Whether Justice Barrett must accept and grant this Emergency Petition for Writ of Mandamus

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Whether Justice Barrett, as the last standing Justice with original jurisdiction, with the same duty and oath as the lower courts to enforce the Supreme Law of the Land — this Court’s own stare decisis Mandated Prohibition from repudiating Government-issued patent grant contracts, declared in Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward (1819), Grant v. Raymond (1832), Fletcher v. Peck (1810), must accept and grant this Emergency Petition for Writ of Mandamus, in the interest of justice, failing which she has a solemn oath duty to do judicial inquiry of the Federal Circuit court’s and clerks’ violations of federal criminal laws 18 U.S.C. §§ 871, 1512, 1513 and 1503, and breach of solemn oaths, where Chief Justice Roberts recused, seven Justices in silence thereof lost subject matter jurisdiction, and failed in their ministerial duty to abide by their solemn oath duty to enforce the Constitution, whereby the courts and USPTO adversely dominated the process to prevent Dartmouth College and Fletcher from ever coming before this Court, leaving the inventor with rights and no remedy, in violation of the Separation of Powers! and Contract Clauses of the Constitution. 1 Congress enacted the America Invents Act (AIA) for the Executive Branch (USPTO) to perform the function of the I . Judiciary by USPTO’s unconstitutionally appointed judges (APJs) in violation of the Separation of Powers, Contract and iv 2. Where the Federal Circuit oppressively required Petitioner to seek leave of Court to file papers, made False Official Statements with no iota of evidence that Petitioner is “frivolous,” “malicious,” “vexatious” for fighting for her property rights and Constitutional rights — yet failed to submit to the Hearing Panel Petitioner’s timely submitted Memorandum in Lieu of Oral Argument as per its own Order authorizing Petitioner to file, and arbitrarily removed it from the docket a day after the Panel Hearing, with False Official Statements that she did not seek leave to file and that the court docketed it in error, defrauding the Court by suppressing material? evidence, and whereas it disparately reversed only in the inventor's case its own Aqua Products’ reversal of Orders that failed to consider “the entirety of the record” but gave Defendants Microsoft and the USPTO the benefit Appointments Clause of the Constitution— in contempt of the stare decisis Mandated Prohibition of the Constitution —against repudiating government-issued patent contract grants, as declared by Chief Justice Marshall in Dartmouth College and Fletcher —to fast-track invalidate granted patents in a corrupted re-examination process, without considering material prima facie intrinsic evidence — Patent Prosecution History, which is no re-examination at all. Congress created the Federal Circuit in 1982 to invalidate granted patents, in contempt of this Court’s Mandated Prohibition —the Supreme Law of the Land. 2 Material prima facie intrinsic evidence and expert opinions by Stanford’s Dr. Markus Covert and Dr. Jay Tenenbaum that : Petitioner’s patent claims are not invalid nor collaterally estopped, as per the court’s False Claims and False Official Statements, and witness testimony of the courts’ breach of solemn oaths. v of its Aqua Products’ ruling, whereby the Federal Circuit adversely dominated the process to prevent Dartmouth College and Fletcher from ever coming before this Court, whether such process disorder constitutes abuse of process and denial of , due process, fair hearing and access to the courts to petition the Government for redress of grievance, and denial of equal protection of the laws, all in violation of the 1st, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th. and 14th Amendments of the Constitution, entitling Petitioner to Constitutional redress; and further constitutes evidence of violation of federal criminal laws 18U.S.C. §§371, 1512, 1513, and 1508, and breach of solemn oaths, “acting with an improper purpose and to engage in conduct knowingly an