prove that the defendant knew the statements were false or fraudulent when made. The government is not required to prove the statements ultimately resulted in any actual loss to the government of any property or funds, only that the defendant's activities impeded or interfered with legitimate governmental functions. See United States v. Puerto, 730 F.2d 627 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 847 (1984); United States v. Tuohey, 867 F.2d 534 (9th Cir. 1989); United States v. Sprecher, 783 F. Supp. 133, 156 (S.D.N.Y. 1992)(pit is sufficient that the defendant engaged in acts that interfered with or obstructed a lawful governmental function by deceit, craft, trickery or by means that were dishonest"), modified on other grounds, 988 F.2d 318 (2d Cir. 1993). In United States v. Madeoy, 912 F.2d 1486 (D.C. Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 1105 (1991), the




Page 4 ot 4

defendants were convicted of conspiracy to defraud the government and other offenses in connection with a scheme to fraudulently obtain loan commitments from the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) or Veterans Administration (VA). The court held that the district court had properly instructed the jury that: the Government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt the existence of a scheme or artifice to defraud. with the objective either of defrauding the FHA or the VA of their lawful right to conduct their business and affairs free from deceit, fraud or misrepresentation, or of obtaining money and property from the FHA by means of false and fraudulent representations and promises which the defendant knew to be false. Madeoy, 912 F.2d at 1492. Prosecutors considering charges under the defraud prong of Section 371, and the offense prong of Section 371 should be aware of United States v. Minarik, 875 F.2d 1186 (6th Cir. 1989) holding limited, 985 F.2d 962 (1993), and related cases. See United States v. Arch Trading Company, 987 F.2d 1087 (4th Cir. 1993). In Minarik, the prosecution was found to have "used the defraud clause in a way that created great confusion about the conduct claimed to be illegal," and the conviction was reversed. 875 F.2d at 1196. After Minarik, defendants have frequently challenged indictments charging violations of both clauses, although many United States Courts of Appeals have found it permissible to invoke both clauses of Section 371. Arch Trading Company, 987 F.2d at 1092 (collecting cases); see also United States v. Licciardi, 30 F.3d 1127, 1132-33 (9th Cir. 1994)(even though the defendant may have impaired a government agency's functions, as part of a scheme to defraud another party, the government offered no evidence that the defendant intended to defraud the United States and a conspiracy to violate an agency regulatory scheme could not lie on such facts). In summary, those activities which courts have held defraud the United States under 18 U.S.C. § 371 affect the government in at least one of three ways: 1. They cheat the government out of money or property; 2. They interfere or obstruct legitimate Government activity; or 3. They make wrongful use of a governmental instrumentality.

Please allow me the courtesy of allowing me to help you keep from being disbarred as the only choice I have is to file a Qui Tam claim in self defense. There are several thousand of these mortgages as this was a test pilot program for Lewiston, Portland and Bangor called the "New Neighbors Program" of which I have the original guidelines package and once you read it you will understand exactly what happened. You ask why? because Ms Wolf and I are being asked to conspire to continue to defraud various state, local and federal agencies Ms Wolf and I are being enjoined in the commission of a felony and as a former officer of the court I am very sorry but it will not happen. I don't trust the title that as far as I, and many other experts in the field agree, isn't worth what it was when Ms. Wolf gave it to you. By MERELY bringing question on Ms Wolfs title you have offered at a great premium I might add to return it sullied. As that both National and American Title Insurance companies have said properties that come into foreclosure and the property was a securities backed style mortgage, which is what I contend it is in effect, I believe I now can not get title insurance as question has been brought on the title. All in aJl you have a very bad situation here and a peaceful resolution would be appreciated. Sorry about the number of photos but I wanted you to be able to read the pages. I am also forwarding a copy of this to the editors of The Bangor Daily News Thank You Sincerely, Charlton A Butler DEFENDANTS







Attorneys at Law 50 Monument Square Post Office Box 17555 Portland, Maine 04112-8555




