Federal Circuit's Application of the Plausibility Standard to Weigh Evidence Against Plaintiff Conflicts With This Court's Precedent In Twombly and Iqbal

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1.1. Federal Circuit’s Application of the Plausibility Standard to Weigh Evidence Against Plaintiff Conflicts With This Court’s Precedent In Twombly and Iqbal As It Nullifies Procedural Due Process Under The Fifth Amendment To The U.S. Constitution; 2.1. U.S. Court of Federal Claims Has Concurrent Jurisdiction With A U.S. District Court Over a RICO Action Against The U.S. Pursuant To This Court’s Precedent , In Tafflin v Levitt; Preface to question 3.1.: Complaint, Plaintiff's Opening and Reply Briefs at the Federal Circuit and Federal Circuit decision[s] elucidate that Plaintiff has been a victim of consistent, organized, and systemic class-based animus against women. Plaintiff was first denied equal protection of the laws when she took a stand against injustice, in defense of a mother who was a victim of domestic violence, including through and by the New York State Court[s]. Plaintiff, was then denied equal protection of the laws by DOJ and FBI, including in conspiracy with churches, when she continued her fight against classbased animus against women. AND the question is; ( (ii) 3.1. A Declaratory Judgment Is A Proper Vehicle For This Court To Uphold A Woman’s Equality To A Male Man Under God’s Word And The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments To The U.S. Constitution To Effectively Abolish The Class; Based Invidiously Discriminatory Animus Against Women Entrenched In America’s Culture; Preface to question 4.1.: Plaintiff has been denied equal protection : of the laws by the NYS Courts and DOJ and FBI. This “official lawlessness” is continuing through the NYS Court of Appeals decision, which upheld monetary sanctions against the Plaintiff and her : client, for lawfully seeking redress of wrongs done at the NYS Supreme Court, . Dutchess County. DOJ Motion to Dismiss, at the Claims Court, made it a more likely than not event, that FBI had exerted its unlawful influence on the NYS Court of Appeals, in issuing a blatantly lawless decision. AND the question is; 4.1. Is This Case A Proper Vehicle For This ; Court To Permissibly Fashion A Remedy To Vindicate Federal Rights Under Fifth And Fourteenth Amendments To The U.S. Constitution When As In The Present Case There Is An Ongoing Violation Of Equal Protection Of The Laws; (iii) ; 5.1. Federal Circuit Committed An Egregious ; . Error Because It Is In Defiance of All Relevant Statutory Provisions And Court Holdings On The Subject Of All . Material Elements Required To Sustain Recovery Under Civil Rights And Civil RICO Statutes; 6.1. Is Civil Rights Statute 42 U.S.C. §1985 Money Mandating Against The U.S. Pursuant to U.S. Supreme Court Precedent In Monell v. Department of Social Services of City of New York AND MoneyMandating Read In Conjunction With 28 U.S.C. §1348 (a)(1) and (2) and 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(a); 7.1. This Case Is An Ideal Vehicle For This Court To Establish Solid Legal Foundations Under Amendment Fifth To The U.S. Constitution For Acceptable Sur: veillance Practices While Upholding Its Own Ruling In Ziglar That National-Security Concerns Must Not Become A Talisman A “Label” Used To “Cover A Multitude Of Sins” Especially When “Danger Of Abuse” Against Women Is Even More Heightened Given The Judiciary’s Failure To Define “Security Interest” In Domestic Cases. (iv) Rule 14.1 (b) Statement All parties are identified in the Caption of the Petition.