Whether the U.S. government's unconstitutional involvement in millions of foreclosures through FHFA and de facto state-actor Fannie Mae subjects it to federal court jurisdiction and the property 'takings' clause of the U.S. Constitution

QUESTIONS PRESENTED The third request of this Court to rectify numerous wrongs committed by Wells Fargo and assisted by and/or ignored by Courts against petitioner, his family and millions of unsuspecting homeowners. With clear direction to prevent manifest injustice, there is no excuse for failures engulfing the justice system for over a decade in favor of habitual wrongdoer Wells Fargo violating millions of Americans Constitutional rights. The government Totally Controls Fannie Mae, financially benefiting from millions of wrongful foreclosures. Treasury documents show Fannie as “financial agent for the government”, and de-facto State-actor. This mass wrongful taking of Constitutionally protected properties is unlawful, immoral, inhumane, and has led to record poverty and homelessness. Along with spikes in anxiety, depression, PTSD and suicides. Wells Fargo and others commit mass Fraud on the Courts with lack of standing, wrong venue and fabricated documents for unjust judgements. Unlawful MBS securitization and rehypothecation forced millions into default through modification and foreclosure fraud, and many into bankruptcy. All while Wells Fargo and accomplices collected monies well in excess of the mort: gage notes utilizing the properties without disclosure, consent, authority or applying the monies to the note balances. Wells Fargo and Fannie are not Legal Owners and had no right to “sell” and/or “pledge” the homeowners rights under NEMO DAT QUOD NON HABET. This case raises vital issues of federal jurisdiction of federal RICO claims and de facto State-actors. It raises questions over Constitutional property rights, fraudulent seizure, securities laws over undisclosed mortgage securitization (RMBS), rehypothecation, default derivatives and foreclosure and modification fraud. It raises Constitutional questions of Due Process and treatment of Pro Se parties. Thus, the questions presented are: ii 1. Whether U.S. Government’s unconstitutional involvement in millions of foreclosures through FHFA and de facto and entwined State-actor Fannie Mae subject it to federal Court jurisdiction and the property “takings” clause of the U.S. Constitution? 2. Whether securitization and rehypothecation of : mortgage notes utilizing and “selling” and/or “pledging” homeowners’ property as collateral without consent or knowledge is unlawful, unconstitutional and violate the basic legal principle of NEMO DAT QUOD NON . HABET? and Whether this non-disclosure, participation and collection of financial benefits not applied to and well in excess of mortgage note debt owed is unlawful, unconstitutional and violate SEC securities laws? 3. Whether pro se litigants should be held to unfair pleading standards not regularly enforced upon attorneys or utilized in the same manner by other federal Courts? and Whether forcing a pro se litigant to remove claims that are not barred by Void state Court judgements violates the guarantee of a Fair Legal Process and fosters manifest injustice in defiance of the Constitution and this Court’s direction? 4. Whether recusal or disqualification under 28 U.S.C. § 455 is warranted to satisfy the Constitutional guarantee of a Fair Legal Process, when a district judge has a relationship with a litigant, and his impartiality through his actions and non-action are reasonably questioned by some citizens and legal professionals?