Whether the lower courts erred in denying the pro se petitioner his constitutional rights of equal protection and due process

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Whether the decisions of the lower courts erred by denying the pro se Petitioner his U.S. constitutional rights of equal protection and due process of law by allowing a side agreement to facilitate the illegal misappropriation of funds from the benefit of the Petitioner to the benefit of the Respondent in violation of the intent of controlling case law, controlling statutes, and federal banking rules and regulations? 2. Whether the decisions of the lower courts erred by denying the pro se Petitioner his U.S. constitutional rights of equal protection and due process of law by not applying excess funds from a tax sale to a priority claim of the Georgia Department of Revenue, in addition to the priority claim of the Internal Revenue Service, instead of inappropriately paying these funds to the Respondent? 3. Whether the decisions of the lower courts erred by denying the pro se Petitioner his U.S. constitutional rights of equal protection and due process of law by allowing a secret side agreement between creditors to effectively double the outstanding liability to the pro se Petitioner, since the Petitioner now owes both creditors for the same liability, both creditors are simultaneously pursuing foreclosure, and thereby necessitating the filing of the Petitioner’s involuntary bankruptcy case in the Northern District of Georgia? 4. Whether a secret side agreement can be used between Bank of America and the Petitioner to divert excess funds from the tax sale of Petitioner’s property away from the benefit of Petitioner’s mortgage account in violation of federal banking rules and regulations? 1 ‘ % 5. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in not considering the recent ruling of the Supreme Court of Georgia that a redeeming creditor of a tax-sale property does not have a priority lien against excess funds arising from that sale (Design Acquisition v. M7ven Supportive Housing and Development Group, $16G0646, May 15, 2017)? . 6. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in not ruling the Settlement Agreement between Southern National Assets and Bank of America to be void and/or voidable based on illegality since it involved the transfer of interest in both the homeowner’s property and the excess funds arising from that sale to Southern National in violation of O.C.G.A. 48-4-3, which establishes the lien on real property and not personal property including cash (Design Acquisition, 2017)? 7. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the lower court’s grant of summary judgment to Appellee, where it failed to examine the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, thereby denying the Appellant homeowner his right to equal protection and due process, as guaranteed by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution? 8. Whether the trial court erred in granting Appellee’s motion for summary judgment in recognizing Appellee’s questionable authority to redeem the property, resulting from a questionable priority lien, since the tax liens purchased by Appellee were originally acquired by another purchaser from Fulton County more than six months after the date of the tax sale, which is used to properly determine the creditors of record to allow for tax sale redemption under Georgia law. 5 ; 9. Whether the trial court erred in granting Appellee’s motion for summary judgment with regard to the distribution of excess funds in recognizing the existence of the priority lien status of the U.S. Internal Revenue Service, but not recognizing the existence of a priority lien status of the Georgia Department of Revenue. 10. Whether the trial court erred in granting Appellee’s motion for summary judgment based on the huge redemption amount and the related huge penalty amount, especially given the extremely short holding period of the tax liens acquired by purchase from another tax lien holder, thereby greatly overreaching the original legislative intent to provide Georgia homeowners a fair and reasonable opp