William A. Salzwedel v. California, et al.

Does an attorney in the practice of representing proposed adult conservatees/wards have direct standing, associational standing, or traditional thirdparty standing under Title II of the Americans With Disabilities Act, §504 of the Rehabilitation Act, or 42 U.S.C. §§1983, 1985 to challenge a state’s adult conservatorship/ guardianship practices, laws, facially, or as applied, as being in violation of these statutes, or the due process or equal protection clauses of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution, when the attorney alleges an independent injury causally related to the alleged denial of federally required services to the attorney’s client under these statutes?

Does the Rooker-Feldman doctrine prevent litigants from seeking a federal remedy for alleged violations of their constitutional rights where the violator is alleged to have so far succeeded in corrupting the state judicial process as to obtain a favorable state judgment against that federal litigant?

Does the Rooker-Feldman jurisdictional bar not apply to a claim, it would otherwise apply to, when the federal claimant had no reasonable opportunity to raise the claim in relevant state court proceedings?