Whether a complaint can survive a motion to dismiss when its factual allegations and claims involve one or more technologies, or capabilities of combined technologies, that are either in development or unfamiliar to a court but instead regarded by a court as nonexistent in lieu of it requiring evidence

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Where all court filing fees have been paid to initiate pursuit, what is the appropriate inquiry : for determining when only a litigant’s factual allegations justify a dismissal of all claims under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and what is the proper standard of appellate review for such a dismissal? 2. Whether a complaint can survive a motion to dismiss when its factual allegations and claims involve one or more technologies, or capabilities _ of combined technologies, that are either in development or unfamiliar to a court but instead regarded by a court as nonexistent in lieu of it requiring evidence. 3. Whether, in an initiating complaint, are legally cognizable causes of action sufficient when ; conforming to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule Eight (8) and supported by factual allegations apart from legal theory or such other further detail creating a reasonable expectation that discovery may surface additional evidence of wrongdoing. 4. Did petitioner, as the plaintiff in the District Court, plead factual matter that, if taken as true, sufficiently alleges in support of federal causes of action or other remedies within the jurisdiction of federal courts? ; ii PARTIES TO THE PETITION Petitioner in this Court, plaintiff-appellant William Henry Starrett, Jr., was Plaintiff in the district court and an appellant before the Fifth Circuit. Below, he may also be referred to as “STARRETT” or “Plaintiff.” Respondents United States Department of Defense, United States Department of Energy, and United States Department of Justice with their : units including Respondents United States Army, : United States Army Special Operations Command, United States Army Civil Affairs and Psychological . Operations Command, United States Army Reserve Command, United States Special Operations Command, National Nuclear Security Administration, and Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency below may ten (10) collectively be referred to as “Federal Respondents” or “Federal : Defendants.” Respondents individually referred to in abbreviation as Respondents or Defendants below . include Texas Military Department (“TXMIL”), Lockheed Martin Corporation (“Lockheed Martin”), Lawrence Livermore National Security, LLC. (LLNL”), National Technology & Engineering Solutions of Sandia, L.L.C. “SANDIA”), and Microsoft Corporation (“MICROSOFT”). The fifteen (15) Respondent parties may herein collectively be referred to as “Respondents” or “Defendants” where none specified. ro ~ iii