Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Eric Ferrier, Petitioner v. Cascade Falls Condominium Association, Inc., et al.

Supreme Court briefNov 27, 2020

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

Supreme Court, U.S.

-FILED

■1

NOV 2 7 2020

OFFICE OF THE CLERK

No. 20-7&3

Supreme Court of tfje ®n(teb States

ERIC FERRIER,

Petitioner,

CASCADE FALLS CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION INC.

BANK OF AMERICA N.A. et al.,

Respondents.

On Petition For Writ Of Certiorari

To The United States Court Of Appeals

For The Eleventh Circuit

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

Eric Ferrier, Pro Se

250 95th St #545981

Surfside, FL 33154

(646) 450-2923

ericferrier@outlook. com

RECEIVED

DEC - 2 2020

QUESTIONS PRESENTED

I. Whether a person born or naturalized in the

United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,

may be deprived of property without due process of law

and denied the equal protection of the laws by being

foreclosed from the legal system and excluded from a

national settlement agreement.

II. Whether the Bank of America, the property loan

servicer, submitted intentionally false and misleading

foreclosure claims by transferring the property title to

third party, Bank of New York, to obtain from a Florida

State Court a decision to deprive the petitioner from

his property so to escape both their obligations under

the condominium rider to pay Home Association dues

in the event of an owner default and to further escape

their obligations under the national settlement agree

ment.

III. Whether the Association conspired, along with

Bank lender, by failing short of their property mainte

nance obligations exposing Eric Ferrier to toxic molds

found in high concentration in the unit and by the

means of other frauds in violation of Title 42, U.S.C.

§ 3631.

PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDING

Petitioner Eric Ferrier was the plaintiff in the district

court proceedings and appellant in the court of Appeals

proceedings. Respondents Bank America NA, Cascade

Falls Condominium Association, Todd Stolfa and Lisa

Kehrer were the defendants in the district court pro

ceedings and appeals proceedings.

RELATED CASES

Cascade Falls Condominium Association et al. vs Eric

Ferrier, No. 16-61124 United States District Court

Southern District of Florida

Eric Ferrier vs Cascade Falls Condominium Associa

tion, Bank of America NA et al., No. 17-61597 United

States District Court Southern District of Florida

Eric Ferrier vs Cascade Falls Condominium Associa

tion, Bank of America NA et al., No. 19-14224 United

States Courts of Appeals for the 11th District

Ill

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

Questions Presented..............................................

Table of Contents....................................................

Table of Authorities................................................

Petition for Writ Of Certiorari..............................

Opinions Below.......................................................

Jurisdiction..............................................................

Constitutional Provisions Involved......................

Statement of the Case...........................................

Summary of the Argument....................................

Argument.................................................................

A. Immunity does not defeat the Court’s ju

risdiction.......................................................

B. An independent Action that may rise to a

level of Fraud on the Court........................

C. Foreclosing the Plaintiff of the legal sys

tem is too severe of a sanction....................

D. Eric Ferrier is a ProSe litigant and the

complaint should be reviewed in less

stringent standards.....................................

Conclusion

APPENDIX

United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh

Circuit, Opinion, July 15, 2020....................... App. 1

TABLE OF CONTENTS - Continued

Page

United States District Court for the Southern

District of Florida, Report and Recommenda

tion, February 15, 2018 ................................... App. 7

United States District Court for the Southern

District of Florida, Order Adopting Report

App. 15

and Recommendation, March 8, 2018

United States District Court for the Southern

District of Florida, Docket Order 61, August 2,

App. 19

2019

United States District Court for the Southern

District of Florida, Docket Order 67, August 2,

App. 20

2019

Bank of America Corporation, Statement of

App. 21

Facts

U.S. Trustee Program, Homeowners in Bank

App. 84

ruptcy May Be Eligible for Relief

United States District Court for the Southern

District of Florida, Order Dismissing Defend

App. 87

ant’s Counterclaim, April 11, 2018

Letter Exchange, Neda Ghomeshi and Peti

App. 88

tioner

Notice of Filing and Order of the Seventeenth

Judicial Circuit, Broward County, Florida.... App. 93

United States District Court for the Southern

District of Florida, Docket Order 34........... App. 100

HUD 903 Online Housing Discrimination Form

App. 101

submission..................

