Whether the lower court's denial of the Petitioner's constitutional rights departed from accepted judicial standards

QUESTIONS PRESENTED7 © °7— : 1. Whether or not the lower court’s denial of the Petitioner's guaranteed rights as published under provision outlined in the Bill of Rights departed so far from the accepted standard as the published course of judicial proceedings? 2. Whether or not the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia correctly reviewed the lower court’s denial of Petitioner’s First Amendment right to petition government for redress of grievances for the systematic abuse of powers applied under color of the law? 3. Whether or not the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia 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? 4. Whether the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia correctly affirmed the lower court’s decision when the denial of Petitioner’s Fifth Amendment due process clause disregarded this action brought to expose ongoing thuggery under the “R.J.C.O. Act”? and, if followed here, would such work a continued manifest servitude, injustice and imprisonment of liberties citizens mistakenly believe that ‘ they have but don’t? 2 3° ; Questions Continued 5. Whether or not the lower court’s support of these ongoing violations of Petitioner's equal protection right and the freedom to be heard when the record show Petitioner’s grievance is due to being repeatedly and systematically denied access to the courts by summary dismissals, and if followed here, would such work a continued manifest injustice and oppression against clearly established and published law? 6. Could a reasonable minded, ordinary person off the street, if given these facts and evidence conclude that the U.S. Courts have openly displayed biasness, partiality and prejudice with complete disregard to both, Petitioner’s basic constitutional and human rights? 7. 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? 8. Did the lower court’s affirmation deny due process when Petitioner was not given opportunity to explain himself in a meaningful way in lite of evidence showing MERS was not even served? | 9. Would the Supreme Court of the United States condone or stand by this Petitioner who was denied right to have his day in court, and an opportunity to be heard? End of Questions 3 4 a oe . PARTIES TO THE PRECEEDINGS : 7 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. And Bonified Witness The Respondents are; : THE UNITED STATES, aka “The Great Corporation” Respondent Counsel of Record: The U.S. Attorney, c/o Patricia K. McBride 555 Fourth Street, NW Washington, DC 20530 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. And . MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC. (hereinafter) “MERS”, a Delaware Corporation Database of MERSCORP. HOLDINGS, INC. Respondents Counsel of Record: SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 975 F. Street, NW Washington, DC 20004-1454 COLLATERAL ATTACKS Civil Action No. 1-12-cv-11634-FDS, US District Court, District of Massachusetts’ (Memo, Order & Judgment were precured by open frauds) See attached. Civil Action No. 2017-SM-006779, Suffolk County Land Court (MA Court of Original Jurisdiction) “ACQUISITION’s” (Judgment is a void where the Court lacked personal jurisdiction where no c