Whether the Court should resolve the following questions for which the Federal District Court, Newark New Jersey rejected/denied Petitioner's evidences and amendments, conducted no discovery and trial, denied her motion for In Forma Pauperis (IFP) 5 days after filing her case (Appendix C), and closed the case. Then dismissed the case twice, (DE 103 Appendix D) and DE 135 - (Appendix K), and granted Summary Judgement to Respondents, (denying Petitioner Procedural Due Process protections) based in part, on non-litigants' (Intervener's) motion and Respondent/FBI motion for dismissal based on "lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction and Failure to State a Claim"; but in fact the Court does have Subject Matter Jurisdiction and Petitioner did "State a Claim". The questions for this Court?

1. Should Federal law enforcement officers (FBI) ask a US Citizen to spy on another Federal Agency, the Department of Defense, knowing of the consequences to violating the 18 U.S.C. §§ 792-798 and Article 106a of UCMJ and the Espionage Act of 1917i (which, in essence would create another contravention of the Court's holding, see USA v. Ana Montes (2009)?.

2. Should Federal Law Enforcement Officers illegally conspire (see Dombroski v. Dowling 459 F. 2d 190 (7th Cir. 1972), and Griffin v. Breckenridge, 403 U.S. 88 (1971) with medical person(s) and provide "tracking" device to be implanted in a U.S. Citizen's body, without reasonable cause, a warrant, and without his /her knowledge and/or consent, and in violation of the Fourth Amendment, pursuant to Bivens v Six Unknown Named Agent 403 U.S. 388 (1971)" constitute an illegal search in violation of the Fourth Amendment.." and Schloendorff v. Society of New York Hospital, 105 N.E. 92, 93 (N.Y. 1914) and 42 U.S.C. § 1985?..

3. F.190 7ir.197n Gri. Bre403 U..88 971 s provided biomedical deadly devices to a foreign medical person to be illegally implanted in a US Citizen's head without probable cause, a warrant from a US Judge and permission from the foreign country's law enforcement official without consent from the Petitioner, all of which are in violation of the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Eight Amendments. Title 18, U.S.C Section 241- Conspiracy, see See Schloendorff v. Society of New York Hospital Justice Cardozo, and Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1 (1957), including, U.S, Code Section 249 - Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr., Hate Crimes Prevent Act, Title 18, U.S. Section 242 - Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law, Title 18, Section 245 - Federal Protection (42 U.S.C. § 1983ected Activities, and Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents 403 U.S. 388 (1971), Katz v. United States, 389 U. S. 347

Whether the Court should resolve the questions for which the Federal District Court rejected/denied Petitioner's evidences and amendments, conducted no discovery and trial, and denied her motion for In Forma Pauperis (IFP)