RE BANSC 2010 187 TD Bank N a v Twila a Wolf Case W All Exhibits a K as Filed 10-05-2012(1)

Charlton A. Butler Jr. & Twila A. Butler 44 Patten Street Bangor, ME 04401 September 18,2012

Penny H. Reckards, Clerk Penobscot County Superior Court Attn: Civil Clerk for Real Estate Mattters 78 Exchange Street, Suite 350 Bangor ME 04401

10/05/2012

Dear 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. McConnell

c/o Perkins Thompson P.A.One Canal Plaza PO Box 426Portland ME, 04112-0426

&

To: Paul NiklasAssistant City Attorney c/o The City of Bangor 73 Harlow Street Bangor, ME 04401

Butler

& Butle

r Pro

Per

44 Patt

en Stre

et Ban

gor M

E. 044

01 207

-249-5

378

V ictim

. of. fra

ud, an

d. corr

uption

@, em

ail. co

mTwila A. Wolf Pro per. & Charlton A. Butler Jr. Pro per.44 Patten St.Bangor Me, 04401 (207)[email protected] OF MAINE PENOBSCOT, SUPERIOR COURTCIVIL ACTION DOCKET NUMBER

BANSC-RE-2010-00187TD BANK N.A. f/k /a FIRST MASSACHUSETTS BANK

Plaintiffsv.

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 REPLY

Comes 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 to Defendants submissions to this court in response to Plaintiffs Supplemental Material Facts and Defendants need for findings of fact and conclusions of law as well perceived errors of the court.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 Defendants

position regarding Plaintiff's actual position in this matter with the addition of the Debt Collector Announcement verbiage required by statute to the end of his missives to Defendants and this court. Defendants Exhibit A

3. Defendants contend that as childish and outlandish as it may sound the court must regard this matter as one might; when, dealing with children and determining whether or not they cleaned their room as claimed.

4. When checking to see if the child did indeed clean their room, we, check to see whether they cleaned and put away all their things. Or did they just stuff things out of sight so that things look correct? But in reality are really just a matter of concealed messes; when we 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 "*

Page

Butler

& Butle

r Pro

Per

44 Patt

en Stre

et Ban

gor M

E. 044

01 207

-249-5

378

Victim

.of.fra

ud.and

.corru

ption@

gmail.

commatter what, sooner or later has to be done right, that, has to be dealt with, I.e. cleaned up, in the end.

5. Defendants contend this is the case in this matter at bar. Plaintiffs are providing the court with; what, on the surface, appears correct. The Plaintiffs paperwork and declarations all seem 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 the proper 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 debt buyers like NVLV Funding LLC. And their ilk in the market; these servicers and debt buyers, 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 didnt actually represent the party captioned in the action at bar that said attorney until that time had made every indication of quite the opposite.

9. G is the transcript of the exchange between the Judge and the as already mentioned attorney, and an analysis of the problem as represented in the market and the courts by two other attorneys, of the growing numbers every day, who have in the past been saying that is and was exactly the case and worse in other cases they have worked on. That it is a very common example and evidential of the games being played, by servicers, in courts across the Nation.

10. Additionally and unbeknownst to Plaintiffs is the fact that this alleged loan was a fraudulent loan to begin with. Plaintiffs counsels actions only confirm this fact and make 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 Courts Order permitted Defendant to respond to new information contained in Plaintiffs supplemental summary judgment pleading within 21 days after 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

'Page

IIs*

ot^*o

W

P3 +-

Butler

& Butle

r Pro

Per

44 Patt

en Stre

et Ban

gor M

E. 044

01 207

-249-5

378

Victim

.of.fra

ud.and

.corru

ption@

gmail.

com17. Again, Plaintiffs counsel, M. McConnell, shows his proclivity for never actually

providing factual information; but instead, only intimating and leaving to ones own interpretation that which duty requires be clarified, particularly, that which is given to the court and Defendants.

18. Defendants have done exactly as the court instructed.19. A Court that, in fact, has yet to define, properly, whether or not, the Plaintiffs, have

Standing, Capacity and Jurisdiction to bring, let alone maintain, this action. This, being, the case, now, despite, Defendants, having challenged, Plaintiffs, from the beginning, and continue to do so now. Defendants seek to have the court define this conundrum for the parties at bar.

20. Defendants have complied with the court, as much they could possibly be required to do, and as any appellate court would suggest they are or should be required to do, predicated on this court having not proven its authority, by way of and through jurisdiction, as this is the case Defendants nevertheless have complied and kept their submissions to five pages except for their counter-complaint which comes to the court; as any complaint would, and that, is, as long as it takes to make the complaint.

21. Plaintiffs complain that Defendants have not followed rule 56 et seq in their previous submissions but Defendants contend that they did in fact comply with said rule. That Defendants denied said loan in its entirety; that being the case this would be enough for most sane individuals to establish that there is nothing else in; Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment, for Defendants to reference, to, or from after denying the loan in its entirety what exactly are Plaintiffs suggesting, after stating Defendants didnt take this loan, what is it that Plaintiffs suggest Defendants should have referred to?

22. Defendants in their submission of Material Facts made reference to Defendants motions, objections and responses from that submission of Material facts.

23. Defendants then went on to prove their contention. That being that Defendants did not take this loan with Plaintiffs and that [t]hat would be because there was no closing that pertains to this loan that was attended by Defendants, it did not happen and what has been presented, here, is a fraud, a, forgery.

24. Apparently opposing counsel feels that Defendants should have followed Rule 56 in the format of their submission of their counter-complaint but this is simply an amended

Paee

Butler

& Butle

r Pro

Per

44 Pat

ten Stre

et Ban

gor M

E. 044

01 207

-249-5

378

Victim

.of.fra

ud.and

.corru

ption@

gmail.

comcounter-complaint so as to comport with the courts desire as expressed in its order of July 30th 2012 and has been referenced previously.

25. Supplemental Material Facts on Support to any motion, pleading or affidavit is not abnormal, it appears it is to Plaintiffs, only, because Defendants, do not, work from a preformatted Practice Forms and Pleadings as Plaintiffs, in their instant action with only the bare requisite to qualify for having recited the requirements, in appearance only, to legally proceed in an action.

26. Plaintiffs counsel is finessing and stroking the rules, the law and this court; to see, just what they, Plaintiffs counsel, HAS to submit to this court to win. While; at the same time, attempting to maintain their plausible deniability or as Defendants call it the gee I didnt know Andy I didnt know ... they.... they didnt tell me that... soliloquies and protestations for later.

27. Nor do Defendants succumb to the general day to day motion wars, of most attorneys these days. Motion wars over the smallest of minutiae; simply, for the fees they generate, and not, for any cognizable benefit to the client as any such action should be based on.

28. Defendants Exhibit B while concerning the Bankruptcy courts is nevertheless relevant as it provides evidence in other courts of actions like Plaintiffs on point and displays the fact that this behavior is widespread and not confined to any particular part of the country or particular court. If this is what Servicers are up to in other courts and around the country; therefore, Defendants, ask, what would be the intelligent basis for assuming we are free from this rabid and egregious defect in our courts here in Maine?

29. Defendants Exhibits, D and E, are the result of loans made under various Maine State Housing Authority programs and then sold, purchased by some Special Purpose Entity, or Structured Investment Vehicle, Trust and issued as Residential Mortgage Backed Security Bonds, (certificates) The same as was done for the loans, now, being brought before the court. Notice the other side would like to argue all about why defendants cant say what they say. What they do not do is deny the allegations or provide any permissible evidence to the contrary.

30. Plaintiffs witness if you can call her that states that the Bank, is the holder of the Note;however, as an employee, or otherwise Ms. Dagineault is not competent to testify to

LOlegal conclusions; as but one of the many, many reasons, again, that Ms. Dagineault is not

Page

Butler

& Butle

r Pro

Per

44 Pat

ten Stre

et Ban

gor M

E. 044

01 207

-249-5

378

Victim

, of. fra

ud, and

. corru

ption@

gmail.

comcompetent to testify to the personal knowledge of a subject she has no personal knowledge of.

31. Defendants offer up Attorney David B. McConnells Linkdn listing, Defendants Exhibit H, a business style of social networking website, is your information incorrect M. McConnell? Or is it as correct as Tonya Daigneaults? Then it would be safe to assume then that Ms. Daignuealt is a mere employee and not a Vice President of anything.

32. Plaintiffs failed to include their challenged witnesses resume and employment history to attempt to verify that fact which should have been done without having to be asked.

33. As is said in the vernacular Time to put up or shut up sailor Defendants joyfully and with great excitement look forward to hashing out this matter, completely and fully, in front of a jury.

