Judicial-officers-acting-beyond-judicial-capacities

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Judicial officers acting beyond their judicial capacities fraudulently law deliberately fraudulently misinterpreting the clear and explicit language of the governing Collective | Bargaining Agreement (CBA) contract are in clear/substantial violation of their oaths or affirmations of office including violating | Articles 1 ( no state shall pass laws impairing the obligations of contracts} and | 6 (supremacy clause of the U.S. Constitution and all laws pursuant to) of the U.S. Constitution as | conveyed many times in all my filings in their courts acting clearly outside their judicial capacities or in complete absence of jurisdiction hence has no 11th Amendment Immunity with the State of | Minnesota fraudulently claiming immunity from suit and therefore not required to fulfill Minnesota State contractual obligations in their courts | utilizing glaringly erroneous reasons/laws/ (case laws) defendants submitted to this case all of this State needs to ; be corrected by an Ex parte Young, 209U.S. 123 and 42USC1983 action which are the Supreme Laws of the Land and anything to the contrary notwithstanding to which all Federal and State Judicial Officers took a | Solemn/unbreakable Oath or affirmation to uphold (according to)/(required | by) Article 6 Supremacy clause of the U.S. Constitution. | Page 1 of 16 | CS ee 2. Injunction request that my State Case be returned to one of the Minnesota State Courts (Supreme, Appellate, or District) be ordered by the U.S. Supreme Court overturning the Minnesota Courts’ et al orders dismissing (subterfuge of) my case with prejudice required to uphold my guaranteed due process, legal and contractual property rights as promised according to the U.S. Constitution and oaths or affirmations of office utilizing Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 and 42USC1983 requesting a de novo review of all my filings | | from the Minnesota State District Court to the Minnesota Supreme Court by the United States Court Supreme Court. 3. All Minnesota State Courts et al went clearly beyond their rights in i determining my complaint that set forth sufficient claim for relief initially including deciding the alleged and substantiating facts of my case subterfuge ! in determining their motions to dismiss. They were legally required to | determine my alleged facts to be true construing all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party (me) in determining defendants’ motions to dismiss which the state courts denied/deprived me violating my substantial due process and equal protection of the laws property rights including the | 7th Amendment U.S. Constitution guaranteeing the right to a fair jury trial (1 | | requested a jury trial in my initial Minnesota State District Court Case Compliant.). Also documents central to the process claim and referenced in Page 2 of 16 Bn the complaint, such as contracts, are deemed to be included within the : pleading to which the Minnesota State Courts et al deliberately excluded/ (deprived me of) {I read the entire Governing Collective Bargaining Agreement contract as | stated in all my fillings starting at the Minnesota State District Court ignored/ [deprived of] at all court levels.}. 4. The judicial officers in all Minnesota Courts et al of this case are fraudulently | depriving me of my clearly and explicitly stated legal and contractual due process property rights and equal protection of the laws in violation of both Federal and State Constitutions and all the laws pursuant to claiming that the U.S. Constitution including | 42USC1983 does not apply/ (has no force of law) in any State of the Union violating Art.6 Supremacy clause of the U.S. Constitution as | conveyed in my defense in my filings in the Minnesota Courts et al. 5. Carter v. Peace Officers Standards and Training Bd., 558N.W.2d 267, 273 (Minn. App. 1997) does not apply since this Minnesota Case Law precedent erroneously utilized federal case law that utilized the 11th Amendment of the U.S. Co