Joseph Daryll Rued, et al. v. Jaykumar Jayswal, et al.

Petitioners’ actions seeking enforcement of federal rights and law were dismissed based upon demonstrable fraud which was affirmed on appeal. The Questions Presented Are: Do Fifth Amendment requirements apply to actions determining facts or applying judicial doctrines and caselaw affecting protected rights? Does a petition for writ of habeas corpus lie for physical confinement and/or restraint unshared by the general public imposed by a state judgement in violation of the laws of the United States? Do jurisdictional requirements under Art. Ill proscribe fraud demonstrable on the face of the record determinative to actions by federal judges? Can Rooker-Feldman apply to claims unreached by any completed state proceedings or through privity? Do First and Fifth Amendment requirements protect the right to petition the government from inhibition or deprivation based upon fraud? Does the Seventh Amendment protect claims from judicial interference related to jury demanded determinations that include questions of fact? Are 1996 additions to §1983 an exercise of Congressional authority that is not provisioned? Should writs of prohibition have issued against judicial actions failing to comply with genuine case and controversy requirements under Art. III?