Whether Arthrex a hoax does not control be foreclosed from deciding appointment clause problem instead is Field v. Clark 143 US 649 (1892) that controls

No question identified. : No. In the Supreme Court of the United States ALBERTO SOLAR & WHO, Petitioners v THE COCA-COLA COMPANY, Respondent & UNITED STATES, Respondent On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI BEFORE JUDGMENT /ASUS/ ALBERTO SOLAR-SOMOHANO/ Petitioner 736 SE 8" Place Miami, Fl. 33101 (561)595-8547 solar@coca.life June 7", 2021 (i) QUESTIONS OF UNCONSTITUTIONAL MAGNITUDE This case this Court needs to take the perfect case*for the sake of it all the following is at stack: | Whether Arthrex a hoax does not control be foreclosed from deciding appointment clause problem instead is Field | v. Clark 143 US 649 (1892) that controls for the cause of it | all was the enrolled bill of 2002 Property High Technology | Technical Amendments Act was not the engrossed bill | passed by both houses. Whether Field v. Clark 143 US 649 (1892) can no-longer stand if the enrolled bill is not the engrossed bill that was passed by both houses. Whether this Court w/o jurisdiction to even issue any | remedy at all for only belonging to Congress to fix for the ' law that was passed by Congress was not the law signed enacted by the President. Whether if this Court does not grant this case review affirming government’s 2" question of Arthrex then it is in fact was the fact that Arthrex was the fact a coverup. oe This case did what this Court said onlyway this Court can hear the case to resolve it all which Petitioner did in fact since of 2015 did presented-preserve the constitutional objection challenge to the Trial Appeal Board pursuant to Rydar v. U.S., 515 US 177 (1995) “the Patent-Trademark Judges are principle officers appointed by the President for it was Congress's intent that they are must be” @ QUESTIONS OF UNCONSTITUTIONAL MAGNITUDE This case this Court needs to take the perfect case*for the sake of it all the following is at stack: Whether Arthrex a hoax does not control be foreclosed from deciding appointment clause problem instead is Field v. Clark 143 US 649 (1892) that controls for the cause of it all was the enrolled bill of 2002 Property High Technology Technical Amendments Act was not the engrossed bill passed by both houses. Whether Field v. Clark 143 US 649 (1892) can no-longer stand if the enrolled bill is not the engrossed bill that was passed by both houses. Whether this Court w/o jurisdiction to even issue any remedy at all for only belonging to Congress to fix for the law that was passed by Congress was not the law signed enacted by the President. Whether if this Court does not grant this case review affirming government’s 2" question of Arthrex then it is in fact was the fact that Arthrex was the fact a coverup. oo This case did what this Court said onlyway this Court can hear the case to resolve it all which Petitioner did in fact since of 2015 did presented-preserve the constitutional objection challenge to the Trial Appeal Board pursuant to Rydar v. U.S., 515 US 177 (1995) “the Patent-Trademark Judges are principle officers appointed by the President for it was Congress's intent that they are must be” (ii)