In re Arunachalam

Pro Se
Per Curiam

Question(s) Presented

Petition 1:

“Whether it is Sedition that Chief Justice Roberts engaged in 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 Plc, both British companies, in services that prejudice the inventor’s patent properties.”

Petition 2:

  1. “Whether Due Process and Equal Protection of the Law are fundamental guarantees. If so, whether they apply to rights as well as procedures. If not? Why not?”
  2. “Whether courts have a ministerial duty imposed by law, to abide by their solemn oaths of office to enforce the Law of the Land.
  3. “If a ministerial act is not performed, whether a court must issue a writ of mandamus to compel the public official to perform said act.”
  4. “If a ministerial act is not performed, whether a court not issuing a writ of mandamus to compel the public official to perform said act and the court itself failing to perform said ministerial act constitutes denial of Due Process.”
  5. “Whether due process for petitions for writs of mandamus incorporates the presumption of non-authority by the official who is the respondent who has the burden to prove his authority to do or not do a ministerial act, failing which the court has no discretion but to decide for the petitioner.”
  6. “When ministerial acts were not performed by inferior courts, PTAB, Appellate Courts, Supreme Court and clerks of courts, and whereas, the Federal Circuit Court dismissed a petition for writ of mandamus, instead of compelling public official(s) to perform ministerial acts, whether the Federal Circuit Court itself is relieved of its own duty to perform the same said ministerial act of abiding by its solemn oath duty to enforce the Law of the Land. If so, whether the Federal Circuit is setting an example for all tribunals to not perform ministerial acts, thereby perpetuating the denial of due process, by making Fletcher/Dartmouth College a blood clot – a knot – in the flow of justice, enforcement of which allows justice to move forward, whereas, lack thereof leaves the courts as Constitutional tortfeasors, in ill-repute, knowing they have failed in their duty, violates every axiom, civil and criminal law and the Constitution.
  7. “Whether a Judge Ordering a party to not answer the Complaint constitutes a judicial waiver of Default, allowing that party to present itself at appeal.”
  8. “When a party files a Complaint and the Judge issues an Order to dismiss the case after ordering a party to not answer the Complaint, it does not constitute a hearing, even an unfair hearing. Whether this constitutes no process at all.”
  9. “Whether courts not performing their ministerial duty to enforce the Law of the Land in over 100 of Victim’s cases, diminishing the just and fair administration of justice, does not constitute an extraordinary breach by the courts and an extraordinary cause for the Victim, left with rights and no remedy.”

Posts About this Case