1. “Whether it is ‘misprision of treason’ that eight Justices remained silent of Chief Justice Roberts’ conflict of interest against inventors as a member of the Knights of Malta with fealty to the Queen of England who controls SERCO and QinetiQ Group Pic, both British companies, in services that prejudice the inventor’s patent properties.” 2. “Whether an impartial Supreme Court still exists to rule on any inventor’s cases, after Chief Justice Roberts recused due to his conflict of interest as a member in the Knights of Malta and eight Justices remained silent on Chief Justice Roberts’ membership in that foreign organization, and failed to enforce Chief Justice Marshall’s Mandated Prohibition from repudiating Government-issued Patent Contract Grants in Fletcher v. Peck, 10 U.S. 87 (1810); Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward, 17 U.S. 518 (1819); Grant v. Raymond, 31 U.S. 218 (1832); U.S. v. American Bell Telephone Company, 167 U.S. 224 (1897) — Governing Supreme Court Precedents — the Supreme Law of the Land.” 3. “Whether this Case and all of Petitioner’s/inventor’s Cases, which are all predicated upon the Court failing to enforce ChiefJustice Marshall’s Mandated Prohibition from repudiating Government-issued Patent Contract Grants in Fletcher v. Peck, 10 U.S. 87 (1810); Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward, 17 U.S. 518 (1819); Grant v. Raymond, 31 U.S. 218 (1832); U.S. v. American Bell Telephone Company, 167 U.S. 224 (1897) — Governing Supreme Court Precedents — the Supreme Law of the Land, must be referred to the President to ensure the inventor’s right to Constitutional redress, to void all unconstitutional Orders and restore the inventor’s patents to their original pristine condition.” 4. “Whether ChiefJustice Roberts must leave the bench for breach of public trust, from his financial conflict of interest by his wife placing attorneys at large law firms such as opposing counsel Winston and Strawn and Greenberg Traurig and large Corporations such as IBM, Microsoft, and breach of solemn oath of office in not enforcing ChiefJustice J. Marshall’s Mandated Prohibition from repudiating Government-issued Patent Contract Grants declared in Fletcher v. Peck, 10 U.S. 87 (1810); and affirmed in Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward, 17 U.S. 518 (1819); Grant v. Raymond, 31 U.S. 218 (1832); U.S. v. American Bell Telephone Company, 167 U.S. 224 (1897).” 5. “Whether this Court making it expensive, hazardous and burdensome to have access to the Court for raising Chief Justice Roberts’ foreign loyalty and financial conflicts of interests, with the Court providing no evidence that those valid questions were ‘frivolous and/or malicious’ constitutes ‘misprision of treason,’ further by avoiding the ‘Fletcher Challenge’ and failing to enforce Chief Justice Marshall’s Mandated Prohibition from repudiating Government-issued Patent Contract Grants in Fletcher v. Peck, 10 U.S. 87 (1810); Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward, 17 U.S. 518 (1819); Grant v. Raymond, 31 U.S. 218 (1832); U.S. v. American Bell Telephone Company, 167 U.S. 224 (1897) — Governing Supreme Court Precedents — the Supreme Law of the Land — and owes the inventor/Petitioner an apology. 6. “Whether the Judiciary, Congress and the USPTO concertedly share a common objective enforcing Fletcher, Dartmouth College, with precision and particularity, instigating antitrust.” 7. “Whether the Judiciary did not enforce Fletcher, Dartmouth College because they know why — because enforcing Fletcher, Dartmouth College exposes the entire Patent System, operating as a criminal enterprise, defrauding the public.” 8. “Whether the Notice of Appeal was timely filed on the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday and within the grace period allowed for self-represented Plaintiff while she was suffering from paroxysmal coughing suspected as COVID-19 (with an affirming antibody test) and the Circuit Court denying her the relief and her fundamental right to medical care is obstruction of justice by oppressing her so as to avoid addressing the ‘Fletcher Challenge’ and enforcing Fletcher, which exposes the entire Patent System, operating as a criminal enterprise, defrauding the public.” 9. “Whether the District Court Judge admitting acquiring stock in a litigant during the pendency of a case, thereby losing subject matter jurisdiction in all of the inventor’s cases involving the same patents and/or patents in the same patent portfolio deriving a common priority date, against other patent infringers, constitute a conflict of interest, and not recusing and oppressing the inventor requires him to leave the Bench, making his Orders void.” 10. “Whether failing to enforce Chief Justice Marshall’s Mandated Prohibition from repudiating Government-issued Patent Contract Grants in Fletcher v. Peck, 10 U.S. 87 (1810); Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward, 17 U.S. 518 (1819); Grant v. Raymond, 31 U.S. 218 (1832); U.S. v. American Bell Telephone Company, 167 U.S. 224 (1897) — Governing Supreme Court Precedents — the Supreme Law of the Land — constitutes breach of solemn oath.” 11. “Whether the District Court dismissing without a hearing constitutes a hearing.” 12. “Whether the District Court Judge Ordering the Defendant(s) not to answer the Complaint and Defendant(s) not answering the Complaint constitutes a default win for the Plaintiff.” 13. “Whether the District Court Judge knew or should have known he was compromised and refused to step down due to his bias and self-admitted financial conflicts of interest constitutes breach of conduct and judicial canons, and breached his solemn oath of office in not enforcing Fletcher, Dartmouth College, not becoming of a Judge and his orders are null and void.” 14. “Whether the Court can penalize a citizen/inventor for fighting for her rights and for requesting the Courts to enforce the Mandated Prohibition from repudiating Government-issued Patent Contract Grants in Fletcher v. Peck, 10 U.S. 87 (1810); Trustees of Dartmouth College u. Woodward, 17 U.S. 518 (1819) — the Supreme Law of the Land.” 15. “Whether Judge Andrews must leave the bench for breach of public trust, for not recusing for his financial conflicts of interest, breaching his solemn oath of office in failing to enforce Fletcher, Dartmouth College, for tampering with the record in violation of 18 U.S.C. Section 1512, and oppressing the inventor, denying her access to justice.” 16. “Whether the Court owes Petitioner an apology for falsely dubbing her ‘frivolous and/or malicious’ when Petitioner provided evidence to the contrary that it was the ChiefJustice’s breach of trust requiring him to leave the Bench.” 17. “Whether the Court cannot hide and must make available in the Court docket the Appendix Petitioner provided of ChiefJustice Roberts’ fealty to the Queen of England and to the Pope as a member of the Knights of Malta in conflict of interest with inventors in sending USPTO work to SERCO and QinetiQ Group Pic, both British companies, in services that prejudice the inventor’s patent properties, and his wife’s company placing lawyers at opposing counsel Greenberg Traurig, Winston and Strawn and other large law firms and large Corporations such as IBM, Microsoft.”
