Whether the CAVC and CAFC improperly dismissed allegations of evidence tampering and government misconduct in a veterans' disability claim

Questions Presented #1 “If the allegations occurred of obstruction of justice, fraud on the court, and evidence tampering, which led to prejudicial losses with harmful error, can the CAVC and CAFC ignore it, or should they have gotten involved, and if they can disregard it, does this lead to an absurd legal position that cheating is okay, and thus should be abandoned forthwith?” #2 “Can the CAVC and CAFC replace allegations of cheating with unsuitable statements such as ‘We don’t have the jurisdiction to readjudicate the claim facts,’ especially when the the Justice lawyer agreed that the evidence had been switched?” , Taylor, Trevor Hearing Loss & SMC 3 of 14 All parties appear in the caption of the case on the cover page. Statement of Jurisdiction 1) In the Agency appeal of Trevor Taylor, No: 230917-377155, Board of Veterans’ Appeals, For the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Judgement entered October 31, 2023. 2) ‘Taylor v. McDonough, No: 23-6758, United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, Judgement entered 3/22/2024. 3) Taylor v. McDonough, No: 24-1642, United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, Judgement entered 9/6/2024. -Note: Non-attorney, pro-se appellant used a 7-day free trial to Lexis+ to help with the following research burden. J labored to learn how to make this packet and the results are natural. Any document filed pro se is “to be liberally . construed,” and “‘a pro se complaint, however inartfully pleaded, must be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Nevertheless, the Supreme Court has held that a pro se complaint must at least show that the pleader is entitled to relief. -2nd note: The Justice lawyer, Ms. Bartelma, for USCA FC No: 24-1642 agreed that the evidence was switched, on page 20 of her brief (document 18 at CAFC), when she wrote, “Mr. Taylor additionally complains that the VA’s brief , Taylor, Trevor Hearing Loss & SMC 40f14 “pirated and committed swindling by switching the sections in the audiologist’s report” — an apparent reference to the VA brief mistakenly attributing a statement to the wrong “section” of the report.” The CAVC then “dismissed based on the merits,” rooted on something, I’m not sure of what, as they didn’t address the important main legal issue of government council misconduct. My position on this is, “Who cares about the claim facts right now? If cheating is involved, that’s the infection that must be treated immediately with medicine.” Courts are required by the Judicial Council to fix these events. As a citizen, self-represented, how can I be wrong if the career Justice lawyer, with decades of experience, concurred in her brief? Ihave the option to later re-submit the medical issue to the VA as a . supplemental claim, but if the courts openly allow actus reus the act or the _ physical act, then, in military disability claims it would include the submission of a fraudulent opening brief, then the Fruit of the Poisonous Tree Doctrine should apply, which is a rule under which evidence, that is the direct result of illegal conduct, is inadmissible. The doctrine draws its name from the idea that once the tree is poisoned (the primary evidence is illegally obtained), then the fruit of the tree (any secondary evidence), is like-wise tainted and may also not be used. Note: I don’t get it. Isn’t cheating always a simple issue that every person on Earth can appreciate? Why do the lower courts make it seem like it’s a complex : Taylor, Trevor Hearing Loss & SMC 5 of 14 legal issue that only scholars can understand? That is the epitome of fatuity that only elite folks with advanced University degrees can understand the idea of bunco. “The People” know when they’re being gold-bricked. Specific narrow jurisdiction isn’t required for a court to adjudicate it it’s a wildcard that they must mend. The Veteran wasn’t arguing the facts of the adjudication, he was asking for a chance at a fair claim adjudication in the first instance and