Skip to content

Agenda-Driven Statutory Discriminations And Retaliations Are “Prisoner-Like” Segregations

I meticulously documented in my letter that
while “fatherlessness” is meaningless for a
now 65-year-old millionaire mother, it is
crucially meaningful for my still minor but
very dear children as “extreme parental
alienation should be considered emotional
child abuse and referred criminally.”

As Mailed

Agenda-Driven Statutory Discriminations And Retaliations Are “Prisoner-Like” Segregations

In my previous open letter, I indicated that my meticulously substantiated complaint in the U.S. District Court was summarily dismissed with 16 direct misrepresentations of my relevant facts. Among other things, I specifically claimed that “as the consequences of the Presidential Executive Order (effectively equivalent to mandating new ‘Jim Crow’-like segregation of Americans into ‘double protected with equity’ and ‘unprotected with no equity at all’ disjoint camps), the directly implied ‘American Gulag Of Leftovers’ can be categorized only as a base for the new ‘forced deprogramming’ of the masses.”

The sua sponte dismissal immediately targeted & banished even the possibility of any existence of such an “American Gulag Of Leftovers.” Moreover, the District Court flatly asserted that “Kifor cannot fairly and adequately represent the interests of the class that he has identified” while also acknowledging that I was a forcedly indigent pro se individual who had expressly waived his attorney-client privileges to specifically protect his children from the allowed predatory practices of prior million-dollar attorneys.

The silencing and enslaving intent behind the dismissal is stated unambiguously: “Here Kifor has filed several unsuccessful lawsuits with allegations arising out of the same or similar events against identical or substantially similar parties. Nonetheless, the dismissal of his earlier actions has not deterred Kifor from again filing suit. Kifor’s conduct rises above the level of litigiousness and qualifies as vexatious. His repeated filing of lawsuits concerning his family court matters is an abuse of the process.”

My complaint was dismissed by referring to a “gatekeeper” statute written specifically for “prisoners.” As I have not committed any crimes, have never been convicted, and have never been a prisoner, I immediately objected to the court’s “prisoner-like” (but purely group-identity-based) segregation.

The court justified on 1/22/2024 that “To the extent plaintiff states that the in forma pauperis statute is limited to prisoners, plaintiff misunderstands the scope of cases to which this statute applies due to a clerical error in the statute. Under federal law, a court may authorize the commencement of any suit without prepayment of fees or security therefore, by a person who submits an affidavit that includes a statement of all assets such prisoner possesses… The use of the word prisoner in 28 U.S.C. 1915 (a)(1) appears to be a typographical error (see attached). Yet, the same statute also duly clarifies that “28 U.S.C. § 1915 (h): As used in this section, the term ‘prisoner’ means any person incarcerated or detained in any facility who is accused of, convicted of, sentenced for, or adjudicated delinquent for, violations of criminal law or the terms and conditions of parole, probation, pretrial release, or diversionary program.”