1. Should a Pro Se Plaintiff be granted special considerations by Federal Judges based on their lack of experience with the Federal Rules?
In this case the Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgement was granted in an opaque 20 page ruling that was based on the simple fact that I had not exchanged a critical piece of evidence (my medical records) correctly during discovery, and instead exchanged a hyperlink to the documents instead of an actual hard copy.

2. Did the Appeals Court error when it found the District Court acted properly when it quashed my medical records from the docket, and then later ruled that the medical records had not been properly exchanged during discovery and dismissed my case based on this fact?

3. Should individuals be liable for whistleblower retaliation under the False Claims Act?
The Plaintiff will argue that individuals should be held liable in order to protect the Shareholder's interests in publicly owned companies and that in this specific case there are additional new individuals that have put shareholders of an unrelated public company at risk in order to continue to harass the Plaintiff during this Appeals process by sending an April Fools Day Joke job offer, purporting to be from the unrelated public company, to the Plaintiff on April 1st, 2024, while this Writ was being prepared (Appendix K).

4. Is submitting knowingly falsified evidence to a Federal Judge in a Motion for Summary Judgement in a lawsuit for wrongful termination a materially adverse employment act?

5. Does the act of (contacting the Plaintiff's treating FMLA healthcare provider by telephone and providing her with negative information about the Plaintiff and then creating a highly falsified log of the conversation in order to justify requiring the Plaintiff to attend and pass a third party fitness for duty exam in order to return to work from FMLA leave) mean that the Defendants can not prove by a clear and convincing legal standard that that they would have taken the same adverse employment actions in the absence of my protected activity?

6. Do the details of the Plaintiff's whistleblower allegations justify standing under the Consumer Financial Protection Act?

7. Should an Individual's Constitutional rights be denied in order to protect illegal activity by the two main political parties?
The Plaintiff contends that this would be the precedent that would be set if this Court fails to overturn the lower Court's rulings in this matter.

Should a Pro Se Plaintiff be granted special considerations by Federal Judges based on their lack of experience with the Federal Rules?