1. Whether the concerted wanton breach of solemn Oaths collectively failing to
enforce the Laws of the Land and Stare Decisis Laws of the Case specifically
the 'Mandated Prohibition ' against repudiating Government issued Grants
delineated in Fletcher v. Peck (1810), Trustees of Dartmouth College v.
Woodward, 17 U.S. 518 (1819), Grant v. Raymond, 31 U.S. 218 (1832), U.S. v.
American Bell Telephone Company, 167 U.S. 224 (1897), Ogden v. Saunders,
25 U.S. 213 (1827) constitutes Treason.

2. Whether the Judiciary and Executive Departments remaining silent as to their
solemn Oaths violated the Separation of Powers and Contract Clauses by going
along with Congress in the early 1950 's without objection to the creation of the
Federal Circuit Court mandated to repudiate Granted Patents per venue by
the USPTO/PTAB, contrary to the 'Mandated Prohibition ' against repudiating
Government issued Grants, constituting Treason.

3. Whether the Federal Circuit court in concert with the USPTO/PTAB 's silence
as public fraud and treasonous failure to uphold the 'Mandated Prohibition '
against repudiating Government issued Grants from the early 1950 's through
its Aqua Products '1 reversal in 2017 disclosing their repudiations were
predicated upon Erroneous and Fraudulent Re-examinations that did not
consider the terms and constructions of the patented invention — Patent
Prosecution History Estoppel repudiated constitutes a Racketeering
Enterprise per Judicial filings to date with the Judiciary 's abuses and denials
of fair access to any court for entitled Constitutional redress or rightful verified
claims.

4. Why do you deem yourselves to have higher standing than Dr. Lakshmi
Arunachalam, a Woman?

5. Whether no proof of jurisdiction bv the Judiciary places Dr. Lakshmi
Arunachalam. a Woman, as sovereign over all the courts, in view of the
Judiciary not enforcing this Court 's own decision — the MANDATED
PROHPBPTPON against repudiating Government-issued Patent Contract
Grants as delineated in Fletcher V. Peck (1810), Trustees Of Dartmouth College
V. Woodward (1819), Grant V. Raymond (1832), U.S. V. American Bell
Telephone Company (1897), Ogden V. Saunders (1827) — Governing Supreme
Court Precedents — the Supreme Law of the Land and Law of the Case — that
declares a Grant is a Contract — where Fletcher v. Peck, 10 U.S. 87 (1810)
constitutes contract.

6. Whether the entire Judiciary 's patterned breach of solemn oaths of office, in
dishonor, failing to enforce, first and foremost, above all else, the MANDATED
PROHIBITION against repudiating Government-issued Patent Contract
Grants as delineated in Fletcher v.

Whether the concerted wanton breach of solemn Oaths collectively failing to enforce the Laws of the Land and Stare Decisis Laws of the Case constitutes Treason