Carl Ellen Puckett, Jr., et ux. v. Ain Jeem, Inc., et al.

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