Did the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals make a clear error when they termed perjury 'meritless,' failed to consider the materiality of Thatcher's perjury allegations

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Did the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals make a clear error when they termed perjury “meritless,” failed to consider the materiality of Thatcher’s perjury allegations in relation to, but not limited to the Fact Finding when they said: “Thatcher’s pro se brief implicitly preserves a general challenge to the ; district court’s conclusion that no genuine dispute of , material fact exists and even though Thatcher had : raised genuine disputes as to material facts in her briefs, was the 11th Circuit affirmation of the District Court’s summary judgment only under the McDonnell Douglas Framework and affirming summary judgment in contradiction with Fed.R Civ. P. 56(a) correct and require a jury, in civil cases to determine the materiality question, as under Gaudin where Appellate courts have addressed materiality in perjury cases, and recently have extended Gaudin to require jury determination of materiality as in United States Waldemar, 98 F. 3d 306, 313 (7th Cir. 1996)? 2. Under Kisor V. Wilkie, would the Veterans Administration still be able, with deliberate indifference, violate a disabled Veteran returning from FMLA leave for neck and back surgery, their Due Process rights under the 5th and 14th Amendments of the U.S Constitution and her property right of continued employment by being ordered to undergo a Fitness for Duty Exam where the the Dr was instructed to: ”Please submit your 4 ek, i findings in such a way that it is clear that Ms. Thatcher is either physically fit or not physically fit to perform ail of her duties at the full performance level required”, including lifting 45 pounds, knowing that was a catch 22 situation,(1) getting fired for not taking the test,(2) injuring yourself to pass the test or (3) lying so you can pass the test. Depriving Thatcher of her career, with deliberate indifference to her ADA and Constitutional Rights? 3. Were Thatcher’s Due Process Rights under the 5th and 14th Amendments of the U.S Constitution to an impartial Fact Finding, violated by the Veterans Administration deliberate indifference when Williams, perjured himself that he had recused himself from the Fact Finding, but was central to it, denying Thatcher’s right to an impartial Fact Finding and denying Thatcher an opportunity to respond to the allegations relied upon prior to any action, and an opportunity to rebut afterwards before the VA made any decision that could and did, jeopardize her property interest in continuing her 20 year career? Under Kisor V. Wilkie 189 S. Ct. 240 (2019) would courts have to apply the Auer deference when reviewing an agency’s ambiguous rules? ; 4, When the VA, with deliberate indifference, ignored Thatcher's Dr’s orders for over a@ year. not to drive more than 15 minutes, yet the VA forced Thatcher to drive 45 minutes to the Largo annex, when her job for 21 years was less than eight minutes away. i Would that be a violation under “Failure to Provide Reasonable Accommodation” If applying Kisor V. Wilkie 139 S. Ct. 240 (2019). Would that constitute a genuine dispute of a material fact, negating summary judgment? 4 « af “ ii