Whether the judiciary has jurisdiction to effectuate the 'Taking without due process and without just compensation' of a pro se black disabled senior citizen's homestead property

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Under the U.S and Florida Constitutions, pursuant to applicable rules of law and the various consent decrees the very same ; “plaintiffs” entered into with 49 States and the Federal Government ‘ to resolve the fraud claims brought against them for causing the 2008 foreclosure crisis, Whether the judiciary has jurisdiction to effectuate the “Taking without due process and without just compensation” of a pro se black disabled senior citizen’s homestead property, for no. legitimate public purpose but on the behalf of and for the benefit of a still unidentified real party in interest, by means of the same type of fraudulent and vexatious foreclosure action initiated by and through the same “plaintiffs”, where the pro se black disabled senior citizen was judicially precluded from asserting his fundamental, legal and constitutional rights to due process, access to the courts, property rights, right to a timely requested trial by jury on his compulsory counterclaim, right to set off, recoupment or redemption; to equal protection under the law, and where the judiciary under the color of law and authority allowed the plaintiffs to commit fraud upon the court with impunity? 2. Under the U.S. and Florida Constitutions, under the applicable I Rule of Law, ' Whether a State adjudicated totally disabled black person entitled | and qualified to have received a $267.00 loan modification have his property judicially TAKEN, under color of law, without due process nor compensation, by means of a void ab initio Final : Judgment for violation of his fundamental right to a timely requested jury trial on his compulsory counterclaim, to a debt collector shielded by the courts from disclosing its entitlement to relief even up to now? Whether another law firm be allowed to obtain a writ of possession against Defendant, when the third party that they claim to represent denies any involvement with them, a third party that did not participate in the proceedings, did not pay cash at auction and received a Conditional Credit Bid Assignment, a nullity by operation of law and when the law firm and the third party have motions for default pending against them for failure to file any responsive papers in the compulsory counterclaim? ; \ 1 3. Under the taking and the due process clauses of the U.S. and Fla. Constitutions; pursuant to F.R. Civ. P., Rules 1.140, 1.170, 1.260 (c), 1.420, 1.540 (b) (3) & (4), Rule 9.110 (b); pursuant to Rule 2.215(f), F. R. Jud. Admin.; to Fla. Stat., sec. 117, 817 and 831; and the applicable rules of law pertaining to a foreclosure action initiated by a self-proclaimed servicer with, to this day, no identified principal or real party in interest to validate an agency relationship, to authorize and ratify this action, Whether a Defendant’s 25-count Amended Compulsory Counterclaim, among them for Fraud and to Quiet Title, with timely jury trial requested, can be dismissed with prejudice, (even to parties that were never served or made an appearance in the case, to parties against whom Administrative Clerk Default were sought for failure to file any responsive papers), on the basis of res judicata, collateral estoppel, merger doctrine, litigation privilege, If the defendant’s fundamental and constitutional rights were violated by all involved: If the predecessor Circuit court, the Honorable Judge Spencer Eig eviscerated defendant’s counterclaim and defenses by denying proper discovery and improperly refused to dismiss the September 29, 2010 Foreclosure Complaint for lack of standing, for failing to state a cause of action, for naked fraud for attaching an ‘Assignment of mortgage...together with the note”, already executed September 30, 2010 in violation of F.S. 117 and 831, because he “wanted to first hold the trial and if Defendant could prove the fraud then he would dismiss the case” If, accordingly, the 11%? Circuit jurisdiction was never properly invoked, the lower court did not have subject matter jurisdic