April 8, 2011 Senator David R. Hastings, III, Esq., Chair
Committee on Judiciary c/o Legislative Information 100 State House Station Augusta, ME 04333

Representative Joan M. Nass, Chair
Committee on Judiciary c/o Legislative Information 100 State House Station Augusta, ME 04333


HP 128, LD 145 - An Act to Protect Homeowners Subject to Foreclosure by Requiring the Foreclosing Entity to Provide the Court with Original Documents

Dear Senator Hastings and Representative N ass: I am writing to express my support for LD 145 and in the hope that it may be helpful to the Committee to focus particularly on the distinctive characteristics of a promissory note, as distinguished from documents generally. Many years ago, I taught commercial law at the University of Maine School of Law School. In the course of that work, I came to know something about promissory notes and I am writing to offer some observations that I think might be helpful in thinking about these problems. I do not currently represent any banks. One of my Partners has been involved in one or two of the foreclosure disputes that have generated some of this discussion, but I am not writing on behalf of any client. This is not simply a question of evidence law. The question is not whether the copy, or the photograph, or the digital image, should suffice as proof that a loan was made, notwithstanding the best evidence rule. It is not a question of modem technology concerning recordkeeping in the computer age. The note is not a record. The promissory note, unlike other documents, is itself valuable property. A photograph of the promissory

Voice: 207.775.0200





Senator David R. Hastings, III, Esq., Chair Representative Joan M. Nass, Chair April 8, 2011 Page 2

note is no more valid or sufficient than a photograph of the mortgaged house. If it is sufficient for the bank to produce a photocopy of the note, it ought to be sufficient for the homeowner to satisfy the foreclosure judgment by producing a photograph of the property. This is the fundamental point. There is a practical functional reality to all of this as a matter of negotiable instruments law. The promissory note is negotiable and the holder in due course of a negotiable promissory note has preferred status in litigation on the note. If the person seeking to enforce the note does not actually have it as a matter of physical possessory fact, it is likely that somebody else does. It is only the holder of that original note who has any rights at all on the note. Anyone may have a copy of it. But without the note itself, all that any plaintiff can actually accomplish is to try to persuade the court that at one time somebody photographed it, not that at the current time the plaintiff owns it, and possesses it, and has enforceable legal rights on the note. There is really no good reason that a plaintiff claiming to be the holder of a note should be entitled to enforce it without bringing it to court. Because of this fundamental characteristic of the promissory note as property, carrying both substantive and procedural rights for the holder in due course, every defendant in every case is at some risk of having to pay twice, or at least defend twice, if the original note is not brought forward in every action. It may be statistically unlikely that there will be a large number of these cases, but there ought not to be any of them. It is an important protection for the makers of promissory notes that they not be subjected to this risk, simply because the bankers now find it inconvenient to produce this essential item in the very process of enforcing rights that are bound up in and rest upon this very item. Another significant point follows from that. Because a promissory note is negotiable, the circumstances of its negotiation are vitally important with respect to any determination of the rights of any plaintiff purporting to be the holder by virtue of negotiation. The endorsements must be examined to determine not only their authenticity but their legal sufficiency. As you know, there are various forms or kinds of endorsements and it is only by examining the document itself that the court can determine whether any sequence of endorsements is regular and in good order so as to confer the rights of a holder upon the plaintiff. A photograph of a note that does not include both sides cannot possibly permit a court to determine whether or not all of the necessary endorsements are provided. But even a photograph showing all of the purported endorsements does not address the fundamental initial problem that the actual




Senator David R. Hastings, III, Esq., Chair Representative Joan M. Nass, Chair April 8, 2011 Page 3

note may be in the possession of still another person, carrying still another endorsement, a fact which cannot be determined by the court without examination of the original. To return to the beginning, I do not mean to be flippant when I say that if the bank can foreclose by producing a photograph of the note, the foreclosure judgment ought to be able to be satisfied by the homeowner delivering a photograph of the house. In both instances, photographs of the property are not the property. In a negotiable instruments setting, all of the issues relating to the sufficiency of photocopies of records or files, or contracts, or documents are fundamentally irrelevant to the real point. Only the holder of the original note with all proper endorsements in place is entitled to claim and enjoy the benefits of holder in due course status in enforcing the obligations of the maker on the promissory note. I respect and appreciate all of the hard work that is being done by all of the members of the Legislature on all of these difficult problems. I hope this is of some assistance, and I thank you for the opportunity to comment.

