Question not identified

No question identified. : UESTIONS 1) When a foreign National claims Citizenship on escrow documents, but is not a citizen, is that Mortgage Valid or VOID? 2) Since Escrow Instructions are equally binding on each party signing the same Mortgage, Is the mortgage binding on the parties when one party (in bad faith) intentionally fails to sign as prepared, and required by the Escrow Instructions? 3) Prior to a mortgage being discharged in a Bankruptcy Chapter7, after a , National Bank withdraws its Motion to lift the Automatic Stay, Is it legal for them to reassign it to another National Bank for the express purpose of collection, while the Automatic Stay is firmly in place? Can the assignee legally attempt to collect within-the same stay? 4) The Ninth Circuit determined this pro se litigant clearly had Standing, then Reversed and Remanded it back to the Eastern District Court for review: it was DISMISSED without further hearing, claiming gamesmanship (41(b)), and never reached any merits. Did the District Court have disgression to ignore the 9th Circuit’s authority? (Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C.S. §§ 1,2) 5) In light of the 74 Amendment to the US Constitution, Does the trial courts’ refusal to hear the Merits, denying the Due Process of Law, fatally over-rule a citizen’s right to be heard? 6) Will this Court impose exemplary damages upon the National Banks; Mortgage companies; Investors; attorneys; and their associates, who wrongfully strip, or move to strip, Homeowners to stop their Primary Residences through repeated reassignments and broken chains of title? (Frauds) 2) foreclosure sale was fraudulently predicated on a DOT from 2002, and ignored 3 the 2008 QCD granting full ownership back to the husband as sole-purchaser (circa 1999). With the Broken Chain of Title, Will this court expunge such : Transfers and Sales? (FRAP 43(B); the Fourteenth Amendment; and U.S.C. § 1701j-3(aX(7), preemptions of due on sale) 8) The refinance was on $ 274,000 of principal ($338K with costs, and offset with . $32,000 cash, for a $306K refi); only the purchasing spouse made payments [totaling $ 379,619.74]; after the BK-7 discharge the foreclosure sale was for one penny over an inflated sale price of $ 539,455.59, and the on/y vested homeowner lost his home and every dollar invested since 1999. Will the practice of these : violations of unjust enrichment; unclean hands: and _ undeserved impoverishment, be sharply rectified nationally? 9) How will the Supreme Court of the United States affirmatively end the lenders, and their accomplices, predatory schematic of mortgage and title fraud against homeowners? ; 4 ; PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI Appellant’s relentless pursuit to be heard on the merits by an impartial court has not waivered... Appellant has endured! The Magistrate Judge in the EDC, made it crystal clear that for this Appellant it was going to be very difficult for him in Federal court, at his very first appearance. The court even suggested the voluntary withdrawal of his legally credible claim, which screams to have the merits heard, but lacking a proper judicial opportunity. Plaintiff was sanctioned $250 by the Magistrate under the mistaken guise of “gamesmanship” calling it a Rule 41(b) error for failing to prosecute. It was, in fact, the court which refused to entertain any merits contained in the Original or two Amended complaints. Unequivicabally, it was NOT that the Petitioner failed to present them! To be heard is a right of law under the 14th Amendment. Moreover, some form of hearing is required before an individual is finally deprived of a property, or a liberty interest. In other words, Parties whose rights are to be affected are entitled to be heard (Baldwin v. Hale, 68 U.S. (1 Wall.) 223, 233 (1863). Magistrate Kendall even stood up to conclude the Evidentiary Hearing and threaten the pro se litigant by raising his voice and claiming to refer him for criminal prosecution. The gamesmanship’ was then linked to a Rule 41(b) ac