Whether the stated claims for relief of this Case arising directly under the due-process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution can be circumvented by unconstitutional departures from established law and procedures

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW Circumvention of a full and fair trial on the merits, and then routine, arbitrary denial of appeal without reason under the guise of discretionary appeal, ' squarely conflicts with the United States Constitution and precedents of this Court? and those of the Supreme Court of Georgia. Furthermore, vastly different legal standards exist with regard to requirement of proof of a real party in interest with Article III standing "of alleging Creditors, who routinely file false documents in public records for the purpose of taking property. Instead of applying the established requirements of law and procedure strictly against the same entities that have been repeatedly cited for FRAUD AND NON COMPLIANCE by government and lawsuits from investors, insurers and guarantors, the courts have applied liberal standards and circumvention to allow foreclosure and eviction to proceed. Yet, Debtors are deemed not to have standing to challenge an Assignment of their mortgage, even when fraud is documented.? | 1. Whether the stated claims for relief of this Case arising directly under the 1 See App. K: Over 100 Orders in the Georgia Court of Appeals, just in 2020, denying discretionary appeals without reason and using the identical language used in the denial of Timbes’ discretionary appeal, App. D. Note, specifically, that on June 19, 2020, A20D0391, another Application to appeal was denied involving Deutsche Bank, as Appellee. Because in each there is no opinion, there is no way to determine whether the “decision was reached for an impermissible reason or for no reason at all.” Dunlop, 421 U.S. at 573, 95 S.Ct. 1851 (1975). 2 See e.g., Lindsey et al. v. Normet et al, 405 U.S. 56, 77 (1972), 92 S. Ct. 862. 3 See e.g., Haynes v. McCalla Raymer, LLC, 793 F.3d 1246, 1251 (11th Cir. 2015). i due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution can be circumvented by unconstitutional departures from established law and procedures? A. Whether or not the State of Georgia has abridged Timbes’ privileges or immunities by making and/or enforcing the Discretionary Appeal Process under 0.C.G.A. § 5-6-35, which has allowed arbitrary denial of appeal without reason? B. Whether Timbes’ having been deprived of her property without due process of law, and having been denied equal protection of the laws, is a violation the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, Section 1? 2. Whether alleging creditors with no proven ownership in the subject property have Article III standing to have brought a dispossessory action and/or to have moved for Summary Judgment and/or to have moved to dismiss Timbes’ Counterclaim, which lawsuit challenges a state-regulated, non-judicial foreclosure as void for violation of Georgia law requiring that a valid assignment be filed prior to foreclosure, and/or for mortgage fraud under the Georgia RICO Act, and/or for violation of the Trust’s PSA? ii , Il. THE