My application can be found here:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/47056911/MillsV-FirstHorizonSupremeCourtBriefAsFiledWithAppendix

I have just asked for a writ of permission to appeal to the TN. Supreme Court in my case, Mills v. First Horizon.

See the TN Court of Appeals decision here:

http://www.leagle.com/xmlResult.aspx?xmldoc=In TNCO 20101116517.xml&docbase=CS

I am not in default. My argument is that the MERS loan on my property is invalid. I allege that the separation of the note and deed of trust are deliberate and intentional, and through the use of MERS as a strawman lienholder, the recordation process is transformed from a public, transparent and open system to a private one, thus making the lien void as against public policy. I allege it is also void because MERS is not a true beneficiary, and for a deed of trust to be valid it must have a true beneficiary. I allege my note is lost and the lien fails for lack of an enforceable note. I allege that the noteholder is unknown, and my servicer as the agent of the noteholder, has no authority to demand payments of me without disclosing the identity of the noteholder and proof of authority to act on behalf of the noteholder, and have asked for a cease and desist order against the servicer. And many more things — including the return of my payments on my second lien note when I paid it off and was never sent the original note back.

The court of appeals held my case is not ripe because I am not in default and because no one is trying to collect against me on my paid off second mortgage lien note.

My application to the Supreme Court of TN was filed on Friday September, 11, 2011. I hope the Supreme Court will take the case because the Court of Appeals reversed/ignored existing law and because the opinion is just simply awful.

Makes absolutely no sense that those claims would be barred and a FISA claim succeed.

Then the fault lies with the judiciary. But again nothing surprises me with the federal judiciary any more. The more opinions like this though, the more then general public will question what it going on.

I had a similar problem with a state case I filed in 2006 regarding computerized voting. I argued that no paper trail violated the state’s constitution. Lost because I as a single voter could not prove harm due to the fact that my vote was secret and had no way of knowing whether it was counted or not.

A real catch 22.

A showing of harm should not be required as proof when the case involves secrecy. Period. Just bad law. No other way to explain it.

I am not denying that the Plaintiff’s and their attorneys won’t take it. But why is the case limited to statutory FISA damages? Why limit it in such a way? Push the envelope. Be creative and bring in other actions.

But the statutory action points to the real problem. Statutory damages are almost always very limited and only the attorneys really win. Being a litigant is also hard work. Why should litigants work for free anymore than a lawyer should?

The way things are structured in these cases the litigants win nominal damages. It really is time for the courts to carve out special damages that make the litigants win real money and when that happens, there will be a real penalty for violation. Punitive damages almost never get awarded or stand up on appeal. So the re needs to be some genuine recognized special damages for these cases. If nothing else, award the litigants for their time.

In PI, we only get a portion of what our clients get. If we don’t make a real recovery for them, we don’t recover for ourselves.

I just think the present system for addressing these violations, whether constitutional or statutory, creates a moral hazard. Lawyers get well paid, while their clients don’t. It really makes the public skeptical of the system.

I am glad the lawyers won and hopefully their win will stop some of the 4th amendment abuses. But I really doubt it. Maybe the district court will be upheld by the circuit court, but if it goes to the Supremes, it will likely be overturned or whittled to the point where it loses any value as a deterrent.

Call me underwhelmed. But then again I have been underwhelmed by the federal judiciary for more than thirty years and get more so with nearly every opinion.

Would NMvor have the same opinion if the court had awarded $4 million in actual damages and $2 million in attorneys fees? I doubt it. When a court tells the litigants that the violations of their Constitutional rights were of essentially nuisance value, or of no value at all, then it should not be surprising that a layman would think that con law cases really are just a legal racket.

Maybe what NMvor does not realize is that no Plaintiff’s lawyer worth his salt wants ever wants to be put in a situation where the lawyer financially gains and his client loses. But that is where the courts and legislatures have been putting Plaintiff’s lawyers for years.

I have been telling juries for years that if you can’t put a price on human pain and suffering then essentially you must believe that a man or woman’s life is worthless. These are constitutional violations for Christ’s sake. They are not worthless claims. (If the lawyers didn’t ask for more, shame on them for not figuring out a way [pain and suffering] to ask for something in line with the attorneys fees they were requesting). The court just told these litigants whose rights were violated that their loss of dignity and rights were worthless. What kind of message does that send to other judges and juries? If a case was worth awarding $2 million in attorneys fees, then it was worth awarding at least $4 million in actual damages.

Then to decide that an entity is not entitled to punitive damages simply because it has been declared to be a terrorist organization by the government? Sounds like a license to declare every entity the government does not like to be a terrorist organization just to prevent punitive damage awards.

The judiciary needs to step up and needs to recognize the messages it sends the public with their decisions. The message here was that the lawyers win and the litigants loose.