Petition for Writ of Certiorari — M. H., Petitioner v. J. K.

No.

In TO

'upreme Court of the Oniteb 'tate

M.H.,

Petitioner,

V.

J.K.,

Respondent.

On Petition For Writ Of Certiorari To The

Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District,

Division One, State Of California

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

MICHAEL HucuL

In Pro Se

P0 Box 2638

San Marcos, CA 92079

(616) 828-9533

hucul@sbcglobal.net

1

QUESTIONS PRESENTED

Under the Supremacy Clause does Federal

law on ordering child support to be paid "exclusively"

by absent parents, preempt state law when Federal

funds are involved?

Do the State of California laws on ordering

child support to be paid by "Fathers" discriminate and

violate Petitioner's rights under the Equal Protection

guarantees of the Fourteenth Amendment of the

United States Constitution, and Sections 7(a)(b) and

31, Article I of the Declaration of Rights of the State of

California's Constitution?

Do the Honorables Michael D. Washington

and James A. Mangione violate Federal Statutes 28

U.S.C. § 455(a)(b)(4) by receiving two thirds of their

salaries from their performance of ordering child support, and does this violate Petitioner's due process

rights under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United

States Constitution?

Do the tribunals of the State of California

have jurisdiction to order child support from Parents

with joint custody without any California laws that

provide due process for Parents with joint custody?

When the State of California made an order to

not order child support going forward, but then several

months later ordered that they did order child support

that causes Petitioner to owe $8,000, but the hearing

transcripts indicate the Court did not order child support, does this violate Petitioner's rights to due process?

11

QUESTIONS PRESENTED

Continued

-

6) Can this Supreme Court of the United States

grant certiorari on the merits presented to the State of

California Courts?

111

PARTIES

M.H. (Michael Hucul)

Petitioner

J.K. (Janet Kren)

Respondent

CORPORATE DISCLOSURE

The Petitioner is not a non-governmental corporation and the Petitioner does not have a corporation or

shares held by a publicly traded company.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

Questions Presented...............................................i

Parties.................. . ..................................................

iii

Corporate Disclosure Statement............................iii

Table of Authorities ................................................vi

OpinionBelow.........................................................1

Jurisdiction.............................................................3

Relevant Statutory Provisions...............................4

.

Introduction ............................................................

5

Statement of the Case ............................................5

Argument.... . .. ...........................................................

7

Conclusion...............................................................8

V

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Continued

-

Page

Index of Appendices

Appendix A Non-published decision of the State

of California Court of Appeal.........App. 1

Appendix B 4/3/17 Hearing minutes ...............App. 20

Appendix C 11/8/16 Hearing minutes .............App. 24

Appendix D 8/1/16 Hearing minutes ...............App. 28

Appendix E 2/3/16 Hearing Minutes ...............App. 29

Appendix F 11/8/13 Hearing Minutes .............App. 33

Appendix G 2/14/18 Supreme Court of California

Denial of Petition of Review.........App. 36

Appendix H 4/3/17 Hearing transcripts...........App. 37

Appendix I 11/8/16 Hearing transcripts.........App. 41

Appendix J 2/3/16 Hearing transcripts...........App. 43

Appendix K Dept. of Child Support Serv. letters................................................App. 45

vi

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Page

CASES:

Gregory v. Ashcroft, 501 U.S. 452 (1991)......................6

Liljeberg v. Health Services Acquisition Corp.,

486 U.S. 847 (1988) ...................................................6

North Dakota v. United States, 495 U.S. 423

(1990).........................................................................6

Sullivan v. Stroop, 496 U.S. 478 (1990) ....................5, 7

Sessions v. Morales-Santana, Supreme Court

(2017).....................................................................6,7

Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000).....................6, 7

STATUTES:

