Has Petitioner Franklin's existing stare-decisis patent-rights been addressed or examined in any judiciary court to be enjoined from NRS-40.010-et-seg Quiet-Title-Action relief?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Has Petitioner Franklin’s existing stare decisis patent rights that is published in his certified First Title on the described 80 acres ever been addressed or examined in any judiciary court to be enjoined from NRS 40.010 et seg. Quiet Title Action relief!? . a. Should Respondent Laughlin’s subsequent adverse patent rights on Franklin’s 80 acre estate have been addressed or annulled by the Nevada court(s) for his alleged premeditated fraud?; b. Did his attorney Urga finally document his fabricated and undisputed five counts of “fraud upon the district court minutes” in 2016, that has extorted Franklin’s 80 acre estate into his client D.J. Laughlin’s possession, subject to liability under NRS 207.400, 207.4703; and, c. Have the Nevada courts mistakenly let the Respondents jointly get away with it all, in violation to the due process clause in the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution? DW7pixqaWMC/view gidexs 2eU0/view _ } ii