Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/95182398/BANSC-RE-2010-187-TD-Bank-v-Twila-A-Wolf-3-of-4-Defendants-Case-05-29-2012-Compressed-With-Exhibits
Timestamp: 2016-09-30 19:54:04
Document Index: 794275578

Matched Legal Cases: ['§1', '§198', '§1245', '§7513', '§399', '§1', '§0']

BrowseBrowseInterestsBiography & MemoirBusiness & LeadershipFiction & LiteraturePolitics & EconomyHealth & WellnessSociety & CultureHappiness & Self-HelpMystery, Thriller & CrimeHistoryYoung AdultBrowse byBooksAudiobooksComicsSheet MusicBrowse allUploadSign inJoinBooksAudiobooksComicsSheet MusicRule 1002.Requirement oftbe Original
(pub. L. 93-595, §1, Jan. 2, 1975,88 Stat. 1946; Apr. 26,2011, eff. Dec. 1,2011.) Notes of Advisory Committee on Proposed Rules The rule is the familiar one requiring production of the original of a document to prove its contents, expanded to include writings, recordings, and photographs, as defined in Ru1e 1001 (1) and (2), supra. Application of the rule requires a resolution of the question whether contents are sought to be proved. Thus an event may be proved by nondocumentary evidence, even though a written record of it was made. If, however, the event is sought to be proved by the written record, the rule applies. For example, payment may be proved without producing the written receipt which was given. Earnings may be proved without producing books of account in which they are entered. McCormick §198; 4 Wigmore §1245. Nor does the rule apply to testimony that books or records have been examined and found not to contain any reference to a designated matter. The assumption should not be made that the rule will come into operation on every occasion when use is made of a photograph in evidence. On the contrary, the rule will seldom apply to ordinary photographs. In most instances a party wishes to introduce the item and the question raised is the propriety of receiving it in evidence. Cases in which an offer is made of the testimony of a witness as to what he saw in a photograph or motion picture, without producing the same, are most unusual. The usual course is for a witness on the stand to identify the photograph Of motion picture as a correct representation of events which he saw or of a scene with which be is familiar. In fact he adopts the picture as his testimony, or, in common parlance, uses the picture to illustrate his testimony. Under these circumstances, no effort is made to prove the contents of the picture, and the rule is inapplicable. Paradis, The Celluloid Witness, 37 U.Colo.L. Rev. 235, 249-251 (1965). On occasion, however, situations arise in which contents are sought to be proved. Copyright, defamation, and invasion of privacy by photograph or motion picture falls in this category. Similarly as to situations in which the picture is offered as having independent probative value, e.g. automatic photograph of bank robber. See People v. Doggett, 83 Cal.App.2d 405, 188 P.2d 792 (1948) photograph of defendants engaged in indecent act; Mouser and Philbin, Photographic Evidence-Is There a Recognized Basis for Admissibility? 8 Hastings L.J. 310 (1957). The most commonly encountered of this latter group is of course, the X-ray, with substantial authority calling for production of the original. Daniels v. Iowa City, 191 Iowa 811, 183 N.W. 415 (1921); Cellamare v. Third Ace. Transit Corp., 273 App.Div, 260, 77 N.Y.S.2d 91 (1948); Patrick & Tilman v. Matkin, 154 Oklo 232, 7 P.2d 414 (1932); Mendoza v. Rivera, 78 P.R.R. 569 (1955)
It should be noted, however, that Rille 703, supra, allows an expert to give an opinion based on matters not in evidence, and the present rule must be read as being limited accordingly in its application. Hospital records which may be admitted as business records under Rule 803(6) commonly contain reports interpreting X-rays by the staff radiologist, who qualifies as an expert, and these reports need not be excluded from the records by the instant rule, The reference to Acts of Congress is made in view of such statutory provisions as 26 U.S.c. §7513, photographic reproductions of tax returns and documents, made by authority of the Secretary of the Treasury, treated as originals, and 44 U.S.C. §399(a), photographic copies in National Archives treated as originals. Committee Notes on Rules-20 11 Amendment
The language of Rule 1002 has been amended as part of the restyling of the Evidence Rules to make them more easily understood and to make style and terminology consistent throughout the rilles. These changes are intended to be stylistic only. There is no intent to change any result in any ruling on evidence admissibility.
(Pub. L. 93-595, §1, Jan. 2, 1975,88 Stat. 1946; Apr. 26,2011, eff. Dec. 1,2011.) Notes of Advisory Committee on Proposed Rules When the only concern is with getting the words or other contents before the court with accuracy and precision, then a counterpart serves equally as well as the original, if the counterpart is the product of a method which insures accuracy and genuineness. By definition in Rille 100 1(4), supra, a "duplicate" possesses this character. Therefore, if no genuine issue exists as to authenticitt and no other reason exists fo re uiring the origi!!al a duplicate is admissible under the rule. This position finds support in the decisions, Myrick v. United States, 332 F.2d 279 (5th Cir. 1964), no error in admitting photostatic copies of checks instead of original microfilm in absence of suggestion to trial judge that photostats were incorrect; Johns v. United States, 323 F.2d 421 (5th Cir. 1963), not error to admit concededly accurate tape recording made from original wire recording; Sauget v. Johnston, 315 F.2d 816 (9th Cir. 1963), not error to admit copy of agreement when opponent had original and did not on appeal claim any discrepancy. Other reasons for requiring the original may be present when only a part of the original is reproduced and the remainder is needed for cross-examination or may disclose matters qualifying the part offered or otherwise useful to the opposing party. United States v. Alexander, 326 F.2d 736 (4th Cir. 1964). And see Toho Bussan Kaisha, Ltd v. American President Lines, Ltd., 265 F.2d 418, 76 A.L.R.2d 1344 (2d Cir. 1959). Notes of Committee on the Judiciary, House Report No. 93-650 The Committee approved this Rule in the form submitted by the Court, with the expectation that the courts would be liberal in deciding that a "genuine question is raised as to the authenticity of the original." Committee Notes on Rules-20 11 Amendment
and Buller tiled a motion tilled "in Regards to Hearing, Scheduled
January 30, 20 12'"
(,'Ocr. Motion"),
notifying this Court of their pending appeal with the First Circuit Court of DeL Motion at p. I. TO On
Appeals and declaring their refusal to appear at the motion hearing.
Bank filed its Motion for Summary Judgment dated Janml,ry 24, 20! 2. MSJ at pp.~4. January 27,2012, this Court issued an Order stating that l1"DBank's foreclosure
"stayed pending. federal appeal."
Plaintiff is Entitled to Continue its FOTeclosure Action in this Court Despite Defendant~s Pending Federal Appeal', an appeal of an order or judgment issued by a United States District Court
does not operate as an automatic stay of proceed ings. F.R. Civ. P. 62 (20 II). Instead, a party wishing
of an order pending an appeal must move the District Court for a or execution
Slay of the proceedings.
ld. A failure to do so will result in the enforcement very order,
District Court's order, despite a pending appeal otihet
2004 U.S. Disr. LEXIS I 1339, at ~] (D. Me. Jun. 18,2(04) enforcement
C-I"r he wished to prevent the
of the [order] pending appeal, he was required to file a motion to stay the judgment
under Rule 62. He failed
do so and rhe [order] remained enforceable a case back
pending appeal").
holds true even for orders remanding
Bee FIA Card Services, N.A. v.
Riley, 748 F. Stipp. 2d 31,34 (D. Me. 20J 0). Here, Defendant failed to move the Federal District Court for ar stay of proceedings Thus, because the appeal itself docs not operate as an to proceed with its foreclosure
during the pendency of her appeal. automatic Slay, TD Bank is permitted B.
There is no Just Reason
in this Mat-ter
"Ir is within the inherent power ofthe Superior Court, under its general supervisory - J: -
PE'RKINS fTH,OMPSON
A TiQll>\JIOYS0; COtlNSELORS AT I..Aw
11~> ....~11 ~~'I ~'-"~~)
rH ~.'!i1."" T'._'f-:!":'_~!l'
Penny H. Reckards, Clerk Penobscot County Superior Court Allen: Civil Clerk [or Real Estate Matters 78 Exchange Street, Saite 350 Bangor, ME 04401
IilG:OWa.O,:p.~1
TD Bank, N.A. v. Twila A. Woll, et al. Civil Action Docket No. RE-J 0-187
Dear Penny: Enclosed for filing in the above-referenced Lift Slay of Proceedings and Incorporated Order regarding the same. matter pl ease find the Plaimi ff s Motion to Memorandum of Law, along with a proposed
lJ::-fnilt:!~I~
~"'·fA"'~1\J.
OFCOUNSn.
OBM/kro Enclosure
~,;.,;
lol5k~.:flw
~AlC0
Twila Wolf Charlton A. Butler, Jr.
STATE Of MArNE
CIVIL ACnON
DOCKET NO. RE-10-J87
TO BANK, N.A., Uk/a First Massachusetts
TWILA A. WOLF,
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO LfFT STAY OF PROCEEDINGS
,,_ MAINi:
STATE HOUSfNG AUTHORlTY,)
CITY OF BANGOR, and L VNV
FV~DfNG. LLC.
Parties-In-Iruerest.
Tide to Real Estate Involved Lift Stay of Proceedings and
The. Court having before it Plaintiff's Motion
Incorposated Memorandum of Law, dated February
shown.and
inn"),
good canse
with/without a hearing, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED rhar: The Mol ion is hereby GRANTED in all respects; The stay is lifted and the case is restored to the regular foreclosure.docket; and
".=:=-----
In accordance with Maine Rule of Civil Procedure 79(a), at the specific direction
of the Court. the Clerk shall incorporate by reference this Order by proper notation on the docket.
SO ORDERED at Bangor, Maine, Ihis __
I'D SAY THAT PUTIING IT BACK IN THE FORECLOSURE DOCKET INDICATES BELIEF THAT THE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IS ALIVE
PETRUCCELLI.MARTIN & HADDOW, LLP Attorneys at Law
50 Monument Square Post Office Box 17555 Portland, Maine 04112-8555 GERALD F. PETRUCCELLI gpelruccelli@pmhlegal.com
April 8, 2011 Senator David R. Hastings, III, Esq., Chair Committee on Judiciary c/o Legislative Information 100 State House Station Augusta, ME 04333 Representative Joan M. Nass, Chair Committee on Judiciary cia Legislative Information 100 State House Station Augusta, ME 04333 RE: HP 128, LD 145 - An Act to Protect Homeowners Subject to Foreclosure by Requiring the Foreclosing Entity to Provide the Court with Original Documents Dear Senator Hastings and Representative Nass: I am writing to express my support for LD 145 and in the hope that it may be helpful to the Committee to focus particularly on the distinctive characteristics of a promissory note, as distinguished from documents generally. Many years ago, I taught commercial law at the University of Maine School of Law SchooL In the course of that work, I came to know something about promissory notes and I am writing to offer some observations that I think might be helpful in thinking about these problems. I do not currently represent any banks. One of my Partners has been involved in one or two of the foreclosure disputes that have generated some of this discussion, but I am not writing on behalf of any client. This is not simply a question of evidence law. The question is not whether the copy, or the photograph, or the digital image, should suffice as proof that a loan was made, notwithstanding the best evidence rule. It is not a question of modem technology concerning recordkeeping in the computer age. The note is not a record. The promissory note, unlike other documents, is itself valuable property. A photograph of the promissory note is no more valid or sufficient than a photograph of the mortgaged house. If it is sufficient for the bank to produce a photocopy of the note, it ought to be sufficient for the homeowner to satisfy the foreclosure judgment by producing a photograph of the property. This is the fundamental point. There is a practical functional reality to all of this as a matter of negotiable instruments law. The promissory note is negotiable and the holder in due course of a negotiable promissory note bas preferred status in litigation on the note. If the person seeking to enforce the note does not actually have it as a matter of physical possessory fact, it is likely that somebody else does. It is only the holder of that original note who has any rights at all on the note. Anyone may have a copy of it. But without the note itself, all that any plaintiff can actually accomplish is to try to persuade the court that at one time somebody photographed it, not that at the current time the plaintiff owns it, and possesses it, and has enforceable legal rights on the note. There is really no good reason that a plaintiff claiming to be the holder of a note should be entitled to enforce it without bringing it to court .