34. Since, this matter is not one of equity, on Plaintiffs part; that is, but is, instead, a matter for a finder of fact and a jury of Defendants peers; therefore, a prospect they look forward to; if, this court fails, in, establishing Defendants right to a favorable decision and order now.

35. Further upon an unfavorable return Defendants would file their intent to appeal followed by their appeal said unfavorable decision and order.

36. Plaintiffs and the court feel that Defendants are long winded but this is a matter of what to leave out not fishing for what to add.

37. With all due respect, Defendants, have not even touched on the absence of a nexus between the transaction and the documents at issue as relates, as but one example, to the title and being insurable therefore unmarketable as related to the Plaintiffs and issues of being the creditor/lender or not and any subsequent credit bid they would obtain in addition to a free house with a Summary Judgment in Plaintiffs favor from this court. So Defendants feel they have done the best any reasonable court could ask. With all due respect

38. Plaintiffs Counsel could simply make the conciliatory, responsible and decent overt gesture and make a phone call to Defendants, on behalf of their clients, and inquire what it would take to make Defendants right again.

39. Plaintiffs wont like it at all and would refuse to settle, most likely, but if they could, settle, at least it would be settled and done if maybe just maybe they could get a clear outlook on life and this case.

Page

Butler

& But

ler Pro

Per

44 Pat

ten Stre

et Ban

gor M

E. 044

01 207

-249-5

378

Victi

m. of. fr

aud. an

d. corr

uption

@, em

ail. co

m40. That or Plaintiffs can continue on the same course and the matter will be left up to a jury

to decide and make an accounting of Plaintiffs actions and for Defendants damages.41. Defendants Exhibit I is a DRI-The Voice of The Defense Bar; poll, on the confidence in

the American Civil Judicial system. With all due respect; after almost, 2 years of trying to get the Courts undivided attention in this matter at bar; as relates to, and concerning the fact, that Defendants did not take/make/sign for/agree to/or otherwise, this loan with Plaintiffs. That taking almost 2 years to even get close to gaining the undivided attention of the Court is mind boggling.

42. Maybe the Courts have just become that busy in the last 30 years, that, this is the norm, but nevertheless the effect is devastating to the reputation of and to the confidence in the efficacy of, the Judiciary.

43. To suffer the indignity, the humiliation and emotional distress, on top of an already compromised mental system, fragile and under a Doctors care for the treatment of said, exacerbating the physical health problems of Defendants that have been made worse or brought on, by this whole ordeal, is a bit ridiculous and exactly why, in addition to other things Defendants have stated, that Defendants contend; it is, that, Defendants have almost no confidence in the civil law system or the courts in this, or really any, matter. With all due respect.

44. Defendants, nevertheless, reach deep within themselves, seeking the order and the promise of justice and righteousness; that called Defendant C Butler to the law as a possible vocation 30 years ago, and find the confidence, in this court, to attempt to keep on trying; with all due respect.

45. Defendants Exhibit J Is an article wherein two law professors, at Brooklyn Law School, go into detail, echoing an article in Fordham Law Review published seven years ago; Defendants read, reiterating Defendants stated opinions, about the market and the negligent at best, intentional, at worst, aspects of the financial and subprime mortgage crisis meltdown, and Defendants as local examples of a much larger problem.

46. All this, [t]hat has developed, due to, securitization and the sham that many, including the IRS, are starting to consider these Securitized Asset Trusts; allegedly, created by the Banks, to be. A sham that as a direct result of and or; because, they were a part of the, andts .

Page

Butler

& But

ler Pro

Per

44 Patt

en Stre

et Ban

gor M

E. 044

01 207

-249-5

378

Victim

.of.fra

ud.and

.corru

ption@

,gmail.

comor, a larger scheme, that fact(s) is up to a jury to decide at worst and or is a final nail, now, in the death of Plaintiffs Motion for Summary and Final Judgment.

47. Which, all described, herein and exhibits, provides for the huge incentives, required, to encourage the fraudulent creation of; and for the submission of, Robo-Signed and consequently fraudulent affidavits to the courts; as but one example of the creativity that is passing for the truth in courts Nationwide.

48. Defendants Exhibit K is a report, with all due respect, by Adam Levitin; arguably the foremost scholar and expert on securitization, and Susan Wachter both illustrious professors of law at their respective Universities. Wherein they describe the current situation, of Defendants, as well other homeowners, in various courts across the country, and the reason for the Housing market as choice for a bubble, the crash, the players and so on; a sort of primer in the situation at hand so to speak with all due respect.

49. Defendants conclude with, as long-time, foreclosure investigator Nye Lavalle, who writes:On thousands o f occasions I stated to regulators, CEOS, banks, Fannie and Freddie that the practices o f the banks were that they were double and multi-pledging assets and pledging paid o ff and refinance notes to securitizations. This is something April, Max [Gardner] and I have discussed for years now. Now, they come and admit that each o f my allegations were true. Without analyzing the deal, as complex as they are, you WILL NEVER KNOW IF THE FORECLOSING PARTY HAS ANY RIGHT TO

FORECLOSE!!!

PRAYERTherefore for these reasons, and more, do Defendants pray that this honorable court strike, ignore and or otherwise dismiss Plaintiffs Supplemental Reply.

Respectfully Submitted this 5th day of October, 2012.

Twila A. Butler f/k/a Wolf Defendant pro per

Charlton A. Butler Jr. Intervenor pro per ^

Page

IIu

o'xToW

an SSPh"3-'3-

03i art

Butler

& Butle

r Pro

Per

44 Patt

en Stre

et Ban

gor M

E. 044

01 207

-249-5

378

Victim

.of.fra

ud.and

.corru

ption@

, gmail.

com&

To: Paul NicklasAssistant City Attorney c/o The City of Bangor 73 Harlow Street.Bangor, ME 04401

Respectfully Submitted: 10-05-2012

Charlton A. Butler Jr. Intervenor Pro per

CDr p

T*age

PERKINS THOMPSONA tto r n e y s & C o u n s e l o r s a t La w

VIA FEDERAL EXPRESSSeptember 24, 2012

OM CANAi. riAZA PORTLAND Mt 041 2

AX 207.87'.SC26 v w w . p e rfr a is rh m r, o s o n .;; -j vn

PHH.lPC.HUNT

JOHN S. UPTON

PEGGY I. McGEHEE

MELISSA HANLEY MURPHY

JOHN A HOoSON

JAMES N

Residential Mortgage Lender/Servicer Claim AbuseBy Patrick M. Mosley, Esq.Lem Clerk to Hon. Catherine Peek McEwen

Representative Cases I. In re Stewart, 391 B.R. 327 (Bankr. E.D. La. 2008):

Debtor filed an objection to mortgagees claim, thereby denying liability for the amounts claimed, and requested a payment history and support for items included in the second amended claim described as amounts for inspection fees, appraisal fees, NSF check charges, and other charges as well as pre-petition attorneys fees and escrow advances. After a proceeding prolonged by the mortgagees sloppiness and misrepresentations, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana held mortgagees conduct was duplicitous and misleading, debtor was improperly charged for drive by inspections and brokers price opinions, its escrow calculations were incorrect and resulted in overcharges, and its imposition of late charges was improper and unreasonable. Given the excessive and improper charges, as well as a nearly incomprehensible escrow account, the court imposed sanctions and warned mortgagee against further improper conduct in the proceedings.

II. Nosek v. AmeriquestMortgage Co. (In re Nosek), 386 B.R. 374 (Bankr. D. Mass. 2008):The United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Massachusetts issued an order to show

cause why sanctions should not be imposed under Rule 9011 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure for apparent misrepresentations as to the status of a lender as the holder of the note and mortgage. The Order to Show Cause was directed at the lender, local counsel, three of its attorneys, the lenders national counsel, one of its attorneys, and the existing mortgage holder. Throughout an adversary proceeding, the lender and its attorneys represented that the lender was the holder of a note and mortgage given by plaintiff, the Chapter 7 debtor, on her principal residence. In actuality, the lender was the original holder of the note and mortgage for only five days and had assigned the note and mortgage to the predecessor of the existing holder in 1997. Additionally, the lender assigned its servicing rights in connection with the note and mortgage in 2005. Despite the fact that the lender no longer held the note and mortgage and ended its servicer role, the court noted that the lenders attorneys and representatives had repeatedly and consistently made contrary representations throughout the adversary proceeding.

The court found that those parties who do not hold the note and mortgage and who do not service the mortgage, such as the lender, do not have standing to pursue motions for relief or other actions arising from the mortgage obligation. Unfortunately, either through confusion or lack of knowledge, or perhaps sloppiness, all too many lenders misrepresent the roles and positions they hold in bankruptcy mortgage claims. These misrepresentations require debtors, already burdened in their attempts to pay their mortgages, to expend additional time and resources in an effort to sort out who actually holds and/or services a given note and mortgage.