App. 102

Assignment of Mortgage

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Page

Cases

Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. v. Buell, 480

U.S. 557 (1987)..................................................

Bankers Mortg. Co. v. United States, 423 F.2d 73

(5th Cir. 1970)....................................................

Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544,127

14,16,17

S.Ct. 1955 (2007)

Booker v. Dugger, 825 F.2d 281 (11th Cir. 1987)..

Brown v. Felsen, 442 U.S. at 132, 99 S.Ct. at

2209-10...............................................................

Cofield v. Alabama Public Serv. Comm., 936 F.2d

512 (11th Cir. 1991)...........................................

Columbia Natural Res., Inc. v. Tatum, 58 F.3d

1101 (6th Cir. 1995)...........................................

Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 (1957)................... 12,16

Copeland v. Green, 949 F.2d 390 (11th Cir.1991).

Cordoba v. Dillard’s, Inc., 419 F.3d 1169 (11th

Cir. 2005)............................................................

Day v. Benton, 346 F. App’x 476 (11th Cir. 2009).... 13,14

Griggs v. Provident Consumer Discount Co., 680

F.2d 927 (3d Cir. 1982).......................................

Jenkins v. Landmark Mortgage Corp., 696

F.Supp. 1089 (W.D.Va.1988)..............................

Mars v. Spartanburg Chrysler Plymouth, Inc.,

713 F.2d 65 (4th Cir. 1983).................................

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES - Continued

Page

Procup v. Strickland, 792 F.2d 1069 (11th

Cir.1986)............................................................ 14,15

Rozier v. Ford Motor Co., 573 F.2d 1332 (5th Cir.

1978)...................................................................

Solis v. Fidelity Consumer Discount Co., 58 B.R.

983 (E.D.Pa.1986)..............................................

Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506

(2002)..................................................................

Thomka v. A.Z. Chevrolet, 619 F.2d 246 (3d

Cir. 1980)......................-......................................

United States v. Beggerly, 524 U.S. 38 (1998).....

United States v. Timmons, 672 F.2d 1373 (11th

Cir. 1982)...........................................................

United States v. Vega-Castillo, 540 F.3d 1235

(11th Cir. 2008)..................................................

Statutes and Rules of Civil Procedures

Home Ownership and Equity Protection Act

(HOEPA).............................................................

Truth in Lending Act (TILA)........ .......................

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(d)(3) 10

Amendments 1946, 2007................................... 12,13

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)............ 12,16

Title 28, U.S.C. § 1655 ..........................................

Title 42, U.S.C. § 3631 ...........................................

Vll

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES - Continued

Page

Constitutional Provisions

United States Constitution, Amendment XIV

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

Eric Ferrier, a prose litigant, respectfully petitions

this court for a writ of certiorari to review a judgment

of the 11th District Court of Appeals.

OPINIONS BELOW

The 11th District Court of Appeals affirm the or

der of the US District of South Florida to dismiss the

case without prejudice for lack jurisdiction. That order

is attached at Appendix (“App”) at 1.

—♦

JURISDICTION

Eric Ferrier invokes this Court’s jurisdiction un

der 28 U.S.C. §1254(1), having timely filed this petition

for a writ of certiorari before December 15th, 2020.

CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS INVOLVED

United States Constitution, Amendment XTV, All

persons born or naturalized in the United States, and

subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the

United States and of the State wherein they reside. No

State shall make or enforce any law which shall

abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the

United States; nor shall any State deprive any person

of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;

nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal

protection of the laws

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

This claim rises as the counter part of two sepa

rates foreclosures actions filed in Florida State Courts

one, by a home owner association and two, by the bank

lender. The Home Ownership and Equity Protection

Act (HOEPA) was enacted in 1994 as an amendment

to the Truth in Lending Act (TILA) to address abusive

practices in refinances and closed-end home equity

loans with high interest rates or high fees. The loan

issued to finance the purchase of the property qualified

for HOEPA regulations. In fact, a National Settlement

agreement has been reached in 2014 by Lenders which

should include the property of the Plaintiff Appellant.

The reference to that settlement is attached as Appen

dix 85-86. The Property was acquired last for the un

conscious amount of one dollar by the foreclosing

parties. Eric Ferrier is been stripped of all equity and

all money paid since 2007 or over $83,268, has been to

a loss. The property market value at the time was as

sessed by Broward county tax department to less than

$70,000. The original loan exceeded $210,000.

The undisputed facts that yield to this claim can be

summarized as followed. In January 2011, Eric Ferrier

filed a complaint to the City of Fort Lauderdale Code

Enforcement that water is leaking in the unit from the

Condominium common elements. The following order

is entered on January 2011, case CE11011679: “Code

section 9-289(f): Violations: Every plumbing fixture,

water pipe, drain, waste pipe, and gas pipe, shall be

maintained in good sanitary working condition, free

from defects, leaks and obstructions, there is major

leak that is causing the wall to peel and the baseboard

to detach from the walls, repair the leak and make all

repairs to the damaged areas, obtain all necessary per

mits”.

As per the National Center for Healthy housing,

“ . . . Mold is a serious health hazard in the home envi

ronment, as it produces allergens, irritants, and in

some cases, potentially toxic substances. Mold can also

trigger respiratory problems such as asthma in vulner

able and allergic populations. Therefore, preventing

and eliminating mold problems is a crucial part of en

suring quality housing conditions . . . Some types of

mold produce toxic substances known as mycotoxins,

which can cause health problems when they are in

haled, absorbed through the skin, or ingested. One

mold species may produce a number of different myco

toxins; conversely, one mycotoxin may be produced by

several different types of mold. Mycotoxin production

varies depending on environmental conditions such as

moisture level, temperature, and substrate con

tent. . . . Skin rashes, fatigue, dizziness, flu-like symp

toms, nausea, respiratory and eye irritation, immune

suppression, birth defects, lung inflammation, and can

cer have been associated with exposure to mycotoxins.

Persons exposed to high levels of mold toxins, e.g., mold

remediation workers or farm workers, may be at risk

for organic toxic dust syndrome (OTDS) or hypersensi

tivity pneumonitis (HP). ODTS may occur after a sin

gle, heavy exposure to mycotoxins and usually carries

with it fever, respiratory, and flu-like symptoms. HP is

an immunological disease caused by repeated highlevel exposures to the same agent and can result in

permanent lung damage. Mold exposure also may lead

to infections such as fungal pneumonia in persons with

compromised immune systems ...”

The situation has been a health hazard since the

unit directly above Eric Ferrier’s has been sold and oc

cupied by a new owner. Eric Ferrier has been attempt

ing unsuccessfully to resolve construction defects

issues along with the towing of a vehicle directly with

the Developer Todd Stolfa, who was previously ruling

the Home Owner Association. Association dues pay

ments had been made and held in the Mortgage lender

escrow account until proper management. The com

plaint to the Fort Lauderdale code enforcement was

made at the last recourse.

For sole response the HOA, escaping the City or

der, filed a foreclosure action in Florida State Court.

The case is move to mediation which bind Eric Ferrier

to pay $8,000 to the HOA and the HOA to fix the unit.