DEFENDANTS ·",;.··.'0 :,0'
Because of this fundamental characteristic of the promissory note as property, carrying both substantive and procedural rights for the holder in due course, every defendant in every case is at some risk of having to pay twice, or at least defend twice, if the original note is not brought forward in every action. It may be statistically unlikely that there will be a large number of these cases, but there ought not to be any of them. It is an important protection for the makers of promissory notes that they not be subjected to this risk, simply because the bankers now find it inconvenient to produce this essential item in the very process of enforcing rights that are bound up in and rest upon this very item. Another significant point follows from that. Because a promissory note is negotiable, the circumstances of its negotiation are vitally important with respect to any determination of the rights of any plaintiff purporting to be the holder by virtue of negotiation. The indorsements must be examined to determine not only their authenticity but their legal sufficiency. As you know, there are various forms or kinds of indorsements and it is only by examining the document itself that the court can determine whether any sequence of indorsements is regular and in good order so as to confer the rights of a holder upon the plaintiff. A photograph of a note that does not include both sides cannot possibly permit a court to determine whether or not all of the necessary indorsements are provided. But even a photograph showing all of the purported indorsements does not address the fundamental initial problem which is that the actual note may be in the possession of still another person, carrying still another indorsement, 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 bank can foreclose by producing a photograph of the note, the foreclosure judgment ought to be able to be satisfied by the homeowner delivering a photograph of the house. In both instances, photographs of the property are not the property. In a negotiable instruments setting, all of the issues relating to the sufficiency of photocopies of records or files, or contracts, or documents are fundamentally irrelevant to the real point. Only the holder of the original note with all proper indorsements in place is entitled to claim and enjoy the benefits of holder in due course status in enforcing the obligations of the maker on the promissory note. I respect and appreciate all of the hard work that is being done by all of the members of the Legislature on all of these difficult problems. I hope this is of some assistance, and I thank: you for the opportunity to comment. Sincerely, Gerald F. Petruccelli
9._ OJ
~ ~ s=
7' OJ Een _..,
"" _..,
iki'"
en ~--..
1if _..,
en _..,
'i" to
ro _.., s.
Ii' _-,
--I 0;-
~ c: ~.
'" J!!
~ ~ i= 10.,
t! 10' ~
fi~t:r
):>::1-0=
(OQ)(IJ
men'" ~OO °roe:'
s:;:,Q_
iii' ::?!
"",!,r_.-_
tro"'" o..-~
s ;;;
~ ;;; ~
~ 1=--'--:,. ~ N '" ~ ~ '" s 0
"'" Co
0 c b ""I-- ~
0 <;:>
..., .... '"
...--:--~
~.-b'? N
w -,j
<;>_
0f-"----=
ffil w
N ..4'
'" tv ;" '" '"
-..., '"
"...j 0
'-.,J ci 0 0
-,J U)
'Client Wolf-Butler, TwHa
! ~ate
Staff Twita A. Butler fka Wolf Rayford Nevells
Hours 570.00:
Total $213,750.00
! Twila A Wolf
Vs. TO Bank North
I Wolf-Butler,
TWiia A. Wolf Vs. , TO Bank North
$2,293.53\
Wo'lfcButler, Twila
Twila A. 'WolfVs. TO Bank North Twila A. WolfVs. TO Bank North Twila A. Wolf Vs. TO Bank North , Twila A. Wolf Vs. TO Bank North TwilaA, WelfVs. TO Bank North
Charlton A.Butler Jr. Twila A. Butler fka Wolf
'$375:0C>
$213,750.00,
, Wolf-Butler, Twila
$213,750.Q(~1
Wolf-Butler, TwHa 7/1/2011 Rayford Nevells
I Wolf-Bbltler,
TwHa 17/112011 Wolf-Butler, Twila 17/2612011
570.00~ $375.00
$2,293.53'
i $213,750.00 !
l'wila A Butler fka Wolf Charlton A. Butler Jr. Charlton A Butler
570.00;
$375.00'
Wolf-Butler, 'Twila
!8/1/2011
TwHa A. 'Wolf Vs. TO Bank North TwHa A. Wolf Vs. TO Bank North 'l"wila A Wolf Vs. TO Sank t\lorth Twlla A. Wolf Vs. -nO Bank North
Twila A. Butler fk.a Wolf
I Rayford
$375.00:
Wolf-Buttee Twlla
$213;750.00
Wolf-Butler, Twila 19/1/20~ 1 Ne¥ells
Wolf~Butler. Twila
, 9IH2011
Charlton A. Butler Jr. Twila A. Butler fka Wolf Rayford Nevell.s
$213,750,00\
Wolf-Butler, Twila
I ,9/1/2011
ITwila A. Wolf Vs. TO Bank North
$375.00, I
$213,750.00'
I Wolf·ButJer,'TwUa
i Twila A. Wolf
ro Bartk.North
10/1f20l1
Twila A. Wolf Vs. TO IBank North TWilaA. lNolf Vs. TO Bank North
Charlton A. Butler Jr. ifwjlaA Woff Butler fka
$.203,750.00
Wolf_Butler, Twila
11011/2011
Wolf-Butler, Twlla , Wolf-Butler, Twila
i W1/2011
W1/2011
Rayford Nevells
, 570.00
Twila A. Wolf Vs. TO Bank North Twila A. Wolf Vs. TO :Bank Notth Twila,A. .woIPJs. TO Bank N.orth TwilaA. Wolf Vs. m Bank North TwHaA. Wolf Vs. TD Bank North Twila A. Wolf Vs. TO Bank North
Charlton A. Butler Jr. Twila A Butler fk.a Wolf Rayford Nevells
! $375.00!
$2,293:53. $213,750;00,
,Wolf-Butler, Twlla
570.00:
$375.00 I
Wolf-Butler, Twite
1211120~~
r Wolf-Butler, Twila 12/t/2011
Twila 1211/2011
Charlton A. Butler Jr. Twila A. Butler fka Wolf Rayford Nevells
$213,750.00;
I Wolf-Butler.
570;00[
$375.<JO
$213,750.00[
Wolf-Butler, Twfla
Client Wolf-Butler, Twila
Matter 'fwila A. Wolf Vs. TO Sank North
Staff Charlton A Butler
Twlia A Butler tka Wolf 'Rayford Nevells
$375.00 !
$213,750.GO
~Wolf-Blitler, Twila
TwilaA. WolfVs. TO 'Bank North ' 'Twila A. 'Wolf Vs. TO Bank North Twila A. Wolf Vs. ToOBank North Twila A. Wolf Vs. TO Bank. North
$213,750.00i
IWoff"BlfIler,lfwila
1Wolf-Butler, Twila
211'/2012
, I 570.00
Charlton A. Butler Jr. Twila A. Butler tka Wolf 1 Rayford Nevells
$2,293:53
$213,750.QOi
121112012 ,
570.00 1 I
$2.,293.53, , 1 $375.00 $213,750.00'
Wolf-Butler, 'fwila
1 TwllaA. WolfVs.
, 3/1/2012
1'0 Bank North
TwilaA. WolfVs. TO Bank North Twila A. Wolf Vs. TO Bank North Twita A. Wolf TO Bank North Charlton A. Butler Jr. TwJlaA. Butler fka Wolf Rayford Nevalls
Wdlf-Butler, Twila
I Welf-Butler,
,3/1/2012
$375.00 ,
$2,293.53 I 570.00,, $375.00' $213,750.00:
i 4/H2012
Twila A. Wolf Vs. iro .Bank North Twila A. WolfVs. . TO Bank North
Chartton A. Butler
570.00 , $375.00 $213,750.00
I Wolf-ButJe~, Twila
,,4/1/2012
ifwila A. Butler fka Wolf Rayford Navells
. 5/1/2012 TWila A. Wolf Vs . TO 'Bank North
I TwilaA WolfVs. I11D Bank North
$2,293.53i
I Wolf_Butler,
Wolf-Bulle"
lfwila
Twila A. 'Butler fka Wolf
$.213,750.00
15f26/2012
iTwilaA Wolf Vs. TO Sal'lk North
Charlton A. Butler Jr.
$6,655.00:
, 18811.83
Wolf Vs. liD BarikNor.th Rayford Nevells
$7,0.95,018:78 , S115.rQO I $316.25
~Wolf-ButJer, ;rwila
i TwilaA
, Wolf-Butler, Twil.a
212Q{2011
Twila A. Wo'jfVs.
I 1'0 Bank North
4.50 ,,
$125 .. 01 0 1 $125,00, I
Wolf-Butler, TwiIa 2121/2011
Twila A Wolf Vs. TO Bank North Twila A. Wolf Vs. TO Balik Nortb TwilaA WdlfVs. TO Bank North 'Twila A Wolf Vs. TD Bank North
Rayford 'Nevells
2122[201'1
Wolf-Butler, TwiJa
'Rayford Nevells
:Wo~-BatleT. Twila
1212512011
Hayford Nevells
1Welf-Butler, Twila
,12/27/2011
TWiJaA. Wolf Vs. liD Bank North Rayford Nevells
$625.00; i
Client Wolf~Butler, Ywila
~212812011
Matter ilTwilaA. WolfVs. TO Bank North
Staff 'Rayford Nevells
Hoursi 2.50:
$312.§0
Wolf-Butler. Twila 3/1/2011 Twila A Wolf Vs. TO Bank North TfwHa Wo.lf Vs. A. TO Bank North Twi.laA WolfVs. ,TO Sank North Twila A.. Wolf Vs. TO 'Bank North Twita A Wolf Vs. TD Bank North Twila A.. Wt;llfVs, liD Bank Nor'th Twila A Wolf Vs. TO Bank North , TWila A.. Wolf Vs. Bank North Rayford Nevells
3.00 $125.00 $37500
'$125.00' 1 $280.00
Wotf"Botler, TwiIa
313"12011
' Rayford Nevelts
Wolf-Butler, Twila r'6/2011
$125.00'
$500.00'1
Ra.yford Nevells
$125.00;1
Wolf-Bl:ltler, TwiJa I ,Wolf-Butler, Twila
3nt2011
$291.67j
;Rayford Nevells
WolfJButler, ;fwila
\319/2011
$218.75;
Rayfora Nevells
$125.00 , , , 1 , $250.00
,Wolf-Butler, TWila
Wolf-Butler. ifwUa 3/:12{2011
,TwilaA. WolfVs. TO Balik North TwHa A. WoIf Vs. TO Balik North Twifa A Wolf Vs. TO Bank North Twila. A.. Wolf Vs. T8 Bank North ' TWila A. Wolf Vs. 1;0 Bank .North
I Rayford NeveUs
$625:00
Wolf-Butler, Twita
13/13/2011
Rayford Nsvells
Wolf-BuUer, Twlla
13116{201~
I 'FO Bank
I Twila
A. Wolf Vs.
1Rayford Nevells
$125 .. 0, 0
$375:00
Wolf-Buller, Twila
3/17{2011
I , Wolf-Butler, Twila 3/19/2011
Twila A Wolf vs. TO 'Bank North TWila A.. Wolf Vs. 'TO'Bank North Twila A. Wolf Vs. TO Bank North Twila A. Wolf Vs. TO Bank North Twila A Wolf Vs.
