Emanuel McCray P.O. Box 61725 Vancouver, WA 98660 (858) 876-4833 emanuel.mccray@hotmail.

com November 2, 2013

FINAL OFFER TO SETTLE IN LIEU OF JURY TRIAL

To: Board of Directors Bank of America Corporation (NYSE: BAC) C/O Corporate Secretary 214 N. Tryon St., NC1-027-20-05 Charlotte, NC 28255 Honorable Jaime Herrera Beutler U.S. House of Representatives O.O. Howard House 750 Anderson Street, Suite B Vancouver, WA 98661

Cc:

Dear Directors: On 26 October 2013, San Diego homeowner Abderrahim Saddas, residing at 11488 Turtleback Lane, San Diego, CA 92127; Tel (858) 531-2849, contacted the undersigned and requested that I inform you on behalf of himself and his family, including an infant that was born prematurely, of what he believes to a criminal fraud associated with his home. To understand the allegations of fraud and criminal wrongdoing being charged to Bank of America, a recitation of pertinent U.S. laws is necessary: (1) The incident follows the principal and not the principal the incident. (a) (b) Cal. Civ. Code 3540 (2012) Carpenter v. Longan, 83 U.S. 271 (1872) (The note and mortgage are inseparable; the former as essential, the latter as an incident. An assignment of the note carries the mortgage with it, while an assignment of the latter alone is a nullity. This dependent and incidental relation is the controlling consideration. The fallacy which lies in overlooking this distinction has misled many able minds, and is the source of all the confusion that exists. The mortgage can have no separate existence.) Fortson et al. v. Bishop (1920) 204 Ala. 524; 86 So. 399 (A mortgage securing a note is a mere incident thereto.) 1

(c)

(d)

Shlaudeman v. Grubel (1936, Cal App) 15 Cal.App.2d 499, 59 P.2d 873 (A debt is the principal thing and the mortgage the incident thereto.)

(2) The following caselaw stand for the proposition that national banks were created by Congress; are agencies and instrumentalities of the United States; and were designed to subserve public purposes and not the mere private interests of their stockholders: Pittsburg v. First Natl Bank (1867) 55 Pa. 45 Bank v. Lanier (1871) 78 US 369, 11 Wall 369 Bank of Bethel v. Pahquioque Bank (1872) 81 US 383, 14 Wall 383 Christopher v. Norvell (1906) 201 US 216 Posadas v. National City Bank (1936) 296 US 497 Indeed, nearly every form used in the preparation of real estate documents is designed and or required by an Agency of the Federal Government. (3) The primary authority and jurisdiction of national banks are codified under the National Bank Act of 1864, as amended, Title 12 U.S. Code: (A) 12 USCS 21 governs the formation of national banking associations; incorporators; and articles of association. (B) 12 USCS 24 governs the corporate powers of national banking associations.

(C) 12 USCS 24(Seventh) direct national banking associations to exercise their corporate powers subject to law, to wit: Upon duly making and filing articles of association and an organization certificate the [a national banking] associationshall have power Seventh. To exercise by its board of directors or duly authorized officers or agents, subject to law, all such incidental powers as shall be necessary to carry on the business of banking; by discounting and negotiating promissory notes, drafts, bills of exchange, and other evidences of debt. (D) 12 USCS 30(a) governs the banks change of name or location: Any national banking association, upon written notice to the Comptroller of the Currency, may change its name, except that such new name shall include the word National. [Emphasis added to explain an alleged attorney-client conspiracy set forth herein.] (E) 12 USCS 31governs the rights and liabilities as affected by change of name: All debts, liabilities, rights, provisions, and powers of the association under its old name shall devolve upon and inure to the association under its new name. 2

(F)

12 USCS 32 governs liabilities and suits as affected by change of name or location: Nothing in this act [12 USCS 30--32] contained shall be so construed as in any manner to release any national banking association under its old name or at its old location from any liability, or affect any action or proceeding in law in which said association may be or become a party or interested.