Eric Ferrier wires the first payment within 3 business

days to the bank account of the HOA and notify the

board that a bank transfer has been made. The HOA

responded that they had not received the transfer,

and that this bank account had been closed. All subse

quent payments that were mailed directly to the HOA

Attorney were refused. Eric Ferrier contacted the bank

lender to inform them of the situation and that under

the following condominium rider paragraph F, they

may arrange for payments of the dues. The condomin

ium rider paragraph F states that “.. F. Remedies. If

Borrower does not pay condominium dues and assess

ments when due, then Lender may pay them. Any

amounts disbursed by Lender under the paragraph F

shall become additional debt of Borrower secured by

the Security Instrument. Unless Borrower and Lender

agree to other terms of payment, these amounts shall

bear interest from the date of disbursement at the

Note rate and be payable, with interest, upon notice

from Lender to Borrower requesting payment.”

The mortgage escrow bank account balance is now

$8,000 and Eric Ferrier present the bank statements

at the State Court trial. Regardless, the Court rules in

favor of the HOA and Eric Ferrier is evicted of the

property.

Upon consulting additional legal advice about the

case, Eric Ferrier has been told that the title had been

transferred to the Bank of New York but that the Bank

of America was still the servicer of the loan. Eric Fer

rier retains the Law firm to accept service from the

Bank. The firm notify the Bank of America that they

are authorized to accept service. The Attorneys explain

that the assignment attached as Appendix 102, of the

property is untimely and questionable. They are confi

dent to be able to reach a settlement with the Bank.

The Bank of New York foreclosed the property

back from the HOA ignoring Eric Ferrier legal counsel

failing short of servicing him their summons in their

second Florida State foreclosure action.

Finally, in June 2015, Eric Ferrier receives a notice

dated June 11th 2015, from the Bank of America hat

Even M Rosen PA who was authorized to accept the

service for Eric Ferrier, is no longer representing him.

(Reference c3-0972 Authorization letter - combo 16405

06/24/2013 Account 153806953)

Eric Ferrier, having used the service of three dif

ferent law firms to date, not knowing who to believe

any more, filed on 03/26/2016 an online housing dis

crimination complaint HUD 903 800-669-9777. Appen

dix 101, then filed ProSe, a counter complaint in

Florida State Court. He attempts to remove the case a

first time to the US District of Southern Florida, join

ing the Bank of America and the boards of director of

HOA, attempting to file Federal questions very similar

to the one that have been subject to the National Set

tlement agreement, Appendix 86.

On July 26th, 2016, an order (Appendix 94) is en

tered by the State Court while the case is technically

in the US Southern District that Eric Ferrier is a vex

atious litigant. The Florida State order states that Eric

Ferrier has cost the association more than $20,000 in

legal fees when in fact under the Condominium rider

paragraph F, the Association could have collected dues

at no cost and when in fact Eric Ferrier had held over

$8,000 in the Bank of America escrow account to cover

money owed as agreed. The federal complaint has been

remanded, for lack of jurisdiction, to the State Court

on November 22,2016 (Appendix 100). Clarification on

the order to remand have not been made before April,

11th 2018 (Appendix 87). Technically the Florida State

Court had no jurisdiction on a case that was heard at

the time in the US District at the time.

Eric Ferrier paid filing fees for a second time by

filing an independent action for fraud, discrimination

and unfair business practices against the HOA, the

Bank of America and the Board of Director of the HOA.

Neither the Bank of America nor the Board of Direc

tors have been parties to any actions in the Florida

State Court and genuine facts such as physical injuries

caused by the exposure of the mold and specific to the

mortgage and assignment by the Bank of America.

Similar facts have been part of a National cause of ac

tion. Facts such as the title transfer, the lack of service

of the Bank foreclosure on Eric Ferrier Attorney, the

breach of the condominium riders that raise the case

to a count of fraud and physical injuries and resulting

loss of income are genuine to the case and have not

been introduced in the Florida State court. Discovery

is served on the HOA and servicer of the loan Bank of

America. Eric Ferrier attempts to introduce genuine

facts to this case in the form of Motion to have facts

deem admitted. A whistleblowing claim is also filed

against the Bank of America to the SEC, reporting that

the security back end mortgage lacked proper disclo

sure.

