BANSC-RE-2010-187-Exhibits For Defendants Motion to Compel 0001

8/2/2019 BANSC-RE-2010-187-Exhibits For Defendants Motion to Compel 0001

1/24

DEFENDANTSEXHIBIT


2/24

fHllPCHUhl;

JOHN~_U~lON

ftGG'I' L ~IcCEH fE~IHISSAHANl~r f"'J;vt-Iy

pHN A 1-i(~1\\.~)N

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

1 GCRDONSCA"""dLj'{FREDW. ilOlT' III' .1I> .P J~ F SNO WVvllllflN :.SHfJlS

OAVO a r-kCtJf\JNEll

RANDY J . r,,~,>VvtllJUUAN Nf C PA Y

DAWNKttNl/>tDNCHilJSTOPti~R~1 DA RGIEANTHOt.J '( l,i< 'J JH AAT

SHAWNJ:.li:Ylll:N

PERI(:INSITHOMPSONArrORNE . [" COUNSELORS AT LAw

VIA ELECTRONIC AND POST A lL MAILON~ CANAL PlAZA

PO ROX 426PORTLAND t1 011 12TEL 207.77,\ 26.SSFAX 20'/,871.8026

www.perkinsthompson.comMay 20,2011T\\1Ia Wolf44 Patten Street #2Bangor, ME 04401Re: Your Correspondence of April 27, 2011Dear Ms. Wolf:This acknowledges receipt of your letter dated April 25, 20 II but postmarked April 27,2011, that you titled "QUALIfiED WRiTTEN REQUEST" and addressed to StephanieWilliams of my office ("the Letter").While the Letter purports to be a "qualified written request" (uQWR") pursuant to 12U.S.c. 2605(e), it fails to satisfy the minimum requirements of a Q\VR. Among otherthings, despite the fact that the Letter is sixteen pages long, it fails to provide a clearstatement of the reasons that you believe that the accounts described in the Letter are inerror, nor does the Letter provide sufficient detailregarding other information that youseek. Furthermore, much of the information that you have requested is not related toloan servicing - the only proper subject of a QWR. In fact, the true purpose of theLetter appears to be nothing more than an attempt to abuse the mechanisms of the RealEstate Settlement Procedures Act.Please be advised that Maine State Housing Authority is no longer servicing the


3/24

DEFENDANTSEXHIBIT

At


4/24

D'Alessandro, FrankFrom: [email protected]: Tuesday, February 22,2011 3:53 PMTo: D'Alessandro, FrankCc: [email protected]: RE: Twila WolfImportance: HighFrank - Further to my emall. Ns. Wolf has been calling Mr. Roux about every 30 minutes and leavingmessages threatening "to take action" if Ms. Roux does not contact Ms. Wolf and Mr. Butler today. Asyou can understand, Ms. Wolf's behavior is intimidating and harassing, and Ms. Roux and MSHA willconsider their legal remedies if this behavior continues. Istrongly suggest you convey to Ms. Wolf assoon as possible that her behavior is inappropriate and must stop immediately.Iunderstand that your office is closed this afternoon, but Iwill follow up with you tomorrow morning.I appreciate your prompt attention to this issue.Thanks,Stephanie

DEFENDANTSE ; t B ' ltephanie A. WilliamsAttorneyPERKINSiTHOMPSONO N E CA N A L PLA ZA , PO Box 42 6PORTL A N D,ME 0411 2-0426207.77 4 -,26 35 x8 1 22FAX 20 7.871 .8026w'NV',J.oerklnstnomnson.comswiiliams@perkil1sthompson.comCONFIDENTIALITY AND TAX ADVICE NOTICE: The information contained in this communication may be confidential or privileged. Ifyou are not the intended recipient of this communication, any disclosure. copying, distribution or use of this communication isprohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender and immediately destroy this communication.


5/24

DEFENDANTSEXHIBIT


6/24

tone of the messages intimidating, and will not respond to them.I request that you convey to Ms. Wolf and Mr. Butler that they should not communicate directly withMSHA about this case. I understand that a similar message has been conveyed with respect to TD Bank.Thanks, Frank. I appreciate your help in this situation.Best,StephanieStephanie A. Will iamsAttorneyPERKINSITHOMPSONONE CANAL PLAZA, PO Box 426PORTLAND, ME 04112-0426207.774.2635 x8122Ft v < 207.871.8026www.perkinsthon1!2son.comswillia!l1s@perkinsthompson.comCONFIDENTIALITY AND TAX ADVICE NOTICE: The information contained in this communication may be confidential or privileged. Ifyou are not the intended recipient of this communication, any disclosure, copying, distr ibution or use of this communication isprohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please noti fy the sender and immediately destroy this communication.Any tax advice contained in this communication cannot be used to avoid tax penalt ies.


