Whether the Supreme Court should enforce the mandated prohibition against repudiating government-issued patent contract grants as delineated in governing Supreme Court precedents

QUESTIONS PRESENTED PREAMBLE #1: JURISDICTION I, Dr. Lakshmi Arunachalam, a Woman, one of We, The People, of the State of California and of the United States of America, and inventor of the Internet of Things —Web Apps displayed on a Web browser — in This Common Law Court of Record, Order The Supreme Court of The United States to Enforce 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 — And Stop All Wrongdoers And Respondents from Breaching Their Solemn Oaths of Office And Making It Hazardous, Expensive And Burdensome for Me to Have Access to The Court In Violation of Due Process, All In Violation of The Constitution, Entitling Me To Constitutional Redress, As Per ALP VOL. 12. CONST. Law, CH. Vil, SEC. 1, §141. I, Dr. Lakshmi Arunachalam, a Woman, Order The Supreme Court of The United States To Take This Case Under Original Jurisdiction, As The Entire Judiciary Has Lost Jurisdiction By Breaching Their Solemn Oaths of Office. Their Orders are Void. You Wrongdoers and Respondents of the Supreme Court of the United States lost your jurisdiction by breaching your solemn oaths of office and therefore, are not the tribunal, — I_am the tribunal, I am the only Woman who has jurisdiction to rule on my case(s). The judgment is void for want of jurisdiction. This Court has no jurisdiction, because the Respondents failed to apply that a grant is a contract which the grantor cannot vacate. What other tribunal is there to exercise this jurisdiction? This is now a common law court. Iam the claimant, I am the tribunal of the Court, I am the prosecutor in this Court. I, Dr. Lakshmi Arunachalam, a Woman, Order the Wrongdoers and Respondents to stop imposing artificial procedures after losing jurisdiction and to stop avoiding enforcing the MANDATED PROHIBITION against repudiating Government-Issued Patent Contract Grants as delineated in Fletcher and Governing Supreme Court Precedents. I, Dr. Lakshmi Arunachalam, a Woman, hereby Order that enforcing the MANDATED PROHIBITION against repudiating Government-Issued Patent Contract Grants as delineated in Fletcher and Governing Supreme Court Precedents — the Supreme Law of the Land and Law of the Case — is the sole issue and undisputed material fact and Law, integral to all of my cases and prima facie evidence of the validity of all of my claims. qn The Wrongdoers and Respondents quashing access under color of law to hide their compromise all violate the Constitution. See With respect to Fundamental, Substantive, and Due Process Itself: “Any process or Court attempting to or adjudicating a contract by estopping a material part of it from being considered prima facie denies a litigant due process entitlement to an honest, though not learned tribunal; and if injured by the corruption or fraud of the court is entitled to redress.” [ALP VoL. 12. Const. Law, CH. VII, SEC. 1, § 140]; “and final decisions upon the ultimate question of due process cannot be conclusively ; codified to any non-judicial tribunal. Any attempt to do this whether by direct denial of access to the courts upon this question of due process by hindering access to the courts or making resort to the courts upon it_ difficult, expensive, hazardous, all alike violate the Constitutional provision.” [ALP VOL. 12. CONST. LAW, CH. VII, SEc. 1, §141] I, Dr. Lakshmi Arunachalam, a Woman, one of the People of We, The People, of California and the United States of America, and inventor of the Internet of Things — Web Apps displayed on a Web browser — as the aggrieved, require the use of this venue, as a Court of Record, to seat a jury of which I move my Claim before, in order to determine and render a verdict. There is nothing for the co