Whether Chief Justice Roberts' conflict of interest as a member of the Knights of Malta prejudices inventors' patent rights

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Whether it is “misprision of treason” that eight Justices remained silent of Chief Justice Roberts’ 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 Pic, both British companies, in services that prejudice the inventor's patent properties. 2. Whether an impartial Supreme Court still exists to rule on any inventor’s cases, after Chief Justice Roberts recused due to his conflict of interest as a member in the Knights of Malta and eight Justices remained silent on Chief Justice Roberts’ membership in that foreign organization, and failed to enforce Chief Justice Marshall's Mandated Prohibition from repudiating Governmentissued Patent Contract Grants in Fletcher v. Peck, 10 U.S. 87 (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) — Governing Supreme Court Precedents — the Supreme Law of the Land. 8. Whether this Case and all of Cases, which are all predicated upon the Court failing to enforce Chief Justice Marshall’s Mandated Prohibition from repudiating Government-issued Patent Contract Grants in Fletcher v. Peck, 10 U.S. 87 (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) — Governing Supreme Court Precedents — the Supreme Law ofthe Land, must be referred to the President to ensure the inventor's right to Constitutional redress, to void all unconstitutional Orders and restore the inventor’s patents to their original pristine condition. 4. Whether Chief Justice Roberts must leave the bench for breach of public trust, from his financial conflict of interest by his wife placing attorneys at large law firms such as opposing counsel Winston and Strawn and Greenberg Traurig and large Corporations such as IBM, Microsoft, and breach of solemn oath of office in not enforcing Chief Justice J. Marshall’s Mandated Prohibition from repudiating Government-issued Patent Contract Grants declared in Fletcher v. Peck, 10 U.S. 87 (1810); and affirmed in 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). . 5. Whether this Court making it expensive, hazardous and burdensome to have access to the Court for raising Chief Justice Roberts’ foreign loyalty and financial conflicts of interests, with the Court providing no evidence that those valid questions were “frivolous and/or malicious” constitutes “misprision of treason,” further by avoiding the “Fletcher Challenge” and failing to enforce It Chief Justice Marshall’s Mandated Prohibition from repudiating Governmentissued Patent Contract Grants in Fletcher v. Peck, 10 U.S. 87 (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) -— Governing Supreme Court Precedents — the Supreme Law of the Land — and owes the inventor/Petitioner an apology. 6. Whether the Judiciary, Congress and the USPTO concertedly shareacommon objective — to remain silent as fraud, willfully and wantonly avoiding enforcing Fletcher, Dartmouth College, with precision and particularity, instigating antitrust. 7. Whether the Judiciary did not enforce Fletcher, Dartmouth College because they know why — because enforcing Fletcher, Dartmouth College exposes the entire Patent System, operating as a criminal enterprise, defrauding the public. : 8. Whether the Notice of Appeal was timely filed on the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday and within the grace period allowed for self-represented Plaintiff while she was suffering from paroxysmal coughing | suspected as COVID-19! (with an affirming antibody test) and the Circuit Court denying h