Whether the concerted wanton breach of solemn Oaths collectively failing to enforce the Laws of the Land and Stare Decisis Laws of the Case constitutes Treason

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Whether the concerted wanton breach of solemn Oaths collectively failing to enforce the Laws of the Land and Stare Decisis Laws of the Case specifically the ‘Mandated Prohibition’ against repudiating Government issued Grants delineated in Fletcher v. Peck (1810), Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward, 17 U.S. 518 (1819), Grant v. Raymond, 31 U.S. 218 (1832), U.S. v. American Bell Telephone Company, 167 U.S. 224 (1897), Ogden v. Saunders, 25 U.S. 213 (1827) constitutes Treason. 2. Whether the Judiciary and Executive Departments remaining silent as to their solemn Oaths violated the Separation of Powers and Contract Clauses by going along with Congress in the early 1950’s without objection to the creation of the Federal Circuit Court mandated to repudiate Granted Patents per venue by the USPTO/PTAB, contrary to the Mandated Prohibition’ against repudiating Government issued Grants, constituting Treason. 3. Whether the Federal Circuit court in concert with the USPTO/PTAB’s silence as public fraud and treasonous failure to uphold the ‘Mandated Prohibition’ against repudiating Government issued Grants from the early 1950’s through its Aqua Products’! reversal in 2017 disclosing their repudiations were predicated upon Erroneous and Fraudulent Re-examinations that did not consider the terms and constructions of the patented invention — Patent Prosecution History Estoppel repudiated constitutes a Racketeering Enterprise per Judicial filings to date with the Judiciary’s abuses and denials of fair access to any court for entitled Constitutional redress or rightful verified claims. 4, Why do you deem yourselves to have higher standing than Dr. Lakshmi ’ Arunachalam, a Woman? 5. Whether no proof of jurisdiction by the Judiciary places Dr. Lakshmi Arunachalam, a Woman, as sovereign over all the courts, in view of the Judiciary not enforcing this Court’s own decision — the MANDATED PROHIBITION against repudiating Government-issued Patent Contract Grants as delineated in Fletcher V. Peck (1810), Trustees Of Dartmouth College V. Woodward (1819), Grant V. Raymond (1832), U.S. V. American Bell Telephone Company (1897), Ogden V. Saunders (1827) — Governing Supreme Court Precedents — the Supreme Law of the Land and Law of the Case — that 1 Aqua Products Inc. v. Matal, Fed. Cir. 15-1177 (2017) reversed all Court and PTAB rulings that failed to consider “the entirety of the record” —Patent Prosecution History. i declares a Grant is a Contract — where Fletcher v. Peck, 10 U.S. 87 (1810) constitutes contract. : 6. Whether the entire Judiciary’s patterned breach of solemn oaths of office, in dishonor, failing to enforce, first and foremost, above allelse, the MANDATED PROHIBITION against repudiating Government-issued Patent Contract Grants as delineated in Fletcher v. Peck (1810), Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward (1819), Grant v. Raymond (1832), U.S. v. American Bell Telephone Company (1897), Ogden v. Saunders (1827) — Governing Supreme Court Precedents —the Supreme Law of the Land and Law of the Case — after being put on notice, wherein war was actually levied by “a body of assembled for the purpose of effecting by force a treasonable object,” from which Respondents are unjustly enriched by trillions of dollars, a sufficient overt act done with treasonable intent, warranting this Court to resolve what all courts have been avoiding, to stop the fraudulent and seditious administration of patent law as a public fraud perpetrated by all three branches of Government, in cohort with Corporate Infringers, as a racketeering enterprise, in a patently (Manufactured) anti-trust environment, creating a Constitutional emergency, placing national security at risk, leaving no tribunal to enforce the Laws of the Land, requires President Trump to step in and enforce martial law; 7. Whether the Judiciary moving into jurisdiction unknown and engaging in Mutiny by refusing to obey orders or failing to perform duties in a collective