8/2/2019 BANSC-RE-2010-187-Defendants Mtion to Disqaulify0001

1/6

DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISOUALIFY OPPOSING COUNSEL INCORPORATEDMOTION FOR SANCTIONS. DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND

MEMORANDUM OF LAW.TITLE TO REAL PROPERTY INVOLVED

INJUNCTIVE RELIEF SOUGHTJURY TRIAL DEMANDED

Defendants, TWILA A BUTLER J/k/a WOLF and CHARLTON A. BUTLER JR.

STATE OF MAINECIVIL

TO BANK NA fjkja FIRSTMASSACHUSETIS BANK NAPlaintiff,

v.

TWILA A. BUTLER fjkja WOLFANDCHARLTON A. BUTLER JR pro seDefendantandDefendant-Intervenor.

COUNTY OF PENOBSCOTSUPERIOR DISTRICT COURT

Case No.: BANSC-RE-2010-187Judge:

IN JU N CT IV E R E LIE F S OU G HTD EF EN DA NT 'S M OT IO N T O D IS QU AL IFY O PPO SIN G C OU NS ELW IT H IN C O R P O R A T E D M O T IO N F O R SA N C T IO N S ,D E C L A R A T O R Y A ND IN JU N CT IV E R E L IE F A ND M EM OR A N DU MO F L AW .[P R O PO SE D O R D ER G R A NT IN G D EF EN DA NT 'S M O TIO N ]III R Y T R IA L Q E M AN D EQ[Filed concurrently the following: Notice of Motion,Defendant's Separate Statement of Undisputed Facts,Motion to Disqualify Opposing Counsel, DefendantsObjection to Plaintiffs Witnesses, Affidavits andExhibits Incorporated Motion to Strike andMemorandum of Law, Defendant Twila A. Butler fjkjaWolfs Sworn Affidavit of Fact, Defendant's Motion ForCompensation For Time Incorporated Memorandumof Law, Supporting Exhibits On Defendant's Objectionto Plaintiffs Motion to Lift Stay and Motion for FinalJudgment Incorporated Motion for Sanctions,Declaratory and Injunctive Relief and Memorandum ofLaw. [Proposed Order Granting Defendants Motion]Date of Hearing: _Time of Hearing: _Date of Hearing: _Time of Hearing: _

(collectively "THE BUTLER'S" "DEFENDANT HOMEOWNERS" "VICTIMS" Singularly "TBUTLER" "C BUTLER"), Pro se, move this Court for entry of an Order disqualifying the

D efe nd an ts M otio n T o D is qu alify O pp os in g C ou ns el

8/2/2019 BANSC-RE-2010-187-Defendants Mtion to Disqaulify0001

2/6

STATE OF M AINECIVIL

COUN TY OF PE NOBSCOTSUPERIOR DISTRICT COURT

Law Offices of Perkins Thompson, in particularly Attorney's Stephanie A. Williams BarNo. 10012 and her superior David B. McConnell Bar No. 8133 ( hereinafter "Perkins")

from representing Plaintiffs in this case, and would show:1. Plaintiffs has initiated this lawsuit for mortgage foreclosure, yet THE BUTLER'S,DEFENDANT HOMEOWNERS, never signed a Note and Mortgage contract with Plaintiffs.The Note and Mortgage, documents, upon which this lawsuit is based, are themselvesfraudulent, a creation of Plaintiffs and/or counsel for Plaintiffs all the way back to theorigination of this supposed agreement. As such, it is axiomatic that Plaintiffs alleged,standing, claimed without, as a fact any documentation on which to base that claim.2. Standing, the very constitutional issue that allows for, of adversarial cases betweendisputing parties, to progress only if in possession of standing so as to preserve the fewresources of our courts; it is axiomatic that standing is given to bring this lawsuitpredicated on an alleged Note and Mortgage produced in fraud, charged as such by

Defendant's and never once properly defended by Plaintiffs or Plaintiffs counsel norstanding established.3. Particularly when it is noted for the record that they have, in their latest motion forsummary judgment, yet again, failed to establish standing under the U.c.c. or Federaland/or State Statutes, and thus are, as if it would avail them much, waving their handsand crying ABRACADABRAand therein due to said magical spell, are, for some unknownreason, expecting, the same old tired flawed and fatally defective documents of analleged Note and Mortgage, along with a couple of shiny certificates, to change theresults for them.4. Certificates that, in truth, certifying nothing more than the undisputed, common

Defe nd an ts Motio n To D isq ualify Opposing Counsel

8/2/2019 BANSC-RE-2010-187-Defendants Mtion to Disqaulify0001

3/6

STATE OF M AINECIVIL

COUNTY OF PENOBSCOTSU PER IOR DISTR ICT C OUR T

knowledge, of which, is, easily found at Wikipedia online, undisputed fact that TO BANKN.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 lasttime both state and federally. They continue to fail to show they own the note and arethe holder in due course.5. Maine's appellate courts in deciding "Murphy & Carter" and recently, Florida's HighCourt as well, have, for lack of a better term, begun "cracking down" on banks vis a visthese Fraudulent Foreclosures and their first cousins Fraudulent Assignments ofMortgage. These being, a few, amongst the many, frauds perpetrated on the courts andthe American public. To illustrate, on February 12, 2010, the Second District reversed asummary judgment of foreclosure where the plaintiff bank did not show a properassignment of mortgage. See HAC Funding Consortium. Inc. v. Iacques, Case No. 2D08-3553 (Fla. 2d DCA2010).

