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 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 FOIA 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?

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