The court sanctioned the lender $250,000 because it made repeated misrepresentations and its behavior in failing to properly disclose its role was unreasonable under the circumstances. The court also sanctioned the lenders local law firm and the partner in charge of the matter $25,000 each, because, had they checked the firm's file, they would have seen that the existing holder was perhaps the real party in interest. The court sanctioned the national firm $100,000 because it had a responsibility to know its client's role in the case. The court sanctioned the existing holder $250,000 because it should have been able to correct the misrepresentations.

DEFENDANTSEXHIBIT

B

III. In re Fitch, 390 B.R. 834 (Bankr. ED. La. 2008):Debtors filed an objection to the claim of creditor mortgagee, and served a qualified written

request pursuant to the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA), seeking documentation to support the mortgagee's claim for broker's price opinion charges, inspection fees, foreclosure fees and costs, and amounts due under debtors' escrow account. Debtors also sought damages and attorney's fees. The purpose of RESPA is to protect home buyers from material nondisclosures in settlement statements and abusive practices in the settlement process.

The primary issue considered by the court involved past due amounts the mortgagee claimed for escrow. The mortgagee had a great deal of difficulty producing evidence and explaining how the amounts assessed against the debtors were calculated. Its calculation resulted in substantial overstatement of the amounts owed. After it failed to produce evidence at trial, the court declared the escrow account current, striking all past due sums. The mortgagee finally satisfied the qualified written request, well after the time limit set by RESPA. The debtors sought sanctions and damages for its failure to timely provide the information requested. The mortgagee would be liable for actual damages should a pattern of noncompliance be proven. The court found that the debtors did not show a pattern of noncompliance by the lender, nor did they prove that additional damages were warranted. The court awarded the debtors $3,500 in attorneys fees for time spent pursuing the objection to claim.

IV. In re Parsley, 384 B.R. 138 (Bankr. S.D. Tex. 2008):Court issued two show cause orders requiring mortgage loan servicer, its national counsel and

local counsel to appear and show cause why they should not be sanctioned for the conduct related to a motion to lift the automatic stay, which was later withdrawn. After local counsel for the servicer sought to withdraw the motion to lift the automatic stay, the court inquired why it was necessary to withdraw the motion. Rather than admitting that the motion was based on an incorrect payment history, local counsel attempted to conceal the truth from the court. Over the course of expansive proceedings related to the show cause orders, the court discovered that the servicer had failed to property maintain payment histories and effectively communicate with its counsel. Additionally, the court found that attorneys and legal assistants employed by servicers local counsel are filing motions to lift the stay without questioning the accuracy of the debt figures and other allegations., .and appearing in court without properly preparing for hearings. Parsley, 384 B.R. at 183. Attorneys and appearing at hearings ill prepared because they have not been property trained, have little to no communication with their clients, and they are drafting, signing and filing motions to lift the automatic stay without having the client review the final version of the motion for accuracy. While the court was gravely concerned with the practice of the servicer, national counsel and local counsel, it declined to impose sanctions as the court was unable to find that the parties conduct was anything more than negligent bungling.

V. In re Jacobson, 2009 WL 567188 (Bankr. W.D. Wash. March 10, 2009):An alleged servicing agent for a deed of trust holder filed a motion for relief from stay in order to

enforce the deed of trust on the debtors residence. Attached to the motion were unauthenticated copies of the adjustable rate note, a barely legible copy of the debtors deed of trust, an unrecorded assignment of mortgage, and a copy of the Debtors real property and secured claims schedule (Schedules A and D). The motion was further supported by a declaration of a bankruptcy specialist of the alleged servicing agent which did little more that parrot the narrative set forth in the motion. There was no evidence provided, nor

2

any assertion made, regarding the servicing agents authority to act for the holder of the note, beyond the unelaborated statements that it was the servicing agent for the holder of the note. Additionally, the servicing agent neither asserted a beneficial interest in the note, nor that it could enforce the note in its own right.

Inasmuch as the deficient record put the servicers standing in question, the court opined that it had an independent duty to determine whether [it has] jurisdiction over matters thatcome before [the court] Id. at * ____ . Consequently, the court had a threshold obligation todetermine whether the servicer had standing to seek the relief it sought.

The primaiy issues confronted by the court were whether a servicing agent is a real party in interest in whose name a relief from stay can be brought and whether a servicing agent has standing to seek relief from stay to enforce debtors deed of trust. Fed. R. Bankr. P 7017, imposing the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 17, sets forth that actions must be prosecuted in the name of the real part}' in interest. In applying Fed. R. Civ. P. 17, the Court concluded that a stay relief motion must be prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest. The Court went on to hold that the real party in interest in relief from stay is whoever is entitled to enforce the obligation sought to be enforced. Even if a servicer or agent has authority to bring the motion on behalf of the holder [of the deed of trust], it is the holder, rather than the servicer, which must be the moving party, and so identified in the papers and in the electronic docketing done by the moving party's counsel. It follows that an order granting a motion for relief from stay must do so only to the actual holder of the note - not the servicer acting on the note holders behalf.

The court went on the hold that for a federal court to have jurisdiction of the motion for relief from stay, the movant must have constitutional standing, which requires an injury fairly traceable to the debtors alleged wrongful conduct and likely to be redressed by the requested relief. Under the Bankruptcy Code, a party seeking a motion for relief from stay must establish entitlement to that relief. 11 U.S.C. 362(d). Servicing agents do no automatically have standing to prosecute a motion for relief from stay and must establish their authority to act for the real party in interest or holder of the note that does. In Washington, only the holder of the obligation secured by the deed of trust is entitled to foreclose. It follows, then, that for a servicing agent to have standing to prosecute a motion for relief from stay, it must not only establish that it represents the real party in interest, but also that it has clear authority to act on behalf of the real party in interest. The court found that the servicing agent failed to establish that it had standing in its own right to bring the motion or authority to act on behalf of the real party in interest.

Another issue addressed by the court in Jacobson is the sufficiency of the evidence identifying the real party in interest or the holder of the note. In prosecuting a motion for relief from stay, a servicing agent, as the movant, must establish that it represents the present holder of the note and that it has authority to act on such person or corporations behalf. Often, to establish its right to prosecute a motion for relief from stay, the servicing agent will rely on business records to provide the necessary proof. The exception to the hearsay rule for records of a regularly conducted activity requires that records be (1) made at or near the time by, or from information transited by, a person with knowledge; (2) kept in the course of a regularly conducted business or activity; (3) it was the regular course of the business activity to make and keep the record or data compilations; and (4) the source of information or the method or circumstances of preparation do not indicate a lack of trustworthiness. Fed. R. Evid. 803(6). Each of these elements must be established by the testimony of a custodian of the servicing agent or note holder, and the documents must be authenticated. The individual authenticating the business records, whether through affidavit or live testimony, must establish that he or she is sufficiently qualified and knowledgeable about the records at issue to allow the court to reach the conclusion that the proffered

3

records are what they purport to be. In proffering this testimony, it is not sufficient for declarant to make the bare assertion that I am employed as bankruptcy specialist for movant and in this capacity, I am one of the custodians of the books, records, file and banking records of movant. Such testimony does little to inform the court that the records at issue were created in the regularly conducted business activity of the movant or that it was the regular business activity of the movant to keep the records or data compilations at issue.

If a servicing agent is prosecuting the motion for relief from stay on behalf of a bank, and the note secured by the deed of trust is in the possession of the bank, a custodian of the bank and not the servicing agent would be required to authenticate the business records. The custodian of the bank would also have to establish that the servicing agent is authorized to enforce the note on the banks behalf.

VI. In re Sheridan, 2009 WL 631355 (Bankr. D. Idaho. March 12, 2009):The Chapter 7 trustee objected to a motion for relief from stay, alleging that the moving party was

not a party in interest. The issue highlighted by the trustees objection was the standing of the moving creditor. The motion for relief from stay was filed by Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. as nominee for HSBC Bank USA, National Association, as Indenture Trustee of the Fieldstone Mortgage Investment Trust Series 2006-3. The movant characterized itself as a secured creditor and claimant. The trustee objected to the motion for relief from stay on that grounds that the movant failed to establish its interest in the property or its standing to seek stay relief.

Under the Bankruptcy Code, relief from the stay is authorized on request of a party in interest and after notice and a hearing. 11 U.S.C. 362(d) (emphasis added). While the term

party in interest is not defined by the Bankruptcy Code, the Court held that such a party must have a pecuniary interest in the outcome of the dispute. It follows that only a party in interest or party with a pecuniary interest in the outcome of the dispute has standing to bring a motion for relief from stay. In addressing whether a party has sufficient party in interest standing to be heard, the court stated:

The doctrine of standing encompasses both constitutional limitations on federal court jurisdiction (i.e., the case or controversy requirements of Article III), and prudential limitations on the court's exercise of that jurisdiction.Constitutional standing requires an injury in fact, viz. an invasion of a judicially cognizable interest. Prudential standing requires that the party's assertions fall within the zone of interests protected by the statute and, further, requires that the litigant assert only its own rights and not those of another party. The party asserting standing exists has the burden of proving it.Though sometimes articulated in the cases as principles applicable to standing on appeal, the same propositions apply to a party at the bankruptcy court level.

