Leila Robinson Lewis Smith v. Associated Credit Union, Inc.

Did the Court(s) err in not providing findings of fact and conclusions of law in their orders as required as per Federal Rule 52? Did the Court(s) err in accepting Appellee's overriding claim that Appellant's case is frivolous and thereby persisted in not finding for her contrary to facts involving 18 U.S. Code Chapter 63 and FDIC 1341 and with Federal Rule 11? (At the state court March 15, 2017 hearing, said court did find that the Appellee's case was frivolous as was evidenced in its finding for award of attorney's fees for Appelleelacking substantial justification being a requirement for attorney's fees. Substantial justification actually is a strong point for Appellant's case.) Did the State Court err when it did not consider Appellee breach of contract as ending said contract and also ending immunity? (T1-p.43-44) Did State court err when, contrary to O.C.G.A. § 9-3-96, it did not use tolling requirement instead determining Complaint filing as being too late for intentional infliction of emotional distress time limitation? (Federal Concealment Doctrine) Did the State Court err when it was dismissive of ACU 10-25-2011 letter as not meeting the standard of intentional infliction of emotional distress? William L. Prosser, Law of Torts 56 (4th ed. 1971) Did the State Court err in assuming that Appellee had immunity from all claims and not considering ACU's admissions of knowledge of Appellant concerns about account security before account dis-