Consumer complaint: 1. XXXX is competent to state the matters set forth herein. 
2. XXXX has first hand knowledge of the facts stated herein. 
3. All the facts herein are true, correct and complete, admissible as evidence, and if called upon as a witness, XXXX will testify to their veracity. 

Plain Statement of FactsDefinitionAlleged Lender now is Bank of America N.A . 

4. There is no evidence that I/we have any outstanding liabilities or obligations with ALLEGED LENDER under the doctrine of ultra vires. By doctrine of ultra vires, a contract made by a corporation beyond the scope of its corporate powers is unlawful. XXXX believes there is no proof to the contrary. 

5. Alleged Lender failed to provide proof of FULL DISCLOSURE to all matters dealing with the above loan and said contract as required by law in the Truth-in-Lending Act pursuant to XXXX XXXX XXXX. Alleged Lender failed to provide me all documented information that I requested in the Qualified Written Request sent to the bank on XXXX XXXX, XXXX by RPOST Registered XXXX Mail XXXX. In addition, LEGAL NOTICE Registered XXXX Mail sent to Alleged Lender 's attorney/s Blank-Rome LLP XXXX of Law, XXXX and XXXX XXXX : Second Request for Proof of Claim Dated XXXX XXXX XXXX was sent to the bank by RPOST Registered XXXX Mail XXXX and received on XXXX XXXX, XXXX. Alleged Lender, failed to produce for my inspection upon demand as required by Uniform Commercial Code of the original ( Wet Signature ) documents including the Security Deed and the Promissory Note and allonge, as evidence that they are, in fact, the holder in due course of the purported obligation. Despite being given XXXX opportunities to provide proof of claim on this matter via certified mail, Alleged Lender can not and has not been able to provide presentment upon demand. XXXX alleges and believes that Alleged Lender is not the holder in due course, nor the real and beneficial party of interest for the above loan. 

7. ALLEGED LENDER failed to prove that they are the Note Holder in Due Course pursuant of U.C.C. - ARTICLE XXXX XXXX despite XXXX qualified written request 's demanding the Alleged Lender to stipulate and clarify this fact. No where on the loan documents or security deed was there mention of the word " holder ''? Therefore ALLEGED LENDER fully admits that they are not the holder in due course, nor a real party of interest in the above loan. 

8. If in fact ALLEGED LENDER has the authority to enforce the contract through servicing and assignment, they have provided no proof of such authority despite XXXX written requests via RPOST certified email. Therefore XXXX alleges and believes that ALLEGED LENDER does not have any authority to enforce the contract for the above loan.My Fair Debt Collection letter were quite frankly ignored .The rebuttal of Tila rescission letter was clearly denied and considered closed by XXXX XXXXLITIGATION SPECIALIST Bank of America .AlthoughTILA does not evidence a contrary Congressional intent XXXX it 's statute of limitations must be read to be subject to equitable tolling, particularly since the Act is to be construed liberally in favor of consumers. '' XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ). 

This response from a letter sent certified in XXXX is now a issue for the alleged pretender lender. and finally I/we made firm request for a viewing of wet ink note along with a Perfect Chain of Title insert from letter " Dear Sir, This letter dated XXXX XXXX, XXXX is to notify you, your firm and the mortgage company claiming ownership of this alleged loan and note, that I am exercising my rights under the " Fair Debt Collections Practices Act '' as codified at XXXX XXXX XXXX, which stipulates that a debt collector must, verify request 

Company response: Company chooses not to provide a public response