Sheridan. 2009 WL 631355 at *3 (internal citations omitted). As such, a party may not asset objections that relate solely to others, or that go to issues that do not directly and adversely affect them pecuniarily. It follows, the real party in interest in relief from stay is whoever is entitled to enforce the obligation sought to be enforced. Even if a servicer or agent has authority to bring the motion on behalf of the holder, it is the holder, rather than the servicer, which must be the moving party, and so identified in the papers and in the electronic docketing done by the moving party's counsel. Id. at *10 (citing In re Jacobson, 2009 WL

4

567118 at *11). Thus, to obtain stay relief, a motion must be brought by a party in interest, with standing. This means:

The motion must be brought by one who has a pecuniary interest in the case and, in connection with secured debts, by the entity that is entitled to payment from the debtor and to enforce security for such payment. That entity is the real party in interest. It must bring the motion or, if the motion is filed by a servicer or nominee or other agent with claimed authority to bring the motion, the motion must identify and be prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest.

Sheridan, 2009 WL 631355 at *11. The court found that the movant failed to establish that it was the real party in interest with standing to bring the motion for relief from stay or that it had authority to prosecute the motion in the name of the real party in interest.

This

Preli

min

ary

Offic

ial

Stat

emen

t an

d the

inf

orma

tion

cont

ained

he

rein

are

subj

ect

to co

mple

tion

or am

endm

ent

with

out

notic

e. U

nder

no

circu

mst

ance

s sh

all t

his

Preli

min

ary

Offic

ial S

tate

men

t co

nstit

ute

an of

fer t

o se

ll or

the

solic

itatio

n of

an

offer

to bu

y. no

r sh

all

there

be an

y sal

e of

these

se

curit

ies,

in an

y jur

isdict

ion

in wh

ich

such

of

fer,

solic

itatio

n, o

r sal

e wo

uld

be un

lawfu

l prio

r to

regis

tratio

n or

quali

ficat

ion

unde

r the

se

curit

ies

laws

of su

ch

juris

dict

ion.

PRELIMINARY OFFICIAL STATEMENT DATED APRIL 17, 2012NEW ISSUE

In the opinion o f H aw kins Delafteld & Wood LLP, Bond Counsel to M aineHonsing, under existing sta tu tes and court decisions and assum ing continuing compliance w ith certain tax covenants described herein, ( i) in terest on the 2012 Series A -l Bonds, the 2012 Series A-2 Bonds and the 2012 Series A-3 Bonds (collectively, the Offered Bonds) is excluded from gross income fo r Federal incom e tax purposes pursuant to Section 103 o f the Internal Revenue Code o f 1986, as amended (the Code"); ( ii) interest on the 2012 Series A -l Bonds is treated as a preference item , in calculating the alternative m inim um tax imposed on individuals and corporations under the Code; ( in ) in terest on the 2012 Series A-2 Bonds is not treated as a preference item, in calculating the alternative m inim um , tax im posed on individuals and corporations under Hie Code; such interest, however, is included in the adjusted current earnings o f corporationsferr purposes o f calculating the alternative m inim um tax; and (iv ) interest on the 2012 Series A-3 Bonds is not treated as a preference item in calculating the alternative m inim um tax imposed on ind ividuals and corporations under the Code and is not included in the adjusted current earnings o f corpora tions fo r purposes o f calculating the alternative m inim um tax. In addition, in the opinion o f Bond Counsel under existing statutes, interest on the Offered Bonds is exempt from the State o f M aine incom e tax imposed on individuals. See Tax Matters.

MAINE STATE HOUSING AUTHORITY

$65,285,000* Mortgage Purchase Bonds, 2012 Series A-I (AMT)$11,800,000* Mortgage Purchase Bonds, 2012 Series A-2 (Nra-AMT)

$20,000,000* Mortgage Purchase Bonds, 2012 Series A-3 (Noii-AMT)fDated: Date of Delivery Dwe: November 15, as shownon inside cover page

The Offered Bonds are available only as fully-registered bonds without coupons and will be available in book-entiy form only. Purchasers of the Offered Bonds will not receive certificates representing their interests in the Offered Bonds. The Offered Bonds will be registered in the name of Cede & Co., as nominee for The Depository Trust Company, New York, New York (DTC). See Book-Entry System. The Offered Bonds are issuable in minimum denominations of $5,000 and integral multiples thereof. Principal of and interest on the Offered Bonds are payable by U.S. Bank National Association, Boston, Massachusetts, as Trustee and Paying Agent, to Cede & Co.

The Offered Bonds will mature on the dates set forth on the inside cover page hereof and will bear interest, to their maturity or prior redemption, at the respective interest rates set forth on the inside cover page hereof. Interest is payable on the Offered Bonds on each May 15 and November 15, commencing on November 15,2012.

The Offered Bonds are subject to redemption at their principal amount prior to maturity, as described herein. See Description of the Offered Bonds.

The Offered Bonds are special obligations of Maine State Homing Authority (MaineHousing), and do not constitute a loan of the eredit o f the State of Maine (the State), any debt or liability on behalf of the State, or any indebtedness of the State within any constitutional or statutory debt limitation or restriction. MaineHousing has no taxing power. The Offered Bonds are equally and ratably secured with Bonds (as defined herein) heretofore issued and any additional Series of Bonds that may hereafter be issued under the General Resolution (as defined herein). The Offered Bonds are special obligations of MaineHousing, payable solely from, and secured (subject to the provisions of the General Resolution permitting the application of certain monies for the purposes and on the terms set forth in the General Resolution, including payment of Operating Costs relating to the Mortgage Purchase Program) by the lien of the pledge provided under the GeneralThe 2012 Series A-l Bonds and the 2012 Series A-2 Bonds are being issued to refund certain outstanding Bonds that

glwere issued to finance the purchase of interest-bearing obligations secured by mortgages that are a first lien on land | and the improvements thereon in the State (Mortgage Loans) constituting one-to-four family residences for persons1 and families of low income. The 2012 Series A-3 Bonds are being issued to finance the purchase of Mortgage Loans

of Hawkins Delafield & Wood LLP, New York, New York, Bond Counsel to MaineHousing, and certain other conditions. Certain legal matters with respect to the Offered Bonds will be passed on for the Underwriters by their counsel, Preti, Flaherty, Beliveau & Pachios, IIP, Augusta, Maine. It is expected that the Offered Bonds will be available for delivery through the facilities of DTC in New York, New York, on or about May 2012.

Citigroup BofA Merrill LynchJ.P. Morgan Raymond James 1 Morgan Keegan Morgan Stanley BBC Capital MarketsApril _ 2012* Preliminary, subject to change.t Interest not included in adjusted current earnings of corporations for purposes of the alternative minimum tax under the Code.

~>NDEFENDANTS

EXHIBIT

m b m kjFjve Star Service Guaranteed \* g ) 412899

NOTICE OF CONDITIONAL REDEMPTION MAINE STATE HOUSING AUTHORITY

MORTGAGE PURCHASE BONDSNOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that pursuant to the provisions of Article VI o f the General Mortgage Purchase Bond Resolution adopted February 4, 1972, as amended from time to time by the Maine State Housing Authority, the following described bonds of the Authority have been called for conditional redemption on August 1, 2012 indicated below, subject to the issuance of the Authoritys Mortgage Purchase Bonds, 2012 Series B Bonds (the 2012 Series B Bonds). In the event that the 2012 Series B Bonds are not issued on or before July 19. 2012. the redemption of the Bonds indicated in this notice will not occur and the Bonds indicated below shall remain outstanding as if such notice had not been given and interest on the Bonds indicated herein will continue to accrue. In the event that the 2012 Series B Bonds are issued oil or before July 19,2012, each of said bonds to be redeemed will become due and payable at a redemption price as stated below of their principal amount or portion thereof, to be redeemed with accrued interest to said date and on and after August 1, 2012, interest on the called bonds or portions thereof, will cease to accrue.FULL CALLCUSIP 56052EBN7 1999 Series A-2 at 5.25% due 11-15-2032 - $ 5,105,000. Optional call at 100% from 2012 Series B Bond ProceedsCUSIP 56052EJL3 2001 Series G at 5.50%due 11-15-2031 3,995,000. Optional call at 100% from 2012 Series B Bond Proceeds

