Whether the fundamental right of due process is violated when a non-final non-appealable order is modified via nunc pro tunc to create a final appealable order, and the appellate court dismisses the appeal for lack of jurisdiction

1. Question Whether the fundamental right of due process is violated, when a) a non-final non-appealable order is modified via nunc pro tunc to create a final appealable order; after which, appeal is filed from the final appealable order; and the appellate court dismisses the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, ruling the appeal not timely from the original non-final non-appealable order? b) Award is made to Respondent whose claim violates statutes of limitation? c) Claimant obtains an award without evidence of Standing or Standing Voidance is ignored? 2. Question 2 Whether there is a fundamental right to civil trial by jury when genuine issues of material fact are evidenced? 3. Question 3 Whether there is a fundamental right of contract? ii PARTIES Petitioner filed against COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC. (‘Countrywide’), BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION (“BAC”); BANK OF AMERICA, N.A. “BANA”, Collectively, BAC and BANA are termed “BofA”); DEUTSCHE BANK, AG; DEUTSCHE BANK USA; DEUTSCHE BANK NORTH AMERICA; DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY (“Deutsche Trust” Collectively, Deutsche Bank, AG; Deutsche Bank USA; Deutsche Bank North America and Deutsche Trust are termed “Deutsche”); MORGAN STANLEY ABS CAPITAL, INC. (“Morgan”); CERTIFICATE HOLDERS OF MORGAN STANLEY ABS CAPITAL I, INC. TRUST 2006-HE6, MORTGAGE PASS THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2006-HE6 (“Certificate Holders”) for Breach of Contract, Fraud and Violations of Art. XVI § 50(a)(6)(Q)(x) of the TX Const., § 13.001(a) of the TX Property Code, TX Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, United States (“US”) Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (‘US FDCPA”), Lack of Standing and Statutes of Limitation (TX CP&RC §§ 16.004(a), 16.0035(a),(d), (e)), as well as against BARRETT, DAFFIN, FRAPPER, TURNER and ENGEL, L.L.P. for Document Fraud relating to forgery of Appellant’s Mortgage Contract, Note, and Ft. Bend County Recordation thereto, thereby violation the TX Criminal Code §32; and, all for Violations of the TX Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code §12. Respondent filed an original counter-claim and second amended counter-claim to obtain Petitioner’s TX Homestead. A Non-entity, DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL COMPANY, filed an amended counter-claim. ili RELATED ACTIONS Richard Haase and Audrey Haase v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., et al.; In the Southern District of Texas — Houston Division No. 4:12-cv-01538. Richard Haase and Audrey Haase v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., et al.; In the Fifth Circuit No. 12-20806. Richard Haase and Audrey Haase v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., et al.; In the Southern District of Texas — Houston Division 4:15-cv-03349. Richard Haase and Audrey Haase v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., et al.; In the Southern District of Texas — Houston Division No. 4:16-CV-1567. Richard Haase and Audrey Haase v. Countrywide Home Loans, TInce., et al.; U.S. S. Ct. Petition for Writ of Certiorari, No. 14-5803. Richard Haase v. Pearl River Polymers, et al.; U.S. 8. Ct. Petition for Writ of Certiorari, No. 12-212. In re Richard Alan Haase U.S. S. Ct. Petition for Writ of Certiorari, No. 12-1690 iv