1. In determining Whether the Ninth Circuit had
power to Waive Eaton 's Constitutional rights in their
Memorandum regarding connection of personnel policy
to the termination and Pv2, which were vague and
unclear. 'Waiving of rights " or "arguments abandoned "
with "waiver " being "intentional relinquishment or
abandonment of a known right " According to Johnson
v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458, 464 (1938), which Eaton did
not knowingly abandon any of his Rights. "[W]aiver of
constitutional rights in any context must, at the very
least be clear "; Aetna Ins. Co. v. Kennedy, 301 U.W. 389,
393 (1937) (stating courts should indulge in every rea
sonable presumption against waiver " in civil cases
where fundamental rights were at issue). "Courts do
not resume acquiescence in loss of fundamental rights. "
Ohio Bell Telephone Co. v. Public Utilities Comm 'n, 301
U.S. 292, 307 (1937). Could the 9th Circuit 's waiving
of rights and focus on PEvl, show a piecemealing of
Eaton 's case while not looking at the 'totality of the
case ', thus differing their opinion with 11th Circuit
court that states a negative performance evaluation
warrants the claimants case looked at as a whole.

2. Whether the Ninth Circuit violated the Due
Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by not
answering all of Eaton 's questions on appeal. Two of
the questions being, 1) Would the lack of being heard
via oral hearing disallow the ability to show existential
and substantial evidence which could prove legitimate
business reasons were illegitimate. Would the lower
courts need to maintain allowance of following Montana
Codes annotated with allowance of the hearing if they
were using other MCA laws for reference in the case?
2) Would altering and withholding of evidence causing
manipulation of facts-taxes withheld, black hole for
emails were not provided. 3) Could this cause the
allowance of false pretext reasons for a Legitimate
Business Reason could be detrimental to all 7 of
Eaton 's Counts, thus diminishing our rights as citizens
through a manipulation of words within the documents
presented by the lower Courts.

3. In determining whether Ninth Circuit should
have evaluated "abuse of Discretion " Rabkin v. Oregon
Health Sciences Univ., 350 F.3d 967, 977 (9th Cir.
2003), the Recusal of Judge Watters per F.J. Hanshaw
Enters, v. Emerald River Dev. Inc., 244 F.3d 1128,
1145 (9th Cir. 2001), 28 U.S.C. § 455(a), which states:
"Any justice, judge or magistrate of the United States
shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his
impartiality might be reasonably questioned ", and the
Supreme Court delineated the standards where recu
sal and disqualification

Whether the Ninth Circuit had power to waive Eaton's constitutional rights