:Hayford .Nevells
$312.50'
$125 .. 0,1 0
Weilf-Butler, Twlla 3/2012011 Rayford Neyells
Wolf-Butler, Twi!a
13121/2011
Rayford Nevalls
$156.25,
Wolf-Butler, Twila 3{21/2011
I, TO Bank North
$125.00 ,
3{21/2011
I TwilaA Wolf Vs. TO Bank North
1 0.25:
$31.25 ,
IDate 3f23f2011
Matter 'Twlla A_ Wolf Vs. TO Bank l'Jorth Twita A. Wolf v« ro Bank North
Hours Nevells
,I Rayford I
$125.80:1
Wolf.JButler. Twila
$125_001
'I1\Iolf"Butler, Twila
312512011
I TO Bank North
I 'Twila A._ 'WolfVs.
Rayford 'Nevens
$125.00(
i Rayford Navells
Wolf·Butler, Twila
Twila A. WoIfVs. TO Bank North Twila A. Wolf v« lTD Bank North TwilaA. WolfVs. 110 Bank North ' Twila A. Wolf Vs. 11'0 Bank North Twila A. Wolf Vs. Bank North
$562.50,
,Wall-Butler,
Rayford Nevel.ls
Woll-Butler, Twila
$125.00 I
I Wolf·Butier.
Twila 3/28/2011 Rayford Nevells
Wolf· Butler, Twila
3_DO!
1Wolf-Butler,
TWila 14/312011
Twila A Wolf Vs. TO Bank North TwilaA_ WolfVs. TO Bank North Twila A_ Wolf Vs. TD 'Bank North ' TwUa A Wolf Vs. TO Bank North
HayfQrd Nevells
$125_00!
$875.,00 !
Wolf-Butler, Twifa
417f20n1
$500.00'
Wolf.,Butler, Twita ~4/1112011
i Twlla A. Wolf v«
$125.00: , $125_001
liD Bank North
$343.75,
I W6If-Bu!ler, I WQlf·8utler,
411212011
Twila 4/13/2011
Twila A_ Wolf Vs. 11:0 Bank North
>Rayford Nevells I ' Rayford Nevells
,Twila-A. WolfVs. TO Bank North Twita A. Wolf Vs. TO Bank North TwilaA. WolfVs. TO Bank North TwilaA WolfVs. TO Bank North 'Twila A_ Wolf Vs .. TO Bank North Twita A. Wolf Vs. I TO Bank North
14/1412011
$250_00 !
. VJJolf~Butler, wila T
, Rayford Nevells
$687.50;
Wolf-Butler, Twila I 4/1712011 I Rayford Nevells
$1,125_00
14/19/2011
$281.25'
$125.00 $500..00 $125.00,
I, "j
Wolf·BuUer, Twila r/2l/201l Twila A. WolfVs. TO Bank North
I Rayford Nevells
Date ,4/23/2011
Twila A. WolfVs. TO Bank North Twila A. Wolf Vs. TO Bank ·North : 'fwila A Wolf Vs. ' TO Bank North TwiJa A Wolf Vs. TO Bank North Twila A. WolfVs. 110 Bank North Twila A. Wolf Vs. TO Bank North Twila A. Wolf Vs. Bank North
Staff , Rayford Navelis
Hours! 3:00!
Total $375.00:
i 4/24/2011
Rayford Nevells I 'Rayford Neve11s
! lIt/olf':Butler,
1.751 3,00 $125.00:
14126i2011
$21.'8.75' ,
Wolf-Butler, Twila 4/27/2011
. Rayford Nevells
$37500;
IWOlf-Bllller, Twila
' 4/28/2011
$1.25.00~
$125.00 , $125.00 ,
$625.00,
$625.00)
Twila A. Wolf Vs. ' liD Bank North Twila A Wolf Vs. liD Bank North TwiJa A Wolf Vs. TO Bank Nortn
$25000j
~Rayford Nevalls
-$,125.00'
I Wolf-Butler, Twita Sf4/2011 Rayford Nevens
$250,0()
Wolf-Butler, Twila 15/812011 I
Twila A Wolf Vs. ' TO Bank North Rayford Nevelis 9.00
, $125.00 1
I Wo1f-Butler, Twila
I 5/8/2011
5/9/2811
Twila A. Wolf Vs. , TO 8ank North
TwilaA. Wolf Vs. I TtD Bank North : Twila A Wolf Vs, I TO 8ank North Twita A. Wolf v« -r0 Bank North Twila A. Wolf Vs. TO Bank North Twila A Wolf v« TO Bank No.rth rWila A. WolfVs. TO Bank North Twila A WolfVs. TO Bank North Twita A_ Wolf Vs. TO Bank North Twila A Wolf Vs. TO Bank North
5/~Of2011
Rayford Ne\lells
$125.00: , $,125.00
$375.0(;)
Wolf-Butler, 1fwila
Rayford f'iJevells
Wolf-Butler, Tfwila
5/14/2011 ,
15/1512011
$125 .. 0 0
$84375:
Rayford I'ilevells
Wolf-Bufle~, Twila
15/16/20H
$375.00: 'I
, Wolf-Butle~ Twita 5/17/2011
$250.0°1 I $562.50
Wo'lf-ButJer, Twila
I Rayford ,
Date 5/2212011
, Matter Twila A_ Wolf Vs, , TO Bank North
Staff Rayford Nellells
,Rate:
5.00!I , 3.50j
$125,00'
Wolf-Butler, Twila 5/23/2011
Twila A. Wolf Vs. TO Bank North Twila 'A_ ·l1VoIfVs.
Rayford Navalis
$125,00:
,Wolf"Butler, Twila
'5/2412011
. Wolf-Butler, Twila
:11D Bank .North
"$2S0:00~ $62.501.
5/24/2011 !
Twila A. Wolf Vs_ TO Bank North Twita A, Wolf v« TO Bank North i1"wilaA. WolfVs. TO Bank North
'Wolf-Butler, Twila
,5127/2811
$625,00,
5/2912011
$875,00:
Wolf-Butler, Twila 5f29/20~n
'Rayford Navells
I TwilaA.
Wolf Vs_ 110 Bank North
5/30f2011
TWlla A Wolf Vs. I TO Bank North
2.00. 1
$250_00
Wolf-Butler, Twila 6/112011
i Twila A
Wolf-Buller, Twila 6/212011
WolfVs. TO Bank North
Rayforo Nevells
$250,00i
rWilaA. WolfVs. TO Bank North Twila A_ Wolf Vs. :TO Bank North , Twila A_ Wolf v« , TO Bank North
$125.00\ $562.50
$125_00
I $625.00 , I
Wolf-Butler, Twi/a
Rayford Nevelis
1Wolf-ButJer, Twila
,6i6/2011
W0If-Butler, Twila 6nt2011
A. WolfVs, TO Bank North
5125..00
i250.00!
$125.00, $375.00
Twila A. Wolf Vs. , TO Bank North
,Wolf-Butler, Twila 6/8/2011
TwilaA_ Wolf Vs. TO Bank North Twila A. Wolf v« TO Bank North
$~25,00i
16/1112011
W0lf-Butler, 'Jwila
6/11{2011
A. Wolf Vs. TO Bank 'North Twila A. WoifVs. TO Bank North Twila A. WQlf Vs. TO Bank North
Rayford NeveHs
$125.00, : $125.00
Wolf-Butler, Twila I Wolf-Butler, Twlla 6/13120~1 Rayford Nellelis 6/1212011 Rayford Nevells
$250001 , $250.00 1
Wolf-Butler, Twila 6/14/2011 Twita A..Wolf v« TO Bank North Twila A. WolfVs. TO .Bank North Rayford Nevalls
$125.00\
16/15/2011
,Rayford Nevells
$437_50
Date M8/2011
; Matter Twila A. Wolf Vs. TO Bank North Twila A Wolf Vs_ TO Bank North Twita A. Wolf v« TO Bank North Twila A Wolf vs: TO Bank North
Staff Rayford Nevells
5_00' ,
$125,00~
8"°°,1 2.0D
$125,00 ! $125,00,
WotfcButler, TWila
'612112011
"$250,00,1
Rayford :Nevells
6/22/20H
$375_00
Wolf· Butier, Twila
Twila A_ Wolf Vs_ TO Bank North Twila A Wolf v« TGBank North Twila A Wolf Vs. TD Bank l\Iortb Twila A. Wolf Vs. TO Bank North Twila A Welf Vs, 1'0 Bank North
$1'8],.50:
Wolf-Butler, Twila '6/25/2011
Rayford Nevells ,I
4.75 $125,00 $593,75
Rayford NeveUs
!Wolf-Butler,
Twlta
$593.751
Wolf-Butler, Twila 6/2712011 Rayford Nevells
2,QOj
Twlla.
,Rayford Nevelis 0042'
]WoLf-Butler, Twila
itWolf-Butler.
'6/28/201l
,6/28/2011
, Wolf-Btlfler, Twila
' Twila A_ Wolf ve. . TO Bank North , Twila A, Wolf Vs. ! 1'0 Bank North
i 6/291201
Wolf-Stltler, Twila 7/2/2011
Twila A, Wolf v« TO Bank North Twila A, Wolf vs, TO Bank,North Twila A. Wolf Vs.
1'1) Ban k North
5.00, ,
$625,00il
Wolf-BtltJer, Twila
Rayford lNevelis
i WOlf-Butler, Twila 7/4/2011 I \71712011 Rayford Nevells
3.50 $125:00 $437:50:
WolfJButler, Twila
Twila A. Wolf v« TO Bank North
$125,00 ,,I S125,(i)0
Twila 7/912011 tWila A. Wolf Vs. TO Bank North ' ;ITwHaA Wolf \1s, TO Bank North I Twila A, Wolf Vs. TO Bank North ; Twila A. Wolf Vs. ; TO Bank North Twila A, Wolf Vs. TD Bank North Rayford Nevells
$~25,OO:1 $593.75 , $375,00,
I lIlIolf-Butler,
' 7/11/2011
7/12/20H
$437.50 i :
Wolf-Butler, TwUa
$281.25,
'Wolf-Butler, Tv.iila 7/14f2011 Twila A. Wolf vs. I TO Bank North
Client !WOlf-Butler, Twila
Date 7116/2011
'Matter 1wilaA. WolfVs. TO !Bank North Twila A. WdlfVs. TO Bank North I Twila A. Wdlf"Vs. I TO Bank North
Staff Rayford Nevens
Tota'll $562.5°1
,Wolf-Batter, Twila
17/17J20~1
6.50 ,
$812.5°1
, Wo1fcBotler, Twila
17/21/2011
'$125 ..00
S125.0(i)ij $250.00
Wolf-Butler, Twila 7121/20H
i Twila A.
Wolf Vs. TO Bank North
W0lf-Bu\ler, Twila
' 7/23/2011
rWila A. Wolf Vs. ,TO BanklNorth Twila A. Wolf Vs. T8 Bank North
.15.50; I
$125 .. 0i 0
$687.5(!)!
