Defendants Motion to Compel Supervised Discovery No Exhibits 0001

8/2/2019 Defendants Motion to Compel Supervised Discovery No Exhibits 0001

1/10

S TA TE O F MAIN ECIVIL

TD BANKN.A. fjkja FIRSTMASSACHUSETTS BANK N.A.Plaintiff,

v.

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

COUNTY OF PENOBSCOTSUPER IOR D ISTR ICT COURT

Case No.: BANSC-RE-2010-1B7Judge:

J!N JU NC TIY E R EL IE F SO UG HT)[)E FENDANT'S MOTION TO COMPEL P LA IN TIF FS R ES POND TO)[)EFENDANT 'S FUTU RE DISCOVERY REQUESTS BY W AY OFCOURT SUPERVISED DISCOVERY INCORPORATEDI[)E FENDANTS EXH IB IT S AND MEMORANDUM OF LAW .JURY TR IAL DEMANDED[Defendants filed concurrently the following: ]Notice of Motion, Defendant's Separate Statement ofUndisputed Facts, Defendants Objection to PlaintiffsWitnesses, Affidavits and Exhibits, Incorporated Motion ToStrike and Memorandum of law, Sworn Affidavit ofDefendant Twila A. Butler fjkja Wolf, Defendants ObjectionTo Plaintiffs Motion for a Lifting of Stay And Motion ForSummary Judgment, Defendant's Motion to DisqualifyOpposing Counsel Incorporated Motion for Sanctions,Declaratory and Permanent Injunctive Relief Memorandumof Law and Supporting Exhibits.[Proposed Order Granting Defendants Motion]Date of Hearing: _Time of Hearing: _

DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFFS RESPOND TODEFENDANT'S FUTURE DISCOVERYREQUESTS BYWAY OF COURTSUPERVISED DISCOVERY INCORPORATED DEFENDANTS EXHIBITS

AND MEMORANDUM OF LAW,

TITLE TO REAL eROPEBTY INVOLVED~~~~~~~W R Y IBI4L DEMANDEIl

NOW, come Defendants pursuant to local rules, particularly S(d), Defendant's herebymove this Court to compel Plaintiffs and counsel to respond to Discovery vis a vis by wayof Court Supervised discovery; being based on the following facts:

D efe nd an ts M otio n T o C om pe l C ou rt S up erv is ed D isco ve ry


2/10

STA TE O F M AIN ECIVIL

C OU NT Y O F PE NO BSC OTSU PE RIO R D IST RIC T C OU RT

- BACKGROUND -

1. Request for information, Pre-Discovery phase, by way of Qualified Written Request,hereinafter "QWR,"was submitted to Plaintiffs, through counsel, being obviously boundto a "Duty of Care" and "Due Diligence," as well the professional requirements, both asan officer of the court, and required by the Maine Bar.2. Having received Defendant's QWRmailed on or about April 25th and received on orabout April 27th 2011; as referenced, in Plaintiffs, Response to Defendants, Pre-Discovery, QWR,was argumentative and ultimately resulted in denying of credulouslegal requests for edification as to who [exactly] are Plaintiffs? What is this loan they arespeaking of and being told at mediation and by way of electronic data transmission,known in the common vernacular as email between both the Plaintiffs and, at the timeDefendants attorneys from Pinetree Legal, emailing each other about that crazy who isasking about and pointing out the multiple acts of fraud and as such Defendants offer

It If

Defendants Exhibit "A." "Al" "A2" "A3" ami "A4".M-.6 liS3. Defendants never made, nor agreed to, nor were Defendants ever disclosed [to],period, in any way, at all, not even remotely, as required by both TILAand RESPA, not tomention the numerous State and Federal common law frauds, currently at bar, thatPlaintiffs despite being well aware, of the fact, [that] they, do not [i]n fact have, in hand;as a matter of law, that piece of real property, "The Note," as described by former lawprofessor, and current attorney at Law. Defendants Exhibit "B.",4. Plaintiffs must have in hand, the documents required, the original documents, bywhich to enforce their notion that they own the loan in question and that it was in fact

D efen da nts M otio n T o C om pe l C ou rt S up erv is ed D isco ve ry


3/10


CO UNTY OF PENOBSCOTSU PE RIO R D IST RIC T C OU RT

made to Defendants and in that manner prove their right through the proving ofstanding they know they cannot do.

