Janet Tingling v. Educational Credit Management Corporation, et al.

Whether the Court of Appeals position was inconsistent with the standards outlined in Rule 56(e), which provides that summary judgment is only proper if there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the defendant is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law, which conflicts with the lower Courts decision to admit into evidence Education Credit Management Corporation (ECMC) altered loan docu­ ments with other students SSN# affixed to loans ECMC representative Mr. Baum claimed I owed that he later acknowledged as flawed by stating, “I believe there is a way to deal with this that may allow you to pay virtually nothing—and perhaps, absolutely nothing —on your loans.”

Whether the lower Courts have entered a decision in conflict with other United States Courts, by admitting into evidence false or misleading legal documents as a part of business records, see, Hoffman v. Transworld, Case No. C18-1132-JCC (W.D. Wash. Nov. 2, 2018), such as the Department of Education (DOE), duplicate and triplicate copies of 3 identical robo-signed promissory notes with differing dollar amounts totaling almost $200,000 for dates I was not matriculated in school.

Whether the lower Court’s procedural and evidentiary ruling requires review, especially in this case where judgment was rendered based on index numbers that the Department of Education (DOE) claimed were “unique pin identifiers, representing an electronic signature” that were also used on duplicated alleged loan documents for dates I was not matri­ culated in school. 4. Whether the Court’s decision to unilaterally deny a pro se from revising a rough draft for a joint pretrial memorandum that I was seeing for the first time conflicts with the lack of due process, especially when defendants who are seasoned Attorneys were granted approval to revise their memorandum at least 4 times.