8.00:, $125.00
j Wolf-Butler, ;rwila
2.00' $125.00i , $125.00 $250.00' $250.00
TwilaA Wolf Vs. TO Bank North Twila A. WolfVs. Bank North
7/2812011
Wslf-Butler, Twila
iTwilaA. WolfVs. TD Bank North Twila A. Wolf Vs. TO Bank N0rth TwUa A. Wolf Vs. TD Bank North Twila A. Wolf v« TO Bank North Twila A. WolfVs. Bank North
$375.80'
Rayford Navells
4.00, ,
WolfoButler, Twila
\7/30/2011
$187.50;
I Wolf-BlItle~, Twila
Sf112011
i 8/212011
TwilaA. Wolf Vs. TD Bank North TwilaA. WolfVs. TO BankNorth : Twila A. Wolf Vs. TD Bank North
R~ord Nevells
S125.00 $312.50
Wolf,Butler, Twila .8f6/2011
Rayford Nevens
5.0°1 7,00 ,
I Wolf-B~tler, Twila
181712011
Twila A. Wolf Vs. TO Bank North Twila A. Wolf Vs. TD Bank Nerth Twila A. Wdlf Vs, TO Bank Nortb Twila A. Wolf Vs. TD Bank North
r Twila A. WolfVs.
$'I.25.00i
$875.00i
Rayford Nevells ~II
$250.0°1
WolfcButJer, Twi!a I
I Wolf-Butler. Twila
$375,00i
$~25.00
i 8/13/2011
$56250r
18/1412011
Matter Twila A. Wolf Vs. TO Bank North ; Twila A. Wolf Vs. ' TO Bank North rWila 'A. 'Wo1f'Vs. TO Bank NOJtl:1
~Wolf-But!er, Twlla
Hours 7.00·
5.75,1 2.00:
Wotf-Brrtler" Twila
'8/n'8I2011
I "Rayford I
Neve lis
'S125,'or:J' 1
'$250,00
Wolf"Butier, Twila 8/20/2011
rWilaA Wo)fVs. TO Bank North Twila A. Wolf Vs. lTD Bank North
$125,00j
$375.0011 $625.00 1
: Rayford Nevells
\ 2.00 $125.00
B122/20ll
Twila A. Wolf Vs. ' Rayford Nevells 1'0 Bank NJoT1,h Twiia A. Wolf Vs. Bank North ' Rayford Nevells
Wolf-Butle(, Twila
18/23/2011
! ro ij
,$250.00
$125.00 $500.001
!!Twila A. Wolf Vs. 1 110 Bank North ilTwila A Wolf Vs.
-Rayford tiJeveUs
I Wdlf-Buller,
! 18128/2011
Wolf-Buller, Tw'ila 8/28/2011
i,TD Bank Nonn
I, 1.25 $125.00 $156.25 I
Twila A. Wolf Vs. TO Bank North 'ITWila A. Wolf Vs. IllD Bank North Twlla A. Wolf Vs. TO Bank North
Wolf-Butler, Twil.a ' '8/29/2011 IRayford Nevells
$125.00 , $125.00:1
IS/30/2011
Wolf-Baller, Twila 9/112011
! Twila A. Wolf Vs. T.O Bank North Rayford Nevells
1 1914/2011
' Twila A. Wolf Vs. : TO Bank North I TwilaA WolfVs. I 1'D Bank North
'Hayford Nevells
4.75' 'I
$593.75'
$~25.00'
$437.50,
!Twila A. Wolf Vs.
: TO Bank North Twila A. Wolf Vs. TO Bank North Twila A. Wolf Vs. TO Bank North TwilaA. Wolf Vs. TD Bank North Twila A. Wolf Vs. TO Bank North
$250.00'
Wolf-Butler, Twila 19/8/2011 r 19/11/20H
IRayford Nevells
$~25.00:, , $125.00
.IWOlf-Sutler, Twila
$781,2Si
Wolf-Butler, Twlla
i9fl212011
$125.0°1
Wolf-Butler, Twil.a
Wolf-Butler, Twila 19/15/201~
Wolf Vs. TO Bank tiloith
4.00 ,
Client Wolf-BuUer, TwUa
Date ,9/17/2011
Matter ;rwila A Wolf Vs. iT'DBank North Twila A.. Wolf Vs. . TD Bank North
Staff , Rayford Nevells
$625.00:
tWolf-'BotJer, TwUa 911'9f2011
I Twila 'A.. Wolf Vs.
RayfOTd·Ne..ells I
Wdlf-Butler, Twila 9f20f2011
TO Bank North Twila A.. Wolf Vs. TD Bank North TwiJa A.. WolfVs. TD Bank 'North Twila A.. Wolf vs. Bank North Hayford Nevells
$343.75]
' 9f21f2011 Rayford Nevells
Wolf-Butler. Twila
9/2412011
4.75 I i 6.00'
$125.00 , $125,00:
'TwilaA. WolfVs. TG IBank North Twila A.. WolfVs. TO Bank North
$125.00, $343751
Wolf-BuUer, Twila
9126/2011
'Wolf-Butler.
9/27f2011
WolfVs. TO BankNorth Twila A. Woff Vs. TO Bank Noril.h
$250.00i
I 4.00 $125.00 $500.00
101H20rr~
Twila A Wolf Vs. 'Bank North
10/2f2011
Twila A Wolf Vs. TO Bank North
'Rayford NeveUs
IWolf-BuUer,
1013/201~
A. WolfVs. TO Bank North
$37'5.00!
10/512011
I Twila A.. Wolf
11018/2011
Vs. TO Bank Nor.th
Rayford Neve!!s
' Twila A. Wolf Vs. TO Bank North Twlla A. WolfVs. Bank North
$125;00
$62'5.00
1Ot9120~1
Wolf-Bl:Itler, Twila
110/1012011
Wolf-Butler. Twila 10/12/2011
Vs. TO Bank North lfwila A. Wolf Vs. TO Bank North irwila A. Woif Vs. 1m ,Bank North
$125.'00;
$437.50:
I $250.00'
Rqyford Nevells
$125,00: $500.00
! TwHa A.. WolfVs.
10/16f2011
WolfVs. TD Bank North
5.50, I
,Client rWOlf~B\Jtler, Twita
Matter Twlta A. Wolf Vs. , TO Bank North Twila A. Wolf Vs. 1'0 Bank North 'Twila.A Wo'JfVs. 'PDBank Nortll Twila A. Wolf Vs. TO Bank North
Staff :Rayford Nevells
$j25.00j
Wolf,Buller, Twila
Hayford 'Nevells
Wo'lf.!BatJe(, Twita
i ~OIt912011
Hayford 'Nevglls
2;00'
'$125.00-
$25.0.00'
WotfJButler, Twila
1012212011
t Wolf"Bulier, Twila
I TO Bank
I Twila A. Wolf Vs.
1 4.00:
$50'0.001 $250.0°11
, Wolf"'Butler, Twila
Twila A. Wolf Vs.. TO Bank North Twila A. Wolf Vs. TO IBank NGrth Twita A. Wolf Vs. TO Bank North TWilaA Wolf Vs. TO Bank North Wolf v« : TO Bank North
I TwitaA
WOlf-Botler, Twila
10/25/20:11
10127/2011
' Rayford Nevells
$125.00 , $.125.00;
10/29/20~~
: Wolf-Butler, Twila
$125.00' $750.0(J·
Wolf~Butler, Twita 1'10131/2011
I TwitaA Wolf Vs. TD Bank North 'TwilaA. WolfVs. TO Bank North
:Rayford Nevells
$125.00,1
$312.5C1'
I Wolf-Buller,
ifwila
TwilaA. WolfVs. TO Bank NCilrth Twila A. Wolf Vs 'TO Bank North
2..25:
11/5/20H
4]5, ,
Twita A. Wolf v« ;ro Bank North Twlla A, WolfVs. TO 'Bank North Twila A. Wolf Vs. TO Bank North TwilaA. WolfVs. TD Bank tiJorth
Rayferd Nevells
$812.5IDij
111712011
Rayford NevelJs
$312.5°1 $37-5.00
Wolf·Butler, ifwila
Wo'lf-Buller, Twila
111/1212011
.Rayford Navells
WoJf~Bu!ler. Twila
I TwilaA WolfVs. TD Bank North .Rayford NevelJs
7.25 :
$906.25 :
1Wolf-Buller, Twila
I q1l16/201~
Twila A. Wolf Vs. Bank .North
Twila A. WolfVs. 'I TO Bank North
$125_00 400il
$500.0d,
Client Wolf-But!er, Twila
: Date 1W9/2011
Matter Twile A Wolf v« if 0 rBank North Twila A. Wolf Vs. , TO 'Bank North , Twita A. WorfVs. ) liD Bank North
Staff R<!yford Nevells
5500.00 1 \
Wolf-Butler. TwUa
: 11/20/2011
.Rayford Nevells
Wo1f-Butler. Twita
:t112112(}~1
20(,)'
$250:00:
Wolf·BuUer, Twila
111/2212011
Twita A. Wolf Vs. TD Bank North
Wolf-Butler, iJ'wita
I Twita A. Wolf
Vs. , liD Bank North TwilaA WolfVs. TO Bank North Twils A. Wolf v« TD 'Bank North Twita A. Wolf Vs. TD Bank North
Wolf':Butler, Twita
WotfcButier. Twila
1W27/2011
Rayford NeveJis
$468.751
Wolf·Suller, Twita
Wdlf·Butler, Twila
11129/20~ 1
Wolf.Sutter, Twila 11/30/2011
I Twila A. Wolf v«
TO Barak North
$312.5°1
I Twita A. WolfVs. TD Bank North Twna A. Wl'llf v« TO Bank North Twila A. Wolf Vs. ,to '8anKNo.rth Twila A. Wolf Vs. TV Bank North rWila A. WolfVs. TO Bank North Twila A. WolfVs. liD Bank North Twil.a A. Wolf Vs. ,TO Bank North
$343.75' ,
Wolf·Butler, Twila I Wolf.iButler, Twila
Raytord 'Nevells
I 12/4/2011 I
$125.00i , $250.00 $125.00 $375.00
Wdlf·Butler, iJ'wila
! Wolf-Butler, Twlla
, 3.00'
. Wolf-Butler, Twita
I 1217/20H
!Rayford Nevells
$:125.00
! Wolf-'Butler, Twita
12/~0/2011
$125.GOii
, Wolf-Butler, Twila 12/11/2011
, Twila A. WolfVs TrO'Bank Nol'lh Twita A. WolfVs. TO Bank North Twita A. WolfVs.
I Wolf-BUller.
1211212011
112/13/2011
IlD Bank North
1211512011
Twila A. Wolf Vs. "WBank North Twita A. Wolf ve. TO Bank North
$1.25.00 I
I Wolf, Butler, Twita
$500.00l
Client , Wolf-Btlller, Twila
Date 12f18/2011
Matter . Twila A. WolfVs. ' TD Bank North ' Twila A. Wolf Vs. TO Balik North I 'fwila A. Wolf Vs. , TO Bank North I Twila A, Wolf Vs. TO Bank North rWila A. Wolf v« TO Bank North I Twila A Wolf Vs. lD Bank North TwilaA Wolf Vs. liO Bank No,1th Twila A. Wolf Vs. TO Bank .North
,j Rayford Nevells
$125.00j
1211912011
2.00, ,
$250.0G
!wolf"Butler, Twila t2l2112011 'Rayford Nevells
$12500;
$50'0,001
: $250.001
1212212011
Wolf-Bulle~. Twila
1212412011
$~25_00:
Wolf-Butler, iJ"wila
12126/2011
z.eo]
$125,001 $~25.00
12127/2011
$37-5.00 , ,
Twila 12/28/2011 Rayford Nevells I Rayford Nevalls
~213112Q11
I Twlla A. Wolf Vs.