7/24

DEFENDANTSEXHIBIT


8/24

Page 1 01'4

D'Alessandro, FrankFrom: [email protected]: Wednesday, February 09,2011 6:08 PMTo: D'Alessandro, FrankSubject: Fwd: We need to talkFollow Up Flag: Follow upFlag Status: RedAttachments: 1.jpg; 2.jpg; 3.jpg; 4.jpg; 5.jpg; 6.jpg; 7.jpg; 8.jpg; 9.jpg; 10.jpg; 11.jpg; 12.jpg; 13.jpg; 14.jpg;15Jpg; 16Jpg; 17Jpg; 18.jpg; 19.jpg;20jpgI am not sure why you feel that there is no problem here and you disagree with my assessment of thesituation but never the less you will find that it doesn't save your license in the end when they decide youshould could and would have known if you had opened you eyes. We are not giving up on mediation butwe are prepared to cause enough heat that people come to the table with real solutions and a desire toget out of being the co-conspirator and be part of the victims.

,

Dear Frank,As I said I am unwilling to wait for JUST mediation I am ready to try them in the press and mediate thingsonce they decide that they will lose in the courts particularly when this turns into a class action suit. I amnot nor is Twila giving up on mediation we are just encouraging people to act like this is more than theirtime and sanity at risk.You may not agree with my assessment but my constitutional law prof does my uncle and a tew others inthe legal field. Sorry but your plan has us committing fraud and I refuse to commit fraud.-----Original Message-----From: charlton butler To: swilliams Sent: Wed, Feb 9, 2011 5:12 pmSubject: Fwd: We need to talkI misunderstood who the attorney for the plaintiff was so this went to Dagenault instead of you I have alsosent a press release out as well


9/24

DEFENDANTSEXHIBIT


10/24

Page 2 af4

criminal prosecution and incarceration of the criminals responsible for the current economic melt down.Example:You have a loan that fits under a federal program to help young first time buyers and the poor afford a home. Theinterest rate should have been 4.5% instead it turns out that you are paying one 4.5% loan and one 8.6% loan fora grand total of 13.01 % interest supposedly a loan and interest rate for a federal program requiring no more than4.5% interest so much help for the poor. Good luck in getting so much for getting this straightened out eventhough its a crime to do what the banks are doing to you they refuse to fix it.SO:Please stay tuned for the person and number to call to join in a class action suit since this is what they want. Theyseem to have no fear of the 1000\'s of these loans out there and the damage they are causing. As long as no onecomplains no one goes to jail everyone continues to get screwed.

For More Information Contact:

Charlton ButlerPrivate Citizen Kane(207)249-5378http://[email protected] I

-----Original Message-----From: charlton butler To: tdagenault Sent: Tue, Feb 8, 2011 12:59 pmSubject: We need to talkDear Mr. D'allessandroDear Ms. Wiliams,Dear Ms. Dagenault,We need to talk without the mediator or Frank from Pinetree Legal. I will have no choice but to file a Qui Tamclaim otherwise as neither Twila nor I will engage in an ONGOING, which resets the statute clock, conspiracy todefraud the state the feds and the city of Bangor. 18 USC 371 is quite clear on this subject. Your clients areengaging in theft through a government program ongoing with malice and intent. When your client(s) decided ingreed to take shared priority they in effect made two notes for ONE 1st mortgage. The first mortgage, not a


11/24

DEFENDANTSEXHIBIT


12/24

Page jot 4

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

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

To conspire to defraud the United States means primarily to cheat the Government out of property ormoney, but it also means to interfere with or obstruct one of its lawful governmental functions by deceit, craft ortrickery, or at least by means that are dishonest. It is not necessary that the Government shall be subjected toproperty or pecuniary loss by the fraud, but only that its legitimate official action and purpose shall be defeated bymisrepresentation, chicane or the overreaching of those charged with carrying out the governmental intention.Hammerschmidt, 265 U.S. at 188.The general purpose of this part of the statute is to protect governmental functions from frustration anddistortion through deceptive practices. Section 371 reaches "any conspiracy for the purpose of impairing,obstructing or defeating the lawful function of any department of Government." Tanner v. United States, 483 U.S.107, 128 (1987); see Dennis v. United States, 384 U.S. 855 (1966). The "defraud part of section 371 criminalizesany willful impairment of a legitimate function of government, whether or not the improper acts or objective arecriminal under another statute." United States v. Tuohey, 867 F.2d 534, 537 (9th Cir. 1989).The word "defraud" in Section 371 not only reaches financial or property loss through use of a scheme orartifice to defraud but also is designed and intended to protect the integrity of the United States and its agencies,programs and policies. United States v. Burgin, 621 F.2d 1352, 1356 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1015(1980); see United States v. Herron, 825 F.2d 50, 57-58 (5th Cir.); United States v. Winkle, 587 F.2d 705, 708

