Whether the Federal Circuit or the Fifth Circuit has subject-matter jurisdiction over patent-related disputes involving abandoned but revivable patent applications and the corresponding right to judicial review under Marbury v. Madison

No question identified. : Since favorable relief against Respondent Bravenec in further proceeding in either of those cases would open the way for the vacatur of the order dismissing Jn_re Martin by a court with competent jurisdiction, the need for a separate appeal to this Court is probably attenuated with not obviated by that fact. In other words, if the Court agrees with the showing that Petitioner has already made in Martin v. County of Bexar, or the showing he is proceeding to perfect in Martin v. Bravenec on terms permitted by the Court’s July 13, 2023 letter, the conclusions of fact and law from those cases would substantially dispose of the controversy in Jn _ re Martin, leaving only the terms for in rem relief to be considered, Under the circumstances, it aids the Court’s jurisdiction and judicial promotes interests in economy for the Court to entertain a motion to consolidate the two existing cases, and to allow the filing of a petition for writ of certiorari at a later date; or alternatively, to allow filing of a petition for writ of mandamus in the consolidated proceeding. This way, the Court can address the remedial jurisdiction of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit with an eye toward avoiding constitutional errors from various common issues of first impression relating to 28 USC 1443, 28 USC 1454, 35 USC 123, and 42 USC 1982 and 1985. ARGUMENT Rule 13.5 of the Supreme Court’s rules states that “[flor good cause, a Justice may extend the time to file a petition for writ of certiorari for a period not exceeding 60 days.” The application must establish the basis for jurisdiction in this Court, identify the judgment sought to be reviewed, include a copy of the opinion ... and set out specific reasons why an extension of time is justified. The Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §1257, and also under 28 U.S.C. 1331, 1367 1631, and 1651, as the filing of the petition for Jn re Martin, Case No. 51 falls within ninety days of the last decision in that case on June 20, 2023. The following arguments are presented to establish good cause based on circumstances functionally equivalent to those in which stay relief might ordinarily be considered. There is a strong case for intervention by the Court to conform vafrious proceedings below to doctrine on judicial review in Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803), and to the corresponding rule of law that “subject-matter jurisdiction . involves a court’s power to hear a case [and] can never be forfeited or waived,” United States v. Cotton, 535 U.S. 625, 630 (2002). Both those teachings suggest clear error in the June 20, 2023 order of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. “A finding is ‘clearly erroneous’ when although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” United States v. United States Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 395 (1948). Here, Martin’s filing in Martin v. County of Bexar, Case No. 23-141 establishes a strong case for relief on the merits in the jurisdictional controversy, about whether the Federal Circuit or the Fifth Circuit had competent jurisdiction, based on his ownership of USPTO #13/026, 246, an abandoned but revivable patent application, and his subsequent ownership of USPTO #63/577,255, a pending patent application as of or about April 16, 2023. The controversy over Petitioner‘s patent related interest in quiet title relief will enable Martin to resume prosecution of the abandoned but revivable ‘246 application, and to proceed with the prosecution of the pending ‘255 application. Irreparable harm will inevitably flow in the event relief from the Fifth Circuit order is denied. Cf., Torres ___ (2022). Careful examination of the existing docket in Martin vy County of Bexar, Case No. 141 (S.Ct. 2023) will show that, from 2013 to the present in 2023, Respondent Bravenec harmed the undersigned Petitioner, in his capacity as a cla