I’m not surprised because they had already done something that is legally analogous to this, when they denied my request to stay the illegal June 15, 2017 support order. An illegal order needs to be stopped, and by allowing it to proceed I knew that my SCOTUS petition wasn’t going be anything like what I thought it would be, prior to this same stay denial.
Subsequently, 30 days after I had asked the highest court in the country to keep a free man from being attacked by his government, I had no place to live from an illegal eviction action, and the mainstream media was characterizing me as some kind of ultra-liberal freeloader that should be discredited for it.
After they refused to stop the support order from being enforced, I decided that sending them a petition for my son’s custody/visitation order was a waste of paper. My appeal for my son became relevant to the jurisdiction of SCOTUS at the same time that my support case did, but I couldn’t justify the expense of the photo copies at the time because I wasn’t sure if I was going to need those same monies, to produce more photocopies in an attempt to continue to fight the support order, which was shaping up to put me in jail for 90 days. It was my assumption that fighting to keep my rights to my child would be a lot harder from behind bars.
Regardless, I’m sure that there are some who would say, well there could be some extenuating circumstances that make the June 15, 2017 support order appropriate for the situation; however the reason that this can not be the case, is because you can’t simply apply whatever laws you want to apply, because you feel that the effect they produce is desirable. Here are three examples of this; the court feels that the June 15, 2017 support order is appropriate because I’m white, or because I’m a libertarian, or because support 2nd amendment rights. Do you see how quickly this position falls apart?
By dismissing my support order petition, SCOTUS has sustained that an innocent person can be found guilty of something that they didn’t do. So yourself being in possession of your friend’s hat, can be proof that you had the means, motive, and opportunity to murder your friend and also, the hat could be used as proof that your friend is dead, which would satisfy habeas corpus. NYS Family Court Act section 413(1)(b)(5)(v) didn’t apply to me or my situation, so now I guess the laws don’t have to apply anymore for them to be enforced, at least according to SCOTUS…
In many ways, this dismissal is exactly what I’d sought to produce. Now it’s all in black and white for people to see.