The federal district and circuit courts failed to conduct a de novo review and incorrectly denied jurisdiction to this 42 U.S.C.* sec. 1983 lawsuit. It complains of the conspiracy of a state appellate judge to protect the Department of Child and Family Services, and the ADA representing it in juvenile court, from liability for negligence or fraud. The appellate judge was alerted to the trial set in juvenile court against DCFS and the payee, and he directed payee 's attorney and the juvenile court judge to pretend that the district court had already decided the issue. The judge refused to rule, and the attorney presented the issue to the court of appeal on a writ application due to be filed from a unrelated district court judgment.

1. Whether the federal fifth circuit erred in not reviewing de novo this independent action and in dismissing it under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine?

2. Whether the federal courts should have found the 2015 state appellate-court judgment was made without subject matter jurisdiction, and is void ah initio) and by a conspiracy to prevent a stipulation in juvenile court from being considered in deciding the legal paternity issue.I

3. Whether the Louisiana Fifth Circuit 's 2017 affirmation of the granting of exceptions of no cause of action and res judicata and dismissal with prejudice of the petition to nullify the 2015 judgment bars this complaint from federal district court jurisdiction under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine: and whether the void ah initio exception to Rooker Feldman is necessary and proper?

Whether the federal courts erred in dismissing this 42 U.S.C. 1983 lawsuit under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine