Robin Toste, et vir v. El Dorado County, California, et al.

Did the rulings deny plaintiffs Toste their First Amendment rights for redress of grievances as to recently-discovered "extrinsic fraud" perpetrated by El Dorado County because of its intentional concealment [for years] of its own "approved" 2006 grading permit for Smedberg's new road which: (a) did not give Smedberg a right to grade a new "road" on the southern easement on Toste's land [as shown on the 2006 permit drawings]; (b) which only allowed Smedberg to grade on the northern easements [not on Toste's land]; and (c) which kept Smedberg's grading at least 100 feet away from the perennial stream on Toste's property [as required by state and/or federal law for a 100 foot buffer zone for a perennial stream]? Was it an error for the Ninth Circuit to deny Toste's requests for panel and en bane rehearings on 11/3/17 [e.g. since there was never testimony under oath by El Dorado County in any court]? Was it an error for the Ninth Circuit to not reverse the district court's dismissal of Toste's claims on 2/27/17 [e.g. because Rooker-Feldman doctrine is inapplicable to the El Dorado County's recently-discovered "extrinsic fraud" that occurred during all of the 2016-2012 state court litigation]? Did Toste's complaint allege facts supporting claims against El Dorado County for civil rights violations when acting contrary to law, but under color of authority; for extrinsic fraud [e.g. which harmed Toste in the 2006-2012 state court cases]; and/or under other state or federal laws?