Joseph D. Rued v. Catrina M. Rued

Petitioner sought to modify custody and parenting time, enforce parenting time, and cause state actions to comply with Fourteenth Amendment requirements, including through addressing un­ addressed perjury and fraud also constituting fraud upon the court by Hennepin County CPS essentially relied upon by the Minnesota Judiciary to deprive Petitioner’s protected rights. The district court denied all relief on the basis of res judicata application to its prior orders which also prevented the litigation of the frauds at issue by prohibiting Petitioner from submitting the deposition admissions of fraud and perjury by the Hennepin County CPS investigator or calling the investigator as a witness and thereafter applied res judicata. The Court of Appeals universally affirmed the district court. The Question Presented Is: Does the Fourteenth Amendment inhibit state courts from sustaining deprivations of protected rights essentially based upon demonstrable and admitted fraud and perjury by the government through demonstrably misrepresenting relief requested to assert what plainly is requested is not requested, invidiously applying state preclusion law to inhibit fraud and Constitutional claims on the basis of proceedings that also inhibited the litigation of the same fraud on the demonstrably fraudulent basis that it had been litigated in proceedings that explicitly inhibited the litigation of such claims, assertions that the Fourteenth Amendment is not a provision of law the state court even has to consider, and awarding attorneys’ fees based upon the same?