Whether a civil domestic violence restraining order issued without objective standards violates a parent's fundamental liberty interests under the Fourteenth Amendment to have contact with their children

No question identified. : As grounds, it is stated: This is a multi-state diversity of citizenship family law case involving parental rights and responsibilities in light of allegations of “domestic violence.” Since the New Hampshire Supreme Court issued its Opinion on July 25, 2023 and final Mandate on September 1, 20238 in this case, there have been several important intervening matters. The first of these important intervening matters is United States v. Zackey Rahimi, No. 22-915, wherein this Honorable Court recently heard oral arguments on November 7, 2023. On the one hand, all that is properly before this Honorable Court in Rahimi is whether 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(8), which prohibits the possession of firearms by persons subject to domestic-violence restraining orders, violates the Second Amendment on its face. However, this matter, Albrecht v. Albrecht, does not concern the Second Amendment. On the other hand, Applicant argues that this matter, Albrecht v. Albrecht, nevertheless has everything to do with Judge Ho’s concurring opinion in United States v. Rahimi, 61 F. 4th 443 (5th Cir. 2023) wherein Judge Ho articulated that civil orders of protection in “domestic violence cases” are often issued in the absence of any objective standards, observing, inter alia, that “for example, a family court judge granted a restraining order on the ground that the husband told his wife that he did not love her and was no longer attracted to her. ‘There was no prior history of domestic violence,’ yet the judge issued the order anyway. Another judge issued a restraining order against David Letterman on the ground that his presence on television harassed the plaintiff.” Rahimi at 466 (internal citations omitted). This case, therefore, directly concerns Judge Ho’s opinion that “protective orders can also be a powerful strategic tool in custody disputes,” (Id.) which is what is at issue here. Consequently, while this case raises matters of law that are closely related to Rahimi, the underlying facts could not be more different. Easily distinguishing this instant case, Applicant asserts that he is a peaceful individual, who has never committed, nor threatened to commit, any violent act in his entire life. Nevertheless, solely as a consequence of Applicant attempting peacefully to attend a public church service on Sunday, November 1, 2019 in Massachusetts, in an effort to see his children, a New Hampshire trial court issued a “domestic violence” restraining order against Applicant, which Applicant alleges has been a “powerful strategic tool” in an underlying custody dispute. Further easily distinguishing this instant case from Rahimi, what is at issue here are Applicant’s fundamental liberty interests under the Fourteenth Amendment to have contact with his children, as opposed to Second Amendment rights. Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000). 2 Nevertheless, to the degree that the various amici curiae in Rahimi (No. 22915) address various collateral issues associated with civil protective orders, rather than the Second Amendment directly, Applicant requires additional time to review such recent, and highly relevant materials in this Honorable Court’s Rahimi docket, No. 22-915, presently pending, for potential use in Applicant’s petition for certiorari. The second important intervening matter concerns the accuracy of the underlying trial court record. Two different trial court judicial officers involved in Applicant’s case have been criminally convicted and disbarred, one for falsification of court records. See, e.g. State of New Hampshire v. Julie A. Introcaso, No. 2262021-CR-00126.' A third trial court judicial officer, former New Hampshire Marital Master Bruce F. DalPra, was found to have violated multiple provisions of the New Hampshire Code of Judicial Conduct, and was removed from the bench as a direct consequence of his actions in Applicant’s family law case, prompting extensive media coverage about Applicant’s family law case, including