Whether Torres are entitled to protections of Amendments 5, 6, 7, 13, and 14 to the Constitution

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Rule 14(1)(a) {a} WHETHER Torres are entitled to protections of Amendments 5", 6t, 7% 13h and 14" to the Constitution? (b) WHETHER dismissal with prejudice of Torres’ Complaint under Rules 8 and 12(b) was erroneous and improper? (¢ ) WHETHER Torres’(i) prior settlement and Release,{ii) Certificate of Release; (iii) Satisfaction; (iv) Judgment and (v) Dismissals with Prejudice constitute res judicata as to Appellees’ subsequent foreclosure claims? (d) WHETHER Torres have federal claims for violations of Civil Rights Acts of 1964, 1988, 1981, 1983 & 198Sbased on Wells Fargo denying application for purchase of 3542 West Beach and , 3550 West Beach Avenue based on {i) race, color: (ii) ethnicity: | Hispanic (iii) gender/female; {iv) elderly, (v) misclassified U.S. citizenship; (vi) disability? (e ) WHETHER Torres are entitled a file an Amended Complaint based on new evidence and acts by Respondents committed during Appeals, including but not limited to: (i) breaches of oral promises from 2015 to November 2021 {ii) threats, violence, physical assaults and violence, | home invasion, destruction of property which terrorized and traumatized Torres? (f) WHETHER plaintiffs Torres who never had a mortgage with Wells Fargo, have claims under RICO, the False Claims Act, conspiracy and fraud re seventeen (17) fake, fabricated unauthorized accounts/mortgages in Rosee Torres’ name by ID theft, forgery, robo-signature(s), altering and substituting blank forms from predecessor applications to purchase 3542 and 3550 West Beach, to create new fake mortgage on 3546 West Beach to defraud Torres and federal government of $3-$5 million dollars? (g) WHETHER plaintiffs Torres have a claim under Racketeer Influence & Corrupt Organization Act (RICO) re Money Laundering, Conspiracy, and Fraud by alleged criminal enterprises? (h}) WHETHER federal judge Mary Rowland should have disqualified or recused herself as arelative and attorney is employed during by Respondent Wells Fargo’s law firm? (N) WHETHER BR. Torres’ prior law firm and employer, Judge Nathan Howse & Judge R. Scott Nevilles, have conflict of interest and breach of fiduciary duties as judges denying Torres’ State Court Appeal re issues they settled with same parties prior to judgeship? | (j}) WHETHER trial court Judge Wm. B. Sullivan, former employee of Wells Fargo law firm, as | disclosed by Respondents, {i} should have recused self; (ii) can impose summary judgment & | sale for foreclosure on Noel Torres, who is not named or a party to mortgage at issue? ---ii ;