Prologue — Hollis-Arrington v. Fannie Mae

Supreme Court, U.S.

Ch ae FILED

ey O5-114MAY 11 2009

In the

OFFICE OF THE CLERK

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES -

—_—

as

BEVERLY ANN’ HOLLIS-ARRINGTON

Petitioner,

Vs.

FANNIE MAE, CENDANT MORTGAGE CORPORATION,

JUDGE CONSUELO B. MARSHALL, JUDGE STEVEN V.

————

WILSON, JUDGE ANDREW KLEINFELD, JUDGE

PAMELA D. REYMER, FIDELITY NATIONAL

TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY, SUZANNE M.

HANKINS, ET. AL.

. Respondents

On petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the

United States Court of Appeals for the

District of Columbia Circuit

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

4

BEVERLY ANN HOLLIS-ARRINGTON

22912 Hartland Street

West Hills, Ca 91307

(818) 999-3561

May 10, 2005 tr —Petitioner In Pro Se

i

Questions presented

1. Whether the Court of Appeals must follow the precedent set

by this Honorable Court?

2. Whether the Court Of Appeals must follow its own

precedents.

3. Given the Congressional intent of the established jurisdiction

of the United States Appeals Courts, as a court of review to

the orders of a lower Court, did the appeals Court act

properly by rewriting the order of the lower court to reflect

what they believe the judge should have said, then rule on

their own changes? :

4. When a United States Judges have usurped hts authority, and

ignored the jurisdiction of the Court, codified in article II] of

the United States Constitution; and thereby lifting their

immunity, followed by allegations of conspiring with the

defendants, to corruptly fix the out come of three prior cases

filed by this petitioner, by way of bribery; can this petitioner

use denial of access as a precursor to a Constitutional claim

of due process violation, consistent with this Honorable

Courts holding in “Christopher v Harbury”?

5. Can the Court ignore its own precedent, and DC Code Ann.

§ 13-423(a) (1) set in “Second Amendment Foundation v

United States Conference of Mayors, et. al., and refuse to

accept personal jurisdictions of all defendants, based on an

alleged conspiracy, with one defendant residing in the forum

state, and the remain defendants acting as the agents of that

defendant?

6. Can the court depart from the holdings of all Circuits,

including its own, and-rewrite the doctrine of res judicata, as

they did in this case?

ii

PARTIES TO PROCEEDINGS

Beverly Ann Hollis-Arrington is the petitioner, in pro se in this

matter.

Respondents are: Fannie Mae, Cendant Mortgage Corporation,

- Fidelity National Title Insurance Company, Judge Consuelo B.

Marshall, Judge Steven V. Wilson, Judge Pamela Rymer, Judge

Andrew Kleinfeld, Judge Browning, Suzanne M. Hankins, esq.,

Robert O. Matthews, Conny B. McCormack ( in her official sta

as register recorder for the County of Los Angeles)

David W. Goewey

Venable LLP

575 Seventh Street N.W.

Washington D C 20004-1601

Attorneys for: |

Fidelity National Title insurance

Robert O. Matthews

Weiner Brodsky Sidman Kider Pc

Attention: David M. Souders

1300 19" Street

Fifth Floor

Washington D. C. 20036- 1609

Attorneys For: Fannie Mae, Cendant Mortgage Corp: And, Suzanne

M. Hankins, Esq.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EO PINs pc Sasi titiduksas pangs as ae eae

Petes Us Te PHI, sinc Be a wt il

CNN a a ee ee

Table of Authorities......... 2.0.0.1. cece estes cee ences ee ctineee ce eneeeeed

Opinions below. . eo a a

PI oi eek RG Being wacesnias fee as oe

EVER SUUOEY PHOVIGIONE, «5 oss is oh as since

bniwadee. oe 2

Reason Why the writ Should be Granted ... ............ 00... cee ee eee ee

RII ip ops con Cache ani orn ede’ oes bdoatan cake sa ae

Appendix

Appendix A- 02-11-04- United States Court of Appeal for the

District Of Columbia Order on pees En

Banc... pecan mere Snaveuk say eon sae

Appendix B — 11-15-04- United States Court Of Appeals for the

District of Columbia

RN i ou Se anna es Geen dine Rae eee

Appendix C- 02-17-04- Initial Order of the District |

MMM is igs ad ari peg tics tae Wha hav ALD SAR SO ee at AG enc

Appendix D-Filed material so that the court may better understand

I oi a a ee

iv

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Judicial Authority

Best v Kelly 309 U.S. D.C. 51; 39 F. 3d 328.........0............3

Bieneman v City of Chicago, 864 F. 2d 463, 469 (7" Cir. ae

Bivens v Six Unknown Named Agents of federal Bureau of Narcotics

403 U.S. 388, 29 L Ed. 2d 619, 91 S. Ct. 1999 (1971).......... passim

Conley v Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46, 2L Ed. 2d 80, 78 S Ct. 99

Davis v Passman, 42? U.S. 228, 60 L. Ed. 2d 846, 99 Ct. 2264

Maharaj v Bank of America Corp. 128 F3d. 94,97 (2d Cir. 1997)..4

Maher v Durango Metals Inc., 144 F. 3d 1302, 1304 (10" Cir.

