Do state courts have discretion to misapply judicial doctrine in supersession of clear Constitutional requirements under U.S. Const. Amend. XIV §1, rendering such Constitutional guarantees mere brutum fulmen?

QUESTION PRESENTED This case implicates fundamental protected rights including custody rights of natural parents. The Minnesota Judiciary has 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 continuously relied 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 misapply judicial doctrine in supersession of clear Constitutional requirements under U.S. Const. Amend. XIV §1, rendering such Constitutional guarantees mere brutum fulmen?