AWESOME | Sarah Palin, Meet Linda Green (And MERS): Was Palin’s New Home Purchase Preceded By A “Robosigned” (And Fraudulent) Title Release

Now this is priceless…

Sarah Palin, Meet Linda Green (And MERS): Was Palin’s New Home Purchase Preceded By A “Robosigned” (And Fraudulent) Title Release

Yesterday we reported that Sarah Palin has just purchased a new property in North Scottsdale, AZ for $1.75 million. We further speculated that there may have been some fishyness with regard to the terms of the purchase of the JPM short sale which was an over 100% flip in about a year. So far so good. Where this story takes yet another detour into the macabre, is a cursory analysis of the release deed of the prior mortgage holder of the property, one Steven Soraya, who had a loan amounting to $980,500.00 with Wells Fargo, which was released on July 3, 2007 and which just so happens was signed by Robosigner extraordinaire, the one, the only, the infamous Linda Green. Ergo our question: did miss Palin just procure a property to which there is no legitimate title, and which, therefore, may not have been legitimately sold to her? Oh yes, MERS is of course involved too.

Check out the rest with the Linda Green Satisfaction here…

Maybe now that someone “important” just got hit with a toxic title something might actually get done….


47 Responses to “AWESOME | Sarah Palin, Meet Linda Green (And MERS): Was Palin’s New Home Purchase Preceded By A “Robosigned” (And Fraudulent) Title Release”
  1. kenneth S Taylor says:

    i need A Amicus Brief as soon as possible judge Tom Parker is corrupt his courtroom is a crime scene!
    Attorney for Appellant PRO SE


    Kenneth S. Taylor et al,
    Deutsche Bank National Trust Company et al,
    Appellee-Respondent )
    ) Case No.: 11-2377


    Appealed from United States District Court, Northern District of Ohio
    Originating Case No: 5:10 CV 2766




    FOR APPELLEE; Rose Marie L.Fiore of McGlinchey Stafford PLLC lead counsel and James S. Wertheim 25550 Chagrin Blvd. Cleveland, Ohio 44122 1216-378-9905, FOR APPELLANT’S Kenneth S. Taylor, Alycia Taylor Driggins [pro se].


