With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". litigation.’ Consequently, some informality of proof is appropriate.” United States v. 88.88 Acres of Land, 907 F.2d 106, 108 (9th Cir.1990) (quoting Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 437, 103 S.Ct. 1933, 76 L.Ed.2d 40 (1983)). The Court of Federal Claims (a trial-level Article I court, see 28 U.S.C. § 171) has found inadequate a party’s unsupported statement that he satisfied the EAJA net worth requirement, but in that case there was contradictory evidence in the record about the plaintiffs net worth. Doe v. United States, 54 Fed.Cl. 337, 343 (Fed.Cl.2002). The court undoubtedly saw a red flag when “the underlying cause of action began with the assertion that plaintiff was ‘a prospective buyer’ of a yacht.” Id. See also Fields v. United States, 29 Fed.Cl. 376, 383 (Fed.Cl.1993) (<HOLDING>). By contrast, the Federal Circuit (which, of

A: holding that a conclusory affidavit without supporting evidence is inadequate to establish net worth
B: holding that conclusory allegation of conspiracy without supporting factual averments insufficient to state claim
C: holding that conclusory allegations without supporting factual averments are insufficient to state a claim on which relief can be based citations omitted
D: holding conclusory assertions of intent to cause insufficient without supporting facts
A.