Beltran v. Santa Clara County, 514 F.3d 906, (9th Cir. 2008) Beltrans sued two caseworkers under 42 U.S.C. ' 1983, charging constitutional violations in removing child from their custody and attempting to place him under the supervision of the state by fabricating evidence. Court overruled Doe v. Lebbos, and reversed the district court's ruling that defendants were entitled to absolute immunity.
Brokaw v. Mercer County, 235 F.3d 1000, (7th Cir. 2000) In 1983, three-year old A.D. Brokaw was removed from her parents' home based on allegations of child neglect. After she turned eighteen, she sued her paternal grandfather, aunt, and uncle, alleging that they conspired to violate her constitutional rights by reporting false claims of child neglect. A.D. also sued the various state actors and agencies involved in removing her from her parents' custody. The district court held that A.D.'s suit was barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine because, in effect, A.D. was challenging the validity of the state removal proceedings. The Eleventh Circuit reversed and remanded.
Calabretta v. Floyd, 189 F.3d 808 (9th Cir. 1999) "This case involves whether a social worker and a police officer were entitled to qualified immunity, for a coerced entry into a home to investigate suspected child abuse, interrogation of a child, and strip search of a child, conducted without a search warrant and without a special exigency." Can you guess what the answer was? "An unlawful entry or search of a home does not end when the government officials walk across the threshold. It continues as they impose their will on the residents of the home in which they have no right to be."
Chavez v. Board of County Commissioners, 2001-NMCA-065, New Mexico Court of Appeals (2001) Defendants are deputy sheriffs with the Curry County Sheriff's Department, who were called to assist two social workers from the Children, Youth & Families Department on a "child welfare check" at Plaintiff's home. Plaintiff's son had not been attending elementary school. Thus, one reason for the visit to Plaintiff's home was to investigate suspected truancy or educational neglect. Held: "At the time of entry into Plaintiff's home, it was well-settled that the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibited unreasonable searches and seizures and was intended to protect the sanctity of an individual's home and privacy."
Croft v. Westmoreland County Children and Youth Servs., 103 F.3d 1123 (3d Cir. 1997) Holding that "a state has no interest in protecting children from their parents unless it has some reasonable and articulable evidence giving rise to a reasonable suspicion that a child has been abused or is in imminent danger of abuse."
Doe v. Gooden, 214 F.3d 952 (8th Cir. 2000) School district officials can be liable under 1983 if they are deliberately indifferent to acts committed by a teacher that violate a student's constitutional rights.
Franz v. United States, 707 F 2d 582, US Ct App (1983) "The undesirability of cultural homogenization would lead us to oppose efforts by the state to assume a greater role in children's development, even if we were confident that the state were capable of doing so effectively and intelligently. " A brilliant analysis of the fundamental right to be free of unwarranted state interference between the child-parent bond, in this case stemming from the Witness Protection Program.
Good v. Dauphin County Soc. Servs. for Children and Youth, 891 F.2d 1087, (3d Cir. 1989) "[P]hysical entry into the home is the chief evil against which the ... Fourth Amendment is directed," the Court explained, while adding: "It is a 'basic principle of Fourth Amendment law' that searches and seizures inside a home without a warrant are presumptively unreasonable. " No qualified immunity claim to be found here.
Heartland Acad. Cmty. Church v. Waddle, 335 F.3d 684, (8th Cir.2003) Waddle, as Chief Juvenile Officer for the Second Circuit of Missouri, effected the removal of 115 boarding students from Heartland Christian Academy . Waddle had obtained ex parte probable-cause state-court orders to remove some of the boarding students, there were no orders of any kind to remove many of the students who were taken from the school. This case is noted for its brilliant analysis of Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity, the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, and immunity as an officer of a juvenile court. The court held that: "any single violation of Heartland's federal constitutional rights in this case would be sufficient to sustain Heartland's claim for injunctive relief under ' 1983."
Jones v. Hunt, 410 F.3d 1221 (10th Cir. 2005) No qualified immunity in this ' 1983 action for alleged violations of Fourth Amendment rights arising from girl's in-school seizure by a deputy sheriff and s Social Worker Supervisor for the New Mexico Children, Youth, and Families Department ("CYFD"). "We conclude that the Fourth Amendment violation as alleged in this case is both obvious and outrageous."
Kelson v. Springfield, 767 F 2d 651, (9th Cir. 1985) "Supreme Court and Ninth Circuit precedent establish that a parent has a constitutionally protected liberty interest in the companionship and society of his or her child. The state's interference with that liberty interest without due process of law is remediable under section 1983."
Lopkof v. Slater, 103 F.3d 144 (10th Cir. 1996) (Unpublished) Defendants do not dispute that the law was clearly established that a warrantless search of a private residence is per se unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment unless one of "a few specifically established and well-delineated exceptions" applies. Defendants maintain that because they had "received specific information questioning the safety of children," they acted in an objectively reasonable manner when they entered Lopkoff's private residence. Wrong, and no qualified immunity for these officers.
Loudermilk v. Arpaio, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 76819 (D. Ariz. September 27, 2007) With respect to Plaintiffs' claim based on violation of the Fourteenth Amendment, parents and children have a constitutional right to live together without governmental interference and will not be separated without due process of law except in emergencies. Motion to dismiss by CPS worker and others who coerced entry into home denied.
Mabe v. San Bernardino, 237 F.3d 1101 (9th Cir. 2001) Section 1983 creates a cause of action against any person who, acting under color of state law, violates the constitutional rights of another person. Whether reasonable cause to believe exigent circumstances existed in a given situation, "and the related questions, are all questions of fact to be determined by a jury." Hence, no immunity for social worker under 42 U.S.C. 1983.
