1. On the 2nd Hearing with Judge Gina Mendez Miro, 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 P.R.
but is not meant to be mandatory.
The only way I had to be recognized as Pro Se again, at the District Court,
was to force the Pro Bono attorney defended by Judge Mendez Miro,
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
about all that took place since June 16th 2023,
showing that Marianna Garcia, was making a false representation as attorney,
against the attorney Misconduct Law. See Document 212, 212-1, filed Oct. 31st 2023
The only Appellate Judge who saw this Case, which I sent as Appeal just because
of this, Mrs./Miss Julie Rikelman, wrote I did not included which rules I wanted
to be suspended, and that I did not included clear reasons to grant
Suspension of Rules; See Document 00118060910, filed Oct 10th 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;

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:
I 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 I 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 I had the savings in

Question not identified