42 U.S.C. §§ 651-670 .................................................4, 5

45 C.F.R. § 302.34 and § 303.107 .............................4, 6

28 U.S.C. § 455(a)(b)(4) .............................................4, 6

1

OPINION BELOW

On November 8, 2013, Petitioner was granted joint

custody of his son J. (Appendix F) On February 3, 2016,

it was determined Petitioner owed child support arrears from November 8, 2013 through to October 1,

2015 in the amount of $12,198.00 (Appendix E), and

that no child support would be ordered from October 1,

2015, going forward (Appendix J) but to determine if

any future child support amounts would be ordered,

the state court ordered Petitioner to attend a vocational evaluation to assess Petitioner's earning capacity. (Appendix E)

On May 25, 2016, because Petitioner and J's

Mother already provide the basic necessities for their

child; and the violation of Petitioner's constitutional

rights, with the threat of future violations; and the pecuniary interests the state court justices have in the

outcome of their orders for child support, along with

Petitioner having to endure various fraudulent activities during these state court proceedings; and with the

threat of being subject to the penalties imposed by Federal law for owing back child support, Petitioner filed

a complaint in the Federal Court for the Southern District of California.

On August 1, 2016, the state court determined

there was still a request for an order to modify child

support, but the Court took it off calendar and ordered

Petitioner to pay for his son's tuition. (Appendix D) On

November 8, 2016, even though the state court ordered

no child support from October 1, 2015 forward, the

2

Court determined Petitioner now owes $8,424 in additional back child support from October 1, 2015 going

forward. (Appendix C)

Because Petitioner already provided the basic necessities for his child, Petitioner asked the Court if

they would cite the State of California law that gave

the Court jurisdiction to order child support from a

joint custodial Parent, the Court could not provide one.

(Appendix I)

On March 7, 2017, the State of California and the

County of San Diego and their Department of Child

Support Services (DCSS) filed documents with the

Court indicating they now want child support payments mailed to the DCSS, this was done without a

court or administrative he}ing and without an order

from a court of competent jurisdiction. (Appendix K)

On April 3, 2017, after objecting to the Court's determination that back child support was owed, the

Court denied Petitioner's request for a stay pending

appeal and ordered additional payments of $500 per

month conflicting with the $200 a month payments ordered on February 3, 2016 and in addition to the $571

a month payments ordered on November 8, 2013, and

when J.K. earns more that M.H. (Appendix B)

Petitioner again requested the Court to provide

the law(s) that gave it jurisdiction to order child

support from a Parent who has joint custody, who is

not absent and who already supports and provides

the basic necessities for their child, the Court could

not provide one, but instead gave Petitioner a

3

"hypothetical" scenario that might create a need for

child support to be ordered. (Appendix H)

Because the state court record shows Petitioner's

net income was $10,364 per year and with the Court

ordering no child support from October 2015 going forward, with the threat of future violations of Petitioner's constitutional rights, the threat of civil and

federal penalties including freezing, then taking Petitioner's son's and wife's financial resources in their

checking and savings account and jail time for owing

back child support, on December 8, 2017 after Petitioner appealed to the State of California Fourth Appellate District, Division One they affirmed the lower

Court's decisions.* (Appendix A)

On February 14, 2018 Petitioner petitioned the

Supreme Court of California to be heard and this was

denied. (Appendix G)

JURISDICTION

This Supreme Court of the United States has

jurisdiction under 12 U.S.C. § 1257, for review of the

California Appellate Court when the Supreme Court of

California denied review.

The Appellate Court's decision indicates there was a hearing and orders were formalized on March 13, 2017, this was an

error as the hearing- prior to April 3, 2017 was held on November

8, 2016.

*

RELEVANT STATUTORY PROVISIONS

The United States Constitution, Article VI,

Clause 2, in part invalidates State laws that interfere

with Federal programs and impose discriminatory burdens.

The First, Fifth, Tenth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution in part

protect our rights to liberty and the right of association, guarantees just compensation for a taking, and

protects our substantive due process, and due process

rights.

Title IV-D of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.

H 651-670) in part pays the States $2 for every $1

they can order and collect in child support from "noncustodial" parents.

