1. Whether denial of my fundamental right to
protection provided by the law, denial of my rights
to private property, personal security, health,
reputation, and denial of access to the Court to
seek redress for my rights, in violation of the 1st,
5th, 7th, 8th and 14th Amendments grounded in
substantive Due Process, 42 U.S.C.§ 1983, and 18
U.S.C. §§241, 245, 249, warrants this Court to
provide the remedy long due to me, a disabled 73-
year old female citizen of color.

2. Whether deprivation of rights of liberty, private
property, and personal security (consisting of legal
and uninterrupted enjoyment of life, limbs, body,
health and reputation) of a disabled elder female
citizen of color, injured by direct denial of access to
the courts by officers in breach of solemn oaths of
office, and entitled to redress and a damages
remedy for constitutional violations, warrants
this Court hold those Corporations who conspired
to injure and injured the citizen, liable for damages
for constitutional violations grounded in
Substantive Due Process of the 5th and 14th
Amendments, Equal Protections of the Law Clause
of the 14th Amendment, 42 U.S.C.§ 1983, and 18
U.S.C. §§241, 245, 249, for their knowingly false
and malicious destruction of the citizen 's health,
property and reputation, designed to hide their
own misconduct.

3. Whether the Appellate Court entertaining an
Answer on Appeal when the Defendants filed no
Answer to the Complaint in the District Court,
depriving me of my right to win by Default, violates
the Equal Protection of the Laws Clause of the 14th
Amendment.

4. Whether a reasonable person would find it
abnormal for a court awarding $148K in attorneys '
fees to Defendants who failed to answer the
Complaint and an Appellate court affirming it, and
defaming the Plaintiff who won by default,
pointing to something being hidden.

5. Whether defaming the Plaintiff in order to hide the
failure to uphold the Supreme Law of the Land —
this Court 's own stare decisis Mandated
Prohibition from repudiating Government-issued
patent grant contracts without just compensation
to the inventor, as declared by Chief Justice
Marshall in Trustees of Dartmouth College v.
Woodward (1819), Grant v. Raymond (1832),
Fletcher v. Peck (1810) — the Law of the Case,
warrants this Supreme Court redress the injury to
me by itself upholding Trustees of Dartmouth
College v. Woodward (1819), Grant u. Raymond
(1832), Fletcher v. Peck (1810), restoring my rights,
reinstating my property, striking all Orders in my
cases and awarding financial damages to remedy
the injury to my property, finances, health and
reputation.

6. Whether tampering with the record and denying
access to the court upon the question of due process
and oppressing me by defaming me and harassing
me in hate

Whether denial of fundamental rights, denial of property rights, and denial of access to courts warrants remedy