DaBeth Manns v. U.S. Bank, N.A., as Trustee for Banc of America Funding Corporation for Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates 2007-03

I. Should the District of Columbia Court of Appeals decision be upheld in part or whole, reversed and/or the case remanded because the United States Constitutional 5th Amendment and 14th Amendment (assuring due process and equal protection for Petitioner “Manns”) were breached as she was denied multiple requests for a status hearing, judiciary examination of verifiable material evidence, required joinder (or impleading) of parties, and/or oral argument as well as having her counter claims categorically dismissed with prejudice? II. Was there an over reliance by the judiciary on stare decisis and the rhetoric that there can be no error in the doctrine of case law (in favor of the Respondent, a large-bank whose statutory burden of proof was contested) that disenfranchised and aggrieved Manns as a Pro Se litigant challenging the Respondent’s foreclosure debt claim? III. Did the judiciary minimize its ability to make impartial and equitable decisions in this case by (l) not allowing Manns the due process to present and request granular fiscal data disputing the validity and accuracy of the Respondent’s foreclosure debt claim and then (2) allowing the Respondent infinite threat of foreclosure through a “without prejudice” dismissal status?