Moneys therefore having been deposited with the trustee, from and after August 1, 2012 interest thereon shall cease to accrue. Payment of such principal amount will be made upon presentation and surrender of said bonds at the address below:

Bv Mail fReeistered Bonds) By Hand or Overnight MailU.S. Bank National Association U.S. Bank National AssociationCorporate Trust Services Corporate Trust ServicesP.O. Box 64111 60 Livingston AvenueSt. Paul, MN 55164-0111 1st Floor -Bond Drop Window

St. Paul, MN 55107Maine State Housing Authority

by U.S. Bank National Association, Successor TrusteeDated: 7/2/2012

IMPORTANT The provisions of the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act o f2003. as amended, require certificate holders to submit their Taxpayer Identification Number (either their social security or employer identification number, as appropriate) with each certificate presented for payment Failure to comply with said Act will subject the payment of the principal portion of the redemption price to the withholding of 28% of such principal portion. To avoid being subject to such withholding, certificate holders should submit IRS Form W-9 at the time the certificates are presented for payment. A Form W-9 is available from your local bank or broker.The above CUSIP numbers are included solely for the convenience of the bondholders. Neither Maine Stale Housing Authority nor the Paying Agent shall be responsible for the selection or use of the CUSIP numbers nor is any representation made as to their correctness on the bonds or as indicated in any redemption notice.

DEFENDANTSEXHIBIT

Client Name: U.S. Bank N.A. (St. Paul) Reliance: 2Notice Issuer: MAINE STATE HOUSING AUTHO RITY

Issue Title: MAINE STATE HOUSING AUTH O R ITY 1999 SERIES A-2 AND 2001 SERIES GJob Type: Redemption Issue Date: 01/15/1999 Pub Date: 07/02/2012 Call Type: Full Call Date: 08/01/2012 Total Amt Called: $9,100,000.00

Notice Memo:

Customers:

Paying Agent U.S. Bank N.A. (St. Paul) 096000690 40071706 60 Livingston Avenue 1 st Floor, St. Paul MN 55107 651-973-5800 Default Org Paying AgentBond Drop W indow Address

Issues:

Interest m Cert No Type Prefix Par Value Called Value Out value Trans56052EBN7 5.2500 ###### 11/15/2032 00 MU F $5,105,000.00 100.00000000 N/A N/A N/A

56052EJL3 5.5000 ###### 11/15/2031 00 MU F $3,995,000.00 100.00000000 N/A N/A

m m56052EBN7 $5,105,000.00

N/A

56052EJL3 $3,995,000.00

ezDisclose Notice Proof Summary Report Page 1 o f 1

BOMBSHELL" Your Honor, We Dont Represent The Plaintiff....EXACTLY! http://mattweidnerlaw.com/blog/2012/01 /bombshell-your-honor-we-dont------ ~ ~ ' "xrepresent-the-plaintiff-exactly/ defendants

EXHIBIT

January 10th, 2012 | ^ Author: Matthew D. Weidner, Esq.The following is a transcript from a hearing when I was sitting in a courtroom where a most extraordinary exchange occurred.The Plaintiff in the case is, US Bank". US Bank is suing a homeowner, trying to throw them into the street. There is an attorney standing in the courtroom arguing on behalf of US BANK... .the judge is upset because shes been trying to figure out who to hold responsible when the Plaintiffs who are foreclosing are ignoring rules of the Florida Supreme Court, abusing homeowners and just generally making a real mess of things and the responses out of the Plaintiff sound like an Abbott and Costello Routine called, Whos On First....Who owns the note? We dont own the note, they own the note. Whos they? They who? The who

that owns the note.And then thats when this exchange occurs:

U.S. Bank is not our client. We have no communication with them on this loan.Whoa, say what?

U.S. Bank is not our client. We have no communication with them on this loan.WHICH IS PRECISELY WHAT IS WRONG WITH THIS ENTIRE STINKING SYSTEM CALLED

THE AMERICAN LEGAL, FINANCIAL AND FORECLOSURE MESS,A bank, US BANK, is foreclosing, but they are not represented by an attorney. US Bank is the Wizard Behind The Curtain, somewhere theres someone else calling the shots. Someone else deciding not to accept a modification. Someone else not accepting a short sale. Someone else pulling the strings. To which my friend Rand, quite correctly responds:

MR. PEACOCK: Your Honor, Im a little bit troubled because plaintiffs counsel just said that the plaintiff she is not their client or vice versa. That makes a real representation issue. If they are not represented by her firm, she cannot advocate on their behalf, and they cant continue this lawsuit.

This is precisely what is wrong with this country. Exactly what what is wrong with what is choking our court system. Exactly why our court system has such problems with what is happening.

Attorneys Admit No Authority to Represent US Bank in Foreclosurehttp://livinglies.wordpress.com/2012/01/13/attomeys-admit-no-authority-to-represent-us-bank-in-foreclosure/Posted on January 13,2012 by Neil Garfield Esq. ........ ...........- _^ ( DEFENDANTS

EDITORS COMMENT: When I raised this issue some years back, most lawyers thought I was stretching for a technicality. But in fact the lack of authority to represent, a forecloser, in litigation lies at the core of the plausible deniability defense that the Banks raise when confronted with a lawsuit over a wrongful foreclosure.The challenge should be in the form of a Motion for Proof of Authority to Represent. Whether they come up with the proof or not, you are in a better position. If they admit no authority the case is over, at least for the moment. If they show the proof, then the Bank cant say they didnt know what was going on.The exchange below shows clearly that the foreclosure would have proceeded with a rubber stamp from the Judge had the borrower not raised defenses and challenged US Bank on its right to foreclose. Attorneys for the Banks are getting a little more careful now about what they say in court since there is a movement afoot to hold them responsible for fraudulent foreclosures. So in this exchange with the Court, the lawyer for the Bank admitted that he had no contact with US Bank nor did he represent the Bank.BOMBSHELL- Your Honor, We Dont Represent The Plaintiff... .EXACTLY!January 10th, 2012 | Author: Matthew D. Weidner, Esq.http://mattweidnerlaw.com/blog/2012/01 /bombshell-vour-honor-we-dont-represent-the-plaintiff-exactlv/The following is a transcript from a hearing when I was sitting in a courtroom where a most extraordinary exchange occurred.The Plaintiff in the case is, US Bank. US Bank is suing a homeowner, trying to throw them into the street. There is an attorney standing in the courtroom arguing on behalf of US BANK.. ..the judge is upset because shes been trying to figure out who to hold responsible when the Plaintiffs who are foreclosing are ignoring rules of the Florida Supreme Court, abusing homeowners and just generally making a real mess of things and the responses out of the Plaintiff sound like an Abbott and Costello Routine called, Whos On First. ...Who owns the note? We dont own the note, they own the note. Whos they? They who? The who that owns the note.And then thats when this exchange occurs:

U.S. Bank is not our client. We have no communication with them on this loan.Whoa, say what?

U.S. Bank is not our client. We have no communication with them on this loan.WHICH IS PRECISELY WHAT IS WRONG WITH THIS ENTIRE STINKING SYSTEM CALLED THE AMERICAN LEGAL, FINANCIAL AND FORECLOSURE MESS.

A bank, US BANK, is foreclosing, but they are not represented by an attorney. US Bank is the Wizard Behind The Curtain, somewhere theres someone else calling the shots. Someone else deciding not to accept a modification. Someone else not accepting a short sale. Someone else pulling the strings. To which my friend Rand, quite correctly responds:

MR. PEACOCK: Your Honor. Im a little bit troubled because plaintiffs counsel just said that the plaintiff she is not their client or vice versa. That makes a real representation issue. If they are not represented by her firm, she cannot advocate on their behalf, and they cant continue this lawsuit.

This is precisely what is wrong with this country. Exactly what what is wrong with what is choking our court system. Exactly why our court system has such problems with what is happening.Full transcript below:March 11 CLhttp://mattweidnerlaw.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/01 /March-11 -CL.pdf

M a r c h 11 CL

DEFENDANTS EXHIBIT

l2

345678 9

10

11

12

1314151617181920

21

22

232425

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PINELLAS COUNTY FLORIDA

CASE NO. 11 000971 Cl 11U.S. BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION,

Plaintiff,

vs.LEROY MARION, et al.,

Defendants.

