Is it constitutional for the State of Connecticut to issue a civil restraining order with nationwide reach and under federal punishment, including an absolute ban on the possession of firearms across State lines?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED This is a protected speech as well as parental and property rights case addressing jurisdictional issues of constitutional nature through a civil restraining order from the State of Connecticut, also impacting the ability to exercise the right to bear arms nationally. This case relates back to substantive family proceedings in which international private law and constitutional law intersect, already analyzed through a Petition for Writ of Certiorari dated 4/15/2019 (Docket No. 18-1376). Although the topic under review was presented in such petition,! the final ruling from local courts was pending at the time. The petition herein further embarks on the constitutional impact of such restraining order in light of the Petitioner’s rights to due process and to be timely heard, as a father and citizen of the United States, in the context of abuse of process, vexatious actions, and his unequal treatment under the law. 1. Is it constitutional for the State of Connecticut to issue a civil restraining order with nationwide reach and under federal punishment, including an absolute ban on the possession of firearms across State lines? 1“4, Did the lower court ignore the constitutional claims posed by the Petitioner as well as all records, facts, and applicable law in this case, including undisputed evidence proving abuse of process, false criminal charges and illegitimate advancement of civil claims, a spurious civil restraining order with nationwide reach under federal punishment, the curtailment of this party’s parental and property rights, unethical and criminal conduct, as well as lack of proper counsel, police brutality, harassment, and persecution through state-related institutions?” (italics added). il QUESTIONS PRESENTED -— Continued 2. Did the lower court further infringe the Petitioner’s parental and property rights as well as due process by upholding a civil restraining order in the midst of substantive family proceedings? 8. Did the lower court infringe the Petitioner’s first and second amendment rights by upholding a civil restraining based on “hate and anger” speech? 4. As a whole, did the lower court further infringe the Petitioner’s fundamental rights by applying the law in a biased, partial and unequal fashion?