Whether the 'Tucker Act' and 20 U.S.C. § 1082(a)(2) overrule the 'Federal Tort Claims Act' and grant jurisdiction for petitioner to sue respondent without regard to the amount in controversy in any U.S. District Court is constitutional without respondent sovereign immunity

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. WHETHER THE “TUCKER ACT” AND UNDER 20 § 1082(a)(2) OVERRULES THE “FEDERAL TORT CLAIMS ACT” GRANTS JURISDICTION FOR PETITIONER TO SUE RESPONDENT WITHOUT REGARD TO THE AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY IN ANY U.S. DISTRICT COURT IS CONSTITUTIONAL WITHOUT RESPONDENT SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY. 2. WHETHER THIS COURT “DUE PROCESS LAW: ... WHEN A PROCESS IS DUE ... A PROCESS IS DUE WHEN PETITIONER IS INFRINGED UPON AND DENIED PRIVILEGES TO CONTINUE AND EDUCATION ...” AND UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 1653, 28 U.S.C. § 1733(a) IS VIOLATED WITH EXHIBIT F, UNAUTHORIZED FEDERAL STUDENT LOANS FROM 2000 TO 2006 IS DEFAULTED BY RESPONDENT IN 2010, PETITIONER IS IN GOOD STANDING OF ALL LOANS BY RESPONDENT, EXHIBIT G, THE COURT SHOULD DECLARE DUE PROCESS IS VIOLATED AND DENY . RES JUDICATA, CLAIM PRECLUSION, AND ISSUES PRECLUSION IN ALL LOWER COURTS AND ALL PRIOR COURTS ORDERES AND JUDGMENTS SHOULD BE UNCONSTITUTIONAL. 3. WHETHER THE “DUE PROCESS LAW”, “TUCKER ACT”, STATUES 28 U.S.C. § 1653, 28 U.S.C. § 1733(a), 20 U.S.C. §9703(a)(2)(E), 20 U.S.C. § 1092(c), 20 U.S.C 31 § 1221-1, 28 U.S.C. § 1346, 28 U.S.C. §1331, AND 20 § 1082(a)(2), THE COURT SHOULD MANDATE THESE LAWS INTO THE “BILL OF RIGHTS” TO GRANT ALL STUDENTS INCLUDING PETITIONER THE PRIVILEGE TO FINANCE AN EDUCATION WITH RESPONDENT WITHOUT FINANCIAL BARRIERS TO SUPPORT TRANSPARANT LOANS SHOULD BE CONSTITUTIONAL. 2