Can a trial court dismiss 1866 complaint based on number of provisions stated?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED : This Petition presents issues of National importance, that if left unanswered will perpetuate confusion among the lower courts, and will prevent Petitioner Jarvis, and millions of other [F]reedmen Cherokee, similarly situated from the 1866 and 1868 Indian treaties and henefits from those treaties, in which Petitioner Jarvis, has been excluded from over (61) years, and the confusion regarding the provisions of 1866 treaties, and what those provisions involve. The lower court erred, in stating that Petitioner Jarvis, failed to state provisions under 1866 treaties, then admitted in another order Petitioner did state a provision of 1866, which is the reason given by the trial court for the dismissal of the case, which is another reason that perpetuates confusion by the lower courts, specifically, in this case. 1-Can a trial court dismiss 1866 complaint based upon the number of provisions that Petitioner has provided under 1866 treaties, when it was established that Petitioner Jarvis provided several provisions under 1866, or is there federal law that requires that several provisions be provided under 1866 treaties? 2-Can a complaint filed under 1866 treaties, and under 28 U.S.C.81505, be lacking of jurisdiction, in federal court of claims, when the claims fall under The Tucker Act? 3-Can a trial court deny Petitioner Jarvis rights to 1866 treaties, when he is American [C]herokee [F]reedmen, and the Treaties of 1866 state unequivocally, that it 'guarantees descendants of [C]herokee [F]Jreedmen 'all rights of "Native (c Jherokees? ; fi