Subbamma Vadde v. BofA (Bank of America Errors, Omitted Discovery and Unanswered Interrogatories &...

8/8/2019 Subbamma Vadde v. BofA (Bank of America Errors, Omitted Discovery and Unanswered Interrogatories & Admissions)

1/34

APPENDIXES

PETITION FOR REHEARINGON

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

(U.S. Supreme Court Docket# 10-112)

Subbamma V. VaddePetitioner/Appellant

Vs.

Bank of America (BofA)Defendant/Appellee


2/34

1a

APPENDIX AA

Copy of Motion for Discovery (Supplement) (R-231-238), filed by Petitioner, Subbamma Vadde, on9/1/06, for Discovery from Bank of America (BofA),which discovery BofA did not provide in 2006.

IN THE STATE COURT OF COBB COUNTY STATE OF GEORGIA

Bank of America (BofA) *(Plaintiff) * Civil Action File

v. * No: 2006A3473-3Subbamma V. Vadde *

(Defendant) *

Comes now, the defendant, Subbamma V. Vadde, inthe above styled case pursuant to O.C.G.A 9-11-8and O.C.G.A 9-11-5, and respectfully moves thiscourt to order the plaintiff to produce to thedefendant for defense, counterclaim, record keeping,

copying, photographic examination, testing oranalysis, all of the following material yet notdisclosed through discovery, that is requiredpursuant to O.C.G.A 9-11-26, O.C.G.A 9-11-29.1,O.C.G.A 9-11-34, and the Freedom of Information

Act of the United States (FOIA), including thefollowing, within 30 (thirty) days of service of thisrequest:

1) Any and all books, papers, documents,photographs, tangible objects, audio and visual tapesor films, recordings, graphs, charts, phone records,and any other items as described or contemplated inO.C.G.A 9-11-34(a)(1), including data or


3/34

2a

information stored on the plaintiffs computer, that

has not yet been revealed by plaintiff, that isrelevant to this case and its discovery.2) Details and documents stating who or whichindividuals and by what authority returned thedefendants check deposited on June 12, 2004 withplaintiff bank, revealing to whom the check wasreturned at Bank of America. Please give the name,address, and institutional affiliation of each andevery individual that was responsible for the decisionto return defendants check unpaid. Please statewith specificity the name, address, institutionalaffiliation and the authority of one responsibleindividual that was the root cause of the return of the said check, from amongst any of the decisionmakers that were responsible for the return of defendants check deposited into her account

#3275278929 on June 12, 2004. If none, please stateso.3) Any and all documents that state the legalprinciples, statutes from U.S. and Georgia laws,regulations of the Uniform Commercial Code,

tangible metrics, and tangible proof that were usedto determine that the defendants check must bereturned, after its original acceptance by plaintiff on6/12/04 and payment on 6/14/04. If none, pleasestate so.4) Any and all documents that identify allpersons who have knowledge of any facts relating tothe subject matter of this case. Please provide asummary of matters within the personal knowledgeof each such person. If none, please state so.5) Any details and documents giving the name,identify and whereabouts of any informant,confidential participant, or undercover agent orsecret agent who gave any information that was


4/34

3a

misinterpreted and misused by bankers, or that

caused any speculation for any allegations ondefendants check deposited on 6/12/04 or led to anyinvestigation or research of defendants account;revealing whether said person was paid by orreceived any promise of other remuneration of anysort from Bank of America or the State of Georgia forsuch information. If none, please state so.6) Any details and documents furnishing a list of all disbursements and/or consideration and/or favorsor promises of any sort given to any one or allinformants, confidential participants, or undercoveror secret agents in this case. If none, please state so.7) Any details and documents giving a full andcomplete list of all disbursements of Bank of Americaor the State of Georgia or any agent or officer or bankemployee, in connection with the investigation orinquiry or action in this case. If none, please stateso.8) Any and all details and documents furnishingall information concerning any polygraph tests orexaminations conducted by plaintiff or the State of

Georgia or any of its agents in the investigation,inquiry or action in this case, including the namesand addresses of all such persons subject to suchtests, revealing a list of all questions asked andanswers given, dates and times of the tests, andresults thereof. If none, please state so.9) Any and all details and documents furnishinga full and complete list of all persons who wereinvestigated, revealing a list of all bank accountsthat were investigated, inquired or researched into,in any way as result of the allegations on thedefendants check deposited on June 12, 2004, or as aresult of plaintiffs action in this case, and furnish to


5/34

4a

defendant a copy of any report(s) related thereto. If

none, please state so.10) Any details and documents furnishing thenames of bankers or Bank of America agents, whosewhims, opinions, speculations, or conjectures, arebeing used in this action as the basis of the decisionfor the allegations on the authenticity of defendantscheck deposited into Bank of America depositaccount# 3275278929 on June 12, 2004. If none,please state so.

Further, defendant asserts that the defendant seeksthe aforementioned disclosures of information and/ormaterials as they are requested here, for they are notprotected from disclosure by the attorney/clientprivilege, work product privilege or any otherdoctrine of privilege, and that such disclosure isessential to ascertain the truth of the issues of factpertaining to the current action in this case. It isfurther stated that defendant has requested theabove information and materials pursuant toO.C.G.A 9-11-36 and O.C.G.A 9-11-26 to help

court resolve the issues of this case in an efficientand speedy manner, and that plaintiffs fulldisclosure and answers in full are essential,material, and relevant to the issue of eliminatinghearsay from unknown or unaccountable sources,which would prove that the plaintiff has no cause foraction that is justified and would prove defendantsdefenses or claims raised, and is calculated to lead tothe discovery of such admissible evidence and truththat would lead to a speedy resolution of this casewithout the unnecessary, onerous, and undulyburdensome process of a trial for defendant or for thecourt.


