United States Supreme court precedent has determined that a party affected by the appellate circuit decision of what they believe to be an improper judicial quorum has standing to challenge its validity Nguyen v. United States 539 U.S. 69; United States v. American-Foreign S.S. Corp., 363 U.S. 685 (1960) even prior to the consideration of the merits. 1. Whether in the absence of clear informed consent by President Biden for use of the auto pen for his signature on judicial nominations and commissions, including the Panel Judge Bloomkatz render them null and void and constitute an improper quorum?

2. Whether President Biden 's delegated use of the auto pen for his signature must clearly be based upon informed consent and specifically identify the individual to which the duty is delegated as discussed in the Scalia and Rhinequist memorandum (Appendix H Vol I p. 64), and be properly documented and recorded in the Federal Registry in accordance with 3 U.S.C. 301, regarding judicial nominations and commissions to establish lawful validity, without which are void and therefore did the judge on the panel with the invalid nomination and commission through autopen use not in accordance with 3 U.S.C. 301 constitute and improper quorum?

3. Whether the statutory executive branch authority of the President to nominate a successor to fill a vacancy of a judge who claims retirement under 28 U.S.C. 371 is unconstitutional if exercised prior to an actual vacancy and therefore null and void and the Panel including Judge Bloomkatz was therefore an improper quorum?

4. Whether senior judges are unconstitutional and violate the appointment clause of the United states constitution and the panel including two senior judges was an improper quorum?

5. Whether judge Gibbons had an independent sua sponte duty to recuse herself from this case where her impartiality could reasonably be questioned, even if no party involved in the case files a motion for recusal, in order for her to comply with the purpose of the duty to protect the integrity of the judicial system and ensure public confidence in the fairness of the courts?

6. Whether lower court judges who refuse to apply the binding Supreme Court precedent which is deemed the constitutional standard to apply , then violate their oath of office to uphold the constitution and the Supreme law of the land rendering their rulings null and void and bars their ability to continue to sit only during times of good behavior as required by the U.S. Constitution?

7. Whether the lower courts must address a party's claims of fraud upon the court by the opposing party to ensure a fair and equal opportunity to be heard as required under the 5th and 14th amendment of the U.S. Constitution?

8. Whether judges have discretion not to comply with the language, of the statute imposing a duty upon (the , court to act and protect ,the • constitutional rights of a party to be given the opportunity to be fully and fairly heard?

Whether the use of an auto-pen signature by President Biden on judicial nominations and commissions without clear informed consent renders them null and void