Iván Vechioli Cruz, et ux. v. Kiyomi M. Santos Onoda

Whether if; United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, CASE NO. 24-1290 decided correctly validating United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Puerto Rico, CASE NO. 22-00039, United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico, CASE NO. 23-1352 which accepted a Motion for Summary Judgment presented by creditor lawyers in Adversary Proceeding Case number 22-00039 when in our response to that motion and in each of those courts we Petitioners /appellants presents enough, sufficient facts, (Brae Asset Fund, L.P. v. Kelly, 223 B.R.50D Mass. 1998), that should demonstrated that the Summary Judgment creditors attorney use to present his case at those two courts and later the United States Court of Appeal for the First Circle used to decide on our appeal in that court is full of deficiencies, or lies accepted in our Puerto Rico judicial system and these three courts decisions, judgments are perpetuating a wrong doing, a wrong way to impart justice in the Puerto Rico judicial system where that form, that way of accepting that Summary Judgment presented by creditors lawyer to these courts not only affects us Petitioners/appellants, but it can affects others cases with similar circumstances as our case. There was too many valid disputed facts, (Walter Block, Plaintiff?Apellant v. Sam Janenhaus; Jim Ruthemberg; New York Times Company as Defendants/Appellees; In Re Lawson-United States Court of Appeals’, First Circuit, July 1, 2015 79) F.3d 214), in that Adversary Proceeding NO. 22-00039 that these three courts never consider basing there decision of not consider those fact because, as they write: we have our time in that case in the Puerto Rico Court of First Instance, JCD 2010- 1045, assertion for which we come forward in this Supreme Court to prove as not true because of the deficiencies of that Puerto Rico Court of First Instance at informing the affected parties of a case in a trial, negating to that party its right to defend their side and also these courts used The Rooker-Feldman Doctrine to avoid the evaluation of the new facts presented.