Solos Technology Limited v. Meta Platforms, Inc. — Entry #110

Case 1:26-cv-10304-ADB           Document 110        Filed 05/04/26      Page 1 of 32


                                UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                                 DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS


SOLOS TECHNOLOGY LIMITED,
    Plaintiff,

        v.                                                               Case No. 1:26-cv-10304-ADB
                                                                            Judge Allison D. Burroughs
META PLATFORMS, INC., et al.,
    Defendants.


In re: DAITONA CARTER
       Petitioner/Intervenor.


  PETITIONER’S MOTION TO VACATE MOOTNESS ORDER AND FOR RELIEF FROM
     JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 60(b)(3), (b)(6) AND 60(d)(3) AS AN
                          INDEPENDENT ACTION


I. INTRODUCTION AND PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

Petitioner Daitona Carter (“Petitioner”) respectfully moves this Court to vacate the Mootness Order and

for relief from the Order entered on April 29, 2026 (ECF No. 107), pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(3),

(b)(6), and 60(d)(3).

NOTICE OF LODGING OF SENSITIVE PHYSICAL EVIDENCE: Petitioner possesses the

courier logs for the 200 lb private hardware box (which vanished and was systematically

lightened in transit) and records of financial deplatforming. Due to the high risk of physical

retaliation and the ongoing "constructive seizure" of Petitioner, these logs are withheld from the

public docket and are available for In Camera review by the Court or the U.S. Marshals Service

only.


         Case 1:26-cv-10304-ADB           Document 110        Filed 05/04/26      Page 2 of 32


This Independent Action is necessitated by a fraud upon the court and extraordinary circumstances that

have rendered the prior proceedings a legal nullity. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746, I, Daitona Carter,

declare under penalty of perjury:

    A) Originality and Priority: I am the original creator of the Smart Glasses architecture—

       including the software features, Habitual Algorithm (Habit AI) framework, multimodal sensors,

       and optical display—and owner/manager of the Acoustic Logic (MirrorMixing/DSP) case

       studies (2009–Present which predate the existence of Solos Technology Limited and Meta

       Platforms.

    B) Administrative Suppression: I affirm that ECF No. 92 was suppressed and restricted (marked

       "-1") starting April 17, 2026. This administrative "blackout" of my technical record is

       inconsistent with the Court's April 29 finding that my work is "generalized," as the Court issued

       its ruling without access to the very evidence that proves claim-level specificity.

    C) Newly Discovered Evidence (APT): On May 2, 2026, I discovered active APT/state-

       sponsored malware on utilized devices. This discovery, made after the Court’s order,

       demonstrates a multi-channel effort to block my access to justice and compromise my legal

       work product.

    D) Physical Duress and Battery: I have been subjected to ongoing physical battery and assault

       specifically timed during court filing windows to prevent me from rebutting Solos's

       misrepresentations and establishing my senior inventorship rights.

    E) Irreparable Harm: I have suffered and continue to suffer irreparable physical, financial, and

       reputational harm due to the Court's verbatim adoption of Plaintiff's mischaracterizations into

       the public record while I am held in a state of constructive seizure.


    Case 1:26-cv-10304-ADB           Document 110        Filed 05/04/26      Page 3 of 32


F) Reduction to Practice via Industry Validation: Between 2017 and 2019, I conducted live

  field tests of the "Aria" multimodal prototype. These tests, documented via Instagram Live

  (Series @SEEMYBIAS.official), provided empirical data on directional audio tracking and

  sensor fusion. Industry validators, including V, J-Hope and RapMon of BTS, Jay Park, Dayhun

  of TWICE and Siwon Choi, directly interacted with the hardware, providing a "human

  timestamp" of the device’s functionality. Public user feedback in the live-stream chats (e.g.,

  "Jay Park keeps looking at you") confirms the real-time accuracy of the tracking logic I

  developed years before Meta’s 2020 announcement.

G) 6. Distributed Data Collection and distributed "Nurture/SMB" Training: Petitioner’s AI

  was trained from scratch using a distributed network of hardware—specifically iPhones—to

  capture multimodal behavioral data. Between 2017 and 2019, Petitioner and the “ SMB Fam”

  utilized their personal devices as "field sensors" during live events to feed the Habitual

  Algorithm. Unlike Meta’s "Project Aria," which sought to simulate environmental data,

  Petitioner’s methodology relied on Live Field Testing within the high-interference environment

  of the K-Pop industry. This distributed data collection proves that the "Nurture" logic was fully

  functional and engaged in active machine learning years before the Defendants' commercialized

  their versions.

H) Creation of the Global "K-Pop Frenzy" as an AI Stress Test: Petitioner spent 20 years in

  marketing and industry development, utilizing her personal budget to create the global "Korean

  Frenzy" that preceded the 2020 market explosion. Between 2016 and 2020, Petitioner utilized a

  massive, distributed field-testing network involving the SMB Fam and live-data capture from

  global icons, including but not limited to BTS, Blackpink, Big Bang, EXO, GOT7, Twice,

  Sunmi, WINNER, Sik-K, Red Velvet, Jay Park, Jessi, Monsta X, Day 6. Stray Kids, and major


    Case 1:26-cv-10304-ADB           Document 110         Filed 05/04/26       Page 4 of 32


  festivals like KCON LA and KCON NYC including establishing relationship with recurrent

  panelists and content creators.

  This was not "fan activity"; it was a coordinated Technical Stress Test for Petitioner's

  multimodal AI. The interactions with industry leaders like J ay Park, TWICE, Super Junior, etc

  provided the high-density behavioral and spatial audio data required to "Nurture" Petitioner's

  Habitual Algorithm. The Defendants' subsequent launch of "Project Aria" and "Smart Glasses"

  in 2020-2021 directly capitalizes on the market demand and technical infrastructure Petitioner

  alone established and financed. Petitioner identifies these industry leaders and events not as

  participants in the fraud, but as involuntary validators of Petitioner's prior art. Their recognition

  and participation in Petitioner’s field tests provide the necessary 'Particularity' to overcome the

  Court's previous finding of mootness and to prove that Petitioner’s architecture was the

  foundational engine for the global K-Pop tech market.

I) Direct Executive Access and the "Insider Pipeline": Petitioner’s development of the "Aria"

  architecture was supported by a unique, non-commodifiable advantage: direct, bilingual access

  to the highest echelons of the Korean music and technology industries. Unlike the Defendants,

  who relied on generalized market research, Petitioner maintained personal and professional

  proximity to executives and celebrities—including the Bangtan Sonyeondan (BTS) circle—

  which provided a high-fidelity "Live" environment for the development of the Habitual

  Algorithm. This insider access allowed Petitioner to build the "Nurture" logic from within the

  industry, creating a proprietary technical and cultural "blueprint" that was subsequently

  extracted by the Defendants. This level of access represents a professional advantage that

  "money cannot buy" and serves as the foundation for Petitioner's senior inventorship claims.