5. Plaintiffs are well aware of such, or should be, having done due diligence, one canreasonably assume this was done; if one is going to assert and or contend something astrue and the difference being the perception that they are either innocently gathering awitnesses testimony or guiltily of suborning perjured testimony, it would seem theperson would do the "Due Diligence" required by law, it being just good common sense.6. A simple reading and understanding of basic property law, contract law etc ...providing work rules any practicing attorney has read and knows, as a matter of day today work product generation, should know and should have applied that knowledgehere.7. Thus Plaintiffs, as can be reasonably inferred from their colorable actions, arenevertheless attempting to foreclose on a piece of property they know, or should knowis currently on appeal, and are attempting, again, to defraud the State of Maine, theirclients and this honorable court. Plaintiffs, counsel's actions, are questionable, ethically,at best. Criminal and actionable behavior that is sure to lead to their disbarment atworst and more a question for a jury to decide, in determining, scienter.8. Scienter, being reasonably inferred from Plaintiffs actions in moving the court to lifta stay and move to final judgment; on this matter, when they know, or should know, thatoutlined in HP 128 LD145, set for vote and enactment at the next seating of the MaineLegislature, will require, that Plaintiffs have in hand before they initiate a foreclosurethe documents required to legally proceed; including all current actions before the court.Plaintiffs know or should know that these very set of facts, as outlined in Defendants

D efe nd an ts M otio n T o C om pe l C ou rt S up erv ise d D isc ove ry


4/10

s0o: - ; : : iSO JrN . . . .. \: ::0 ! : : : :~ 0....:~~,pp : j ~ E

P o . I- -



appeal currently before that court, would be unable, any more there than here, to provestanding.

9. Plaintiffs, by way of a redacted Zerox, in response to Defendants QWR,the very formneeded most, by Defendants in the process, of invalidating, the legitimacy of Plaintiffsclaims, to make verification of the amounts and the loans that they clearly, on Zeroxedpaper, TDBank N.A.,are shown to be merely the servicer.10. Mistakenly, Plaintiffs, it's assumed, believe that they had redacted any and all usefulinformation, concerning a loan, predicated upon a fraud, on many levels, and part ofDefendant's Federal Claims and complaint which is set and ready to be filed in theFederal District Court next week.11. These alleged loans, as sworn to, by Plaintiffs and the counsel that represents themare a fraud upon this court and Defendants. The information they, mistakenly did notredact, is the fact that in the left hand corner you can see that the loan(s) in questionwere sold to another party, not represented here, and additionally would be theabsolute required elemental evidence of fraud and attempt, through counsel, of Plaintiffsto cover up and obfuscate the fact that thy sold a loan they know they never had anoriginal for.12. As the *wink* *wink* original is a Zerox, and was so from the start. The wholepresented paperwork a fabrication being made of whole cloth from the start. This, soPlaintiffs could create securities / bonds and thus committed securities fraud, properlyinferred, by Defendants. Defendants believe this is the case but leave that question foranother day. Defendants Exhibit "c."

DefendantsMotionToCompelCourtSupervisedDiscovery


5/10



13. When trying to determine on, exactly, whose authority, do, they, Plaintiffs makeclaim to enforce the "rights and agreements" of an alleged Promissory Note andMortgage, let alone attempting to enforce said. The Plaintiffs through counsel have doneall they can to obfuscate and confuse both Defendants and this court.