(5th Cir. 1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 827 (1979). Thus, proof that the United States has been defrauded underthis statute does not require any showing of monetary or proprietary loss. United States v. Conover, 772 F.2d 765(11th Cir. 1985), affd, sub. nom. Tannerv. United States, 483 U.S. 107 (1987); United States v. Del Toro, 513F.2d 656 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 826 (1975); United States v. Jacobs, 475 F.2d 270 (2d Cir.), cert.


13/24

DEFENDANTSEXHIBIT


14/24

Page 4 ot 4

defendants were convicted of conspiracy to defraud the government and other offenses in connection with ascheme to fraudulently obtain loan commitments from the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) or VeteransAdministration (VA). The court held that the district court had properly instructed the jury that:the Government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt the existence of a scheme or artifice to defraud.

with the objective either of defrauding the FHA or the VA of their lawful right to conduct their business and affairsfree from deceit, fraud or misrepresentation, or of obtaining money and property from the FHA by means of falseand fraudulent representations and promises which the defendant knew to be false.Madeoy, 912 F.2d at 1492.Prosecutors considering charges under the defraud prong of Section 371, and the offense prong of Section 371should be aware of United States v. Minarik, 875 F.2d 1186 (6th Cir. 1989) holding limited, 985 F.2d 962 (1993),and related cases. See United States v. Arch Trading Company, 987 F.2d 1087 (4th Cir. 1993). In Minarik, theprosecution was found to have "used the defraud clause in a way that created great confusion about the conduct

claimed to be illegal," and the conviction was reversed. 875 F.2d at 1196. After Minarik, defendants havefrequently challenged indictments charging violations of both clauses, although many United States Courts ofAppeals have found it permissible to invoke both clauses of Section 371. Arch Trading Company, 987 F.2d at1092 (collecting cases); see also United States v. Licciardi, 30 F.3d 1127, 1132-33 (9th Cir. 1994)(even thoughthe defendant may have impaired a government agency's functions, as part of a scheme to defraud another party,the government offered no evidence that the defendant intended to defraud the United States and a conspiracy toviolate an agency regulatory scheme could not lie on such facts).In summary, those activities which courts have held defraud the United States under 18 U.S.C. 371 affect thegovernment in at least one of three ways:

1. They cheat the government out of money or property;2. They interfere or obstruct legitimate Government activity; or3. They make wrongful use of a governmental instrumentality.

Please allow me the courtesy of allowing me to help you keep from being disbarred as the only choice I have is tofile a Qui Tam claim in self defense. There are several thousand of these mortgages as this was a test pilotprogram for Lewiston, Portland and Bangor called the "New Neighbors Program" of which Ihave the originalguidelines package and once you read it you will understand exactly what happened. You ask why? because MsWolf and I are being asked to conspire to continue to defraud various state, local and federal agencies Ms Wolfand I are being enjoined in the commission of a felony and as a former officer of the court I am very sorry but it


15/24

DEFENDANTSEXHIBIT


16/24

PETRUCCELLI. MARTIN & HADDOW, LLP

DEFENDANTS] g H I B I T

Attorneys at Law50 Monument SquarePost Office Box 17555Portland, Maine 04112-8555

GERALD F. [email protected]

April 8, 2011Senator David R. Hastings, III, Esq., ChairCommittee on Judiciaryc/o Legislative Information100 State House StationAugusta, ME 04333Representative Joan M. Nass, ChairCommittee on Judiciaryc/o Legislative Information100 State House StationAugusta, ME 04333RE: HP 128, LD 145 - An Act to Protect Homeowners Subject to Foreclosure byRequiring the Foreclosing Entity to Provide the Court with Original DocumentsDear Senator Hastings and Representative Nass:

I am writing to express my support for LD 145 and in the hope that it may behelpful to the Committee to focus particularly on the distinctive characteristics of a


17/24

PETRUCCELLI, MARTIN & HADDOW, LLPSenator David R. Hastings, III, Esq., ChairRepresentative Joan M. Nass, ChairApril 8, 2011Page 2

note is no more valid or sufficient than a photograph of the mortgaged house. If it issufficient for the bank to produce a photocopy of the note, it ought to be sufficient for thehomeowner to satisfy the foreclosure judgment by producing a photograph of theproperty. This is the fundamental point.

