Introductory Statement
Forum shopping and the "new federalism " is alive and
well in Massachusetts. The favored forum of choice for
the big bank, foreclosing mortgagees in the
commonwealth is the U. S. district court and the U. S.
Court of Appeals. This case provides a good explanation
as to why that is. Although this case is but a pixel in
the big picture of the corrupting influence of mega bank
money and power in the Massachusetts courts, a close
look at what 's going on in this case might answer
questions we are afraid to ask.

1. When a federal court misinterprets and fails to
apply a state statute consistent with state law, leading
to a conflict with how the state's highest court would
rule, does it violate the principles of federalism as it is
commonly understood, or establish a new form of it, by
misapplying state law, which the U.S. Supreme Court
has a mandate to correct, especially where the Federal
Court of Appeals refused Appellant 's request to certify
the question to the state 's highest court?

2. Is forum shopping on the basis of diversity as
practiced today in our courts ("neo-forum shopping ")
discriminatory and unconstitutional, particularly
where it is weaponized to curtail equal access to justice
for the poor pursuant to the 5th and 14th amendments?

Whether federal courts violate federalism principles by misinterpreting state statutes in conflict with state law, and whether diversity-based forum shopping constitutes unconstitutional discrimination limiting equal access to justice under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments