Whether a state child protection agency's alleged fraudulent or perjured petition violates a parent's constitutional due process rights when used to initiate child custody proceedings

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1651(a) and U.S.Sup.Ct.R. 22, Applicants Joseph Rued, also o/b/o W.O.R., a minor child, Scott Rued, and Leah Rued respectfully request the issuance of an emergency injunction to inhibit Defendants below and Respondents here from sustaining reliance upon the admitted fraud and perjury of Hennepin County Child Protection Services (“CPS”) investigator Respondent Jaykumar Jayswal’s Child in Need of Protection or Services Petition (“CHIPSP”), which has been admitted to be falsified under oath, and the fraud in conspiracy of other Defendants relying upon the same, to deprive Constitutionally protected rights of Applicants pending final adjudication of Petition for Writ of Certiorari and/or Petition for Writ of Prohibition and, alternatively, Rule Nisi in this Court. THE QUESTION PRESENTED Is: Should an emergency injunction issue to inhibit Defendants below and Respondents here from sustaining reliance upon the admitted fraud and perjury of Hennepin County Child Protection Services CPS investigator Respondent Jaykumar Jayswal’s CHIPSP, which has been admitted to be falsified under oath, and the fraud in conspiracy of other Respondents relying upon the same, to deprive Constitutionally protected rights of Applicants pending final adjudication of Petition for Writ of Certiorari and/or Petition for Writ of Prohibition and, alternatively, Rule Nisi in this Court?