whether the District court. Abused it's athority by Allowing NoN-tsating, NoN-examining consultants evidence to ALJ. clearly showed a defectine analysis

whether the issues before this united states court are of national importancE, not only to the truly dibabled and the public, But general to the Judiciary, as well as the ethical principles of the Jodiciary.

whither the District court was reQvired to consider material evidence, that the Apfeals countil made part of the record, relevant to the AlJ hearing.

whether a liflong history of depression and Ankicty as well as a 1o year history of fain and migiane headaches was ever properly considered doring prior proceedings.

whether a psychietrist, a rheumatologist, and a pain spocialist have been acknowledged for who they are and what they should do, instead of referenced as a generalized exhibit interpretation

whether the ALJ'S interpretation of row medical data, (MRI') without the presence of a medical expert was bexond his scope, as α layman.

Whether the First Circuit Court of Appeals erred in dismissing petitioner's claims under the Takings Clause and Due Process Clause