In Re Joseph Rued, et al.

Petitioners’ actions seeking enforcement of federal rights and law were dismissed and denied based upon demonstrable fraud by the district court regarding Petitioners’ Complaints and Petition. The essential determinations supporting dismissals and denial were explicitly based upon factual assertions purportedly derived solely from respective Petitioners’ pleadings, namely that Petitioners’ Complaint stated that a Petitioner “argued” the perjury of one Defendant-Respondent to another and that Habeas Petitioner’s Petition for Habeas Corpus sought relief from child-custody determinations. The face of the records demonstrates that Petitioners’ Complaint(s) provide no possible support for assertions of the district court essential to dismissal and that Habeas Petitioner’s Petition seeks relief only from unconstitutionally imposed physical confinement, necessitating that assertions otherwise are fully fabricated by the district court. Petitioners appealed and sought prohibition issuance at the Eighth Circuit, which summarily affirmed the district court and denied extraordinary relief, and sought certiorari here. The Question Presented Is: Should a writ of prohibition issue as a matter of right to the Eighth Circuit against sustaining actions that have no basis in any genuine case or controversy before the Eighth Circuit or district court below for failing to comply with U.S. Const. Art. Ill requirements for federal judicial action?