6/34

5a

Defendant further requests this court to bar any/all

hearsay information from unknown, unidentified,and intangible sources, from being used as evidence,or any foundation for decisions on the authenticity ortruth of allegations on the genuineness of defendants check deposited on June 12, 2004, inrelevance to this case. Defendant also requests thecourt to make inadmissible as evidence or proof, anyinformation in this case from plaintiff, the source of which is unknown, unidentified, or unrevealed, onthe basis that it is unreliable due to lack of accountability of any individual, as per theprovisions of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,Rules of Evidence, and Federal Rule 802.

Hence, the requested information, documents, andstatements, and all discoverable material isdemanded at the earliest opportunity, within 30(thirty) days of this request, pursuant to O.C.G.A 9-11-34. In the event that plaintiff does not providethe above requested evidence or statements declaringlack of evidence, to the defendant in a timely manner

as stated above, defendant moves that the courtprevent the plaintiff from introducing; any evidencenot disclosed, or any sources of information notdisclosed, or any witnesses not disclosed, or anymetrics of decision making on clearance of defendants check not disclosed, or any informationfrom sources not disclosed, as any evidence in thiscase, in the principles of equity to defendant.


7/34

6a

APPENDIX BB

Copy of Petitioner, Subbamma Vaddes, SecondInterrogatories to Plaintiff, BofA, (R-239-257), Dated9/1/06, that went unanswered in the past by BofA.




(Defendant) *

Defendant asserts that defendant seeks disclosure of information and/or materials as they are requestedhere, for they are not protected from disclosure bythe attorney/client privilege, work product privilegeor any other doctrine of privilege and such disclosureis essential to ascertain the truth of the issues of fact

pertaining to the above styled case. It is furtherstated that defendant is continuing relevant factualenquiry pursuant to O.C.G.A 9-11-33 and O.C.G.A 9-11-26 to help the court resolve the issues of thiscase in an efficient and speedy manner and thatplaintiffs answers in full are essential, material, andrelevant to the issue of eliminating hearsay, whichwould prove that plaintiff has no cause for actionthat is justified, and would prove defendantsdefenses raised, and is calculated to lead to thediscovery of such admissible evidence that wouldlead to a speedy resolution of this case without theunnecessary, onerous, and unduly burdensomeprocess of a trial for the defendant or for the court.


8/34

7a

1) Defendant wishes to establish the fact thatBofAs attorneys are representatives of hearsay anddo not know anything first-hand about the incidentsof the case, and are hence in no position to makeunqualified assertions or accusations or allegationson the authenticity of defendants check, as theyhave no such proof or authority to do so. However,since defendant had received multiple queries andcomments from multiple such people in the past, andhas had to address such issues, she wishes toascertain certain facts related to the above issuesrelated to this case, for her benefit as well as thebenefit of the court, to set the record straight. Withinthe above context, please identify who RuthanneWhitt Goodman is and state: In what way he/she isrelated to plaintiff and the incidents in this case?2) In the context of the prelude to the previousitem#1, could plaintiff please identify who Craig R.Goodman is and in what way he/she is related toplaintiff and the incidents in this case?3) The court record in the pending lawsuit does

not clearly state all of plaintiffs retained attorneysor attorneys-in-fact and there seems to be a differentattorney claiming to represent BofA every other day!Could plaintiff please state for the purpose of thebenefit of defendant or others who exactly is/areplaintiffs current retained counsel(s) or attorney(s)-in-fact? Please state his/her/their full name(s), andaddress(es).4) Please state in detail, by whom or whichindividuals authority was defendants check,deposited on June 12, 2004, originally returned andto whom it was returned at Bank of America, and if there is anyone who is willing to be held responsiblefor plaintiffs mistaken actions in this case with


9/34

8a

respect to the said check. Please state with

specificity the name, address, institutionalaffiliation, and the scope of authority of suchindividuals pertaining to the clearance of defendantscheck in this case.5) Could plaintiff please state in detail the legalprinciples, any relevant statutes from U.S. andGeorgia laws, regulations of the Uniform CommercialCode, metrics and guidelines for constitutingtangible proof, that were used to determine that thedefendants check must be returned, after its originalpresentation to plaintiff on 6/12/04 and paymentand/or credit on 6/14/04?6) How does/would plaintiff know conclusivelythat defendants 35,000 check deposited on June12, 2004 was not legitimate, as per its allegations?7) What conclusive or tangible proof in any wayor form does plaintiffs attorney or plaintiff have thatdefendants authentic, genuine, legitimate, and validcheck for 35,000 (Euros), which was deposited intoBofAs deposit account # 3275278929, wascounterfeit, that is not really hearsay or conjecture?

8) Which individual or entity returneddefendants check unpaid to Bank of America?9) Bank of Americas record is still devoid of details and specifics on facts showing how thiscircumstance of return of check that was accepted aslegitimate on June 12, 2004, came into being, or wasat last, brought to the Banks attention, and bywhom? How, when, where, by whom, and for whatundeniable reasons, and with what undeniabletangible proof, was the check returned to plaintiff initially, after it was accepted and paid intodefendants account? Please answer theinterrogatory unevasively and completely.


10/34

9a

10) Since plaintiff Bank of America is an entity

and not a living being/individual, please state thename and address of the one accountable individualor head of the department from Bank of America thatcan take responsibility (and final authority) onmaking the decision to honor or dishonor defendantscheck deposited on June 12, 2004, within Bank of

Americas limited scope/sphere/authority of decisionmaking on the clearance of defendants said check,and would Bank of America as an entity take allliability incurred due to any wrongful acts of dishonor caused by this individual in this case?11) Why did plaintiff accept the check depositedinto defendants account on June 12, 2004?12) Pursuant to which law(s) or statute(s) didplaintiff accept defendants check deposited on June12, 2004?13) Why did plaintiff pay or credit defendantsaccount on June 14, 2004 for $(U.S) 40,705.00?14) Pursuant to which law(s) or statute(s) didplaintiff credit and pay defendants account on June14, 2004?