    Interlocutory orders can be obtained by a writ under the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a), which authorizes appellate courts to review trial court orders that are not final judgments. A writ of mandamus in a civil case may be issued if there is no adequate remedy by regular appeal or otherwise; the petitioner will be harmed in a way not correctable on direct appeal; the trial court’s challenged order is clearly erroneous as a matter of law; the issue is likely to recur; and the order raises issues that are new and important or of first impression. Bauman v. United States Dist. Court, 557 F.2d 650, 654-55 (9th Cir. 1977). Writs have been issued to review an order compelling disclosure of privileged information or a trial court’s refusal to rule on pending motions. We ask for the purpose of this appeal that this harsh order by Judge be construed as Final and Appealable because of its extreme and drastic effects on plaintiff’s complaint bringing it to a dead stop in trial court. Now come Plaintiff’s Kenneth S. Taylor and Alycia Taylor Driggins (pro se) See Ledbetter v. City of Topeka, 318 F.3d 1183, 1187 (10th Cir. 2003).( Under this standard, some allowances for the pro se plaintiff’s failure to cite proper legal authority should be allowed,) who submit this Interlocutory Appeal A Writ under the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a), No federal judge has the authority to terminate the fundamental rights guaranteed to all citizens, as Judge Adams ,has did in this case ,destroying in the process, the Taylors rights to life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness , guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States, Amendment XIV[1868] Section 1, violating Due Process rights, in this case:
    Case No.: CASE NO.5: 10 CV 2766 this case has no final judgment, therefore there is no adequate remedy by regular appeal or otherwise, the petitioner will be harmed in a way not correctable by direct appeal if his home is sold unlawfully he may never get his home back, monetary reward will not replace uniqueness and lifetime memories of 23years in home, if petitioner re-files the case, the case will return back to original Judge Adams for the same wasted repeated results. the trial court’s challenged order is clearly erroneous as a matter of law; the issue is likely to recur; We Now Ask this High Honorable Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals to review all issues, make and consider same set of facts, assignment of errors listed below as standard of review De novo, The appellate court owes no deference to the trial court’s legal conclusions. Instead, the appellate court has the power to determine for itself the application, interpretation, and construction of a question of law. An appellate court, however, may not retry the evidence or make new determinations of fact in deciding the applicable law. Judge John Adams Violated major substantive due process protections, including the rights guaranteed by the Civil Rights Act, Bivens, RICO, Declaratory Judgment Act, and the Supreme Court’s void judgment doctrine. 1.) First Assignment of Error: Unlawful Gatekeepers Order JUDGE JOHN ADAMS ORDERS [Resolves Docs. 21] entered in this action on the 1st day of March 2011 and moves this Honorable Court for a Final Appealable Order as to all parties and as to all claims, we further Opposed Judges Order filed on March 01, 2011, which he instructed Clerks Office to no longer accept filings from Plaintiffs in this matter. See Civil Docket # 22 Filed 03/01/2011 Whether or not Judge clearly abused discretion and/or denied due process of law by causing court clerk to repeatedly obstruct and effectively preclude appellant’s filing for final appealed order on March 8, 2011 when Clerk rejected Mr. Kenneth S. Taylor motion at window and would not let him file the motion, and denied Plaintiffs default motion on Manley Deas Kochalski LLC and Kevin L. Williams requested in good faith by pro se appellant. See Civil Docket #15 Filed on 1/11/2011 whereas clerk had a lawful duty under Rule 55 (a) to enter default judgment and judge abused his discretion in his involvement with clerk. Statement of facts: he further says per verbatim “Any filings received should be returned to plaintiffs, along with a copy of this order. Plaintiffs’ motion for contempt Denied. We have absolute proof that every motion plaintiffs filed before the court have merit and are sensible, also some credence should be given too the fact Judge Adams employer The United States has sued Plaintiffs, defendants for similar actions involving fraud. The Justice Department sued Deutsche Bank AG, one of the world’s 10 biggest banks by assets, for at least $1 billion for defrauding taxpayers by “repeatedly” lying to a federal agency when securing taxpayer-backed insurance for thousands of shoddy mortgages. The case is U.S. v. Deutsche Bank AG (DBK), 11-cv-2976, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York (Manhattan). For this reason alone the court should remand back to district court. Also See In re: Ron Wilson, LaRhonda Wilson, U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, case no. 07-11862. For the debtors: Elisabeth Harrington of Harrington & Myers. For the U.S. Trustee: Carolyn s. Cole and Mary Langston A LANDMARK CASE DECIDED APRIL 7 2011 IN WHICH LENDERS PROCESS SEVERCINGS COMPANY WAS SANCTION FOR LYING TO COURTS AND PROVIDING “sham affidavits. See exhibits attached the same company produced these fake document, the assignment, the fake “sham affidavits used in pleadings before this court. In which Judge Adams refused to test the evidence denying several show cause motions to do so. along with public support contained in a segment aired on national T.V. by CBS 60 Minutes which verifies Kenneth S. Taylor allegations made in District Court records during initial pleading in complaint page # 15 See Civil Docket # 1. THE MOST IMPORTANT MISLEADING FRAUDULENT DOCUMENT IN THIS CASE IS THE DEFECTIVE ASSIGNMENT WHICH FOR SOME STRANGE REASON WAS ENDORSED IN Dakota County, Minnesota WHERE, Lender Processing Services continues to mass produce “replacement” assignments specifically, strategically and systematically. The fraud is widespread, massive, the Judges have been lied to trick into favorable judgments by banks with phony, fake, robo signed documents. On April 12, 2010, Lender Processing Services closed the offices of its subsidiary, Docx, LLC, in Alpharetta, Georgia. That office was responsible for pumping out over a million mortgage assignments in the last two years so that banks could foreclose on residential real estate. The law firms handling the foreclosures were retained and largely controlled by Lender Processing Services, in this case Manley, Deas, Kochalski LLC. Of Columbus, Ohio law firm, LPS and LPS Default Solutions is illegally splitting attorney’s fees as part of their contractual arrangement. Who presented the “sham affidavit and fake , fraudulent assignment to this court as only evidence of any alleged ownership that was deemed defective by this federal District Court itself, according to a Sanctions Order entered by U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Diane Weiss Sigmund (In re Niles C. Taylor, EDPA, Case 07-15385-sr, Doc. 193). Lender Processing Services, the largest “default management services company” in the country, has already made at least partial admissions that there were faults in the documents produced by the Docx office – although courts and homeowners were never notified. According to Lender Processing Services, over 50 major banks use their default management services. The banks that especially need the services provided by Lender Processing Services include Deutsche Bank, acting as trustees for mortgage-backed securitized trusts. (there now is absolute concrete proof and evidence that the assignment before this court is false , phony , fake, and deceptive, misleading, defective, and produced by this crime lab, rendering state court summary judgment in favor of Deutsche Bank National Trust Company forever Null, Void, and without Force.) For this reason alone the Plaintiffs Claims and all causes of actions as well as entire complaint should be restored , this case should be reversed remanded back to District Court, at the least , or in the alternative this court has the power to grant plaintiffs declaratory relief and damages from what has been four (4) years of complete absolute fraudulent lawsuits 3 in total have been filed against the Taylor’s by these parties pretending to be the lenders who have cause Taylors to suffer continue to suffer from lethal doses of Civil Right Violations, who are hard working citizens and have paid taxes for all these years and live in their home with ownership rights for 23 year . We ask this court to grant plaintiffs-appellants- petitioners Kenneth Saylor ,Alicia Taylor Diggings 300, 000.00 dollars in damages, and hear Quiet Title Claims and award 100 million in punitive damages to plaintiffs a amount so high it would economically force Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, and all other parties named to follow the law This Court has the power to Grant Relief from these proceedings, Grant Relief under both federal and state rules and laws 28 U.S.C. 1655 .These trusts, in the rush to securitize mortgages and sell them to investors, often ignored the critical step of obtaining mortgage assignments from the original lenders to the securities companies to the trusts. Now, years later, when the companies “servicing” the trusts need to foreclose, they retain Lender Processing Services to draft the missing documents. The mortgage servicers, including American Home Mortgage Services, and American Servicing Company, never disclose that the trusts are missing essential documents – they just rely on Lender Processing Services to “fix” the problems. Who is also named in caption of this complaint who is also being sued by: Kay VanHauen v. American Home Mortgage Servicing Inc., 10-02146, U.S. District Court, Northern District of Texas (Dallas); State of Texas v. American Home Mortgage Servicing Inc., 2010-3307, District Court of El Paso County, Texas; State of Ohio v. American Home Mortgage Servicing Inc., 09-708888, Court of Common Pleas, Cuyahoga County, Ohio; Michael Landi v. American Home Mortgage Servicing Inc., 10-00921, U.S. District Court, District of Maryland (Baltimore); Kenneth Coplin v. American Home Mortgage Servicing Inc., 3:10-cv-01096, U.S. District Court, Southern District of California (San Diego). Although the Alpharetta office has been closed, Lender Processing Services continues to mass produce “replacement” assignments from its Jacksonville, Florida, and Dakota County, Minnesota offices, Law firms retained by Lender Processing Services also often use their own employees, posing as officer of Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, to produce the needed Assignments. Since the vast majority of homeowners do not retain counsel in foreclosure proceedings, this flawed system has worked very effectively for the last few years, with courts all over the country rarely questioning why so many mortgage companies had officers in Alpharetta, Georgia, or why Trusts that closed in 2005 and 2006 were just obtaining Mortgage Assignments in 2009 and 2010. Most courts never even questioned why companies long-dissolved, such as Option One, could still be executing documents years after the dissolution. While the closing of the Alpharetta office may be a sign that these fraudulent activities will finally be exposed and addressed, for the time being, it is just a matter of an unsatisfactory end of one small facet of an enormous and far-reaching problem. The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency rendered punishment on Lender Processing Services, Inc. (LPS) and other financial institutions “… for unsafe and unsound practices related to residential mortgage loan servicing and foreclosure processing.” The OCC now requires mortgage servicers to reform and improve practices for servicing residential mortgage loans and processing foreclosures. To support these actions, servicers must use independent firms to conduct audits of these practices and processes as they unfolded in 2009 and 2010. In the case of borrowers who wrongly suffered financial harm, servicers must provide monetary compensation. The OCC may also assess civil penalties. This defendant LPS is name in caption and has agreed to pay the plaintiffs damages, the decree and consent order is further proof of plaintiffs allegations against this party who issued and manufactured and produce the “sham affidavit, and fake , fraudulent assignment , and other documents used to obtain null and void summary judgment in trial court unlawfully. This court is now and forever put on notice the “ASSIGNMENT” presented to this Honorable Court, and Summit County Common Pleas Court in Akron is fraudulent, The proper party with standing to foreclose a note and mortgage is the holder of the note and mortgage or the holder’s representative. See Taylor v. Deutsche Bank Nat. Trust. Co., 44 So. 3d 618, 622 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010); BAC Funding Consortium Inc. ISAOA/ATIMA v. Jean-Jacques, 28 So. 3d 936, 938 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010). While Deutsche Bank Nat. Trust. Co alleged in its unverified complaint that it was the holder of the note and mortgage, the copy of the note, assignment, affidavits , and all other exhibits as all of them are fraudulent and attached to the complaint contradicts that allegation. When exhibits are attached to a complaint, the contents of the exhibits control over the allegations of the complaint. See Hunt Ridge at Tall Pines, Inc. v. Hall,766 So. 2d 399, 401 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000). Because the exhibits to Deutsche Bank Nat. Trust. Co complaint conflicts with its allegations concerning standing, Deutsche Bank Nat. Trust. Co did not establish that it had standing to foreclose the mortgage as a matter of law. As a result, the trial court acted prematurely in entering the final summary judgment of foreclosure in favor of Deutsche Bank Nat. Trust. Co. See Exhibit A-3 ,a fake sham affidavit and was proffered by Dakota County, Minnesota offices, absolute proof is found on “ASSIGNMENT” as it is endorsed by a notary named JAMES C.MORRIS in the state of Minnesota , he is a WELL KNOWN robo signer in Dakota County, Minnesota offices, also this office produced a false Foreclosure Compliance Affidavit in the case 5:07 CV 01840 SL Document 4 filed 6-22-2007 See Exhibit B, and a fraudulent Affidavit Regarding Account And Competency And Military Status signed by Assistant Secretary SCOTT WALTER of American Home Mortgage Service Inc. On August 13, 2008 who was present in Minnesota at arms length as it is endorsed by a notary named JAMES C.MORRIS in the state of Minnesota, Dakota County, Minnesota offices, also when American Home Mortgage Service Inc was locate in Irving Texas. The “ASSIGNMENT” further states that Assistant Secretary Jeanelle Gray From Option One was present in Minnesota on June25, 2007 for a arms length deal as a secretary to sign away 84,000.00 note although Option –One Mortgage Corporation was located in Irvine Ca. and purportedly out of business and defunct at such time. Also Absolute Proof. The judge Tom Parker while case was in state court conspired with the plaintiff’s attorney Robin Wilson of Thompson Hine LLP in a joint effort to destroy defendants counterclaim. The judge directed her to draft a false and misleading statement in a previous Final decree of foreclosure. Robin Wilson did so knowingly and willingly by inserting false claims of judge that he had considered defendants counterclaim is his motion granting plaintiff summary judgment which is void because of fraud of the courts and judge a lying officer of the court… Robin Wilson drafted and sent a letter dated September 28, 2009 to Judge confirming the act of conspiracy and her participation as such. The letter states per verbatim “Enclosed, in response to your telephone request, is a revised Judgment Entry and Decree in Foreclosure so as to include Defendants’ Counterclaim and Plaintiffs’ Reply to Counterclaim”. Signed by Robin Wilson. See Exhibit (A). These representations were false and defendants knew the falsity of these statements at the time they were made. The judge never once mentioned defendants counterclaim, prior to this directive, nor is there any evidence the judge has reviewed the counterclaim. This was a wicked scheme perpetrated against defendants specifically, strategically and systematically, the judge lied in effort to deprive defendants of their rights to homeownership. Judge and Robin Wilson have given false and material declarations to the trial court violating federal laws under 18 U.S.C.1623 which is a both a criminal and civil act of conspiracy against defendants. Moreover COURT OF APPEALS NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT C. A. NO. 25281 agreed with the plaintiffs that judge erred essentially confirmed he lied and reversed and remanded case back to trial court, but somehow Judge John Adams believes these are wild allegations. Judge Tom Parker is an Officer of the court THIS VOIDS STATE COURT FINDING OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT ITS NULL AND VIOD FOREVER. AND PLAINTIFFS can never be state court losers, and judge John Adams has erred dismissing any of plaintiff’s claims.Whenever any officer of the court commits fraud during a proceeding in the court, he/she is engaged in “fraud upon the court”. In Bulloch v. United States, 763 F.2d 1115, 1121 (10th Cir. 1985), the court stated “Fraud upon the court is fraud which is directed to the judicial machinery itself and is not fraud between the parties or fraudulent documents, false statements or perjury. … It is where the court or a member is corrupted or influenced or influence is attempted or where the judge has not performed his judicial function — thus where the impartial functions of the court have been directly corrupted.”
