Whether Chief Justice Roberts engaged in conflict of interest against inventors as a member of the Knights of Malta with fealty to the Queen of England who controls SERCO and QinetiQ Group Ple

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1, Whether it is Sedition that Chief Justice Roberts engaged in conflict of interest against inventors as a member of the Knights of Malta with fealty to the Queen of England who controls SERCO and QinetiQ Group Ple, both British companies, in services that prejudice the inventor’s patent properties. 2. Whether it is Mutiny to concertedly wantonly breach solemn Oaths even upon Verified Claim of Trespass and Judgment in the common law Court of Record, by the entire Judiciary, collectively failing to enforce Governing Supreme Court Precedent Laws of the Case — the Supreme Law of the Land — 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), and engaging in oppression of elderly inventor of the Internet of Things — Web Apps displayed on a Web browser — by denying her ECF filing and fundamental rights to emergency medical care from a head injury without paying filing fees when all the other Courts had granted her IFP status, and denying her Appellate Review by both the Fifth and Federal Circuit Courts, in violation of the Contract Clause, Separation of Powers and Takings Clauses and lawful due process of the Constitution. 3. Whether the entire Judiciary’s patterned breach of solemn Oaths, in dishonor, creating a Constitutional emergency, placing national security at risk, has left no tribunal to enforce the Laws of the Land, save the inventor, Dr. Lakshmi Arunachalam, a woman, as the sole tribunal to rule on this case, converting this Court to a common law Court of Record, as this Court lost its jurisdiction by the Judiciary’s abuses and denials of fair access to any court for entitled Constitutional redress, to avoid 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), — Governing Supreme Court Precedent Laws of the Case — the Supreme Law of the Land — in cohort with Corporate Infringers, as a racketeering enterprise, in_a patently (Manufactured) antitrust environment. 4. Whether the injury done to the Constitution by the Judiciary can be adequately redressed only by both payment of royalties by the Corporate Infringers long due to the inventor for infringement and theft of her significant inventions and patent properties, and, enforcement of Governing Supreme Court Precedent Laws of the Case — the Supreme Law of the Land — the MANDATED PROHIBITION against repudiating n 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). iii