>> 1- Does not has independent orbit around the Sun it cut the orbit of Neptune.
Nowhere in the history of the use of the word planet has anyone ever said it's something that cannot overlap with another planets orbit. Until post-fact looking for reasons to add this to the definition, of course. In fact, your argument is equally an argument that Neptune is not a planet. So are neither of them planets by your definition? If not, why is it okay for one to be ruled out because it cuts another planet's orbit but not the other? But chiefly, this is a post-fact addition to the definition of planet by yourself.
>> 2- Pluto and Charon moving around the common center of gravity [...] also It is not fair
All planets with satellites are orbiting around a common centre of gravity. Is the Earth no longer a planet? Also, how is one unfair to a planet? Are its feelings hurt?
>> 3 Pluto is not completely spherically as revealed by NASA
Nor is the Earth. It is oblate. This is another post-fact criterion added by yourself.
>> 4- it has a different terrain in comparison with surface of other face
Again, I don't think the word planet has ever had uniformity of terrain as a criterion, until you needed to add things to the definition to separate out Pluto.
>>> 5- Pluto does not have enough gravity to clear its orbit
>> 6- Pluto only is not a planet because it is a binary with Charon
You can't have a binary planet? If you had two Earth-sized planets orbiting each other and both orbiting a star, would they no longer be planets?
>> 7- Pluto rotation around itself the day is equal to a month on Pluto
See 4. Also, I'm reasonably confident that there are asteroids that the inverse would be true of - fast rotation much less than their month. Are you arguing that they are therefore considered for the position of planet? Of course not, so it's a double standard not relevant to this.
>> 8- Pluto's orbit has a great anomaly in the orbit in orbital inclination
And Uranus' axial tilt is nearly perpendicular to the rest of the planets which is far more of an anomaly. So what? Again, see answer to 4.
>> 9- Other satellites orbiting around Pluto and Charon does not around Pluto only or Charon only because the common center of gravity control orbits of these satellites.
Just number 2 again with different wording. All planet and satellite systems orbit a common centre of gravity. Is there some established point agreed in the definition of planet historically that defines how displaced the common centre can be from a body before it disqualifies that body from being called a planet? Not that I am aware of. See answers to 4 AND 6 this time.
Snipped for legibility. This is again just a longer re-wording of 6.