1.
Whether does an ascribed congressional federal
statute precludes procedural redress of a timely
invoked United States Constitution claimed injury.

2.
Whether unevaluated under the standard of
frivolousness thereby the district court of federal
claims as a acquisitioned legal basis for plaintiff s
complaint to be dismissed; does complainant 's injury
claims proceeding under in forma pauperis status
being denied as moot adjoined determined as failing
stating any subject-matter jurisdiction injury claims
pursuant RCFC 12 (b) (1) constitutes automatic
frivolous adjudicature within the ascribed statutory
meaning pursuant Title 28, Ch., 123; U.S.C. § 1915
(e) (2) (B) for application of appellate de novo
standard review jurisdiction to be denied by the court
of appeals for the federal circuit.

3.
Whether appellant-petitioner 's raised issues of
undisputed named defendant 's culpable omission
causes under plausible contending Constitution
Amendment 5 takings, Unauthorized Collection,
Illegal Exaction, usage of a Presented False Claim
of Indebtedness, and adjoined therewith Misdirection
of a Tax Refund litigation of constitutional and
statutory claimed injuries, as invoked for redress
pursuant Title 28, Ch., 91; U.S.C. § 1491 (a) (1),
which consequently was dismissed pursuant RCFC 12
(b) (1) standard of review; by the below-bottom
United States Court of Federal Claims entered order
to dismiss without evaluation for being frivolous;
See, APPX-E at 11-15 and nor was reviewed to
determine necessity to cure any want of jurisdiction
pursuant Title 28, Ch., 99; U.S.C. § 1631 does
substantiate a actionable appeals review briefing
therefof] the denied available authorization for
redress under the United States Court of Federal
Claims ' provided ascribed statute 's subject-matter
jurisdiction, for which contravenes' breach and
adverse confliction thereto United States
Constitution Article III, § '2 "Case or Controversy
Clause " adjoined thereto Title 28; Ch., 83; U.S.C. §
1295 (a) (3) ascribed appellate review jurisdiction with
the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal
Circuit 's entering of the order to dismiss appellant
petitioner 's appeals procedure pursuant Title 28, Ch.,
123; U.S.C. § 1915 (e) (2) (B) without appellant
petitioner 's complaint pleadings being evaluated for
frivolous claimed injury inferences.

Whether a federal statute precludes procedural redress of a timely invoked constitutional injury, and whether a district court's dismissal of a complaint as frivolous under in forma pauperis status violates due process and appellate review standards