Timing of veterans appeals

1. Whether it is a violation of this veteran’s First and Fifth Amendment rights when the Secretary and the Court dismiss Petitioner's appeal, concluding that it did not involve the validity or interpretation of a statute or regulation; and the Court concluded that Petitioner’s argument “fails as a matter of law” based on a prior Veterans Court decision on the subsumed July 2020 Board decision, which was no longer subject to revision on the merits; and the Secretary’s brief erroneously concluded: “Petitioner does not allege that there was new and material evidence that the Veterans Court failed to consider, nor does he identify any place in the record where he raised such arguments;” the Secretary used the presumption of regularity and the 38 U.S.C. § 511(a) non-review preclusion clause to redirect attention from the Chairman of the Board’s October 2020 grant of Petitioner’s BVA July 2020 CUE motion as rebuttal evidence to the Secretary’s motion to dismiss. 2. Whether a veteran has a constitutional right to a fair hearing on the merits of his disability claim, decided according to fundamentally fair procedures, and whether the initial and subsequent CAVC March and November 2023 Judge Meredith § 5108 review of the relevant former disposition of the February 2023 claim determinations has been subject to nothing but differential evidentiary review that continues with the same concealed evidence during adjudication, misstatements of material facts, misstatements of law, fraudulent submissions, and omissions.