I had overlooked that I had filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York, regarding my family matters.
The complaint is a little rambly, but it was clear and that’s what mattered. The complaint speaks to some appeal(s) that I had taken from some intermediary orders; and while those intermediary orders do help paint the picture of what was transpiring here at the time, the appeals taken from those orders were not appeals taken “as of right”; meaning that the interpretation of whether or not the dismissal of those appeals was significant, is subjective. From this, I have more or less omitted those same appeals from publication here on my website, as they are more or less moot at this time.
The relief that I was seeking through my complaint, was for my family court cases to be removed from the State of New York, and heard at the federal level. I had more or less given up on the rulings made by the courts of State of New York by this time.
Complaint in United States District Court for the Northern District of New York
Magistrate’s order report and recommendation
Interestingly, I was granted the right to be heard as a poor person, and proceed without court fees.
Also, after having read the report recommendation, I found that I needed to take my family court pleadings directly to SCOTUS, if I wished to be heard at the federal level.
The Magistrate’s order report and recommendation was accepted by the judge in it’s entirety.
After reading the Magistrate’s order, I had subsequently made a filing with SCOTUS; prior to the US District court disposing of the matter. I had assumed that it would be dismissed, and I didn’t want to wait.
Hey it’s now class time do you understand what was in that upload from the judge? Rule number one you cannot use federal courts to dispute civil custody and divorce cases rule number two you cannot appeal a civil judgment in which you lost over to the federal system unless it’s the Supreme Court which has denied you so you can give up this whole thing and delete this site now
Check the dates on the documents Hunter this is all before SCOTUS.
Once again, you made the same remedial mistake I pointed out in your other appeals, failing to bring the judge’s attention to any actual errors and hoping he’ll dream one up for you:
“Plaintiff pro se Michael Joseph Rotondo has filed a document labeled ‘Objections to the Report-Recommendation,’ which consists of a single sentence wherein he summarily “respectfully reasserts the merit of his allegations.” (Dkt. No. 6.) Because Rotondo’s objections are general and conclusory…”
I searched ‘Rotondo’ on the Supreme Court’s database. All three petitions were summarily rejected, and your language about the state becoming an oligarchy is so comically melodramatic to get around the fact that you’re just trying to dodge child support. What an unbelievably self-important farce this is, pestering Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s clerks because you can’t figure out why the state courts would impute roughly the minimum wage – literally the smallest amount of money someone working one full-time job can legally earn – to a deadbeat dad, what real evidence looks like, or why a lower appeals court wouldn’t bother with your nonsense. I stand by my earlier remarks: you are an autistic narcissist who should have gone to Legal Aid for real advice instead of making up your own gibberish.
Once again, you made the same remedial mistake I pointed out in your other appeals, failing to bring the judge’s attention to any actual errors and hoping he’ll dream one up for you:
Response: It cites the Rooker–Feldman doctrine which isn’t something you can contest in that court.
“Plaintiff pro se Michael Joseph Rotondo has filed a document labeled ‘Objections to the Report-Recommendation,’ which consists of a single sentence wherein he summarily “respectfully reasserts the merit of his allegations.” (Dkt. No. 6.) Because Rotondo’s objections are general and conclusory…”
Response: …”, the court will review the R&R for clear error only.” Which what something I was attempting to achieve with the objections.
I searched ‘Rotondo’ on the Supreme Court’s database. All three petitions were summarily rejected, and your language about the state becoming an oligarchy is so comically melodramatic to get around the fact that you’re just trying to dodge child support.
Response: It’s pretty easy to see the merit of my contentions.
What an unbelievably self-important farce this is, pestering Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s clerks because you can’t figure out why the state courts would impute roughly the minimum wage – literally the smallest amount of money someone working one full-time job can legally earn – to a deadbeat dad,
Response:
Family Court Act section 413(1)(b)(5)(v):
an amount imputed as income based upon the parent’s former
resources or income, if the court determines that a parent has reduced
resources or income in order to reduce or avoid the parent’s obligation
for child support;
Here’s the link to that post of mine Steve. Family Court Act section 413(1)(b)(5)(v) is a “law”, one of the many that your precious courts are required (emphases strongly added) to follow.
what real evidence looks like, or why a lower appeals court wouldn’t bother with your nonsense. I stand by my earlier remarks: you are an autistic narcissist who should have gone to Legal Aid for real advice instead of making up your own gibberish.
Response: Thanks for your half-cocked opinion Steve. Click the link in this reply and stop wasting my time with your comments; I’m not the nincompoop you’re looking for.