Whether the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit abused its discretion or erroneously reasoned and concluded that the claim of breach of United States-President contract cannot 'fairly be interpreted as mandating compensation...by the Federal Government'

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Whether the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit abused its discretion or erroneously reasoned and concluded that the claim of breach of United which directly serves as the substantive source of law for the substantial Big Tucker Act, Subsection 1491(a) of Title 28 of the United States Code, claims, cannot “fairly be interpreted as mandating compensation...by the Federal Government” under United States v. Navajo Nation, 556 U.S. 287, 290 (2009) accord United States v. Mitchell (“Mitchell IT’), 463 U.S. 206 (1983) (damages “naturally follows”) quoted in Villars v. United States, No. 2014-5124 * 7, 590 F. App'x 962 * 7 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 7, 2014) quoting Holmes v. United States, 657 F.3d 1303, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2011)? ECF 31. Due Process Cl.-Prejudice, U.S. const. amend. v. 2. Whether the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit abused its discretion and maladministered justice when it interpreted the fair inference test or refused to overturn the Court of Federal Claims for calling the United frivolous rather than dismissing it for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted or to allow the complaint or aiding (pro se) in curing the ambiguities of the Big Tucker Act, Subsection 1491(a) of Title 28 of the United States Code, pleadings? Due Process Cl.-Prejudice, U.S. const. amend. v. ; 3. Whether the Court of Federal Claims and Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit abused their discretions when not allowing the complaint or the contract-at-hand under the Big Tucker Act, Subsection 1491 (a) of Title 28 of the United States Code, “for liquidated or unliquidated damages,” as the case-at-hand is “not sounding in tort?” 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a). i 4. Did Senior Judge Loren A. Smith not follow judicial review by not cautiously honoring the federal common law presumptions of validness and fairness to be money mandating for Big Tucker Act, Subsection 1491(a) of Title 28 of the United States Code, -complementing contracts, especially when the United States-President is directly the Promisor on behalf of the United States, which also constitutes the basis for jurisdiction and basis for relief, as in the 5. Did Court of Federal Claims Senior Judge Loren A. Smith in Order at Dkt. 10 or the panel or en banc Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Op. & Order at ECF 31 violate judicial review or either abused its discretion or make a clear error when each court deemed the fact of the as “factually frivolous” or “clearly baseless,” inconsistent with Fischer v. United States, 402 F.3d 1167, 1172 (en banc) and Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 323 (1992)? 6. Did the Court of Federal Claims error when it opined under R.C.F.C. 12(h)(3) before it received the United answer to the complaint, which based on the President’s demonstration would not have challenged the breach of contract claim (i.e. “efficient breach”), and much prior to the expiration of the sixty (60)-day time requirement under R.C.F.C. 12(a)(1)(A) causing prejudice to me and not consistent with the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit’s opinion in Wood-Ivey Systems Corp. v. United States, 4 F.3d 961, 965 (Fed. Cir. 1993)?! This type of time period is mandatory and immutable.”). ii |