Christopher M. Hunt, Sr. v. Deutsche Bank Trust Company

When there is admitted by courts conflict be­ tween the federal courts and state courts on such allimportant matters such as jurisdiction per Petitioner’s 22A445, which court is mandated to take preemptive action to enforce this Court’s ruling in Yellow Freight System, Incorporated v. Donnelly (1990) and ROBB v. CONNOLLY (1884) to close the loophole of conflicting oppositional jurisdiction, the federal court or the state court? Congress deprived state courts of the power they normally have - that is, the power to decide their own jurisdiction. E.g., American Fire & Cas. Co. v. Finn, 341 U.S. 6 (1951); Landry v. Cornell Constr. Co., 87 R.I. 4, 137 A.2d 412 (1957). Federal decisions usually speak of a duty of the court to raise the jurisdictional issue. E.g., Clark v. Paul Gray, Inc., 306 U.S. 583, 588 (1939); St. Paul Mercury Indem. Co. v. Red Cab Co., 303 U.S. 283, 287, n.10 (1938).

When there is proven First Breach, do the Fed­ eral Courts have to proactively consider as the number one priority over all others the First Breach because uncured First Breach makes Supersedeas and all other matters moot per PAUL E. MALONE, SR. & FAITH LANIER MALONE, Plaintiffs v. FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTGAGE CORPORATION and BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., Defendants, Case No. l:14-cv-193 (WLS) United States District Court, M.D. Georgia, Albany Division. May 12. 2016. Is a supersedeas t