SCOTUS - First Petition for Writ of Certiorari
Ideally, government entities should be incapable of forming criminal intent. By substantiating these child-predatory “activist” schemes, Father alleges that the many federal taxpayers are being used to benefit the few state taxpayers.
- an abbreviated and redacted copy.
In the context of the federal CSE reimbursement program, the Massachusetts Legislature enacted an ambiguous interpretation by implying a possible spectrum for the rate of reimbursements. Is the “open-ended” and thus manipulatable federal program constitutional as currently practiced by Massachusetts?
Reasons for Granting the Writ
Father’s allegations have focused on only those judicial acts where the Family Court assumed appellate roles. Father claims with specificity that “in the nature of certiorari” acts were performed in the “complete absence of jurisdiction.”
Evading this systemic lack of any reviews, the Mass. Supreme Judicial Court, (“SJC”), then proceeded to threaten Father on 12/1/2022: “This is the third time that Kifor has sought some form of extraordinary relief from this court … we have clearly advised him that he is not entitled to extraordinary relief, whether pursuant to the certiorari statute, our superintendent powers or otherwise, to correct errors that are reviewable in the ordinary appellate process. Kifor is on notice that further attempts to obtain such relief in like circumstances may result in the imposition of sanctions.”
Father has been purposely forced into this existential “silencing” crisis and could not survive the “imposition of [any additional] sanctions” by the SJC.
As the Massachusetts Legislature is manifestly prioritizing maximized federal CSE reimbursements (and not minimizing simple collection costs), an entirely different set of non-custodial parents (and their dear children) are “targeted” by the activist Family Courts to custom fabricate lucrative “high-conflict” cases.
Namely, the parents for whom numerically maximized child supports total meaningful and collectible “maximums” for the State from open federal funds.
The ambiguities of the federal CSE program create a therefore “maximizable” spectrum for reimbursements for the State to apparently “legitimately” custom fabricate an unconstitutional “guilty until proven innocent” pretext in Family Court proceedings with an activist “feminist” and cruel child-predatory agenda.