Maria Fabia Simonetti v. Gerard Anthony Simonetti, et al.

Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit erred in denying Appellant’s Civil Rights matter, whether:

1. Whether the lower courts erred in dismissing federal civil-rights claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction by misapplying the domestic relations exception, where the plaintiff does not seek a custody determination but alleges independent constitutional violations, including due process violations, fraud on courts refusing her right to petitioner,

2. Whether federal courts may decline jurisdiction over claims alleging violations of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses, including deprivation of fundamental parental rights and family integrity, solely because the underlying facts arise in custody-related context of a neglected child in irreparrable risk of danger.

3. Whether federal courts may dismiss claims alleging fraud on the court and retaliatory interference with constitutional rights where documentary evidence in the record is alleged to contradict material misrepresentations, Lawyer lying about a Federal crime.

4. The court mischaracterized Appellant’s federal civil-rights claims as a domestic relations matter, despite allegations that Appellant’s constitutional parental rights were violated; I am requesting my rights for Respondents fraud in Courts in NY, fraud of $6,000k on divorce propriety, and litigant’s constitutional parental right, disobeying Custody apostiled and filed by Respondent Gerard; Parental rights are considered fundamental liberty interests protected by the Due Process Clause, under the Fourteenth Amendment;

5. The Court failed to address federal statutes including 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal-question jurisdiction), 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981,1982,1983 (violation of familial integrity- Petitioner has the Legal Custody of the child apostiled in NY), 1985(3), and 18 U.S.C. § 1962 (civil RICO), and witness-protection violations under 18 U.S.C. § 1512.

6. Equal Protection (Discrimination): Whether differential treatment of a pro se litigant by court personnel, including restrictions not imposed on other litigants, constitutes a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment; and repeated procedural irregularities, including misdirected court correspondence, lack of notice, and inconsistent court procedures, deprive a litigant of a fair proceeding in violation of the Due Process Clause. Constitutes judicial failure to ensure fair proceedings.

7. whether actions by court personnel, acting under color of state law, that interfere with a litigant’s access to proceedings and ability to present her case constitute a deprivation of rights actionable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. To open the civil rights case, I have to go to Up State NY, in White Plan, for I was having a hard time to file a petition and have my rights as a witness of a Federal crime and protect my citizen daughter, to help me, enforce, writ a custody order that was filed in Brooklyn, that states the father, respondente Gerard, should give my daughter back when I went several times to receive her, and he disobey it; I tried on the three boros Courts. After I open the case in White Plan, SDNY legal aid’s guy called me to said sorry, then, it was transfer to Downtown, NYC, without I requested. At Appeal Courts I filed a lot complain about clerks/counsel misconduct and unethical behave, as your Hon. may see on DKT Entry# 143 Supplemntal motion.

8. Whether Appellant proved misrepresentations by opposing counsel, if unaddressed by the court, may deprive a litigant of a fair proceeding in violation of due process and applicable state law. Court’s dispite the father, Respondent Gerard, is escaping from a Federal investigation, fooling FBI with my daughter, for I colaborated with the Federal Police; and Courts failure to address allegations of procedural misconduct by Respondent’s Lawyer and interference with access to the courts hearing by security officer (as your Hon. may see unread/unanswered supplemental motion on Dkt Entry #143) constitutes an abuse of discretion and a violation of due process.

9. Respondent’s Lawyer inducing Courts an error, lying saying the Respondent Gerard is “exonerated” from a Federal investigation leaked by FBI, he escape from jail; and with his filed I showed the evidences that he is being investigated, and Federal Police did FOWARD TO A PROSECUTOR (may your Hon. see Respondent’s Brief page 9, ©appendix SA-96 to 108). The Court disregard it and the dismissal will keep my daughter in risk of irreparable damage:, missing, with the father bidding from a ponzi Crime (Thomas Franklyn Tarbutto and Beacon Hill exchange in NY).

10. Whether the court abused its discretion and violated due process by failing to consider critical medical evidence of a disable citizen, minor child, missing, for seven years without her Constitutional rights in Brazil; by dismissing the matter despite unrefuted evidence presented by the petitioner and a lack of evidentiary support from the opposing party; Dismiss a Civil Rights matter without addressing credible allegations of danger and disappearance of the child, who is being used to hurt a Federal crime witness, the mother, who provide proof that she has Custody of the child (violation of my parental rights).