In this case discovery was never completed, conditioned presedence was never met, no testimony given, no witnesses to alledge factsgiven under oath, statements presented was based on heresay.However on the forth hearing opposing counsel prensented a note with brite blue signitures and the Judge asked me was that my signiture, as I was replying that it looked like my signature opposing counsel interrupted and said `even he admits it your honor`, my finish statement was your honor they can put your signiture on anything. 
Next the Judge said if either party would like to send me any additional information before I make decision you have eight days to do so. 
Below is the additional information I sent to the Judge however I do not believe he got an opputunity to read it prior rendering a decision. 


IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUTJ.D OF XXXXBANK OF AMERICA. N.A. 
PLAINTIFFv. DOCKET NO : XXXX ANDDEFENDANTSXXXX/XX/XX/XXXXMy name is XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX After losing my job of 28 years I finally found a lower paying job and tried to get a modification but did not qualify. However, in the process I found many inconsistencies in the information that Bank of America provided. On XXXX I sent a dispute letter asking for validation of the debt. I never received a validation from Bank of America. 
On XX/XX/XXXX, two months later after they received my dispute letter a law suit was initiated, DOC # XXXX. Thereby, not conforming to " conditions precedence '', I have received separate statements from Bank of America in which they stated that they were the creditor, the debt collector and the servicer. 
I also received printout records that evidenced that the debt was purchased while the account was in default which is a violation of FDCPA XXXX XXXX XXXX. 
According to XXXX I.D Min # XXXX XXXX it states that Bank of America is the servicer and XXXX XXXX is the investor, which shows that Bank of America is in violation of the FDCPA 15 USC 1692 E. 
They have failed to show information proving verification. The assignment given as proof of their ownership is riddle with names which have been shown to be ROB0 signers. XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, they have been publicly verified as ROBO signers. As this information has been submitted to the court evidencing XXXX distinctly different signatures for each name. Therefore, this unknown debt collector refuse to make full disclosure of information requested through discovery! 
It is my belief that all such information was fraudulently produced. Such fraudulent behavior has already been ruled Res judacata by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. ( CFPB ) I am exercising my private right of action in accord with the Supreme Court ruling of XXXX vs Countrywide, and thus rescinding with damages because of such attempts to defraud! 
XXXX 
