Do state courts have discretion to take state action to willfully sustain deprivations of protected rights in violation of requirements under U.S. Const. Amend. XIV § 1?

QUESTION PRESENTED — This case implicates fundamental protected — rights including custody rights of natural parents. Respondent judicial officers have knowingly sustained reliance upon admittedly falsified conclusions of child welfare investigations by actors under color of state ; law to summarily determine Father’s reports of Son’s abuse were false in support of deprivations of Father’s and Son’s rights, deliberately suppressing evidence of deposition admissions of such falsified investigation outcomes while also preventing Father from calling the investigator as a witness. In later proceedings, ' Father submitted the deposition admissions of the perjurious investigation conclusions Respondent officers continuously rely upon to deprive custody and other protected rights—these repeatedly presented federal issues related to sustaining orders based upon admitted perjury through violations of due process are unreached through repeated misapplication of judicial doctrines in supersession of the United States Constitution and the Supreme Court of Minnesota has determined that it has discretion to take action that sustains such Constitutionally prohibited actions. THE QUESTION PRESENTED Is: Do state courts have discretion to take state action to willfully sustain deprivations of protected rights in violation of requirements under U.S. Const. Amend. XIV § 1?