Question not identified

Question Presented . 1. On the 2™ Hearing with Judge Gina Méndez Miré, the U.S. District Court defended the Pro Bono Program to force me to accept a free of costs attorney, no matter, the Supreme Court of the United States , still recognizes the-Right to Proceed Pro Se; A Pro Bono Attorney is optional for me as Plaintiff at the U.S. District Court of PR. -— -. oe but is not meant to be mandatory. The only way ! had to be recognized as Pro Se again, at the District Court, was to force the Pro Bono attorney defended by Judge Méndez Mird, to file her own withdrawal as pro bono attorney, by literally sending her, through a text message, to hell, and filing a Document at the District Court 7 about all that took place since June 16" 2023, : ‘showing that Marianna Garcia, was making a false representation as attorney, . against the attorney Misconduct Law. See Document 212, 212-1, filed Oct. 31° 2023 The only Appellate Judge who saw this Case, which | sent as Appeal just because of this, Mrs./Miss Julie Rikelman, wrote I did not included which rules | wanted to be suspended, and that I did not included clear reasons to grant Suspension of Rules; See Document 00118060910, filed Oct. 10" 2023, by Appellate Judge Rikelman The clear reason, is simple: The United States Constitution, recognizes by Statute since the year 1789, our choice to be represented either by ourselves or by an attorney. the District Judge cannot impose an attorney : much less an attorney who agreed with the person who provoked the Lawsuit; Questions Presented 2. The Case 3:22-cv-01461 at The U.S. District Court for the District of Puerto Rico, has several things brought by me as Plaintiff, but the main point is, something that is not a matter of opinion: If the secured loan-with-my own savings at A.E.E.L.A. had $4,715.94 in savings securing the loan monthly payment, and the monthly payment was $179.74, it means: | had 26.23 regular monthly payments in savings, to satisfy the requirements of the Loan Promissory Note of this same A.E.E.L.A. Loan | have: : Anyone with a different opinion, does not recognize basic arithmetic: it requires a division not an opinion; $4,715.94 / $ 179.74 = 26.23 monthly payments 3. In this Case, the Secured Loan Regular Monthly Payment was $ 179.74: A.E.E.L.A. decided to apply the Savings because it was required, in just one single payment. The regular payment was $179.74, so it was covered 26.23 times, moving the next payment due date 26 months ahead of schedule. 4. Is true, that this A.E.E.L.A Loan I have, still has a remaining balance: A loan in made to be paid in monthly payments, is a fraud to change the terms to force an amortization using my savings within a difficult and tough situation and finding yourself without your job unable to pay next month, until a new job is found. : 5. No matter | had the savings in this secured loan to guarantee the regular payment of $179.74 of this loan for the next 26.2 months, this was voided by A.E.E.L.A. by the fraudulent terms of the loan promissory note, which | signed : believing in A.E.E.L.A good reputation, not that they were act like thieves in case | lose my job, which was their only condition to change the terms? This is a Secured Loan at A.E.E.L.A. with my savings: Technically, A.E£.E.L.A. lied to me, in case | lose my job, like legally stealing my savings to apply them in one payment, forcing and accelerated payment agreement in the middle of a problem, they simply never cared about, and the proof are the actions of their authorized manager Iritza Ortiz 6. It is impossible for anyone, to recognize, that the following was included by A.E.E.L.A. within the Loan Promissory Note: A.E.E.L.A. added that in case | lose my job, they can change : the same original terms of this loan, to apply an accelerated payment agreement for the remaining balance, which never counted the 26.23 payments | paid with my Savings, no matter, | was counting with that, but, A.E.E.L.A, added a tricky sentence | was