HEARING HELD BEFORE THE HONORABLE PAMELA A.M. CAMPBELL

DATE: Monday, December 13, 2011TIME: Commencing at 2 :0 0 -2 :3 0 p.m.p l a c e : Circuit Court of the sixth

Judicial circuit Pinellas County, Florida 545 First Avenue North Room 300St. Petersburg, Florida 33701

Hearing taken before:

Sarah J . Mur*row Executive Reporting Service Ulmerton Business Center 13555 Automobile Boulevard, suite 100

Clearwater, Florida 33762

EXECUTIVE REPORTING SERVICE (727) 823-4155

Page 12

23

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

March 11 CL

APPEARANCES:

Nicole R. Ramirez, Esq. Douglas C. zahm, P.A.12425 28th street North St. Petersburg, Florida 33716 (727) 536-4911

Attorney for the Plaintiff

Rand Peacock, Esq.Law office of Rand Peacock, P.A. 5716 5th Avenue North St. Petersburg, Florida 33710 (727) 490-5719

Attorney for the Defendants

I N D E X

Reporter's certificate

E X H I B I T S

(None)


3

PAGE

20

Page 2

March 11 CL1 P R O C E E D I N G S

2 THE COURT: we are here on case

3 No. 11 000971 Cl 11, U.S. Bank, here represented

4 by Nicole Ramirez vs. Leroy Marion represented by

5 Rand Peacock. We are here as a follow-up to a

6 hearing that occurred on November 3rd, 2011.

7 I reset this as a case management conference

8 so that we could continue some of the the

9 parties could continue some of the discovery

10 issues and see if there are any further objections

11 after Mr. Peacock had an opportunity to review the

12 responses, and I think there was also going to be

13 the coordination of a time and place in Florida

14 for a deposition.

15 Mr. Peacock, could you tell us the status of

16 that?

17 MR. PEACOCK: well, your Honor, I guess I

18 apologize. There is a slight lack of recollection

19 in this Court's statements in terms of the who

20 the plaintiff has called as their corporate rep,

21 but they are in good status. We are scheduling

22 those depositions.

23 The plaintiff also plans to depose my client

24 at the same time, which we understand that's a

25 reasonable request, so we are going to make that


4

1 happen, we have just resolved that issue prior to

2 walking in here as far as what person they arePage 3

March 11 CL

3 going to have show up.4 THE COURT: They were going to choose a5 corporate representative for the deposition,

6 MR. PEACOCK: Which my is understanding they

7 have, your Honor, we just have to set up the time

8 and place for everybody to show up at.

9 THE COURT: so are there any outstanding

10 issues that we need to discuss for today or any

11 preemptive ones that may be coming up at some of

12 the depositions?

13 MR. PEACOCK: Well, your Honor, we still have

14 an issue that privilege has still been raised

15 in several of the plaintiff's objections, and

16 subsequent objections and there has been no

17 privilege log filed.

18 I m of the position that if there is a

19 specific document which the plaintiff is a

20 requesting privilege over, it needs to identified

21 in the privilege log and duly file it; and, if

22 not, then they need to if there are no other

23 documents, then there is no reason to document it

24 in the privilege

25 THE COURT: well, at the last hearing on


5

1 November 3rd, Ms. Ramirez, you had produced over

2 300 pages of documents; however, they were on the

3 eve of the hearing. So Mr. Peacock had not had an

Page 4

45

6

78

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

2223

24

25

123

4

5

March 11 CLopportunity to review those; therefore, he didn't

know about any remaining objections.

At this point in time we will then for

this case management conference, which I believe

is a follow-up of the November 3rd hearing, do we

need to have argument on what those objections are

and go through one by one?

MR. PEACOCK: Well, I mean, there are basic

issues here in terms of me trying to establish

what might be discoverable to set up affirmative

defenses and/or defenses that are not otherwise

really apparent at this time and to prove the body

of the plaintiff's full case. The only thing I

don't think I have gotten at this point

plaintiff's counsel has asserted they have given

me all of their title documents to the note that

there are. So as long as other documents are

permitted at a later time, I have no problem with

it.

There is an issue that apparently, there

is a servicer on the business and the servicing

contract has not been provided to my client.


6

That's a document that we requested. There are

objections to it, so I would like to have that

heard.

MR. r a m i r e z: I'm sorry. That's this huge

that is the servicing agreement.Page 5

March 11 CL

6 MR. PEACOCK: So you're saying that is the

7 servicing agreement because there is an objection

8 on that privilege, so I want to make sure that is

9 the full document and there are no other parts to

10 it.

11 m s . RAMIREZ: This is from the web site. I

12 printed out two copies today. We did not provide

13 a printed copy, it's 350 pages or something, but

14 yes, that is a servicing agreement.

15 THE COURT: So you are giving him the

16 servicing agreement today?

17 MS. RAMIREZ: No. He got that a long time

18 ago.

19 MR. PEACOCK: By reference to the link on the

20 web si te.

21 MR. RAMIREZ: I also sent it by e-mail, and I

22 did not put this in the mail to him. I did e-mail

23 it, that is true. And, certainly, we you know,

24 the plaintiff doesn't it's not our practice to

25 charge for these things, but


7

1 MR. PEACOCK: as long as we can be specific

2 that the link you gave me is the true and correct

3 copy for purposes for showing it to the Court, lrm

4 fine on that.

5 MS. RAMIREZ: Yes. That's pub!ically

6 avai1able.

Page 6

March 11 CL7 THE COURT: Thank you. And you're saying

8 that, yes, that is the servicing agreement?

9 MS. RAMIREZ: Yes.

10 MR. PEACOCK: I guess then we are on to the

11 interrogatory objections and some of them, such as12 No. 11 where I say: State please state the

13 note whether as of what date you secured the

14 original there and from whom? And they have

15 objected as irrelevant and immaterial. I think

16 that's an easy one to answer; as far as what date

17 did you actually get it, because I'm not sure of

18 the date they gave me.

19 They may say effective as of this date, but

20 my question is: When did they physically get the

21 original note. And I don't see how that could be

22 irrelevant or otherwise not discoverable and

23 certainly would, again, speed up the because

24 it's also a potential issue at the deposition

25 where if I ask that same question and they say we


8

1 are not real sure; well, we thought that was

2 irrelevant so then we are right back here after

3 the deposition. I'm trying to avoid those issues.

4 MS. RAMIREZ: Your Honor, I have some

5 objections to relevance with regard to the answer

6 filed, but to address just that specific answer to

7 an interrogatory, we are scheduling the

8 depositions so further information can be obtainedPage 7

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

2223

24

25

123

4

5

6

7

89

March 11 CL

regarding that. We have the original! all of

the original documents which will be filed in the

court. So the objection of the question being

irrelevant and immaterial, we do have the

original.

If there is any question of when the trust

received the documents or that type of thing,

those might be proof issues. It requires a legal

conclusion; it requires looking at the documents

that say when the originals were received and

MR. PEACOCK: I'm not asking what the

documents say. I'm asking for someone testifying

when they were received; and, again, that's the

purpose of interrogatories. More importantly,

there hasn't been

t h e COURT: Because there is no amended

complaint.


9

MR. PEACOCK: There is an amended complaint,

but they filed a motion to dismiss because it

didn't comply with this Court's order. That's an

issue for another hearing, the notice

requirements, but the point is it's not our fault.

THE COURT: When was the amended complaint

filed because it's not in the court file?

MR. PEACOCK: It was filed December 7th, your

Honor. There was a November 15th motion for

Page 8

March 11 CL10 enlargement of time and a motion to modify your

11 order, which has not been heard.

12 MS. RAMIREZ: which I was waiting for the

13 appropriate time to bring up, so that is an issue

14 for discussion.

15 MR. p e a c o c k : I'm not saying it's tardy based

16 on the original motion for enlargement of time,

17 but I am stating that we have issues. That is not

18 our own as to why an answer has not been filed in

19 thi s complai nt.

20 THE COURT: All right. So let's stick with

21 the objections.

22 MR. PEACOCK: The objection is, I think we

23 asked a legitimate question, which is: when did

24 you get the note and from whom? And I don't see

25 how that can be irrelevant or otherwise. It


10

1 doesn't require any logical we got it in May or

2 whatever date or whatever year they got. I hate

3 to have to go on an assumption based on an

4 assignment and then we find out later, oh,

5 actually there is a different date.

6 So, again, the purpose of the interrogatory

7 was to speed up and reduce unnecessary time in

8 depositions; also to avoid having us come back and

9 hear if there is an objection raised, which then

10 leads to, again, another case management

11 conference and wasting resources of my client.Page 9

March 11 CL

12 It's not a hard question.

13 I don't think that the objection is valid,

14 and it could easily lead to an otherwise

15 admissible or relative information even if itself

16 is not relevant.

17 THE COURT: Anything else, Ms. Ramirez?

18 MS. RAMIREZ: Not regarding that particular

19 question.

20 THE COURT: I think it is relevant. It's

21 certainly going to become relevant later on down

22 the road as I review the motion to alter my order.

23 MS. RAMIREZ: So we will answer No. 11?

24 THE COURT: Yes.

25 what else, Mr. Peacock?


