Joseph Daryll Rued, Individually and on Behalf of W. O. R., a Minor Child v. Charles Webber, Assistant Chief Judge, Scott County, Minnesota

In three actions related to the same factual circumstances, the Minnesota Court of Appeals has taken action fundamentally based upon the Minnesota Judiciary’s demonstrable fraud asserting the admitted perjury and fraud of Minnesota County CPS agency conclusions and determinations have been litigated when the Minnesota Judiciary has systematically prevented the litigation of such to deny access to state child maltreatment laws, deprive numerous protected parental/individual rights, and impose fines upon a citizen for seeking to address such undetermined frauds causing irreparable harms. The Question Presented Is: Do these Appellate Court applications of Minn. Stat. §260C.141 to inhibit enforcement and access to child maltreatment laws violate Constitutional requirements, including equal protections through invidiously discriminating against persons with a nonabusive parent or subject to custody determinations? Are Fourteenth Amendment requirements binding upon state appellate court actions in non­ criminal proceedings that sustain or further deprivations of citizens’, including children’s, protected rights and interests necessitating fulfillment of fundamentaffairness and process due? Does the Supremacy Clause require state appellate courts to construct and apply the law and effect factual determinations in concert with Fourteenth Amendment requirements, including within constraints of equal protections?