TD Bank North Twila A. Wolf v« TO Bank Nortt;) TwllaA, WelfVs. TO Bank Nortt;)
, 112f2012
$375,00,
11/312012 ,
, Rayford Nevells I Hayford Nevells
$250,00i I
I 113/2012
Twila A. WolfVs, TO Bank North Twita A. Wolf Vs. "f0 Bank North I TwilaA Wolf Vs. TD Bank. North Twila A. Wolf Vs. lU Bank North Twila A. Wolf v« TO 'Bank North Twila A. Wolf Vs. TO ,Bank North Twna A. Wolf Vs. 'TDBank North TwilaA. WolfVs. TO Bank North Twila A. Wolf Vs. TO Bank North Twila A Wolf Vs. TD Bank North
$250:001
Woif-Butler, Twila I [
: 115/2012
Wolf-Butler, iT"wila
,1/512012
I Wolf-Butler, Twila Wolf~Butler, Twila
Rayford Neveils
$1.25.00:
Wolf-Butle~, il"wila
2,00 , $125.00
$125.00! $593,75
Wolf-Sutler, Twila
1/1212012
$1.25,00
$281.25[
Rayfo.rd Nevells
S125.00i
Client Wolf-Butler, Twita
ilOate 1/15/2012
~Matter Twila A. Wolf Vs. TO Bank North Twila A. Wolf Vs. North
Wolf~Buller, Twila
$87'5.00
U19/20n
Twjla 1/19/20t2
Rayford 'Neve lIs
j Wolf:Butler,
i TwilA 'A. 'WdIfVs.
'r0 Bank North
2.00, I , 3.00
"$125.00'
Wotf:Butler, Twila
1 rn Bank North
Twlla A. Wolf Vs.
112212012 ,
Twila A Wolf Vs. lTD Bank North T'lliila A Wolf Vs. TO Bank North TwilaA Wolf Vs. TOIBank NoM , Twila A Wolf v« TO Bank North
"Rayford Nevells
5.001 4.00 ,
,Wolf-Buller,
Twita I
$281.25j
Wolf:Butler, Twila
i 1/25/2012
Welf-Buller, Twila
' Twila A. Wolf Vs. TO Bank North TwilaA WolfVs. ,TO Bank North i
1129l20~2
: 1/31/2012
;ro iBaTik North
Twila A. WolfVs.
$34.3.75
, 2.00'
I Wolf-But.ler, Twila
I Twila A Wolf Vs. . TO Bank. .North I Twila A. Wolf Vs. 1'0 Bank. North Twita A. Wolf Vs. TO Bank North TwilaA. WolfVs. TO Bank. North Twila A. Wolf Vs. TO Bank Nortb Twita A. Wolf Vs. 1:0 Bank North ' Twila A. Worf Vs. TO Barik North iJ'wilaA. Wolf Vs. TD Bank. North Twlla A Wolf Vs. TO Bank North I
IWolf"Butler,
iTwila
21212012
3.. 0 0 ,
WoH'-Bullec, Twila
2f4fZG12
Navells
i Wolf-ButleC, Twila ,
215f2012
Rayford 'Nevel!s
i 216/2012
I 1219/2012
IWOlf-Butler, Twila
Wolf·Butler, Twila 2/1112012
4.25 !
12/1212012
Rayford Nevells I Rayford Nevells
Twila A Wolf Vs. ,TO Bank North
2.42 'I
$302.08~
!Wolf·Butler,
Date Twila
Matter Twila A. Wolf v« TO Bank North Twila A. Wolf Vs. ' ';f"OBank North ! ' Twlla A. 'WoIfVs. if 0 Bank North TwiJaA. Wolf Vs. TO Bank North
2117/20j2
$37'5.001, $625.00i
$125.UO
2n91'2012
4.5Oj
$1250'001 1
$562.50'
Wolf,Butler, Twila
Rayford NeveiJs
'Wolf-Butler, Twila 12/2212012
WolfcButler, Twila 2123/2012 I Twila A. Wolf Vs. ,i TD Bank North ,TwilaA WolfVs. JO Bank North
, $37'5.00
$125.00! , ! $125,00:
! $343.75 , $1,000.001 , ,
,2126/2012
Twila A. Wolf v« TD Bank North Twila A. Wolf Vs. TO IBank North ifwila A. Wolf v« iTDBank North ifwilaA Wolf v« 11'0 lBank North <fwila A. WolfVs. 10Bank North Twila A. WolfVs. TO Sank. North ifwila A. Wolf Vs. lTD !Bank NortiJ Twila A. Wolf Vs. TD Bank North I 11wilaA. WolfVs.
$37:5.00
:2/29/2012
$125.DO'
Wolf"Butler, Twila
3/612012
I, $125.001
$375.00 , $250.00 1
\ Rayford Nevells
13nJ2012
Wolf-Butler, Tw'ila
Wolf-Butler, Twi1a
3/1112012
VVolf-Butler, Twila
3/1212012
TO BankNorth
Twila A. Wolf Vs. TO Bank North TwilaA. WolfVs. to Bank North
Wolf-.Butler, Twlla 3/1512012 Rayford .Nevells
ITw.ila A. Wolf
I : Rayford Nevells
2.00 $125.00 $250.00
3/1812012
'3/1912012
I TO Bank.North
Twila A. Wolf Vs.
' Rayford NeveUs I.
Wolf-Butler; Twila
Twila A. Wolf Vs. TO Bank :North Twila A. Wolf Vs. TO Bank North
$125.0°1 I
$250.00,1
,Client WGlf-BuUer, Twila
Matter Twila A. Wolf Vs. TD Barikhlorth TiNiJaA. Wolf Vs. TD Bank NOTtI1 ' Twila A. Wo"lfVs. 'l"D Bank Nor:th Twila A. WalfVs. TO Bank North TwiJa A. Wolf Vs . lfO 'Bank North ' lwila A. Wolf Vs. : 110 Bank North TwilaA WolfVs. . TD Bank North Twila A. Wolf Vs. TO Sank North il"wila A.. WolfVs. . ;rD1Bank North Twila A. Waif Vs. TO Bank North TwilaA WolfVs. J"O'Barik .North Twila A. Wolf Vs. North
'Staff Rayford Navelis
Hours,l 3.00;1 i
Rater $12MO
Total $375.00:1
Wo'lf-Butler, Twila 312412012 RayfGrd Nevells 3.50' $125;00: $437.50
'Wdlf-"Blltte'r, Twlta I . WOlf-Butler, Twila
3125'1201'2
.Rayford Ne:vells
"6.00
$125.:00'
S7BOOO~
. 3/26/20~2
Rayford Ne\!ells
$125.,00
312712012
3/2812012
RayfoTd NeveHs
Wolf-Buller" Twila 313112012 Hayford Nevells 4.50 $1.25.DOi $56250
I $593.75
; Wolf·Butler, Twila I
4/2/201'2
~Wolf-Butler., Twila
$12500:
; Rayford Nevells 5.75'
i Wolf-Butler, Twila
Rayford Navells 3.00 $125.00,
$7Hl.75
.418/2012
,ro Bank
$37.5.00 I
Wdlf-Butler, Twila.
Twlla A, Wolf v« TO Barik;North ,TwilaA. WolfVs. TO Bank North
Ra,yford Nevells
$500;00
Rayford Nevells 2;00. $l25.00 $250.00
\ Wolf-Butler, Twlla
. 4/1112012
4114/2012
Wolf-Butler, TWila 4/15/2012
'Twila A. WolfVs. : IDBanKNolih
Twila A. Wolf vs. TO :Bank North
$750.00:
,Wolf_Buller, Twila 1411612012
! 14/1712012
I Twila A. WolfV$.
TO Bank North TwilaA. WolfVs. TO Bank North Twila A. Wolf Vs. 110 Bank North Twila A. Wolf Vs. TO Bank North TwilaA WolfVs . TD Bank North
WojfcBuller; Twila 4117/201:2 'Rayford Nevells 2:75 $125.00 $343.75j I Wolf-Butler, Twila
, 4118/2012
Rayford Nevells 3.00
$125.,001
T , VlJolf-BlOlller, wila
. 4/21/2012
Rayford 'Neve'Us
$500 .. Q 0
Date 5119/2012
Matter Twila A Wolf Vs. TO Bank North Twila A Wolf Vs. TO Bank North Twila "Po. -WolfVs. TD Bank North Twila A. Wolf v« TO Bank North Twi\a A. Wolf Vs. TO Bank North Twila A. Wolf Vs. TO Bank North
Wolf-Butler, Tlliila
$500.0fl, I $625.00
15/20/2012
Wdlf-But!er, Twila
512112012 I
WolfcButier, Twi\a
5/2412012
$375.00/ $71,250.00.
~Wolf-Butler, Twila 5/2612012 Rayford Nevells
1578.92 2049Q.75
$209,837.08' $7,304,855.86
How would you feel if you worked for a state or local government for
20 or 30 years only to have your pension slashed dramatically or taken away entirely? Well, this exact scenario is playing out from coast to coast and in the years ahead millions of elderly Americans are going to roe affected by broken promises and vanishing pensions. In the old
. days, benefits decades. companies that they were promising things were much different. you You would when, you get hired netired in by a big a few company or a government institution and you knew that the retirement
have promised far more than they are able. to deliver, and "pension reform" has become one the nation. Many Americans that have been basing rhein financial are either gone or have are waking lip one day and finding that their pensions According to Northwestern University pension
of the hot button issues allover futures on their pensions estimate been cut back dramatically. governments
of the total amount of unfunded
Professor John Rauh the latest and healthcare obligations for state and local
America is continually somehow. becoming a poorer So where is that
across the United States is 4.4 trillion dollars
nation and all of that money is simply not going to magically materialize 4.4 trillion dollars going to come from? more. all over America or taxes will Deed to be raised dramatically.
Well, either pension benefits are going to have to be cut a lot Eifher way, we are aJlI going to feel
the pain of these broken promises.
There simply is not enough. money out there to keep all of the pension commitments made, Something has got to give. In the end, millions of elderly Americans poverty as pensions disappear. Some local governments around the nation are already declaring bankruptcy and are either eliminating than nave been win likely be plunged into
pensions or are cutting them very deeply,
Just check out what just happened
in Central Falls, Rhode
For years, city officials promised robust union contracts and pensions without raising revenue to pay for them. Last August. the mati? caught up with them. Central Falls was broke, its pension fund short
$46 million: If declared bankruptcy. "}'4y daughters greH} up here. went
school here. It's all gone, " said Mike Geofft€>y: a refired
firefighter. He said he could not make the payments on his house after his pension was cus by $1.1 flO€I. month.
For years and years most of our state and local politicians have been ignoring this problem. eventually a day comes when you simply cannot ignore it any longer. Check out what Pensacola Mayor Ashton Hayward said about the situation in his city recently ....
"When our annual pension liability is more than our yearly property tax revenues, we have to do something" Keep in mind that taxpayers don't get any new services for money spent on pensions. It is money that goes straight into the pockets of retired workers. State and local governments are desperately trying to pay retired workers what they are owed and fund ongoing government functions at the same time, but many have reached the breaking point. All over the country, state and local governments are going broke. The following is from a recent article by Duff McDonald ... Alabama's Jefferson County has actually gone bankrupt. Stockton, California is all but ready to do the same. And all you have to do is look to Detroit-or any of the nearby auto towns named after a Buick model of one sort or another-s-and you see fiscal crisis playing out right now. Look in your own backyard-s-or at the potholes on your neighborhood roads-and you will likely find the same. Things are so bad in StocktOll. California that they are actually skipping debt payments .... The city of 290, 000 that rode the wave of the housing boom in the late 1990s and early 2000s now finds itself littered with foreclosed homes, saddled with pension, health care and other obligations it can 't afford, and unable to pay its bills. The City Council voted last month to suspend $2 million in bond payments and begin negotiations with bond holders, creditors and unions. And did you notice what is being blamed for the financial problems in Stockton? Pension and healthcare benefits. Sadly, weare seeing pension nightmares erupt allover the nation right now.
