Whether the lower courts denying a citizen due process — a Hearing and an unbiased Judge, voids their Orders and no preclusive effect attaches

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Whether the lower courts denying a citizen due process — a Hearing and an unbiased Judge, voids their Orders and no preclusive effect attaches. 2. Whether a Judge must be subject to judicial inquiry when the Judge’s exertion of power has overridden private rights secured by the Constitution. 3. Whether a Judge’s use of the U.S. Marshall to intimidate a witness constitutes a transgression subject to judicial inquiry. : 4. Whether it is the duty of the Court to maintain and enforce the inventor’s right by the law of the contract without any unreasonable delay. 5. Whether this Court’s obligation to defend the Constitution by solemn oath requires that Oil States! be judged by the standards of the Constitution and be overruled, as impairing the obligation of the Patent Grant contract between the inventor and the Federal Government, and denying due process to inventors because there can be no rights without remedies. 6. Whether this Court’s obligation to defend the Constitution by solemn oath requires that this Court’s precedential rulings? that a Grant is a Contract and applies to Patent Grant contracts, be judged by the standards of the Constitution. 7. Whether this Court’s obligation to defend the Constitution by solemn oath requires that America Invents Act (“AIA”) be judged by the standards of the Constitution and be declared unconstitutional as impairing the obligation of the Patent Grant contract between the inventor and the Federal Government. 8. Whether Judges being oath-bound to defend the Constitution requires that Fletcher’ be judged by the standards of the Constitution. 1 Oil States Energy Services, LLC v. Greene's Energy Group, LLC, 584 U.S. 16-712 (2018). 2 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); 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); Burrow-Giles Lithographic Co. v. Sarony, 111 U.S. 53 (1884). 3 Fletcher v. Peck, 10 U.S. 87 (1810), Chief Justice Marshall declared that a Grant is a Contract. ii 9. Whether the lower courts’ decisions, based on a premise that a Grant is nota Contract, violate an inventor’s protected civil and constitutional rights to equal access to justice and full and fair opportunity to be heard; to Patent Statutes that requires the Corporate Infringers to provide the burden of proof of “clear and convincing evidence” of patent invalidity; to Patent Prosecution History; to Federal Circuit’s Aqua Products’4 reversal of Orders that failed to consider “the entirety of the record” — Patent Prosecution History— and this Court’s precedential rulings’ that a Grant is a Contract and applies to Patent Grant contracts. 10. Whether the lower courts are obligated by their solemn oaths of office to enforce the law of the land declared in this Court’s precedential rulings that a Grant is a Contract and applies to Patent Grant contracts. 11. Whether the lower court Judge Davila relating every one of Petitioner’s cases in the Northern District of California even from Judge Alsup, whose specialty is Antitrust, to Judge Davila’s court, and vacating the hearing and dismissing each and every one of cases, is a Solicitation to Corporate Infringers to come to his Court to dismiss all of Petitioner’s cases, and is prima facie evidence of bias against race, color, gender, age, disability, in violation of 42U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act and an appearance of impropriety, if not outright impropriety. 12. Whether the lower court comforting the Defendants in anti-trust violations, arbitrarily ordering Petitioner/inventor to amend her complaint and the Judge acting as attorney to Defendants ordering them not to answer the amended complaint, vacating hearings and dismissing the case, and the lower District and Appellate Court Judges themselves breaching their solemn oaths