(G) 12 USCS 501a, mandates the forfeiture of the franchise of national banks for failure to comply with any provision of Chapter 2 of the National Bank Act, to wit: Should any national banking association in the United States now organized fail within one year after December 23, 1913, to become a member bank or fail to comply with any of the provisions of this chapter applicable thereto, all of the rights, privileges, and franchises of such association granted to it under the national-bank Act [12 U.S.C. 21 et seq.], or under the provisions of this chapter, shall be thereby forfeited. Any noncompliance with or violation of this chapter shall, however, be determined and adjudged by any court of the United States of competent jurisdiction in a suit brought for that purpose in the district or territory in which such bank is located, under direction of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, by the Comptroller of the Currency in his own name before the association shall be declared dissolved. In cases of such noncompliance or violation, other than the failure to become a member bank under the provisions of this chapter, every director who participated in or assented to the same shall be held liable in his personal or individual capacity for all damages which said bank, its shareholders, or any other person shall have sustained in consequence of such violation. Such dissolution shall not take away or impair any remedy against such corporation, its stockholders, or officers, for any liability or penalty which shall have been previously incurred. (Dec. 23, 1913, ch. 6, 2 (pars.), 38 Stat. 252; Aug. 23, 1935, ch. 614, title II, 203(a), 49 Stat. 704.) (4) California Penal Code 115(a) prohibits as a felony, the filing, registration or recording of any document that is false or forged, to wit: (a) Every person who knowingly procures or offers any false or forged instrument to be filed, registered, or recorded in any public office within this state, which instrument, if genuine, might be filed, registered, or recorded under any law of this state or of the United States, is guilty of a felony. The Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) 3-203(b) governs the transfer of an instrument such as an Adjustable Rate Note and the rights acquired by transfer, to wit: (b) Transfer of an instrument, whether or not the transfer is a negotiation, vests in the transferee any right of the transferor to enforce the instrument, including 3

any right as a holder in due course, but the transferee cannot acquire rights of a holder in due course by a transfer, directly or indirectly, from a holder in due course if the transferee engaged in fraud or illegality affecting the instrument. Almost every State has adopted some version of UCC 3-203(b). Californias version is codified under California Commercial Code 3203(b), to wit: (b) Transfer of an instrument, whether or not the transfer is a negotiation, vests in the transferee any right of the transferor to enforce the instrument, including any right as a holder in due course, but the transferee cannot acquire rights of a holder in due course by a transfer, directly or indirectly, from a holder in due course if the transferee engaged in fraud or illegality affecting the instrument. Exhibit 1, consisting of 43 pages, is attached hereto. Commencing in June 2009, Abderrahim Saddas began informing the Chairman of Bank of America Corporation (NYSE: BAC) and BACs Directors and Executive Officers, of what has turned out to be allegations of criminal wrongdoings and violations of the National Bank Act. Bank of America and certain of its human agents immediately engaged in acts designed to cover and conceal the alleged criminal allegations, which culminated in the following actions taken by Blank Rome, LLP, which were subsequently ratified by Bank of America and certain of its human agents: Act 1st: The Blank Rome law firm, in its capacity as Counsel to Bank of America, N.A., in a letter dated August 27, 2012, asserted as a fact that a Note was executed in favor of Countrywide Bank, a Division of Treasury Bank, N.A. on May 3, 2005, to wit:

Exhibit 1, page 1. Attached to this August 27, 2012 letter was what Blank Rome claimed to be a copy of the Note indorsed payable to Treasury Bank:

Exhibit 1, page 2. 4

Act 2nd: Blank Rome sent another letter dated October 9, 2012, reaffirming the facts as stated in the August 12, 2012 letter, and attaching a copy of the letter. Exhibit 1, pages 3-6. According to the FDIC, the entity, Countrywide Bank never existed. See Chart 1, page 7, Exhibit 1, and the other charts at pages 8 and 9. Act 3rd: A robosigner, under penalty of perjury, and claiming to act on authority as MARTHA MUNOZ, Vice President Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (MERS), caused an Assignment of Deed of Trust to be filed in the San Diego County Recorders Office on September 16, 2011. The Assignment identified the Original Lender as being COUNTRYWIDE BANK, A DIVISION OF TREASURY BANK, N.A. The Assignment further attempted to assign the deed of trust, together with the note(s) and obligationsand all rights accrued and to accrue under said Deed of Trust to BANK OF AMERICA, N.A. (Emphasis added.) Under Carpenter v. Longan, The deed of trust cannot be used to assign the Note. MUNOZ and LORYN STONE got the legal concept completely backwards. Exhibit 1, pages 10 and 11. Act 4th: A robosigner, under penalty of perjury, claiming to act on authority as LORYN STONE, Assistant Secretary Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (MERS), caused a Corporation Assignment of Deed of Trust to be filed in the San Diego County Recorders Office on October 4, 2011in favor of BANK OF AMERICA, N.A. (Emphasis added.) The Assignment further attempted to assign the deed of trust, TOGETHER WITH THE NOTE(S) AND OBLIGATIONSAND ALL RIGHTS ACCRUED AND TO ACCRUE UNDER SAID DEED OF TRUST. (Emphasis added.) Exhibit 1, page 12. Act 5th: A robosigner, in violation of California Penal Code 115(a) , and claiming to act on authority as MARTHA CASILLAS, Assistant Vice President RECONTRUST COMPANY, N.A., as agent for the Beneficiary, caused a NOTICE OF DEFAULT AND ELECTION TO SELL UNDER DEED OF TRUST to be filed in the San Diego County Recorders Office on October 4, 2011, to secure certain obligations in favor of MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC. as beneficiary recorded 05/09/2005. Said obligation including ONE NOTE FOR THE ORIGINAL sum of $518,000.00. (Emphasis added.) Exhibit 1, pages 13-15. [Because the Deed follows the Note, only the Note Holder can be the beneficiary of a Deed of Trust.] 5

