Are the laws of standing applied in a manner which violate the homeowner's 14th Amendment's right, under the Federal Constitution, to be equally protected by the laws and to have the laws equally applied?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED “Procedural due process imposes constraints on governmental decisions which deprive individuals of ‘liberty or ‘property" interests within the meaning of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth or , Fourteenth Amendment. “The "right to be heard before being condemned to suffer grievous loss of any kind, even though it may not involve the stigma and hardships of a criminal conviction, is a ; "principle basic to our society." Joint Anti-Fascist Comm. v. McGrath, 341 U.S. 123, 168 (1951) (Frankfurter, J., concurring). The fundamental requirement of due process is the opportunity to be heard "at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner." Armstrong v. Manzo, 380 U. S. 545, 552 (1965). See Grannis v. Ordean, 234 U.S. 385, 394 (1914).” (MATHEWS, SECRETARY OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE v. ELDRIDGE, 424 U.S. 319 (1976))) The application of third-party beneficiary standing has resulted in thousands of cases between homeowners and their lenders being dismissed before the merits of the cases are heard. As applied, : the home owner cannot sustain their cases past the motion to dismiss stage because of a PSA (Pooling and Service Agreement) between the original lender and a trust (collectively “lenders”). This Agreement between the‘two, directly impacts the property rights of the home owner. The home owner never has waived any rights to defend their interest, yet the court have consistently held that homeowners do not have standing in court to defend their constitutional property interest before the , bench. However, lenders, servicers and Trusts (those who actually own the mortgages within the process of securitization) have been allowed standing, throughout this country, to foreclose on homeowners when these institutions cannot prove that they have a property interest within the mortgage to assert. In fact, its long been settled that a person in wrongful possession of a note may foreclose on that, never having to prove that the note holder actually has a property interest therein with which to invoke the Court’s jurisdiction. Question 1: Are the laws of standing applied in a manner which violate the homeowner’s 14th Amendment’s right, under the Federal Constitution, to be equally protected by the laws and to have the laws equally applied? When the laws of standing are applied in the manner noted in questions#1, the cases between homeowners and the lenders are kicked out of court long before any homeowner may argue the merits of his or her case. Under thése circumstances, the homeowner’s rights are limited to filing paper work and showing up in court. After that, the homeowner has little hope of arguing the merits of their cases, because the lenders file a motion to dismiss and the case is dismissed. : Question 2: Do homeowners in America have a constitutional right, under the due process : clauses of the 5 and 14*» Amendment's to the Federal Constitution, to be meaningfully heard in cases between them and lenders and does the application of third-party . . beneficiary standing doctrine prevent the homeowners’ due process rights ? The history of Securitization stretches back nearly a century. compare United States v. Dilliard, 101 F. 2d 829 Circuit Court of Appeals, 2nd Circuit 1938 (“The company was organized in the year 1927 for the purpose of selling guaranteed mortgages: sometimes it sold these outright; sometimes : it sold "participation certificates" in a single mortgage, which it held in trust for certificate holders; sometimes it set up as security a pool of mortgages, which it either assigned to a trustee, or itself held in trust”) to BlackRock Financial Management Inc. v. Segregated Account of Ambac : Assurance Corp., 673 F.3d 1 69, 173 (2d Cir.2012) (“Residential mortgage loans, rather than being retained by the original mortgagee, may be pooled and borrowers. The right to receive trust income is parceled into certificates and sold to investors, sold "into trusts” created to receive the stream of interest