Whether the M.D. La., erred and the 5th Cir., erred in affirming that the LoanCity note and mortgage of December 2005 was the original financed note

No question identified. : ws “ , . ‘ ’ . i QUESTIONS Question 1: Whether the M.D. La., erred and the 5* Cir., erred in affirming that the LoanCity note and mortgage of December 2005 was “ the original financed note” | when Petitioners Affirmed and evidence shows that Equifirst held the original note and mortgage of October 2002, and instead of LoanCity paying Equifirst for the note | Equifirst filed the Lost Note Affidavit in 2006 clearly stating the original note and | mortgage from Equifirst was never sold, transferred, or assigned to anyone | including LoanCity in 2006 but rather it was deemed paid in full with nothing | owing. The evidence shows LoanCity did not “refinance” the original note and | mortgage which voids the instruments. Therefore, we request the Court to bring | forth a point of clarity in dealing with this evidence and rule of law. Question 2: Whether the M.D. La., committed reversable errors under the Federal | Rules of Civil Procedures and treated Pro Se Litigants with bias in light of FRCP 7.1 Disclosure Statements, FRCP:6 Computing Time, 28 USC §455, FRCP 60(b)(3) | and (4), 28 USC 636, FRCP 26. | Question 3: Whether M.D. La., ruled in err and the 5‘ Cir., Affirmed in err in light | of lack of jurisdiction. Did the M.D. La., have jurisdiction to rule on Petitioners’ | Request for an Injunction and Hearing to stop a foreclosure in light of LA RS 2752, : which requires the injunction to be filed and determined in the Court where the Executive Order for Foreclosure was filed and a hearing must be held prior to the date of the execution of the Writ of Seizure (auction of the property) set for October 31, 2018. Did M.D. La., also have jurisdiction to reverse the Judgment granted in , 19th JDC C-656991 which is still an “ACTIVE” proceeding; thereby, depriving the 19t JDC of jurisdiction for which they GRANTED the Temporary Restraining Order ROA.21-30060.43. a Hearing in. compliance with LA RS 2752 on October 24, 2018 to adjudicate? Did the Respondents in bad faith, improperly remove the case to M.D. La., according to LA RS 2752, the Doctrine of Abstention, and 28 USC §§1447, 1441 and 1367. | | Question 4: Whether the Berrys Constitutional Rights were violated. Question 5: Whether State and Federal Courts should award decisions in favor of | parties that utilize facially invalid document (document derived by fraud) to obtain a favorable judgment and deprive people of property? Question 6: Whether the mortgage industry must comply with the Uniform Commercial Code UCC recommendations adopted as State Law that govern interstate commerce. | ot i