Act 6th: A robosigner, in violation of California Penal Code 115(a) , and claiming to act on authority as KATHY PADILLA, Assistant Vice President RECONTRUST COMPANY, N.A., as duly appointed trustee pursuant to the Deed of Trust recorded 05/09/2005 caused a NOTICE OF TRUSTEE SALE to be filed in the San Diego County Recorders Office on October 2, 2013. Exhibit 1, pages 16-17. Act 7th: Title 12 USCS 30(a) authorizes a bank to change its name, except that such new name shall include the word National. In a letter dated April 23, 2013, the Blank Rome law firm, without any legal authority, changed the name of the entity, Countrywide Bank, a Division of Treasury Bank, N.A. to Countrywide Bank, N.A., a Division of Treasury Bank, N.A., to wit:

Exhibit 1, page 20. Blank Rome had claimed in a previously letter dated August 27, 2012 that the Note in question was made in favor of Countrywide Bank, a Division of Treasury Bank, N.A., to wit:

Exhibit 1, page 1. The Blank Rome law firm, by illegally changing the name of Countrywide Bank to comply with the National Bank Act, necessarily admits, Countrywide Bank, a Division of Treasury Bank, N.A., was conducting activities in violation of the National Bank Acts certification requirements. Further, the Blank Rome law firm, by illegally changing the name of Countrywide Bank, a Division of Treasury Bank, N.A., to Countrywide Bank, N.A., a Division of Treasury Bank, N.A., to be in existence on May 3, 2005, aggravated its unlawful act by making the new entity a subordinate of Treasury Bank, N.A. This is contrary to the FDIC 6

which certified Treasury Bank, N.A., to change its name to Countrywide Bank, N.A., effective September 6, 2005. See Chart 1, Exhibit 1, page 7. Further, the Blank Rome law firm, by illegally changing the name of Countrywide Bank, a Division of Treasury Bank, N.A., to Countrywide Bank, N.A., a Division of Treasury Bank, N.A., impeaches its letter dated August 27, 2012 which claims the Note was indorsed PAY TO THE ORDER OF WITHOUT RECOUSRE TREASURY BANK, NA, to wit:

Exhibit 1, page 2. The outcome of Blank Rome letters of August 27, 2012 and May 23, 2013 is extremely damaging for the following reasons: (1) If Countrywide Bank, N.A. legally existed on or before May 3, 2005, it could not have existed as a Division of Treasury Bank, N.A., because Treasury Bank, N.A., changed its name to Countrywide Bank, N.A.; (2) If Countrywide Bank, N.A. legally existed on or before May 3, 2005, then it was impossible for CELIA RODRIGUEZ, Collateral Processing Officer Treasury Bank N.A. as Attorney in Fact for Countrywide Home Loans Inc., to indorse the May 3, 2005 Note PAY TO THE ORDER OF WITHOUT RECOURSE TREASURY BANK, NA because TREASURY BANK, NA did not exist on or after May 3, 2005; and (3) If Countrywide Bank, N.A. legally owned the May 3, 2005 Note, the indorsement would be an attempt to transfer to Countrywide Bank, N.A. a Note it already ownedan absurd result which impeaches Blank Romes assertions that Countrywide Bank, N.A. was the original owner of the Note. Moreover, the September 16, 2011 Assignment informed the County Recorder that the Original Lender was COUNTRYWIDE BANK, A DIVISION OF TREASURY BANK, N.A., and not Countrywide Bank, N.A. Exhibit 1, page 10. Act 8th: In a letter dated April 26, 2013, Bank of America Home Loans ratified the Blank Rome law firms April 23, 2013 by sending a copy of this letter to homeowner Abderrahim Saddas. See Exhibit 1, pages 18-20.

