Whether verifiable evidence has no importance and the one with more money is correct, no matter evidence shows is completely wrong

Questions Presented : 1. By re-affirming the final opinion of the magistrate judge from the District Court, “The Court does not weigh the evidence”, 3 Appellate Judges said : verifiable evidence has no importance. This establish the basis for false defenses toward clear violations ~ against fair Laws like the Fair Credit Reporting Act, committed by multimillionaire banks with lots of resources most people don’t possess. It shows the one with more money is correct, no matter evidence shows is completely wrong? ; Issue beyond the facts; Public Interest, Supreme Court Rules: Rule 10 _ Guide for Prospective Indigent Petitioners for Writs of Certiorari, Page 1 2. Towrite in 2 separate Documents, their Appellate Corrected Judgment, ; ; and on their Judgment, that they did “a careful review”, ‘ does not present clearly why, each piece, point by point, of all the verifiable ; evidence discarded by Judge McGiverin, was also disregarded by ; 3 Appellate Judges, because all evidence submitted is verifiable. ; Issue beyond the facts, Public Interest , Guide for Prospective Indigent Petitioners for Writs of Certiorari, Page1 . . : 3. Having 3 Appellate Judges at the First Circuit re-affirming an unreasonable final opinion like the one from Judge McGiverin, a is a clear sign of corruption, and a deviation of regular Court Procedures. : Issue beyond the facts, Public Interest oo Guide for Prospective Indigent Petitioners for Writs of Certiorari, Page 1 4. The primary concern of the Supreme Court is not to correct errors in lower court decisions. But, this unfair actions allowed at 2 lower Courts leave us with only that option, as a secondary effect, that Judges know won’t work? Supreme Court Rules: Rule 10: issue beyond the facts, Public Interest Guide for Prospective indigent Petitioners for Writs of Certiorari, Page 5. Question number 2 says, there are 2 separate documents : filed on June 30 2020. One is called “Judgment”, the other was called “Corrected Judgment”, but the only difference is, the first one includes a list of more than 60 people that were not related to my Appeal at all: Is possible this Appeal, might not have been read at all? _ Supreme Court Rules: Rule 10, issue beyond the facts; Public Interest 6. Appellate Judges assigned to review my Appeal, include Judges which | included in my previous complaint for Judicial Misconduct including the Chief Judge, who dismissed my complaint. Judge Garcia Gregory made false accusations saying | was not complying with the Rules, when | was claiming my Right to proceed Pro Se, rejecting the unfair 30 days freeze of the procedures, and | presented evidence of unfair intimidation and discrimination on the part of Judge Garcia Gregory, and Judge Velez Rive, who didn’t allowed me to enter to her Chambers the date | was required to be there, because, “only attorneys were allowed?” ; This Case was negatively affected without justification from the start, . because | claimed my Right to proceed Pro Se, aid Judicial Misconduct Law. Under this circumstances, there is no justification to wait to see if they grant, at their sole discretion? an additional full review. ; Is not ethical they re-evaluate this Case under this circumstances. There are too many unnecessary delays. Supreme Court Rules: Rule 10, issue beyond the facts; Public Interest; Rule 56, h ; Federal Rules of Civil Procedure