Whether the Sixth Circuit erred in affirming the dismissal of a case involving alleged constitutional violations in a family court federal-state enterprise

QUESTION PRESENTED This case complained of an attack on parent-child rights, criminal : racketeering conspiracy, deprivation of rights under color of law, capital offenses, oo extortion, fraud, punishment, and more that is a path to tyranny. The result was a ; denial of accountability and remedy. , “(T]he interest of parents in the care, custody, and control of their children— . is perhaps the oldest of the fundamental liberty interests recognized by this Court.” Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000) at 65. Federal District Court has original jurisdiction over matters resulting from Acts of Congress and a federal-state enterprise: Congress created the Office of Child Support Enforcement within the Department of Health and Human Services. This case’s controversy arises from the federal-state enterprise and public servants acting under contracts made pursuant to Title IV-D, Child Support Enforcement Program, of the Social Security Act (SSA) of 1975, with alleged mens rea for Title IV-D federal incentives. The complaint brought federal causes of action under 18 U.S.C. § 1964, civil remedy for injury under 18 U.S.C. § 1962, Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO). Causes of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, civil remedy for injury pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 242 deprivation of rights under color of law and 18 U.S.C. § 241 conspiracy against rights, were raised with intention to be included as an amendment or a companion case. ii . Petitioners complain and allege that the federal-state enterprise of Family Court is being used criminally and has been weaponized against mothers, fathers, and children. Petitioners’ injuries began in the State of Michigan. Racketeering is continuing by nature. After the complaint was filed, Petitioners were further . injured by additional public servants from the States of Michigan and Utah who also breached their fiduciary duty to uphold the constitution and laws. The question presented is: whether the Sixth Circuit made an error in affirming the dismissal of Case No. for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Actions associated with Petitioners’ court cases in the States of Michigan and Utah, and now Federal District Court substantiate that the U.S. and State Constitutions, the laws, and the court rules exist in name only. Petitioners challenged immunity and other excuses that are circumventing black letter law, and they did not receive an answer. Questions the Sixth Circuit did not answer are as follows: 1. Do public servants have immunity to violate unalienable Creator/Godgiven rights that are supposed to be secured by Constitutions—when the victim committed no crime? . 2. Do public servants have immunity to commit crimes through the Family Court federal-state enterprise? ; iii 3. Do public servants that act pursuant to Title IV-D contracts have : immunity to violate state or federal law? 4. Is action by a public servant to remove a child from a fit parent’s : : : custody, when the parent and child committed no crime, a crime of child abuse , and/or kidnapping? ; 5. Do the factual allegations substantiate that constitutionally protected rights were violated when Michigan Compiled Law (MCL) § 750.165 (Failure to support child as required by court order) from Case No. 2020-880855-DM was enforced? ; 6. Do the factual allegations substantiate that corrupt public servants’ usage of the federal-state enterprise of Family Court may lead to tyranny? 7. Do public servants have immunity to commit acts that lead to government entrapment and/or tyranny?