Whether Supreme Court precedents permit Santander Consumer USA Inc.'s actions involving deprivation of rights without due process of law

Whether this Court ’s decisions interpreting the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, including Fuentes v. Shevin, 407 U.S. 67, 80, 96-97, 92 S.Ct. 1983, 32 L.Ed.2d 556 (1972); Sniadach v. Family Finance Corp., 395 U.S. 337, 340-42, 89 S.Ct. 1820, 23 L.Ed2d 349 (1969); Lugar v. Edmondson Oil Co., 457 U.S. 922, 924, 102 S.Ct. 2744, 73 L.Ed.2d 482 (1982), permit Santander Consumer USA Inc. ’s use of deprivation of rights and properties without due process of law decisions. Whether this Court ’s decisions interpreting the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment, including Tyler v. Hennepin County, Minnesota, 143 S. Ct. 1369 (May 25, 2023); Boyd v. U.S., 116 U.S. 616 at 635 (1885), permit Santander Consumer USA Inc. ’s use oftaking and depriving private properties for public use without just compensation and without due process of law decisions. Whether this Court ’s decisions interpreting the Truth in Lending Act (TILA) in Advertising of Downpayments and Installments of the United States Code Title 15 Section 1662, and in Determination of Finance Charge of the United States Code Title 15 Section 1605(a)(b)(c)(d), including Stone v. Powell, 428 U.S. 465, 483 n. 35, 96 S. Ct. 3037, 49 L., permit Santander Consumer USAInc. ’suseof deceiving the American people to enter and to draft consumer credit contracts and transactions by forcing to deposit large amounts of downpayments money in Consumer Credit Transactions without full disclosure of required law decisions. it Whether this Court ’s decisions interpreting the United States Supreme Court ’s ruling “Where a Promissory Note Goes, a Deed of Trust Must Follow, in other word, the Deed and the Note Cannot be Separated, ” including Carpenter v. Longan, 83 U.S. 16 Wall. 271 (1872), permits Santander Consumer USA Inc. ’s use of separating original promissory notes from the deed of trust law decisions. Where is the Note? Whether this Court ’s decisions interpreting the United States Code Title 28 Section 636(b)(1)(A) Jurisdiction Power and Temporary Any Provision of Law to the Contrary, including Labor and Industry Review Commission of the State of Wisconsin v. Tracey Coleman, 860 F.3d 461 (2017), permit the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia Atlanta Division ’s use of dismissing with prejudice a case with No. l:23 ’Cw00289 between Desty v. Santander Consumer USA Inc. by a Magistrate judge without due process of law decisions. Whether this Court ’s decisions interpreting the Corporate Powers of Associations'Bank Power to Lend Money Not Credit, codified in the United States Code Title 12 Section 24 Paragraph 7, including First National Bank of Tallapoosa v. Monroe, 135 Ga 614, ’ 69 S.E. 1123 (1911); C.E. Healey & Son v. Stewardson National Bank, 1 N.E.2d 858 III. App. 290, permits Santander Consumer USA, Inc. ’s use of power decisions to lend its credit to this Petitioner, not even its money, and became surety, indorser, or guarantor for him.