6. This ruling comes on the heels of the Florida Supreme Court's recent rule changerequiring that all mortgage foreclosure lawsuits be executed under oath. Suffice it to saythat Florida courts are increasingly concerned about Assignments of Mortgage andensuring that the correct bank has filed suit for foreclosure. Maine, being no slouch hasinitiated at the legislative level what Florida has done with, court level, rule change and7. Both changes, have decided / will decide, that no longer shall thieves and theircounsel rule unabated in Maine or Florida's courts. Gone are the days of running amokwithout regulation or being allowed to continue seeking to foreclose on a person'sproperty; unless, they would like to put a little skin in the game, and that being, their lawlicenses.

Defe nd an ts M otion To D isqualify Opposing C ou nsel

8/2/2019 BANSC-RE-2010-187-Defendants Mtion to Disqaulify0001

4/6

STATE OF M AINECIVIL

COUNTY O F PENOBSCOTSU PER IOR DISTR ICT C OU RT

8. In the case at bar, the Official Records of Penobscot County, Maine reflect that anAssignment of Mortgage, purporting to transfer the instant Mortgage from Plaintiffs to

Plaintiffs, was recorded on December 4th 2000 ("the Assignment"). A copy of theAssignment (Note and Mortgage) is attached as Exhibit "A." and "B".9. The legitimacy of the Assignment is very much in question. Quite frankly, it seemsclear the Assignment was not executed by anyone at TD Bank N.A. in the ordinary courseof business as is required law, unless criminal felony forgery and felony fabrication ofloans and loan documents is their ordinary business.10. The documents in question were fraudulently executed by Plaintiffs and/or their co-conspirators in the continuation of what in the criminal world would be called a "LongCon" 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 tothe county of Penobscot Registrar of Deeds fraudulent and forged documents, and are

attempting to pass those off to this court and make an idiot of you your honor.11. Defendants have transparencies that accounting for the shift and reduction for thecopier, anti-counterfeiting actions, that the signatures, on the documents, Plaintiffs arerelying on, are forgeries and evidence of a crime as they exactly, and as any graphologistwill testify to, the same and an impossibility. Defendants Exhibits "AA1" "AA2" "BB1""BB2" "CC1" and "CC2".12. As it would appear with the open declaration on one hand the fact that, PerkinsThompson, attorneys, are debt collectors. Stephanie Williams has stated so inDefendants Exhibit "D"13. Then David McConnell's lack of such declaration means what? A flagrant disregard

D efe nd an ts M otio n T o D is qu alify O pp os in g C ou ns el

8/2/2019 BANSC-RE-2010-187-Defendants Mtion to Disqaulify0001

5/6

STATE OF M AINECIVIL

COUNTY O F PE NO BSCOTSU PER IOR DISTR ICT C OU RT

for the facts? Defendants Exhibit "E"14. David McConnell, Stephanie Williams and their clients the Plaintiffs, sought in a

fraudulent attempt, to "push through" this mortgage foreclosure from the beginning, inanyway, they could and or can, and this court should direct the district attorney forPenobscot county to investigate and prosecute these criminals.15. The benefits? To reap a profit from beating those who are too dumb to argue, or justtoo beaten down to show up for the foreclosure hearing, when it is very likely theyshould have never been there in the first place, like Defendants, but for the flagrantdisregard for the law shown by Plaintiffs counsel, as shown against Defendants nowand/or of beating the clock ofthe Maine legislature.16. Or they are saying the courts of Maine are idiots, worse ... are they are intimating thiscourt is their partner? This is not Defendants argument, mind you, but Defendants wouldmost 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. As such, they invite the Court totake a look at Exhibits "A" and "8" hereto. Even an initial, cursory review of theAssignment and corresponding documents calls into, question, their legitimacy.18. First, initial closing documents were executed on or about December 04, 2000 andthat the documents filed with the county point to a direct, without evidence to assertotherwise, straight one shot to the Trusts they were sold to, as is the only definition ofhow Plaintiffs could claim that they own the notes in question. Yet this is not a legalmeans for creating a trust or showing the chain of true sales as required by law and thePSAthey must keep too to qualify for tax free status.

D efe nd an ts M otio n T o D is qu alify O pp os in g C ounsel

8/2/2019 BANSC-RE-2010-187-Defendants Mtion to Disqaulify0001

6/6

STATE OF M AINECIVIL

COUNT Y O F PE NO BSCOTSU PER IO R D ISTR IC T CO URT

work day, application for, approval of, closing 123 done is not within the realm of saneintelligent thought process ..

23. This in direct contradiction to the four; at least four true sales that did not occur andwould further nullify this alleged contract already void ab initio as well prima facie aclear 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 othermotions would indicate the reasons why this court should immediately grant Defendantsmotion.

-PRAYER-

Therefore, Defendants pray this honorable court grant Defendants motion todisqualify this firm and these attorneys from further having anything to do with thismatter now at bar. That, this court, would also seek that counsel for Plaintiffs appearbefore the bar to explain themselves and that they explain themselves to the DistrictAttorney for the County of Penobscot.

Respectfully submitted this 29th day of February 2012.

Twila A. Butler fjkja Wolf pro se

Charlton A. Butler Jr. pro se

D efe nd an ts M otio n T o D isq ua lify O pp os in g C ou ns el