    “Fraud upon the court” has been defined by the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals to “embrace that species of fraud which does, or attempts to, defile the court itself, or is a fraud perpetrated by officers of the court so that the judicial machinery can not perform in the usual manner its impartial task of adjudging cases that are presented for adjudication.” Kenner v. C.I.R., 387 F.3d 689 (1968); 7 Moore’s Federal Practice, 2d ed., p. 512, ¶ 60.23. The 7th Circuit further stated “a decision produced by fraud upon the court is not in essence a decision at all, and never becomes final.” For an Officer of the Court to make deceitful representations to this Honorable Court is “fraud upon the Court”. “falsum (fal-sәm orfawl-sәm), n. [Latin] Roman law.1.A false
    Statement.2. A crime involving forgery or falsification.”Black’s Law Dictionary Seventh Edition, p. 619 “False statement.1. An untrue statement knowingly made with the intent to mislead. See PERJURY.2. Any one of three distinct federal offenses: (1) falsifying or concealing a material fact by trick, or scheme, or device; (2) making a false, fictitious, or fraudulent representation; and (3) making or using a false document or writing. 18 USCA § 1001” Balk’s Law Dictionary Seventh Edition, p. 619 “Fraud on the court. A lawyer’s or party’s misconduct in a judicial proceeding so serious that it undermines or is intended to undermine the integrity of the proceeding. Examples are … introduction of fabricated evidence.” Black’s Law Dictionary, 7th Edition, pg. 671 The judge John Adams has mischaracterized all plaintiffs motions as wild accusations against the Court , the state court system and opposing attorneys, however never points to or reveals one single wild allegation or the falsity of such allegation by Plaintiffs Kenneth S. Taylor pro se fillings in the record there is no proof in the record of such facts allege by Judge its hearsay and unsubstantiated, unsupported facts, rhetoric , and no evidence is included in his order , he never cites any case law or law or treaties that allows him the power and authority to close off the Clerks Office to plaintiffs Kenneth S. Taylor pro se who has paid the filling fee. Whose claims are not frivolous, not malicious, and not vexatious litigation, the Judges orders are wrong, unlawful egregious abuse of judicial discretion. When a court does not apply the correct law or if it rests its decision on a clearly erroneous finding of a material fact.” [U.S. v. Rahm, 993F.2d 1405, 1410 (9th Cir.’93)] “A court may also abuse its discretion when the record contains no evidence to support its decision.” [MGIC v. Moore, 952 F.2d 1120, 1122 (9thCir.’91)]. The Judge has erred and violated substantial due process rights , and substantial procedural due process rights to access to the courts because his Sua Sponte dismissal of all plaintiffs claims are highly disfavored in law , the Appeals Courts have warned lower court District Judges over and over again and again from doing so , but the judge is so smart and highly skilled legal scholar he uses a civil procedure maneuver to stop case dead in its tracks he has executed this perfectly it is impossible to get to the merits , unless this appeals courts reverses or remands or vacates this illegal order, plaintiffs cant appeal until they get an appealable order , smart but illegal, the judge so worried by plaintiffs complaint being heard on its merits he has reinforced his Civ Pro strategy by placing a barricade at the entrance of the courtroom locking and blocking the door to the administration of justice short circuiting Mr. Kenneth S. Taylor entire case from being heard not one single hearing, on merits or evidence and was dismissed before service of summons could be complete, before defendants responsive pleadings could be obtained. . “Standard of Review”; “clearly erroneous, arbitrary and capricious,” “De Novo” reviews necessary. 1. Courts have the inherent authority to enter pre-filing injunctions ― also referred to as gatekeeper orders ― restricting individuals from filing new lawsuits or other papers without court approval, when necessary to prevent abuse of the judicial process and protect other parties. 2. The gatekeeper order should be the judge’s last resort, after other efforts to control the litigant have failed. As with any disciplinary matter, the subject should be given notice of the proposed order and a chance to respond before it is entered. To the extent possible the order should be limited to the circumstances showing abuse ― for example, if all the abusive litigation is directed at one particular party, the order should only limit filings related to that party. 3. The order needs to specify the history that has led to its entry, in sufficient detail that an appellate court can review for the trial court’s abuse of discretion. 4. The order needs to include a means for the person to file legitimate actions The judge has become so personally involved and embroiled with helping plaintiffs win at all cost, he has compromised the integrity of the court, and he has loss sight of any justice for the defendants and has interfered with the administration of justice and short-circuited the rights of defendants to a fair trial. Federal law requires the automatic disqualification of a Federal judge under certain circumstances.
    In 1994, the U.S. Supreme Court held that “Disqualification is required if an objective observer would entertain reasonable questions about the judge’s impartiality. If a judge’s attitude or state of mind leads a detached observer to conclude that a fair and impartial hearing is unlikely, the judge must be disqualified.” [Emphasis added]. Liteky v. U.S., 114 S.Ct. 1147, 1162 (1994).
    Courts have repeatedly held that positive proof of the partiality of a judge is not a requirement, only the appearance of partiality. Liljeberg v. Health Services Acquisition Corp., 486 U.S. 847, 108 S.Ct. 2194 (1988) (what matters is not the reality of bias or prejudice but its appearance); United States v. Balistrieri, 779 F.2d 1191 (7th Cir. 1985) (Section 455(a) “is directed against the appearance of partiality, whether or not the judge is actually biased.”) (“Section 455(a) of the Judicial Code, 28 U.S.C. §455(a), is not intended to protect litigants from actual bias in their judge but rather to promote public confidence in the impartiality of the judicial process.”).
    That Court also stated that Section 455(a) “requires a judge to recuse himself in any proceeding in which her impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” Taylor v. O’Grady, 888 F.2d 1189 (7th Cir. 1989). In Pfizer Inc. v. Lord, 456 F.2d 532 (8th Cir. 1972), the Court stated that “It is important that the litigant not only actually receive justice, but that he believes that he has received justice.”
    The Supreme Court has ruled and has reaffirmed the principle that “justice must satisfy the appearance of justice”, Levine v. United States, 362 U.S. 610, 80 S.Ct. 1038 (1960), citing Offutt v. United States, 348 U.S. 11, 14, 75 S.Ct. 11, 13 (1954). A judge receiving a bribe from an interested party over which he is presiding, does not give the appearance of justice.
    “Recusal under Section 455 is self-executing; a party need not file affidavits in support of recusal and the judge is obligated to recuse herself sua sponte under the stated circumstances.” Taylor v. O’Grady, 888 F.2d 1189 (7th Cir. 1989).
    Further, the judge has a legal duty to disqualify himself even if there is no motion asking for his disqualification. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals further stated that “We think that this language [455(a)] imposes a duty on the judge to act sua sponte, even if no motion or affidavit is filed.” Balistrieri, at 1202.
    Judges do not have discretion not to disqualify themselves. By law, they are bound to follow the law. Should a judge not disqualify himself as required by law, then the judge has given another example of his “appearance of partiality” which, possibly, further disqualifies the judge. Should another judge not accept the disqualification of the judge, then the second judge has evidenced an “appearance of partiality” and has possibly disqualified himself/herself. None of the orders issued by any judge who has been disqualified by law would appear to be valid. It would appear that they are void as a matter of law, and are of no legal force or effect.
    Should a judge not disqualify himself, then the judge is violation of the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution. United States v. Sciuto, 521 F.2d 842, 845 (7th Cir. 1996) (“The right to a tribunal free from bias or prejudice is based, not on section 144, but on the Due Process Clause.”).
    Should a judge issue any order after he has been disqualified by law, and if the party has been denied of any of his / her property, then the judge may have been engaged in the Federal Crime of “interference with interstate commerce”. The judge has acted in the judge’s personal capacity and not in the judge’s judicial capacity.
    An often-cited federal case listing the factors to be considered by the trial judge in deciding whether to restrict a litigant’s future access to the courts is Safir v. United States Lines Inc., 792 F.2d 19 (2nd Cir. 1986). The factors to be considered are: At 24. 14. Cromer v. Kraft Foods North American, Incorporated, 390 F.3d 812 (4th Cir. 2004), is the leading Fourth Circuit case on the standards for issuance of a gatekeeper order. The litigant must be given notice and an opportunity to be heard before a gatekeeper order is entered. The precise relief sought; This case must be remanded back to trial court, in front of another judge, reversed or this order vacated. The plaintiffs evidence is overwhelming and compeling and refutes judges claim for gatekeepers order , and His reasons for sua sponte dismissal of plaintiffs claims. This Court has the power to Grant Relief from these proceedings , Grant Relief under both federal and state rules and laws 28 U.S.C. 1655 .plaintiffs were given no notice ,or warning, of courts intention , and no opportunity was given the Taylors to be heard before the judge barred the door shut to the District Court. We ask this court to grant plaintiffs-appellants- petitioners Kenneth S.Taylor ,Alycia Taylor Driggins 300, 000.00 dollars in damages, and award 100 million in punitive damages to plaintiffs a amount so high it would economically force Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, and all other parties named to follow the law.
    2.) Second Assignment of Error : Unlawful Sue Sponte Dismissal of Plaintiffs Entire Complaint Before Service of Process, and Summons was Complete on all Defendants and before Responsive Pleading was filed As a general rule, “a district court may not sua sponte dismiss a complaint where the filing fee has been paid unless the court gives the plaintiff opportunity to amend the complaint.” Apple v. Glenn, 183 F.3d 477, 479 (6th Cir. 1999). In Tingler v. Marshall, 716 F.2d 1109 (6th Cir. 1983),we established that when “faced with a complaint which it believes may be subject to dismissal[,]”a district court must: “(1) allow service of the complaint upon the defendant; (2) notify all parties
    of its intent to dismiss the complaint; (3) give the plaintiff a chance to either amend his complaint or respond to the reasons stated by the district court in its notice of intended sua sponte dismissal;
    (4) Give the defendant a chance to respond or file an answer or motions; and (5) if the claim is dismissed, state its reasons for the dismissal.” Id. at 1112.Moreover this case includes T.I.LA. Rescission Rights.} The rules of federal civil procedure says the courts are to view this complaint as the truth and favorably and in most light to movant party. The court has short-circuited justice for Mr. Taylor and advances no reason for pruning of the complaint and stands in the way of defendant’s responsive pleading. Mr. Taylor believes this matter is one of the most serious tragedies and deprivation of life and liberty ever realized in a free society and asserts he has been harmed and no amount of money could replace the emotional distress and anger and outrage. For the court not to allow plaintiffs case to move forward naturally against these Defendants is a miscarriage of justice so ripe and so worthy of Appellate review. “Standard of Review”; “clearly erroneous, arbitrary and capricious,” “De Novo” reviews necessary. And the District Court should address these most serious and substantial constitutional questions present by this case. While the court has no eyes it has ears the words of the plaintiffs speak loudly clearly and the rules say believe these words as truth. The Appellate Courts have repeatedly tried to impress upon District Judges that sue sponte dismissal would almost always seem less preferable than requiring some responsive answer defendants Redwood v. Council of the District of Columbia, 679 F .2d 931 (D.C. Cir.1982) Accord Bayron v. Trudeau, 702 F .2d 43, 45 (2d Cir.1983) Dismissal of pro se prisoner petition before the service process and the filling of a responsive document by the defendants is strongly disfavored. The plaintiffs has meet all the liberal pleading requirements set forth in the in Federal Rules Of Civil Procedure under rule 8 (a). In 1993 the, Supreme Court tried to require a heighten pleading, but Letterman v. Tarrart County a case which found it simple impossible to square with under the “liberal” system of Notice Pleading, Bennett v. Schmidt 153 F .3d 516, 518, (7th Cir 1998), the plain language rule and the ruling meant what it said. Federal Rules don’t contain any special pleading requirements under these statues name herein, and Plaintiffs need not allege all the factual obligations that he must prove eventually neither is all the evidence nor does plaintiff need to establish a case prima facie at the early pleading stage. This court should allow Plaintiffs to pursue justice and on all counts and all counts shall remain in the interest of justice. Everest & Jennings, Inc. American Motorists Ins. Co., 23 F.3d 226,228 (9th Cir. 1994). All allegations of fact must be taken as true and construed in the light most favorable to [appellant]. There should not be such dismissal unless it appears beyond doubt that the [appellant] can prove no set of facts in support of his claim that would entitle him to relief.” [ Gotcher v. Wood, 66 F.3d 1097 (9th Cir. 1995)] Plaintiffs asks this Honorable Court to take judicial notice of the fact that they appear without counsel, is not schooled in the law and legal procedures, and is not licensed to practice law. Therefore their pleadings must be read and construed liberally. Tannenbuam v United States. Further Plaintiff’s believes that this Court has a responsibility and legal duty to protect any and all of the Plaintiff’s Constitutional and statutory rights; to not do so would send a Chilling harsh message to citizens throughout the United States of America to not come forth seeking justice, redress , an fairness in this High Honorable District Court against law firms who choose to join forces with renegade Attorney Kevin Williams and their firm of Manley Deas Kochalski LLC, and sub prime Kings Deutsche Bank National Trust Company and the unlawful ,wrongful , reckless conduct that has harmed the plaintiffs Kenneth S. Taylor an Alycia Taylor Driggins. Statement of facts: the Truth in Lending Act was created in 1968. Congress passed the Act to protect United States consumers. The federal act is part of the Consumer Protection Act. SUA SPONTE DISMISSAL OF PLAINTIFFS COMPLAINT AND ITS DEFENANTS ARE UNLAWFUL AND PHOHIBITED BY CONGRESSIONAL ORDER. The Rooker-Feldman doctrine IS NOT APPLICABLE FOR THE FOLLOWING REASON SET FORTH BELOW;
