On August 21, 2019, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals (alternatively, "DCCA"), affirmed the Superior Court's August 27, 2018 order denying Petitioner's Super. Ct. Civ. R. 60(b)(3), 60(b)(4) and 60(d)(2) motion to vacate its void order granting Respondents' motion for summary judgment entered on April 20, 2017, in a fraudulent foreclosure of Petitioner's residence of sixteen years.

The judgment is entirely incongruent with the record evidence, rules of civil procedure, impartiality, constitutional rights and other laws. In fact, the judgment expresses approval for the superior court's utter and profound cruel treatment it openly demonstrated against Petitioner's rights, inter alia, Fourteenth Amendment that states in pertinent part:

"No State shall make or enforce any law which all 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."

Here is a summary of the profound unconstitutional abuse exercised by DC Court of Appeals in its unfounded review against Petitioner's constitutional rights, but not limited to, other civil rights violations:

1. For a period of nearly fifteen (15) months - from the date the Complaint for Judicial Foreclosure was filed on December 21, 2015 through March 6, 2017, the court literally permitted the Respondents' attorneys to conceal from Petitioner the payee's identity of the underlying June 25, 2007 deed of trust and promissory note (negotiable instruments) by intentionally defacing the note's endorsement stamp, other sections of the note and other documents filed with the complaint that were defaced.

2. The Respondents' attorneys were permitted to misrepresent every applicable Super. Ct. R. Civ. P. and other laws, inter alia, contending that Petitioner was ignorant to the rules of the court and the spoliation to the note and other documents are considered "redactions" and are required under the Super. Ct. R. Civ. P. and accepted by the court.

3. The complaint alleged that the original Lender, NovaStar Mortgage, Inc., assigned its rights under the Note and Deed of Trust to US National Association, Not in its Individual Capacity, But Solely as Trustee for the RMAC Trust, Series 2013-1T.

4. The Respondents' attorneys were permitted to fabricate an allegation contrary to evidence that on May 1, 2014, Petitioner caused a default under the note. The evidence not only shows that the May 1, 2014 payment was intentionally placed in a bogus suspense account as well as the June 1, 2014 payment totaling $5,515.83.

5. On February 10, 2017, approximately fourteen (14) months after the complaint was filed, the Respondents filed a frivolous "motion to substitute party plaintiff," U.S. Bank, N.A..., as Trustee for RMAC Trust Series 2013-IT to Prof-2013-M4 Legal Title, By U.S. Bank, N.A., as Legal Title Trustee. The unlawful transfer of Petitioner's property was simultaneously being committed while the note and other documents remained under spoliation.

6. Nearly fifteen months after the complaint

Whether the District of Columbia Court of Appeals erred in affirming the Superior Court's denial of Petitioner's motion to vacate the order granting summary judgment in a fraudulent foreclosure case