Jose Franklin Arau v. Rocket Mortgage, LLC, et al.

The UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA errored in dismissing Petitioner’s discharge tender to settle and close the mortgage liability at issue in cause no: 3-'22-cv07715-JSC for the reasons below:

1. Can the identified “Holder” of the Securitized mortgage debt avoid discharge of said debt when bonds are issued in accord with Title 48 C.F.R. Ch. 1, Part 53.228?

2. Can the court dishonor discharge when bonds are issued in accordance with Title 48 C.F.R. Ch. 1, Part 53.228 by Petitioner (Jose-Franklin: family [Arau]) to discharge the alleged mortgage debt?

3. Can the court ignore the nature of the Bills of Exchange Act as it applies to discharging securitized mortgage debt in accord with Title 48 C.F.R. Ch.l, §53.228?

4. Is it possible to accomplish a quiet title action without court due process?

5. Can Respondent, who sold the mortgage debt to third parties, maintain standing to foreclose when the mortgage debt was discharged in accord with Title 48 C.F.R. Ch. 1, §53.228?

6. Can a party who is not the securitized mortgage debt “Holder” perform a foreclosure action, i.e. “Rocket Mortgage, LLC et. al., Respondent?

7. There exists a question as to whether the conduct of respondent and the lower court have violated the U.S. Constitution, Art 1, S8, Cl. 17, Commerce Clause when blocking the ability to tender bonds (U.C.C. §2-511) to discharge commercial paper liabilities in addition to the U.S. Constitution, Art 3, S2, Cl. 1, Judicial Clause by and through Title 28 U.S.C. §3002 (4) and U.C.C. §1-201(2). Page 2