After I had gotten a ruling from the New York State Court of Appeals, several months passed while I waited for New York State to start doing what it was supposed to. Considering that I had filed my writ of mandamus, I knew that it was known by SCOTUS that the State of New York wasn’t following the law, and I was seeking relief. So it was hard for me to find the justification for filing additional court documents that say “hey, this matter which I’ve already brought to your attention, it’s really bad; can you fix it?”; It just seams stupid to me…
Now after those several months had passed, the county resumed their attacks onto me using my child support order. Because of this, I moved SCOTUS to stay the order, but the stay was denied. Some time after the stay was denied, the entire petition was dismissed; Meaning SCOTUS had upheld my child support order on its face.
Now I have found something really interesting about the rulings of the courts, and what those rulings say about their considerations. This same finding of mine can be conveyed through these two points below:
1. The New York State Court system, was sustaining my child support order on the premise that this same order, was so obviously the appropriate remedy, that any appeal taken from it was moot.
2. The New York State Court of Appeals did not rule against this same case, until after (emphasis added) I had filed a writ of mandamus.
Therefore, New York State didn’t think that their considerations would be be sustained at the federal level, as otherwise, the New York State Court of Appeals would have simply ruled against me, instead of showing that they were willing to abstain from their duties, in an attempt to deny myself the ability to invoke the jurisdiction of SCOTUS. How interesting!