- ARGUMENT -

14. When asking, by QWR,of Plaintiffs, for the information they possess, and the right ofDefendants to possess, Plaintiffs counsel provided, generally un-useful for thepurpose( s), as, advertised, so to speak, being the same theory, different layout, that,discovery, again its name is its stated purpose, and [that] being, discovery, is being by-passed; by the colorable actions, of Plaintiffs and counsel. This requirement, forDiscovery, coincidentally, is also, that, which is required by this court, statutorily,Defendants lack of edification merely corollary, Plaintiffs intent in denying the lawfuldiscovery of information deemed a land holder's right and provided for through RESPA,and an independent cause of action, by evasive actions and the redefining, of understoodterms, said terms, having been lawfully defined previously by the Urban HousingAuthority.15. Plaintiffs response through counsel, to Defendants Qualified Written Request,hereinafter, "QWR"; by the redefining a clearly legal QWR, as interrogatoriesunsupported, by either, agency rule or policy, and in fact completely antithetical to theHUD example, of a QWR, and that example being unlimited in nature; of both, the

DefendantsMotionToCompelCourtSupervisedDiscovery


6/10


C O UN TY O F P EN O BS CO TS UP ER IO R D IST RIC T C O UR T

questions allowed to be asked and the number of said, attempted to evade the lawfulquestions placed before them.

16. This response, of Plaintiffs through counsel, while, more than useful, in ways,Defendants are sure, Plaintiffs; were and are, still, completely unaware of; and while,Defendants are grateful for [t]hat, which Plaintiffs, deigned, to send them, by way oftheir response to Defendant's, as outlined, on the Urban Housing Authority's website,QWR,nevertheless, did not answer Defendant's questions, as required by law.17. Plaintiffs instead, choose, to evade any question at all, by the use of tortiouslyinequitable, again predicated on a deliberate misapplication of law, tantamount to adefrauding or a clear fraud upon the court, arguments that could not pass theGovernments highly subjective Matthews Test in avoiding due process error damagingto non-movants. Due process error not being the only, or most important, aspect of thismatter but also including individual dignity, equality and tradition are also on the list inan equal and a fair application of the law18. Plaintiffs have sought to redefine what is/was already defined by the Department ofUrban Development as a QWR,which is unlimited in both number and the questions thatcan be asked. Plaintiffs are attempting to tell the Defendants "how the cow eats thecabbage" so to speak, to borrow a car salesman's phrase. When it is the position ofDefendants that the law gives Defendants the right to determine said bovines eatinghabits.19. Agood faith effort has been made to utilize, what, opposing counsel deigned, to sendas, discovery, but since the questions were not answered, as required by law, and theprofusion of what opposing counsel did send was both; not, what was asked for, nor a

D efe nd an ts M otio n T o C om pe l C ou rt S up ervise d D isc ov ery


7/10



decent, reasonable and qualified answer given regarding, why the questions were notanswered. Defendants exhibits" u " "

20. Plaintiffs reply stated Defendants questions, were interrogatories, and limited thenumber they would answer and refused to answer the questions in any manner asrequested by Defendants and have made demands that Defendants proceed to analternate address, as they state is allowed, to receive answers that could more easily, butmore importantly, be answered by the written word, with a stylus and papyrus at theworst and a computer at best. The court cannot provide a remedy that fails to be aremedy if Defendants cannot or will not comply, reasonably, with the remedy providedin the rules.21. This is unacceptable. Since Plaintiffs, through opposing counsel, started this actionthey are compelled to prove their point. Plaintiffs bear the burden of proof and this courtshould enforce this fact.22. As Defendants do not have the staff and support of a law office. They must wait andfight each battle in the importance of the argument. Since Mr. Butler had to go back tolaw school, as much as if in class again, to get into the swing of things, after 20+ yearswithout practicing law, and be capable of defending himself not counting the fact hiswife, as well, had to make legal education a priority so as to defend herself in this matter,time she and her husband can never have back and time that is measure of life. Thisparticular argument/motion was low on the list to submit; not that it was un-important,but not wanting to get into a spitting contest, without an army of staff to assist, on asubject that should involve no confusion. Defendants waited until they were in a positionto bring this information to the courts attention and adjudication.