Gerald F. Petruccelli




HP0128~ LD 145, item 1, An Act To Protect Homeowners Subject to Fo...




•••••• gular Session - 125th Maine Legislature

HP0128 LD 145

•• __


Item 1

An Act To Protect Homeowners Subject to Foreclosure by Requiring the Foreclosing Entity To Provide the Court with Original Documents
Be it enacted by the People of the State of Maine as follows: Sec. 1. 14 MRSA §6321, 3rd" as amended by PL 2009, c. 476, Pt. B, §5 and affected by §9, is further amended to read:
The foreclosure must be commenced in accordance with the Maine Rules of Civil Procedure, and the mortgagee shall within 60 days of commencing the foreclosure also record a copy of the complaint or a clerk's certificate of the filing of the complaint in each registry of deeds in which the mortgage deed is or by law ought to be recorded and such a recording thereafter constitutes record notice of commencement of foreclosure. The mortgagee shall further certify and provide evidence that all steps mandated by law to provide notice to the mortgagor pursuant to section 6111 were strictly performed. The mortgagee shall certify proof of ownership of the mortgage note and produce evidence of the original mortgage note signed by the mortgagor, and evidence of the mortgage and all assignments and endorsements of the mortgage note and mortgage. The complaint must allege with specificity the plaintiffs claim by mortgage on such real estate, describe the mortgaged premises intelligibly, including the street address of the mortgaged premises, if any, which must be prominently stated on the first page of the complaint, state the book and page number of the mortgage, if any, state the existence of public utility easements, if any, that were recorded subsequent to the mortgage and prior to the commencement of the foreclosure proceeding and without mortgagee consent, state the amount due on the mortgage, state the condition broken and by reason of such breach demand a foreclosure and sale. If a clerk's certificate ofthe filing of the complaint is presented for recording pursuant to this section, the clerk's certificate must bear the title "Clerk's Certificate of Foreclosure" and prominently state, immediately after the title, the street address of the mortgaged premises, if any, and the book and page number of the mortgage, if any. Service of process on all parties in interest and all proceedings must be in accordance with the Maine Rules of Civil Procedure. "Parties in interest" includes mortgagors, holders of fee interest, mortgagees, lessees pursuant to recorded leases or memoranda thereof, lienors and attaching creditors all as reflected by the indices in the registry of deeds and the documents referred to therein affecting the mortgaged premises, through the time of the recording ofthe complaint or the clerk's certificate. Failure to join any party in interest does not invalidate the action nor any subsequent proceedings as to those joined. Failure of the mortgagee to join, as a party in interest, the holder of any public utility easement recorded subsequent to the mortgage and prior to




HP0128~ LD 145, item I, An Act To Protect Homeowners Subject to Fo...


commencement of foreclosure proceedings is deemed consent by the mortgagee to that easement. Any other party having a claim to the real estate whose claim is not recorded in the registry of deeds as of the time of recording of the copy of the complaint or the clerk's certificate need not be joined in the foreclosure action, and any such party has no claim against the real estate after completion of the foreclosure sale, except that any such party may move to intervene in the action for the purpose of being added as a party in interest at any time prior to the entry of judgment. Within 10 days of submitting the complaint for filing with the court, the mortgagee shall provide a copy of the complaint or of the clerk's certificate as submitted to the court that prominently states, immediately after the title, the street address of the mortgaged premises, if any, and the book and page number of the mortgage, if any, to the municipal tax assessor of the municipality in which the property is located and, if the mortgaged premises is manufactured housing as defmed in Title 10, section 9002, subsection 7, to the owner of any land leased by the mortgagor. The failure to provide the notice required by this section does not affect the validity of the foreclosure sale.

