FUCHS v. KE KAILANI PARTNERS, LLC - PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI | This Petition could result in American homeowners facing foreclosure saving trillions of dollars in equity by policing deficiency judgments as is now being done only in half of the states

Categorized | STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD

FUCHS v. KE KAILANI PARTNERS, LLC – PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI | This Petition could result in American homeowners facing foreclosure saving trillions of dollars in equity by policing deficiency judgments as is now being done only in half of the states

FUCHS v. KE KAILANI PARTNERS, LLC – PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI | This Petition could result in American homeowners facing foreclosure saving trillions of dollars in equity by policing deficiency judgments as is now being done only in half of the states

In The
Supreme Court of the United States

MICHAEL J. FUCHS and
KE KAILANI DEVELOPMENT LLC,
Petitioners,
V.
KE KAILANI PARTNERS, LLC,
Respondent.

On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the Hawaii Supreme
Court, the Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals, and the
First Circuit Court of the State of Hawaii
a_
PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI
Gary Victor Dubin
Counsel of Record
FREDERICK J. ARENSMEYER
Dunrin Law Offices
65 Merchant Street, Suite 3100
Honolulu, Hawaii 96813
Telephone: (808) 537-2300
Facsimile: (808) 523-7733
E -Mail: gdubin@dubinlaw.net
Attorneys for Petitioners

QUESTIONS PRESENTED

1. Resolving the conflict in the decisions, equally divided, among state courts, and between state and federal courts, concerning one of the most fundamental due process issues in constitutional law, the requirement of a neutral and impartial decision maker: Is a presiding state judge, discovered to have an undisclosed stock ownership interest in an adverse party, refusing nevertheless to recuse himself, in violation of judicial ethics and a disqualified jurist, based upon an objective standard of the appearance of partiality, and his or her decisions required to be set aside?

2. Resolving the conflict in the decisions, equally divided, among state courts, and between federal courts in their exercise of diversity jurisdiction: Is it a violation of due process of law as an unconstitutional forfeiture of property rights for a state or federal court to award a foreclosing mortgagee a deficiency judgment calculated solely by subtracting the net proceeds of a forced auction sale from the amount owed, without the court conducting an evidentiary hearing after sale confirmation to first determine the fair value of a foreclosed property?

3. Is it a violation of due process and equal protection, when a right to appeal is expressly provided by state law, for a state appellate court nevertheless to deny the right to appeal based solely upon a filed notice of appeal delayed solely due to a malfunction in that state’s authorized electronic appellate filing system?

 

20161205080816_1_1 by DinSFLA on Scribd

© 2010-17 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.



Comments

comments

This post was written by:

- who has written 8506 posts on FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA.

CONTROL FRAUD | ‘If you don’t look; you don’t find, Wherever you look; you will find’ -William Black

Contact the author

Leave a Reply

GARY DUBIN LAW OFFICES FORECLOSURE DEFENSE HAWAII and CALIFORNIA
Kenneth Eric Trent, www.ForeclosureDestroyer.com

Archives