Pamela M. Timbes v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, et al.

The Eleventh Circuit Order, App. A, squarely conflicts with the precedents of this Court. This Court's resolution of the circuit split is of national importance in light of the improved economy; if left unchecked the banks will continue the tactics which resulted in the foreclosure debacle of the past years. That the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals has applied vastly different legal standards with regard to application of the Rooker-Feldman' and Younger' doctrines when removal to federal court of state-court wrongful-foreclosure and fraud cases is initiated by the bank, as opposed to removal by the party alleging the wrongful foreclosure and fraud, demonstrates the inconsistency within the Eleventh Circuit, as well as inconsistency with the standards applied by other circuits. I. Whether the federal court lacks jurisdiction under Article III of the Constitution over a state-filed, wrongful-foreclosure lawsuit removed to federal court under 28 US.C. Section 1441, which lawsuit challenges a state-regulated, non-judicial foreclosure as void for violation of Georgia law requiring that a valid assignment be filed prior to foreclosure, and/or for mortgage fraud under the Georgia RICO Act, and/or for violation of the Trust's PSA; and whether it can be considered exempt from 1) the Rooker-Feldman doctrine when reversal of the state-regulated Rooker v. Fid. Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923); District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983). 2 Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 54 (1971).