This bill requires a mortgagee bringing a civil foreclosure action on real property to produce the original mortgage note, signed by the mortgagor, as part of the complaint. Related Pages Search Status for LD 145

Text Search

Session Information LegisLative Information Maine LegisLature voice: (207) 287-1692 fax: (207) 287-1580 tty: (207) 287-6826

Bill Directory
AdditionaL Documents


Office of Legislative Information 100 State House Station Augusta, ME 04333
Word Viewer for Windows


2/28120124:58 PM




: 001 THRU15

ORIGINATOR ; 001 THRU 20 PURCHASE DATE: 03/15/01 - a

NOTE THE WORD PURCHASE:Here Meaning that the Servicer TD Bank Servicing and / or substantially the same and or reasonable fact similarity bought the rights to service the account at issue and were transferred those rights but in no way does it confer the status of holder, with all rights of that position, of that real piece of property "The Note." Point in fact it states quite the opposite.

._lR04 03/12/0



NOTE HERE: That the account is speaking of bonds. This is indicative of a trust and trustee relationship and scienter of guilt on Plaintiffs and Counsels part. Minus the information contained within Defendants QWR Plaintiffs failed to provide; therefore lacks the proof of otherwise.
37339 ~ 5000067700





021ll17J:f) 01101131 02/01/01

4_5000 135.89




147 99

e and Here: Note that this represents two loans noted by account number that in fact is supposed to be one loan. The Servicer, The Originator, Maine State Housing Authority, TD Bank, Perkins Thompson and employees, Graystone Servicing, Camden Bank, Cohen & Cohen, from the original closing, ALLknew the score what's this attorney's problem.



And of course all the redaction that didn't help. But is indicative and scienter of a guilty conscious and lack of enthusiasm for doing their job and following the law.

Connect willl HUO
~ w • _~-I

HUD.GOV .s. Department of Honsing and
Secretary Shaun Donovan


InformaciOn en Espanol A-Zlndex Text

rban Development

Site Map


I Search I



I _'\bolrtUS



I Healthe:atrePrograms I ~

1 oDlinesystems. I _~dienees


HUD > Program Offices > HOllsing > RAMH > RESPA > HUD RESPA Sample Written Complaint to lender letter

Sample Written Complaint to Lender
The followingis a sample qualified v.niten request from you, the borrower, te a lender. Use this format to address complaints under the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act{RESPA).Be sure to read more about RESPA.and your rights under this Act. elsewhere on the RESPAsite. Attention Customer Service: Subject: [Your loan number. [~~ames loan documents on [Property and/or mailing address This is a "qualified written request" under Section 6 of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act{RESPA).
i am writing because:

13 Print

Friendly Version




t: B

Federal Housing Administration Insuring More Than 40 Million lliortgages Since
, LEAR~ ~10RE

• Describe the issue or the question '1o.uhave and/or what action 'Iou believe bhe lender should take. • Attach copies of any related v.niten mai:erials. • Oescribe any conver.sations v.;thcustomer service regarding the issue and to whom you spoke. • Describe any previous steps you ha,re taken or ati:empts to resolve the issue. • List a day time telephone number in case a customer sery"icerepresentative 'J,;shes to eentect you.
I understand that under Section 6 of RESPA you are required to acknov.~edge my request \'lithin 20 business dai'S and must try to resolve the issue v,;thin60 business days.

~Ia.king Home Affordable ~~~

Help for America's Homeowners

Sincerely, Your name REMEMBER: This letter SHOULD NOT be induded with your mortgage payment, but should be sent separately to the customer service address. You SHOULD continue to make the required mortgage and eS(1"OVl payment until the request is resolved. You may bring a private right of action under Section 6, if you suffer damages due to the lender's servidng of the loan. See the RESPAstatute and regulations.

Avoiding Foreclosure "'hether you're in foreclosure now or worriedaboutitin the future, we have information that can help.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful