Comment: I have alread Filed in Fed. Court -

(See in situ)


I have alread Filed in Fed. Court -

I recently attached this-

Dallas Leon Dugger/Deborah Ann Dugger
Plaintiff
v.
Bank of America/Countrywide
Defendant
Re: Civil Action No. 1:10CV00076SNLJ

The Defendants stole the Plaintiff’s escrow savings of $926.00. When Plaintiff Mr. Dugger called Bank of America to inquire of the stolen funds- he was told that they purchased home owners insurance. Mr. Dugger had not received any letter prior of their intent, nor was ever questioned pertaining to his home owner’s insurance, because the Plaintiff already had purchased a year of insurance through Country Financial of Dexter Missouri.
The Plaintiff had an attack needing his nitro glycerin after the dispute that day on the phone. Plaintiff later called HUD and spoke to a Ms. Kathy Cheatum, who advised him not to pay till it got straightened out. She told him she was leaving for the holiday for a week and that she would get back with him. This was before New Years Day. Plaintiff heard nothing further from Ms.Cheatum. Documents are attached showing Bank of America/Countrywide’s theft of Plaintiffs escrow account with no notice of doing so till a much later date!
Plaintiff was sent modification documents the 26th day of January 2010, but dated 25th day of January 2010 and was requested to mail an amount of $485.02 with the modification. Under the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), and Home Assistance Modification Program (HAMP)- Bank of America/Countrywide did not just ignore Plaintiffs, but ignored TARP & HAMP Regulations by requesting fees upfront to modify their home loan which is prohibited under Federal Regulations.
The Plaintiffs were supposed to have from 1-25-2010 to 2-25-2010 for the modification. On or about 4th day of February Defendants sent notice of Foreclosure before the expired time. Bank of America / Countrywide denied Plaintiffs access to (TARP) & (HAMP) by requesting upfront fees and denied them the full 30 days that was assigned to them that is of record.

On the 27th day January of 2010 Plaintiffs called Bank of America/Countrywide requesting from Defendant to provide the Genuine Original...aka "wet signature” of Plaintiff’s contract with Bank of America/Countrywide in which Defendant’s employee Gabriel stated they did not have.
• Defendant does not own the mortgage. There is no affiliation between Taylor, Bean & Whitaker, Bank of America / Countrywide . All three can not own the mortgage.

• Bank of America/Countrywide has not shown that they advanced any funds, goods or services to the Plaintiff. Thus they are not the creditor or owner of the mortgage. Bank of America/Countrywide may want to assert that they have the right to collect on the alleged obligation and foreclose on the said property: 901 Adam Street, Poplar Bluff, MO.63901 even though they are NOT the creditor. Millsap & Springer, P.C. is selling the above property on behalf of the alleged creditor, then I request / demand that they then disclose the creditor and name them as nominal, Bank of America/Countrywide thru Millsap & Singer, P.C. are selling the Plaintiff’s property on the 2nd day of June, 2010.

• I believe that Bank of America/Countrywide has no standing as there was fraud committed by Countrywide from the beginning. I request Bank of America/Countrywide provide the court with chain of title to make sure they are the holder in due course and that this specific asset was purchased, so that the Plaintiff can protect their right from damages. Plaintiff’s asset is their liability and therefore would like full disclosure. The Defendant has not shown evidence that the promissory note was transferred to them.

• There is no proof that they have acquired the note, because the government took over Countrywide and sold to Bank of America and Countrywide has been the subject of a class action securities-fraud civil lawsuit by various government pension funds and their managers. The lawsuit identifies more than 25 firms that helped Countrywide package and sell mortgaged backed securities.

• An endorsement with knowledge of defects, fraud or defenses, even if valid as a transfer of all rights to the note, is subject to those defenses. If fraud is involved in the execution or inducement of the note or instrument, then the ensuing holder cannot claim to be a holder in due course, (owner of the mortgage).

• A ‘lender’ is a term used by the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) adopted by nearly all the states. The holder is just what it says --- the party that is holding the note physically. The holder is not necessarily the owner which is where holder in due course comes in. A holder is due course is a party who is holding the note without any taint of illegality, fraud, or conditions close to fraud.

• Plaintiffs have never been presented with any sworn affidavits that would provide validity that Bank of America/Countrywide is the Holder in due course / Owner of mortgage. It is Plaintiffs best and considered judgment that no such paper work or affidavit exists. Plaintiffs plead to the Court to request Bank of America / Countrywide please provide the Genuine Original...aka "wet signature” documents above.

• There are hundreds of examples of contracts not being legally transferable. Leases, phone/cable/power/water contracts, warranty protections -- are all examples of contracts which legally can't be transferred.

There are Four Legal Elements to a binding Contract that Bank of America/Countrywide is fraudulently claiming they have :
• A meeting of the minds between the parties demonstrating they both understand and agree to the essentials of the deal in which Plaintiffs did not do with Bank of America/Countrywide.
• Consideration (something of value exchanged by each of the parties, such as cash, goods or a promise to do something) in which Plaintiffs did not do, nor gain from Bank of America/Countrywide.
• An agreement to enter into the contract (typically evidenced by both parties signing a written contract) in which Plaintiffs did not do with Bank of America/Countrywide.
• The legal competence of each party, meaning the parties are not minors and are of sound mind. In which the Plaintiffs did not do with Bank of America/Countrywide.

Plaintiffs pleads to the Court to halt the sale of Plaintiffs home on 2nd day of June 2010 as stated by Bank of America’s : Millsap & Singer, P.C. , 612 Spirit Drive, St. Louis, MO 63005 letter attached.
Plaintiffs pleads to the Court for relief of $500,000.00 from Bank of America/Countrywide due to stealing $926.00 of the Plaintiffs escrow account , causing the Plaintiff an onset of heart attack. Creating mental anguish and hardship.
If Defendant does have alleged ownership of Plaintiff’s property then please consider the neglect of the TARP & HAMP provisions through the use of bailout funds that financial establishments like Bank of America/Countrywide are required to offer solutions, not request upfront fees of $485.02 restricted by the Federal Regulations.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request that this Court render judgment on Plaintiffs’ behalf
as follows:

A. Award actual and punitive damages in an amount of $500,000.00 and to be determined at trial on Plaintiffs’ claims for misrepresentation, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing, negligence, and infliction of emotional distress ;

B. Direct Defendants Bank of America/Countrywide to pay the cost of this proceeding, including Plaintiffs’ filing fees as appropriate;

C. Award Plaintiffs such other relief as the Court deems just and equitable.

JURY DEMAND
Plaintiffs hereby demand that all issues of fact in the foregoing Complaint be tried to a jury.

_______________________ Date________________
Dallas Leon Dugger
_______________________ Date_______________
Deborah Ann Dugger
Copies made for :
Bank of America/Countrywide
Millsap & Singer, P.C. FC Department

ANY ADVICE WOULD HELP- I just found out yesterday
Tuesday 11, 2010

United We Stand