Whether the Rooker-Feldman doctrine bars inferior Federal Courts from voiding State Court judgments that are void ab initio under State and Federal law?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW This petition presents one or more questions of exceptional importance of which the Fifth Circuit conflicts with authoritative decisions of this Supreme Court and at least three (3) other Circuit Courts that have addressed the issue, namely whether the RookerFeldman doctrine bars inferior Federal Courts from voiding State Court judgments that are void ab initio under State and Federal law. The Third, Sixth, and Ninth Circuits recognize the ab initio exception to Rooker-Feldman, while the Eighth and Eleventh Circuits decline to recognize this exception. See FN 20. The Fourth and Fifth Circuits neither endorse nor reject this exception, however the Fifth Circuit has recognized the ab initio exception in bankruptcy cases, but refused to recognize it in this §1983 case. Thus, Supreme Court review is necessary to settle this important question of Federal Law and secure and maintain uniformity of the Circuit Court’s decisions. Most importantly, all Texas Courts, and now the U.S. District Court and the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals Ein Banc have refused review of this facial challenge applying the Rooker-Feldman abstention doctrine, thus upholding a State Court permanent injunction that abridges Petitioners’ privileges or immunities of speech, expression and to petition the government for redress of grievances through unfettered open court access. 1.Whether the Rooker-Feldman doctrine bars inferior Federal Courts from voiding State Court judgments that are void ab initio under State and Federal law? i i 2.A) Does Rooker-Feldman overrule the Fourteenth ; Amendment duty of the Federal Courts to review claims for facial relief; ie. No State shall_make_or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; B) Like the rulings in this case, do the inferior Federal Courts suddenly lose jurisdiction to preserve, protect, and defend core constitutional freedoms if a citizen challenges State Court judgments that are void ab initio under Texas and Federal law? 3. In a case of first impression, whether the Texas Vexatious Litigant Statutes are pre-empted by 42 U.S.C. §1981, and facially unconstitutional as an unlawful prior restraint abridging the core First Amendment privileges or immunities of speech, expression, and to petition? 4. Does the Texas Courts’ enforcement of facially unconstitutional statutes constitute a due process violation of the most basic sort actionable under 42 U.S.C.§$1983? it STATEMENT OF RELATED CASES This Federal facial challenge comes after the Texas i 14 Court of Appeals and the Texas Supreme Court : refused to review Petitioner’s facial challenges six (6) times. The U.S. District Court denied facial review and entered its 20July2021 Memorandum and Order’ dismissing Petitioners’ Complaint upon Fed.R.Civ. P.12(b)(1), expressly finding the United States District Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction under RookerFeldman. Petitioner appealed this ruling to the Fifth Circuit? which denied facial review affirming Rooker-Feldman dismissal in a 17March2022 non-published opinion.* Petitioner then sought En Banc rehearing which was denied 20April2022. After the Fifth Circuit denied review, Petitioner, acting in compliance with the vexatious litigant order, sought permission to file Notice of Appeal and Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus in the Texas Courts to challenge adverse State Court judgments entered after filing this Federal suit. The Administrative Probate Court, and the Texas Fourteenth Court of Appeals denied Petitioner permission to file Notice of Appeal and Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus.’ Petitioner then sought relief from the Texas Supreme Court, whose clerk blocked Petitioner from filing the request for relief. There is now pending in 1(p.10a-28a). *ROA.21-20446.3498. 3(p.1a-9a). 4(p.47a-48a). iw the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals Petitioners’ request to file Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus under cause no. WR-29,850-04.