Whether U.S. Government's unconstitutional involvement in millions of foreclosures through FHFA and de facto and entwined State-actor Fannie Mae subject it to federal Court jurisdiction and the property "takings" clause of the U.S. Constitution?

Whether securitization and rehypothecation of mortgage notes utilizing and "selling" and/or "pledging" homeowners' property as collateral without consent or knowledge is unlawful, unconstitutional and violate the basic legal principle of NEMO DAT QUOD NON HABET? and Whether this non-disclosure, participation and collection of financial benefits not applied to and well in excess of mortgage note debt owed is unlawful, unconstitutional and violate SEC securities laws?

Whether pro se litigants should be held to unfair pleading standards not regularly enforced upon attorneys or utilized in the same manner by other federal Courts? and Whether forcing a pro se litigant to remove claims that are not barred by Void state Court judgements violates the guarantee of a Fair Legal Process and fosters manifest injustice in defiance of the Constitution and this Court's direction?

Whether recusal or disqualification under 28 U.S.C. § 455 is warranted to satisfy the Constitutional guarantee of a Fair Legal Process, when a district judge has a relationship with a litigant, and his impartiality through his actions and non-action are reasonably questioned by some citizens and legal professionals?

Whether the U.S. government's unconstitutional involvement in millions of foreclosures through FHFA and de facto state-actor Fannie Mae subjects it to federal court jurisdiction and the property 'takings' clause of the U.S. Constitution