Workplace retaliation arbitration

1. Whether a federal court of appeals violates a litigant's Fifth Amendment Due Process rights and deeply departs from the accepted and usual course of judicial proceedings by affirming an order compelling arbitration, where the District Court denied the petitioner the right to amend the complaint to name the true corporate actor "Facebook" despite uncontradicted record evidence that Facebook's corporate security forces directly executed the retaliatory adverse action. 2. Whether a federal court of appeals violates its judicial duty to review an evidentiary record under Supreme Court Rule 10(a) by affirming a lower court judgment, thereby ignoring a pre-existing state administrative court finding that the employer "Flagship" engaged in illegal retaliation and was legally untrustworthy under California Evidence Code § 412 for deliberately with-holding evidence. 3. Whether systemic fraud, the fabrication of employment records by defense counsel to discredit key witnesses, and deliberate interference by an arbitration administrator to suppress a pro se litigant's procedural paper trail constitute a structural denial of due process that invalidates an arbitration award under the Federal Arbitration Act.