Whether the 9th Circuit panel and its staff have used unconstitutional procedural or substantive means to deprive petitioners of their contractually vested property rights in violation of due process and fundamental constitutional principles

Questions presented for certiorari review: (a) Has the 9th Circuit panel, and/or its clerk and staff attorney, used procedural or substantive springes unconstitutional under the 5th Amendment Due Process Clause, to deprive petitioners appeal of its $640,000 contractually vested and executed right in property and to defend it plainly and reasonably made, in a way that conflicts with decisions of this court in more than one of its constitutionally grounded due process decisions and hence in need of guidance? (b) Has the 9th Cir panel, and/or its clerk and staff attorney, sanctioned such a departure by the district court of the fundamental U.S. Constitutional principles of giving notice before it makes its decisions, and then after it made its decisions fail to give notice as to call for an exercise of this Court's supervisory power? (c) Has the 9th Cir panel and/or its clerk and staff attorney derailed assignment to a panel by the 9th Cir court, as a court, in a way that has so far departed from F.R.A.P. 34 by using its summary disposition General Order (hereafter G.O.) 6.5(c) procedure in violation of 28 U.S.C. 46(a) and thereafter conducting proceedings that were not full and fair, regular and meaningful, as to call for an exercise of this Court's supervisory power and guidance? (d) Because in 1994 only 11% of appellate opinions were on the merits and the rest of procedure, per Lawrence on Behalf of Lawrence v. Chater (U.S.N.C. 1996) 516 U.S. 168, 171 & FN 1 [116 S.Ct. 604, 133 L.Ed.2d 545]; and, today because the 12-31-23 report reveals that 60% of the appeals were terminated, can it -iisaid that the 9th Cir Gen. Order 6.5(c), and its related other procedures, are a matter of significance to this country and court; and/or because the person who made the 9th Cir Dok #2 decision was never identified, and, as 9th Cir G.O.'s prohibited identification of panel judges who make Memorandum decisions, will the President be left in the dark as to whom he can enforce the federal law against as he is required to do under the U.S. Constitution, if this court is unwilling or unable to guide and clean up its own department? (e) Has this court left open in other cases any issue that this case may be used to answer? -iiiB.