Whether the Ninth Circuit's affirmation of summary judgment against a pro se litigant for failing to produce expert witnesses, when such witnesses are unavailable, violates due process rights in a Veterans Affairs disability claim involving alleged fraud and discrimination

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED The sad reality of this matter is the fact that the petitioner successfully caught the Department of Veteran Affairs(DVA) knowingly and willingly defrauding this veteran of $126,000.00 in disability back pay and other veterans of millions of dollars in back pay by using a ’volunteer” to discredit veterans service in falsifying exams and altering medical records. The key term here is “volunteer” The US Attorney declared so in its removal but the reality is that volunteers are supervised and wear nametags saying “volunteer” in big letters and are not permitted to perform disability exams due to prima facie liability. In fact, the Prescott, AZ Veteran Affairs Medical Center has never had a volunteer physician program in the past 10 years! Had the volunteer Fero being wearing such name tag, the petitioner would have left-the exam. The process of ; becoming a Disability examiner with the DVA is extensive as is being a volunteer. The magistrate assigned had multiple conflicts of interest and refused recusal but then allowed removal using forged documents provided by the US Attorney’s office, a place where the magistrate is a retire. She went on to dismiss 4 claims then demanded expert witness statements from the pro se but as every lawyer knows; pro se litigants cannot hire such witnesses anymore and ordering such is prima facie obstruction. More so, the decision as to whether an expert is needed must be decided by a jury and not a judge when the malpractice is based on discrimination. 1. Does the ninth circuit’s affirmation, granting summary judgment for failing to produce expert witness by a pro se litigant when a pro se litigant is unable to retain such services at any cost, deny pro se litigant to due process? 2. Does a federal magistrate have the right to decide matters of prima facie medical malpractice by demanding experts in states when such is unavailable ii and not required by law and it must be decided by a jury as to whether the malpractice is prima facie when claims involve discrimination and fraud? 3. Can a federal magistrate grant removal by and to the US Attorney’s office based on forged documents that were not available or disclosed after multiple FOJA requests and in reference to a program that never existed documents? 4. Does the ninth circuit’s affirmation ignore the demand of recusal when it was discovered that the magistrate had the greatest conflict of interest of any active federal judge and proved such in her actions against a pro se litigant? 5. Can a federal magistrate knowingly accept an expert witness affiant for summary judgment from a defendant in the same matter whose claim was dismissed despite prima facie evidence? :