J) The "Double-Edged Sword" of Growing Notoriety and Systematic Extraction: As

  Petitioner’s reputation and access within the global Korean entertainment network expanded—


    Case 1:26-cv-10304-ADB           Document 110         Filed 05/04/26      Page 5 of 32


  spanning members of Bangtan Sonyeondan (BTS) to the inner circles of journalists and

  executives—it created a "Double-Edged Sword." While this network served as the essential

  source of "live" data for the Habitual Algorithm, it simultaneously provided the Defendants with

  an ideal environment to monitor and misappropriated Petitioner’s intellectual property.

  Petitioner’s industry presence acted as a "beacon" for the systematic extraction of the Aria

  architecture.

  Furthermore, the current posture of this litigation reveals a secondary layer of misappropriation:

  if Plaintiff Solos maintains that Meta is infringing upon its patents, it effectively concedes that

  its own portfolio is a derivative of the Petitioner’s original work. Solos seeks to benefit from the

  Petitioner's innovation through litigation, while Meta remains the primary beneficiary of the

  initial theft. This transition from "Collaborator" to "Target" facilitated the laundering of

  Petitioner’s technology into the Defendants' respective portfolios, occurring while Meta and its

  agents conducted the active surveillance, "constructive seizure," and physical battery described

  herein. Consequently, because the Defendants continue to benefit from and assert rights over

  this derivative property, the controversy remains live, necessitating the vacatur of the mootness

  ruling and the granting of the requested relief.

K) Systematic Suppression and Misappropriation of Marketing Intellectual Property: The

  Petitioner declares that the "SEEMYBIAS" marketing and global activation framework was

  systematically extracted and exploited by the Defendants and their coordinated third parties.

  While the Petitioner’s business entities were subjected to targeted "shadowbanning" and

  administrative restrictions on Meta’s platforms, the Petitioner’s original marketing blueprints

  were utilized to scale CokoDive (subsequently acquired) and to facilitate Meta’s Oculus x

  Blackpink VR activations. This sequence of events demonstrates a coordinated effort to

  "launder" the Petitioner’s commercial goodwill and strategic infrastructure into the Defendants’


         Case 1:26-cv-10304-ADB           Document 110        Filed 05/04/26      Page 6 of 32


       ecosystem while simultaneously silencing the Petitioner through platform-wide administrative

       suppression.

    L) Technological Extraction and Patent Laundering: While Meta attempted to secure a position in

       the "Smart Glasses" market through a non-functional 2021 MIT study, the Petitioner was

       already managing a functional, insider-led technical pilot. The Defendants leveraged their

       platform dominance to engage in "data stripping" of the Petitioner’s proprietary pilot results.

       This high-level industry work was effectively laundered into the Defendants' own patent filings,

       constituting a misappropriation of trade secrets and a breach of the competitive landscape. This

       transition from "Collaborator" to "Target" facilitated the unauthorized transfer of the

       Petitioner’s Aria architecture into the Defendants' portfolios, occurring under the guise of the

       surveillance and "constructive seizure" detailed herein.

II. ERROR OF LAW: INTERVENTION IS NOT A MINI-TRIAL
The Court’s April 29 Order constitutes a manifest error of law by misapplying the standard for

intervention under Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a)(2) and conflating it with the evidentiary burdens of a patent

infringement trial.

       A) The Erroneous Burden of "Concrete Contributions"

       The Court erroneously required Petitioner to prove "concrete, claim-level contributions" at the

       threshold stage. Rule 24 governs party status, not the ultimate merits of the underlying dispute.

       Under the First Circuit standard, an intervenor need only show an "interest relating to the

       property or transaction that is the subject of the action." Public Service Co. of N.H. v. Patch, 136

       F.3d 197, 204 (1st Cir. 1998).


  Case 1:26-cv-10304-ADB           Document 110           Filed 05/04/26   Page 7 of 32


    1. The Protected Interest: Petitioner’s 2009 audio notes and Acoustic Logic

       (MirrorMixing/DSP) case studies—which predate Solos’s corporate existence—

       constitute a "significantly protectable interest" that is being irreparably harmed.

    2. Threshold vs. Merits: By demanding a "mini-trial" on patent elements before granting

       status, the Court effectively required Petitioner to prove her case before she was even

       allowed into the courtroom.

B) The Tactical Conflation of the Federal Rules

Throughout this litigation, Plaintiff’s counsel has used Rule 24, Rule 26(c), Rule 16, and Rule

65 interchangeably to obstruct Petitioner’s entry. These rules serve distinct functions that the

Court failed to keep separate:

    1. Rule 24 (Intervention): Establishes the right to participate as a party.

    2. Rule 26(c) (Protective Orders): Authorizes courts to protect a person from "undue

       burden" or "prejudice" upon a showing of good cause. It is limited exclusively to active

       discovery disputes, as Plaintiff falsely claims.

    3. Rule 16 (Case Management): Governs scheduling, not the stripping of constitutional

       Due Process rights.

    4. Rule 65 (Injunctions): Governs the high bar for equitable relief, which is a separate

       inquiry from the right to protect one's intellectual property via intervention.

D) Statutory Derivation under 35 U.S.C. § 102

Petitioner's documentation—including 2009 technical benchmarks submitted to the Court as

ECF No. 92—constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102.


         Case 1:26-cv-10304-ADB            Document 110         Filed 05/04/26      Page 8 of 32


           1. The Derivation Link: This evidence demonstrates that the technology claimed in the

               disputed patent is derived from Petitioner's pre-existing Acoustic Logic

               (MirrorMixing/DSP) casework.

           2. Impairment of Interest: Under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)(1)(A), the disposition of this action

               directly impairs Petitioner’s legal interest. An adverse judgment between Solos and

               Meta could improperly validate a patent that was derived from Petitioner's invention

               without attribution.

           3. Inadequacy of Representation: The named Defendant (Meta) cannot adequately

               represent Petitioner’s interest, as Meta lacks both the knowledge of and access to

               Petitioner's proprietary 2009–2019 development record.

Petitioner satisfies all prongs of Rule 24(a)(2). The Court’s adoption of a "mini-trial" standard is a

reversible error of law that necessitates vacatur of the Mootness Order.