45 C.F.R. § 302.34 and § 303.107 in part regulates the States on entering into "cooperative" arrangements with state courts to locate and collect child

support from "non-custodial Parents."

28 U.S.C. § 455(a)(b)(4) in part calls for the disqualification of a judge who has a financial interest in

the outcome of a case.

5

INTRODUCTION

Because of the time constraints of having this petition heard with Petitioner's other petition from the

Ninth Circuit, Petitioner requests this Court to review

the documents submitted to the State of California

Courts together with Petitioner's request for this Supreme Court to review the order from the Ninth Circuit in Hucul et al. v. Burwell et al.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

The United States Constitution, Article VI, Clause

2, invalidates State laws or customs by the Supremacy

Clause that do not yield to the requirements of Federal

law or rulings by the Supreme Court of the United

States when the States receive Federal funds under Title IV-D of the Social Security Act. (42 U.S.C. §§ 651670).

When the State of California applies its laws and

customs in a discriminatory way towards Fathers and

Parents who are divorced but have joint custody, that

interferes with, and is contrary to Title IV-D of the Social Security Act and this Courts own rulings in Sullivan v. Stroop, 496 U.S. 478 (1990) that child support is

"exclusively" for "non-custodial" "absent parents"; and

when the State of California arbitrarily changes a Parent's status from joint custodial to a non-custodial and

an absent Parent on forms submitted to the Secretary

of Health and Human Services for the purposes of receiving federal funds, these State of California laws

and customs are void under the Supremacy Clause.

(North Dakota v. United States 495 U.S. 423 (1990)).

See also (Sessions v. Morales-Santana, Supreme Court

(2017)).

Because there are no Federal or State laws regarding child support from joint custodial parents; the

First, Fifth, Tenth, and Fourteenth Amendments to

the United States Constitution guarantee a Parent's

right to choose, without interferences from the State

whether they become absent/noncustodial Parents. If

the parents choose to leave and become a non-custodial/absent parent, the State and Federal laws should

apply, but if both Parents are fit and decide to stay

Within the relationship of their children and provide

the basic necessities for them in spite of their divorce,

their decision should and must end the state involvement regarding child support. (Gregory v. Ashcroft, 501

U.S. 452 (1991)). See also (Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S.

57 (2000)).

Under 45 C.F.R. § 302.34 and § 303.107, when

the Justices of the State of California receive twothirds of their salaries from Federal financial incentives based on their performances of ordering child

support they have violated 28 U.S.C. § 455(a)(b)(4).

(Liljeberg v. Health Services Acquisition Corp.,

486

U.S. 847 (1988)).

The record will show the attorneys involved in this

matter signed documents and made agreements preventing Petitioner's Son from having his Court ordered

7

parenting time with Petitioner, the attorneys negated

other documents existed during Court proceedings

even after they were submitted to the Court as exhibits, and with indifference they caused injury to Petitioner because the State of California took Petitioner's

family financial resources and suspended Petitioner's

real estate license without any orders from the Court.

All so the Court, the County of San Diego and its Justices with the State of California could claim more in

Federal funds, violating Petitioner's due process and

substantive due process rights.

ARGUMENT

The petitions for writ of certiorari should. be

granted for the clarity on Federal law that child support is "exclusively" for absent Parents. (Sullivan v.

Stroop, 496 U.S. 478 (1990)). There should be no state

interference when both parents provide the basic necessities for their children, regardless if they are divorced or married. (Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57

(2000)). And that it is discrimination against a Parent/Father who is divorced to have to pay child support

when they have joint custody and already provide for

their child. (Sessions v. Morales-Santana, Supreme

Court (2017)).

CONCLUSION

The Petition for writ of certiorari should be

granted.

Respectfully submitted,

Originally signed on: February 20, 2018

MICHAEL HUCUL

In Pro Se

P0 Box 2638

San Marcos, CA 92079

(616) 828-9533

hucul@sbcglobal.net