The case is been dismissed by the US District of

Southern Florida for lack of jurisdiction. On Appeal

the ruling is affirmed, the Federal Circuit has no

jurisdiction on this case which was filed as an inde

pendent action.

Eric Ferrier has simply been foreclosed of the legal

system and been deprived of his property without

proper recourse under the laws as underlined in the

National Settlement Agreement. Eric Ferrier is unable

to raise any federal questions including a count of

fraud upon the court. Similar questions that have been

subject to a national settlement agreement (Appendix

21 to 86). The sole response to date made to Eric Ferrier

rights and inquiries made under the National Settle

ment agreement is summarized by the letter from the

Bank of America attorney attached as Appendix 91.

Eric Ferrier is flagged in the Broward Florida

State court as a vexatious litigant by the means of a

deposition made by a City of Fort Lauderdale Attorney,

Alain E. Boileau, deposition taken while the case was

heard in the Southern District of Florida. Eric Ferrier

is unable to allege any federal claims or any damages

related to injuries which time-lines coincides with the

toxin exposure.

SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT

The Case presents questions whether Eric Ferrier

demonstrates that equitable reasons exist for main

taining an independent action to raise federal ques

tions such as fraud and discrimination in housing and

that Defendants’ actions may rise to the level of “fraud

on the court” in obtaining a foreclosure judgment and

that he should be granted at least a leave of amend his

complaint because the District of Southern Florida has

jurisdiction to hear a cause of action for Fraud and

Fraud upon the court, Discrimination and unfair busi

ness practice against the parties which includes the

Bank of America NA and Boards of the HOA at the

time who were not part of the Florida State case.

1. Bank of America Transfer to Bank of New

York and the Florida State Foreclosure case

legal scheme

The transfer is self-assignment made by the Bank

of America. Country wide was no longer in business at

the time. The assignment is untimely. The Bank of

America NA remained the services of the loan. Facts

that have been part of a National settlement agree

ment remained the same and should been deem admit

ted. The National Settlement agreement does not

provide for a clause that independent action may not

been heard or filed.

2. Direct Appeal of the independent action

Eric Ferrier on direct appeal argued that the ar

guments presented by the Attorney Defendants do not

echo the case properly and that the case may rise to a

level of fraud upon the Court. Eric Ferrier argues that

he is not able to present or introduce any supporting

facts or to make any Federal allegations which should

give a US District Court Jurisdiction. The judicial

scheme is attached as Appendix 1 to 20, 87, 93 to 100

is inconsistent and conflict with prior precedent such

as the National Settlement agreement or the further

argument. The second filing was simply pertinent to

the rules requiring an independent action so to yield

jurisdiction.

ARGUMENT

A. Immunity does not defeat the Court’s juris

diction

The appearance in the State Court of the Fort

Lauderdale’s City Attorney Alain Boileau while the

case was heard in a US District Court should NOT be

an argument that sovereign immunity defeats the

Court’s jurisdiction to hear an independent action for

fraud on the court.

United States v. Timmons, 672 F.2d 1373 (11th Cir.

1982), was overruled by the Supreme Court’s subse

quent holding in United States v. Beggerly, 524 U.S. 38,

42 (1998). Likewise the Eleventh Circuit held that the

district court lacked jurisdiction over the defendant’s

“for the Supreme Court to

counterclaims because

overrule a case, its decision must have conflicted with

this court’s prior precedent.” United States v. Vega-Castillo, 540 F.3d 1235, 1237 (11th Cir. 2008). That is, the

two cases must pit “holding against holding.” In

Beggerly, the Supreme Court held that an independent

action for relief from judgment, brought in the same

court as the original judgment, does not require an in

dependent basis for jurisdiction.