There is a practical functional reality to all of this as a matter of negotiableinstruments law. The promissory note is negotiable and the holder in due course of anegotiable promissory note has preferred status in litigation on the note. If the personseeking to enforce the note does not actually have it as a matter of physical possessoryfact, it is likely that somebody else does. It is only the holder of that original note whohas any rights at all on the note. Anyone may have a copy of it. But without the noteitself, all that any plaintiff can actually accomplish is to try to persuade the court that atone time somebody photographed it, not that at the current time the plaintiff owns it, andpossesses it, and has enforceable legal rights on the note. There is really no good reasonthat a plaintiff claiming to be the holder of a note should be entitled to enforce it withoutbringing it to court.

Because of this fundamental characteristic of the promissory note as property,carrying both substantive and procedural rights for the holder in due course, everydefendant in every case is at some risk of having to pay twice, or at least defend twice, ifthe original note is not brought forward in every action. It may be statistically unlikelythat there will be a large number of these cases, but there ought not to be any of them. Itis an important protection for the makers of promissory notes that they not be subjectedto this risk, simply because the bankers now find it inconvenient to produce this essential


18/24

PETRUCCELLI, MARTIN & IlADDOW, LLPSenator David R. Hastings, III, Esq., ChairRepresentative Joan M. Nass, ChairApril 8, 2011Page 3

note may be in the possession of still another person, carrying still another endorsement,a fact which cannot be determined by the court without examination of the original.

To return to the beginning, I do not mean to be flippant when I say that if the bankcan foreclose by producing a photograph of the note, the foreclosure judgment ought tobe able to be satisfied by the homeowner delivering a photograph of the house. In bothinstances, photographs of the property are not the property. In a negotiable instrumentssetting, all of the issues relating to the sufficiency of photocopies of records or files, orcontracts, or documents are fundamentally irrelevant to the real point. Only the holder ofthe original note with all proper endorsements in place is entitled to claim and enjoy thebenefits of holder in due course status in enforcing the obligations of the maker on thepromissory note.

I respect and appreciate all of the hard work that is being done by all of themembers of the Legislature on all of these difficult problems. I hope this is of someassistance, and I thank you for the opportunity to comment.

Gerald F. Petruccelli


19/24

DEFENDANTSEXHIBIT

HP0128~ LD 145, item 1, An Act To Protect Homeowners Subject to Fo... http://www.mainelegislature.orgilegis/bills/bills_125th1billtexts/HPOl...


20/24

DEFENDANTS I ,E~IT I

HP0128LD 145

__ gular Session - 125th Maine Legislature LR322Item 1

An Act To Protect Homeowners Subject to Foreclosure byRequiring the Foreclosing Entity To Provide the Court with

Original DocumentsBe it enacted by the People of the State of Maine as follows:Sec. 1. 14 MRSA 6321, 3rd" as amended by PL 2009, c. 476, Pt. B, 5

and affected by 9, is further amended to read:The foreclosure must be commenced in accordance with the Maine Rules of Civil

Procedure, and the mortgagee shall within 60 days of commencing the foreclosure alsorecord a copy of the complaint or a clerk's certificate of the filing of the complaint ineach registry of deeds in which the mortgage deed is or by law ought to be recordedand such a recording thereafter constitutes record notice of commencement offoreclosure. The mortgagee shall further certify and provide evidence that all stepsmandated by law to provide notice to the mortgagor pursuant to section 6111 werestrictly performed. The mortgagee shall certify proof of ownership of the mortgagenote and produce evidence of the original mortgage note signed by the mortgagor, andevidence of the mortgage and all assignments and endorsements of the mortgage noteand mortgage. The complaint must allege with specificity the plaintiffs claim bymortgage on such real estate, describe the mortgaged premises intelligibly, includingthe street address of the mortgaged premises, if any, which must be prominently statedon the first page of the complaint, state the book and page number of the mortgage, if

HP0128~ LD 145, item I, An Act To Protect Homeowners Subject to Fo... http://www.mainelegislature .orgilegis/bills/bills_125th1billtexts/HPOl...


21/24

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

SUMMARYThis bill requires a mortgagee bringing a civil foreclosure action on real propertyto produce the original mortgage note, signed by the mortgagor, as part of thecomplaint.

