U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Jennifer Henderson convened an emergency hearing May 4 to consider granting a temporary restraining order against the sale, but in the end allowed the sale to go forward. The credit union found buyers for both of the parcels offered for sale, but neither the auction firm nor the credit union revealed the names of the buyers, the prices or the conditions of the sale. It is also not clear whether the sale will be valid, given the pending outcome of the forgery challenge.

To support Butler's claim, Howard and Long filed a sworn affidavit from Stephen Drexler of the Drexler Documents Laboratory in Birminghamthat supported Butler's claim the signature on the $13 million loan agreement was not his. Drexler also appeared at the hearing and answered questions from Henderson but did not give sworn testimony.

Legal sources who spoke on background to CU Times said Alabama law provides that mortgages and deeds containing forged signatures are void as a matter of law. Therefore, if a prospective buyer purchases property for which the seller claims to hold good title, but with the knowledge that the seller's claim of legal title may be based upon forged signatures, such a purchase may be challenged and potentially set aside.

In a May 5 email, Alabama One attorney Paul Toppins disregarded Butler's claims and argued he had previously denied the credit union had harmed him or tried to harm him.

"Danny Butler freely signed every document he now challenges: Every deed, mortgage and agreement," Toppins wrote. "Not only did he sign the document he now challenges, but he signed numerous other documents acknowledging the earlier mortgage and agreement. To try and take the position now that he did not sign them is as ridiculous as it is offensive for someone serving a prison sentence for fraud. The allegations his bankruptcy estate made yesterday are a recent concoction that he has never even hinted at before, including in his earlier sworn testimony in this case."

Alabama One also provided part of a transcript of a previous bankruptcy proceeding from Jan. 7, 2015, in which Butler said under oath that to the best of his knowledge no one at Alabama One had harmed him. The cooperative built upon this statement in its May 8 petition.

Read more: Butler contends that Alabama executives must share the blame …

Alabama One acknowledged there had been an issue with Butler not being present at the Jan. 7 proceeding, which had to be conducted with Butler (pictured at left) from prison via telephone. The cooperative objected on the grounds that Butler would not be able to see documents presented as part of the proceeding and that they would not be able to observe his demeanor while answering questions.

At the time, the credit union argued, the attorney for the U.S. Bankruptcy Administrator, Joseph Bulgarella, responded that the court could leave the hearing open to address any later concerns, which the court did.

Alabama One also noted that Butler had repeatedly responded, "No, not to the best of my knowledge," when asked whether the credit union, anyone at the credit union or any of a set of named executives at the credit union had ever harmed him, defrauded him or interfered with his business.

"Debtor makes several representations which are inconsistent with those made under oath at the § 341 Meeting of Creditors – namely that 16 mortgages or modifications to mortgage, including the mortgage securing the Pecan Orchard include forged signatures of the debtor, and that he did not sign these, and other agreements between lender and debtor," Alabama One wrote in its petition.

"[D]espite having previously represented at the § 341 Meeting of Creditors that he was unaware of any wrongdoing having been committed by AOCU, its agents or its employees," the cooperative added.

However, Howard countered that there was no inconsistency because at the time of the Jan. 7 proceeding, Butler had not yet reflected on the events leading up to his incarceration nor on what Alabama One executives and lawyers, all of whom he had considered his friends, had told him.

"Yes, at that time, to the best of Danny's knowledge, none of these people had hurt him or would hurt him, but then when he started to connect the dots he came to a very different conclusion," Howard explained.

To bolster her contention, Howard released a handwritten letter of Butler's that said Butler had come to understand the ways people had lied to him and about him in the months and years leading up to his indictment.

In the letter, postmarked April 1 and in Butler's simple print and rudimentary language, Butler contended that Alabama One and its executives, particularly Alabama One CEO John Dee Carruth, bore a large part of the responsibility for what had occurred.

"They are a lot going on out there that not the truth and the truth need to be told," Butler wrote. "To start all of it is if [it] was not for ALABAMA ONE [upper case and underline in original], I would not be in here today. They loan the money to me, so if they loan me too much its their fault not mine. John Dee no that they need to take some of this and quit putting it on me. They are a lot of stuff they have done…they should to accountable for a lot of this and I am not going to keep taking the blame for all this. I got a lot of things I can say and please no I am telling the truth…I just no they are not telling the truth about any of it and if I have to I will call the newspaper and tell them …"

"There are a lot of people at Alabama One who told Danny Butler things and promised him things and scared him with things to manipulate him into doing what they wanted him to do," Howard said, adding that because Butler trusted them, it never occurred to him to question their motives until he got to prison.

"That's what changed," she added.