Skip to content

SCOTUS - Second Petition for Writ of Certiorari

On this page
The decisions I have received allowed
me to strengthen and crystalize the
sustained and systemic controversy I
am struggling with as an able and
capable representative of a larger
group of preyed-on victims.

As Filed

  • an abbreviated and redacted copy.

Questions Presented

  1. The “Sec. 8. Affirmatively Advancing Civil Rights … to prevent and address discrimination and advance equity for all” clause of the 2/16/2023 Presidential Executive Order results in Russell’s Paradox, and it must be corrected as a logically unacceptable conclusion to a less deceitful “equity for some.” Is the mandate to selectively “advance equity” (for only some) Constitutional?

  2. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts aims to “double protect” some citizens at the expense of revoking all protections from others, including Constitutional rights. Does “double protecting” some waive Constitutional protections for all?

Reasons for Granting the Writ

  • SJC-13427 Deliberately Violates Ultimate Equity
  • SJC-13427 Obstructs Rule 60 Fraud On The Court
  • SJC-13427 Applies “Double Protecting” Deception
  • Presidential Executive Order Leads To Famous Paradox
  • President Mandates An Implied “American Gulag”

Conclusion - “War Of Attrition” Is Statutory Discrimination

Father is a proper representative forced “joint employee” of such American Gulag “joint employer,” as he tirelessly works every day under the direct threat of detention without any compensation (or protection by the State) whatsoever.

Father asserts that the thus deliberately induced judicial deadlock is a bona fide “war of attrition” strategy for delaying any investigations and denying Father’s desperate requests for relief from the thus retaliatory forced indigency.

Moreover, as substantiated in Father’s attached renewed Civil RICO Class Action Complaint, this war on Father, reinforced by SJC, meets all the criteria for statutory discrimination and conspiracy to violate federal law on purpose.

Significantly, this case is a meticulously preserved generalization of this Court’s 6/29/2023 decision regarding institutional (and governmental) efforts to infuse an ambiguous & inconsistent “social justice revolution” into our society, specifically to redistribute the vast wealth accumulated in our federal treasury.