1. Whether Justice Barrett, as the last standing
Justice with original jurisdiction, with the same
duty and oath as the lower courts to enforce the
Supreme Law of the Land — this Court 's own stare
decisis Mandated Prohibition from repudiating
Government-issued patent grant contracts,
declared in Trustees of Dartmouth College v.
Woodward (1819), Grant v. Raymond (1832),
Fletcher v. Peck (1810), must accept and grant this
Emergency Petition for Writ of Mandamus, in the
interest of justice, failing which she has a solemn
oath duty to do judicial inquiry of the Federal
Circuit court 's and clerks ' violations of federal
criminal laws 18 U.S.C. §§ 371, 1512, 1513 and
1503, and breach of solemn oaths, where Chief
Justice Roberts recused, seven Justices in silence
thereof lost subject matter jurisdiction, and failed
in their ministerial duty to abide by their solemn
oath duty to enforce the Constitution, whereby the
courts and USPTO adversely dominated the
process to prevent Dartmouth College and Fletcher
from ever coming before this Court, leaving the
inventor with rights and no remedy, in violation of
the Separation of Powers 1 and Contract Clauses of
the Constitution.

2. Where the Federal Circuit oppressively required
Petitioner to seek leave of Court to file papers,
made False Official Statements with no iota of
evidence that Petitioner is "frivolous, " "malicious, "
"vexatious " for fighting for her property rights and
Constitutional rights — yet failed to submit to the
Hearing Panel Petitioner 's timely submitted
Memorandum in Lieu of Oral Argument as per its
own Order authorizing Petitioner to file, and
arbitrarily removed it from the docket a day after
the Panel Hearing, with False Official Statements
that she did not seek leave to file and that the court
docketed it in error, defrauding the Court by
suppressing material 2 evidence, and whereas it
disparately reversed only in the inventor 's case its
own Aqua Products ' reversal of Orders that failed
to consider "the entirety of the record " but gave
Defendants Microsoft and the USPTO the benefit
of its Aqua Products ' ruling, whereby the Federal
Circuit adversely dominated the process to
prevent Dartmouth College and Fletcher from ever
coming before this Court , whether such process
disorder constitutes abuse of process and denial of
due process, fair hearing and access to the courts
to petition the Government for redress of
grievance, and denial of equal protection of the
laws, all in violation of the 1st, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, and
14th Amendments of the Constitution, entitling
Petitioner to Constitutional redress; and further
constitutes evidence of violation of federal criminal
laws 18U.S.C. §§371, 1512, 1513, and 1503, and
breach of solemn oaths, "acting with an improper
purpose and to engage in conduct knowingly and
dishonestly with the specific intent to subvert.
impede, or obstruct the proce

Whether Justice Barrett must accept and grant this Emergency Petition for Writ of Mandamus