Did the Ninth Circuit Court and Tax Court lack jurisdiction over Christopher David Schneider?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Did the Ninth Circuit Court and Tax Court choose to ignore the fact that both court lacked jurisdiction of Christopher David Schneider? 2. Is it an unconstitutional First Amendment prior restraint and “censorship” in actual terms, for petitioner's involuntary Hobson’s choices—as demanded in the court clerk’s January 31, 2019 letter—(App-5), based on the facts in the record, of; (1) filing an impossible 7 pages (double sided) total for all pages as delineated by the court’s rules needed for a one paragraph writ of certiorari petition so as to | attempt the mailing of “ten required copies” [or his involuntary IFP filing (R-letter of January 21, 2019; 17-9240 and 18-5850 motion on objections to IFP) using $10.00 in stamps he has, and no more funds (January 21, 2019 letter); or (2) involuntarily asking-begging for help from others due to the collateral pains and disabilities; or (3) getting arrested so that he will fit the exemption for an “incarcerated” person? —_. ; 3. Before dismissing petitioner’s case under Local Rule 42-1, should the Ninth Circuit court have considered petitioner’s extensive other court filings on the merits, fully argued in that court—by both parties, as an “opening” brief when it was impossible for him to mail anything to the court without postage stamps? | 4. Is it a structural error, in practical terms, to force a litigant to self-censor his First Amendment court speech (e.g: small No. 10 envelopes of about 20 pages maximum—including all title pages and non-argument pages) due to the very rural limitations of his home’s location, “rural route mailbox” and inter alia inability to even get “Stamps” “envelopes” or to do everyday common mailings at a post office (8 3 miles away) without the help of neighbors or friends all due to the continuing daily proximate damages/punishment from the retaliatory loss of his driver's license and only photo ID for his published editorial speech of March 21, 2014? 5. Is it a “structural error” for inter alia the Ninth Circuit and Tax Court 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 into any public courthouse to use ail 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 a wealth status, was invidiously denied all personal access; and (2) repeated denials . of‘all access to their San Francisco “public” Ninth Circuit courthouse on (and around) August 11, 2017 at about 11:30AM and November 13, 2017 at about 12PM. . Are these constitutional violations 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? 6. Can any “public” courthouse lockout, censor, and deny personal access to anyone wanting to file critical paperwork, and use all of the “public courthouse” ; facilities in person—by arbitrary/invidious discrimination, based on wealth status or appearance and/or speech, and then e.g. repeatedly enforce substantive entry approval “unwritten rules” against the public.