15) It is obvious and evident for the record of defendant and the court in this case, from thediscovery, that the plaintiff accepted defendantscheck on June 12, 2004 and paid and crediteddefendants account for the said check on June 14,2004. It is evident and obvious from the discoveryand Bank of Americas record that plaintiff had noallegations on the authenticity of defendants checkfrom the date of its acceptance on 6/12/04, throughpaying & crediting defendants account on 6/14/04,through defendants subsequent withdrawal of funds.How did the situation suddenly change on 7/8/04?Specifically, what tangible proof or evidence doesplaintiff have to justify its sudden cropping up of


11/34

10a

allegations on the authenticity of defendants check

on 7/8/04, when such allegations were nonexistentprior to 6/14/04 or 6/12/04, although the fact of thematter is that the physical and tangible materialobject, the original check from defendant, hasremained the same all through space and time inthis world, from 6/12/04 to date? Please answerunevasively.16) Plaintiff has failed to completely answerdefendants first request for admissions anddefendants first interrogatories. Plaintiffs answersin the past and denials appear knowingly evasiveand incomplete, and are also not qualified by facts,laws, statutes, proof or any valid reasons in supportof plaintiffs beliefs which are argumentative,speculative conjectures based on hearsay, and arevehemently objected to by defendant, as they are nothonestly forthcoming. That renders plaintiffsunjustified/incomplete answers or denials irrelevant,invalid and unacceptable to the court of law. Whyshould such plaintiffs reckless conduct not beconsidered as contempt of court, or not be

tantamount to arbitrary harassment of defendant/obstruction of justice?17) Has defendants check deposited on June 12,2004 into Bank of America deposit account #3275278929 been dishonored?18) If defendants check deposited on June 12,2004 into Bank of America deposit account#003275278929 has been dishonored, by whom andwhen was the check dishonored (if an individual isnot known, please name entity), and by virtue of what state or federal law or statute and with whatproof as basis was it dishonored?19) Did plaintiff give any legal notice of dishonorto defendant for the defendants check deposited on


12/34

11a

June 12, 2004? If so, please state when it did so and

present documentary proof, as there is no such proof in the discovery package that plaintiff has providedto defendant and to court.20) Why has plaintiff not returned defendantsoriginal check submitted to Bank of America on June12, 2004 when the law mandates it to be done, norpresented it to court as part of discovery, if it hasbeen returned or dishonored?21) Where and with whom is defendants originalcheck now & why was it not produced as part of thediscovery package, for defendants request forproduction of documents from plaintiff?22) If defendants original check deposited intoBank of America on 6/12/04 no longer exists or hasbeen destroyed or lost by Bank of America, would itbe unreasonable to say that plaintiff is responsiblefor destruction and/loss of tangible physical evidencefavorable to defendant which the judge or reviewer of fact could examine?23) Was defendants original check deposited withBank of America on June 12, 2004 presented to

drawer bank/Ulster Bank for payment? If not, whynot and why the arbitrary and whimsicalobstructionism based on pure hearsay?24) Which branch of Bank of America and in whatstate was defendants check deposited in, on June 12,2004. The answer clearly is Georgia.25) Was Crystal Frierson who lives in Missouripresent in the state of Georgia as a witness todefendants check being deposited or presented toBank of America on June 12, 2004? The answerclearly is No.26) Has Crystal Frierson who lives in Missourieven seen defendants original check (deposited with


13/34

12a

plaintiff in Georgia) even if he/she had seen it

elsewhere?27) How is Crystal Frierson competent to becomean authority on clearance of defendants check toeven be worthy of testifying in this case on matters of

justice, which essentially hinge on the crucial issuesof clearance of the relevant check in this case?28) Can Crystal Frierson testify on any issuesrelated to the matter of notice of dishonor todefendant pertaining to the defendants checkdeposited on June 12, 2004?29) Isnt Crystal Friersons information, as one of Bank of Americas custodians, who is outside theState of Georgia, second hand hearsay informationeven if it was from business records related to thismatter? If not, why not?30) How is Crystal Frierson a witness to any firsthand information pertaining to this case that is nothearsay?31) Since discovery is complete, isnt it correct forthe record of this case to reflect that Bank of Americahas no competent representative as a perceiving

witness on its behalf to testify in this case as awitness to first hand information other than secondhand hearsay? If not, explain.32) Since discovery is complete, isnt it correct forthe record of this case to reflect that Bank of Americahas no competent representative or witness on itsbehalf to testify with proof in support of itsallegations on the crucial issues of authenticity of thedefendants check deposited on June 12, 2004, or totestify on the issue of failure of plaintiff to give atimely notice of dishonor to defendant for the samecheck? If not, why not?33) Plaintiff had presented a copy of their genericdeposit agreement disclosures as Exhibit E, with


14/34

13a

their request for admissions. When (on what date)

was this copy of deposit agreement drafted by Bankof America? Specifically, was it drafted in 1998, 1999,2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, or 2006?34) On what date was the defendants Bank of

America checking account opened with plaintiff?35) Was the copy of the general deposit disclosurepresented as Exhibit E with plaintiffs request foradmissions drafted unilaterally by plaintiff before orafter

36) If the deposit services document presented asExhibit E with plaintiffs request for admissions wasdrafted by plaintiff bank

defendant opened an account with Bank of America?

after defendant had openedan account with them (as it was indeed done), howmuch and what input (if any at all) did any Bank of

America customer or the defendant have in thedrafting of the internal banking procedures of Bankof America for the new deposit services document?Isnt it true that this deposit agreement was draftedunilaterally by plaintiff with no input fromdefendant

37) When was the deposit agreement referred to ininterrogatory # 36 mailed to defendant if it weremailed at all, and can you present proof of mailing asno such proof exists in discovery? The truth is thatBofA never mailed any copy of such new agreementto Appellant before this case was initiated in 2004.