Pai ois en eae Ang oh ol eaeace a ee

Melvin P. Deutsch v United States Department of Justice, ET. al.,

- G1 F. Sepp. 49; 1995 US. Dee. «0: ..- 0 a.

Rivet, et al., pteunnies Bank pai Louisiana et al., 522 U.S. 470; 118 S.

ka Fee sehen ou sreseilicon appa rd alae ates tet we . .passim

' Scheuer v Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236, 40 L. Ed. 2d 90, 94 S Ct. 1683

(1974) overruled on other grounds, Davis v Scherer 468 U.S. 183,

a2 L. Bd 26. 195, OOS. CO SOL I... 505-0 a 3

Second Amendment Foundation v United States Conference of

— et al., 348 US. — D.C. 238; 274 F. 3d 521; 2001 US.

Vv

or gala sige: Inc v. Stanley, 819 F.2.d 294, 297 (D.C. Cir.

1987)... Eso asks tae kee de GR honda Hk eh Se

Warren Christopher, Former Secretary of State, Et Al, v Jennifer K.

Harbury $36 U.S. 403; 122 S. Ct. 2179; 153 L ed. 2d 413............1

Petition for Writ of Certiorari

Petitioner Beverly Ann Hollis-Arrington respectfully petition

for a writ of certiorari to review the judgment of the United States

Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in this case.

Opinion Below

The Appeals Court issued an unpublished order on initial

review/ 11-15-04 and on petition for rehearing en banc.

Jurisdiction

“ The Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under 28 U.S.C. §

1254(1)

Constitutional and Statutory Provisions Involved

<

Article III of the U.S. Constitution

Fourteenth amendment of the U.S. Constitution

Statement of the Case

This petition seeks review of a decision of the United States Court of

Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, rewriting the lower

courts as “patently insubstantial” that it presents no federal questions

suitable for disposition.

(a) Petitioner believes that the decision of the Court of Appeals is

inconsistent with a controlling decision of this court in

Warren Christopher, Former Secretary of State, ET. Al. v.

Jennifer K. Harbury.

(b) Additionally, the congressional intent for the court of appeals

is a court of review. The lower court’s order dismisses the

case based on res judicata, and lack of personal jurisdiction. ©

The appeals court states that the case is “Patently

insubstantial” and that it presented no suitable question for

\deposition. Using “Best v. Kelly, 39 F. 3d 328, 330 (D. C. )

circuit, as controlling law. There is no correlation between

this case and the sighted case.

(c) Congress did not intend for the appeals court to rewrite a

lower courts opinion, and then review its own findings.

(d) The lower court dismissed this case finding res judicata

applied, even though petitioners claim for denial of access to

the court did not accrue until the final case had been |

dismissed. There was never a claim for violations of my

constitutionally protected right to due process, as a result of

the denial of the petitioner’s right of access to the court.

However, on appeal, res judicata was not addressed in favor

or rewriting the lower courts order, to a patently insubstantial,

with no federal question present.

(e) The lower court sighted a lack of personal jurisdiction

Personal jurisdiction to some defendants (assumingly the

judges), even though petitioner plead conspiracy to deprive

her the night to due process, as well as depravation of due

process. The appeals court did not address the issue of

personal.

(f) Jurisdiction at all in favor of changing the ruling to no federal

question presented. Totally ignoring D.C. Code Ann. § 13-

423. Under the Districts long arm statute, a District court may

exercise Personal Jurisdiction over a person, who acts directly

or by agent, as toa claim for relief arising from the

person’s... transacting any business in the District of

Columbia. The complaint alleges that the defendants acted as

agents of Fannie Mae, who resides in the District of

Columbia. The ruling is in conflict with the D.C. Circuits own

precedents and the State code which governs the long arm

statute.

Reason Why the Writ Should Be Granted

This petition should be granted for two principal reasons. First,

the Court of appeals decision flatly conflicts with controlling

Supreme Court, other circuits, Congressional intent, and their own

precedents, and almost operates to negate the Congressional intent

for which the appeals court was established. The conflict is that the

Appeals court is suppose to review the orders of the lower court. If

the Court has the ability to change the orders, then, summarily affirm ~

their change, then, what happens to the petitioner’s due process?

Secondly this process in itself violates the constitutionally protected

right to due process under the law.

THE ISSUES ARE OF EXCEPTIONAL

IMPORTANCE TO EVERY

ONE WHO COMES TO THE APPEALS COURTS

This is the first case to be adjudicated in any circuit in which

Five United States Judges have intentionally acted outside their

Constitutional authority of Federal Jurisdiction. Title three of the

United States Constitution is clear, as to what matter can be heard in

Federal Court. Jurisdiction was raised every step along the way ~

give each of the named judges a chance to return case number CV-

02-6568 CBM, back to the court of proper jurisdiction. Each ignored

federal jurisdiction, as granted in the United States Constitution,

completely. This, I allege was ete in aid of their cocaine

This makes this case one of first impression not only for the D.C.

circuit but for all circuits. The three judge panel and the full Court

chose to summarily dismiss this ugly matter at my constitutionally

protected expense. This is a dangerous precedent to set, and