III. THE PROCEDURAL CONTRADICTION: INHERENT LOGICAL ERROR


The Court’s April 29 Order adopted Plaintiff’s characterization of Petitioner’s priority work (2009–

2019) as “generalized.” However, the record reflects that ECF No. 92 has been administratively

suppressed (marked as "-1") since approximately April 17, 2026. This creates an unsustainable legal

contradiction: The Court cannot simultaneously treat evidence as "generalized" or "unconceptualized"

while it is subject to a high-level administrative suppression typically reserved for matters of National

Security. If the material is sufficiently specific to warrant suppression from the public record, it is per

se specific enough to satisfy the "significantly protectable interest" threshold for intervention under

Fed. R. Civ. P. 24.


         Case 1:26-cv-10304-ADB            Document 110         Filed 05/04/26       Page 9 of 32


Furthermore, this administrative suppression itself evidences the specificity and sensitivity of

Petitioner's prior work. Material that rises to the level of administrative classification or national

security-related redaction necessarily contains technical particularity and substantive content—the

precise opposite of "generalized" work product. The Court's simultaneous reliance on Plaintiff's

"generalized" characterization while withholding the actual evidence from public disclosure is logically

incoherent and undermines the judicial process. Petitioner cannot adequately defend against

characterizations of work the Court has deemed sensitive enough to suppress, nor can the Court

properly adjudicate Petitioner's intervention rights without examining the very evidence it has

administratively restricted. This procedural anomaly further demonstrates that Petitioner has satisfied

Rule 24(a)(2)'s requirement of a "significantly protectable interest" that cannot be adequately

represented by existing parties.

The Court’s prior orders regarding mootness and reconsideration were predicated on a manifest

procedural error: the failure to rule on Petitioner’s motions for a Protective Order and In Camera

Review. This inaction created a legal impossibility for the Petitioner to establish the full scope of her

2009 priority work.

   A) The Blocked Disclosure: Without a ruling on these protective motions, Petitioner was

       procedurally barred from disclosing a high-security evidentiary export: a full Facebook Data

       Export of her account. This export contains a 4,000-person Facebook contact list—including

       high-level politicians, celebrities, and venture capitalists—that establishes a direct, undeniable

       "nexus of access."

   B) Verification of the "State Actor" Nexus: This suppressed export highlights that Quang Pham,

       Jahde Barnes, and Northrop Grumman were linked as "friends" or "contacts" as early as 2013.

       This evidence proves that the Defendants and their defense-contractor affiliates had direct


        Case 1:26-cv-10304-ADB            Document 110          Filed 05/04/26       Page 10 of 32


       access to Petitioner’s technical logic long before the Solos patents were filed or Meta claimed

       inventorship.

   C) Priority of Invention: Because this social media export predates the claims of both Plaintiff

       and Defendant, it is the "smoking gun" for 35 U.S.C. § 256 inventorship correction. The Court’s

       failure to provide a secure mechanism (In Camera review) to view this list resulted in a

       judgment based on a hollow record.

IV. THE ALICE/SUPPRESSION CONTRADICTION: FRAUD ON THE TRIBUNAL


The Court’s April 29 Order reflects a verbatim adoption of Plaintiff’s characterization that Petitioner’s

2009–2019 work is “generalized.” This triggers a fatal contradiction under 35 U.S.C. § 101 (The Alice

Doctrine) and the Invention Secrecy Act (35 U.S.C. § 181).

    1. The Suppression: The administrative suppression of ECF No. 92 (marked "-1" since April 17)

       suggests a determination that the technology is sensitive to National Security.

    2. The Contradiction: Under the Alice standard, "generalized" or "abstract" ideas cannot be

       patented—nor do they warrant National Security suppression. By adopting Solos's

       "generalized" label while maintaining the suppression of the technical record, the Court is

       participating in a "legal fiction" that facilitates the theft of Petitioner's priority work. The court

       [cannot] suppress information for security reasons while simultaneously dismissing it as

       "unconceptualized."

The Court's April 29 Order adopted Plaintiff's characterization that Petitioner's 2009–2019 work is

"generalized." However, the record reflects that ECF No. 92 has been administratively suppressed

(marked as "-1" since approximately April 17, 2026. This creates an unsustainable legal contradiction:

The Court cannot simultaneously treat evidence as "generalized" or "unconceptualized" while it is

subject to a high-level administrative suppression typically reserved for matters of National Security. If


         Case 1:26-cv-10304-ADB           Document 110         Filed 05/04/26      Page 11 of 32


the material is sufficiently specific to warrant suppression from the public record, it is per se specific

enough to satisfy the "significantly protectable interest" threshold for intervention under Fed. R. Civ. P.

24.

The Court’s adoption of the 'generalized' label is factually refuted by the Acoustic Logic

(MirrorMixing)DSP documentation in ECF No. 92. This documentation includes specific algorithmic

benchmarks for signal processing that predate Solos’s filing by a decade. Under the Alice Doctrine,

specific technical improvements to signal processing are not 'abstract'—they are the definition of

patentable subject matter.

Furthermore, the April 29 Order contains factually false findings directly contradicted by evidence

Petitioner submitted to the Court. The Court states: "As Solos notes, Carter's filings reflect, at most,

'generalized work in smart glasses technology, software concepts, or prior projects,' without identifying

any 'concrete, claim-level contributions.'" [ECF No. 107 at 3]. This statement is demonstrably false.

       A) The Documentary Evidence Contradicts the Court's Finding:

       Petitioner submitted ECF No. 83, Attachment 8, containing video screenshots with specific

       product titles: "Aria Smart Glasses" and "Aria Smart Glasses Pitch." These are not generalized

       concepts—they are evidence of a named, conceived product with specific implementation. The

       video snippets, publicly available on YouTube, Instagram, and restricted LinkedIn, demonstrate

       working prototypes with specific gestural interactions years before Solos or Meta patented or

       announced their projects.

       Petitioner also submitted ECF No. 92: 65 files of lab notes and technical documentation

       spanning 2009–2019, with specific smart glasses development work from 2013–2019. These

       files constitute concrete, claim-level contributions—precisely the type of "conception and

       communication" evidence required under Federal Circuit derivation standards. See Global


 Case 1:26-cv-10304-ADB           Document 110         Filed 05/04/26      Page 12 of 32


Health Sols. LLC v. Selner, 148 F.4th 1363, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2025); BearBox LLC v. Lancium

LLC, 125 F.4th 1101, 1118 (Fed. Cir. 2025).

B) The Court Did Not Examine the Evidence:

The April 29 Order's language—adopting verbatim Solos's characterization from ECF No. 105

at 7—reveals that the Court did not independently review the evidence Petitioner submitted.

