Denise Subramaniam 

Self-represented 

13865 SW Walker Rd 

Beaverton OR 97005 

503-764-5300 

FILED28 .JAN '1615:27JJsVC·tJRP 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF OREGON 

PORTLAND DIVISION 

LNV CORPORATION Civil Case No. 3:14-cv-01836 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

DENISE SUBRAMANIAM 

REVISED NOTICE OF 

CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIO S 

pro per 

Defendant 

REVISED NOTICE OF CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS 

Comes now Defendant, Denise Subramaniam, self represented and Pursuant to Federal 

Rules 28 U.S.C. § 2403 and 5.1 (a)( I) hereby makes notice of constitution questions. 

Pursuant to Federal Rule 5.1 (a)( I )(B) Defendant and the other Beal victims challenge 

Rule 12 and Rule 56 of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the state counterparts to these rules 

as being unconstitutional because they have a disparate impact on Defendant and other class 

members (i.e. Beal victims), most of whom are also members of protected classes including 

senior citizens, the disabled, single female heads of household or single females, and/or 

minorities, and who due to the economic disadvantage associated with these classes, and the 

reason they are considered protected classes, and due to the ever increasing costs of litigation 

often find themselves with no choice but to represent themselves, knowing they are inept to do 

so, when faced with situations where they will be wrongfully deprived of their property, their life 

Case 3:14-cv-01836-MO Document 123 Filed 01/28/16 Page 1 of 11
quality and their liberty to access their life-long investment in their property; which is also their 

residence. 

Federal Rules 56 and Rule 12 as they are currently written result in a discriminatory 

disparate impact on non-criminal homeowner prose litigants fighting wrongful foreclosure 

actions. A disproportionate number of parties, wealthy financial institutions, and in the case of 

the Beal class of victims, the Beal international organization with financial resource of more than 

$19 Billion, opposing this class of prose litigants are routinely granted summary judgments 

under Rule 56 and summary dismissals under Rule 12 by both state and federal courts. 

Rule 56 and Rule 12 also result in a discriminatory disparate impact on non-criminal pro 

se litigants involved in other civil rights related litigation, such as employment discrimination, 

and divorce and child custody litigation, where, like with homeowners in foreclosure related 

litigation, a significant number of litigants cannot afford legal representation and are left with 

few choices but to represent themselves pro se. 

Defendant has been denied due process and equal protection of the law in violation of the 

fifth and fourteenth amendments to the United States Constitution due to summary judgment 

orders granted to LNV Corporation by U.S. District Judge Michael W. Mosman. Defendant is 

about to be illegally and unconstitutionally deprived of their property and of her right to a jury 

trial under the seventh amendment to the United States Constitution by Rule 56 FRCP. The 

derivation of her property will result in a deprivation of her life quality and her liberty. Rule 56 

and Rule 12 result in an arbitrary, capricious, abuse of judicial discretion resulting in rulings that 

are not in accordance with law and/or made without the observance of procedure required by 

law. 

Case 3:14-cv-01836-MO Document 123 Filed 01/28/16 Page 2 of 11
Due to the exceptionally high costs associated with litigation, and the lack of government 

funding for legal aid services to those in need, and the lack of any effective non-attorney 

regulatory agency to assure accountability for attorneys and judges who routinely violate their 

professional codes of conduct, more Americans than ever are unable to obtain meaningful access 

to our courts and to justice. This problem threatens our very democracy. 

Respected commentators and judges have criticized summary judgment as being 

unconstitutional. Professor Thomas argues that summary judgment is unconstitutional because it 

did not exist at common law and violates the historical test set forth textually in the Seventh 

Amendment. See Suja A. Thomas, Summary Judgment is Unconstitutional, 93 VA.L.REV. 139, 

139 (200 7) (arguing that summary judgment conflicts with the common law axiom that the jury 

decides the facts); Suja A. Thomas, Why Summary Judgment is Still Unconstitutional: A Reply to 

Professors Brunet and Nelson, 93 IOWA L.REV. 1667, 1667 (2008) (attacking articles seeking to 

defend the constitutionality of summary judgment). " In Suits at common law, where the value in 

controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved ... " US. 

CONST. Amend. VII. 

