Whether the district court erred in denying the petitioner's request for an open court hearing under the Seventh Amendment and local rules

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED | of 4 « POONSTITUPION, OF THE UNITED STATES.” Is this Document that fT Served Proudly In the Military Armed | Forces to PROTECT 6 Years TRUSTWORTHY 7? a “United Starés v. Hooton, 693 F.2d 857, 858 (9th Cir. 1982) (Stating standard). So, Accordingly, we grant appellee’s motion for summary affirmance (Docket so Entry No. 9) and summarily affirm the district court’s judgment. Filed Sept.17,2020 The Case Cited above ( oth Cir. ) was choosen from a list of filed Cases Cited by the U.s. Attorneys in their Opening Brief Entry No. 9 to Affirm the District Court's Judgment. See Entry 13 United states vs, Hooton the Government is the Plaintiff, CLEARLY . the Defendant is the Petitioner Disabled Veteran Mike Vigil. VIEWED , In the Above Case Received by 7th Amend. a FAIR HEARING Granted ‘fo Hooton to call Witnesses, Present Evidence, to Cross examine and to have findings supported by evidence. In the Federal district Court disabled Veteran Petitioner Mike Vigil filed 8/21/19 Before the Clerk Motion OPEN..COURT HEARING 7th Amend Local Rule 78-1 Evid.Clerk timely Date Stamped,this Issue Raised with 9th Cir.in . petitioner's Brief and Motion For Recosideration