Whether the lower court vacating hearings and arbitrarily ordering Petitioner to amend her complaint and the Judge acting as attorney to Defendants ordering them not to answer the amended complaint, comforting them in their breach of solemn oaths of office in not enforcing the Constitution disparately violates an inventor's protected rights to equal access to justice and full and fair opportunity to be heard

QUESTIONS PRESENTED ‘LL Whether the lower court vacating hearings and arbitrarily ordering Petitioner to amend her complaint and the Judge acting as attorney to Defendants ordering them not to answer the amended complaint, comforting them in their breach of solemn oaths of office in not enforcing the Constitution disparately violates an inventor's protected rights to equal access to justice and full and fair opportunity to be heard, as guaranteed by 42U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act; Equal Protection of the Laws Clause of the 14» Amendment, §1; Due Process Clause of the 5 and 14th Amendments; 1st Amendment, Right to Petition the Government for a Redress of Grievances; Vol. XII, Constitutional Law, Chapter 7, Sec. 140. Erroneous and Fraudulent Decisions. Due Process and Equal Protection of Law: Procedure. Sec. 1. Due Process of Law; and Sec. 141. Denying or Hindering Access to the Courts upon the Question of Due Process Itself. 2. Whether the lower courts’ rulings must be overruled, as they violate the Contract and Due Process Clauses of the U.S. Constitution, and failed to consider this Court’s precedential rulings, as declared by Chief Justice Marshall in Fletcher v. Peck, 10 U.S. 87 (1810) that a Grant is a Contract and applies to patent law, and re-affirmed in Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward, 17 U.S. 518 (1819);3 Grant v. Raymond, 31 U.S. 218 (1832); Ogden v. Saunders, 25 U.S. 213 (1827); U.S. v. American Bell Telephone Company, 167 U.S. 224 (1897); Shaw v. Cooper, 32 U.S. 292 (1833); Seymour v. Osborne, 78 U.S. 516 (1870); and Burrow-Giles Lithographic Co. v. Sarony, 111 U.S. 53 (1884); and Federal Circuit’s Aqua Products? reversal of all Orders that failed to consider Patent Prosecution History. 8. Whether the lower Court harassing a 71-year old, disabled female Petitioner/inventor of the Internet of Things — Web applications displayed on a Web browser — a Patriot defending the Constitution, by sending the U.S. Marshall to Petitioner’s home and to accost her at public events at Stanford Law School to intimidate a witness, constitutes a cruel and unusual punishment, in violation of the 8th Amendment and abuse of power under the color of authority, while the Judge breached his solemn oath of office in not abiding by the Law of the Land and comforting the Judiciary in breaching their solemn oaths of office in not enforcing the Law of the Land. 1 Chief Justice Marshall declared in Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward, 17 : U.S. 518 (1819) that: “The law of this case is the law of all... Lower courts ...have . nothing to act upon...” “... applicable to contracts of every description... vested in the individual; ...right...of possessing itself of the property of the individual, when necessary for public uses; a right which a magnanimous and just government will never exercise without amply indemnifying the individual.” 2 Aqua Products, Inc. v. Matal, Fed. Cir. Case 15-1177, October 2017 reversed all Orders that failed to consider “the entirety of the record” — Patent Prosecution History. ii 4, Whether the lower courts can use the U.S. Marshall to intimidate a witness who is a patriot defending the Constitution, in violation of the 8 Amendment to the Constitution. 5. Whether patent rights receive protection pursuant to contracts between inventors and the federal government and the law of the land declared in this Court’s ruling in Fletcher v. Peck, 10 U.S. 87 (1810) that a Grant is a Contract. 6. Whether the lower court Judge followed procedures that provide the litigant her "full and fair opportunity" to participate in the adjudicatory process. 7. Whether the lower courts’ adjudications comply with the minimum procedural requirements of the due process clause — notice and hearing. 8. Whether Petitioner was given a meaningful opportunity to participate in governmental action affecting individual, private rights, to be deemed fairness. 9. Whether this Court’s Oil States? ruling must be overruled for violating the S