Whether the Supreme Court will enforce the Henson v. Santander ruling as the supreme law of the land regarding debt ownership and collection rights under state business qualification statutes

IS HENSON V. SANTANDER ENTITLED TO BE ENFORCED AS THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND ON THE SPECIFIC TENET THAT “...IT’S NOT DEBT COLLECTION IF YOU OWN IT...” ? 1. Introduction: On April 7, 2017, 21 days before First NBC Bank in New Orleans crashed at a cost to FDIC of $1 Billion, three Special Purpose Vehicles (“SPVs”) were created in Delaware to purchase FNBC debt from FDIC and sue as OWNERS of the debt. On November 13, 2017, FDIC sold its OWNERSHIP in 1268 loans valued at $1,800,097,745 to 12 out-of-state bidders, including Girod LoanCo, LLC (““LOANCO’), which later sold its OWNERSHIP to Girod Titlting Trust “TITLING”). None of the purchasers (“vulture funds”) have complied with Louisiana’s Door-Closing Law, claiming to be exempted as All state courts to whom Mandamus Petitioner-Klein (“Klein”) raised the Henson v. Santander tenet that “...It’s not debt collection if you own it...” have egregiously ignored the law. On July 25, (all 2025), Klein filed a petition for mandamus in the Eastern District of Louisiana, as follows: “On Petition for Writ of Mandamus and_ for Extraordinary Relief Seeking (Gi) Enforcement of the Supremacy Clause of the United State Constitution, (ii) Enforcement of Henson v. Santander Consumer USA, GORSUCH, J . and (iii) Such Other 28 U.S.C. § 1651 Relief Deemed Appropriate.” On September 17, the Fifth Circuit DENIED Mandamus, holding: “In his mandamus petition, Klein contends that... for six years he (i) has attempted to have [Henson v. Santander Consumer USA, Inc., 582 U.S. 79 (2017)] enforced, (ii) has cited the Supremacy Clause as ‘...the supreme law of the land...” and (iii) has watched [Girod] and Titling get away with fiscal murder.”, Exhibit A. On September 20, Klein filed an Emergency Application to Justice ALITO, Exhibit B. The Application was rejected as not clearly showing that a stay was sought and denied in the Fifth Circuit. On September 26, Klein filed an Application for En Banc Rehearing clearly seeking a stay: Case: 25-30415 Document: 30-1 Page:13 Date Filed: 09/26/2025 RE T FORA Y There is no dispute that billions of ‘Louisiana dollars are escaping to the Caymans. Petitioner has traced the April 7, 2017 Tramp Corporations from Montreal to the Ugland House in George Town, Grand Cayman: : ‘ait ‘The Maples / Thee ean College Avenue Sufte ane ee ta enna te Wiltaligfon, DE I Kart Wortli Texns! ‘Texas Pacific Gmnap, cra) 30f Commecce:Street, Gulte 3300 . . Fort Warth, TX 71 ants ‘The Cayman Tstands! TPG Specialty aiting 4 ivisert, Ltd. ; F.0. Box 309, Uglind Beorsotenty Grand. There is.no detriment, no aejuilies. no diay eaten of due process to anybody if this Court grants a STAY and engages. in a process to expeditiously enforce the law. Petitioner seeks nothing more. On October 9, 21, 23 and 24, Klein filed compelling proof to the Full Fifth Circuit that Henson mandated the following declaration as to all FBNC debt purchasers arrogantly filing foreclosures as OWNERS of the debt: 2 PURCHASERS OF FNBC DEBT WHICH FILED JUDICIAL DEMANDS AS OWNERS OF THE DEBT WITHOUT QUALIFYING TO TRANSACT BUSINESS IN LOUISIANA DID NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO DO SO AND ALLLAWSUITS SO FILED ARE DECLARED TO BE ABSOLUTE NULLITIES, NUNC PRO TUNC. Closed-Door Statutes are laws passed to protect the public interest: Article 7. Laws for the preservation of the public interest: Persons may not by their juridical acts derogate from laws enacted for the protection of the public interest. Any act in derogation of such laws is an absolute nullity. On October 28, the En Banc Rehearing Petition was DENIED, Exhibit C, 2. The first test of Henson and biggest civil heist in US history. The most remarkable aspect of the case at bar is the arrogance of the purchasers of the FNBC toxic debt. When GIROD lead litigator J. Eric Lockridge was asked to describe his client as a “...typical buyer of debt...”, vel non, he described the GIROD “Special Purpose Vehicles” as Justice GORSUCH would have done: om Kt em Aw ~ a if Q. Is your client, are t