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).

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 Defendants
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 Plaintiffs 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
drawings, design, blueprints and literary works. Here there are two projects with
different registrations in different years and different protections by differentsame
in

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

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