Did the UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT error in not enforcing the District Court's ruling that this was not a foreclosure case

QUESTIONS PRESENTED, RULE 14.1(a) 1) Did the UNITED STATES COURT OF AP: PEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT (Ninth) error when not enforcing a ruling of the U.S. District Court Western District of Washington at Tacoma, Case No. 3:16-CV-05644-RBL, (District Court) ruled on 11/18/16: “This is not a foreclosure case.” Dkt 64 page 2 at 14. The Ninth denied the overturning of the illegal foreclosure/trustee sale by Wells Fargo on 10/28/16 that was done without leave of the District Court when the issue of who was the legal beneficiary was still before the District Court. Ignored the material facts that JP Morgan Chase (JPMC) parent company of Bear Stearns, declares they do NOT OWN Plaintiff’s loan! (Dkt 66-2 Ex DD specifically page 7 District Court.) See DktEntry 10 pages 4-7, & DktEntry 30. 2) Did the UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT (Ninth) error when it did not Reverse and Remand the Removal to Federal District Court by Wells Fargo (Wells) when Wells was NOT properly served at the time of the Removal to District Court based upon the Ruling of the District Court: 9/8/16 in Dkt 49 page 6 at 22-23, the District Court ruled: “Wells Fargo had not been served when the case was removed and its consent was not required as a matter of law. The Motion to Remand [Dhkt. #23] is DENIED.” See DktEntry: 10, p. 8 at 1-13. Can a non party remove a case? “Consent. This matter is being removed by Wells Fargo...” See Dkt 1 p. 3 at 20, District Court. ii QUESTIONS PRESENTED, RULE 14.1(a) — Continued 3) Did the UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT (Ninth) error when it did not apply the Doctrine of Res Judicata to both the Petitioner and the Respondents on all motions . and pleadings within the administration of justice or . were their actions an arbitrary denial of Petitioner’s property; his home? See DktEntry 32. 4) Was the Petitioner’s Due Process, especially Procedural Due Process of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution Violated by the UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT (Ninth) when it did not apply Res Judicata to both parties fairly and in a neutral way for neutral decision making on all motions? Was this a Violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and within the administration of justice or were their actions an arbitrary denial of Petitioner’s property; his home? See DktEntry 32. ; 5) Did the UNITED STATES COURT OF AP. PEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT (Ninth) actually and properly adjudicate Petitioner’s Motions in DktEntry 7, 8-1, 11-1, 17-1 and DktEntry 10 with many legal arguments in the 20 pages by simply ruling: “Appellant’s motion for injunctive relief (Docket Entry No. 10) is denied.” See DktEntry 30. Where’s the material proof the Ninth examined and adjudicated each claim in that motion? Is this in Violation of Petitioner’s iii QUESTIONS PRESENTED, RULE 14.1(a) — Continued Due Process under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution for Procedural Due Process for neutral decision making and was this within the administration of justice or were their actions an arbitrary denial of Petitioner’s property; his : home? 6) Did the UNITED STATES COURT OF AP, PEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT (Ninth) actually vote and tally for Petitioner Motion for Rehearing and En Banc Hearing. See DktEntry 32. Was the Ninth’s Denial of an En Banc Hearing in Violation of Petitioner’s Due Process under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and further a failure in Procedural Due Process for Neutral Decision Making or was their actions an arbitrary denial of Petitioner’s property; his home and was their ruling aligned with previous rulings? See FRAP 35(a)(1)(2) and DktEntry 33. 7) Did the UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT (Ninth) Error by Denying an Emergency Motion for Protection of the Petitioner’s life and his family in DktEntry 8-1 & 8-2 EMERGENCY MO