Is it a denial of fundamental due process, petitioner's First and Seventh Amendment rights, and a 'structural error' for federal Judge John A. Mendez and federal reporter Catherine E.F. Bodene to conspire to criminally falsify the trial transcript?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Is ita denial of fundamental due process, petitioner’s First and Seventh Amendment rights, and a “structural error’—requiring inter alia a new trial—for federal Judge John A. Mendez and federal reporter Catherine E.F. Bodene, both of the Eastern District Court of California Sacramento, to inter alia conspire to, and actually criminally falsify, mail, and be paid for—a knowingly false trial transcript? 2. Isit a “structural error” for inter alia the Ninth Circuit Court (or any courthouse!) to tacitly and or thru unwritten rules, protocols, and/or deliberate indifference to engage in unequal, invidious, class and personal censorship and discrimination by: (1) refusing to allow any citizen, e.g. the appellate party here, into any public courthouse to use all public facilities and inter alia file paperwork in his own cases on an equal basis when in two instances, on two different days, in two different months, two different courthouses had signs stating that a “FOREIGN NATIONAL?” would be allowed into those “public” courthouses while he as a U.S. Citizen, due to his speech/ID/perceived wealth status, was invidiously denied all personal access; and (2) repeated denials of all access to their San Francisco “public” courthouse on (and around) August 11, 2017 at about 11:30AM and November 13, 2017 at about 12PM. And are these subject years later to a post ad hoc “harmless error” or Mathews v. Eldridge 424 U.S. 319 (1976) type of “case-by-case due process, ‘balancing’ test” analysis vs. an immediate appeal/mandamus and bright line test? , “Gat P py the Ninth Circuit Court dismissing Mr. Schneider's appellate case— , without reaching any of the merits—for “failure to prosecute” under Local Rule 42-1 3 over the .50 Cent cost of one stamp: Should they have first considered all (or even any of) appellant’s prior filed papers as an “opening brief’ when it was later impossible to file a paper with that specific title without postage stamps for months and other pains and disabilities: all known for years by the court, in that court’s files; and numerous issues were already extensively argued on the merits in multiple courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court, in unopposed declarations, and other party briefs? So, = 4. Can any and every court with case filed papers, in “practical” and average ~ human terms, impose penalties upon Mr. Schneider, without a driver’s license because of his “protected” speech, for any Draconian “choice” of either getting or... using help from his neighbors and friends to do or buy anything or repeatedly and , continuously risking his daily life to do everything; even to exercise his First Amendment/Article ITI constitutional rights to educate himself in a public courthouse law library, or to equally and fairly pursue legal redress in court while living in Rural America (vs. in a city or large town) miles from any civilization and without any public transportation?