The original lawsuit was likewise brought in the

United States District Court for the Southern District

of Florida, and the Court had jurisdiction to consider

it. There are two jurisdictional bases for the suit. The

suit satisfied the elements of an “independent action”

as the term is used in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

60(b) but also mainly under 1946 amendment which

revised the Rule to read substantially as it reads:

“(b) Mistakes; Inadvertence; Excusable Ne

glect; Newly Discovered Evidence; Fraud, Etc.

On motion and upon such terms as are just,

the court may relieve a party or a party’s legal

representative from a final judgment, order, or

proceeding for the following reasons: (1) mis

take, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable ne

glect; (2) newly discovered evidence which by

due diligence could not have been discovered

in time to move for a new trial under Rule

59(b); (3) fraud (whether heretofore denomi

nated intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresenta

tion, or other misconduct of an adverse party;

(4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has

been satisfied, released, or discharged, or a

prior judgment upon which it is based has

been reversed or otherwise vacated, or it is no

longer equitable that the judgment should

have prospective application; or (6) any other

reason justifying relief from the operation of

the judgment.

Fraud whether extrinsic as per (3), could include

destroying evidence or misleading an ignorant person,

such as a prose litigant, about the right to sue or coun

ter sue. Extrinsic fraud is to be distinguished from

“intrinsic fraud,” which is the fraud that was the sub

ject of the original dual foreclosure lawsuits. This case

is clearly an independent case alleging both intrinsic

and extrinsic fraud count.

This rule does not limit the power of a court to en

tertain an independent action to relieve a party from a

judgment, order, or proceeding, or to grant relief to a

defendant not actually personally notified as provided

in Title 28, U.S.C., § 1655. The Bank of America has

never served Eric Ferrier’s Attorney according to the

rules and § 1655. The independent action has been

filed timely under Home Ownership and Equity Pro

tection Act (HOEPA) and the Truth in Lending Act

(TILA). The South Florida US District Court should be

permitted to entertain an independent action.

B. An Independent Action that may rise to a

level of Fraud on the Court

The Supreme Court, in Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S.

41 (1957), stated that the interplay between Rule 8

(pleading) and Rule 12(b)(6) is as follows: “The ac

cepted rule is that a complaint should not be dismissed

for failure to state a claim unless it appears beyond

doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in sup

port of his claim which would entitle him to relief.” 355

U.S. at 45-46. An Appellant prose complaint is to be

reviewed in less strict standards than a complaint

drafted by a lawyer.

Eric Ferrier asserts on appeal that he is proceed

ing under Rule 60(d)(3), which reserves a court’s power

to “set aside a judgment for fraud on the court.” Fed. R.

Civ. P. 60(d)(3). Attacking a judgment requires a new

cause of action, such as an “independent action” under

Rule 60(d)(1). This case is an independent cause of ac

tion and should suffice to justify Eric Ferrier second

filing to be solely pertinent to the rules.

In fact, courts read the terms of Rule 60(d)’s sav

ings clause in conjunction to other clauses. Rule 60

“does not limit the power of a court to entertain an in

dependent action ... to set aside a judgment for fraud

upon the court.” Booker v. Dugger, 825 F.2d 281, 283

(11th Cir. 1987)', Rozier v. Ford Motor Co., 573 F.2d

1332, 1338 (5th Cir. 1978); Day v. Benton, 346 F.App’x

476, 478 (11th Cir. 2009) (unpublished). The district

court may also entertain an independent action to ‘set

aside a judgment for fraud on the court. . .

Because

Plaintiff seeks to maintain an new “action to relieve a

party from a judgment, order, or proceeding ... for

fraud on the court,” he must establish the elements

necessary to maintain an “independent action.” Fed. R.

Civ. P. 60(d).

