Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Subbamma Vadde V. Bank of America Georgia Supreme Court Motion for Reconsideration 042710

Subbamma Vadde V. Bank of America Georgia Supreme Court Motion for Reconsideration 042710

Ratings: (0)|Views: 4|Likes:
Published by svvpass

More info:

Published by: svvpass on Jun 21, 2010
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less





Submitted On: April 27
, 2010
In The Supreme Court of Georgia
Motion for Reconsiderationand Stay of Remittitur
Subbamma V. Vadde
Subbamma V. VaddeAppellantVs.Bank of America (BofA)AppelleeGeorgia Supreme Court Case#S10C0624
Comes Now, Appellant Subbamma Vadde, Pro Se, in the above Appeal, and pursuant to Rule 27and Rule 61 of the Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia, timely files this Motion For Reconsiderationand Stay of Remittitur within ten (10) days from April 19, 2010 of the past denial (attached as ExhibitSCGAERROR), of Appellant’s Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court of Georgia. Appellant requestsreview of the opinion and judgments in Subbamma Vadde Vs. Bank of America, stated in the interimopinion document of the Court of Appeals dated 11/20/09, upon denial of her Motion for Reconsideration(MFR) dated 11/30/09, by Court of Appeals on 12/9/09, for reversal of judgments of State Court of CobbCounty on 2/4/09 (R-915-916).Appellant has already demonstrated that the issues presented in her Petition for Certiorari,hinging on principles of finance, international trade and commerce, in the current day interconnected andinterdependent world economy; are of great importance, gravity, and value to the public, consumers, theworld financial system, bank depositors/customers, community, and humanity in general. Appellant’sPetition should have been granted pursuant to Rule 40 of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Georgia, toprevent injustice to depositors, and aliens and/or immigrants in the United States, since the Court ofAppeals opinion in this case is not only unreasonable and unconscionable, but manifests injustice, isprejudicial, based on inadmissible hearsay and speculation/whims, and is contrary to logic, objectivity,and commonsense, reality and facts, and the laws of nature, the world and our Universe that we live in.Appellant further presents the following grounds and clarifications as basis for granting thisMotion for Reconsideration and Stay of Remittitur:1) Since no reason had been given for the denial shown in Exhibit SCGAERROR, it is not possiblefor Appellant to read the minds of the justices of the Supreme Court of Georgia to possiblyassume reasonableness in view of the flagrantly exhibited unreasonableness, or to figure out inan interpretive manner from “nothing/no evident problem”, as to exactly what led them to deny herPetition for Certiorari earlier.2) Appellant contends and points out the fact that Bank of America had not addressed any questionsor issues raised by Appellant, Subbamma Vadde, in the past, especially those raised in herCertiorari. Ms. Vadde’s questions have not been addressed by the justices of the Supreme Court
Page 2 of 28
of Georgia. Therefore, it follows that the contentions of Georgia Court of Appeals as well as Bankof America in the past against the innocent Appellant are speculative and meritless without anybasis of certainty. Appellant contends that the justices of the Georgia Supreme Court cannotdeny her Petition for Certiorari dated 12/23/09 and uphold adverse decisions against appellant inthe absence of answers to the questions and issues she has raised.3) Appellant asserts that it was error for the Supreme Court of Georgia to deny her Petition forCertiorari unreasonably and whimsically without objectivity, and without even addressing any ofher valid contentions and issues raised therein. Appellant therefore reiterates her priorcontentions and issues raised in her Certiorari and requests that the Honorable Supreme Court ofGeorgia address the following issues:a) Who (which organization, institution, and/or which individual) is responsible for clearing thechecks deposited by a customer? Is it the recipient of the check, depositary bank, thepayor bank, the collecting bank, the maker of the check/maker bank, the depositor, or thegovernment?b) What, if any, are the regulatory norms for clearance of international checks?c) What specific time duration (starting from the deposit of a check) constitutes the meaning ofthe term “midnight deadline” and what exact time signifies “final” for check clearance, asmandated by UCC (§ 4-301, § 4-302, and § 4-105(2)) and OCGA (§ 11-4-301, § 11-4-302,§ 11-3-502, § 11-4-104(10), § 11-4-105(2), § 11-4-201(a), § 11-4-202, and § 11-4-215 (a))guidelines in banking transactions, according to the “intent” of the statutory legislation?d) What constitute tangible objective metrics and proof that a check is fraudulent/counterfeit ornot genuine and authentic? Conclusory allegations, based on whims, opinions,speculation, rumors, etc. and other intangibles by BofA or banks, etc. are not acceptablemetrics.e) Appellant contends that it is unethical for a bank such as BofA to clear a check and thencome back to debit depositor’s account and falsely allege that the depositor’s check itcleared earlier is counterfeit, when the real reason for its doing so is that it is broke and/orhas a broken check clearance system. How can the justices find reasonableness in a U.S.

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->