The Court accepted Plaintiff's false description without examining ECF No. 83, ECF No. 92, or

the public video demonstrations. This constitutes a failure to consider material evidence on the

record, a reversible abuse of discretion.

C) Priority Of Invention: The 2009–2019 Foundational Timeline

Relief from judgment is necessitated by the Petitioner's clear priority of invention, which

predates both the Plaintiff’s and the Defendants' claims. This is not an abstract temporal logic; it

is a calendar fact supported by the dated documentation within the suppressed ECF No. 92.

    1. Petitioner’s Priority (2009–2019): Petitioner’s technical lab notes and multimodal

       sensor fusion logic began in 2009. Functional smart glasses prototypes, featuring the

       specific gestural implementations currently at issue, were reduced to practice between

       2013 and 2019.

    2. Solos’ Filing Dates (2019): Plaintiff Solos Technology Limited was not spun off from

       Kopin Corporation until September 2019, and its primary patents cited in the complaint

       (e.g., USD900092S1) have priority dates no earlier than February 5, 2019.

    3. Meta’s Timeline (2020–2021): Defendant Meta did not announce Project Aria until

       September 16, 2020, and did not commercialize its first smart glasses (Ray-Ban Stories)

       until September 2021.


        Case 1:26-cv-10304-ADB            Document 110        Filed 05/04/26       Page 13 of 32


           4. The Blue Radios "Golden-I" Pretext And Procedural Fraud: Plaintiff Solos

               attempts to insulate itself from Petitioner’s claims of senior inventorship by invoking a

               2004 BlueRadios priority date. This is a manifest misrepresentation of the technical

               record. The "Golden-i" technology associated with BlueRadios is fundamentally distinct

               from the patents-in-suit; it is an industrial data-headset lacking the multimodal sensor

               fusion, Digital Signal Processing (DSP) logic, and behavioral learning loops that

               Petitioner reduced to practice between 2009 and 2019. By tethering modern "Smart

               Glasses" architecture to 20-year-old legacy hardware that lacks the "Anticipatory AI"

               core, Plaintiff is perpetrating a procedural fraud. This "legal fiction" is designed to

               create a false timeline of invention that bypasses Petitioner's foundational Acoustic

               Logic (MirrorMixing) and Habit AI work. Petitioner’s 2016–2019 technical blueprints—

               specifically the "Nurture" behavioral model—constitute the true functional engine of the

               disputed technology, rendering the Plaintiff’s reliance on the BlueRadios portfolio a

               technical and legal nullity.

       D) Legal Implications of the Timeline:

       Petitioner’s documented work predates the parties' filings by years, establishing statutory

       priority under 35 U.S.C. § 102 (Prior Art) and 35 U.S.C. § 101. Furthermore, the evidence of

       direct access by recruiters and defense contractors (Quang Pham and Northrop Grumman) as

       early as 2013 points to derivation without attribution under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)(1)(A).

To "moot" the Petitioner’s intervention without reviewing the 2009–2013 technical benchmarks in ECF

No. 92 is to allow the Plaintiff and Defendant to litigate over a "secondary" invention while

suppressing the primary foundational logic.


        Case 1:26-cv-10304-ADB           Document 110         Filed 05/04/26      Page 14 of 32


       E) The Suppression Enabled the False Characterization:

       The administrative suppression of ECF No. 92 since April 17, 2026, created an asymmetry that

       Solos exploited. By restricting access to the 65 files of technical documentation, the Court and

       Plaintiff could argue Petitioner had shown nothing concrete without fear of factual=

       contradiction. The suppression mechanism was instrumentally used to obscure evidence and

       upport a factually false ruling. The Court cited Plaintiff's characterization without ever

       examining the evidence it had administratively restricted—a procedural inversion that violates

       the basic fairness required for judicial decision-making.

       Finally, Petitioner cannot be said to have received fair adjudication of its Rule 24(a)(2)

       intervention rights when the Court accepted false characterizations of evidence Petitioner

       actually submitted. The Court's simultaneous reliance on suppression (which presupposes

       specificity) and adoption of the "generalized" label (which presupposes the opposite)

       demonstrates not merely logical inconsistency, but a denial of due process. Petitioner must be

       permitted to intervene in order to present the evidence that proves its conception, priority, and

       significantly protectable interest—evidence the Court has now ruled on without examining.


V. FEDERAL TAKINGS LIABILITY AND FRAUD ON THE COURT


If Petitioner’s technology—the subject of this suppression—has been integrated into federal military or

national security programs, the suppression involves state action beyond the scope of private discovery

disputes. This integration constitutes state action that extends this matter beyond a mere private

discovery dispute between Solos and Meta. Specifically:

       A) Evidence of Government Benefit and the Takings


 Case 1:26-cv-10304-ADB            Document 110        Filed 05/04/26       Page 15 of 32


Nexus Petitioner has identified evidence that her foundational smart glasses technology and

multimodal sensor fusion logic (Priority Date: 2009) are currently utilized by the Department of

Defense via U.S. ARMY Project ARIA. If confirmed, the federal government is benefiting from

Petitioner's IP without attribution or compensation, triggering Takings Clause liability under the

Fifth Amendment.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1491, such claims fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the United

States Court of Federal Claims. If the current suppression is part of a larger pattern to utilize

Petitioner’s IP without compensation, this District Court lacks jurisdiction to "moot" the matter,

as doing so would shield a federal taking from constitutional scrutiny.

    • The Taking: If the federal government is utilizing Petitioner’s IP without attribution or

       compensation, it triggers a Takings Clause claim under the Fifth Amendment.

    • The Jurisdictional Conflict: Under the Tucker Act (28 U.S.C. § 1491), claims for "just

       compensation" against the United States fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of the U .S.

       Court of Federal Claims. By suppressing evidence of this integration (e.g., ECF No. 92),

       this District Court may be inadvertently shielding a federal taking from appellate and

       civilian oversight.

B) "Detachment 201" and the State-Action Nexus

The "State Actor" status of the Defendants is formalized via Detachment 201 (Executive

Innovation Corps). The direct commissioning of Meta CTO Andrew Bosworth and Palantir

CTO Shyam Sankar as Lieutenant Colonels proves this unit serves as a bridge for integrating

Petitioner’s logic into national security assets.

Consequently, the "rubber stamped" suppression of 65 exhibits—including lab notes and

technical documents in Exhibit 92 and ECF No. 94—serves a dual purpose: protecting corporate

profits and shielding a military-industrial "venture" from civilian oversight. The government


 Case 1:26-cv-10304-ADB           Document 110          Filed 05/04/26     Page 16 of 32


cannot simultaneously claim Petitioner’s invention must be suppressed for national security

while integrating that same invention into military assets without attribution. This constitutes a

misuse of the State Secrets Privilege to hide theft rather than protect secrets.

