Whether the lower court's denial of the Petitioner's guaranteed rights under the Bill of Rights departed from accepted judicial standards

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Whether or not the lower court’s denial of the Petitioner’s guaranteed rights under provision as outlined in the Bill of Rights departed so far from the accepted standard and published course of judicial proceedings? 2. Whether or not the US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit correctly reviewed the lower court’s denial of Petitioner’s Seventh Amendment in lite of the published guaranteed right to a trial by jury when affirming the summary dismissal and, if followed here, would such work a continued manifest injustice, and an ongoing imprisonment of fundamental liberties all citizens mistakenly believe that they are to have? 3. Whether the US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit correctly affirmed the lower court’s decision when the denial of Petitioner’s Fifth Amendment due process clause disregarded this action brought to “Try Title” . While being faced with Respondents’ manufactured “Allonge to Note” and “Assignment of Mortgage” that remain inconsistent with public records and proven by preponderance of evidence to be a fraud? 4. Whether or not the lower court supported this ongoing violation of Petitioner’s equal protection right and the freedom to be heard when the record show Petitioner has been repeatedly and systematically denied access to the courts and, if followed here, would such work a continued manifest injustice and oppression against clearly established law? 2 . 3 Questions Continued 5. Could a reasonable minded, ordinary person off the street, if given the facts and evidence contained herein that made the record conclude that the U.S. Courts have openly displayed biasness, partiality and prejudice with complete disregard to the Petitioner’s basic constitutional and human rights. 6. Does the Supreme Court of the United States not say that, “the due process clause entitles a person to an impartial and disinterested tribunal ... without being denied the opportunity to be heard? | 7. Did the lower court’s affirmation deny due process clause when the MERS’ assignment went against public records, contradicts the opinion and order given in Lewis v. Bank of NY Mellon Trust Co. 1:16-cv-11122-FDS? 8. Would the Supreme Court of the United States condone or stand by this Petitioner not being allowed to explain himself in a meaningful way should be deemed a violation of right to enjoy the fundamental right, leaving a party to be affected by a personal judgment must have his day in court, and an opportunity to be heard? End of Questions 3 . 4 . : PARTIES TO THE PRECEEDINGS The Petitioner, Bishop Ruben DeWayne, pro se litigant Leitta R. Brooks, Petitioner’s predecessor/ Plaintiff in Civil Action No. 1-12-cv-11634FDS, US District Court, Massachusetts under collateral attack. Bonified Witness The Respondents are; . J.P. MORGAN MORTGAGE ACQUISITION CORP. (hereinafter) “ACQUISITION” A subsidiary of J.P. MORGAN CHASE & CO., and also, JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, NA a non-party and sister subsidiary of ACQUISITION but unlawfully involved itself without legal standing to do so. MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC. (hereinafter) ; “MERS” : A Delaware Corporation Database of MERSCORP. HOLDINGS, INC. ; Respondents Counsel of Record: NELSON MULLINS P.O. Box 11070 Columbia, SC 29211-1070 : COLLATERAL ATTACKS . Civil Action No. 1-12-cv-11634-FDS, US District Court, Massachusetts (Memo, Order & Judgment were precured by frauds) See attached Civil Action No. 2017-SM-006779, Suffolk County Land Court (Mass) (Judgment is a void where the Court lacked personal jurisdiction where no certificate of authority required to conduct business in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.) Civil Action No. 1:18-cv-10931, US District Court, Massachusetts (Void Order & Judgment / withheld Default Judgment, allowed False & Irregular Docketing / Suffered Want of Jurisdiction by allowing a non-party Defendant to remove the action & plead, without vacating those granted motions after the acknowledged fact was duly corrected.) 4 .