STATE OF MAINE CIVIL

COUNTY OF PENOBSCOT SUPERIOR DISTRICT COURT

TO BANK NA fjkja MASSACHUSETIS

FIRST BANK NA Case No.: BANSC-RE-2010-187

Plaintiff,
Judge:

INJUNCTIVE RELIEF SOUGHT v.

DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISQUALIFY OPPOSING COUNSEL WITH INCORPORATED MOTION FOR SANCTIONS, DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND MEMORANDUM OF LAW. [PROPOSED ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION] IIIRY TRIAL QEMANDEQ

TWILA A. BUTLER fjkja WOLF AND CHARLTON A. BUTLER JR pro se

Defendant

and
Defendant-Intervenor.

[Filed concurrently the following: Notice of Motion, Defendant's Separate Statement of Undisputed Facts, Motion to Disqualify Opposing Counsel, Defendants Objection to Plaintiffs Witnesses, Affidavits and Exhibits Incorporated Motion to Strike and Memorandum of Law, Defendant Twila A. Butler fjkja Wolfs Sworn Affidavit of Fact, Defendant's Motion For Compensation For Time Incorporated Memorandum of Law, Supporting Exhibits On Defendant's Objection to Plaintiffs Motion to Lift Stay and Motion for Final Judgment Incorporated Motion for Sanctions, Declaratory and Injunctive Relief and Memorandum of Law. [Proposed Order Granting Defendants Motion] Date of Hearing: Time of Hearing:
Date of Hearing: Time of Hearing: _ _

_ _

DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISOUALIFY OPPOSING COUNSEL INCORPORATED MOTION FOR SANCTIONS. DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND MEMORANDUM OF LAW. TITLE TO REAL PROPERTY INVOLVED INJUNCTIVE RELIEF SOUGHT JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

Defendants, (collectively

TWILA A BUTLER J/k/a

"DEFENDANT

WOLF

and

CHARLTON

A. BUTLER Singularly

JR. "T the

15'c
0..
CIS

"THE BUTLER'S"

HOMEOWNERS" for entry

"VICTIMS"

BUTLER" "C BUTLER"), Pro se, move this Court

of an Order

disqualifying

Defendants Motion To Disqualify Opposing Counsel

STATE OF MAINE CIVIL Law Offices of Perkins Thompson, No. 10012 and her superior from representing 1.

COUNTY OF PENOBSCOT
SUPERIOR DISTRICT COURT in particularly Attorney's Stephanie A. Williams Bar "Perkins")

David B. McConnell Bar No. 8133 ( hereinafter

Plaintiffs in this case, and would show: this lawsuit for mortgage foreclosure, yet THE BUTLER'S,

Plaintiffs has initiated

DEFENDANT HOMEOWNERS, never signed a Note and Mortgage contract with Plaintiffs. The Note and Mortgage, documents, fraudulent, origination a creation of Plaintiffs of this supposed upon which this lawsuit is based, are themselves counsel for Plaintiffs all the way back to the alleged,

and/or

agreement.

As such, it is axiomatic that Plaintiffs

standing, claimed without, as a fact any documentation 2. Standing, the very constitutional

on which to base that claim. cases between the few

issue that allows for, of adversarial

disputing parties, to progress resources predicated Defendant's of our courts;

only if in possession

of standing so as to preserve

it is axiomatic

that standing

is given to bring this lawsuit in fraud, charged or Plaintiffs as such by counsel nor

on an alleged Note and Mortgage produced and never once properly defended

by Plaintiffs

standing established. 3. Particularly when it is noted for the record that they have, in their latest motion for yet again, failed to establish standing under the U.c.c. or Federal

summary and/or

judgment,

State Statutes, and thus are, as if it would avail them much, waving their hands

and crying ABRACADABRAand therein due to said magical spell, are, for some unknown reason, expecting, the same old tired flawed and fatally defective documents of an

alleged Note and Mortgage, along with a couple of shiny certificates, results for them.

to change the

OJ t>(

4.

Certificates

that, in truth, certifying

nothing

more than the undisputed,

common

c,

rn

Defendants Motion To Disqualify Opposing Counsel

STATE OF MAINE CIVIL knowledge,

COUNTY OF PENOBSCOT
SUPERIOR DISTRICT COURT fact that TO BANK

of which, is, easily found at Wikipedia online, undisputed

N.A. merged with a couple of other banks and nothing more. Their Motion for Summary Judgment, as a state claim is again fatally flawed and as effective and legal as the last

time both state and federally. They continue to fail to show they own the note and are the holder in due course. 5. Maine's appellate courts in deciding "Murphy & Carter" and recently, Florida's High

Court as well, have, for lack of a better term, begun "cracking down" on banks vis a vis these Fraudulent Foreclosures and their first cousins Fraudulent Assignments of

Mortgage. These being, a few, amongst the many, frauds perpetrated the American public. To illustrate, summary assignment judgment of foreclosure

on the courts and a

on February 12, 2010, the Second District reversed where the plaintiff bank did not show a proper

of mortgage.

See HAC Funding Consortium.