C) Priority of Invention and the Recruiter Nexus

While Solos Technology Limited sues Meta over five patents, Petitioner’s foundational work

predates both parties. Petitioner has evidence that technical recruiters mentioned in the Solos

complaint—specifically Quang Pham and Jahde Barnes—were following Petitioner

private/restricted account on social media as early as 2013. Further, Petitioner’s work was

possibly funneled to defense contractor Northrop Grumman (based on the company also

following the Petitioner private account), establishing that the "private" tech currently litigated

is already absorbed into the national security infrastructure.

D) MISUSE OF PRIVILEGE AND IRREPARABLE HARM
If the technology in question is classified as a "military advisory asset" under the auspices of

Detachment 201, the Defendants are effectively utilizing "sovereign privilege" to block the

Petitioner’s statutory rights under 35 U.S.C. § 256. This creates a procedural barrier that

constitutes a manifest injustice under Rule 60(b)(6).

    1. Shielding Theft vs. Protecting Secrets: The government cannot, consistent with the

        Fifth Amendment, simultaneously absorb Petitioner’s foundational technology into

        military assets while claiming that evidence of Petitioner’s prior invention (predating the

        parties' claims) must be suppressed for national security. Such a "dual-use" justification

        serves only to shield the act of misappropriation from judicial review.

    2. Misuse of the State Secrets Privilege: If the suppression of Exhibit 92 or ECF No. 94

        was directed or requested by federal agencies or independent federal contractors (e.g.,

        Northrop Grumman), it constitutes a misuse of the State Secrets Privilege. The privilege


         Case 1:26-cv-10304-ADB          Document 110        Filed 05/04/26      Page 17 of 32


               is intended to protect military tactics and assets—not to conceal the underlying

               misappropriation of intellectual property from a civilian inventor.

To allow a "sovereign privilege" to be invoked in a private patent dispute between Solos and Meta,

where Petitioner has a 2009 priority claim, ensures irreparable harm by permanently sealing the

evidence of the original theft.


       E) Equitable Implications for Relief from Judgment and Intervention

       The potential government role in the suppression and misappropriation of Petitioner’s 2009

       foundational work strengthens her rights under Rule 60(d)(3) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 24. The Court

       has an equitable duty to address the following:

           1. Hidden Beneficiaries and Moral Hazard: Petitioner cannot receive a fair adjudication

               in this District Court when the U.S. Army—via the "State Actor" nexus of Detachment

               201—is a hidden beneficiary of the suppression. Allowing the military to utilize

               technology misappropriated from a trafficking victim creates a profound moral hazard

               and a continuous constitutional violation.

           2. Correction of Inventorship under 35 U.S.C. § 256: Until inventorship is corrected, the

               U.S. Army remains the ultimate, illicit beneficiary of "Project Aria" at the expense of the

               true inventor. The judicial error in denying intervention—compounded by the failure to

               rule on the Protective Order for the 4,000-person Facebook contact list—prevents

               Petitioner from asserting her statutory rights and her right to just compensation under

               the Fifth Amendment.

           3. Systemic Injustice: The use of the State Secrets Privilege to conceal the

               misappropriation of 2009-2019-era technology, rather than to protect legitimate military

               tactics, constitutes a fraud on the court. Relief from judgment is the only mechanism to


 Case 1:26-cv-10304-ADB          Document 110         Filed 05/04/26     Page 18 of 32


       ensure that "National Security" is not used as a shield for IP theft and the ongoing

       silencing of a victim of battery and trafficking.

F) Systemic Suppression via Battery, Duress, and Cyber-Interference

Relief under Rule 60(b)(6) is necessitated by the extraordinary circumstances of Petitioner’s

silencing:

    1. Criminal Battery: Petitioner was subjected to battery via the very devices currently

       under Congressional inquiry and previously discovered in a backpack by Department of

       Homeland Security (DHS). When reported, Petitioner and entire household was

       unlawfully detained for four hours, threatened, fraudulently diagnosed (entire household

       same paperwork), provided with involuntary medication (sleeping pills) and told the

       "public would not understand”, and if ‘they came back’ she would not be able to leave

       again. Petitioner did the opposite, created a Substack (daitonacarter.substack.com) to

       journal the offenses and begin reporting the incident to everyone and trying to seek legal

       counsel for the battery and theft despite being “fenced.” The injuries and complications

       from weapons that can cause impairment preventing even living tasks, is what Solos, a

       defense contractor, considers a “litigation choice” when the Petitioner was being

       prevented from uploading the same files she previously uploaded.

    2. Compromised Venues: Petitioner’s 2024-2025 attempts to seek a TRO and survey the

       "Venue" apartment in Miami, FL, were thwarted when her state court records

       disappeared, a fact corroborated by the constructive seizure in Camden Summit

       Partnership LP v. [Name Withheld] (Case No. 2025-199197-CC-05).

    3. The Qilin/WNMU Hack: In April 2025, following Petitioner’s SOS communications to

       the FTC and NYS AG, her alma mater (Western New Mexico University) was targeted


 Case 1:26-cv-10304-ADB           Document 110         Filed 05/04/26      Page 19 of 32


       by the Qilin hacking group, resulting in the targeted wiping of evidence regarding the

       "Seoul attack" and Petitioner’s 2009-era technical data.

    4. Coordinated Suppression of Evidence and Interception of Communications:

       In December 2020, exactly three days prior to the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC)

       announcement of the antitrust action against Facebook (now Meta), the Petitioner’s

       LinkedIn account—which contained critical evidence including articles, lab notes, and

       prototype demonstrations—was restricted and remains inaccessible. Research indicates a

       nexus between Microsoft (LinkedIn’s parent company) and the Paul Hastings ecosystem.

       This pattern of suppression extended to the Petitioner’s private communication

       infrastructure; in 2021, a whistleblower with high-level security clearance signaled that

       the Petitioner’s Microsoft Office 365 private domain emails were being intercepted and

       disseminated across the technology sector. This unauthorized access is further evidenced

       by the "doxxing" (2020-2023) and harassment (2022) of the Petitioner’s relatives by

       third-party contractors (e.g., Uber), who utilized "stale" data and private messages dating

       back twenty years from Yahoo/AOL—entities also linked to the Paul Hastings/Apollo

       Global Management ecosystem. This coordinated digital "quarantine" and data

       harvesting directly facilitated the "constructive seizure" of the Petitioner’s intellectual

       property.