For example, check out what is happening to the Public School Employees' Retirement System and State Employees' Retirement System in Pennsylvatria ... PSERS had an accrued unfunded liability of nearly $26.5 billion, the amount of money the fund is short to cover existing retirement benefits. That hole is expected to grow to $43 billion by 2019. SERS is $12.5 billion in the red, and that shortfall is expected to climb to nearly $18 billion by 2018. Unless the stock market makes giant sustained gains, taxpayers will have to refill those funds. That doesn't sound good at all. In California, the Orange County Employees Retirement System is estimated to have a 10 billion dollar unfunded pension liability. How in the world can a single county be facing a 10 billion dollar hole? This is madness. The state of Illinois is facing an unfunded pension liability of more than 77 billion dollars. Considering the fact that the state of Illinois is flat broke and on the verge of default, it is inevitable that a lot of those pension obligations will never be paid. In fact, there are going to be a whole lot of broken promises all over the country. Pension consultant Girard Miller told California's Little Hoover Commission that state and local government bodies in the state of California have $325 billion in combined unfunded pension liabilities. That comes to about $22,000 for every single working adult in the state of California, So where is all of that money going to come from? But at least most state and local government employees are still covered by pension plans, even if they are failing. In the private sector, pension plans are vanishing at lightning speed. According to the Boston College Center for Retirement Research, the percentage of workers America covered by a traditional pension plan fell from 62 percent:in 1983 to 17 percent in 2007. That isn't just a trend. That is a tidal wave. And many of the private pension plans that still exist are massively underfunded. Verizon's pension plan is underfunded by 3.4 billion dollars. So what should Americans do in light of all this? Well, the number one thing to realize is that the pension plan you have been counting on could disappear at any time. For example,
We live in an economic environment that is extremely unstabl~ and about the only thing you can count on in this environment is rapid and dramatic change. Do not plan your financial future around a pension plan. 1f you do, you are likely to be bitterly disappointed. Americans that plan to retire in the coming years should do their best to try to fund their own retirements. Unfortunately, most Americans are not putting away much of anything for retirement. As I have written about previously, one study found that American workers are $6.6 trillion short of what they need to retire comfortably. Ouch. Over the next 20 years approximately 10,000 Baby Boomers will be retiring every single day. A lot of them are going to be blind sided by empty pension funds and broken promises. We are facing a retirement crisis of unprecedented magnitude, and there is not much hope in sight. And if there is a major stock market crash, things are going to be much, much worse. Most pension funds and retirement plans are heavily invested in the stock market. If we were to see a major financial crisis like we saw back in 2008 it would be absolutely devastating. Millions of Americans could see their retirement plans wiped out in short order. Once again, please do not place your faith in the system. If you do, you are likely to end up holding a bag of broken promises. A gigantic tsunami of unfunded pension obligations is coming. A lot of state and local govenunents are going to go broke, A lot of promises are going to be broken. If you hope to retire any time soon, you better plan on being able to take care of yourself.
Madoff Repeat Odds Rise, With Neutered Watchdog; Susan Antilla - B...
http://www.bloornberg.com/newsip.rint!20
11-02-25/madoff-repeat-orll'k.
Madoff Repeat Odds Rise With Neutered Watchdog: Susan Antilla
,&~ ~u ?\.1~-H~2'..!L2f')lnl
Bloomberg Opinion I don't want to shock anyone, but I think there's a lot of cheating going on in Corporate America. I'm
talking about the Enrons and Lehmans or the Madoffs andStanfords.
I'm wondering what else is going on that's got the biggest guns in finance and commerce apoplectic about a new whistle- blower proposal. BUsinesses are fighting full-tilt to defang a plan that could make it easier te expose skeletons in the closet. That's not how people behave unless they're hiding something. In November, the Securities and Exchange Commission. published a :proposalthat would provide financial incentives to whistle-blowers who have information about large financial frauds. Along with bounties, the agency also proposed new protections for snitches, who often lose their jobs once they divulge what they know. In the months since then, dozens of companies, business groups and defense lawyers have barraged the SEC with objections. "This is the most intense corporate lobbying I've seen in 27 years," says .stgphen M. Kahn executive director at the National Whistleblowers CenteI: "They have to be afraid of something." Among the provisions of the Dodd-Frank financial overhaul bilI that became law last yea.r was a bounty program to reward whistle-blowers who had knowledge of substantial wrongdoing. If an informant tipped off the SEC on a case that wound up yielding $1 million or more in sanctions, the whistle-blower could receive as much as 30 percent of the penalties.
There axe lots of things critics don't like about the proposal, but one detail puts them over-the-top: letting whistle-blowers bypass a company's internal tip program and go straight to the SEC. Opponents offer manyreasons
why that's a bad: idea. There's some nonsenseabout
wanting to assist the
rz 8:50
Madoff Repeat Odds Rise With Neutered Watchdog: Susan Antilla - B...
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/print!2011-02-25/madoff:.repeat-odd-
SEC, given its limited resources. There are concerns about greedy plaintiffs' lawyers who will inundate the agency with frivolous claims that companies are best suited to weed out. Finally, there is the estimable corporate goal to learn about misconduct pronto so that management can clean things up. And if those greedy whistle-blowers seeking bounties are hiking off to the SEC with the dirt before the company can find out, how are virtuous corporate citizens ever going to be able to do the right thing?
That's only part ofthe story. Some opponents of the proposal told the SEC in a Dec. 7, 2010, letter that the agency should amend its definition of retaliation to exclude cases where a company's rules instructed workers to use in-house departments to report wrongdoing. Under that sort of scenario, the employee who spilled the beans to a regulator, but not to the company, could risk being fired for cause, and the company might avoid being liable for retaliation. Another idea that could pretty much shut things down for whistle-blowers: want to bar lawyers who represent whistle-blowers award. Good luck finding a lawyer who doesn't care about getting paid. For all the corporate talk about the admirable clean-ups that result when employees use internal compliance systems, real life can fall short. A former JPMorgan Chase & Co. broker sued the firm on Feb. 14, alleging she was fired after giving her bosses a report in which she suggested they "immediately exit the relationship" with a client she suspected of money laundering, according to the complaint. Jennifer Sharkey alleged that she submitted the report on July 30,2009, and was fired six days later. Some critics of the SEC proposal
from being entitled to a contingency fee based on any
JPMorgan spokesman Douglas Morris said that Sharkey's related claims had previously been dismissed by both the U.S. Department of Labor and the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York and that the bank has asked the court to dismiss Sharkey's recent complaint as well. Her claims are only allegations, but if it turns out to be true that she was the second-highest sure wiIllook funny. In the whistle-blower community, people like Kohn see signs that business "Will in. this fight. Last week the w SEC named Sean McKessy, corporate secretary for cigarette maker Altria Group Inc. and a former SEC enforcement lawyer, to run its new whistle-blower office. It was a disappointment message," Kohn says. to advocates who hoped that a more experienced watchdog would get the job. "Even if he's the right man, it's sending the wrong producer in her
department, but then was fired less than a week after suggesting the firm dump a lucrative client, the timing
WikiLeaks Option
2of3 5128/20128:50
MadoffRepeat
Odds Rise With Neutered Watchdog: Susan Antilla - B...
http://www.bloomberg.com!l1ewsJprintl2011-02-25Jmadoff-repeat-odd-
Should the SEC cave to demands that informants be forced to tell all to the company if they want to qualify for a bounty, it will only be a short-term fix for business. "The more pressure you put on the SEC to force people to report directly to the company, the more likely these people will go to places like WikiLeaks," said Lynn E. Turner, former chief accountant at the SEC. It makes for great sound bites to yap about greedy plaintiffs' lawyers and frivolous whistle-blowers, but in
the end, it turns out some employees witness bad things and want to see them fixed, not covered up. Susan Antilla is a Bloomberg News columnist. The opinions expressed are her own.) To contact the writer of this column: Susan Antilla in New York at santilla@bloomberg.net To contact the editor responsible for this column: James Greiff at jgreiff@bloomberg.net
®2012 BLOOMBERG
5/28/2012 8:50 AM
Wells Fargo, Goldman Sachs JP Morgan Chase, Citigroup, UBS Secun..
hXfp:l!www.stoekbrokerfraudblog.com/2009/03/wellsJargo_goldman_
Horne c- Bank of America Bank Financial Firms Fitch ~.jJPlI1llmJ;an<Dla;;;;.lIJl:j~. 4(i1~Smtu't!fES8.EJ:d.j'll'~
Broker Fraud Citigroop
Gredit Suisse Deut!>~He
- Chase Moody's
Morgan Sranlev c- 'i!il;;[[St2.r:gt;f;.E;"diimm I\)llmlllii's\~m!ll~I!ES,
~IllJiS
UiIlE~
~«~!!'IlTE!lI~
.mril ffilnl:h lilill;ti1qson=~m11J't'gJlIDifEnE.E!I=~criln
~~lsP.m'qfJ.;l(W;tlfr~1
POSTEO ON; MARCH S. hog BY S!EJ"l'fHD
3MrrHFDWjjRDS"
K1WFAS LIP '-I. P
ells F:ar;go, Goldman Sachs,
Securlties,
f.ill'igO
DT,9ilD
Chas:e. O!j~rol.fJl, UllS
iBan'k of .:America, MDOdV~s In\leStmeJtt':SeTVitieS." Sned On Behalf.of
Frtch Ratings are Among Defendants Violations
Cl:!ortmcatetrwestors for Mleged Securltles Fraud
(j lUke
The Boilermaker-Black.smith banks, credit rating agencies, Morgan 5tanlgy
{I;, {I;,
Pension Trust is suing a number including
of investm'ent
and underwriters,
wells F;argt!" WF'AS€,
(LISA) ill ~lCm!lnll Inr. ~ 5ernrtt1e5 Cmll .. De.ut:5L"l1e.l1a:nlcSer:uTitieS Int:. JPMl:JTgBn Chasl! Inc, B<lnk of America Corp, Citigroup GlDbil.1 M2rket5 Jm:::,McGraw-Hili (Io_s., Ln, CreDiT Sui55t! St!t:urttil5 Co Crum:trywide tha,t they made in the prospectus and reqistration statement for sertlflcates
Moody's tnvesror Services lnc., and Fitch Ratings Inc, over allegations false statements were collateralized of investors by Wells Fargo Bank, NA. The lawsuit, the certificates
filed on behalf of thoqsands Gorp",
from Wells Fargo Asset Securities
accuses the. defendants alleged actions. According
of vio Iati ng the. 1 933 Securiti es Act by engag ing in these
the defendants practices
from investprs
that Wetls Fargo revised its underwriting high risk subprime prospectus borrower's reg.istration and appraisal mortgage
in 2005 and became invplveQ il1 contends that WFiJ"SCand a were b<!_Gked a and
lendtnq. The complaint statements representing contend
n urn ber of defen dants su b m itted to th e 5ecuriti es and Exchange 'Com m lslon and registration creditworthiness. statements standards certificates that the mortgages guidelines by certificates that were subject to specific underwriting for evaluatIng
that these prospectuses with the credit,
were false because they neglected were not in accordance
to reveal that the Wells unGerwritin[<, had suppo_sedly used to
Fargo-originated
that Wells Fargo, per the companies,
approve mortgages. The lawsuit also claims that because Wells Fargo decided to enter the subprtfne
o.f9
5128120128:14
Wells Fargo, Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan Chase, Citigroup, UBS Secur...
http://www.stockbrokerfraudblog.com/2009/03/wells_fargo_goldman_
mortgage mortgage market in 2005, the investment bank had to take significant write-downs in 2008 because of its massive exposure to the subprime market and the WFASC certificates that these mortgages backed dropped significantly in value. The Boiler-Blaksrnith fund reports that it lost about $5 million, which is more than half of what it invested. Related Web Resources: Read tt:Je Complaint
Please contact our securities fralJd lawvers at Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas LTD LLPif you believe you were the victim of investment fraud.
