Whether the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals neglected to apply Procedural-Due-Process to the Petitioners-Appeal in accordance with the Fifth-and-Fourteenth-Amendments

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Whether the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals neglected to apply Procedural Due Process to the Petitioners Appeal in accordance with the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, by Affirming the Southern District of Indiana’s decision, dismissing the Appellant’s Complaint under Federal Trial Rule 12(B)6 with prejudice, especially when the District Court, Ordered the Appellant to Amend her Complaint, and remove an Exhibit, that supported her Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA) claim, prior to Dismissing all claims. Whether the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals erred, when ruling that: “In any case, the Bank did not act unreasonably because the Attorneys representing it were statutorily authorized to acquire her information. 15 U.S.C. § 6802(e)(4). The one possible misstep — filing an un-redacted document — was, again, not the action of the Defendants and was, in any case, quickly remedied.” Therefore, who is liable for Publishing over 118 Documents of the Appellant’s Personal information onto the Federal Court Docketing System (Pacer), the Bank (Furnisher) or the Attorney (Publisher), that ignored a Court Order to Redact all of the Appellants, Personal Information, that was Published on the Federal Court Docketing System (Pacer), that is not protected under the statute, 15 U.S.C. § 6802(e)(4), and did not comply with Federal Rule 5-2.