1. “Whether the USPTO/PTAB (the “Agency”) and Federal Circuit were aware of the prohibition of the Constitution mandated by this Court against repudiating Government-issued contract grants prior to the enactment of the America Invents Act.” 2. “Whether enforcing this Court’s Governing Precedents as declared by Chief Justice J. Marshall in Fletcher v. Peck (1810) and Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward, (1819) makes this case even more constitutionally significant in its consequences than Marbury v. Madison.” 3. “Whether nine Justices losing jurisdiction by sedition, misprision of treason and breach of solemn oaths of office requires this Court to send this case to the President to issue an Executive Order to grant the inventor Constitutional redress by ordering Respondents to pay royalties; extend the time period of the patents for another 20 years: destroyed by the Judiciary, USPTO and Congress promoting antitrust by oppressing the inventor and Small Business; void America Invents Act; void all Orders by courts and the PTAB against the inventor; all of which violate the Contract Clause and the Separation of Powers Clause of the Constitution.” 4. “Whether the Supreme Court must order Respondents to pay back illegal profits to prevent unjust enrichment obtained by their illegal and/or unethical acts, upon demand by Petitioner/inventor herewith or by legal compulsion, pursuant to the Disgorgement Law.” 5. “Whether Chief Justice Roberts’ financial conflicts of interest from his wife running a legal recruiting firm placing lawyers at opposing law firms and opposing corporations, IBM, Microsoft, and his recusal from his conflict of interest against inventors as a member of the Knights of Malta require him to leave the bench, voiding all his Orders in any and all inventors’ cases.” 6. “Whether Chief Justice Roberts’ recusal on 5/18/20 and his conflicts of interests require this Court to vacate all of this Court’s Orders in all of Petitioner’s Cases and in Case 18-9383.” 7. “Whether Congress knew, or should have known, that creating the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in 1982 to adjudicate, in corrupt reexamination concert, finally reversed by the Federal Circuit itself in its 2017 Aqua Products v. Matal ruling, its Arthrex and 5/13/20 VirnetX rulings, the USPTO/PTAB’s ‘Breach of conflicting Contract Grant Invalidity Claims’, propounded on behalf of Infringing Respondents to avoid imposed royalties owed Inventor; was, ULTRA VIRES in direct contempt with the stare decisis Law of the Case and Law of the Land, prohibiting repudiations of government-issued grants of any kind even by the highest authority without just compensation; delineated, in the famous case of Fletcher v. Peck, (Et. Seq. 1810); herein, ‘The Fletcher Challenge’; if not.” 8. “Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, and Federal District Court Judges, should have known, procedurally via stare decisis and constitutionally within both letter and spirit of Marbury v. Madison; that, accepting judicial commissions predicated on concerted stare decisis legislative omission, compounded by Judicial and Executive ‘collective silence as fraud’ materially failing to acknowledge, save enforce the Law of the Land and Case; was, a treasonous Breach of Solemn Oaths diminishing competition by repudiating government-issued grants in Breach of Public trust, by deprivation of their reasonable expectation of beneficial use of infringed inventions secured by the converging of silence of nonenforcements, by the three Departments of Government impairing the Contract Clause of the Constitution with concerted precision and collective particularity.” 9. “Whether this Supreme Court knew, or should have known, that its decision in Oil States legitimizing the AIA’s reexamination process had just been reversed by the Federal Circuit opting-out of its concerted participation adjudicating Revolving-Door ‘Reexamination Claims of Granted Patent Invalidity’ in Breach of Public Trust, Contract and Solemn Oaths; disclosing, that the USPTO/PTAB’s administrative findings were erroneously and fraudulently being propounded by corrupted failures to consider, or reconsider, Patent Prosecution History, in express breach of contract, in this Court’s ‘Legitimized Reexamination Process’; reasonably, constituting a no examination process; entitling, Petitioner/Inventor and others similarly situated to Constitutional redress.” 10. “Inventor is entitled to Constitutional redress. If nine Justices lost their jurisdiction by eight Justices remaining silent on Chief Justice Roberts’ conflicts 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, who is left to grant Constitutional redress but the President by Executive Order?” 11. “Whether it is misprision of treason eight Justices remaining silent on 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 and on his financial conflicts of interest from his wife running a legal recruiting firm placing lawyers at opposing law firms and opposing corporations, IBM, Microsoft.” 