Posted by Shepherd Posted In: Bank of America, Deutsche Bank,
Smith Edwards & Kantas lTD LlP Citigroup,
I I'e.rmalink I Email Th,'i>Post
Credit Suisse, Morg<ln Stanley
Broker Fraud, Firms,
Credit Ratings Agencies, Moody's,
.Ei!£!l..
I P Morgan - Chase,
5/28120123:48
'wMorgan Chase ro Pay $2 11M to Settle Charges It Rigged Munici pal ...
http://www.stockbrokerfraudblog.com/2@
I 1/07/jpmorgan _ chase jo _p ...
Home > Financial Se-..c£'
FirmsJ
P Morgan 1I1~
- Chase Municipal
Bonds >J.ffi'lItn:q>ilTCliesEIIr~ 'TI"dHflTgl.IfrrJl'i~IT:;m;
s;:rnl'll'lll
T.'ietlSill!ibl
f'{)SlEI:J'IDNcJULY
9: 20"
BY SI=EPI'Iffip
SMlTHFDWAJIDS
KANIA!> 1m n
~PMorgan Cbase to Pay .$ 211 M to Settle Charges It R:;i_Qgerl Municipal
ond T' ansaction Bidding Compennons
5hiire
1 "Tweet
1m' .
IJ L'ike
OTgan the
.JPMDrqan Chase Securities proceeds
Co.will
pay $211 mmior. to settle charges of bidding competitions bond transactions to win business
LLCDivision from municipal
rigged dozens
relnvestlnq
local and state and. Ex€haage
g.overnments. Commission, general, harm.
is for complaints had filed against $129.7
that the US Securities
Revenue Service, 2.5'
eHat-w.ere
and bank regulators
bank. JP.Morgi!n Irlas
also agreed to give back approximately
to the munidp>alities
is accused of making processes
at least 93 secret deals with cortrparnes
take care of the bidding
in 3 T states. The arrangement
ban k see co m petito rs' a ffe r.s. According derivatives impacted to regulators, between
1997 and 2005, members
of JI?Mor9i!I1'S municiJ:i'al
desk made misrepresentations the prices the govemments
deal's, which
ended up paying while JeliJpardi.zij1'g tli
to offer citles and states the oPl'!8,rtunity,to products. JPMorgan
competitive turning
rates when they invest their tax-exempt reinvestment bids Of! purpose
proQeeds f!'om municipal
bonds iin municipal
is accused of also sometimes
in nonwinning
to meet tax requirements.
While The New York Time reports denying admitted activity or admitting
that by aqreelnq to settle JPM:organ Chase is. not Yahoo reports that the financiaJ
to wrongdoing,
to the illegal conduct and agreed to cooperate on ex-employees'
with the Justice Depar:tment's
probe as long as it wasn't
prosecuted, JI'/Mongan, however, did ItJlame tlie iIIeg<\1 at a dsviston that is no longer in operattort. million to, the SEC, BS million to the 0ffiE7e of"t~ to a number
To settle, JPMorgan will pay $51.2 Comptroller lNe.w Yo.di.. of the Currency, stale attorneys
:550 million
to the IRS, and $75 million
g.eneral. It also reached a settlement
IIof9
5t28'12012 7:52 AM
JPMorgan Chase to Pay $211 M to Settle Charges It Rigged Municipal. ..
http://www.stockbrokerfraudblog.com/2011l07/jpmorgan_
chase_to _p ...
Case for $21 1 Milllon, NY Times, July 7, 2011
JPMorqan Settles Bond 'Bid-'Riggln9
IPMorgan pays .$ 211M to settle bid-ri 09 Ing charges,
Yah 00, July 7, 201 1
More Blog Posts: !P Morgan Chase Agrees to Pay 1861 M to lehmanlBrothers Fraud Blog,June
Citigroup Ordered 28, 2011
\by FINRA to !Pay l54.1 M to Two
lnvesll:m:s G:ve;r iNhuliIl.Qi;pallbrl
f;urnd !Losses, Stockbroker
UBS financial Securities 16,2011 Contact our stockbroker Reames
Fraud Blog, April 1 3, 201 1
$160M Sett~emeJn with the SEC and Justice Department and Other Charges Related to Municipal
Fraud. Antitrust,
Bond Maritet,
law firm today.
Posted by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas LTD LLP I Permalink Posted In: Financial Firms, I P Morgan - Chase,
Munlcipal.Bonds
5/28/20127:52
MOl'gan Chase To Pay $I'SOM' to Settle Securities Lawsuit Over Le .. ,
http://www.stockbrokerfraudblog.com.l20
12/03/jp _,morgan _ chase
_to _ ...
">- ERISA Lawsuits
- Chase Securities
'la: 11-
• ~",S3mrr.
ES~II.~i!"l.6i1~~~aifamGl·~Qrnii1mm;;
~OSTEDJO~U'."'RCfi'26,
2012 BY' SHEPFiCBO 5Mrl'H R'IWAIUll'i
&N1.NTASITP
Settle5erurities lawsuit Over Lending Program tosses of Union Pension Funds
Morgan Ohase ']:0 Pay S1J 50M to
5rnu-e
"Tweet'
II L:ike
To settle a se.curities Investment Committee and the Imperial pay $1 SO million. that they sustained to approve
laW5lJitfiledi
by the AFTRA Retirement and Bronx Surface Transit System, jPMorgan the financial
Fund, the. OperatingSyS'tem, Chase & Co. will firm fer losses court wil.1 have:
of the Manhattan Employees'
The union pension through
funds- are blaming
program ..A dlstrlot
the settlement. their money in Sigma Finance Corp. that has since failed, However, was extended to Sigma in the process, triolating the Employee Retlrernent lnoome
JPMorgan had invested is a financial repurchase instrument financing
medlurn
term notes, wfilch of
bllllcns of dollars
The securities The plaintiffs a poor one.
claims accused contend
rPMorgilTIof
Security Act' and its srate-tmpcsedfiduclarv that financial
when it investe,a in Sigma. that the inv,estmentwa:s'
Per the union pension supposed conservative.
with JPMorgan,
the lnvestrnenr
bank I'S 001Y: and
to put their money in investment
vehi'CIes that are low-risk
They believe til at the Sigma vehicle did not meet tl"f(it stand_ald, class action alleges thatJPMorgan repo arrangements assets in its portfolio, it gave. Federation of Televis.ion and RadioArtis-ts' foresaw Sigma's nmpentiji!1g in ordes
The consolidated failure,
took part in predatory
with< significant and reduced
to pick the best of Sigma's dollars
the qvality; and that was nearlv a bltllon
quantttv of these assets by takilag title to assets in an amount
more than the financing
The Board of Trustees (AFTRA) Rel:iremel'lt
Fund, which initially brouqht the class action case, ·ct'Jnte.nde'd thal JPMorgan made close to $2 billion proflt, even as the notes were left with almost' no value, Last year, a year after the court certified the class action case, a judge gave
partial summary judgment to the financial firm. brought up a number
Th.e plamtiffs believe that the securities and legal
of key factual
matters under
~ew York cornrrron law and ERISA and! trl1atthi's made- HT~ case
~of9
5t28120 12 7:54 A,,\i1
JP Morgan Chase To Pay $150M to Settle Securities Lawsuit Over Le ...
http://www.stockbrokerfraudblog.coml20
is, a were to be. set
12/03/jp _ morganchase
Iltlqate. of
They say the $15'0 million - 1 00% of the potential results,
representation up for a certain
losses if liability represents
breach date. Therefore, damage
seeing as a trial could have led to figure
range of potential range of recovery
JPMorgan Agrees to 'Pay $15'OM To Settle Sacui'itie:s Lentillf.lq lawsuit:, Bomberg, 20,2012
~PMo rgan to pay $1 S{l miJ lion oller failed Sjgma SIV, Reuters, 'M arch 20, 201 2
!PMorgan Chase w Pav .$211 M to Settle Charges It Rigged Munjdpa) Bond TransatticR Biddin 9 Competitions, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, July 9, 201 1
IP Morgan Ch ase Aq fees to Pay :$861 M 'to Lehman tBrot-rners "1"trILiIstree, Stockb ro ker Fraud Blog, June 28, 2011 Investors Want jp Morgan Chase & Co. To Explain Over .$95B ofMonqaqe-Bad<ed Securities
S.ecurities, Institutional
810g, December
Our secLiriti.e.s fraud l.awyers represent made certain errors that breached Contact Shepherd
clai ms of los ses sus tai ned becau se fi n anci al fi rm sen gag ed in broker rn lscond uct 0 r their duty and other responsibi lities to their (Clients. Smith Edwards and Kantas, LID. UP today.
Posted by Shepherd Posted In: ERISA lawsuits, Smith Edwards &, Kantas LTD LLP I permalink Financial
Email This post Fraud
Firms ,I P Morgan - Chase,. Securities
5128/20127:54
JW Morgan Chase Agrees to Pay'$86I.M'to
Trustee .: ...
http://www.stockbrokerrr.audblog.com/20
II/06/jp _ morgal1_ chase _agr ...
Home '> Financial
- Chase >.!P
a... ~~M
IJJ:: 15J\m;m1
P0S]EIll ON, JUNE 28, 2011 BY StEP!j!ERp
SMlfH Fn\IWjRtl$A
K~NfMnn
l! P
JP Morgan Chase Agrees to Pay $861 M to Lehman Bl'IMbers
1 »Tweet
IJ Like e
in cash-that's $861
IP Morgan CbilsE & Th.a,hd the,
trustee of Lehman Brothers and $7S5 million of the now defunct proceedings. Lehman Brothers Holdings
Per the agreement,. JP Morgan will pay·$1 million. Holding. The settlement
This will go to tHe customers Comes after a two-year Proteo~ion Ac~ Ilquidation
Leh man Brothers
probe by trustee James Giddens
in the Securi!l:ies Investor
is Lehman Brothers billion
Inc.'s parent G9mpany, bank. Some 125,000 of which ,about $13·([1 l:ehman
fi1e;tI
customers billion Holdings,
In 2008. JP Morgan The claims Holdings
served as its clearing about j; l80
have filed claims worth Lehman Brothers
that are left include are still involved of the trustee's
and' a number
of hetll!Je funds. JP Morgan
and Lehman Brothers Per court papers, securities brothers. consented
in two multibilli(!)n--doflarJawsuits. claims against JP Morgan following
that the bank held but failed to liquidate to turning over the majority
of Lehman
While JP Morgan did not agree witn all of the trustee's findings, of the funds to resolve the dispute.
file for bankruptcy more orderly
and that even if it still had to shut down, it could have done so in a
fashion. I.P. Morgan-Lehman
ludge Clear.5 $861 ""'lillian
Wall Street Journ,al,)une
23,2011 IF Morgan to Pay lehman BroXHalIe 5&£1 'Mlllinn in .BiJ.nknmtr.vCnurbB.UII!1Jlf!ffi
FNN. June. 23, 2011 Securities Investor Protection Act, US, Cou rts
5f.28B20 12 7:56 AM
Mati on for Class Certification
i:n Lawsuit Against 1.P Morgan Securiti...
http;llwww.stockbrokerfi·audblog.comJ201
0/07 Imotiol1~for_class
_ certi, ..
