1. “Whether the inferior courts arbitrarily claiming collateral estoppel without once proving it applying Supreme Court precedent dating back more than two hundred years or 35USC §282 and suppressing material evidence, thereby adversely dominating the process to prevent Dartmouth College and Fletcher from ever coming before this Court, constitutes denying a citizen due process and access to the courts, violating the 1st, 5th and 14th Amendments, the Bill of Rights, the Separation of Powers, Contract and Appointments Clauses of the Constitution, anti-trust laws and 35 U.S.C. § 282.”
2. “Whether it is within the purview of inferior courts and USPTO to estop a Supreme Court precedent, estop the Constitution, and estop a citizen from being heard without inquiry, where Supreme Court precedent dating back more than two hundred years collaterally estops repeatedly fraudulent and erroneous renditions of the legal and factual basis of a case, in False Official Statements by inferior courts acting as defacto Defendants, thereby adversely dominating the process, and violating basic tenets of due process of law.”
3. “Whereas, it is one thing for the inferior courts and USPTO to abuse and adversely dominate process and procedure, and suppress material evidence thereby defrauding inventors; and, whereas, it is something else entirely to instigate breach of solemn oaths against the Separation of Powers, Appointments and Contract Clauses of the Constitution, that endanger national security, to the manifest injury of the people of the United States, whether this Court to take any action other than dismissing the False Official Statements in the Federal Circuit’s Orders, that lack proof and legal merit and encouraged and resulted in–lawless action against the inventor and the Constitution, causing the rest of the Judiciary to follow suit, would constitute a Bill ofAttainder in violation ofArt. I, Sec. 9, Cl. 3 of the United States Constitution.”
4. Whether Justice Barrett, as the sole Justice with jurisdiction, has a solemn oath duty to enforce the Supreme Law of the Land — this Court’s own Precedent in Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward (1819), Grant v. Raymond (1832), Fletcher v. Peck (1810)—the Prohibition of the Constitution from repudiating Government-issued patent grant contracts, where Chief Justice Roberts recused, seven Justices in silence thereof lost subject matter jurisdiction, whereby the courts and USPTO adversely dominated the process to prevent Dartmouth College and Fletcher from ever coming before this Court, leaving the inventor with rights and no remedy, in violation of the Separation of Powers and Contract Clauses of the Constitution.”
5. “If there is no quorum, whether Justice Barrett is duty-bound to enforce the Supreme Law of the Land—this Court’s stare decisis Prohibition of the Constitution, and, must necessarily subject to judicial inquiry against individuals charged with the transgression, where clerks and judges have no avenue of escape from the paramount authority of the Constitution, when exertion of power has overridden private rights secured by that Constitution.”
6. “Where the inferior courts do not have the authority to reject enforcing this Court’s stare decisis ruling in ‘Fletcher v. Peck,’ or the cast-in-stone ‘Patent Prosecution History Estoppel,’ or the ‘Contract Clause of the Constitution,’ or to reverse the Federal Circuit’s stare decisis Aqua Products’ ruling disparately only in the inventor’s case while giving Microsoft the benefit of Aqua Products, and much less by mere mention of the word(s) ‘Fletcher’ or ‘patent prosecution history estoppel’ or ‘Contracts Clause’ or ‘Aqua Products,’ without once providing any basis in fact or the law, and in breach of solemn oaths to enforce this Court’s stare decisis Prohibition of the Constitution against repudiating patent contract grants, wherein their Orders are downright False Official Statements, so as to prevent Dartmouth College and Fletcher ever coming before this Court, and defaming the inventor as ‘frivolous’ for defending the Constitution and putting them on Notice to enforce the Supreme Law of the Land, oppressing the inventor and making it downright hazardous, expensive and burdensome for the inventor to have access to the courts upon the question of due process itself, and taking away her ECF filing capability, all under adverse domination of process and procedure, depriving the inventor of her 1st, 5th and 14th Amendment rights and property rights, whether this Court’s solemn oath duty to not give such authority to the inferior courts to be in contempt of the Constitution and the law, contrary to facts and the Law of the Case—the Supreme Law of the Land—this Court’s stare decisis Prohibition of the Constitution, as declared in Fletcher v. Peck, Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward, Grant v. Raymond, and patent statutes 35USC §282 makes it necessary for this Court to not be in dishonor by aiding and abetting the inferior courts’ violations of civil and criminal laws and the Constitution, in misprision thereof, in the public’s interest and in the interest of justice, and for Justice Barrett, who is duty-bound, to enforce the Supreme Law of the Land—this Court’s stare decisis Prohibition of the Constitution, and, to necessarily subject to judicial inquiry against those individuals whose exertion of power has overridden private rights secured by the paramount authority of the Constitution from which they have no avenue of escape.”