    The Truth in Lending Act (TILA) created laws which protect consumers in credit transactions. These laws require lenders to disclose (reveal) clearly to the consumer the terms and costs of the lending agreement. Furthermore, TILA requires lenders to provide in writing, an accurate cost of credit. This includes the finance charges added to the loan, along with the annual percentage rate charge.
    The Rooker-Feldman doctrine is a rule of civil procedure enunciated by the United States Supreme Court in two cases, Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923) and District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983). The doctrine holds that lower United States federal courts other than the Supreme Court should not sit in direct review of state court decisions unless Congress has specifically authorized such relief. Defendants claims fail under this doctrine as relief plaintiffs seek is authorized by Congress.The Truth in Lending Act (TILA) (P.L. 90-321, 82 Stat.146) is a federal statute which Congress enacted in 1969 and amended and expanded on numerous occasions after that date. In adopting TILA, the legislature declared: Once the court finds a violation such as not responding to the TILA rescission letter, no matter how technical, it has no discretion with respect to liability (in re Wright, supra. At 708; In re Porter v. Mid-Penn Consumer Discount Co., 961 F,2d 1066, 1078 (3d. Cir. 1992); Smith v. Fidelity Consumer Discount Co., Supra. At 898. Any misgivings creditors may have about the technical nature of the requirements should be addressed to Congress or the Federal Reserve Board, not the courts.
    The Rooker-Feldman doctrine is a rule of civil procedure used primarily for Bankruptcy cases does not and cannot apply hear, 15 different causes of actions are present in this instant case. Plaintiff brings RICO claims, TILA claims, Fraud claims, all of which bars the door shut of Rooker-Feldman doctrine as a defense. Plaintiffs are not State Court losers . The ” Rooker-Feldman ” doctrine does not apply to an action collaterally attacking a final state court judgment on grounds that it is void. As the present action did not ripen as a separate and independent claim until the Ohio court entered a foreclosure decree. It is clearly established law that a judgment is void if the court that rendered it either lacked subject matter jurisdiction, personal jurisdiction or acted in a manner inconsistent with due process of law. Margoles v. Johns, 660 F.2d 291, 295 (7th Cir. 1981). The Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Ninth and Tenths Circuits have all held that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine does not bar an original, separate independent action that could be brought as a remedy under the law of the rendering state and federal law in the nature of a common law bill in equity collaterally attacking a final state court judgment as void if the court that rendered it either lacked subject matter jurisdiction, personal jurisdiction or acted in a manner inconsistent with due process . And this is where application of Rooker –Feldman Doctrine fails , plaintiffs have filed suit on different parties , third parties, and causes of actions not addressed in state court plaintiffs counterclaim is based on harm caused plaintiffs before the state action was filed , new causes of actions have risen , the only concern from state court is a void summary judgment based on fraudulent assignment , the new claims causes of actions and parties that were never a part of state actions are as follows See at Original Complaint filed Civil Docket # 1 COMPLAINT FOR: PREDATORY LENDING, OHIO RICO,DECLARATORY RELIEF AND FOR DAMAGES ARISING FROM: WIRE FRAUD; CANCELATION OF WRITTEN ASSIGNMENT AND OTHER INSTRUMENTS, RICO Due Process and Equitable Tolling, FRAUD UPON THIS COURT, AND OTHER COURTS; FORGERY, TORTIOUS VIOLATIONS OF RIGHTS, EMERGENCY/ TRO, INJUNCTIVE RELIEF FROM UNLAWFUL SHERIFF’S SALE OF PLAINTIFFS PROPERTY, ON 12/17 2010, MAIL FRAUD. TILA VIOLATIONS; RESPA; FDCPA, HOEPA; FCRA; VIOLATIONS; Civil Conspiracy; QUIET TITLE REAL PROPERTY An action to determine all adverse claims to the property in question; a suit in equity brought to obtain a final determination as to the title of a specific piece of property;JURY DEMAND ENDOSRED HEREON. AND THE FOLLOWING NEW PARTIES ; DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY AS TRUSTEE FOR CERTIFICATEHOLDERS OF SOUNDVIEW HOME LOAN TRUST2006-OPT2, ASSET-BACKED CERTIFICATES SERIES 2006- OPT2 THOMPSON HINE LLP, MANLEY DEAS KOCHALOSKI LLC. KEVIN L. WILLIAMS, ROBIN M.WILSON, ALLONDIAN TITLE, Inc. EDWARD M. KOCHALSKI, CHICAGO TITLE, CYNTHIA STEVENS, AMERICAN HOME MORTGAGE SERVICING INC. Scott WALKER, REBECCA SHRADER.SANDS CAYNON MORTGAGE CORPORATION JEANELLE GRAY (Assistant Secretary), Docx, LLCLender Processing Services Defendants IN NEW FEDERAL ACTION. Lewis v. East Feliciana Parish Board , 820 F.2d 143, 146 (5th Cir. 1987); Catz v. Chalker , 142 F.3d 279, 294 (6th Cir. 1998); Nesses v. Shepard , 68 F.3d 1003, 1005 (7th Cir. 1995); McKay v. Pfeil , 827 F.2d 540, 543 (9th Cir. 1987); Johnson v. Rodriques , 226 F.3d 1103, 1107 10th Cir. 2004) (federal courts “may entertain a collateral attack on a state court judgment that is void whenever the Court that rendered it lacked jurisdiction over the subject, the person or acted in a manner inconsistent with due process of law). Under Griffith v. Bank of New York , 147 F.2d 899, 901-03 (2d Cir. 1945) it is well settled that the federal courts may exercise equity powers available to set aside, deny enforcement or ignore a state court judgment obtained by extrinsic fraud and a bill of equity enjoins void judgment uncontaminated” by a “litany” of pervasive ex parte judicial cronyism, “home cooking,” case assignment manipulation, falsehood to acquire standing to sue, fraud upon the rendering court and the like without being denied access to the federal courts under Rooker-Feldman . In In re Murchison , 349 U.S. 133 (1955) the Court made clear: A fair trial in a fair tribunal is a basic requirement of due process. Fairness of course requires an absence of actual bias in the trial of cases. But our system of law has always endeavored to prevent even the probability of unfairness. . . . Circumstances and relationships must be considered. This Court has said, however, that ‘Every procedure which would offer a possible temptation to the average man as a judge . . . not to hold the balance nice, clear, and true between the State and the accused, denies the latter due process of law.’ Tumey v. Ohio , 273 U.S. 510, 532. To perform its high function in the best way ‘justice must satisfy the appearance of justice.’ Offut v. U.S. , 348 U.S. 41. Id. at 136. In sum, any state court judgment collaterally attacked in federal court as void under where a party was denied a “full and fair opportunity” to assert claims and defenses violates due process and is not entitled to full faith and credit under the Federal Full Faith and Credit Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1738. And if the state court judgment is void then Rooker-Feldman cannot bar a collateral attack in federal court under Rooker-Feldman . Kremer v. Chemical Construction Corp ., 456 U.S. 461, 481-82 (1982) (court may not grant preclusive effect to constitutionally infirm state court judgment – federal courts not (28 U.S.C. § 1738 requires United States courts to give same preclusive effect subject to due process); Haring v. Prosise, 462 U.S. 306, 311 (1983); Migra v. Warren City Board of Education , 465 U.S. 75, 83 n.5 (1985); Allen v. McCurry , 449 U.S. 90, 95 (1980) (same). IX. CONCLUSION This petition raises an important question of first impression since D.C. Court of Appeals v. Feldman was decided by the Court in 1983: Whether ” Rooker- Feldman ” abrogates the filing in federal court of a common law bill in equity under Barrow v. Hunton , seeking to void a state foreclosure decree when Petitioners did not ask the federal courts to review the merits of the foreclosure decree only those departures from established modes of procedure effecting the full and fair opportunity to be heard under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment such as manipulation and re-assignment of elected partisan judges off the record, willfully evading the random reassignment procedures established by the clerk of courts as well as for fraud upon the rendering Ohio court by Banks that did not even have standing to bring a foreclosure action as they possessed no cognizable legal or equitable interest in Petitioners’ house or the mortgage instruments. For the foregoing reasons the Petition for Writ of Certiorari should be granted. Respectfully submitted, ROBERT S. CATZ Counsel of Record 1600 28th Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20007 (202) 277-6585 Counsel for Petitioners June 11, 2008. United States v. Nordby, 225 F.3d 1053, 1060 (9th Cir. 2000). To obtain a reversal under this standard, Pacheco-Zepeda must prove that there was “error,” the error was “plain,” and the error affected ’substantial rights.’ United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 732(1993). If such conditions are satisfied, this court may exercise its discretion to notice the forfeited error only if such error ’seriously affect[s]the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the judicial proceedings.’” [ United States v. Gabriel Pacheco-Zepeda, Case No. 99-50720, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit] . [N]eutrality and passivity are essential not only to ensure an evenhanded consideration of each case, but also to convince society at large that the judicial system is trustworthy. When a decision maker becomes an active questioner or otherwise participates in a case, he is likely to be perceived as partisan rather than neutral. Judicial passivity helps to ensure the appearance of fairness, Pro se litigants must be afforded special solicitude. .(there now is absolute concrete proof and evidence that the assignment before this court is false , phony , fake, and deceptive, misleading, defective, and produced by this crime lab, rendering state court summary judgement in favor of Deutsche Bank National Trust Company forever Null, Void, and without Force.) The precise relief sought; For this reason alone the Plaintiffs Claims and all causes of actions as well as entire complaint should be restored , this case should be reversed remanded back to District Court, at the least , or in the alternative this court has the power to grant plaintiffs declaratory relief and damages from what has been four (4) years of complete absolute fraudulent lawsuits 3 in total have been filed against the Taylor’s by these parties pretending to be the lenders who have cause Taylor,s to suffer continue to suffer from lethal doses of Civil Right Violations, Amendment V, double jeopardy, who are hard working citizens and have paid taxes for all these years and live in their home with ownership rights for 23 years . We ask this court to grant plaintiffs-appellants- petitioners Kenneth S.Taylor ,Alycia Taylor Driggins 300, 000.00 dollars in damages, and hear Quiet Title Claims and award 100 million in punitive damages to plaintiffs a amount so high it would economically force Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, and all other parties named to follow the law. 3.) Third Assignment of Error: JUDGE Violated Substantial Due Process Rights Dismissing Arising From Any One of the Multiple Federal Causes of Actions Stated in the Complaint Sua Sponte. The judge has taken an unlawful pretext, bias position against plaintiffs in this case and blocks the gate of this court to an Africa American Black plaintiff who is a law-abiding citizen of the U.S. who has paid the Courts filing fee. Right of Access To Courts is Constitutionally Protected. “Standard of Review”; “clearly erroneous, arbitrary and capricious,” “De Novo” reviews necessary. The right of access to the Courts is clear according to the U.S. Supreme Court. Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817 (1977);M.L.B. v. S.L.J., 519 U.S. 102 (1996). The Supreme court has stated the right of access to the courts also protected by the First Amendment. BE&K Construction CO. v. National Labor Relations Board et al. 536 U.S. 516 (2001)(“the right to petition extends to all departments of the Government,” and that “[t]he right of access to the courts is … but one aspect of the right of petition.“). California Motor Transp. Co. v. Trucking Unlimited, 404 U. S. 508, 510 (1972)(“The right of access to the courts is indeed but one aspect of the right of petition.“). See Tennessee v. Lane, 541 U.S. 509 (2004)(recognizing “the fundamental right of access to the courts”); Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S. 396 (1974)(“The constitutional guarantee of due process of law has as a corollary the requirement that prisoners be afforded access to the courts in order to challenge unlawful convictions and to seek redress for violations of their constitutional rights.“).Statements of facts ; Mr. Taylor who is in a protected class under the law, who has been denied Equal Protection, and Due Process, Whereas plaintiff have proof of blacks being main targets of predatory lending claims included in his complaint, the judge has administered a unlawful lethal blow of civil rights violation, by teaming up and jumping in a fight that was fair until he started helping his friends out by arbitrarily and capricious Sua Sponte dismissal of plaintiffs entire complaint before even requiring any defendants to answer complaint , even prisoners, who habeas corpus forma paupers complaints filed are given 3 chances to get it right the Judge has became so embroiled with protecting the worst criminal behavior by defendants in the history of the United States of America, Plaintiffs attempts to report these federal crimes to people in the executive and legislative branches of government resulted in occasional admission of the gravity of the charges, but none would receive the evidence or take required action. Seeking to circumvent the coverups and obstruction of justice, Plaintiffs filed papers in federal courts to report the federal crime to a federal judge under the mandatory responsibility of the federal crime reporting statute, 18 U.S.C. and the right of citizens to seek a court order for federal officials, judges, and lawyers to perform a mandatory duty and halt unlawful conduct that is provided by 28 U.S.C. § 1361. The clear language of Title 18 U.S.C. § 4 requires that anyone who knows of a federal crime must promptly report it to a federal judge (or other federal officer), or that person is guilty of a crime: Title 18 U.S.C. § 4. Misprision of felony. Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both. Blocking the reports of major criminal activities against the United States by government insiders violates other criminal statutes, including Title 18 U.S.C. 2, 3, 4, among others Instead of performing his duty, federal judge Adams dismissed the lawsuit as soon as the action was filed, Sua Sponte The judge however has lost all sight of justice for plaintiffs, a position so destructive to humanity it defies human decency it makes Mr. Kenneth S. Taylor feel sick to the stomach as though a judicial noose has been placed around his neck and choke off justice and equal access to this High Honorable District Court, he now wishes he was born a “White” man so he would be accepted by this court as a human being and be treated fair and equal, now I beg the court to stop treating me as a sub-human, there is something illegal and morally wrong when a judge sentences black defendants to maximum sanction .But opens a escape hatch for Whites. He Violated the responsibilities of federal judges to receive reports and evidence of federal crimes as part of their administrative duties under 18 U.S.C. 4. He Violated major substantive due process protections, including the rights guaranteed by the Civil Rights Act, Bivens, RICO, Declaratory Judgment Act, and the Supreme Court’s void judgment doctrine. The law provides that a jury decides whether a conspiracy existed to block the reporting of the criminal activities and whether a conspiracy existed to violate Plaintiffs civil rights, and whether a conspiracy existed to block every federal defense related to these matters. Certainly not a judge who may be protecting the series of judges implicated in these offenses. He Violated multiple procedural due process rights, including the (a) right against Sua Sponte dismissal; (b) right against dismissal when facts showing federal causes of actions are stated for which federal relief exists; (c) right to discovery; (d) right to a jury trial; and (e) right to a honest adjudication of major federal causes of actions. The Dismissal Order Violated Multiple Procedural Due Process Rights The dismissal order violated every relevant procedural due process protection guaranteed to all citizens by the laws and Constitution of the United States for the record-setting violations stated in Appellant’s complaint .Violated Due Process Rights Barring Sua Sponte Dismissals The dismissal order violated the clear and settled law that requires a hearing, discovery, opportunity to defend, and a meaningful and honest opportunity to be heard. In Wolff v. McDonnell (1974) 418 U.S. 539, the Court stated: The Court has consistently held that some kind of hearing is required before a person is finally deprived of his property interests; In Anderson National Bank v. Luckett (1944) 321 U.S. 233, 246, the court held: “It is error to dismiss a claim on the merits without notice, a hearing, and an opportunity to respond.” FRcivP Rule 12(b)(6). “[T]the court must give notice of its Sua Sponte intention to invoke Rule 12(b)(6), and afford Appellants ‘an opportunity to at least submit a written memorandum in opposition to such motion,” Crawford v. Bell, 599 F.2d 890, 893 (9th Cir. 1979), quoting Potter v. McCall, 433 F.2d 1087, 1088 (9th Cir. 1970); Harmon v. Superior Court, 307 F.2d 796, 796 (9th Cir. 1962) “the right to a hearing on the merits of a claim over which the court has jurisdiction is of the essence of our judicial system, and the judge’s feeling that the case is probably frivolous does not justify by-passing that right. Appellant is entitled to have process issued and served, and to be heard. ”Violated Bar to Dismissing Arising From Any One of the
    Multiple Federal Causes of Actions Stated in the Complaint A Rule 12 based dismissal on failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted requires that the factual allegations of the complaint must be taken as true, and any ambiguities or doubts concerning the sufficiency of the claim must be resolved in favor of the pleader. See Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236, 94 (1979); Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46, 78. Dennis v. Sparks 449 U.S. 24 (1980)(“a section 1983 complaint should not be dismissed unless it appears that the PLAINTIFFS can prove no set of facts which would entitle him to relief … For the purposes of testing sufficiency of the complaint, the allegations of the complaint must be accepted as true. … If PLAINTIFFS allegations state a claim for which federal courts can grant relief, the court must accept jurisdiction.”); Gardener v. Toilet Goods Assn., 387 U.S. 167, 172 (1967). (An action, “especially under the Civil Rights Act, should not be dismissed at the pleadings stage unless it appears to a certainty that Appellants are entitled to no relief under any state of the facts, which could be proved in support of their claims.” Escalera v. N.Y. Housing Auth., 425 F.2d 853, 857 (2nd Cir. 1970). See also Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-7) 1957). The complaint stated facts constituting multiple federal causes of actions for which federal judges had a duty to provide a court forum, some semblance of due process, and relief. Dismissals under Fed.R.Civ.P.12(b)(6). “are permitted on a motion if the complaint “fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.” “The court cannot subject ever undisputed evidence to interpretation, unless it is only subject to one possible interpretation; it cannot weight conflicting inferences or interpretations that can be put on the evidence. U.S. v. Diebold, Inc., 369 U.S. 654; “The district court may dismiss the complaint “only if it is certain that no relief can be granted under any set of facts which could be proved.” General Refractories Co. v. Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co., 337 F.3d 297, 303 n.1 (3d Cir. 2003), quoting Steamfitters Local Union No. 420 Welfare Fund v. Philip Morris, Inc., 171 F.3d 912, 919 (3d Cir. 1999). “An appeal [or complaint ] is not frivolous if any of the legal points [are] arguable on their merits.” Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738; The requirement for “no genuine issue of material fact” standard provides that the court cannot try the case on a summary judgment motion. National Assn. of Gov’t Employees v. Campbell, 593 F.2d 1023, 1027-29 (D.C. Cir. 1978). also 6 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 56.15[1.–0], [3]. A judgment is void if the rendering court acted in a manner inconsistent with due process of law. Wright & Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2862. “A judgment rendered in violation of due process is void in the rendering State and is not entitled to full faith and credit elsewhere.” World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. V. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286 (1980). “[T]he constitution, by prohibiting an act, renders it void, if done; otherwise, the prohibition were nugatory. Thus, the warrant is a nullity.” Anderson v. Dunn, 19 U.S. 204, 217 (1821). “’No judgment of a court is due process of law, if rendered without jurisdiction in the court, or without notice to the party.” Old Wayne Mut. Life Ass’n v. McDonough, 204 U.S. 8, 15 (1907). Generally, a judgment is void under Rule 60 (b) (4) if the court that rendered it lacked jurisdiction of the subject matter, or of the parties, or if acted in a manner inconsistent with due process of law. E.g., s Burke v. Smith, 252 F.3d 1260 (11th Cir. 2001); U.S. v. Boch Oldsmobile, Inc., 909 F.2d 657, 662 (1st Cir. 1990);Beller & Keller v. Tyler, 120 F.3d 21, 23 (2nd Cir. 1997); Union Switch & Signal v. Local 610, 900 F.2d 608, 612 n.1 (3rd Cir. 1990); Eberhardt v. Integrated Design & Const., Inc. 167 F.3d 861, 867 (4th Cir. 1999); New York Life Ins. Co. v. Brown 84 F.3d 137, 143 (5th Cir. 1996) The U.S. Supreme Court,”SCOTUS”, On the Importance of Due Process Courts as well as citizens are not free ‘to ignore all the procedures of the law….’. The ‘constitutional freedom’ of which the Court speaks can be won only if judges honor the Constitution.” Walker v. City Of Birmingham, 388 U.S. 307, 338 (1967)(Mr. Justice Douglas, dissenting). “Due process is perhaps the most majestic concept in our whole, constitutional system.” Joint Anti-Fascist Committee v. McGrath, 341 U.S. 123, 174 (1951) (Justice Frankfurter, concurring). It is ingrained in our national traditions, and is designed to maintain them. In a variety of situations, the Court has enforced this requirement by checking attempts of executives, legislatures, and lower courts to disregard the deep-rooted demands of fair play enshrined in the Constitution.” id. 161. “Fairness of procedure is “due process in the primary sense.” Brinkerhoff-Faris Co. v. Hill, 281 U. S. 673, 281 U. S. 681. In a long line of cases, the United States Supreme Court has held that impingements of constitutional rights are, without variation, subject to the strictures of “due process” or notice and opportunity to be heard prior to their enactments. Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 313 (1950); Anti-Fascist Committee v. McGrath, 341 U.S. 123 (1951); Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254 (1970), Fuentes v. Shevin, 407 U.S. 67 (1972); Owen v. City Of Independence, 445 U.S. 622 (1980); Carey v.Piphus, 435 U.S. 247, 259 (1978); Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 333 (1976). “The principle stated in this terse language lies at the foundation of all well-ordered systems of jurisprudence. Wherever one is assailed in his person or his property, there he may defend, for the liability and the right are inseparable. This is a principle of natural justice, recognized as such by the common intelligence and conscience of all nations. A sentence of a court pronounced against a party without hearing him, or giving him an opportunity to be heard, is not a judicial determination of his rights, and is not entitled to respect in any other tribunal.” Windsor v. McVeigh, 93 U.S. 274;23 L.Ed. 914 (1876). US CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS HAVE ROUTINELY REJECTED “SUA SPONTE” PRE-FILING INJUNCTIONS. A long line of United States appellate courts, including the Eleventh Circuit, have rejected sua sponte issuances of pre-filing injunctions because they are violations of due process. In Weaver v. Leon County Sch. Bd., 2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 8128 (11th Cir. 2006), the Eleventh Circuit held that a litigant was entitled to notice and an opportunity to be heard before a restriction was imposed on his ability to challenge an injunction. U.S. v. Powerstein, 2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 14928,*;185 Fed. Appx. 811 (11th Cir. 2006)(litigant entitled to notice and an opportunity to be heard before the court imposed the injunctive order ). See Sires v. Fair, 107 F.3d 1;1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 2173 (1st Cir. 1997); Cok v. Family Court of Rhode Island , 985 F.2d 32 (C.A.1 (R.I.), 1993) (vacating a pre-fling injunction issued without notice); MLE Realty Assocs. v. Handler, 192 F.3d 259, 1999 U.S. App. LEXIS 23362 (2nd Cir. 1999) ; Lau v. Meddaugh, 229 F.3d 121 (2nd Cir. 2000) ; Holton v. Oral Surg. Sing Sing Corr., 24 Fed. Appx. 37; 2001 U.S. App. LEXIS 25151 (2nd Cir. 2001); Moates v. Barkley, 147 F.3d 207, 208 (C.A.2 (N.Y.), 1998) (district court may not impose a filing injunction on a litigant without providing the litigant with notice and an opportunity to be heard.); Gonzales v. Feiner, 131 Fed. Appx. 373, * 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 8370, ** (3rd Cir. 2005) ; Wiliams v. Cambridge Integrated Servs. Group , 148 Fed Appx. 87, 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 18624 (3rd Cir. 2005) ; Brow v. Farrelly, 994 F.2d 1027 (C.A.3 (Virgin Islands), 1992)(vacating a sua sponte issued injunction); It is imperative that the court afford the litigant notice and an opportunity to be heard prior to issuing such an injunction. In Re Head, 2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 8265,*;174 Fed. Appx. 167 (4th Cir. 2006)(vacated a 10 yr. old sua sponte injunction); Cromer v. Kraft Foods N. Am., Inc., 390 F.3d 812, 819 (4th Cir. 2004)(vacating a pre-filing injunction issued without notice); Tucker v. Drew, 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 11784 (4 th Cir. 1994) ;DOUGLAS BAUM v. BLUE MOON VENTURES, LLC , 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 91,*;513 F.3d 181;49 Bankr. Ct. Dec. 68 (5th Cir. 2008)(“Notice and a hearing are required if the district court sua sponte imposes a pre-filing injunction or sua sponte modifies an existing injunction to deter vexatious filings.”) ;De Long v. Hennessey, 912 F.2d 1144 (9th Cir.) ; Roscoe v. Hansen, 107 F.3d 880;1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 4996 (10th Cir. 1997); Molski v. Evergreen Dynasty Corp., 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 20966,*;500 F.3d 1047 (9th Cir. 2007)(litigant must be given notice and a chance to be heard before the [injunctive] order is entered.); Tripati v. Beaman, 878 F.2d 351,354 (C.A.10 (Wyo.), 1989)(vacated and holding that the litigant is entitled to notice and an opportunity to oppose the court’s order before it is instituted.); Procup v. Strickland, 567 F.Supp. 146 (M.D. Fla., 1983)(court issued a show cause order) Procup v. Strickland, 760 F.2d 1107, 1110 (C.A.11 (Fla.), 1985) (held that district court did give adequate notice and opportunity to be heard before issuance of the injunction); Cofield v. Alabama Pub. Serv. Comm., 936 F.2d 512, 514 (11th Cir.1991)(noting that court issued show cause order prior to rendering pre-fling injunction); In re Powell, 851 F.2d 427, 431 (D.C.Cir.1988)(reversing and holding If a pro se litigant is to be deprived of such a vital constitutional right as access to the courts, he should, at least, be provided with an opportunity to oppose the entry of an order restricting him before it is entered.); Martin v. Circuit Court, 627 So.2d 1298 (Fla.App. 4 Dist., 1993)(reversing a pre-filing order and holding that limiting the constitutional right of access to the courts, essential due process safeguards must first be provided); Lawsuits of Carter, In re, 510 S.E.2d 91, 95; 235 Ga.App. 551 (Ga. App., 1998)(reversing a pre-filing injunction because notice or an opportunity not given); Riccard v. Prudential Ins. Co., 307 F.3d 1277, 1296 (11th Cir. 2002) (holding that injunctions “may not be expanded beyond the meaning of its terms absent notice and an opportunity to be heard.”).Courts have felt that the notice and opportunity to respond was so important that they have reversed district courts even where they thought the pre-filing injunction was otherwise valid. See Oliver, In re, 682 F.2d 443, 446 (C.A.3 (Pa.), 1982); Scott v. Wells Fargo Home Mortgage , 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 15709,*;143 Fed. Appx. 525(4th Cir. 2005);Gagliardi v. McWilliams, 834 F.2d 81, 83 (3d Cir. 1987). The United States Supreme Court has stated: A court must, of course, exercise caution in invoking its inherent power, and it must comply with the mandates of due process, both in determining that the requisite bad faith exists and in assessing fees. (emphasis added) Chambers v.Nasco, Inc.,501U.S. 32, 50 (1991) (“[W]here . . . a complaint may not have contained suffici

