[brief] PRELIMINARY STATEMENT  Appellant appealed the Orders of 8/16/2020 and 11/4/2020, docket no. [...].  Subsequent to 11/4/2020, Appellant filed further motions pursuant to Probation’s continued wrongful posting of erroneous support charges on the support account record.  [...], case manager, reviewed Appellant’s history of motions and court orders and advised that events, filings or Orders occurring subsequent to the Order of 11/4/2020 could not be discussed or disclosed under the Appeal.  At oral argument held on May 30, 2023, upon inquiry by appellate jurists as to whether a customary “accounting” of Probation’s account record had been provided in lieu of holding a court hearing, Appellant advised of [...]’s warning to avoiding mention of subsequent case events, but noted that an erroneous “accounting” (DA162) was issued by Probation.  The Appellate decision of 6/15/2023, no. [...] (DA142) was granted in part and denied in part.  Request for a plenary hearing to correct the account record was denied.  However, Probation continued its wrongful conduct after 11/4/2020, i.e. issuance of erroneous account statements, its over-garnishment of support, its failure to accurately track and post alimony payments versus child support payments on the account record, and even re-institution of garnishment of Appellant’s social security benefits in violation of the Orders of 10/25/2021, 1/11/2022 (DA76), and 4/4/2023 (DA80) by way of an erroneous NJ support account number not Appellant’s.  With Probation’s submission of an “accounting” on 3/17/2022 (DA162), Probation acknowledged for the first time that it had no basis for substantial support arrearage charges (posted for 23 years) and credits denied (for 18 years) and Probation withdrew its erroneous account postings without acknowledging its responsibility for the errors.  Thus, Probation’s 23 year-long history of misconduct and mismanagement of Appellant’s account record was exposed and Appellant’s 23-year long claims of account error were vindicated.  However, Probation’s “accounting” of 3/17/2022 remains incomplete despite the trial Court’s determination of 4/4/2023, and improper charges, ignored court orders, and inadequate credits remain on the account record.  This Appeal, docket no. [...], requests Appellate review of trial court error and abuse of judicial discretion in overlooking, failing to consider, or by outright mistake failing to address Probation’s continued wrongful misconduct (including fabrication of false support arrearage charges) and mismanagement of the account record, its repeated failure to accurately comply with court orders from “day one,” i.e., Oct. 1, 1998, and correction of account errors not previously submitted to the Court for adjudication.  In light of the exposure of Probation’s decades-long misconduct, conflicts between the Appellant Remand Order of 1/17/2002 and the Appellate Orders of 6/5/2018 and 6/15/2023 need be reconsidered by the Appellate Court.  Appellant further requests that he be finally permitted his “day in court” by way of a Remand Order for a hearing to adjudicate and resolve the full extent of Probation’s blatant account errors and misconduct.  In the alternative, given Probation’s demonstrated inability to correct its account record and the trial court’s failure to ensure an accurate account record, Appellant requests the Appellate Court assume jurisdiction of this case.  STATEMENT OF FACTS