Diana Reismann Sexton v. Gilbert Sexton

Whether the issuance of custody and property orders by a visiting United States district judge assigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§294 and 371 and presiding in state family court proceedings constitutes ultra vires action that violates the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment where the judge (1) bypassed mandatory state mediation requirements (Rule 3.a.), (2) deprived the petitioner of her home and awarded her only $1,000 without evidentiary support, and (3) placed the child with the father and required public schooling contrary to the child’s expressed preference to live with his mother and to be homeschooled — particularly where those actions followed an international relocation from Argentina and an admitted prior attempt by the father to remove the infant at the airport (as established at trial), resulting in long-term parental separation, economic deprivation, and denial of meaningful access to justice for two Argentine jus soli nationals?

Whether the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction and its implementing legislation, the International Child Abduction Remedies Act (ICARA), 22 U.S.C. §§9001 et seq., prohibits the retention in the United States of a child wrongfully removed or retained from a Contracting State (Argentina) through false pretenses regarding the migratory purpose of the relocation; and whether a child born abroad to an Argentine mother, naturalized as a United States citizen by his father via a Consular Report of Birth Abroad (CRBA) issued at a United States embassy (not on U.S. soil and not seen by the mother), is entitled to the full protections of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Citizenship Clause, including the requirement that the person be “subject to the jurisdiction thereof?”

Whether one spouse’s exclusive control and expenditure of community property to retain multiple counsel, while deliberately depriving the other spouse of access to those marital resources and forcing her to litigate pro se in a complex jury-trial divorce and custody proceeding, violates the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment and renders the resulting property division judgment voidable ab initio or subject to other equitable relief?

Whether seven years of parental alienation caused by the wrongful retention of a child and systematic indoctrination against the petitioner, carried out by the father, family members, and local government employees who aided fraudulent court proceedings, constitutes a continuing violation of the aggrieved parent’s fundamental parental rights under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment even after the child reaches the age of majority, and justifies the imposition of restraining orders against the alienating parties as well as disqualification or removal of the presiding state Court judge from the case?

Whether a state trial court violates the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment by dismissing, on the eve of a scheduled jury trial, a personal injury action asserting claims of assault and battery where the Petitioner had timely filed medical records, X-rays, and an affidavit documenting a Mallet fracture on petitioner hand and other injuries caused by the respondent’s violent acts, solely because the Petitioner had filed a separate federal lawsuit against the presiding judge?