  2. jeanie says:

    this is to tim or anyone who can help with info….i am in maryland and had my house illegally foreclosed..i have been in court since 2009 over this……the judges in my county are friends with the foreclosure purchaser…..i have been denied every time to plead my case as far as EXCEPTIONS…property not advertised correct with the deed in courthouse…… sold way under value………..closed on clouded title……title atty friend of all 4 judges in my county. found letter and order that was put in the circuit court record for the foreclosure purchaser and wife’s divorce hearing at the circuit court of calvert county, md., that all four judges cannot hear any cases involving this man and his wife and witness because they have had dealings with them and their witness’s. well when i found this all my hearings have been deined from these judges and was not suppose to be hearing these cases……they were recused according to the order from the circuit judge……this foreclosure purchaser plays golf with these judges, gives donations for their campign, same for the sheriff……..FRIENDS……..this SOB had me arrested for terrorism for an arson threat…..had SWAT down here with their helments, bullet proof vests, m14’s pointed at me.i am 60 years old and have lyme diease……..i was handcuffed and held for 6 hrs…..i am still in my husband and i have been FORCED to filed bankruptcy each and my 501 c (3) non profit to keep staying in our home to fight this….i have 2 forensic audits with 30 violations……….it boils down to they had no standing to foreclosure in md…….i have 3 robo signers……barbara hindman…….elizabeth ashley olson……bethany hood………and maybe 2 more………..MERS is involved……..the chain of title has been broken…no trust……the note has no endorsement…….and the best is the signature of the atty. who signed over my deed to this man is a forgery…i have been to federal bk court and the .judge said it is a travasty and all of this but can’t do anything….that is a lie…….i called my delegate yesterday and he was to go to the ag in md today about this…….if someone can give me good advice on this i would appreciate it…….i want these judges heads….also if any one knows of any cases where the 3rd person in a foreclosure has had the case reversed and 3 buyer had to give back the property…….PLEASE LET ME KNOW…….judges in circuit court……CALVERT COUNTY. PRINCE FREDERICK, MD…..M.CLAGETT-BROWNE……WARREN KRUG…….DISTRICT COURT…CALVERT COUNTY….PRINCE FREDERICK, MD….WELLS………..ROBERT RIDDLE………SHERIFF EVANS…..CALVERET COUNTY. PRINCE FREDERICK, MD…TITLE ATTY. TOM PELAGATTI………..PRINCE FREDERICK, MD.CALVERT COUNTY……all friends of illegal purchaser…..oh if anyone is wondering fs my husband and i a no pay-no-stay, we are not…we were in a modification with WAMU and the whole time they lied to us and told us our house was not going into foreclosure because we were in modification….thanks for listening to me….i am devasted and i can use all the good advice, case law, and whatever..jeanie 410-326-3125