11

1 MR. PEACOCK: Well, obviously the motion

2 we asked if it was subject to No. 7, a3 mortgage/loan purchase agreement. I think it's

4 kind of apparent from the statement of the style

5 of the case, but they have objected again that

6 it's irrelevant, immaterial, and vague, overly

7 broad and unduly burdensome, confidential,

8 privileged, and proprietary information.

9 Again, we have an issue as to whether there

10 are privileged logs to back this up on. Again, we

11 could get to the deposition and again be

12 stone-walled on this, particularly, if there is

Page 10

March 11 CL13 not an answer in place.

14 THE COURT: You know you know, here is what

15 this is. This is a-15 minute hearing. I have a

16 bunch of others at 2:15. I arm not going to go

17 through all of the objections, what I am going to

18 do, though, is, Mr. Peacock, later on down the

19 road as this case grows along and there is

20 irrelevant there was a privilege that was

21 cisserted and you didn't get the answer at that

22 point in time, how about a motion to compel and

23 then we will go from there?

24 MR. PEACOCK: I have just one more and then I

25 will be done. We asked them to state all of the


12

1 known servicers involved.

2 THE COURT: That would certainly be relevant.

3 MS. RAMIREZ: which number is that?

4 MR. PEACOCK: It's 3.3.

5 THE COURT: So No. 13 needs to be answered.

6 MS. RAMIREZ: We answered by providing the

7 default letter, which lists the servicers, so

8 we'll write out the answer instead of complying

9 through production.

10 MR. PEACOCK: I would disagree, your Honor.

11 The rules require a written response.

12 THE COURT: The rules require a written

13 response. You have to give some kind of written

14 response; otherwise, you'll have to come back toPage 11

March 11 CL

15 court. It just cleans up the record.

16 MS. RAMIREZ: We will be happy to answer that

17 question.

18 Just for the record, pursuant to Rule 1.340C

19 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, it allows

20 production of documents to answer the question and

21 that was the intent there, but certainly we will

22 answer in writing.

23 THE COURT: You need to have some kind of

24 response.

25 Let's go on to the plaintiff's motion to


13

1 modify the prior order and on enlargement of time

2 to comply with order, so you are saying the

3 amended complaint it looks like the amended

4 complaint was filed you are telling me and it's

5 not in the court file but the amended complaint

6 was filed December 7th?

7 MR. PEACOCK: 7th, I believe, your Honor.

8 the COURT: So the hearing that we had

9 MS. RAMIREZ: I have a copy of the hearing,

10 your Honor.

11 THE COURT: That's okay. I don't want an

12 extra copy. The hearing that we had where I said

13 the motion to dismiss is granted and the plaintiff

14 had 90 days to get a new one done, instead and

15 whoever the plaintiff was had to verify the

Page 12

March 11 CL16 amended.

17 I didn't care who the plaintiff was as long

18 as if was there was an amended that the

19 verification was amended by the plaintiff. So now20 there is a motion to modify, so that was let's

21 see.

22 MS. RAMIREZ: if I could put it in a

23 nutshell?

24 the COURT: Please don't interrupt me.

25 August, September, October, November. All right.


14

1 So that would have been barely within the 90 days

2 when the motion was filed on November 16th.

3 MS. RAMIREZ: The motion is styled a motion

4 to modify the prior order. Really, I think it

5 should probably be a motion to clarify the prior

6 order. The reason there was a delay and even

7 by your comments here today I'm confused about

8 what the order was. we thought or I think

9 there is some confusion that the you don't have

10 the amended complaint in front of you, but the

11 amended complaint the verification was an issue

12 in that other hearing and I was not at that

13 hearing, but I do have the transcript of it to try

14 to clarify what was supposed to happen.

15 In the amended verification, they then added

16 wells Fargo Bank as servicer for U.S. Bank as

17 trustee with the whole long plaintiff litany, butPage 13

March 11 CL

18 the reason this was delayed and I'm not sure

19 whether is this okay? That's kind of why we

20 are here, to make sure is this verification okay?

21 Does that comply with what you ruled? Because

22 there was some discussion in the office and based

23 on the order that, no, it was U.S. Bank then as

24 the trustee who was going to have to sign the

25 verification.


15

1 THE COURT: whoever's the plaintiff is is the

2 person that has to sign the verification. That's

3 what all the judges in this courthouse believe,

4 and I appreciate the fact that it's somewhere

5 in the plaintiff's motion. I will try not to take

6 offense, but somewhere in plaintiff's motion to

7 modify in paragraph 4, it would be helpful to

8 consider how other circuit judges address

9 verification issues, blah, blah, blah, about Judge

10 Cox and Judge shacks, so this court should adopt

11 the same view.

12 well, that's all really helpful and, perhaps,

13 there is something going on with the Second dca

14 which will address that issue, but so far all of

15 the judges in this courthouse believe, to my

16 knowledge the last I checked last week with all

17 of the judges in this courthouse, we all were of

18 the same belief that it's the plaintiff whoever

Page 14

March 11 CL19 the plaintiff is, the plaintiff is the one that is

20 to verify the complaint because actually that is

21 what we believe the Supreme Court intended when

22 they made the change that complaints had tp be

11 v i M f i i i l .

14 it illewi tht plaintiff t ditiPfflini iPi yu25 truly the owner and holder of the note? So that's


16

1 why we think it should be the plaintiff. I don't

2 care if it's the servicer. I don't care if it's

3 the bank. It just has to be the plaintiff. The

4 plaintiff has to be the one to verify it.

5 So let's see on the order on defendants'

6 motion to dismiss, which was signed

7 September 23rd, 2011, plsiintiff shall have 90 days

8 from the date of the hearing to file an amended

9 complaint and that shall clearly state the legal

10 theory on reasons to foreclose on the defendants*

11 property clearly allege the fact according to

12 theory and the plaintiff specific. Plaintiff's

13 amended complaint shall be verified pursuant to

14 the Rules of civil Procedure by an employee. I

15 think that's pretty clear.

16 MS. RAMIREZ: So the reason there was

17 confusion, though if I can approach and show

18 you the amended verification?

19 THE COURT: You may.

20 MS. RAMIREZ: I hear what you are sayingPage 15

March 11 CL

21 about the plaintiff, and I still don't know if

22 this is the what you had in mind and if it's

23 not 24 THE COURT: So I'm being handed a copy of a

25 verified amended complaint; apparently, filed by a


17

1 legal assistant with the clerk, which we can't

2 the courts can't hold legal assistants responsible

3 for anything. I have to hold the attorney

4 responsible.

5 So the amended verification under penalty of

6 perjury: I declare that I have read the foregoing

7 and the facts alleged therein are true and correct

8 to the best of my knowledge and belief. So on

9 page 4 of the complaint it says: wells Fargo

10 Bank, as contractual servicer for U.S. Bank

11 National Association as trustee for CitiGroup

12 Mortgage Loan & Trust, incorporated, 2007-AHLl,

13 certificate 2007 AHLl signed by David E. Franklin,

14 Ur., vice president loan documentation.

15 So it appears to me that as a contractual

16 servicer, they are not an employee of the bank, so

17 it would seem to me that that would not be as

18 intended or as discussed at the hearing that was

19 on August 18th, 2011.

20 MS. RAMIREZ: So that's why, your Honor, we

21 had the motion to modify that order. There was

Page 16

March 11 CL22 first initially confusion; so, yes, it was

23 supposed to be U.S. Bank would sign it an

24 employee of U.S. Bank would sign it; however, U.S.

25 Bank is not our client. We have no communication


18

1 with them on this loan, I had provided a

2 servicing agreement. There is no case on point

3 that says the servicer can or cannot sign the

4 verification, but there are lots of case law that

5 says the servicer can bring the complaint

6 THE COURT: Can you tell me this: This

7 motion that was filed on November 16th, did you

8 make any attempts to schedule that for hearing or

9 did you notice it for today?

10 MS. RAMIREZ: Well, we knew the case

11 management was set for today.

12 THE COURT: Did you notice it for today?

13 MS. RAMIREZ: I did not notice it for today,

14 no.

15 THE COURT: So here's what I would suggest:

16 Why don't you file that motion or I mean you

17 clearly you filed the motion, so you need to

18 schedule that for a hearing at another time.

19 Coordinate the hearing with Mr. Peacock.

20 Mr. Peacock, you filed a motion to dismiss

21 you said?

22 MR. PEACOCK: Yes, your Honor.

23 THE COURT: So how about at that same time wePage 17

23

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

2223

24

March 11 cl

will hear all of those motions, but they should

all be noticed and set. Even though sometimes we


19

schedule case management and under the rules case

management you can consider whatever pending

motions there are, I think that's the type of

motion that everyone should be noticed for so that

there would be accurate preparation for that

motion.