Judge Patricia Wald worries that trial judges are too quick to grant summary judgment 

and that Federal Rule 56 of Civil Procedure " has assumed a much larger role in civil case 

dispositions than its traditional image portrays ... to the point where fundamental judgments 

about the value of trials and especially trials by jury may be at stake." Patricia Wald, Summary 

Judgment at Sixtv, 76 TEXAS L. REV. 1897, 1898 (1998). Accord, Richard L. Steagall. The 

Recent Explosion in Summary Judgments Entered by the Federal Courts Has Eliminated the 

Jury From Political Power, 33 S.ILL.L.REV. 469, 496-99 (2009) (setting forth a litany of 

problems caused by overuse of summary judgment). 

Case 3:14-cv-01836-MO Document 123 Filed 01/28/16 Page 3 of 11
Professor Stephen Burbank describes the original 1938 Federal Rule 56 as a "radical 

transformation" of earlier versions of a much more confined procedure. Stephen Burbank, 

Vanishing Trials and Summary Judgment in Federal Civil Cases: Drifting Toward Bethlehem or 

Gomorrah?, 1 J.EMP. LEG. STUD. 591, 591 (2004). 

Professor Schneider concludes that courts grant a disproportionate number of defendants' 

summary judgment requests in cases raising gender discrimination. See Elizabeth M Schneider, 

The Dangers of Summary Judgment: Gender and Federal Civil Litigation, 59 RUTGERS L.REV. 

705, 760 (2008). See also, Elizabeth M Scheider, The Changing Shape o[Federal Pretrial 

Practice: The Disparate Impact on Civil Rights and Employment Discrimination Cases, 158 

U.PA.L.REV. 517 (2010). 

Professor John Bronsteen delivered the ultimate criticism by strongly urging that 

summary judgment be eliminated and defending this revolutionary suggestion by asserting that 

the progress and settlement of civil litigation would be relatively unchanged by his proposal. See 

John Bronsteen. Against Summary Judgment, 75 GEO. WASHL.REV.522 (2007). 

Most of these summary dismissals and summary judgments rendered against homeowner 

prose litigants are due to procedural defects in prose pleadings and due to prose litigants' 

inexperience with obtaining evidence through discovery. More often than not, these prose 

litigants are deprived of any meaningful opportunity for discovery by over use of Rule 56 and 

Rule 12 by judges who want to quickly end these pro se foreclosure cases with rulings favoring 

the foreclosing parties which are based on their own personal biases rather than on any sense of 

justice. Rule 56 and Rule 12 as written allows judges too broad of a discretion, too often abused, 

that results in an unconstitutional impact on not just prose litigants, but on small law firms with 

Case 3:14-cv-01836-MO Document 123 Filed 01/28/16 Page 4 of 11
modest budges who litigate in behalf of homeowners against opposing corporate entities with 

billions and trillions of dollars at their disposal. Rule 56 and Rule 12 deprive far too many noncorporate litigants from a trial by jury on the merits of their cases; another civil right guaranteed 

by the seventh amendment to the United States Constitution. 

" I consider trial by jury the greatest anchor ever yet devised by humankind for holding a 

government to the principles of its constitution." Thomas Jefferson, 1792. 

The American jury trial is a constitutional right. One of the primary concerns of the 

founding fathers was preventing the United States of America from developing an oppressive 

government. Much of the Bill of Rights was born out of that concern. A primary strength of the 

jury trial is that it acts as a check to unfettered prosecutorial power. If judges decided every case, 

it could raise a number of concerns about fairness in the judicial process. Defendant, the other 

Beal victims, and thousands of other prose homeowners litigants are in fact experiencing such 

unconstitutional unfairness in the courts as a result of Rule 56 and Rule 12 which have eroded 

our judiciary into an oppressive mechanism for imposing the undemocratic will of an elite 

corporate oligarchy on the masses thorough civil litigation that often results in an 

unconstitutional deprivation of their life, liberty and property. 

The onslaught of foreclosure actions beginning around 2008 brought on by the economic 

crashes caused by the wrong-doings of Wall Street "too big to fail banks" around mid-2000 has 

created a dichotomy of opposition reflected in foreclosure litigation where all the power is on 

one side; the foreclosing party. The excessive wealth and corporate political power on that side 

of the dichotomy has resulted in an unprecedented deprivation of civil rights through a calculated 

Case 3:14-cv-01836-MO Document 123 Filed 01/28/16 Page 5 of 11
and systematic abuse of Rule 56 and Rule 12 to deprive homeowners of any opportunity to have 

their claims heard and fairly adjudicated. 

