Were the constitutional claims barred by Rooker-Feldman doctrine?

No question identified. : i : QUESTIONS I Were it that a judge held every reason to believe that Rooker-Feldman doctrine should bar “even [his] constitutional claims,” after a state appellate court had reached any conclusion, even one totally dismissive and irrespective, to state that any party or judge-made claim by 28 U.S. § 1257(a), is there not a narrow jurisdiction available to the Civil Rights when (1) the constitutional challenge is comprehensive to depose the statute and merit injunction, and (2) state appellate courts have lacked any same resolution? Shall it not be totally plain that this argument was merely disregarded in the lower courts? IL. Did the Court of Appeals fail to evaluate “Fraud on the Court” when it was presented pre-trial, on reconsideration, and commit a separate and superior “Fraud on the Court” when it represented the Rooker-Feldman doctrine as withstanding without appreciating relevant and available documentation from Utah Appellate Courts as from before the trial court, nor having recognized that constitutional challenge that it did not evaluate any part of the appellant’s briefing than discriminated against : that late and overburdened motion from before the trial court? III. Was not the recognizable order of any such claim generally original by an objecting , party, and dutied to demonstrate that the State of Utah Administrative Courts (Utah ; i Office of Administrative Hearings) and Superior Courts defined the constitutional question? IV. | Was there not a plausible “Fraud on the Court” (Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(d)(3)) when both | | | an intake clerk, and a magistrate refused to positively disposition a Summons/Motion for Summons? Were the procedural mechanisms in place not used first to obstruct, then to terminate? Did a Judge terminating a case before that action not compound “Fraud,” or at least then plausible “Fraud” and plainly fabricated the RookerFeldman claim, that it was without demonstration of any opinion by any Utah Appellate Court? Did the District Court fail to Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.1 (c) at the question of summons, and amend of jurisdiction, that no pre-trial action was expressed before . it was merely suppressed without complex expression of the cause? V. . Is this action not due immediate remand to United States Court of Appeals for the correct form of rehearing, that it is demonstrated in this petition and does not require any response from parties at genuine interest, than a supervisory action taken made? . Is not the previous appellate panel recused? iii Contents Parties at Genuine Interest (Served, Not STATEMENT on SUPERVISORY APPEAL. ...0.0.ctc