Whether the U.S. Supreme Court can allow a company to steal a person's copyright ownership, design, drawing and blueprints and secure a patent for the same

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FIRST QUESTION Whether in respect of the Court Justices, the U.S. Supreme Court cannot allow a company to steal a person's copyright ownership, design, drawing and blueprints and secure a patent for the designs and drawings with the same specifications that belong to the Plaintiff and build the project for monetary gain without paying the the Plaintiff compensation for the stolen copyright designs and literary works : project according to Amendment V of the U.S. Constitution. SECOND QUESTION Whether in respect of the Court Justices, the U.S. Supreme Court shall review the Plaintiffs copyright registration of the Water Turbine Energy System Pipeline design, drawings, blueprints and literary works that were registered with the copyright office on May 21, 2001 and March 10, 2003 under Title 17, U.S.C. : §410(a)(c), §411, and §106(3). The Defendant, Lucid Energy Inc., filed for copyright and patent registration in 2007 and 2016 with the same design, drawings, © blueprints and literary works of the Water Turbine Energy System Pipeline with the’ specifications that belong to the Plaintiff that were filed by the Plaintiff in the copyright office in 2001 and 2003 by the Plaintiff. There cannot be two different owners of the same copyrighted project according to Amendment V of the U.S. Constitution and Title 35 U.S.C. §154(a)(4). ii | THIRD QUESTION : Whether in respect of the Court Justices, the U.S. Supreme Court shall or must make a decision regarding the statutory provisions of Article I, § VIII of the U.S. Constitution and the statutory provision of the United States Congress. The Plaintiffs Water Turbine Energy System Pipeline design is protected by the Certificate of Registration of Copyright under Title 17 U.S.C. §411, §410(a) and §106(3) which were filed on May 21, 2001 and March 10, 2003. The Defendant's Water Turbine Energy System Pipeline design was filed in 2007 and 2016 in direct conflict with Title 17 U.S.C. §411, §410(a) and §106(3) and Title 35 U.S.C. §154(a)(4), “Patent Registration and Copyrights.” The Plaintiffs drawings cannot be part of the Defendant's, Lucid Energy Inc., patent drawings which are annexed to the patent and are a part of such patent. The fact is the Plaintiff's original copyright-protected drawings cannot be part of the Defendant's, Lucid Energy, Inc., patent. FOURTH QUESTION Whether in respect of the Court Justices, the U.S. Supreme Court shall hear this case because there cannot be but one Water Turbine Energy System Pipeline design with the same literary works with two different copyright owners with the same drawings, design, blueprints and literary works. Here there are two projects with different registrations in different years and different protections by different iii . statutory provisions from the same Article I, § VIII of the U.S. Constitution. The Laws are clear that the first registration for copyright protection filed with the U.S. Department of Energy and the California Energy Commission shall constitute prima facie evidence of the validity of the copyright and the facts stated in the certificate; the evidentiary weight being accorded to the Certificate of Registration made thereafter shall be within the discretion of the Court. (See