Whether Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals forfeited subject matter jurisdiction

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Whether Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals forfeited subject matter jurisdiction to make rulings when Court failed and then refused to file Notice of Appeal served on district court on 1/4/19 in response to 12/11/18 district court’s ruling because if filed the NOA had raised the issue of “contradictory rulings : within the same Appellate Court thereby pursuant to Rutters Appellate Court Procedure automatically invoke the “en banc panel which then refused to rule in the absence of a NOA on Appellate court docket? 2. Plaintiff is a Federal Plaintiff who was denied a hearing for purpose of entering default against removing parties in both state and federal courts after case was remanded pursuant to 28 USC sec 1447(0), but federal order to remand never filed at state court because it was hidden from default window clerks by Los Angeles County defendants who also served as Court Counsel for Los Angeles Superior Court with free access to court records? 38. Whether federal court district court judge’s , ruling on 12/11/18 was rendered “null and void” because he lacked any arguable basis for subject matter jurisdiction to deny federal plaintiffs 5s Amendment Constitutional i. 4. right to “due process” to file a related federal court actions with federal claims in federal ; court [including but not limited to a [60(b)(4) motion for relief from “void rulings”?] ; 5. Whether pursuant to Federal Civil Rights sec 1983 petitioner’s right to “due process” had been violated in underlying Los Angeles County MTA workers compensation fraud case when Los Angeles county counsel removed the case to federal court in violation 28 USC sec 1445(c), but federal judge ignored timely filed order to remand for lack of subject matter jurisdiction filed on 6/30/00 and thereafter substituted federal laws for state court administrative regulations [ie 8 CCR sec 9792.5, 10490 (which prohibits filing demurrers and requires a trial), but denied plaintiff a trial because according to the federal court mediator [a federal court judgel “she said she does not like niggers and has no intention of allowing this case to go to trial if : not settled in mediation conference”? 6. Whether Federal Civil Rights Continuing Acts Doctrine was violated in 2016 when in response to 60(b)(4) Motion for Relief From Void rulings a federal court judge validated the removal of workers compensation fraud case to federal court; denial of right to trial by judge Manella because of petitioner’s race; ii. ‘g and in the absence of subject matter jurisdiction over person [primary treating physician pursuant to labor code section 4061.5], and absence of trial with QM.E, AM.E. rebuttal of treating physician’s opinion offered to award sanctions by declaring primary treating physician in a workers compensation fraud case was a “vexatious litigant”; while ignoring WCAB judge’s ruling that laches had no application to this plaintiff [Joyce Chapman v. Los Angeles County MTA; and administrative director's rulings against co: defendant Cambridge Integrated Services that defendant should have paid penalty [10%] and interest when uncontested medical bills are not ; paid within 60 days of receipt. ili.