As adopted by the Eleventh Circuit, the elements

of a Rule 60(d) independent action are as follows: (1) a

judgment which ought not, in equity and good con

science, to be enforced; (2) a good defense to the alleged

cause of action on which the judgment is founded; (3)

fraud, accident, or mistake which prevented the de

fendant in the judgment from obtaining the benefit of

his defense; (4) the absence of fault or negligence on

the part of defendant; and (5) the absence of any ade

quate remedy at law. Bankers Mortg. Co. v. United

States, 423 F.2d 73, 79 (5th Cir. 1970); Day v. Benton,

346 F App’x at 478.

Eric Ferrier is foreclosed of the legal system and is

unable to plead these essential elements so to main

tain an independent action; he should be at least the

opportunity to allege that Defendants’ actions rise to

the level of “fraud on the court” and if required to

amend his complaint accordingly.

As argued above, the 11th District ruling conflicts

with adopted standards to review and dismiss a com

plaint. Those standards underlines that a court must

construe the complaint in the light most favorable to

the plaintiff, accept all factual allegations as true, and

determine whether the complaint contains “enough

facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its

face.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twomhly, 550 U.S. 544, 570,

127 S.Ct. 1955 (2007).”

A judge may not grant a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to

dismiss a case based on a disbelief of a complaint’s fac

tual allegations.” Columbia Natural Res., Inc. v. Tatum,

58 F.3d 1101, 1109 (6th Cir. 1995). Especially when

very similar factual allegations have been subject of a

National class action against Bank lenders.

C. Foreclosing the Plaintiff of the legal system

is too severe of a sanction:

A litigant cannot be “completely foreclosed from

any access to the court.” Procup v. Strickland, 792 F.2d

at 1074; pre-filing screening restrictions on litigious

plaintiffs have been upheld. Copeland v. Green, 949

F.2d 390 (11th Cir.1991); Cofield v. Alabama Public

Serv. Comm., 936 F.2d 512, 517-18 (11th Cir.1991). A

case is frivolous only if “it lacks an arguable basis ei

ther in law or in fact.”

Courts cannot construct blanket orders that com

pletely close the courthouse doors to those who are ex

tremely litigious. Procup v. Strickland, 792 F.2d 1069,

1074 (11th Cir.1986); holding that a requirement that

an abusive filer must use an attorney in all future

cases was excessive because it effectively “fore

closed . . . any access to the court.”

The Appellant contends that the district court’s re

strictions are so burdensome that they operate to deny

him meaningful access to the federal courts and that

to avoid an overly rigid application of the res judicata

doctrine granting the Florida State Court to rules on

Parties and questions that are of Federal Jurisdictions,

and that the Court should carefully consider the facts

at issue. Brown, u. Felsen, supra, 442 U.S. at 132, 99

S.Ct. at 2209-10.

In Cordoba u. Dillard’s, Inc., 419 F.3d 1169, 117879 (11th Cir. 2005), the 11th Circuit discussed its

confusing precedent on the issue of whether §1927

sanctions required a threshold finding of actual, sub

jective bad faith. On this un-clarified point, the court

held: “Our cases are perhaps somewhat unclear on this

point: either they require subjective bad faith, which

may be objectively inferred from reckless conduct, or

they merely require reckless conduct, which is consid

ered ‘tantamount to bad faith.

There are clearly facts that are genuine to this

court such as new party the Bank of America, bonded

by the condominium rider to pay association dues in

case of a default of an owner and further facts that

have been already admitted and part of a NATIONAL

SETTLEMENT agreement to which Eric Ferrier has

been excluded; and finally to say the least physical in

juries as the results of the exposure to toxic mold that

Eric Ferrier is attempting to introduce in the Southern

District.

D. Eric Ferrier is a ProSe litigant and the com

plaint should be reviewed in less stringent

standards

As argued above, the Supreme Court, In Conley v.

Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 (1957), stated the interplay be

tween Rule 8 (pleading) and Rule 12(b)(6) as follows:

“The accepted rule is that a complaint should not be

dismissed for failure to state a claim unless it appears

beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts

in support of his claim which would entitle him to re

lief.” 355 U.S. at 45-46. In Bell Atlantic Corporation v.

