1. On October 16, 2025, the United States Department of Justice disclosed its indictment of previous National Security Advisor (N-SA) to President Donald Trump, John Bolton. The indictment discloses that the attack on petitioner was known to NSA John Bolton prior to the attack, and that the U.S. government considered the matter top secret. Can evidence just released by the United States of America, through the Justice Department, that eviscerates the opinion of the district court and it's improper affirmance by the appellate panel be grounds for reversal?

2. The appellate panel did not use the "de novo" standard of review of petitioner's amended complaint, that was wrongfully dismissed by the district court on a FRCP 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss. Did the appellate panel deviate from well settled laws, governing review of a dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) motions to dismiss?

3. The district court intentionally misapplied Supreme Court precedents Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009), Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, to be able to wrongfully dismiss petitioner's prima facie complaint on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss. Did the district court violate well settled laws governing Rule 12(b)(6) motions to dismiss, and violate petitioner's constitutional rights to due process?

4. The district court intentionally misapplied Supreme Court precedent in Menominee Tribe of 447 s. V. United States, -5-77 -U.S. 2-&Q (2016), to improperly deny tolling of the statute of limitations and to be able to wrongfully dismiss petitioner's valid reasons for the tolling of the statute of limitations on petitioner's earliest claims. Did the district court violate Supreme Court precedence to be able to wrongfully dismiss petitioner's prima facie amended complaint?

5. The district court intentionally misapplied Supreme Court precedence in Havens Realty Corporation v. Coleman, 455 U.S. 363, 102 S. Ct. 1114, 71 L. Ed. 2nd 214 (1982) when it refused to apply the "-continuing violations -doctrine" to petitioner's valid claims that fell well within the limitations period. Did the district court violate Supreme Court precedence to be able to wrongfully dismiss petitioner's prima facie amended complaint?

6. The district court intentionally removed video evidence of respondents, submitted by petitioner, from the case file and the docket of the case that completely corroborated petitioner's facts pleaded in his amended complaint. Can a district court simply remove evidence from the case file and docket of a case to be able to wrongfully dismiss a case?

Whether newly disclosed Department of Justice evidence can serve as grounds for reversing a district court's dismissal of a complaint, and whether the district court and appellate panel violated procedural standards in dismissing the case