?

38) If the deposit services document presented asExhibit E with plaintiffs request for admission wasdrafted by plaintiff after defendant had opened anaccount with them, could you please furnish a copy of the actual deposit disclosure document that existedon the day defendant opened her account with Bankof America and also a copy of any current Bank of


15/34

14a

America deposit services agreement, pursuant to

O.C.G.A 9-11-34?39) It is a fact evident from discovery that plaintiff never mentions to defendant anywhere in thesignature card contents, presented as Exhibit A of plaintiff with their discovery, that plaintiff wouldamend the terms of the deposit agreementunilaterally,

40) Section 24 (page 21) of plaintiffs depositdisclosures (Exhibit E) presented with its discovery,clearly provides that the deposit agreement would beterminated with closure of defendants account. Isntit true then, since defendants account with Bank of

America was shut down on or around 8/4/06, thatdefendant is anyway not bound by the terms of Bankof Americas deposit agreement for the purpose of this case?

nor did defendant give any consent toplaintiff directly on the signature card paper, thatdefendant would abide by any such unilateral andinconsistent/nonsensical terms and conditions whichillegally call for waiver of notice of dishonor orprotest in violation of provisions of State and Federallaws and the Constitution of the United States. Isntit true then that Bank of America failed to fullydisclose the terms of its banking procedures todefendant before defendant opened her account withBank of America on January 19, 2001, and hasfraudulently attempted to implicate innocentdepositors in its unlawful and dictatorial acts(through misrepresentation) on their accounts? Theanswer is, Yes.

41) Section 24 (page 21) of plaintiffs depositdisclosures (Exhibit E) presented with theirdiscovery also clearly states that Bank of Americasdeposit agreement may be terminated by defendantat any time upon notice to the plaintiff. Defendant


16/34

15a

has already given notice to plaintiff asserting

termination of the deposit agreement totally &completely through her denials earlier for plaintiffsrequest for admissions, clearly stating (and reassertsagain in writing now) that she is not governed byplaintiffs deposit agreement.42) Please specify clearly, how long Bank of

America took to make a decision on the clearance of defendants check after its deposit on June 12, 2004?43) How long do laws of the state of Georgia andthe laws of commercial code permit a bank in theUnited States to make a decision on check clearanceand issue any notice of dishonor after the deposit of acheck?44) Does plaintiff bank have any specific timeframes it prescribes, adopts, or follows for themaximum time taken to clear any foreign item orinternational check? If so, please specify such timeframes in a definite and clear manner. If plaintiff does not have a definite time frame specified, howwould plaintiff classify Bank of Americas guidelinesand practices for check clearance as: non-existent,

lawless, vague/indefinite or open-ended or unknown,and why does the disparity exist between Bank of America practices and established State and Federallaws of the Uniform Commercial Code and theConstitution of the United States?45) Are there uniform guidelines for specific anddefinite time frames for check clearance for all banksin the United States and arent all banks in the U.S.required to follow these guidelines, and if not, whynot, and why are banks that do not conform solawless and what is the government doing to holdsuch banks accountable and make them lawful?46) Are there uniform guidelines for specific anddefinite time frames for check clearance for all banks


17/34

16a

in the world (especially for those in Europe) to

adhere to, in order to be compatible with U.S. banksprocedures for the sake of facilitating internationaltrade and commerce? If you answered in theaffirmative, please describe these guidelines. If youanswered in the negative, wouldnt you say that thelack of uniform U.S/international bankingprocedures makes the U.S. banking systemdysfunctional at times, particularly while dealingwith international checks? Please give reasons insupport of your answer completely.47) Was defendants account #3275278929 withplaintiff, Bank of America, ever FDIC (FederalDeposit Insurance Corporation) insured and duringwhat period (dates) was it FDIC insured; and if notinsured, could you please explain why not?48) Does Bank of America carry professionalliability insurance in general?49) Who is/are (names of entities) Bank of

Americas professional liability insurer(s)?50) During what period(s) in between the dates of 6/12/04 and the current date, can the defendants

check deposited on June 12, 2004 with Bank of America, be considered not to have yet been acceptedaccording to the provisions of UCC 3-409 and why?51) During what period(s) in between the dates of 6/12/04 and the current date, can the defendantscheck deposited on June 12, 2004 with Bank of

America, be considered to have been acceptedaccording to the provisions of UCC 3-409 and why?52) Isnt it true that plaintiff or its attorneys inthis case, cannot conclusively rule out the possibility,to date, that defendants check deposited on June 12,2004, is legitimate, and if not so, why not?53) Is it not true that plaintiff, Bank of America,did not indicate anywhere to the defendant at the


18/34

17a

time of deposit that the payment of $40,705 into

defendants account on June 14 th

54) Did plaintiff, Bank of America, ever indicate tothe defendant, anywhere, that the specific paymentof $40,705 into defendants account on June 14, 2004,as not being final, or/and as being uncollected, or/andas provisional and please explain where it indicatedso, if it did?

, 2004, was; notfinal, or/and uncollected, or/and provisional? If nottrue, please explain.

