(I) DID THE NEW JERSEY SUPREME COURT VIOLATE THE DUE PROCESS
CLAUSE - BOTH PROCEDURAL AND SUBSTANTIVE - BY FAILING TO RECONSIDER
(E.G. ENTERING COURT ORDER FILED JUNE 3,2019 DENYING RECONSIDERATION
TO THE PETITIONER, EDWIN P. GANT, HEREINAFTER THE PETITIONER) ITS
ORIGINAL DECISION REFUSING TO VACATE SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF
FORECLOSURE TO THE RESPONDENT, U.S. BANK TRUST, N.A., AS TRUSTEE FOR
LSF9 MASTER PARTICIPATION TRUST (HEREINAFTER THE RESPONDENT OR U.S.
BANK) WHERE: (1) THE ORIGINAL PLAINTIFF CITI MORTGAGE, INC.
(HEREINAFTER CITI MORTGAGE OR THE ORIGINAL PLAINTIFF) FILED ITS
COMPLAINT OF FORECLOSURE WITHOUT THE REQUISITE LEGAL STANDING; (2)
THE RESPONDENT U.S. BANK WHICH SUBSTITUTED IN FOR CITI MORTGAGE
CONCEALED THE NOTICE OF SALE OF OWNERSHIP OF MORTGAGE LOAN
(HEREINAFTER THE ASSIGNMENT) BY NOT PRODUCING SAME DURING
DISCOVERY WHICH THE RESPONDENT ADMITS ON PAGE 23 OF ITS APPELLATE
DIVISION BRIEF WHICH ASSIGNMENT ALSO WAS NOT PROVIDED BY CITI
MORTGAGE DURING PETITIONER LITIGATION WITH CITI MORTGAGE; AND (3)
THE ORIGINAL MORTGAGEE MAVERICK FUNDING CORP. (HEREINAFTER
MAVERICK) APPROVED THE SAID MORTGAGE, WHICH WAS ASSUMED BY CITI
MORTGAGE INITIALLY AND THEN U.S. BANK BASED UPON A FRAUDULENT REAL
ESTATE APPRAISAL AND AS SUCH WAS A PREDATORY LOAN WHICH SHOULD
NOT BE ENFORCED BY ANY COURT LET ALONE THE NEW JERSEY SUPREME
COURT?

(II) WHETHER THE NEW JERSEY SUPREME COURT IN DENYING
RECONSIDERATION TO THE PETITIONER FAILED TO FOLLOW NEW JERSEY CASE
LAW REGARDING LEGAL STANDING, THE UNCLEAN HANDS DOCTRINE AND
FRAUD?

(III) WHETHER THE NEW JERSEY SUPREME COURT HAS PERMITTED AND
THEREBY UPHELD THE PERPETRATION OF FRAUD UPON THE TRIBUNAL BY U.S.
BANK CONCEALING THE SAID ASSIGNMENT FROM PLAINTIFF DURING THE
DISCOVERY PROCESS AND OTHERWISE AS WELL AS IGNORING THE
FRAUDULENT REAL ESTATE APPRAISAL OF THE ORIGINAL MORTGAGEE
MAVERICK.

Whether the New Jersey Supreme Court violated the due process clause by failing to reconsider its original decision refusing to vacate summary judgment of foreclosure