Whether lower courts failed to facilitate due process for the Petitioner

QUESTIONS PRESENTED . This case sadly shows how the lower courts failed to . , : ; facilitate due process for this Petitioner. Decisions were made in support of Defendants collectively worth over $4 Trillion, despite hard, irrefutable evidence of their guilt. ‘ . The Defendants engaged in tortious acts of fraud that continue today. The deceit and delays perpetrated by the Defendants and the legal professionals and others who | supported them, have extended this fraud over 15 years, and counting. : The questions presented are: 1) How long will legal deception, fraud and stonewalling ; be allowed to obfuscate and enable financial fraud at the . expense of borrowers and investors? ; 2) Do process errors supersede the facts and the law? ; 3) Are designated Federal Pro Se organizations allowed to deny assistance to Pro Se Petitioners who reveal illegal acts; even acts by people and organizations in power? ; 4) What changes to the Dodd Frank Act H.R. 4173 are needed to close the holes unearthed by the repeal of the 7 Glass Steagall Act of 1932? What additional regulations are ; needed to control fraud? | , Page 8 of 401 | The Defendants in this case — Litton Mortgage Servicing LP is the Parent of Litton Loan Servicing LP (Litton Loan); Hong Kong Shanghai Banking Corporation _ (HSBC Bank USA, N.A.); The Goldman Sachs Group (Goldman Sachs); Fremont Home Loan Trust 2006-C Mortgage-Backed Certificates, Series 2006-C (Fremont); Ocwen Financial Corporation (Ocwen); Stern & Eisenberg, PC; The State of New Jersey (NJ) — each played an integral role in the facilitation of the extensive reign of fraud identified in this case. Some of the acts are identified in this writ; many are identified in the filings with the lower courts (see