55) How can plaintiff conclusively rule out thatthere was a conspiracy by some obstructionistintermediaries in the plaintiffs check clearanceprocess, with a hidden agenda to hinder/obstruct thedefendants smooth functioning of finances, or/and toscrutinize defendants bank accounts with Bank of

America? Please explain logic behind answer.56) Is it not true that plaintiff or itsrepresentatives researched defendants bank accountwith plaintiff, with the pretext of allegations ondefendants deposit on June 12, 2004?57) Is it not true that a scrutiny of defendants

bank account(s) would not have been possible, but forexcuses of bogus allegations on the check depositedinto defendants account on June 12, 2004 (no matterhow baseless they have proven to be)? If not, pleaseexplain why not.58) Is it not true that no individual(s) from Bankof America has/have taken direct responsibility forthe allegations on the check? If not, please explainwhy not.59) Based on the current set of facts, now thatdiscovery is complete in this case, does plaintiff haveany objections to the relief sought by the defendantfrom plaintiff in her counterclaim against plaintiff,submitted with defendants amended answer to


19/34

18a

court; and if plaintiff has any objections to the

allegations in the said counterclaim or the relief sought by defendant therein, will plaintiff pleasestate in detail the laws and statutes of Georgia andthe United States, including any laws of the UniformCommercial Code (presenting all necessary proof asapplicable) to prove those objections tangibly, todefendants allegations against plaintiff in hercounterclaim, or to prove plaintiffs denial of plaintiffs indebtedness to defendant?60) Does plaintiff understand that, since plaintiff has no qualified objections to defendantscounterclaim in her amended answer withcounterclaim, and since defendant presentedqualified objections to all of plaintiffs argumentative,speculative, unqualified, and unsubstantiateddenials which are lacking in proof from plaintiff inany tangible way according to the outcome of discovery, and are without support of the laws andstatutes of Georgia and/or the United States (and arealso in flagrant conflict and violation of existing lawsand statutes of the State of Georgia or/and the

United States), the court in this case will overrule allplaintiffs invalid, inadequate and unsubstantiateddenials/objections, terminate plaintiffs action, andgrant relief to defendant on her counterclaimimmediately?


20/34

19a

APPENDIX CC

Copy of Petitioner, Subbamma Vaddes, SecondRequest for Admissions from Plaintiff (R-258-279),Dated 9/1/06, that went unanswered in the past byBofA, making Appellants assertions and contentionsagainst BofA in this case BofAs admissions bydefault.




(Defendant) *

Defendant wishes to establish the fact that BofAsattorneys are representatives of hearsay and do notknow anything first-hand about the incidents of the

case and are hence in no position to makeunqualified assertions or accusations or allegationson the authenticity of defendants check as they haveno such proof or authority to do so. Defendantasserts that defendant seeks disclosure of information and/or materials as they are requestedhere, for they are not protected from disclosure bythe attorney/client privilege, work product privilegeor any other doctrine of privilege and such disclosureis essential to ascertain the truth of the issues of factpertaining to the above styled case. It is furtherstated that defendant is continuing relevant factualenquiry pursuant to O.C.G.A 9-11-36 and O.C.G.A 9-11-26 to help the court resolve the issues of this


21/34

20a

case in an efficient and speedy manner, and that

plaintiffs answers in full are essential, material, andrelevant to the issue of eliminating hearsay, whichwould prove that plaintiff has no cause for actionthat is justified, and would prove defendantsdefenses raised, and is calculated to lead to thediscovery of such admissible evidence that wouldlead to a speedy resolution of this case, without theunnecessary, onerous, and unduly burdensomeprocess of a trial for the defendant or for the court.

Being well within the scope of delivery of discovery,plaintiff is requested to make the followingadmissions:1) That plaintiff, Bank of America, is subject tothe jurisdiction and venue of this court for thepurpose of this action, as plaintiff is incorporated inthe State of Georgia.2) That plaintiff, Bank of America, can be suedby defendant and/or makers or issuers of the check inthe international court of justice for any acts of wrongful dishonor of defendants check deposited on

June 12, 2004 with plaintiff, for plaintiffsinvolvement in an international check transaction,governed by international law also, and for anyviolation of international law with respect to thecheck transaction in this case that make the plaintiff liable, as/if and when needed.3) That the authority of the laws; of the State of Georgia, Federal laws of the United States, theUniform Commercial Code, and internationallaws/treaties supersede any of the inconsistent andmeaningless, nonsensical, dictatorial andunenforceable internal banking procedures of Bankof America, that are in violation and conflict of/withestablished laws of the State of Georgia, the United


22/34

21a

States, and the countries whose citizens are involved

in the check transactions (directly or indirectly)related to this case, and the United Nations.4) That defendant never formally sought anyrepayable loan for $42,200.96 through any formalloan application, nor obtained any such formal loanor line of credit for any defendants loan applicationfrom plaintiff, for any regular loan amount of $42,200.96.5) That defendant has no contractual obligationto pay plaintiff anything as defendant is not bound toany contract with defendants bank (Bank of

America) that creates any contractual obligation fordefendant.6) That defendants account closure with Bank of

America for A/C# 3275278929 in August orSeptember of 2004 (as disclosed in discovery)terminated plaintiffs deposit agreement withdefendant.7) That the responsibility of collection of funds,in general, for a check deposited by a customer in adepositary Bank, from a drawer bank, lies with the

bank of deposit, and not with the depositor of thecheck.8) That under common law, a contract must, byall parties be knowingly, voluntarily, andintentionally entered into, with full disclosure andmust abide by state, and/or federal laws, and/orinternational laws or the contract becomesunenforceable and invalid.9) That under common law/state law/federallaw/international law, a contract that is unilaterallycreated or modified without prior knowledge of allsignatories before creation or modification, and onethat exists only in part without full disclosure, isillegal, misrepresentative, and unenforceable.


