1. Whether the inferior courts arbitrarily claiming
collateral estoppel without once proving it
applying Supreme Court precedent dating back
more than two hundred years or 35USC §282 and
suppressing material evidence 1, thereby adversely
dominating the process to prevent Dartmouth
College and Fletcher from ever coming before this
Court, constitutes denying a citizen due process
and access to the courts, violating the 1st, 5th and
14th Amendments, the Bill of Rights, the
Separation of Powers, Contract and Appointments
Clauses of the Constitution, anti-trust laws and 35
U.S.C. § 282.

2. Whether it is within the purview of inferior courts
and USPTO to estop a Supreme Court precedent,
estop the Constitution, and estop a citizen from
being heard without inquiry, where Supreme
Court precedent dating back more than two
hundred years collaterally estops repeatedly
fraudulent and erroneous renditions of the legal
and factual basis of a case, in False Official
Statements 2 by inferior courts acting as defacto
Defendants 3, thereby adversely dominating the
process, and violating basic tenets of due process
of law.

3. Whereas, it is one thing for the inferior courts and
USPTO to abuse and adversely dominate process
and procedure, and suppress material evidence
thereby defrauding inventors; and, whereas, it is
something else entirely to instigate breach of
solemn oaths against the Separation of Powers,
Appointments and Contract Clauses of the
Constitution, that endanger national security, to
the manifest injury of the people of the United
States, whether this Court to take any action
other than dismissing the False Official
Statements 4 in the Federal Circuit 's Orders, that
lack proof and legal merit and encouraged and
resulted in - lawless action against the inventor
and the Constitution, causing the rest of the
Judiciary to follow suit, would constitute a Bill
of Attainder in violation of Art. I, Sec. 9, Cl. 3
of the United States Constitution.

4. Whether Justice Barrett, as the sole Justice with
jurisdiction, has a solemn oath duty to enforce the
Supreme Law of the Land — this Court 's own
Precedent in Trustees of Dartmouth College v.
Woodward (1819), Grant v. Raymond (1832),
Fletcher v. Peck (1810) — the Prohibition of the
Constitution from repudiating Government-issued
patent grant contracts, where Chief Justice
Roberts recused, seven Justices in silence thereof
lost subject matter jurisdiction, whereby the courts
and USPTO adversely dominated the process to
prevent Dartmouth Collese and Fletcher from ever
coming before this Court, leaving the inventor with
rights and no remedy, in violation of the

Whether the inferior courts arbitrarily claiming collateral estoppel without once proving it nor applying Supreme Court precedent dating back more than two hundred years or 35USC §282 and suppressing material evidence, thereby adversely dominating the process to prevent Dartmouth College and Fletcher from ever coming before this Court, constitutes denying a citizen due process and access to the courts, violating the 1st, 5+ and 14th Amendments, the Bill of Rights, the Separation of Powers, Contract and Appointments Clauses of the Constitution, anti-trust laws and 35 U.S.C. § 282