Retaliation For Open Letter To President Biden
"Details of the matters in Family Court
are irrelevant in this Court as Complaint
is only concerned with committed prohibited
activities, i.e., obstruction, retaliation,
and mail/wire fraud, in the context of the
cited federal antidiscrimination statutes."
As Filed
- an abbreviated and redacted copy.
Status Affidavit On Repeated Discriminatory And Retaliatory Sua Sponte Dismissals
Father reiterated that he had mailed his third pro se and forma pauperis petition for a writ of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court on 12/26/2023. Following the proper appeal of Father’s first “prisoner-like” sua sponte dismissal of his prior pro se Civil RICO complaint by this Court, the petition was docketed on 12/29/2023 as No. 23-6398.
Father followed up the docketing of his SCOTUS petition for a writ of certiorari with his Status Affidavit On Notifying The White House mailed to the Supreme Court on 1/2/2024.
The affidavit included Father’s open letter also mailed to President Biden on 1/2/2024.
In the letter, Father reported to The White House that “In my previous open letter, I mentioned my pro se Civil RICO Class Action Complaint, 1:23-cv-12692-PBS. Seemingly as retaliation, the substantiated complaint was again summarily dismissed with 16 direct misrepresentations of my specific facts. I took my second chance to formally (see attached) ask":
- Does sovereign immunity apply to an “LGBTQ+” Massachusetts when using federal funds to subsidize the forceful separation and activist-agenda-driven alienation of innocent American children from their loving American parents?
As Filed
- an abbreviated and redacted copy.
Motion To Alter Or Amend Judgment
Rule 59 (e) allows a party to file a motion to alter or amend a judgment. It may only be granted for three reasons: (1) to accommodate an intervening change in controlling law; (2) to account for new evidence not available at trial; or (3) to correct a clear error of law or prevent manifest injustice.
(1) to accommodate an intervening change in controlling law
As the [2/16/2023] Presidential Executive Order is a relevant “intervening change in controlling law,” the Judgment’s res judicata argument cannot hold if the underlying law is fundamentally altered.
(2) to account for new evidence not available at trial
Judgment misrepresents with “Kifor cannot fairly and adequately represent the interests of the class that he has identified,” as Father substantiated in his filed status affidavits that new iterations of sustained fraud (specifically Rule 60 Fraud On The Court), continued federal mail/wire fraud, and Family Court dockets falsified only to obstruct were committed solely because Father had been a representative of such “leftover” pro se parties which had been forcefully driven into indigency and could not afford an attorney due to new “equity-based” controlling federal law and its now substantiated and immediately implied systemic Marxist retaliations.
(3) to correct a clear error of law
Father’s herein record-based reconciliation of Judgment revealed 16 misrepresentations that attempt to adversely reframe, invalidate, and outright obstruct Complaint in an “equity-based” attempt to maintain all “prisoner-like” attributes of pro se and forma pauperis fathers.
(3) [or] prevent manifest injustice
Judgment first confirms: “Upon review of Kifor’s financial disclosures, the Court concludes that he may proceed without prepayment of the fee” only to then reframe, i.e., “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,” Father’s consistent and exhaustively substantiated existential crisis, forcefully induced by the Marxist “equity-based” justice silently practiced by the state in violation of the cited antidiscrimination statutes.