Bear Stearn, Financial Firms) P Morgan - Chase > ~tmrGt;:sSG3:Cffwm= ~jU-=~'Sllam~im~~Po.lW"'t:ro'Li P
itt Ca.SlIit:
~j.;i.~~=:.~r·
POSTED ON:,JI:lLY 2~. 2010 BY SHEPHERD S!l!!rIH;a)IIIIABPS,I\'KA!fi!!S
onon for Class CertificatioJl
Against]_P_
Securtties Inc. Over AUeged Mar>ket y Court
A district involving court has granted in part the motion J.P. MornanClearing an alleged investment fraUD lilWsllltagainst
Scam Granted
IjlJike
for class certrftsanon in, the ~rmes
Corp. and J.P. Morgan Securities Inc.
scam with Sterling Foster
involves the manipulation
of the the market for ML Direct
& Co. TheaJlege0 scheme tnc, securities du.(fng and
after an IPO. The JPM entities
are named in their capacity as Bear Ste.af'Il5<& Co. I,oe.
and Bear Stearns Securities Corp. successors. The court says that one day after the IPO's start, ML Direct stoek's price mote, than doubled because Sterling Foster had bought million IPO were for sale, the court says that Sterling lock-up agreement most of it. The firm then smf(l over 3.37 ML Direct at about $14 to $15 a share. Because only 1.1 million shares Foster sold 2.3 million
rnoresshares than
it owned. The other available ML Direct shares were held by insf,ders, who had a barring them from selling their shares within underwriter tHe first year of the IPO unless they obtained Patterson Travis Inc. '5 consent,
Sterling Foster and the insiders allegedly became involved in all. undlselosed agreement that allowed the brokerage firm to buy the insiders' stocR at tlie which were
$3,25 Ish are offering. $24 million profit.
The plaintiffs thinking
Sterli ng Foster then bouqht their securities,
delivered to Bear Stearns. The court says that as a result, the brokerag'e flrrn made.a
are saying that the offering
misled the investing
plIlbfiG lnto, the
less ML Direct shares were being offered ancfthat
market had set the $13 to $lSjshare claim that Bear Stearns, as Sterling investment The plaintiffs scam.
price when Sterling Foster Iilad artitlcia·lly Foster's clearing house, knowing y took par,t in t\he
created it and then bought shares from insiders at the lower share price. The; plair;ltiff'
moved to certify a class so they could pursue thein Section 1O(b) -and as to the Sec.tion lO(b) antifraudl person fial)ilit'jl
Section 20(<1) claims. The court granted the motion
claims but denied the latter. which involves claims for control
5f2812012 7;56 AM
Motion for Class Certification in Lawsuit Against J.P. Morgan Securiti.;
http://www.stockbrokerfraudblog.coml201O(07/motion_for_
class _ certi...
Related Web Resource: Levitt v. iP Morgan Serurities Inc, Law.corn individual and institutional investors
Our stockbroker
fraud law firm represents
Posted by Shepherd Smith Edwards
& Kanlas LTD LLP IPermalink
I Email This Post
Posted In: Bear Stearns,
I P Morgan - Chase
5/2812012 7:56 AM
Lehman Brothers Lawsuit Claims Its Bankruptcy Was in Part Due to ...
htip:l/www.stockbrokerfTaudbLog.comJ201'OI061Iehman_brotltcr'S_laws
P Morgan ~J
- Chase Lehman
Fraud "> 1!J:j11=~ ~
~i::0I3lrns
1!;s~
e>ettflil.lED:!>IP~~"s~~I!lf.s:&J!iim(IT~ib
POSTEOON;JUNE'14, 20fO BY SIiEPHiEBDSMfTHEDWABDS.& IW!lTA1HIDLrp
,Law5urt Claims
113BankruptcyWasln
m::gaTl Qh:a5e'.s S-ei2UTe of .5:8.0
mTl'iuflln Cash
iRes-eTW5
The estate of L'2hman Brothers position reserve as collateral. its operations Holdings IS claiming fraud lawsuit,
.-Tweet
Ie!"'
in 'cash
9I\mq,an c:.h;ls.l!al:iused its that if it hadn't in
as a clearing firm when it forced Lehman to give up $8.6 bllijon In its securities Lehmancontends
had to' give up the money, it could have stayed afloat, or, at the very least; shut down in an orderly manner. Instead, Lehman filed for bankruptcy September 2008. JP Morgan was the intermediary Lehman's investment between !Lehman and its tradil'lg partners. W,er
fraud! lawsuit, JP Morgan used its insider
informatlo!i
oJjtail) 1'lie
billions of dollars from Leh man throug~
a number of "one sided agreements."
the cash because clearing services were the "I ifeblood" JP Morgan's Lehman's facility. Lehman says that the $8.6 billion needed to protectJP unable to explore extra cash so thatthe bankruptcy other options in collateral responsibitltle
of its "tiroker-dealer. providing
business." and
s, in relation to Lehman, included bank for deposit
secured lntra-d ay credit advances for the broker-dealer's primary depositary administrative agent and lead arranger
clearing ac~ivities, aG~ingas" revolvingc(edlt
accounts, and servi[lg in the rel.e.of
off LIilHl's. $2 billion unsecured
was billions
more than what was.
Morgan from such losses. As a result, Lehman claims that it was besides bankruptcy. prcceedinqs. It is -seeking the return of the are stlll awaiting Not only was lehman'S but It also he:ipe<1fnstigate I money can be used to pay creditors-that filing in US history,
payment in the wake of its bankruptcy case the largest bankruptcy the worst economic
crisis since the Great Depression. Joseph Evangelisti has told BNA that the securities has saia that .letiman's
Meantime, JP Morgan spokesperson fraud complaint
has no merit. A court-appointed
Lof'il
5A28P2012 7:58 AJM
Brothers Lawsuit Claims
http://www.stockbrokerfraudblog.comf20
Lehman CEO Richard
1O/06/1ehmaIl_brothers _Jaws ...
collapse. can be blamed on accounting Fuld has said that he has no knowledge You can still seek financial securities recovery
of such irregularities
for Lehman structured
Jaw firm to discuss your case.
Related Web Resources: Lehman Brothers Lehman !'.State
Chase, Washington
Post, May 28,2010
Brothers Sues IPMorgan Chase & Co. (NYSE: JPM), Daily Trend, June 12, 2010 "Ba)k, Bl.oomberg.com,
Letlman Files B'lqqes1 San'Kr~ptcy Alter Suitors
Posted by Shep herd Smith Edwards & Kantas LTD LLP
Permal i nk
TheiS Pose!
P Morgan - Chase , Lehman Brothers,
Se,curities Fraud
5/28/20123:59
J.P.Morgan Securities Ltd. Ordered by UK's Financial. Services Autbor...
i:tttp:llwww.stockbrokerfraudblog.com/201
OI06/jpmorgal1_secw·ities_I.
Home > Financial Firms] ~
P Morgan - Chase >lU?.Nc~Si:E!:ui:1ii51!ki!!
~ l:i:0lI0j!DP.!at~ H3.A'lWliTiliIItBEIDf,
emi'l~!Q!:fes
II :frflNfA$ UQ IP
PO S:r,ED ON, J UN E s, 2,010 BY SJilEPt!ERO -sMITHfrfflrffl!lll
organ Seourttles Ltd. Ordered by UK's Fmanctal Servloes
Authority to Pay 148_7 1Mfor Breaching ellent
Upon issuing irs largest fine ever, the United j.P.Morgan Securities
I) Ulce
'»Tweet
Kil7lgdom's Financial
Services Authority for breaching properly Client
says it is ordering cments' funds. belonged
Ltd, to pay $48.7 million November
Money Rules that are there to make sure that financial FSA claims that between billions failed to segregate of dollars-between
1, 2002 and July 8, 2009, JP;MSL
$1.96 bill ion and $23 billior.l-that
overn ight. have placed clients at "signift£.ant risk" if theprocess, dYe client mOI'l,ey"
FSA says that JPMSL's error would cJients would
trwestrnent bank were to ever become, insolvent.
During the insolvenay creditors.
not have been able to clalrn from a "pool of protected
because they would have been "classed as general unsecured
FSA says that when determining wasn't intentional mistake were factored Related Web Resources: FSA levies larg~ ever fine of £3332m .on L'P_MorganSecuritll!5 jMPSL's penalty, sustained
the facts thatJMPSl'smis(JonduGt any financial losses because of the
and that no clients into account.
lld:mr
client mOIWi
breache:;; FSA.Gov_UK, June 3, 2010 F S.A. Cl;amns Down on Client Money RJ.rlg New York Times, June 8, ?OJ 0 Please contact our securities fraud Ja\vyer::sregarcling any flnanctat money back.
susratned
LID llPhas
because oi b.okeT rntstonnurrer helped thousand" of investors
genheir
Shephenl
losses you SmlthlidWillC.d!;"&iK:ami15
I' of9
512812012 7:58 AM
BANSC-RE-2010-187 TD Bank v Twila A Wolf 3 of 4 Defendants Case 05 29 2012 Compressed With ExhibitsUploaded by Charlton Butler21 viewsDownloadEmbedDescription: Just show they what they missed and what it means and why they cannot correct it ever.See MoreJust show they what they missed and what it means and why they cannot correct it ever.Copyright: Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)Download as PDF, TXT or read online from ScribdFlag for inappropriate content
Documents similar to BANSC-RE-2010-187 TD Bank v Twila A Wolf 3 of 4 Defendants Case 05 29 2012 Compressed With ExhibitsBANSC-RE-2010-187 TD Bank v Twila A Wolf 4 of 4 Defendants Case 05 29 2012 Compressed With ExhibitsBANSC-RE-2010-187 TD Bank v Twila A Wolf 2 of 4 Defendants Case 05 29 2012 Compressed With ExhibitsBANSC-RE-2010-187 TD Bank v Twila A Wolf 1 of 4 Defendants Case 05 29 2012 Compressed With ExhibitsRE BANSC-2012-187 TD Bank N.A. v, Twila A. Wolf Case With Exhibits 09-18 and 22 2012 SubmissionsRE-BANSC-2010-187 TD Bank N.A. v. Twila A. Wolf Case W/All Exhibits A-K as Filed 10-05-2012FL Appeal - ReplyBrief 1 - Can Servicer Foreclose ? Motion to Show Authority TemplateAdverse Possession 3 Am Jur 2dMore from Charlton ButlerDarkSideWheat.greenMedInfo.store111_ahcaa111_ahcaaGrannysList-Jan2011Maine Bond Issue Report from EMMA from CUSIP identifier EP632465-EP494884Motion to Show Authority to Represent Template Federal Reserve Bank of DallasRE-BANSC-2010-187 TD Bank N.A. v Twila A. Wolf Defendants Response to Idiot Number 3 05 26 2012Defendants Response 05 26 2012Appearance of J G Talbot and His Objections and MotionsPlaintiffs Flailing About Throwing Hail MaryRE-BANSC-2010-187 TD BANK N.A. V TWILA A. WOLF Defendants Exhibits 05262012BANSC-RE-2010-187 TD Bank N.A. v Twila A. Wolf Case As Filed 05 08 2012BANSC-RE-2010-187-Defendants Proposed Order n CertBANSC-RE-2010-187-Exhibits For Defendants Objection to Motion to Lifting of Stay and Final Summary JudgmentBANSC-RE-2010-187-Exhibits For Defendants Motion to Disqaulify Opposing CounselBANSC-RE-2010-187-Exhibits For Defendants Motion to Compel 0001BANSC-RE-2010-187-With Exhibits Defendants Seperate Statement 0001BANSC-RE-2010-187-Defendants Obj Ps Witnesses Affidavits 0001BANSC-RE-2010-187-Defendants Objection of Plaintiffs Motion to Lift Stay and Motion for Summary JudgmentBANSC-RE-2010-187-Defendants Mtion to Disqaulify0001Defendants Motion to Compel Supervised Discovery No Exhibits 0001Defendant Twila a. Butlers Affidavit 0001