1. “Whether this Court’s duty to enforce its 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 than Marbury v. Madison.” 2. “Whether breach of solemn oaths of office by the Judiciary not enforcing Governing Supreme Court Precedents 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 Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the 5th and 14th Amendments to the Constitution.” 3. “Whether Congress creating the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in 1982 to invalidate granted patents is 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.’” 4. “Whether Chief Justice Roberts’ recusal on 5/18/20 due to his conflict of interest against inventors as a member of the Knights of Malta, and his financial conflicts of interest from his wife running a legal recruiting firm placing lawyers at opposing law firms and opposing corporations, IBM, Microsoft, require this Court to void all his Orders in all of Petitioner’s Cases and in Case 18-9383 and in any and all inventors’ cases.” 5. “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 remaining silent and failing to enforce this Court’s Governing Precedents as declared by ChiefJustice J. Marshall in Fletcher v. Peck (1810) and Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward, (1819).” 6. “Whether nine Justices losing their jurisdiction by Chief Justice Roberts’ foreign involvement as a member of Knights of Malta in conflict of interest against inventors and remaining silent, leaves the President to grant Constitutional redress to which the inventor in entitled, by Executive Order, to order Corporate Infringers to pay royalties long past overdue to the inventor.” 7. “Whether there is any court that has not lost jurisdiction to order Corporate Infringers to pay back illegal profits to prevent unjust enrichment obtained by illegal or unethical acts, upon demand by Petitioner/inventor herewith or by legal compulsion, pursuant to the Disgorgement Law.” 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 patented 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 Court has anything 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); and U.S. v. American Bell Telephone Company, 167 U.S. 224 (1897).” 10. “Whether the Judiciary not enforcing Governing Supreme Court Precedents is constitutionally insane for causing inventors to lose their patents when all the laws — Law of the Case, which ChiefJustice J. Marshall declared is the law of all, and is the Law ofthe Land — are on the inventor’s side.” 11. “Whether said Constitutional insanity now requires this Court to provide the remedy, and amply indemnify the inventor and order just compensation by the Corporate Infringers, whether it reverses itself or not and continues with the mal-administration by the USPTO.” 12. “Whether the Judiciary breaching its solemn oath, impairing the obligation of contracts violating the prohibition of the Constitution mandated by this Court against repudiating government-issued contract grants usurped the Law of the Land in violation of the Separation of Powers Clause and the 14th Amendment, §3.” 13. “Whether the Judiciary breaching its solemn oath, impairing the obligation of contracts violating the prohibition of the Constitution and failing to ensure the federal government’s faithful execution of the solemn promise made by the United States to protect the contract basis for intellectual property rights crystallized the quagmire of Constitutional redress a citizen is entitled to but denied, with the Law of the Case and Law of the Land on the inventor’s side.” 14. “Whether this Court’s Alice and Oil States’ rulings are erroneous and fraudulent and must be reversed, for failing to apply stare decisis Governing Supreme Court Precedents — the Supreme Law of the Land — the Mandated Prohibition from repudiating Government-issued contract grants of any kind, declared by Chief Justice Marshall in Fletcher v. Peck, 10 U.S. 87 (1810); Trustees of Dartmouth College u. Woodward, 17 U.S. 518 (1819); and Grant v. Raymond, 31 U.S. 218 (1832).”