MR. PEACOCK: Your Honor, I'm a little bit

troubled because plaintiff's counsel just said

that the plaintiff she is not their client or

vice versa. That makes a real representation

issue. If they are not represented by her firm,

she cannot advocate on their behalf, and they

can't continue this lawsuit.

THE COURT: You can continue that or can

conclude that in any of your future motions.

MR. PEACOCK: I would be happy to your Honor.

THE COURT: Thank you. We will see you again

in the future. Good luck with setting those

depositions and getting all of those responses.

MS. RAMIREZ: Thank you.

Page 18

23

4

5

67

89

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

2223

24

25

March 11 CL


20

CERTIFICATE OF COURT REPORTER

STATE OF FLORIDA )

: ss.

COUNTY OF HILLSBOROUGH )

I, Sarah 3 . Murrow, certify that I was authorized to and did stenographical1y report the hearing held before the Honorable Pamela Campbell; and that transcript of proceedings, pages 1 through 19, is a true and correct record of my stenographic notes.

I FURTHER CERTIFY that I am not a relative, employee, attorney or counsel of the parties, nor am I a relative or employee of any of the parties' attorney or counsel connected with the action, nor am I financially interested in the action.

DATED this 10th day of January, 2012.

Sarah J. Murrow

Page 19

March 11 CL


Page 20

David McConnell I Linkedln http://www.iinkedin.com/pub/david-mcconneLl/10/3bb/843

David McConnellDirector at Perkins Thompson. P.A.Portland, Maine Area Law Practice

Join Linkedln and access David McConnell's full profile.

As a Linkedln member, you'll join 175 million other professionals who are sharing connections, ideas, and opportunities. And ifs free! You'll also be able to:

See who you and David McConnell know in common Get introduced to David McConneH

Contact David McConnell directly

DEFENDANTSEXHIBIT

H

View Full Profile

David McConnell's OverviewCurrent Director at Perkins Thompson, P.A.

Past Acquisitions Editor at Kluwer Academic Publisher

Education University of Virginia School of Law Dartmouth College

Connections 223 connections

Websites Company Wfebsits

David McConnells Summary

Chair of the Litigation Department at Perkins Thompson, P A Transactional intellectual property expertise.

SpecialtiesCommercial, land use and antitrust litigation. Transactional intellectual properly. Mediation.

David McConnells Experience

DirectorPerkins Thompson, P.A.Privately Held; 11-50 employees; Law Practice industry 1995 - Present (17 years)

I am a shareholder and director of Perkins Thompson and I chair the Litigation Department My practice areas include litigation and intellectual property. I have trial experience in a number of areas, including commercial, land use and antitrust matters.! also serve as a mediator, arbitrator and eariy neutral evaluator.

Acquisitions Editor Kluwer Academic PublishersPrivately Heid; 5001-10,000 employees; Publishing industry 1 9 8 8 -1 9 9 2 (4 years)

Before becoming an attorney, I was an acquisitions editor tor a multinational scholarly publisher. I signed and developed doctoral-level monographs and journals in the academic disciplines of business and economics.

David McConnell's Education

University of Virginia School of LawJ.D,. Law 199 2 -1 99 5

Activities and Societies: Articles Devetopment Editor of the Virginia Environmental Law Journal.

Dartmouth ColiegeBA., History, English 1 984-1988

Activities and Societies: Football, Rugby, Alpha Chi Alpha

David McConnell's Additional Information

Websites: Company Website

Interests: Kayaking, sailing, hiking, reading, spending time with my family.

Groups and I am active in the Maine State Bar Association and am a former Chair of the Young Lawyers Section. I am Director and pastAssociations: President of the Board of Directors for the Nathan and Henry B. Cleaves Law Library. I am past Chair of the Zoning Board erf

1 of 2 10/2/2012 9:53 AM

dri The Voice of the Defense Bar DEFENDANTSEXHIBIT

I

The DRI National Poll on the Civil Justice System

Pr odu ce d for

DRIThe Voice of the Defense Bar

August 2012

E N G A G E j C O N N E C T ( G R O W | L E A R N f T h e DRI C o m m u n it y

The DRI National Poll on the Civil Justice SystemAugust 2012

Contents

Introduction.................................................................................................................................................................. 3

Views of the Civil Litigation S yste m ......................................................................................................................4

Overall Results..........................................................................................................................................................4

Results Am ong G ro u p s..........................................................................................................................................6

Bias Toward Litigants.................................................................................................................................................. 7

Overall Results..........................................................................................................................................................7

Class Action Litigation............................................................................................................................................. 10

Overall Results....................................................................................................................................................... 10

Results Am ong G ro u p s....................................................................................................................................... 11

Appendices.................................................................................................................................................................. 13

Appendix A: Additional C ha rts........................................................................................................................ 13

Appendix C: Survey Production and M e tho do lo gy..................................................................................23

Appendix D: Questionnaire and Topline Results.......................................................................................24

This survey was produced for DRI-The Voice of the Defense Bar by Langer Research Associates of New

York, N.Y., with field work services by SSRS/Social Science Research Solutions of Media, Pa. Langer

Research Associates subscribes to the Code of Professional Ethics and Practices of the American

Association for Public Opinion Research and the Principles of Disclosure of the National Council on Pul

Polls. For details contact [email protected].

Copyright 2012 DRI - The Voice of the Defense Bar

2


Introduction

Abroad preference for trial by jury marks public attitudes on civil jurisprudence in this country,

buttressed by overwhelming acceptance among Americans of jury duty as a civic obligation. Indeed,

among those who've served on juries, most by far say they actually enjoyed it.

The public, however, also perceives substantial flaws in the civil justice system, including a sense that

outcomes can be influenced by disproportionate wealth among litigants and by jurors' personal opinions

alike. Many Americans, as well, admit prejudice against corporate defendants in lawsuits, with a bias in

favor of individuals or small businesses. Yet most also think the system usually overcomes its limitations

to produce just and fair results.

80% -

70%

) C o n fid en ce T h a t th e C iv il Law System P roduces Ju s t and Fa ir Results

driVre Vote* of me gar

60% - Confident 58% Not confident 41% n50%

40% -

30% -

20% -

10%

0%-

48%

9%

25%

Very confident Somewhat confident Not so confident Not at all confident

These and other findings come from an independent, nonpartisan, national telephone survey conducted

in August 2012 among a random sample of 1,020 adults for the nation's leading organization of civil

defense lawyers, DRI-The Voice of the Defense Bar. it employed rigorous methodology and balanced

question wording to assess public attitudes on issues in civil law.


3

Among additional results, the survey uncovers a nuanced response to class action litigation, with

perceptions of both benefits and shortcomings in such cases e.g., with majority views that they

encourage corporate accountability, yet also that they unfairly enrich plaintiffs' attorneys.

Remarkably, nearly four in 10 Americans say they themselves have been invited to participate in class

action lawsuits, and 15 percent actually have done so as many to "send a message" to the defending

company as to win damages. That purpose seems adequate (plus, perhaps, the low barrier to

participation): Among those who've received a class action award, three-quarters call it "insignificant"

yet two-thirds also say their joining the lawsuit was worthwhile.

This analysis presents survey results in three sections, looking first at overall views of the civil litigation

system, as well as of judges and juries; second, at the extent and nature of self-reported potential

prejudices in civil cases; and third, at attitudes and experiences relating to class action lawsuits. Each

section includes a subsection analyzing differences among groups. The full survey results are appended,

as well as a description of the survey's methodology.

Views of the Civil Litigation System

Overall ResultsAt a time of broad public distrust of many institutions of government, the civil justice system receives

majority support, with 58 percent of Americans expressing confidence that it usually produces results

that are just and fair. Yet there are challenges. A substantial minority, 41 percent, lacks such confidence.

And a mere 9 percent are "very" confident in the system, while more, 16 percent, have no confidence in

it whatsoever.

The role of disproportionate resources is one issue: In cases in which one litigant has "much more money

for lawyers" than the other, a vast majority 83 percent says the side with more resources generally

wins.

Judges and juries can perhaps mitigate financial advantages, and of the two, the poll finds broad

preference for juries. Sixty-four percent of Americans say they prefer to have juries rather than judges

decide lawsuits, including 41 percent who feel that way "strongly," a high level of strong sentiment. Far

fewer, 27 percent, prefer to have judges decide civil cases, and just 13 percent hold that view strongly.



4


a W h o S h o u ld D e cid e Law suits? '

i jd r iTVva Vo


senior citizens. And, also contrary t

Date post:	11-Oct-2015
Category:	Documents
Upload:	charlton-butler
View:	17 times
Download:	0 times

RE BANSC 2010 187 TD Bank N a v Twila a Wolf Case W All Exhibits a K as Filed 10-05-2012(1)

Documents