Whether dismissing an appeal when a fee waiver Motion is pending is constitutional

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1, Whether dismissing an appeal when a fee waiver Motion is pending is constitutional. 2. Whether dismissing the appeal after annihilating the record and falsely claiming the Appeal was not prosecuted against evidence} to the contrary, is constitutional. 3. Whether not considering material intrinsic evidence of Patent Prosecution History? makes it an improperly decided case. 4. Whether an improperly decided case? falsely claimed asprecedent and basis for collateral estoppel is constitutional. 5. Whether Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward, 17 U.S. 518 (1819) was properly decided against impairing the obligation of contract. If so, whether not upholding it as stare decisis precedent of this Court is constitutional. 1 Petitioner has evidence that the Opening Appeal Brief and Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss the Appeal were timely delivered by U.S. Overnight Priority Mail and timely received by CAFC. CAFC failed to docket the Opening Appeal Brief. CAFC ; docketed the Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss the Appeal and : removed the same from the docket. 2 Festo Corp. v Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co., 535 U.S. 722 (2002) — Patent Prosecution History Estoppel. 3 Pi-Net International Inc. and Dr. Lakshmi Arunachalam v. JPMorgan Chase & Co.; 2014-1495 (CAFC); 12-282 (D.Del.) ii 6. Whether a Judge holding financial interests in a litigant constitutes an improperly decided case. 7. Whether denying a Case Management Conference to a citizen for 10 years, not permitting the citizen to be a litigant and gagging and sanctioning the citizen, with machinations faking as if the case went to trial, is constitutional 4 Judge Andrews admitted he held direct stock in JPMorgan Chase & Co. in Pi-Net International Inc. v. JPMorgan Chase & Co., 12-282-RGA (D.Del.); 2014-1495 (CAFC); and Arunachalam v. IBM, SAP and JPMorgan Chase & Co., 16-281-RGA (D.Del.); Pi-Net International Inc v. Fulton Financial Corporation, 14490-RGA (D.Del.); PTAB Administrative Judges Brian McNamara and Stephen Siu, per their Financial Disclosure Statements, held stock in Microsoft in Arunachalam v. Microsoft. ili :