  3. Maggie May says:

    Like rome Hedge wasnt built in a day:) (no pun intended!)

  4. Tim Bryant says:

    I just submitted a newstip to 60 Minutes for a followup of their Linda Green story. This one ought to be news worthy. Maybe they can question Ms Palin about how she thinks about “deadbeats” fighting for their homes now.

    • JUST TIRED says:

      what is the link so i can request the same thing……….perhaps if a lot of people write in…they will work on it faster..

  5. Tim Bryant says:

    From the AZ revised statutes…

    33-420. False documents; liability; special action; damages; violation; classification
    A. A person purporting to claim an interest in, or a lien or encumbrance against, real property, who causes a document asserting such claim to be recorded in the office of the county recorder, knowing or having reason to know that the document is forged, groundless, contains a material misstatement or false claim or is otherwise invalid is liable to the owner or beneficial title holder of the real property for the sum of not less than five thousand dollars, or for treble the actual damages caused by the recording, whichever is greater, and reasonable attorney fees and costs of the action.
    B. The owner or beneficial title holder of the real property may bring an action pursuant to this section in the superior court in the county in which the real property is located for such relief as is required to immediately clear title to the real property as provided for in the rules of procedure for special actions. This special action may be brought based on the ground that the lien is forged, groundless, contains a material misstatement or false claim or is otherwise invalid. The owner or beneficial title holder may bring a separate special action to clear title to the real property or join such action with an action for damages as described in this section. In either case, the owner or beneficial title holder may recover reasonable attorney fees and costs of the action if he prevails.
    C. A person who is named in a document which purports to create an interest in, or a lien or encumbrance against, real property and who knows that the document is forged, groundless, contains a material misstatement or false claim or is otherwise invalid shall be liable to the owner or title holder for the sum of not less than one thousand dollars, or for treble actual damages, whichever is greater, and reasonable attorney fees and costs as provided in this section, if he wilfully refuses to release or correct such document of record within twenty days from the date of a written request from the owner or beneficial title holder of the real property.
    D. A document purporting to create an interest in, or a lien or encumbrance against, real property not authorized by statute, judgment or other specific legal authority is presumed to be groundless and invalid.
    E. A person purporting to claim an interest in, or a lien or encumbrance against, real property, who causes a document asserting such claim to be recorded in the office of the county recorder, knowing or having reason to know that the document is forged, groundless, contains a material misstatement or false claim or is otherwise invalid is guilty of a class 1 misdemeanor.

    • Tim Bryant says:

      To AZ residents…here is your statute proving that if your AG settles with the banks, he/she is committing misprision of felonies..

      33-458. Resale of realty with intent to defraud; classification
      A person who, after selling, bartering or disposing of, or, after executing a bond or agreement for the sale of land, again knowingly and with intent to defraud previous or subsequent purchasers, sells, barters or disposes of, or executes a bond or agreement to sell, barter or dispose of the same land or any part thereof to any other person for a valuable consideration, is guilty of a class 4 felony.

