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

To write 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, Page 12.

Having 3 Appellate Judges at the First Circuit re-affirming
an unreasonable final opinion like the one from Judge McGiverin,
is a clear sign of corruption, and a deviation of regular Court Procedures.
Issue beyond the facts, Public Interest
Guide for Prospective Indigent Petitioners for Writs of Certiorari, Page 13.

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 I included in my previous complaint for Judicial Misconduct
including the Chief Judge, who dismissed my complaint.
Judge Garcia Gregory made false accusations saying I was not complying
with the Rules, when I was claiming my Right to proceed Pro Se,
rejecting the unfair 30 days freeze of the procedures, and I 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 I was required to be there, because, "only attorneys were allowed?"
This Case was negatively affected without justification from the start,
because I claimed my Right to proceed Pro Se, and 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

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