Whether the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decided an important federal question regarding domestic-relations-exception in a way that conflicts with relevant decisions of this Court, and thereby enabled the ongoing unlawful-imprisonment, for which there is no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy at law other than a writ-of-habeas-corpus from this Court

QUESTIONS PRESENTED . Beginning in 2020, Respondents retaliated against Petitioner Kurt Benshoof (‘Benshoof’) because his religious beliefs proscribed coerced face mask wearing, and because Benshoof opposed having his twelve-year-old son subjected to an ongoing Pfizer clinical trial for a gene therapy which was neither “safe” nor “effective.” , Benshoof’s beliefs remained firmly held. When Benshoof sought redress of his grievances, the retaliation increased. Respondents acted in concert to kidnap Benshoofs son, steal his car, conceal their crimes via fraudulent family court proceedings, and indefinitely imprison Petitioners under color of law. Washington state courts denied Petitioners redress, avoiding habeas jurisdictional inquiry of family court proceedings by falsely claiming Benshoof sought appellate review. The customs and widespread practices of federal courts avoid addressing the violations of Petitioners’ rights by claiming “domestic relations exception.” Having brought cases before the Ninth Circuit, Benshoof discovered precisely how the federal courts are misapplying case law to falsely claim that federal courts do not have jurisdiction for redress of Petitioners’ unlawful imprisonment. The good news is that these widespread practices can now be addressed. The great news is that this Court can proactively prevent irreparable harm to parents and . children who would otherwise be at risk of what has befallen Benshoof and his minor son, A.R.W. . The three questions presented are: 1. Whether the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decided an important F . federal question regarding domestic relations exception in a way that conflicts with relevant decisions of this Court, and thereby enabled the ongoing unlawful imprisonment of Petitioners, for which there is no plain, : speedy, and adequate remedy at law other than a writ of habeas corpus from this Court. 2. Whether the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals sanctioned departures from the accepted and usual course of judicial proceedings by the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, and thereby enabled the ongoing unlawful imprisonment of Petitioners, for which there is no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy at law other than a writ of habeas corpus from this Court. 3. Whether minors have pro se rights under 28 U.S.C. § 1654 that can be asserted by their parents on their behalf. PARTIES . Petitioner Kurt A. Benshoof (“Benshoof”) is reverend of a humble home church. Benshoof was petitioner in the Supreme Court of the United States, is petitioner and : was appellant in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, was petitioner and is co-plaintiff in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, was petitioner in the Washington State Supreme Court, is appellant in the Washington State Court of Appeals, was plaintiff in King County Superior Court, and is defendant in Seattle Municipal Court. Petitioner A.R.W. is the fifteen-year-old son of Petitioner Kurt Benshoof and ii Respondent Jessica Owen. : Respondent CITY OF SEATTLE (“City”) is a municipal corporation, was respondent in the Supreme Court of the United States, was respondent in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, was respondent and is defendant in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, is appellee in the Washington State Court of Appeals, was defendant in King County Superior Court, and is plaintiff in Seattle Municipal Court. ; Respondent is David S. Keenan (‘Keenan’), is ajudge for King County Superior Court. Keenan was respondent in the United States Supreme Court, is a real party of interest and was an appellee in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, was a respondent and is defendant in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, was a respondent in the Supreme Court of Washington, was a respondent in King County Superior Court, and was the presiding family court judge in King County family court. Respondent Jessica R. Owen