Inc. v. Iacques, Case No. 2D08-

3553 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010). 6. This ruling comes on the heels of the Florida Supreme that all mortgage foreclosure courts are increasingly Court's recent rule change

requiring

lawsuits be executed under oath. Suffice it to say concerned about Assignments of Mortgage and

that Florida

ensuring that the correct bank has filed suit for foreclosure.

Maine, being no slouch has

initiated at the legislative level what Florida has done with, court level, rule change and 7. Both changes, have decided / will decide, that no longer shall thieves and their

counsel rule unabated without property; licenses. regulation

in Maine or Florida's courts. Gone are the days of running amok to continue seeking to foreclose on a person's

or being allowed

unless, they would like to put a little skin in the game, and that being, their law

Defendants Motion To Disqualify Opposing Counsel

STATE OF MAINE CIVIL 8.

COUNTY OF PENOBSCOT SUPERIOR DISTRICT COURT County, Maine reflect that an

In the case at bar, the Official Records of Penobscot of Mortgage, purporting to transfer
4th

Assignment

the instant Mortgage from Plaintiffs to ("the Assignment"). A copy of the

Plaintiffs, was recorded Assignment 9.

on December

2000

(Note and Mortgage) is attached as Exhibit "A." and "B". is very much in question. Quite frankly, it seems

The legitimacy of the Assignment

clear the Assignment of business

was not executed by anyone at TD Bank N.A. in the ordinary course law, unless criminal felony forgery and felony fabrication is their ordinary business. executed by Plaintiffs and/or their coof

as is required

loans and loan documents 10. The documents conspirators

in question were fraudulently

in the continuation

of what in the criminal world would be called a "Long

Con" at this point; besides the Defendants, exactly, whom, else, the Plaintiffs and counsel, are trying to Con, would be a question for this court as its obvious that they submitted the county of Penobscot attempting Registrar of Deeds fraudulent and forged documents, to

and are

to pass those off to this court and make an idiot of you your honor. have transparencies that accounting for the shift and reduction on the documents, for the

11. Defendants

copier, anti-counterfeiting

actions, that the signatures,

Plaintiffs are

relying on, are forgeries and evidence of a crime as they exactly, and as any graphologist will testify to, the same and an impossibility. "BB2" "CC1" and "CC2". 12. As it would appear Thompson, attorneys, with the open declaration are debt collectors. on one hand the fact that, Perkins Williams has stated so in Defendants Exhibits "AA1" "AA2" "BB1"

Stephanie

Defendants Exhibit "D" 13. Then David McConnell's lack of such declaration means what? A flagrant disregard
rn
0...

:5l:

Defendants Motion To Disqualify Opposing Counsel

STATE OF MAINE CIVIL for the facts? Defendants Exhibit "E"

COUNTY OF PENOBSCOT SUPERIOR DISTRICT COURT

14. David McConnell, Stephanie fraudulent

Williams and their clients the Plaintiffs, sought

in a

attempt, to "push through" this mortgage foreclosure

from the beginning, in attorney for

anyway, they could and or can, and this court should direct the district Penobscot county to investigate and prosecute these criminals.

15. The benefits? To reap a profit from beating those who are too dumb to argue, or just too beaten down to show up for the foreclosure hearing, when it is very likely they but for the flagrant now

should have never been there in the first place, like Defendants, disregard and/or for the law shown by Plaintiffs

counsel, as shown against Defendants

of beating the clock ofthe Maine legislature.

16. Or they are saying the courts of Maine are idiots, worse ... are they are intimating this court is their partner? This is not Defendants argument, mind you, but Defendants would most assuredly advocate that your honor have these questions on your lips asking this

firm exactly what do they mean. 17. THE 8UTLER'S realize this is a serious allegation. take a look at Exhibits "A" and "8" hereto. documents As such, they invite the Court to review of the

Even an initial, cursory

Assignment and corresponding

calls into, question, their legitimacy.

18. First, initial closing documents that the documents otherwise,

were executed on or about December 04, 2000 and evidence to assert of

filed with the county point to a direct, without

straight one shot to the Trusts they were sold to, as is the only definition

how Plaintiffs could claim that they own the notes in question.

Yet this is not a legal by law and the

means for creating a trust or showing the chain of true sales as required PSA they must keep too to qualify for tax free status.
Defendants Motion To Disqualify Opposing Counsel

STATE OF MAINE CIVIL

COUNTY OF PENOBSCOT SUPERIOR DISTRICT COURT

work day, application for, approval of, closing 123 done is not within the realm of sane intelligent thought process .. 23. This in direct contradiction to the four; at least four true sales that did not occur and would further nullify this alleged contract already void ab initio as well prima facie a clear case of fraud to many with the poor Defendants merely first on that list. 24. All these many reasons alone and taken in combination with Defendants other

motions would indicate the reasons why this court should immediately grant Defendants motion. -PRAYER-

Therefore,

Defendants

pray

this honorable

court

grant

Defendants

motion

to

disqualify this firm and these attorneys

from further having anything to do with this

matter now at bar. That, this court, would also seek that counsel for Plaintiffs appear before the bar to explain themselves Attorney for the County of Penobscot. Respectfully submitted this 29th day of February 2012. and that they explain themselves to the District

Twila A. Butler fjkja Wolf pro se

Charlton A. Butler Jr. pro se

: es c,

Defendants Motion To Disqualify Opposing Counsel