Did the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals overlook potential indication of treasonable actions in the District Court record, condoning a series of misdeeds?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Did the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (“Ninth Circuit’), by overlooking potential indication of treasonable actions in the Honorable District Court, Central/Eastern District of California (“District Court’) record, condone commission of a multiplying series of misdeeds (void rulings) originally perpetrated by the District Court? 2. By not complying with Rule 72 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“Rule”), did the District Court Magistrate (“Magistrate”) commit treason in that the Magistrate breached his Oath of Office by setting aside mandates to discharge laws of the ) United States? 3. Did the Magistrate, in turn, commit Fraud Upon the Court? 4. Regarding the Magistrate’s respectfully purported failure to follow the law, at this juncture in the proceedings (December 18, 2017) should rulings and findings (including those made retroactively to the said date) have been declared void by any Jurist capable of having taken any action after December 18, 2017? 5. Did the District Court know, or should it have known, if, by no other means than even cursory review of the document filings in the underlying case, that the Magistrate did not comply with this Rule? ’ 6. By failure to mandate compliance or other ameliorative : . measures of adjustment, namely, to simply insert/include the Recommendation in the Record for access by the Parties, did the District Court violate its Oath of Office, and subject itself to perspective scrutiny regarding the issue of Fraud Upon the Court? 7. Did the District Court know, or should it have known, that the Recommendation had not been included in the Record? 8. Given that the District Court had knowledge of the Magistrate's deficiency to include its Recommendation in the Record pursuant to the Rule, did the District Court know the Magistrate violated his Oath of Office, that this violation was possibly treasonous, and that the District Court’s failure to take judicial notice regarding this matter possibly promulgated violation 18 United States Code § 2832, Misprision of Treason? 9. Did the aforesaid claims run askance of 18 United States Code § 4— Misprision of a Felony? 10. Do these claims, if determined to be of merit by the U.S. Supreme Court (“Supreme Court’), run askance of 8 United States Code § 1512(b)(2)(A)(8)? 11.If the Supreme Court determines the aforesaid claims to be of any merit whatsoever, did the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals subsequently generate a sequential chain of void rulings? — ; W 12. Were the aforesaid actions committed outside judicial capacity? 13. Were the aforesaid actions collaboratively implemented by way of communications done via internet (interstate) correspondence, done individually and collectively, and done at variance with activity prohibited by Title 18 United States Code §§ 1961-1968? 14.Do the patterns of activity alleged herein present a distinct threat of long-term problematic activity, expose an arguable pattern in all jurisdictions, menace future questionable similar conduct, or, pose a serious threat of repetition? 15. Is this conduct a regular way of conducting ongoing transactions in all Circuit Courts? : a