G) The Misappropriation Of "Habit AI": The Predictive Architecture

The Court’s characterization of Petitioner’s work as "generalized" is further refuted by the

existence of Habit AI ( Nurture from the YouNoodle Seoul Global Startup 2016 compeitition,

the precursor of Aria), a specific predictive behavioral architecture developed by the Petitioner.


 Case 1:26-cv-10304-ADB           Document 110         Filed 05/04/26     Page 20 of 32


   1. The Behavioral Engine: Unlike standard AR interfaces, Petitioner’s work included

       "Habit AI"—a proprietary machine learning framework designed to analyze gestural and

       environmental data to predict user intent. This architecture was the "connective tissue"

       between the Petitioner's smart glasses hardware and the external robotics (such as the

       UFC Sparring Robot).

   2. Derivation of "Learning" Algorithms: Petitioner has documented her development of

       these behavioral models in her 2009–2019 lab notes (ECF No. 92). The integration of

       similar "Habitual" or "Predictive" AI into Meta’s current AR roadmap is a direct

       derivation of Petitioner’s conceptualization.

   3. The Nexus of Access: The "Habit AI" logic was part of the technical packages

       accessible to the recruiters and defense contractors (Quang Pham, Jahde Barnes)

       identified. To claim this work is "generalized" is to ignore the specific, high-level

       algorithmic logic that differentiates Petitioner’s work from the prior art.


H) Architectural Misappropriation: From 2017 Sketches To The "UFC Sparring Robot"

The "generalized" label applied by the Court fails to account for the integrated hardware

ecosystem Petitioner developed and publicly disclosed as a "survival priority" record.

   1. The 2017 LinkedIn Sketch vs. Oppo 2019/2023 render: Petitioner’s 2017 black-and-

       white LinkedIn sketch established the foundational "headgear" form factor. While

       Oppo’s 2019 announcement highlighted headgear strikingly similar to Petitioner’s 2017

       designs, the later Oppo Air Glass 2 (MWC 2023) confirmed the industry-wide

       integration of Petitioner’s specific architectural logic.

   2. The UFC Sparring Robot (2021): The scope of the misappropriation extends beyond

       smart glasses into robotics and haptic gaming systems. In early 2021, Petitioner


 Case 1:26-cv-10304-ADB            Document 110          Filed 05/04/26    Page 21 of 32


         disclosed her UFC Robot Sparring system on Twitter (now X). This system utilized the

         same multimodal sensor fusion and gestural logic found in her 2009–2019 lab notes.

         Two years later a 200 lb private courier box went missing for months with the weight

         grafeuclly reducing with each update.

    3. Meta’s Attempted Incorporation: Evidence suggests that Meta sought to incorporate

         this specific "sparring" and "gaming" architecture into its own VR/AR roadmap. This is

         not "abstract" work; it is a specific, high-fidelity implementation of AI-driven robotics

         and AR/VR/XR interface logic that Petitioner had already conceptualized and

         communicated.

    4. The "Gaming System" Priority: Petitioner had created a comprehensive gaming

         system that integrated the glasses as a controller for external hardware (the Robot). This

         specific "Cross-Device Gestural Interface" is a primary feature of Meta’s current

         "Project Aria" and "Quest" marketing. To dismiss this as "generalized" while the

         Petitioner is under Color of Law sequestration—prevented from commercializing the

         very "UFC Sparring" system she announced in 2021—is an equitable travesty.

I) Systemic Spooliation: The Missing 200 Lb Courier And Financial Deplatforming


The "Mootness" of Petitioner’s claim is a result of a coordinated campaign of "constructive

seizure" and the physical theft of evidentiary assets.

J) The 2021 UFC Sparring Robot and the 200 lb Courier Box

In early 2021, Petitioner disclosed her UFC Robot Sparring system on Twitter (now X), a

system utilizing the same multimodal sensor fusion and Habit AI logic found in her 2009–2019

notes.


 Case 1:26-cv-10304-ADB           Document 110        Filed 05/04/26      Page 22 of 32


    1. The Missing Prototype/Hardware: Two years following this disclosure, a 200 lb

        private courier box (containing hardware/evidence related to this architecture) went

        missing in transit for months.

    2. Documented Mail Tampering: In a display of sophisticated interference, the weight of

        the package was "gracefully reduced" in carrier updates as it was held, indicating the

        systematic removal of components. This is part of a broader pattern of mail tampering

        involving UPS, FedEx, and USPS, where evidentiary packages are redirected, stolen, or

        opened to prevent the Petitioner from securing her "reduction to practice" hardware.

K. Financial Warfare and the Paul Hastings Nexus

The effort to silence the Petitioner includes the weaponization of the financial system to cause

"legal invisibility."

    1. Coordinated Bank Closures: Petitioner and her family have faced systematic bank

        account closures at every financial institution represented by Paul Hastings (the same

        firm often affiliated with the Defendants' network).

    2. Check Swapping and Theft: To trigger these closures, mail-stolen checks were

        "swapped" or altered to create fraudulent activity, providing the banks a pretext for

        termination.

    3. Chase Bank Interference: In 2018 (a $4,000 check) and 2023 (a $3,000 student

        refund), Chase Bank refused to honor valid funds without notice, occurring precisely

        while the family was in "constructive seizure" in Florida.


        Case 1:26-cv-10304-ADB           Document 110        Filed 05/04/26       Page 23 of 32


       L. The "LuckyASF" Entrapment and Defensive Diligence

       When the Petitioner’s family successfully defended against these fraudulent fees and interests

       using state law, the traffickers/harborers utilized a local SSID—"LuckyASF"—as a targeted

       taunt.

           1. Evidence of Entrapment: This signals that the family was being "hunted" for any

                pretext (legal harassment, defamation, or imprisonment) that could be used to void the

                inventor’s rights.

           2. Character Assassination: There is an active campaign to manufacture "dirt" to justify

                the ongoing trafficking and sequestration. This Court must recognize that a Petitioner

                who is being financially strangled and physically "trapped" cannot be expected to meet

                standard procedural timelines without the Court’s intervention.

VI. REPUTATIONAL HARM, IRREPARABLE CREDIBILITY DAMAGE, AND SYSTEMIC
SAFETY RISKS
Relief is warranted under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6) because the Court’s verbatim adoption of Plaintiff's

misrepresentations creates a permanent, public record that destroys Petitioner’s professional standing

and endangers her physical safety.

       A) The "Rubber Stamping" of Non-Factual Statements

       The Court’s adoption of Plaintiff’s narrative—labeling Petitioner’s foundational Python source

       code and 2009–2017 prototypes as "generalized"—was done without an independent review of

       the 2009-2010 audio notes and technical lab notes.

