Due Process and Equitable Tolling

submitted by Deborah

@ Shaun M in Minnesota – These are the first 5 paragraphs of my complaint…I’ll will give you the links. All of this information I discovered on livinglies.

1. Plaintiff asks this Honorable Court to take judicial notice of the fact that she appears without counsel, is not schooled in the law and legal procedures, and is not licensed to practice law. Therefore her pleadings must be read and construed liberally. Further Plaintiff believes that this Court has a responsibility and legal duty to protect any and all of the Plaintiff’s Constitutional and statutory rights;

2. specifically by the due process clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment thereto, which invokes the due process clauses of the Seventh, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, to said Constitution upon the States and guarantees to all private citizens the freedom of private property and the separate and, distinct common law jurisdiction of this Court, in accord with the rules of common law related to fiduciary duties.

3. Plaintiff believes that the principle of equitable tolling does apply to all claims in this action, given Defendants’ violations of Constitutional law and federal and state statues and codes, at all times relevant hereto, as detailed below, Plaintiff could not have reasonably discovered the concealed facts of violations in-depth and explicitly, until she was faced with Defendants attempt to enforce an “illegal alleged foreclosure, sale and dispossession of the Property” (“Foreclosure”), at which time, she was assisted by others in researching all matters concerning the legality of the Foreclosure, as well as the media coverage of government entities’ and homeowners’ accusations of fraud in the enforcement of millions of foreclosures, leading her to study all documents and events relating to the purchase or the Property.

4. The equitable tolling principles are to be read into every federal statute of limitations, unless Congress expressly provides to the contrary in clear and ambiguous language, (See Rotella v. Wood, 528 U.S. 549, 560-61, 120 S. Ct. 1075, 145 L. Ed. 2d 1047 (2000)). Since the Federal statutes and codes Plaintiff accuses Defendants of violating in this Complaint do not evidence contrary Congressional intents, all statute of limitations must be read to be subject to equitable tolling, particularly since the act is to be construed liberally in favor of consumers.
5. The issue of “Standing” is a basic issue of Constitutional Law either at the Federal level or at the state district court level. That is to say, if you are not the person directly injured or directly benefiting from a specific law or circumstance, you cannot go to court and try to enforce any rights that do not belong to you.
6. The United States Supreme Court in several cases has stated that federal courts must satisfy for themselves that “Standing” exists and that “the plaintiff has alleged such a personal stake in the outcome of the controversy as to warrant his invocation of federal-court jurisdiction. “Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 498-99 (1975). Thus, if there is no direct injury or direct harm to the party that wishes to pursue a claim in court, then no right to “standing,” or right to be in court, exists in the first place.

I’m not sure I’ll use Warth v. Seldin here. I read the decision and find that I have other that are specifically mortgage fraud and are more recent.

This is Robello v. Wood

http://openjurist.org/528/us/549

This is Pierre Richard Augustin, Pro Se, Motion to Inform and Notify…he’s doing a TILA Recision based on equitable tolling.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/14473413/Homeowners-in-distress-follow-in-his-footsteps

I hope this helps.

Posted in bubble, Corruption, Eviction, securities fraud |