1. Whether participation in the Congress-authorized 2017 and 2020 plebiscite
for Puerto Ricans, on statehood elections, constitutes an implied in fact
contract for the purposes of a Tucker Act claim against the United States?

2. Whether Petitioner under the Tucker Act is entitled to compensatory and
injunctive relief compelling the United States to recognize the outcome of
the plebiscites, which unequivocally demonstrated the majority's desire for
Puerto Rico to become the 51st state under the U.S. Constitution?

3. Local court rules that systematically hinder pro se litigants' access to justice
can be interpreted as a regulatory encroachment on their constitutional right
to seek redress. This infringement amounts to a violation of the Fifth
Amendment, warranting compensation under the Tucker Act. The petitioner
argues that by leaving pro se matters to judicial discretion, Congress has
inadvertently created a policy that unfairly treats pro se litigants as secondclass participants in the legal process, abridging due process rights.
Additionally, considering pro se litigants as a distinct class, there may be an
implicit contractual obligation for the courts to ensure equitable treatment
and facilitate their access to the judicial system

4. How does the Fifth Amendment, in conjunction with Pub. L. No. 113-76 and
the implied-in-fact contractual relationship between the United States and
the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico arising from the plebiscites, confer
standing upon a Puerto Rican resident, an American citizen, to bring
monetary claims against the United States under the Tucker Act, particularly
in cases involving nullified election results and withheld disbursements,
despite the lower court's dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction?

5. Does a Puerto Rican taxpayer, acknowledged as a vital stakeholder in the
Commonwealth's fiscal affairs and duty-bound to safeguard the local
treasury, wield legal standing to initiate litigation against the United States,
premised on alleged violations of provisions delineated within the 2014
Appropriations Bill? Moreover, considering the taxpayer 's imperative role in
preserving the local treasury and the apparent inertia of the Commonwealth
subsequent to payment denials and the disregard of plebiscite mandates —
which underscored a prevailing desire for statehood — does a cogent legal
argument emerge for petitioning the nullification of the PROMESA Act? This
argument, rooted in Puerto Rico's potential status as a state vis-a-vis its
current territorial designation. Additionally, does the taxpayer possess
grounds to pursue reimbursement for pertinent expenses borne by the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico due to the United States' failure to accord
Puerto Rico statehood recognition? Such failure may arguably constitute an
illegal exaction against the taxpayer, thereby implicating all Puerto Rican
taxpayers in a manner warranting redress and protection under federal law.

6. Does the Tucker Act offer a viable recourse for individuals to pursue
compensation for purported unconstitutional deprivations by state
condemnation proceedings at state courts and all cases and appeals,
specifically in scenarios where private property is seized for public
bankruptcy proceedings, constituting a potential Fifth Amendment taking for
public use? Furthermore, does this avenue remain accessible when such
cases are indefinitely stayed under the automatic stay provision of the
PROMESA Act, effectively halting proceedings against the Commonwealth of
Puerto Rico until the dissolution of the PROMESA Fiscal Board?

Whether participation in the Congress—authorized 2017 and 2020 plebiscite for Puerto Ricans, on statehood elections, constitutes an implied in fact contract for the purposes of a Tucker Act claim against the United States?