that “do not pertain to the Endowment Act’s constitutionality or validity,” clearly signaling that the court will not revisit the constitutional claims at issue here. (Id. at 8, 12-13.) While the record does not support any conclusion regarding the Commonwealth Court’s “deliberative process,” it does plainly show that the Rule 1034 Order is avowedly firm and in no way tentative. The Commonwealth Court’s Rule 1034 Order satisfies this prong of issue preclusion analysis. c.Parties fully heard Courts more readily apply issue preclusion when the party against whom preclusion is sought fully presented the merits of its case to the prior adjudicator.' Greenleaf, 174 F.3d at 358-59; see also Liggon-Redding v. Am. Sec. Ins. Co., No. 06-0227, 2009 WL 3101068, at *10 (M.D.Pa. Sept. 23, 2009) (<HOLDING>). It is clear that the Commonwealth Court order
holding that a court commits no error in refusing to rule on pro se motions raised by a represented party holding that a defendant proceeding pro se is bound by same rules as party represented by counsel and a court cannot allow pro se litigant lower standard of performance holding that leniency should be accorded to pro se litigants when the defect in a complaint is merely procedural and there are potential grounds for relief holding that although pro se litigants are entitled to liberal construction of their pleadings pro se litigants must follow procedural rules holding that a party was not fully heard when that party proceeded pro se and lost on procedural grounds in a prior adjudication