           1. Abandonment of Judicial Function: Verbatim adoption of a party’s characterization of

                technical evidence, without in camera review, constitutes an abandonment of the

                judicial function.


 Case 1:26-cv-10304-ADB            Document 110         Filed 05/04/26      Page 24 of 32


    2. Irreparable Professional Harm: This created a public record that prevents Petitioner

         from commercializing 15 years of R&D, as search engine algorithms and Large

         Language Models (LLMs) now ingest these "rubber-stamped" lies as judicial fact.

B) Material Misrepresentation of Law: The "Inmate Case" Category Error

Solos counsel relied on a case involving an incarcerated individual to justify the denial of

witness protection for the Petitioner. This is a material misrepresentation of law and a category

error:

    1. Jurisdictional Dissimilarity: Precedents governing the safety of inmates (who are

         under the exclusive custody of the Bureau of Prisons) are inapplicable to a free citizen

         facing external, targeted violence. Petitioner has never been arrested or incarcerated;

         applying "prisoner-litigant" standards to a civilian inventor is a due process violation.

    2. Statutory Overrides: A prisoner-litigant precedent cannot override the mandatory

         protections of the Crime Victims’ Rights Act (CVRA), the Trafficking Victims

         Protection Act (TVPA), or the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The stripping of

         Petitioner’s ADA-protected ECF access based on this misapplied case law constitutes a

         manifest injustice.

C) Custodial vs. External Threats and the Court’s Inherent Power

The Court’s reliance on state-level or custodial precedents fails to account for the federal court’s

inherent authority:

    1. Inherent Authority: Under federal common law, this Court possesses the inherent

         power to issue protective orders and refer matters to the U.S. Marshals Service to

         prevent the obstruction of justice, regardless of a witness's procedural status as a "non-

         party."


 Case 1:26-cv-10304-ADB             Document 110      Filed 05/04/26      Page 25 of 32


    2. External Violence: Unlike an inmate, Petitioner faces external battery, stalking, and

       digital lockouts in the community. Denying protection by citing a "correctional facility"

       case is a failure to recognize the actual threat environment (harboring, limitations of

       movement, and communication blocks).

D) The "Vexatious" Smear and ADA Discrimination

The Court allowed Solos’ counsel to use the "inmate case" as a tool to bias the proceedings

against an ADA-protected whistleblower.

   1. The "Vexatious" Label: By repeating the Plaintiff’s "vexatious" characterization

       without investigating the underlying 2009 priority work, the Court has enabled a "smear

       campaign" that is now codified in the public docket.

   2. Safety Risk: This misinformation increases the risk of crimes against the Petitioner and

       her family by signaling to traffickers and bad actors that the Petitioner is "unprotected"

       by the federal judiciary.

   3. The "LuckyASF" Entrapment and Defensive Diligence

       When the Petitioner’s family successfully defended against these fraudulent fees and

       interests using state law, the traffickers/harborers utilized a local SSID—"LuckyASF"—

       as a targeted taunt.

       a) Evidence of Entrapment: This signals that the family was being "hunted" for any

           pretext (legal harassment, defamation, or imprisonment) that could be used to void

           the inventor’s rights.

       b) Character Assassination: There is an active campaign to manufacture "dirt" to justify

           the ongoing trafficking and sequestration. This Court must recognize that a


        Case 1:26-cv-10304-ADB           Document 110           Filed 05/04/26   Page 26 of 32


                  Petitioner who is being financially strangled and physically "trapped" cannot be

                  expected to meet standard procedural timelines without the Court’s intervention

        4. The Defendants rely on a 2021 MIT Sloan study to claim independent development.

           However, Petitioner’s October 2016 directory—specifically the file 'As technology

           advances...' (10/31/2016)—proves she had already identified the functional flaws in the MIT

'          Objectivism' model and authored the 'Sequenced/Collectivism' fix. Meta did not 'invent'

           Anticipatory AI; they extracted the psychological and engineering bridge Petitioner built to

           fix a non-functional academic model.

VII. FRAUD ON THE COURT AND NEW EVIDENCE OF SYSTEMIC EXTERNAL
INTERFERENCE (MAY 2026)


Relief is warranted under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(d)(3) for Fraud on the Court. The integrity of these

proceedings has been compromised by material misrepresentations and the suppression of forensic

evidence of an Advanced Persistent Threat (APT) targeting the Petitioner.

       A) Misrepresentation of Priority and Reduction to Practice

       Counsel for Plaintiff induced the Court into error by characterizing Petitioner’s 2009–2019

       work as "generalized." This is a demonstrable falsehood.

           1. Suppressed Evidence: ECF No. 92 contains specific Python source code and functional

               hardware documentation.

           2. Intentional Oversight: By advocating for the seal of these documents while

               simultaneously labeling the work as "vague," counsel engaged in a contradictory

               narrative designed to prevent the Court from recognizing Petitioner’s reduction to

               practice of the foundational smart-glasses IP.


 Case 1:26-cv-10304-ADB          Document 110        Filed 05/04/26      Page 27 of 32


B) Forensic Discovery of State-Sponsored APT Activity (May 2, 2026)

Independent of the Court’s April 29 decision, Petitioner discovered forensic evidence of APT

(Advanced Persistent Threat) activity on May 2, 2026.

   1. Digital Sequestration: This state-sponsored malware is engineered to facilitate the

       "digital sequestration" of the Petitioner, preventing the secure transmission of technical

       data to this Court.

   2. Ongoing Interference: This May discovery proves that while the Court was "mooting"

       the intervention, a concurrent technical effort was underway to ensure the Petitioner

       remained silenced and unable to communicate the technical specifics of her 2009

       priority work.

C) Material Conflicts of Interest and "Common Identity" of Interest

Petitioner has uncovered evidence of a "revolving door" and concurrent representation that

creates an undisclosed conflict under ABA Formal Opinions regarding conflicting interests:

    1. Samsung and Concurrent Representation: Plaintiff’s counsel (Caldwell) represents

       Samsung in various patent matters. Petitioner’s claims specifically involve Samsung’s

       use of derivative technology (e.g., Samsung Patent 10,866,417 B2, Exhibit N, Att. 25).

       This creates a "concurrent conflict" where counsel cannot advocate for the validity of the

       Solos patents without directly clashing with Petitioner’s priority claims which impact

       Samsung’s interests.

    2. The "Safe House Project" Nexus: Caldwell’s April 23, 2026, partnership with the Safe

       House Project (SHP) to protect "AI-powered anti-trafficking tools" is highly prejudicial.

