Whether Plaintiff-Appellant's Due Process rights were abridged

QUESTIONS PRESENTED A priori, whether Due ; Process rights under the 5th and = 14th Amendments were abridged and subjugated in : the Ninth Circuit Court’s Dispositive Order (ECF 10, November 6, 2018), in denying the request to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP, ECF 5), without the opportunity to file an Opening Brief and Excerpts of Record, or opportunity to pay the filing fee (ECF 3, 10), indicating, in their opinion, alone, that the litigation was “frivolous,” which is disputed, itself requiring Due Process. Secondarily, whether the federal courts have Jurisdiction under FRAP 21(c) Special Writ for Political Asylum under 8 U.S.C. §§ 1481(a)(2), a derivative of the Expatriation Act of 1868 (the United States has always implicitly denied the doctrine of perpetual allegiance through its naturalization laws, providing federal statutory standing); and, with federal authority under FRCP 57 Court Decree, in such Rule’s own authority with federal statutory standing thereof relying on 28 U.S.C. § 2201, for the Creation of such Remedy, in so moving. (generally, USDC SD Cal, 18-810, Doc. 9, Petition, pg. 12, §]; see also, Id., Jurisdiction, pg. 12, §| 138; and, Notice of Appeal, Doc. 12, pg. 1-2, each in the