23/34

22a

10) That Bank of America is a depositary bank for

the purpose of this case.11) That there is no contractual obligation fordefendant explicitly stated on the one page signaturecard of plaintiff presented as Exhibit A withplaintiffs discovery.12) That plaintiffs signature card mentioned in

#11 above deceitfully omits any mention of unilateralmodification of terms and conditions.13) That expenses incurred for reimbursement donot qualify to be called as benefit according to thelaws of economics.14) That no law or statute of Georgia or theUnited States is explicitly stated on the one pagesignature card of plaintiff, presented as Exhibit A with plaintiffs discovery.15) That the one page signature card mentioned in

#14 above was not full disclosure to defendant byplaintiff on January 19, 2001 (the day the account inBofA was opened).16) That the one page signature card mentioned in

#14 above was the only disclosure to defendant by

plaintiff on January 19, 2001 (the day the accountreferred to in it was opened), and not Exhibit E.17) That defendants Bank of America depositaccount with checking account#3275278929 wasFDIC insured when it was open and operational withplaintiff bank.18) That plaintiff Bank of America is insured andhas professional liability insurance, and that thisfact must be disclosed to this court of law as it is notconfidential information pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) of the United States, and asit is relevant to matters of equity and justice in thiscase, pursuant to the rules of discovery, as perO.C.G.A 9-11-26, O.C.G.A 9-11-29.1, and O.C.G.A


24/34

23a

9-11-34. Please note that the name of the

insurance company is not being asked here.19) That plaintiff received the Ulster Bank checkdeposited into defendants account on June 12, 2004,for acceptance from defendant, pursuant to UCC 3-409.20) That the defendant endorsed the check sheasserts is legitimate, into her account on June 12,2004, with her signature and suchsignature/endorsement of the defendant on the backof the check was legal according to UCC 3-201 andUCC 3-204.21) That the authenticity of endorsements on theback of defendants check deposited on June 12,2004, which defendant believes were made accordingto UCC 3-201 and UCC 3-204, are not an issue of debate in this case.22) That the plaintiff, Bank of America, is legallyliable and obligated to pay defendant as theendorser, for the amount of the check deposited onJune 12, 2004, by virtue of plaintiffs acceptance if plaintiff accepts the check, as per the provisions of

UCC 3-409, and/or UCC 3-413(a)(2), or/and UCC 3-201, and/or UCC 3-204.23) That the plaintiff did not have any allegationson the authenticity of the defendants check when itreceived the check upon presentment on June 12,2004, for subsequent acceptance.24) That plaintiff incurs a legal liability to paydefendant for wrongful dishonor of check for a legalconclusion that determines that defendants check isnot proven to be counterfeit.25) That if plaintiff had any allegations (howeverfalse and baseless or unproven) on the authenticity of the check, it would not incur any liability if it had notaccepted the check deposited into defendants


25/34

24a

account on June 12, 2004, or had it not paid it or

credited defendants account on June 14 th

26) That if plaintiff had any allegations (whethertrue or not), it should not have accepted the checkdeposited into defendants account on June 12, 2004,and should not have paid it or credited defendantsaccount on June 14

, 2004 forthe check.

th

27) That the Ulster Bank check for 35,000.00,deposited into defendants account on June 12, 2004was credited/paid into defendantsaccount#3275278929, on June 14, 2004 with anequivalent amount of $40,705.00 (U.S. Dollars).

, 2004, to avoid any liability.

28) That plaintiff, Bank of America, did notindicate the payment of $40,705.00 into defendantsaccount on June 14 th , 2004, as not final, and/oruncollected, or/and provisional

29) That the defendants check deposited on June12, 2004 has not been legally dishonored as per theprovisions of O.C.G.A 11-3-502, to date.

, prior to defendantswithdrawal of funds.

30) That the defendants check deposited on June

12, 2004 has not been dishonored without plaintiff incurring liability in compliance with the provisionsof at least one or more of the following laws of theUnited States Uniform Commercial Code and theGeorgia Commercial Code, that govern Bank of

America deposit accounts and banks activities of anydishonor of checks, imposing liabilities on banks forany wrongful dishonor of checks: UCC 4-401,and/or UCC 4-402, and/or UCC 4-301, and/orUCC 4-302, and/or O.C.G.A 11-4-301, and/orO.C.G.A 11-4-302, and/or O.C.G.A 11-4-402.31) That the defendants check deposited on June12, 2004 has not been dishonored without plaintiff incurring liability in compliance with the provisions


26/34

25a

of all of the following laws of the United States

Uniform Commercial Code and the GeorgiaCommercial Code, that govern Bank of AmericaDeposit accounts and banks activities of anydishonor of checks, imposing liabilities on banks forwrongful dishonor of checks: UCC 4-401, and UCC 4-402, and UCC 4-301, and UCC 4-302, andO.C.G.A 11-4-301, and O.C.G.A 11-4-302, andO.C.G.A 11-4-402.32) That dishonor of a check after acceptance by adepositary bank does not occur until presentment tomaker bank and dishonor by maker bank.33) That expressions, remarks, and statements of allegations that a check is counterfeit, forged, orfraudulent by themselves without any othersupporting tangible proof do not amount to proof of allegations and are inadmissible as evidence in acourt of law, since they are not tangible proof butpurely hearsay, that amount to nothing more thanspeculative opinions or conjectures, according toFederal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rules of Evidence,Federal Rule # 802.

34) That whims and opinions of unknown bankersor their intermediaries in the check clearing process(who could be mentally deranged for all we know) donot equate to tangible evidence that can be used asproof of plaintiffs allegations on the authenticity of defendants check in this case, for justice to manifest.35) That whims and opinions of unknown andunaccountable bankers or their intermediaries in thecheck clearing process are not conclusive proof, bydefault, of allegations, pertaining to truth onmaterial issues of the genuineness and authenticityof a check in any banking transaction.36) That, to date, plaintiff has no definitive,tangible, and conclusive proof to prove their