7. “Whether this Court is going to go along with the same faulty logic as the inferior courts’ Orders, lacking an arguable basis in law or fact and are contrary to law, violating the 1st, 5th and 14th Amendments, 35 U.S.C. § 282 and the Separation of Powers, Appointments and Contract Clauses of the Constitution or bring such lawlessness to an end as in TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC, 581 U.S. 16-341 (1917), 137 S. Ct. 1514, wherein this Court ruled that the Court’s stare decisis Fourco Glass Co. v. Transmirra Products Corp., 353 U.S. 222—226 (1957) holds, reversing the century-long refusal by the Federal Circuit to uphold Fourco,
(a) whereas the courts and USPTO arbitrarily and capriciously revoked construction of the patent grant contract cast in stone and estopped from being revoked by the file history, contrary to this Court’s stare decisis precedent in Festo Corp. v Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co., 535 U.S. 722 (2002);
(b) whereas the inferior courts failed to specify what is collaterally estopped, by what, in their False Claims;
(c) whereas the inferior courts contorted their False Claims by twistifications of what claim in which patent;
(d) whereas the inferior courts failed to examine 213 virgin, non-examined valid claims, in contempt of the presumption of validity of all patent claims, as delineated in the Patent Statute 35USC §282;
(e) whereas the Federal Circuit disparately reversed its own Aqua Products’ reversal of all Orders that failed to consider ‘the entirety of the record’ only in the inventor’s case, but gave Microsoft the benefit of its Aqua Products’ ruling;
(f) whereas the inferior courts ‘acting with an improper purpose and to engage in conduct knowingly and dishonestly with the specific intent to subvert, impede, or obstruct the proceeding,’ and ‘acting with consciousness of wrongdoing;”
(g) whereas the evidence the Federal Circuit court and clerk’s office sought to deny has been material.
(h) whereas the endeavor had the natural and probable effect of interfering with the due administration of justice, in violation of federal criminal laws 18 U.S.C. §§371, 1512, 1513, and 1503, with crime in progress, requiring this Court to compel the inferior courts and USPTO to stop being in dishonor and dereliction of their ministerial duties to abide by their solemn oaths to enforce this Court’s stare decisis Prohibition declared in Dartmouth College and Fletcher, and to timely docket a citizen’s filings and stop tampering with the public record and hand over to the Hearing panel the evidence. material to the case, which they have removed from the docket with intent to deceive the public and to deprive the inventor of her property rights and constitutional rights;
(i) whereby the courts and USPTO adversely dominated the process to prevent this Court’s stare decisis Prohibition of the Constitution from repudiating Government-issued patent contract grants without compensating the inventor, declared in Dartmouth College and Fletcher from ever coming before this Court;
(j) whereas the inferior courts’ Orders constitute downright False Official Statements by operation of law;
(k) whereas the Federal Circuit failed to grant a citizen her protected rights to the benefits of the equal protection of the laws and freedom to petition the Government for redress of grievance in violation of the 1st, 5th and 14th Amendments to the Constitution; and,
(l) whereas the courts and USPTO oppressed a citizen; injured 73-year old, disabled citizen’s health, denying a citizen her fundamental right to health and emergency medical care; and made it expensive, hazardous and burdensome for the citizen to have access to the court and denied her a fair hearing and substantive and procedural due process on the question of due process itself, all in violation of the Constitutional provision. See ALP VOL. 12. CONST. LAW, CH. VII, SEC. 1, §141. With respect to Fundamental, Substantive, and Due Process Itself.”