      • Tim Bryant says:

        Read the last paragraph on this one….

        33-502. Authentication of authority of officer
        A. If the notarial act is performed by any of the persons described in section 33-501, paragraphs 1 through 4, inclusive, other than a person authorized to perform notarial acts by the laws or regulations of a foreign country, the signature, rank, or title and serial number, if any, of the person are sufficient proof of the authority of a holder of that rank or title to perform the act. Further proof of his authority is not required.
        B. If the notarial act is performed by a person authorized by the laws or regulations of a foreign country to perform the act, there is sufficient proof of the authority of that person to act if:
        1. Either a foreign service officer of the United States resident in the country in which the act is performed or a diplomatic or consular officer of the foreign country resident in the United States certifies that a person holding that office is authorized to perform the act, or
        2. The official seal of the person performing the notarial act is affixed to the document, or
        3. The title and indication of authority to perform notarial acts of the person appears either in a digest of foreign law or in a list customarily used as a source of such information.
        C. If the notarial act is performed by a person other than one described in subsections A and B, there is sufficient proof of the authority of that person to act if the secretary of state certifies to the official character of that person and to his authority to perform the notarial act.
        D. The signature and title of the person performing the act are prima facie evidence that he is a person with the designated title and that the signature is genuine.

  6. l vent says:

    How dare those Palin’s buy someones stolen home. BOOOO!!!!!! SHAME!!!!! HOW UNAMERICAN!!!!!!! This serves them right, I hope they lose their asses on it. She will never get my vote. She is aiding and abetting the ongoing criminal enterprise who robbed America and are still stealing homes they do not own. DESPICABLE. She couldn’t do better than to buy up fraudclosures? I think that is a stunning revelation about the type of person she really is. She is a phony and a liar just like all of the rest of them. She should have known better.

    • JUST TIRED says:

      I right their with you!……..the way I see all of our houses were already paid for when the bail out commenced!………the banks are not doing modifications to keep the heat off of them… sue sue sue the bank !……my law suit is active in federal court…I won one battle so far on April 29, 2011 to have the Sheriff Sale Vacated………I am the first one in my County in NJ

      SOME CASE LAW FOR ALL OF YOU I HAVE MORE!…….Wells Fargo, Litton Loan v. Farmer, 867 N.Y.S.2d 21 (2008). “Wells Fargo does not own the mortgage loan… Therefore, the… matter is dismissed with prejudice.” U.S. Bank never sent the Plaintiff any information about changes and the Plaintiff did not have an communication via-main or via-phone nor heard of such an entity until foreclosure >>>>>>>

      >See Also…… Deutsche Bank v. Peabody, 866 N.Y.S.2d 91 (2008). EquiFirst, when making the loan, violated Regulation Z of the Federal Truth in Lending Act 15 USC §1601 and the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act 15 USC §1692; “intentionally created fraud in the factum” and withheld from plaintiff… “vital information concerning said debt and all of the matrix involved in making the loan”>>>>>>>>…

      .see ….. LaSalle Bank v. Ahearn, 875 N.Y.S.2d 595 (2009). Dismissed with prejudice. Lack of standing. . UCC 3-501 also requires a servicer to show authority to make a demand for payment, if it does not own the note, but is merely servicing it. In the event a note holder or servicer or will not exhibit the note or perform other legal requirements when requested to do so by the borrower, this>>>>>>>>>>

      UCC section allows the borrower to discontinue payments WITHOUT DISHONOR until such time as the note holder or servicer complies with all laws or contract provisions. Marshall v. Security State Bank of Hamilton, 121 B.R. 814 (Ill. 1990) violation of Federal Truth in Lending 15 USCS §1638(a)(9), and Regulation Z. The bank took a security interest in the vehicle without disclosing the security

    • Tim Bryant says:

      And if she complains about it, can we all call her a DEADBEAT ?! …. LOL

  7. Maggie May says:


  8. See? who and why would you want to buy a property that you don’t even know what the heck is going on with it? insecurity of knowing if property is really yours is the next crisis ! LOL

    • Fury says:

      exactly; clouded title because of robo-signing.

      the banks better pony up the money to their victims or the whole housing market will be destroyed FOREVER!

  9. Fury says:

    no wonder that sarah palin has to live on a bus!
    her new AZ home is part of the fraudclosure scam —signed by the most famous robo-signer, linda green.

    what about bristol palin’s house that she bought after it had been foreclosed?
    i bet you will find the same

  10. Maggie May says:


  11. Fury says:

    don’t forget bristol palin’s house in AZ. she bought a foreclosed home too!

    • Maggie May says:

      true lol

    • Tim Bryant says:

      Let’s get her address and look that one up too. I will literally shard my drawers if I see Linda Green’s name again. This would normally not be funny at all, but these are the same A-holes who have ignored us for years.

      • Maggie May says:

        shard my drawers hahahaha oh my too hilarious!

      • woodknot says:

        Tim-please find out if Florida Ag Pam Bondi owns or has ever owned a home ?

        Sarah Palin will release a statement soon “i helped the economy buying a fraudclosure”
        “I was tired of looking at Russia from my home in Alaska”.
        I do not believe Sarah has the brains to understand the complexity of Fraudclosures.
        If she is aware she must be receiving huge kickbacks from the finance sector.

      • Tim Bryant says:

        She moved to AZ so she can now keep an eye on Mexico from her house…LOL

      • Maggie May says:

        didnt or couldnt see house on your link but ive seen it not that hot of a house!!!

      • Tim Bryant says:

        Her warranty deed says she bought the home for “Ten dollars and other valuable consideration”….WTF !!!

      • Tim Bryant says:

        Yet the Affidavit of the Title Company says she bought it for $172K. Something is definitely fishy !!!

      • Maggie May says:


      • Tim Bryant says:

        I am. It may be another robosigning case, but this time the sellers’ names may be forged.

      • Tim Bryant says:

        Anyone know who Marcia Cormack is in Pima County AZ?

      • Tim Bryant says:

        The foreclosure was done by Michael Boyko as Trustee for Harris Bank. I haven’t heard of either, has anyone else?

      • Tim Bryant says:

        Sorry, that’s Michael Bosco

      • Tim Bryant says:

        Interesting, the foreclosure sale was April 27th, 2010, and the new owners paperwork filed on May 2, 2010. There was still an existing lien on the property from the owner who was foreclosed upon until November 3, 2010 by the Cobblestone Farms Homeowners Association. Guess nobody did a title search, huh?

      • AliceN.Wunderland says:

        Tim, ‘Ten dollars and other valuable consideration’ is a term most lender’s use to protect the public from knowing the actual purchase price. The documents have the actual loan amount in the body of the document and the recording stamp indicates the right price for anyone to see. This practice has been around for ever and before the internet few people cared enough to see what the actual price was except for real estate agents or interested parties. I just love the internet, we all get to see the corruption. My Congressman from Washington has a robo-signed doc too …a Satisfaction and another one was recorded without being notarized. I hope more people keep looking at these people’s r.e. transactions and post about them.

      • AliceN.Wunderland says:

        What it is about Maricopa County…wow, all the robo signed docs I am finding are happening there, pretty fast and loose.

      • l vent says:

        Tim, I have my original stamped paid warranty deed with title insurance attached that says the same thing as Palin’s, for and in consideration of Ten and no/100 Dollars and other good and valuable consideration in hand paid, CONVEY and WARRANT to my husband and myself. I also have a release of mortgage by the second bankster who by successor by merger to my original “lender” REMISED, RELEASED, CONVEYED AND QUIT CLAIMED THE HO– USE TO ME, MY HUSBAND, ITS/HIS/THEIR/HEIRS AND ASSIGNED ALL RIGHTS, TITLE, INTEREST, CLAIMS OR DEMAND FOR A CERTAIN MORTGAGE FOR AND IN CONSIDERATION OF THE PAYMENT OF THE INDEBTEDNESS SECURED BY THE MORTGAGE HEREINAFTER MENTIONED, AND THE CANCELLATION OF THE PAYMENT OF ALL THE NOTES THEREBY SECURED, AND OF THE SUM OF _ONE DOLLAR_ Stamped and recorded at the ROD. Crazy huh?

      • Tim Bryant says:

        If Maricopa Deeds show this $10 transaction, is the transaction now “trifurcated”? The deed amount has been satisfied and should be released from the security, which usually is bifurcated from the note. Hey, Maricopa County may have just created a new foreclosure fraud term….TRIFURCATION !!!

  12. Tim Bryant says:

    We have to find the previous owner and have him sue her for title to the house….LOL

  13. Jason Werner says:

    There is nothing wrong with robo-signing. Linda Green is not a criminal. RICO crimes are well accepted and reasonable minds can concur that RICO operations are good business.


  14. TheHutMaster says:

    I love the laughing mouse, It means a scumbag is being exposed or slamed against the wall.

    “Fight The Good Fight”

  15. Readdocs says:

    What an interesting coincidence!

  16. leapfrog says:

    Yeah, I knew we needed that laughing mouse for this story. Laughing myself sick. I love it!

Leave a Reply