No. 18-8150

Ilya Liviz, Sr. v. Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, et al.

Lower Court: First Circuit
Docketed: 2019-02-27
Status: Denied
Type: IFP
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: access-to-court access-to-courts care-and-protection child-custody constitutional-rights due-process federally-protected-rights jury-trial parental-rights question-of-law state-court
Key Terms:
DueProcess
Latest Conference: 2019-04-12
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Is Dad being denied his federally protected due process right to petition for redress and access to a meaningful hearing resulting from state's refusal to answer a question of law concerning sacred right to a jury trial in care and protection proceedings in which the state seeks to terminate parents' legal right to rear their child?

Question Presented (from Petition)

QUESTION PRESENTED FOR REVIEW 1) Is Dad being denied his federally protected due process right to petition for redress and access to a meaningful hearing resulting from state's refusal to answer a question of law concerning sacred right to a jury trial in care and protection proceedings in which the state seeks to terminate parents’ legal right to rear their child? Answer is a matter of public importance. Problem: While there is a split among the States whether jury trials should be offered as an option for parents in Care and Protection Juvenile Court proceedings. Dad is being deprived of due process access to the court because the state refuses to "answer" whether such right does, or does not exist; state constitution deems it to be a sacred right. Last word: 1 humbly beg this honorable court, on my knees, with my hat in hand stretched out in front of me to grant me the opportunity to please appear before you God Bless You! OPINIONS BELOW On 04/14/17 the state juvenile court has denied the request for jury trial. See ADD. 17. On 11/10/17 the Supreme Judicial Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts refused to answer Dad's request for a jury right question of law. See ADD. 15. On 04/06/2018, federal district court dismissed Dad's civil complaint pursuant to Younger abstention. See ADD. 6. JURISDICTION The jurisdiction of this Court to review the Judgment of the Supreme Judicial Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, the highest court of Massachusetts, is invoked under 28 U.S.C. § 1257(a). CONSTITUTIONAL BASIS Dad has the right to; "'... petition the Government for a redress of grievances" (amend. I.); "... nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law" (amend. V.); “[t]he enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people" (amend. IX.); and “... [njo State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws” (amend. XIV).

Docket Entries

2019-04-15
Petition DENIED.
2019-03-21
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 4/12/2019.
2019-03-06
Waiver of right of respondents Supreme Judicial Court of the Commonwealth of Mass., et al. to respond filed.
2019-01-26
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due March 29, 2019)

Attorneys

Ilya Liviz
Ilya Liviz — Petitioner
Ilya Liviz — Petitioner
Supreme Judicial Court of the Commonwealth of Mass., et al.
Anna Rachel Dray-SiegelCommonwealth of Massachusetts - Office of the Attorney General, Respondent
Anna Rachel Dray-SiegelCommonwealth of Massachusetts - Office of the Attorney General, Respondent