D efe nd an ts M otio n T o C om pe l C ourt S up ervise d D isco ve ry


8/10



23. Defendants state now, for the record, as the information is now and was then of vitalimportance to the resolution of this dispute, a dispute, again, noted here for the recordby Defendant, started by Plaintiffs, and thus the burden of proof is upon plaintiffs, NOTDEFENDANTSand the law demands they respond to discovery with something otherthan bull defecation, a profusion of documents known as an avalanche, and an overallattempt to overwhelm defendants with a plethora of nothing documents and hide anyuseful information, and the obvious time wasting arguments, in place of responses, theyhave made thus far would argue that Plaintiffs do not deserve the gift of relaxeddiscovery.24. Plaintiffs have refused to provide adequate, legal and reasonable responses andhave not indicated that they will provide such information now or in the future in amanner acceptable to Defendants.25. Since Plaintiffs, through counsel, have refused to respond in a timely manner to legalrequests of Defendants. Defendants move the court to compel the Plaintiffs and counselto respond to Defendants Discovery requests and provide the requested information.26. Defendants state, for the record, they will not be running around in circles trying toget answers and fighting about useless matters; thus wasting their and this honorablecourts time.27. While this may be the normal behavior of Attorneys, as it would appear from thismess, they are actions, that are, nevertheless, colorable and determinative of theprobative value of said documents and information asked for is the fact that thePlaintiffs are more than just unhelpful, here, but also demonstrably delinquent in theirupholding of the law.

D efe nd an ts M otio n T o C om pel C ou rt S up erv is ed D isco ve ry


9/10



28. Therefore this court can see that a relaxed discovery rule, while personallyunderstood and agreed with, by Defendants, as a course of action, chosen and utilized byhonorable men and women, and in a better world, a world more and more it appears,now, gone and lost forever, Defendants would agree with its useful nature to the courtsin determining matters before said court, in a manner relaxed and cost efficient to thesystem; that attempts to serve the public in maintaining the public peace.29. Defendants assert this is not the case here but, instead that the relaxed action andrule, as, used by honorable people, is here used as a tool, by Plaintiffs, to thwart thejustice of this court.30. The game of letting the other side think they are making all the right moves is overand the axe is now in full swing; no more "Crazy man with hands waving in air" and nolonger will the game of semantics and attorneys folly be played out here. The courtshould take over the supervision of all Discovery, in any future deliberation of thismatter, if it decides for some reason to deny Defendants their motions, as it is clearlydemonstrated that in a relaxed format Plaintiffs cannot be trusted to conform to therules of a decent, social and law abiding community. If not granted, Defendants motion,Defendants, for the record, make objection to and make Motion for the preservation allState and Federal rights to be used in any subsequent appeal.

-PRAYER-

THEREFORE,Defendants humbly and respectfully request this court grant this motionto compel Plaintiffs to respond appropriately to discovery requests and humbly ask thatall, future, discovery be court supervised as the relaxed discovery rule only makes forfools and bad bed fellows as this current example proves.

D efen da nts M otio n T o C om pel C ou rt S upe rvise d D isco very


10/10

STA TE O F M A IN ECIVIL

C OU NT Y O F P EN OB SC O TS UP ER IO R D IS TR IC T COURT

It would appear that a "Win by dazzling 'em with brilliance or baffle and drown 'em inBull Defecation" is the unofficial creed of attorneys here, and best expressed by PerkinsThompson Attorneys, flatulently with great pomposity, in colorable actions at bar.Fraud vitiates everything; let us prove it for these sad representations, of the profession,I chose NOTto pursue, for exactly the reasons displayed, so egregiously here, by thesepeople attempting, and failing at, their attempt to be attorneys.

Dated this 28th day of February, 2012.

Twila A.Butler fjkja Wolf Defendantpro se.

Charlton A.Butler Jr. Defendant-Intervenor pro se.

D efe nda nts M otio n T o C om pe l C ourt S up ervise d D isco very

Date post:	06-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	charlton-butler
View:	221 times
Download:	0 times

Defendants Motion to Compel Supervised Discovery No Exhibits 0001

Documents