Can a party who was wronged by a bank or business entity that committed mass fraud, misrepresentation, and racketeering actions retain a judgment in a District Court Complaint for punitive damages or other damages with an independent claim?

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED 1. Cana party who was wronged by a bank or business entity that committed mass fraud, misrepresentation, and racketeering actions that render the Rooker-Feldman Doctrine and Res Judicate useless retain a judgement in a District Court Complaint for punitive damages or other damages with an independent claim? Especially, when those damages are for their most valued assets as their familial home.? When the actions taken against them were a wrongful foreclosure without the bank/corporation and associates ever having had the right to do so due to clear lack of valid ownership and clear lack of any proof therein even when requested formally? 2. Ifa poor person without employment used the courts to defraud the richest person in America or someone in the highest rank in U.S. politics such as a President or VP by issuing a wrongful foreclosure proceeding in the state courts and deed recording office where their property was and committed title fraud by doing false title claim deeds in their state conveyance bureau of office would they get the same leeway as a false bank or false business entity with no acquired or provable right to the property against the average American citizen as the Respondents in this particular case were able to get away with numerous crimes via State Court, Intermediate Court of Appeals, US District Court, and The US Court of Appeals in the 9% Circuit? And, with no remedy or punitive damages being allowed as the courts and panels move to suggest that the moving party in the formal federal complaint was merely trying to reverse earlier court decisions or stop the foreclosure despite repeat concise statements contrary to those allegations? 3. Has the authority of the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac) to remove state court actions to federal court, pursuant to 12 U.S.C. § 1452(f), been extinguished because Freddie Mac is no longer owned by the federal government? 4. Does an owner of real estate possess a federal due process right to ascertain the validity of a security interest in that real property or real estate, and the identity of the entities that claim said security interest? Why would they get away with foreclosing with no promissory note to back them when asked no proof of even being a server for an original mortgage company and the homeowner’s valid proof as evidence that their attempt to own under their partner company’s name was rejected and given to another company at the time that, they said they owned it? And then why would a federal district court not allow them to file a complaint for punitive damages that began before State Court proceedings (not barred by Rooker Feldman or other as it was a fraud prior to state court proceeding the state court disallowed any Due Process for, the issues are Title Fraud, collusion, and racketeering as basis of complaint in all federal courts thus far) when they willingly and provably committed acts of Title fraud with Hawaii State Bureau of Conveyances having falsely claimed title to a property that homeowner, Herma Barbara Medina Reyna was already paying on to another company that . rejected their interest in plain writing wanting to purchase the title or note and allowing them to know it was : being trangferred to a bank in Michigan known as Flagstar. Neither the bank nor MERS showed any valid and permissive giving or signing of the property to the mortgage bank under any of the names they claimed they had used or changed their name to? 5. Does the holding of Carpenter v. Longan, 83 U.S. 271 (1872) render a transaction purporting to separate a mortgage and a note invalid? Because if it’s valid still, the company that wrongfully foreclosed in this issues by title fraud could neither verify they owned the mortgage, title, or any note, in fact they could not in the least verify that they were even qualified or in any way officially involved in being any type of servicer, not even in the case of the 2"! mortgage (which is for