Whether in arrogant defiance of 36 years of this Court's precedent in Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., the Ninth Circuit, just like the other Appellate Courts, has statutory authority to disingenuously combine,

• application of incorrect inter- and intra- eireuit-split Local-Rule-Modified-FRAP 34(a)(2) instead of the correct FRAP 34(a)(2), to deny Indigents and/or unrepresented Litigants oral argument,

• application of incorrect standards for Appellate Review of district courts' grants of summary judgments, and

• misapplication of Article n, §2 of the U.S. Constitution, in deploying appellate judicial staff-attorneys, as impostor judges, to adjudicate federal cases, instead of the actual Federal Appellate Judges,

to create the devastating perfect legal storm that destroys 99% of Federal Appellate Cases of the most vulnerable Litigants — Indigents and/or Unrepresented (Pro Se), Litigants whose case loss or failure rate is a stunning 99%, with violation of their 1st, 5th and 7th Amendment Rights to boot.

Whether the Ninth Circuit has statutory authority to deny oral argument to indigent and unrepresented litigants by applying incorrect standards, in conflict with Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. and violating their 1st, 5th and 7th Amendment rights