27/34

26a

allegations that check deposited into defendants

account on June 12, 2004 is counterfeit.37) That a legitimate check alleged to becounterfeit by a bank without proof does not makethe legitimate check counterfeit, in general, bydefault, as a matter of principle and justice, for anylegitimate check.38) That in the absence of any tangible proof,allegations that a check is counterfeit do not amountto anything more than presumptions or assumptionson any check in a court of law.39) That the plaintiff has not given any formalnotice of dishonor to defendant for the defendantscheck deposited on June 12, 2004, by June 14, 2004.40) That plaintiff failed to give any kind of writtenor oral notice of dishonor to defendant, by themidnight of either June 12, 2004 or June 14, 2004 forthe check deposited into her account # 3275278929with plaintiff bank, on June 12, 2004.41) That plaintiff did not give any notice of dishonor to defendant, before July 15, 2004, for thecheck deposited into her account # 3275278929 on

June 12, 2004.42) That plaintiff did not give any notice of dishonor to defendant, before July 12, 2004, for thecheck deposited into her account # 3275278929 withplaintiff bank, on June 12, 2004.43) That the plaintiff retained the Ulster Bankcheck for longer than the midnight deadline from thedate of deposit of 6/12/04 without settling for it orpaying for it by 6/12/04.44) That the plaintiff retained the Ulster Bankcheck for longer than the midnight of the date of credit/payment on 6/14/04 without settling for it orpaying for it.


28/34

27a

45) That the plaintiff has not returned the

defendants check (the physical instrument) todefendant, that was deposited into her account onJune 12, 2004, with plaintiff bank, if the check wasdishonored.46) That the plaintiff did not mail the defendantsbank statement for her account# 3275278929, for theperiod of 6-11-04 through 7-12-04, until July 15, 2004as evidenced by the post mark on plaintiffs mailingenvelope presented as Exhibit BBB with defendantsamended answer with counterclaim.47) That the plaintiffs failure to give a timelynotice of dishonor to defendant by the midnightdeadline after deposit on June 12, 2004, constitutes aviolation of at least one or more provisions andrequirements of the following laws of the State of Georgia and the United States Uniform CommercialCode, which makes plaintiff accountable for theamount of defendants check, and/or preventsplaintiff from recovering anything from defendant,according to law: UCC 3-503, and/or O.C.G.A 11-3-502(b), and/or O.C.G.A 11-3-502(d), and/or

O.C.G.A 11-4-301(a), and/or O.C.G.A 11-4-301(b),and/or O.C.G.A 11-4-302(a)(1), or/and Georgia Code Ann.; 109A-3502(1)(a), and/or 109A-4--302,and/or 109A-4104(h), and/or 109A-3506,and/or Georgia Commercial Code Ann. 109A-3 508(2), in this case.48) That the plaintiffs failure to give a timelynotice of dishonor to defendant by the midnightdeadline after deposit on June 12, 2004, constitutes aviolation of one or more provisions and requirementsof all of the following laws of the State of Georgia andthe United States Uniform Commercial Code, whichresults in liabilities for plaintiff toward defendantaccording to law: UCC 3-503, and O.C.G.A 11-3-


29/34

28a

502, and the provisions of UCC 3-502, and O.C.G.A

11-4-301(a), and O.C.G.A 11-4-301(b), andO.C.G.A 11-4-302(a)(1), and Georgia Code Ann.; 109A-3502(1)(a), and 109A-4--302, and 109A-4104(h), and 109A-3506, and GeorgiaCommercial Code Ann. 109A-3508(2), in thiscase.49) That as an attorney practicing law in the stateof Georgia, and licensed by the Georgia Bar

Association, plaintiffs attorney understands thatO.C.G.A 11-4-301 precludes a payor bank fromrevoking a previously issued settlement or payment,or credit, and precludes a payor bank fromrecovering the settlement, after payor bank hasalready credited or paid or settled for a demand item,unless the payor bank sends notice of dishonor orreturns the demand item before it has made finalpayment and before its midnight deadline.50) That Bank of America, the plaintiff, is a payorbank for the purpose of this case.51) That O.C.G.A 11-4-301 precludes a banksuch as Bank of America from charging back or

debiting a depositors account (such as thedefendants) for a demand item (such as thedefendants check deposited on June 12, 2004), thatit has already paid for or credited or settled for onJune 14, 2004, unless plaintiff gives a notice of dishonor or returns the check by its midnightdeadline.52) That as an attorney practicing law in the Stateof Georgia, and licensed by the Georgia Bar

Association, plaintiffs attorney understands that asper O.C.G.A 11-4-302(a)(1), if an item is presentedto and received by a payor bank, the bank isaccountable for the amount of a demand item, otherthan a documentary draft, whether properly payable


30/34

29a

or not, if the bank, in any case in which it is not also

the depositary bank, retains the item beyondmidnight of the banking day of receipt withoutsettling for it, or, whether or not it is also thedepositary bank, does not pay or return the item orsend notice of dishonor until after its midnightdeadline.53) That a check is a demand item.54) That the defendants check deposited intoplaintiff bank on June 12, 2004 is a demand item.55) That pursuant to O.C.G.A 11-4-302(a)(1), apayor bank such as Bank of America is accountablefor the amount of defendants check deposited withplaintiff bank on June 12, 2004, for retaining theitem beyond midnight of the banking day of receiptwithout settling for it, or for not paying or returningthe item or sending notice of dishonor until after itsmidnight deadline.56) That as an attorney practicing law in the Stateof Georgia, and licensed by the Georgia Bar

Association, plaintiffs attorney understands thatplaintiffs charge back or debit(s) of defendants

account from 7/8/04 through 7/23/04, performed byplaintiff are in violation of O.C.G.A 11-4-301(a),and/or O.C.G.A 11-4-301(b), and/or O.C.G.A 11-4-302(a)(1).57) That the banking acts of plaintiff bank, of receiving defendants check for deposit on 6/12/04,performing banking transactions on it, and retainingit, deprive defendant the opportunity to use thecheck with any other bank regardless of plaintiffsviews and opinions on the check.58) That plaintiffs receipt of the check on June 12,2004, creates a presumption according to O.C.G.A 24-4-23.1, of acceptance of check by plaintiff, as perdiscovery in this case.