12. “Whether nine Justices lost jurisdiction by Chief Justice Roberts’ foreign involvement as a member of Knights of Malta in conflict of interest against inventors and failing to enforce this Court’s Governing Precedents as declared by Chief Justice J. Marshall in Fletcher v. Peck (1810) and Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward, (1819).” 13. “Whether the Supreme breach oftrust by the Judiciary. USPTO and Congress in denying American citizens the beneficial use of inventions by breach of contract with inventors violates the Supreme Law ofthe Land as delineated in Governing Supreme Court Precedents that a Patent Grant is a Contract that cannot be repudiated by the highest authority, and there is nothing for the Court to act upon but enforce the Supreme Law of the Land, as declared by Chief Justice John Marshall in Fletcher v. Peck, 10 U.S. 87 (1810) ‘A grant is a contract that cannot be repudiated by the highest authority;’ Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward, 17 U.S. 518 (1819): ‘The law of this case is the law of all… applies to contracts of every description…:’ Grant v. Raymond, 31 U.S. 218 (1832); U.S. v. American Bell Telephone Company, 167 U.S. 224 (1897).” 14. “Whether breach of solemn oaths of office by the Judiciary in not enforcing Governing Supreme Court Precedents — the Supreme Law of the Land as declared by Chief Justice J. Marshall 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), with precision and particularity, willfully and wantonly promoting antitrust by oppressing the inventor and Small Business to rob the inventor of color of significant inventions that have enabled the nation to function remotely during the COVID-19 Pandemic with Instacart.com, Web banking, healthcare Web Apps, social networking, Zoom, and the multitude of Web Apps on iPhone and Android devices, violates the 5th and 14th Amendments and requires the Judiciary to do its duty and enforce the Supreme Law of the Land as declared in Supreme Court Precedents by Chief Justice J. Marshall 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).” 15. “Whether a lower Court Judge Ordering a woman of color who has been robbed of her significant inventions by large Corporations to amend her Complaint to drop any causes of action where the Judge is culpable, ordering her to file falsities to cover the Judge’s misfeasance, non-feasance and malfeasance, and ordering Respondents to not answer the Complaint and then dismissing the Complaint, puts the Defendants in default, and the Orders need to be reversed in favor of the inventor, who has been oppressed by the Judge, acting as attorney to Respondents.” 16. “Whether repudiating a patent contract grant constitutes an erroneously unauthorized adjudicative taking of substantive and fundamental ‘due process’ rights and remedies relied upon by the inventor, warranting constitutional redress.” 17. “Whether repudiating a patent contract grant denying inventors equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of person and property violates the rule of law designed by the framers of the Constitution as a bulwark against oppression limiting the exercise of power and making the agents of the people accountable for revising the Constitution in accordance with their own predilections.” 18. “Whether this Court, the District and Appellate Courts, USPTO and Legislature, tortuously destroying an inventors’ vested rights and remedies, governing patent contract grants, giving superior bargaining power to Corporate Infringers (having no reason to tender royalties owed), denying access to an impartial court upon the question of due process itself by making it difficult, expensive, or hazardous, contravening the ordinary principles of justice, itself warrants Constitutional redress.” 19. “Whether this Court has taken at the bar ‘the distinction between the obligation of a contract and the remedy given by the legislature to enforce that obligation’ so that without impairing the obligation of contracts, ‘the remedy may certainly be modified as the wisdom of ‘a magnanimous and just Government shall direct’ to ‘never exercise the right of possessing itself of the property vested in the individual’ — the inventor — ‘when necessary for public uses’ ‘without amply indemnifying the individual’ — the inventor — by declaring the America Invents Act reexamination provision null and void, as violating the prohibition of the Constitution, and reinstating all granted patents invalidated by said mal-administered re-examination process, and ordering Corporate Infringers to pay the royalties rightfully owed to the inventor, ‘without impairing the obligation of the contract.’ wherein ‘the remedy may certainly be modified as the wisdom of the nation shall direct.’”
