William J. Vajk v. Robert P. Young, Jr., et al.

Questions Introductory Statement: In the US District Court the underlying case was dismissed on jurisdictional issues and never litigated on merits but despite that the 6'Circuit Court of Appeals rendered a verdict on the merits while lacking jurisdiction in this case where no party in either Court had an "opportunity to be heard" on those merits. The 6'Circuit held that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine finding by the District Court was invalid but in an internally inconsistent ORDER affirmed the District Court judgment to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction on the same basis on October 26, 2017 and reaffirmed the finding on November 21, 2017. In doing so, the Circuit Court effectively altered the judgment of the District Court to benefit nonappealing parties. Your Petitioner is not confused. During the tenure of this case before the 6'Circuit, one of the original defendants, Joan L. Larsen, was nominated to a seat on the bench before which she was a defendant, and after the confirmation process she was commissioned to a seat on the 6th circuit as a judge sharing cases for a lifetime with the judges charged with deciding her own case. Inquiries regarding the identity of the judge issuing the decision of the panel was stonewalled by the Clerk for obvious reasons. Once the Ms. Larsen was nominated, the 6'Circuit Court could never be an impartial and disinterested tribunal for this case. For the reasons above, three of the following questions have to do with the substance of the case, and the fourth