Whether the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment limits the judicial power of state courts to issuing judgments deciding those justiciable matters which exist between adverse parties

QUESTIONS PRESENTED The trial court, through its judge, brazenly told pro se defendant homeowners that U.S. Bank did not have to have any interest in their mortgage loan in order to file a complaint for foreclosure against them and their home. On appeal, the Court of Appeals did not reach this issue because it held that pro se homeowners had not disproved U.S. Bank’s standing because the discovery responses admitting U.S. Bank’s lack of standing which were filed by U.S. Bank’s purported legal attorney and attorney-in-fact (Ocwen Loan Servicing) was hearsay. The Supreme Court of Washington, as well as this Court, then denied review of that Court of Appeals’ decision. Prior to the time their home was to be sold, the then remaining pro se defendants moved for post judgment relief to stop the sale of their home based on their contention that the Plaintiff had failed to prove its standing to enforce the Note at the time the foreclosure complaint was filed. The Superior Court denied relief and on appeal a panel of Washington’s Court of Appeals absurdly held that the burden was on the pro se defendants to prove that the Plaintiff did not have standing. The Washington Supreme Court again denied review. The issues posed for review are: 1. Whether the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment limits the judicial power of state courts to issuing judgments deciding those justiciable matters which exist between adverse parties. 2. Whether the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prevented Washington’s appellate court judges from requiring defendants to disprove plaintiffs standing.