D. Brock Hornby a District Judge on the United States District Court for the District of 

Maine in SUMMARY JUDGMENT WITHOUT ILLUSIONS writes on page 7: 

"Summary judgment motions change litigation stakes. 17 By filing them, defendants delay 

recovery and increase Defendant' legal expenses (or Defendant' lawyers' expenses in contingent 

fee cases). 18 They also increase Defendant' risk because, if Defendant lose, all is over except an 

expensive, delayed, and uncertain appeal. Therefore, Defendant' case values decrease for 

settlement purposes.

19

" 

The change in litigation stakes described by Judge D. Brock Hornby has created a no-win 

situation for homeowners litigating to protect their property interest from foreclosure actions 

intended to deprive them of their property. Many of these foreclosures where homeowners have 

been fighting for years are based on counterfeit mortgage instruments never examined by experts 

or the courts for authenticity despite obvious signs on the face of these instruments of forgery, 

electronic alterations, and falsities. When the prose homeowner litigants point this out to the 

courts in their pleadings their objections and their evidence supporting their claims that these 

instruments are not authentic; most often fall on deaf judicial ears. Counterfeit mortgage 

instruments erode the foreclosing parties' standing to foreclose, yet far too many judges routinely 

accept these counterfeits as genuine and grant summary judgments under Rule 56 or Rule 12, 

particularly when the homeowner litigants are prose. 

An undeniable bias exists within the judiciary against the homeowners in these cases. 

Data based on I 05 foreclose related cases presided over by Judge Jane Boyle, presiding over the 

case of Beal victims JoAnn and Samuel Breitling in Texas demonstrates this judicial bias. Most 

of these I 05 cases were removed to federal court by the parties opposing homeowners. In more 

Case 3:14-cv-01836-MO Document 123 Filed 01/28/16 Page 6 of 11
than half these cases the homeowners were prose litigants. Not one of these I 05 cases went to a 

jury trial. Only two cases were settled. The rest were dismissed with prejudice against 

homeowners pursuant to Rule 12 or summary judgment was granted to the opposing party 

pursuant to Rule 56. Not once has Judge Boyle ruled in favor of a homeowner. Cases involving 

homeowners with Hispanic names were summarily decided via Rule 12 or Rule 56 more quickly 

than in other cases; with all such homeowners being deprived of their property without due 

process, without equal protection of law and without a jury of their peers. The deprivation of 

their property more certainly had a negative impact on these families' quality of life. 

Defendant, the other Beal victims and other homeowner litigants have experienced 

unconscionable violations of their civil rights, and deprivation of their civil rights under color of 

law by judges who abuse their discretion and make biased summary decisions because Rules 56 

and 12 allow them far too much discretion to do just that. Such a one-sided economic dichotomy 

that exists in these cases creates a situation where attorneys representing excessively wealthy 

foreclosing parties abuse the judicial process through repeated summary judgment and dismissal 

motions under Rules 56 and 12 in a calculated effort to exploit the very change in litigation 

stakes described by Judge D. Brock Hornb. The financial incentive is in favor of these parties 

continuing with their fraud because the penalties for being caught are miniscule. 

Consumer protection laws cap penalties and fines at $10,000 which for litigants with 

billions and trillions of dollars at their disposal is a meaningless non-deterrent in light of the 

billions in undue profits they gain through perfecting foreclosures with counterfeit mortgage 

instruments. These parties also have the political clout and financial means to improperly 

influence judges for favorable rulings; and to improperly influence government regulatory 

Case 3:14-cv-01836-MO Document 123 Filed 01/28/16 Page 7 of 11
authorities to look the other way. In the case of the Beal organization the evidence of this 

happening is significant. 

This one-sided economic dichotomy, and the self-regulating legal institutions that 

undermine any meaningful accountability for attorneys and judges, has created a predatory legal 

quagmire for homeowners. Tens of thousands of homeowners have been exploited by attorneys 

and law firms, like the Lane Law Firm and J.D. Milks hired by Defendant, who exploit the lack 

of supply to meet the demand for legal representation of homeowners fighting foreclosure. These 

inscrutable attorneys advertise themselves as foreclosure experts, when they have little or no 

experience in this area of litigation. They merely exploit homeowners and bleed them of their 

financial resources. They file cookie cutter pleadings to placate their clients until the inevitable 

defeat of their clients' cases due to summary orders under Rule 56 or Rule 12. Their clients' 

cases never go to trial before a jury. 