Twombly, 55 U.S. 544 (2007), the Court noted questions

rose regarding the “no set of facts” test and clarified

that “once a claim has been stated adequately, it may

be supported by showing any set of facts consistent

with the allegations in the complaint.” It continued:

“Conley, then, described the breadth of opportunity to

prove what an adequate complaint claims, not the min

imum standard of adequate pleading to govern a com

plaint’s survival.”

The Supreme Court has explained that a com

plaint need only “give the defendant fair notice of what

the plaintiff’s claim is and the grounds upon which it

rests.” Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 512

(2002); Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. v. Buell, 480

U.S. 557, 568 n.15 (1987) (under Federal Rule 8, claim

ant has “no duty to set out all of the relevant facts in

his complaint”). “Specific facts are not necessary in a

Complaint; instead, the statement need only ‘give the

defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the

grounds upon which it rests.’” Epos Tech., 636

F. Supp.2d 57, 63 (D.D.C. 2009); Bell Atlantic v.

Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). Thus, the Federal

Rules embody “notice pleading” and require only a con

cise statement of the claim, rather than evidentiary

facts.

Courts have imposed a standard of strict liability

under the TILA/HOEPA where a lender has violated

any of its provisions. Griggs v. Provident Consumer

Discount Co., 680 F.2d 927, 930 (3d Cir.1982) “The

TILA mandates the disclosure of certain information

in financing agreements and enforces that mandate by

a system of strict liability in favor of consumers who

have secured financing when the standards are not

met.’” Thomka v.A.Z. Chevrolet, 619 F.2d 246, 248 (3d

Cir.1980); Courts impose such strict liability even

where such violations are “merely technical” or “mi

nor.” Mars v. Spartanburg Chrysler Plymouth, Inc., 713

F.2d 65, 67 (4th Cir.1983); Jenkins v. Landmark Mort

gage Corp., 696 F.Supp. 1089, 1095 (W.D.Va.1988);

Solis v. Fidelity Consumer Discount Co., 58 B.R. 983,

986 (E.D.Pa.1986).

Eric Ferrier is clearly reviewed in different stand

ards than the one used to settle and reach a National

Settlement agreement. Eric Ferrier is unable to make

any claims or raise any federal questions against the

Bank Lender which includes the breach of the para

graph F of condominium rider but also violations to

lending acts that have been part of a National Settle

ment agreement and are herein attached as appendix

84. The Bank of America has never appeared in the

State Court. The Home Owner association should have

served their initial foreclosure action if any on both

Bank lenders and owner, Eric Ferrier. This is the sec

ond deficiency in serving that makes it impossible for

Eric Ferrier from obtaining the benefit of a defense.

The Bank of New York is not the servicer of the loan,

never received any money from Eric Ferrier, is not

bonded by any agreements. The Bank of America

simply transferred the title to make it even more diffi

cult from obtaining any benefits of a defense to their

foreclosure actions.

CONCLUSION

Eric Ferrier is simply foreclosed of the legal sys

tem. The ruling conflicts with court’s precedent’s in

cluding a National Settlement agreement and mainly

for the following reasons:

A-TO AVOID ERRONEOUS DEPRIVATIONS OF

THE RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS

B-TO GRANT AT LEAST A LEAVE TO AMEND

HIS COMPLAINT TO REPAIR A CAUSE OF ACTION

FOR FRAUD AND INTRODUCE UNDISPUTED

FACTS INCLUDING PHYSICAL INJURIES AND OF

A NATIONAL SETTLEMENT TO WHICH HE HAS

BEEN EXCLUDED

For the foregoing reasons, Eric Ferrier respectfully

requests that this Court issue a writ of certiorari to re

view the judgment of the 11th District Court of Ap

peals.

DATED this 27th day of November, 2020.

Eric Ferrier, ProSe

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.