Case no. XXXX in the XXXX circuit court of appeals. This is the Tila rescission case XXXX vs XXXX XXXX, which the CFPB filed a previous amicus brief regarding statute of repose, and the three year limitation on filing rescission.As you already know, the scotus ruling on XXXX vs XXXX, did away with the falasy that a person was time barred from having not filed a law suit to enforce rescission within the three years. Attached to the XXXX case, was XXXX vs XXXX. We were reversed and remanded back to the appeals court, which remanded back to the district court, and Judge XXXX XXXX. After both parties moved for summary judgement on the issues, the ruling went like this. Summary judgement was granted to the XXXX party, because the judge believes we could not Rebutt the presumption of delivery of documents. He completely ignored the precedent sent in the eighth circuit in XXXX vs XXXX, and the ruling in XXXX, and XXXX.. He also ignored the plain language of scotus, in that rescission is " effected upon notice '', and allowed the bank the vary the statutory sequence of rescission, by not responding within 20 days. He also ignores the numerical violations in the disclosures themselves, that prove we had rescission. We are appealing his ruling of ignoring the 20 day requirement of the bank not taking action to rescind or seek judicial guidance. Ignoring this rule waves their tenable defenses. Judge XXXX treated us with hostility, at the same time was extremely polite and accommodating to the banks attorney. We feel there is a clear bias displayed here, and would like to get the CFPB 's assistance regarding the clear defiance in the eighth circuit toward Tila Rescission.While this case was playing out, the bank moved for foreclosure in the state court. We rescinded this loan in XX/XX/XXXX, and file suit in XX/XX/XXXX to enforce rescission. We have gone all the way to the Supreme Court to enforce our rights, only to be remanded back to a judge who refuses to accept rescission as a valid consumer defense. 