31/34

30a

59) That plaintiffs payment of $40,705 on 6/14/04

for defendants check deposited on June 12, 2004creates a presumption of payment of check byplaintiff, as per discovery in this case.60) That plaintiffs payment on 6/14/04 of $40,705for defendants check deposited on 6/12/04 provesacceptance of check by plaintiff in discovery.61) That plaintiffs credit of $40,705.00 on 6/14/04for defendants check deposited on 6/12/04 creates apresumption of acceptance (O.C.G.A 24-4-23.1) of check by plaintiff as per discovery.62) That plaintiffs credit of $40,705.00 on 6/14/04(as reflected in discovery exhibits) for defendantscheck deposited on 6/12/04 proves acceptance of check by plaintiff.63) That plaintiffs acceptance of defendantscheck deposited on 6/12/04 shows preponderance of evidence in favor of defendants defenses and claimsin this case.64) That plaintiffs credit or payment of $40,705on 6/14/04 for defendants check deposited on 6/12/04shows preponderance of evidence in favor of

defendants defenses and claims in this case.65) That the plaintiffs attorney cannot testify tohearsay that the defendants check is counterfeit.66) That the plaintiff cannot testify to hearsaythat the check is counterfeit, as it is inadmissible.67) That the plaintiffs custodians businessrecords were based on hearsay after defendantsaccount with plaintiff bank was closed on 9/10/04with a zero balance.68) That crystal Frierson is notqualified/competent to testify as a witness to anyfirst hand information pertaining to the very issue of legitimacy of defendants check deposited on June 12,


32/34

31a

2004, because Crystal Frierson was not the decision

maker on the clearance of the check.69) That Crystal Frierson is notqualified/competent to testify as a witness to firsthand information pertaining to the very issue of dishonor of defendants check in the past, thatoccurred prior to the initiation of this case, becausehe or she has only second hand hearsay informationon the issue.70) That Crystal Frierson is notqualified/competent to testify as a witness to anyfirst hand information pertaining to the very issue of failure of Bank of America to give a timely notice of dishonor for defendants check to defendant in thepast, that occurred prior to the initiation of theaction in this case. Please note that Crystal Friersondid not step into this case until after the Appellantsbank account was closed in 2004, and has nopersonal knowledge of any relevant issue in thiscase.71) That the plaintiffs action and acts in this caseviolated UCC 4-301 laws.

72) That the plaintiffs acts and action in this caseare a violation of law according to provisions of UCC 4-302.73) That the plaintiffs acts and action in this caseare a violation of law according to provisions of UCC 4-401.74) That the plaintiffs acts and action in this caseare a violation of law according to provisions of UCC 4-402.75) That the plaintiffs acts and action in this caseare a violation of law according to provisions of O.C.G.A 11-4-301.


33/34

32a

76) That the plaintiffs acts and action in this case

are a violation of law according to provisions of O.C.G.A 11-4-301(a).77) That the plaintiffs acts and action in this caseare a violation of law according to provisions of O.C.G.A 11-4-301(b).78) That the plaintiffs acts and action in this caseare a violation of law according to provisions of O.C.G.A 11-4-302.79) That the plaintiffs acts and action in this caseare a violation of law according to provisions of O.C.G.A 11-4-302(a)(1).80) That the plaintiffs acts and action in this caseare a violation of law according to provisions of O.C.G.A 11-4-402.81) That the plaintiffs acts and action in this caseare a violation of law according to provisions of UCC 3-503.82) That the plaintiffs acts and action in this caseare a violation of law according to provisions of O.C.G.A 11-3-503.83) That the plaintiffs acts and action in this case

are a violation of law according to provisions of UCC 3-502.84) That the plaintiffs acts and action in this caseare a violation of law according to provisions of O.C.G.A 11-3-502(b).85) That the plaintiffs acts and action in this caseare a violation of law according to provisions of O.C.G.A 11-3-502(d).86) That the plaintiffs acts and action in this caseare a violation of law according to provisions of Georgia Commercial Code Ann. 109A-3502(1)(a).87) That the plaintiffs acts and action in this caseare a violation of law according to provisions of Georgia Commercial Code Ann. 109A-4--302.


34/34

33a

88) That the plaintiffs acts and action in this case

are a violation of law according to provisions of Georgia Commercial Code Ann. 109A-4104(h).89) That the plaintiffs acts and action in this caseare a violation of law according to provisions of Georgia Commercial Code Ann. 109A-3--506.90) That the plaintiffs acts and action in this caseare a violation of law according to provisions of Georgia Commercial Code Ann. 109A-3508(2).91) That the plaintiffs acts and action in this caseare a violation of law according to provisions of UCC 3-413.92) That the plaintiffs acts and action in this caseare a violation of law according to provisions of UCC 3-414.93) That the plaintiffs acts and action in this caseare a violation of law according to provisions of UCC 3-409.94) That the plaintiffs acts and action in this caseare a violation of law according to provisions of UCC 3-505.95) That plaintiff has no tangible proof to

substantiate its reason for dishonor that isadmissible in a court of law, as any evidence.96) That plaintiff lacks any tangible metrics toconclusively substantiate its reason for dishonor thatare admissible as evidence in a court of law.97) That speculation or conjectures do notconstitute proof in a court of law.98) That plaintiff upon legal conclusion and orderof court in this case, agrees as a law abiding entity,to immediately pay the defendant any court awarded

judgment on defendants counterclaim againstplaintiff.

Subbamma Vadde v. BofA (Bank of America Errors, Omitted Discovery and Unanswered Interrogatories &...

Documents

Transcript of Subbamma Vadde v. BofA (Bank of America Errors, Omitted Discovery and Unanswered Interrogatories &...