Whether the district court erred in dismissing petitioner's case under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine in a civil RICO paternity fraud lawsuit involving federal child support laws

QUESTION PRESENTED. : 1. The District Court did not let me Reestablish my standing in the new lower ; court when they changed courts. . STANDING ; Your honors I am a living being. The flesh lives and the blood flows. Your honors I humbly : ask for cure and maintenance. : Canon Law Divine Person Canon 835-838. 2. The Appeals court and the District court : erred by granting a motion to dismiss : against petitioner and showed how , incompetent they are by using The Rooker-Feldman doctrine in a Civil RICO Paternity Fraud lawsuit. Child Support is federal Law under the Social Security ; Act SEC. 460. [42 U.S.C. 660] The district courts of the United States shall have jurisdiction, without regard to any amount in controversy to hear and determine any civil action ii Cont'd certified by the Secretary of Health and Human Services under section 452(a)(8) of this Act. A civil action under this section may be brought in any judicial district in which the : claim arose, the plaintiff resides, or the defendant resides. . See Iqbal v. Patel, F.3d, 2015 WL : 859541 (7th Cir, 2015) and Exxon Mobil v. Saudi Basic Industries . Corp. No. 3-1696. Argued February 23, 2005-Decided March 30, 2005 : Citation omitted. Canon Law Positive Law Canon 666-672, Canon Law Fraud 998-1007. ; 3. The Appeals and the District Court erred by allowing a Bill of Attainder — to be used against the Petitioner. See App. A3 and App. A4. The Enterprise : (Family Court) is administrative process from executive and cannot give judicial by Bill of Attainder. Article 1 of the ; U.S. Constitution. Canon Law 998-1007, ; Canon Law Concealment 1661-1672. . TABLE OF CONTENT QUESTION PRESENTED.i TABLE OF AUTHORIEG.iii TABLE OF APPENDICEG.vi (