Related PagesSearch

Status for LD 1 45 Bill Session InformationText

Bill DirectoryAdditionaL Documents

SearchBill LegisLative InformationMaine LegisLature


22/24

DEFENDANTSEXHIBIT


23/24

~;ERtES : 001 THRU15ORIGINATOR ; 001 TH RU 20PURCHASE DATE: 03/15/01 - a

NOTETHEWORDPURCHASE:Here Meaning that the Servicer TD BankServicing and / or substantially the same and or reasonable factsimilarity bought the rights to service the account at issue and weretransferred those rights but in no way does it confer the status of holder,with all rights of that position, of that real piece of property "The Note."Point in fact it states quite the opposite. ._lR04

03/12/0BOND SERIES 124 2000-0 HP POR IGI NA TO R 108 BANI CNOR TIIt1O RTGAGE.lO AN ~O RT GAG OR N AMENBR ~eRV REF NBR lOA N PURCHASE tNT PTO MATURITY INT RAT ETYPE TERM DATE fIRST PHT DATE LEVEL PHT PR IM PURCH SERV FEE SERV POOL POOL CERT N8 RLOAN ANT RATE N

NOTE HERE: That the account is speaking of bonds. This is indicative of a trust and trusteerelationship and scienter of guilt on Plaintiffs and Counsels part. Minus the informationcontained within Defendants QWR Plaintiffs failed to provide; therefore lacks the proof ofotherwise.

37339 ~ 12 360 03/15/01 021ll17J:f)011011315000067700 l(.'t~ 02/01/01 4_5000135.89 ~ 8_30000 147Z6~8iir~~ 99

e and Here: Note that this represents two loansnoted by account number that in fact is supposed to beone loan. The Servicer, The Originator, Maine StateHousing Authority, TD Bank, Perkins Thompson and

Connect willl HUO~ w _~--


24/24

HUD.GOV.s . Department of Hons ing andSecretary Shaun Donovan

rban DevelopmentPRESS ROOM ML'"l..TI~L~ STATEI::-TO PROGR...uf OFFICES TO'PICARE.-\s. XBOL"T H L " DOME

HousmgBome I _'\bolrtUS j smgJ 'F'a.Inil:}- I Healthe:atrePrograms I ~ 1 oDlinesystems. I _~dienees

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

RESOL"RCES

I

Audiences InformaciOn en EspanolSite Map Text A A A-Zlndex I Search I

CO~"TACl" trs

DEFEN DA N TSEX HIB ITE

Sample Written Complaint to Lender 1 3 Print Friendly VersionThe followingis a sample qualified v.niten request from you, the borrower, te a lender. Use this format to addresscomplaints under the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act{RESPA).Be sure to read more about RESPA.and yourrights under this Act.elsewhere on the RESPAsite.Attention Customer Service:Subject: [Yourloan number.[~~ameson loan documents[Property and/or mailing addressThis is a "qualified written request" under Section 6 of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act{RESPA).iam writing because:

Describe the issue or the question '1o.uhave and/or what action 'Iou believe bhe lender should take. Attach copies of any related v.niten mai:erials. Oescribe any conver.sations v.;thcustomer service regarding the issue and to whomyou spoke. Describe any previous steps you ha,re taken or ati:empts to resolve the issue. Lista day time telephone number in case a customer sery"icerepresentative 'J,;shesto eentect you.

Iunderstand that under Section 6 of RESPAyou are required to acknov.~edgemy request \'lithin20 business dai'Sand must try to resolve the issue v,;thin60 business days.Sincerely,Your nameREMEMBER: This letter SHOULD NOT beinduded with your mortgage payment, but should be sent separately to thecustomer service address.You SHOULD continue to make the required mortgage and eS(1"OVlayment unti l the request is resolved.You may bring a private right of action under Section 6, if you suffer damages due to the lender'sservidng of the loan. Seethe RESPAstatute and regulations.

: 0 SHARE () t:BFederal Housing Administration

Insuring MoreThan 40Million lliortgages Since1934

, LEAR~ ~10RE

~Ia.kingHome Affordable

~~~i'1i\lUl'lG HOME AFFORDABLE.GO "

Help for America'sHomeownersLEAR~ ~lORE

Avoiding Foreclosure"'hether you're in foreclosure noworworriedaboutitin the future, wehaveinformation that can help.

, LEAR~ ~IORE

BANSC-RE-2010-187-Exhibits For Defendants Motion to Compel 0001

Documents

Transcript of BANSC-RE-2010-187-Exhibits For Defendants Motion to Compel 0001