Whether the inferior courts arbitrarily claiming collateral estoppel without once proving it nor applying Supreme Court precedent dating back more than two hundred years or 35USC §282 and suppressing material evidence, thereby adversely dominating the process to prevent Dartmouth College and Fletcher from ever coming before this Court, constitutes denying a citizen due process and access to the courts, violating the 1st, 5+ and 14th Amendments, the Bill of Rights, the Separation of Powers, Contract and Appointments Clauses of the Constitution, anti-trust laws and 35 U.S.C. § 282

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Whether the inferior courts arbitrarily claiming collateral estoppel without once proving it nor applying Supreme Court precedent dating back more than two hundred years or 35USC §282 and suppressing material evidence}, thereby adversely dominating the process to prevent Dartmouth College and Fletcher from ever coming before this Court, constitutes denying a citizen due process and access to the courts, violating the 1st, 5+ and 1 wherein material evidence includes at least: a. Prima facie intrinsic evidence of th terms and conditions of the patent grant in Patent Prosecution History; b. This Court’s own stare decisis Mandated Prohibition of the Constitution against repudiating Government-issued patent grant contracts, declared in Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward (1819), Grant v. Raymond (1832), Fletcher v. Peck (1810); c. All claims in patents-in-suit, not examined, as per 85USC §282: “Each claim of a patent (whether in independent, dependent, or multiple dependent form) ; shall be presumed valid independently of the validity of other claims; dependent or multiple dependent claims shall be presumed valid even though dependent upon an invalid claim. The burden of establishing invalidity of a patent or any claim thereof shall rest on the party asserting such invalidity,” and must be proven with “clear and convincing evidence.” d. Expert opinions by Stanford’s Dr. Markus Covert and Dr. Jay Tenenbaum proving that Petitioner’s patent claim terms are not indefinite, nor patent claims collaterally estopped, as per the court’s False Official Statements; e. Witness testimony of the courts’ failure to perform their ministerial duties to abide by their solemn oaths; and, f. USPTO’s unconstitutionally appointed judges (APJs) to perform the function of the Judiciary, violating the Separation of Powers, Contract and Appointments Clauses of the Constitution. ut 14th Amendments, the Bill of Rights, the . Separation of Powers, Contract and Appointments Clauses of the Constitution, anti-trust laws and 35 U.S.C. § 282. 2. Whether it is within the purview of inferior courts and USPTO to estop a Supreme Court precedent, estop the Constitution, and estop a citizen from being heard without inquiry, where Supreme Court precedent dating back more than two hundred years collaterally estops repeatedly fraudulent and erroneous renditions of the legal and factual basis of a case, in False Official Statements? by inferior courts acting as defacto Defendants’, thereby adversely dominating the process, and violating basic tenets of due process of law. 3. Whereas, it is one thing for the inferior courts and USPTO to abuse and adversely dominate process and procedure, and suppress material evidence thereby defrauding inventors; and, whereas, it is something else entirely to instigate breach of solemn oaths against the Separation of Powers, Appointments and Contract Clauses of the 2 The Federal Circuit willfully made false allegations that it rejected Fletcher, Aqua Products, Patent Prosecution History Estoppel, the Contracts Clause, Judge Andrews’ failure to recuse, by mere mention, without stating when and on what grounds, while glaringly omitting that Judge Andrews himself admitted direct stock holding in a litigant JPMorgan Chase & Co. and that the three Branches of Government violated the Separation of Powers and Contract Clauses of the Constitution. 3 Defendants were in default, where the inferior courts put the Defendants in dishonor to not answer the inventor's Complaint or Appeal iii ; Constitution, that endanger national security, to the manifest injury of the people of the United States, whether this Court to take any action other than dismissing the False Official Statements‘ in the Federal Circuit’s Orders, that lack proof and legal merit and encouraged and resulted in — lawless action against the inventor and the Constitution, causing the rest of the Judiciary to follow suit, would constitute a Bill of Attainder