Joseph Daryll Rued, et al. v. Charlene W. Hatcher, Judge, Hennepin County, Minnesota, et al.

This case implicates fundamental rights including those related to or for: children’s welfare, unlawful confinement, association, natural parents, and access to venue for enforcement of Constitutional rights. In response to reports of child abuse, a local welfare agency facilitated investigations later admitted to be falsely concluded on the most material issues. Respondents relied upon such falsified conclusions to summarily determine Father’s reports of Son’s abuse were false depriving Father’s and Son’s rights, refusing to accept the deposition admitting the falsified investigation outcomes and preventing Father from calling the investigator, previously appealed here. Father later submitted the deposition admitting perjurious conclusions Respondents continuously rely upon to deprive custody. No Respondent has reached repeatedly presented federal issues related to sustaining orders based upon admitted perjury. Petitioners sought redress in federal court and jurisdiction has been denied based upon Rooker-Feldman. Petitioners appealed on grounds that the District Court’s arbitrary application of Rooker-Feldman, when no state judgement had reached Petitioners’ primary federal claims repeatedly raised in ongoing state proceedings, denying venue for Petitioners’ fourteenth amendment claims, violates Petitioners’ fifth amendment rights, which was summarily affirmed. Petitioners now petition here. The Question Presented Is: Did the Eighth Circuit err in affirming the District Court’s Order and denying Petitioners’ petition for rehearing en banc?