Questions have risen out of state and federal court final judgments involving retaliatory,
fraudulent, conspiratorial, and ultra vires acts or omissions which were committed by religious
corporate members, licensed attorneys, and members of the judiciary. Questions of law are raised.
The questions were first raised - or otherwise fairly raised - on appeal as follows:

1.
Whether federal courts must compel state-courts to certify and attest to their records
on file in each court for deciding whether a federal plaintiff is barred from litigating
the federal suit by the preclusion law of the State where the claimant assert that the
state-courts failed to address federal constitutional and state issues raised on appeal.
28 U.S.C. § 1738; 42 U.S.C. § 1983; U.S.C. Const. Amends. 5,14.

2.
Whether claims can be relitigated apart from independent claims if the plaintiff
seeks relitigation under the full-and-fair opportunity exceptions when the claimant
plausibly alleges the state-courts failed to provide a full-and-fair opportunity to
litigate as guaranteed by the Fifth and 14th Amendment of the Constitution. 28
U.S.C. § 1738; La. R.S. 13:4231(3), 13:4232(A); U.S.C. Const. Amend. 5,14.

3.
Whether civil liability can be imposed on judges, the judicial staff of the court, and
licensed attorneys in their administrative and personal capacity if the officers fail
in their duty to report all known illegal acts or omissions of impropriety committed
by judges, licensed attorneys, or the like if they are required to do so by legislative
directive or written judicial policies; or (2) whether civil liability can be imposed
on elected governmental officers in their administrative managerial capacity for
failing in their duty to promulgate a written policy requiring all members of the
judiciary to report all known illegal acts or omissions of impropriety to the proper
authorities for protecting the rights of citizens. See 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

4.
Whether private parties may be liable under Section 1983, Title 42 U.S.C., when
the attorneys for the private parties collaborate with judges to cause judges to
misuse power possessed by virtue of state law for precluding entry of a judgment
condemning their ultra vires acts, omissions, retaliatory, fraudulent conduct, bad
faith dealings, or the like. See 42 U.S.C. § 1983; U.S.C. Amends. 5,14.

5.
Whether the Younger abstention doctrine prevent federal courts from proceeding
when state-court litigation is pending if the proponent plausibly demonstrate that
factual circumstances does not fall within one of the three exceptional categories
that define Younger's scope. 42 U.S.C. § 1983; U.S.C. Const. Amend. 14.

6.
Whether the operative filing presents a viable federal and pendent cause of action
against the parish government for the illegal acts or omissions of the elected parish
clerk for the district court; and (2) Whether the operative filing presents a viable
federal and pendent cause of action on which relief may be granted against the final
policy-making appointed supervisory clerk for the circuit

Whether federal courts must compel state courts to certify records and whether civil liability can be imposed on judges and attorneys for failing to report illegal acts