Whether U.S. Agencies may commit fraudulent acts to obstruct and delay applications

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Whether U.S. Agencies, in particular the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), may under law render shoddy, arbitrary, capricious and dishonest service to citizens and customers, especially with deliberate intent to retaliate for customer/citizen complaints and deliberate intent to obstruct legitimate access to government services and protections, and especially when Federal Law and Regulation (cited herein) imposes felony penalties for similar actions committed by customer/citizens against the U.S. Government, including: falsifying documents; falsifying claims of missing parts of applications; falsifying material facts; falsifying the results of examinations; retaliating for past complaints; and rendering incompetent service, including the use of junk science and junk engineering in specious objections to customer/citizen applications. 2. Whether U.S. Agencies may use such fraudulent means to obstruct and delay applications, with the intent of forcing them into further appeals, as with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), including as a means to extract more fees from the citizen/customer so defrauded. 3. Whether a U.S. Agency may use such tactics to convince any applicant to “abandon” his or her application after non-refundable fees have been paid. 4. Whether the evidence shows that the USPTO has in fact committed one, some, or all of these acts, as charged in this Complaint. 5. Whether U.S. Federal Courts may allow U.S. Agencies to commit such felonious and fraudulent acts, merely because the complainant, who may not be able to afford or obtain a lawyer, does not fully know how file a complaint, either with the Agencies or with the Courts, including the Courts cherry-picking Patent Code procedures to dismiss complaints, when the worst offenses of U.S. Agencies are covered by Federal Law and Regulation outside the Patent Code. ; 6. Whether the long-accepted concept of “judicial notice” is deeply flawed, and has severely damaged the administration of equal justice, by preventing Courts and Judges from acknowledging the horrible consequences of bad decisions, or even being aware of them, such as in Buck v. Bell, which Hitler used to start the _ Holocaust, and which caused and allowed poor and colored people to be involuntarily sterilized into the 1970s, often without their knowledge or consent, thus fomenting a silent and hidden genocide of denied descendants. 7, Whether this Court will at long last tear from the bosom of its Stare Decisis the Hitler-approved stain of Buck v. Bell and its subsequent enabling Decisions. 8. Whether the long-accepted judicial practice nullifying Pro Se complaints on the basis of errors in procedure equates to denying medical aid to those with developmental disabilities on the basis that they cannot correctly describe their medical conditions or give a proper differential diagnosis upon which a medical Doctor may act. ‘ 9. Whether maintaining Buck v. Bell, directly descended in language and rationale from Scott v. Sanford, as stare decisis ensures that such evils of racism, bigotry, police brutality and the abuses of those with mental illness, can never die, so long as Buck v. Bell is upheld. 10. Whether the practice of denying equal justice to those who cannot find or afford lawyers, or who just don’t trust them, has made lawyers into a super-privileged caste, not unlike those Medieval Priests who kept a jealous guard over access to God, and sold indulgences for the forgiveness of sins. -ii 11. Whether either hypothetical arguments are proof, argument can substitute for truth and procedure can substitute for justice, or we all deserve equal, honest and reliable ‘ justice, just for the asking. 12. Whether Judges, like Doctors, should be made to swear, “First, do no harm.”