Act 9th: In a letter dated April 29, 2013, Bank of America Office of the CEO and President also ratified the Blank Rome law firms April 23, 2013 by sending a copy of this letter to homeowner Abderrahim Saddas. See Exhibit 1, pages 21-25. This letter further claimed that: Bank of America has uncovered, no reasonable factual basis which would allow us to substantiate your claim of criminal wrongdoing. Exhibit 1, paragraph 4, page 21. Attached to this letter was an unendorsed copy of the May 3, 2005 Note. Even the twohole punch marks, Exhibit 1, page 24, are different from the indorsed copy of the May 3, 2005 Note, Exhibit 1, page 2. This copy of the May 3, 2005 Note also contain marks in the top right hand corner which do not appear on the copy at Exhibit 1, page 2. Title Officer Liliana Lopez, in an AMENDED/SUPPLEMENTAL ESCROW INSTRUCTIONS, indicated that: New first Deed of Trust to record in favor of Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. Exhibit 1, page 26. Title Officer Liliana Lopez indicated on the Borrowers Final Settlement Statement that the Lender was: Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. Exhibit 1, page 27. Contrary to Lopez work, Christina Sanchez, in her CLOSING INSTRUCTIONS indicated that: THESE ARE Countrywide Bank, a Division of Treasury Bank, N.A. (Lender) CLOSING AND RECORDING INSTRUCTIONS TO YOU REGARDING THE LOAN FROM LENDER. Exhibit 1, page 28. Christina Sanchez further indicated her Branch # as being 0000775 and address as 1455 Frazee Road, which are both associated with Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. and Countrywide Bank, a Division of Treasury Bank, N.A. See, Exhibit 1, pages 28, 33, 34, 35 and 37. Christina Sanchez, if she exists, appears to be employed by Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. See, Exhibit 1, pages 29, 33, 34 and 36. Christina Sanchez, in preparing the May 3, 2005 Deed of Trust, indicated on page 2 that: (C) Lender is Countrywide Bank, a Division of Treasury Bank, N.A. Lender is a NATL. ASSN. Organized and existing under the laws of THE UNITED STATES Exhibit 1, page 30.

Title 12 USCS 30(a) mandates that every national bank shall include the word National in its name. Like Blank Rome, Sanchez attempt to make Countrywide Bank a national association exposes the fact that Countrywide Bank was operating in violation of the laws of THE UNITED STATES. The claim of Sanchez that the Lender is Countrywide Bank, a Division of Treasury Bank, N.A., is inconsistent with the Escrow Instructions which show the Lender as being her employer, Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. See, Exhibit 1, pages 26 and 27. Page 4, of the May 3, 2005 ADJUSTABLE RATE NOTE, see Exhibit 1, pages 2 and 31, indicates this Note was indorsed by one CELIA RODRIGUEZ, Collateral Processing Officer Treasury Bank N.A. as Attorney in Fact for Countrywide Home Loans Inc. The only way Countrywide Home Loans Inc. could have legally given CELIA RODRIGUEZ a power of attorney to indorse the May 3, 2005 Note payable to Treasury Bank, N.A. is because it owned the Note. Yet, no one claims Countrywide Home Loans Inc. ever owned the Note. CELIA RODRIGUEZ, therefore had power to indorse the Note because this is precisely how the alleged mortgage fraud money laundering Ponzi scheme was designed to work, in violation of the laws of THE UNITED STATES. Exhibit 1, pages 31 and 32 indicates that one CELIA RODRIGUEZ simultaneously uses three different rubber stamps, to wit: (1) (2) CELIA RODRIGUEZ, Collateral Processing Officer CELIA RODRIGUEZ, Collateral Processing Officer Treasury Bank N.A. as Attorney in Fact for Countrywide Home Loans Inc. CELIA RODRIGUEZ, Collateral Processing Officer Countrywide Bank N.A. as Attorney in Fact for Countrywide Home Loans Inc.

(3)

Mr. Saddas is in this situation because during divorce proceedings in 2005, San Diego County Superior Court Judge Randa Trapp ordered him to refinance the home in order to remove his ex-wifes name from the mortgage, at a time when he was unemployed. Exhibit 1, pages 38 and 39. California is a community property State pursuant to California Family Code 760, to wit: Except as otherwise provided by statute, all property, real or personal, wherever situated, acquired by a married person during the marriage while domiciled in this state is community property.