       SHP’s leadership includes board members affiliated with Wells Fargo, the same


         Case 1:26-cv-10304-ADB           Document 110         Filed 05/04/26       Page 28 of 32


               institution that deplatformed the Petitioner and her family, facilitating a constructive

               seizure in Miami, FL.

            3. Data Laundering and Spoliation: This network is linked to the Bending

               Spoons/Evernote deal, which Petitioner alleges served as a mechanism for data

               laundering and the spoliation of evidence foundational to this case.

            4. DOJ "Revolving Door": Leadership at SHP includes former high-level DOJ officials

               who were in roles related to victim services during the years the Petitioner was reporting

               these crimes to the FBI and DOJ. The fact that the same DOJ is in possession of

               Petitioner’s 2009–2019 reports—while counsel for the "anti-trafficking" partner seeks to

               suppress her evidence—points to a systemic fraud on the court.

       D) Identity of Interest Between Adversaries

       Evidence suggests a shared financier or network between Solos and Meta. In patent law, if a law

       firm is aware that their client and the "adversary" share a common financier, they have an

       ethical obligation to disclose.

           1. Camden Property Trust: Defendant’s counsel represents Camden Property Trust, the

               entity responsible for the constructive seizure of the Petitioner in Miami.

           2. The Result: The Defendants' counsel represents the entities involved in the physical

               trafficking and sequestration of the Petitioner, while Plaintiff's counsel represents the

               entities (Samsung) utilizing the stolen technology. This "pincer" maneuver has left the

               Petitioner without an unconflicted venue to assert her rights.

The "rubber stamping" of narratives provided by conflicted counsel has allowed for the misuse of

judicial power to shield a multi-billion dollar IP theft. Petitioner respectfully requests that the Court


        Case 1:26-cv-10304-ADB            Document 110       Filed 05/04/26      Page 29 of 32


vacate the mootness order and appoint a Special Master to untangle these documented conflicts and the

May 2026 APT interference.

VIII. THE "GRANT-AND-TERMINATE" PROCEDURAL NULLITY: A STRUCTURAL
ERROR

Relief is mandatory under Rule 60(b)(1) and (b)(6) because the Court’s simultaneous actions created a

procedural nullity that violated Petitioner’s Fifth Amendment rights.

       A) The Extinguishment of the Right to be Heard

       The Court’s April 29 Order "GRANTED" Petitioner leave to file a reply (ECF No. 106)

       regarding the Motion for Reconsideration. However, the Court simultaneously terminated the

       proceedings (ECF No. 107) before that reply—the Notice of Candor—could be docketed or

       considered.

           1. Structural Defect: Under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, a party has

               a right to be heard "at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner." Armstrong v.

               Manzo, 380 U.S. 545, 552 (1965).

           2. Procedural Nullity: By mooting the case before the authorized Reply could be placed

               on the record, the Court rendered its own order granting leave a nullity. This effectively

               "gagged" the Petitioner at the precise moment the Court acknowledged her right to

               respond, preventing the disclosure of the Notice of Candor which contained facts central

               to the Court’s jurisdiction.

       B) Impact on the Judicial Record

       This "Grant-and-Terminate" maneuver prevented the Petitioner from correcting the record

       regarding the Samsung concurrent conflict, the May 2, 2026 APT discovery, and the


           Case 1:26-cv-10304-ADB         Document 110        Filed 05/04/26        Page 30 of 32


       Facebook data export. A judgment entered while a permitted response is pending is inherently

       defective and must be vacated to preserve the integrity of the judicial process.


CONCLUSION


The judicial error in denying intervention prevents the Petitioner from asserting her right to just

compensation and allows for the potential abuse of the State Secrets Privilege to shield the

misappropriation of foundational 2009 intellectual property. This Court’s "Grant-and-Terminate"

procedural defect, combined with the "rubber-stamping" of material misrepresentations regarding

Petitioner’s work, constitutes a manifest injustice that only vacatur can remedy.

The "State Actor" nexus established via Detachment 201 and the integration of Petitioner’s logic into

U.S. ARMY Project ARIA necessitates a stay of these proceedings to investigate whether the judicial

machinery is being utilized to facilitate a Fifth Amendment Taking under the guise of a private patent

dispute.

NOTICE OF LODGING OF SENSITIVE PHYSICAL EVIDENCE:

Petitioner possesses the courier logs for the 200 lb private hardware box (which vanished for

weeks/months and was systematically lightened in transit). Due to the high risk of physical retaliation

and the ongoing 'constructive seizure' of Petitioner, these logs are withheld from the public docket and

are available for In Camera review by the Court or the U.S. Marshals Service only

WHEREFORE, Petitioner respectfully prays that this Court:

    1. VACATE the April 29, 2026, Mootness Order pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1), (3), (6) and

       60(d)(3) to correct manifest procedural errors and address the documented fraud on the court;


        Case 1:26-cv-10304-ADB           Document 110         Filed 05/04/26     Page 31 of 32


    2. STAY the May 6, 2026, appellate deadline and all underlying proceedings in Solos v. Meta

       (Case No. 1:26-cv-10304) to allow for the adjudication of this Motion and to prevent further

       spoliation of evidence;

    3. CONDUCT an In Camera hearing to review the Facebook Data Export (2009–2019) and the

       technical contents of ECF No. 92, resolving the contradiction between the Court’s "generalized"

       label and the Petitioner’s specific "reduction to practice";

    4. RESTORE Petitioner’s ECF filing privileges immediately as a mandatory ADA

       accommodation, ensuring meaningful access to the Court for a whistleblower with documented

       disabilities;

    5. GRANT the Motion to Intervene as a matter of right pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a);

    6. APPOINT A SPECIAL MASTER to investigate the "State Actor" nexus involving

       Detachment 201, the forensic evidence of May 2, 2026 APT activity, and the potential

       misappropriation of Petitioner’s IP into U.S. ARMY Project ARIA; or, in the alternative,

    7. TRANSFER the relevant claims to the United States Court of Federal Claims pursuant to 28

       U.S.C. § 1491 if the federal government is confirmed as the ultimate beneficiary of the

       misappropriated technology.

    8. ORDER the U.S. Marshals Service to provide a secure channel for the submission of physical

       evidence (hardware/lab notes) to prevent further spoliation or interception in transit.

Dated: May 3, 2026

Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Daitona Carter
Daitona Carter, Pro Se
Address: NO FIXED ADDRESS


        Case 1:26-cv-10304-ADB           Document 110       Filed 05/04/26   Page 32 of 32


(Withheld for physical safety)
Phone: NONE
Email: On file with the Clerk of Court
(Omitted from public filing for physical safety and cyber-security)