Whether the United States District Court and the United States Court of Appeal's erred in violating the petitioner's constitutional rights

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED 1. Extraordinary circumstances exist. The importance to the public of the issues, are extraordinary, and a matter of international, foreign, national and domestic uniformity in law, is necessary. The judicial managing of foreign intelligence surveillance monitoring, weaponries and technologies, yearly bulk warrants, managing (federal tort complaints), are in error. Non-consistent laws and statutes, lack of accountability, lack of congressional oversight, and the lack of intelligence entities adhering to congressional limitations, the United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review at the United States Court of Appeals, DC and the United States District Court, DC, the United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, are in error and warrants the United States Supreme Court’s swift intervention. 2. FISCR Misc. 20-02, In the United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review, on petition for Review of the United ' States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, Misc. 16-01 (Boasberg. Presiding Judge.) See In re “Opinions & Orders of this Court Containing Novel or Significant Interpretations of Law,” 2020 WL 5637419 (FISA Ct. Sept. 15, 2020). The FISC held that it was "not empowered by Congress to consider constitutional claims,” “first amendment claims specifically,” as the United States District Court and the United States Court of Appeals, DC, did. In violation of the United States constitution, amend. I, Congress shall make no law respecting, prohibiting “to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” The United States District Court Judge Rudolph Contreras, the District of Columbia, serves as a judge on the United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, since May 19, 2016 May 18, 2023. Judge Contreras signed the “Memorandum and Order” “denying and dismissing” the Plaintiff's “case” entered on October 6, 2020, at the DC District Court. A Conflict in Law and Congressional Oversight. Judge David Bryan Sentelle, Presiding Judge of the United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review, incumbent assumed office, May 19, 2020 May 16, 2023, at the United States Court of Appeals, DC. Judge Sentelle signed the Judgment entered at the United States Court of Appeals, “to deny and dismiss” the Petitioner's pro se (non-criminal, complaint) constitutional (federal torts) “case,” entered by the Court on August 23, 2021. In short, this case "falls outside the class of cases that Congress Carefully identified as being subject" to this Court's jurisdiction ; (vii) (FISC), Id. 2020 WL 5637419 (FISA Ct. Sept. 15, 2020.) 3. Whether the United States District Court and the United States Court | of Appeal’s errored, violating the petitioner's constitutional, amend. I ) right “to petition the Government for a redress of grievances," and } amend. III, “No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any : house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a | manner to be prescribed by law.” amend. IV, “the right of the people to | be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against | unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no } warrants shall issue.” V, “deprived of life, liberty and property without , due process of law,” VIII “cruel and unusual punishment inflicted,” | XIII, “involuntary servitude,” XIV, “equal protection of the laws for all persons.” The Petitioner says Yea. The applicable standard of | review, questions of law reviewable de novo, questions of fact | reviewable for clear error, matters of discretion reviewable for abuse of discretion. | 4. State and federal courts are in conflict and non-consistent in law and procedure. Figel v. Riley, d. 17, the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan, Northern Division (2007). (Id, 42 U.S.C.§1983). The United States Supreme Court, DC has not ruled on the subject matter, to establish a standard nor standards, nor specifically a