Even when attorneys have passion for the plight of homeowners and a sincere desire to 

achieve justice for their clients, their efforts are often thwarted by the one-sided economic and 

legal dichotomy that tips heavily in the favor of excessively wealthy corporate parties litigating 

foreclosure actions against their clients' property. These foreclosing parties know their success 

comes through a denial of discovery and in engaging in egregious legal tactics to prevent the 

truth from being exposed. Rule 56 and Rule 12 are the best legal tools at the disposal of such 

corrupt attorneys. Their legal strategies are just as Judge D. Brock Hornby described: to delay 

recovery and increase homeowners' legal expenses. These corporate attorneys capitalize on the 

change in litigation stakes created by Rule 56 and Rule 12 to increase homeowners' risk which in 

turn increases the risks for homeowners' attorneys; making it financially un-lucrative for ethical 

attorneys to represent homeowners; and decreasing the supply of legal assistance for 

Case 3:14-cv-01836-MO Document 123 Filed 01/28/16 Page 8 of 11
homeowners, and at the same time creating a situation where mass numbers of homeowners have 

little choice but to represent themselves as prose litigants, where they become sitting ducks to be 

expoited by corrupt officers of the court and corrupt judges. 

The jury trial is a vital part of America's system of checks and balances. Appointed 

judges might be beholden to politics and the people who appointed them. Elected judges could 

be swayed by public opinion in a given case. Jurors, on the other hand, are not appointed and 

instead serve on a jury as part of their civic duties. 

A jury trial, guaranteed by the United States Constitution, is the first major check on the 

discretion of judges. A judge, holding office over the course of multiple cases, and selected by 

appointment or election, is susceptible to undue influence. A jury, chosen by sortition, or lot, for 

a single case, just before the case, is less likely to be corrupted, and having multiple jurors render 

verdicts collectively provides a check by each on the others. What they might lack in knowledge 

of the law is offset by their connection to the non-legal environment in which most people 

subject to the law must operate. 

Most complaints of abuse of judicial discretion, and calls to limit such abuse with more 

laws, concern questions of policy or equity, but there is another broad category, which concerns 

constitutional questions of due process and civil rights which are raised by Defendant herein. 

Quoting for Judge William G. Young Speech at Judicial Luncheon The Florida Bar's 

Annual Convention in Orlando June 28, 2007: 

"(T)he American jury system is dying. It is dying faster in 'the federal courts than in 

the state courts. It is dying faster on the civil side than that on the criminal side, but 

it is dying. It will never go entirely, but it is already marginalized. It will never go 

entirely, but it is already marginalized. It is not at the center of our political 

discourse. How is this possible, with our Constitution and every one of the 50 state 

Case 3:14-cv-01836-MO Document 123 Filed 01/28/16 Page 9 of 11
constitutions guaranteeing the right to trial by jury? The general answer is that we 

do not care." 

Defendant is members of a class of Beal victims, and they are members of a broader class 

of pro se homeowners litigants routinely deprived of meaningful due process, and who have been 

unconstitutionally and unlawfully deprived of their property and of their life quality and their 

liberty to make choices we all cherish as a result. Their constitutional rights to due process and 

equal protection of law have been violated through the unchecked judicial abuse of the 

unconstitutional Rules 56 and 12 of FRCP. 

Respectfully Submitted, 

Denise Subramaniam 

Case 3:14-cv-01836-MO Document 123 Filed 01/28/16 Page 10 of 11
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

The undersigned hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document was 

served upon all counsel of record, pro-se parties and the United States Attorney General and the 

Attorney General of the State of Oregon via the Court's CM/ECF system, email, and/or regular 

mail, and/or certified mail with return receipt requested. 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Loretta Lynch, 

U. S. Attorney General 

950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 

Washington, DC 20530-0001 

202-514-2000 

Gabrielle D. Richards I Perkins Coie LLP 

1120 NW Couch Street 

I 0th Floor 

Portland, Oregon 97209-4128 

D. +1.503.727.2255 

F. +1.503.346.2255 

grichards@perkinscoie.com 

Respectfully Submitted, 

Denise Subramaniam 

Case 3:14-cv-01836-MO Document 123 Filed 01/28/16 Page 11 of 11