"Procedural due process imposes constraints on governmental decisions which deprive individuals of "liberty" or "property" interests within the meaning of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth or Fourteenth Amendment.

The "right to be heard before being condemned to suffer grievous loss of any kind, even though it may not involve the stigma and hardships of a criminal conviction, is a principle basic to our society." Joint Anti-Fascist Comm. v. McGrath, 341 U.S. 123, 168 (1951) (Frankfurter, J., concurring). The fundamental requirement of due process is the opportunity to be heard "at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner." Armstrong v. Manzo, 380 U.S. 545, 552 (1965). See Grannis v. Ordean, 234 U.S. 385, 394 (1914). (MATHEWS v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE v. ELDRIDGE, 424 U.S. 319 (1976))

The application of third-party beneficiary standing has resulted in thousands of cases between homeowners and their lenders being dismissed before the merits of the cases are heard. As applied, the home owner cannot sustain their cases past the motion to dismiss stage because of a PSA (Pooling and Service Agreement) between the original lender and a trust (collectively "lenders"). This Agreement between the two, directly impacts the property rights of the home owner. The home owner never has waived any rights to defend their interest, yet the court have consistently held that homeowners do not have standing in court to defend their constitutional property interest before the bench.

However, lenders, servicers and Trusts (those who actually own the mortgages within the process of securitization) have been allowed standing, throughout this country, to foreclose on homeowners when these institutions cannot prove that they have a property interest within the mortgage to assert. In fact, its long been settled that a person in wrongful possession of a note may foreclose on that, never having to prove that the note holder actually has a property interest therein with which to invoke the Court's jurisdiction.

Question 1: Are the laws of standing applied in a manner which violate the homeowner's 14th Amendment's right, under the Federal Constitution, to be equally protected by the laws and to have the laws equally applied?

When the laws of standing are applied in the manner noted in questions#1, the cases between homeowners and the lenders are kicked out of court long before any homeowner may argue the merits of his or her case. Under these circumstances, the homeowner's rights are limited to filing paper work and showing up in court. After that, the homeowner has little hope of arguing the merits of their cases, because the lenders file a motion to dismiss and the case is dismissed.

Question 2: Do homeowners in America have a constitutional right, under the due process clauses of the 5th and 14th Amendment's to the Federal Constitution, to be meaningfully heard in cases between them and lenders and does the application of third-party beneficiary standing doctrine prevent the homeowners' due process rights?

Are the laws of standing applied in a manner which violate the homeowner's 14th Amendment's right, under the Federal Constitution, to be equally protected by the laws and to have the laws equally applied?