Under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, federal district courts lack jurisdiction to hear cases seeking review of judgments issued by state courts. In this case, the purported foreign state-court judgment was rendered without service and without given the Petitioner the opportunity to defend her interest in the suit, in a jurisdiction that originally lacked personal jurisdiction. The underlying judgment was obtained by fraudulent measures. The question presented, on which the circuits are split, is: Whether the Rooker-Feldman doctrine applies when the underlying state-court judgment is void ab initio.

I. WHETHER THE DISTRICT COURT CASE AND APPEAL WERE WRONGFULLY DISMISSED UNDER ROOKER-FELDMAN DOCTRINE WHEN THE ORIGINAL FOREIGN JUDGMENT WAS VOID AND FRAUDULENTLY RENDERED IN VIOLATION OF PETITIONER'S DUE PROCESS THEREBY CREATING A CONFLICT AMONG THE CIRCUIT COURTS AS TO THE APPLICATION OF THE DOCTRINE AND CONTRARY TO THE SPIRIT OF THE DOCTRINE?

Whether the Rooker-Feldman doctrine applies when the underlying state-court judgment is void ab initio