Michael v. Gresbach, (7th Cir. 2008) The court held that: "a reasonable child welfare worker would have known that conducting a search of a child's body under his clothes, on private property, without consent or the presence of any other exception to the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment, is in direct violation of the child's constitutional right to be free from unreasonable searches." No qualified immunity for this CPS caseworker! The court also held that the state statute that allowed for "investigations" on private property without a search warrant was itself unconstitutional as applied.
Malik v. Arapahoe County Dept. of Soc. Servs.191 F.3d 1306, (10th Cir. 1999) "The defense of qualified immunity protects government officials from individual liability under 42 U.S.C. ' 1983 for actions taken while performing discretionary functions, unless their conduct violates "clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." Court also held that: "it was clearly established law that, except in extraordinary circumstances, a parent has a liberty interest in familial association and privacy that cannot be violated without adequate pre-deprivation procedures."
Norfleet v. Arkansas Dept. of Human Servs., 989 F.2d 289 (8th Cir. 1993) Court denies qualified immunity to the Human Services Director and caseworker involved because the state obligation to provide adequate medical care, protection, and supervision with respect to children placed in foster care was well established as of 1991.
Parkhurst v. Trapp, 77 F.3d 707 (3rd Cir. 1996) The defendants attempt to avoid the imposition of summary judgment by arguing that, even if their conduct violated the Fourth Amendment, qualified immunity should shield them from liability. Qualified immunity is available to state actors in Section 1983 suits if those actors reasonably believed that their conduct was lawful. However, a good faith belief in the legality of conduct is not sufficient. Held: No qualified immunity.
Ram v. Rubin, 118 F.3d 1306 (9th Cir. 1997) Holding "a parent has a constitutionally protected right to the care and custody of his children and he cannot be summarily deprived of custody without notice and a hearing except when the children are in imminent danger." No qualified immunity for social worker who removed child not in imminent danger.
Rogers v. County of San Joaquin, 487 F.3d 1288 (9th Cir. 2007) Court held: "the rights of families to be free from governmental interference and arbitrary state action are also important. Thus, we must balance, on the one hand, the need to protect children from abuse and neglect and, on the other, the preservation of the essential privacy and liberty interests that families are guaranteed under both the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments of our Constitution. " Section 1983 case reinforces that removal of children from home by caseworker absent either a warrant or exigent circumstances violates those rights, and therefore no qualified immunity applies to caseworker.
Roska v. Peterson, 328 F.3d 1230, (10 Cir. 2003) Holding no immunity for caseworkers who entered a home lacking either exigency or a warrant, and finding constitutional protection in the right to maintain a family relationship, Court held: "the law is now clearly established that, absent probable cause and a warrant or exigent circumstances, social workers may not enter an individual's home for the purpose of taking a child into protective custody."
Tennenbaum v. Williams, 193 F.3d 581, (2d Cir. 1999) "We affirm the judgment insofar as it holds that the medical examination violated the Tenenbaums' and Sarah's procedural due-process rights and Sarah's Fourth Amendment rights and awards damages therefor. . . We conclude, however, that there is a triable issue of fact as to whether the defendants' removal of Sarah from school was contrary to the procedural requirements of the Due Process Clause and to Sarah's right to be free from unreasonable seizures under the Fourth Amendment." The Missouri Bar has an informative Courts Bulletin describing the case.
Turner v. Houseman, Docket: 07-6108 (10th Cir. 2008) (Unpublished) "It was clearly established, at least two years before the events in question, that absent probable cause and a warrant or exigent circumstances, neither police nor social workers may enter a person's home without a valid consent, even for the purpose of taking a child into custody, much less to conduct a search. It was also established that the warrantless seizure and detention of a person without probable cause or exigent circumstances, as alleged in Turner's petition, is unreasonable. "
Wallis v. Spencer, 202 F.3d 1126 (9th Cir. 2000) "In cases of alleged child abuse, governmental failure to abide by constitutional constraints may have deleterious long-term consequences for the child and, indeed, for the entire family. Ill-considered and improper governmental action may create significant injury where no problem of any kind previously existed."
Walsh v. Erie County Dep't of Job & Family Servs., 240 F. Supp. 2d 731, (N.D. Ohio 2003) "Despite the Defendants' exaggerated view of their powers, the Fourth Amendment applies to them, as it does to all other officers and agents of the state whose requests to enter, however benign or well-intentioned, are met by a closed door. . . Any agency that expects to send its employees routinely into private homes has a fundamental obligation to ensure that those employees understand the constitutional limits on their authority."
Weller v. Dept of Soc. Servs., 901 F.2d 387, (4th Cir. 1990) "Substantive due process does not categorically bar the government from altering parental custody rights." What I find interesting about this case is that it was brought pro se, and that he sued a lot more people than I am.
Whisman v. Rinehart, 119 F.3d 1303 (8th Cir. 1997) Whismans filed this action against juvenile officers and social workers, claiming they violated plaintiffs' constitutional rights of familial association, denying plaintiffs due process of law. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss, contending that plaintiffs' claims were not actionable under 42 U.S.C. ' 1983. Guess again!
Wooley v. City of Baton Rouge, 211 F.3d 913, (5th Cir. 2000) Holding that a "childs right to family integrity is concomitant to that of a parent. No qualified immunity for police officers who removed young child in this section 1983 action
FRAUD CITES Caselaw to use in court, support your case, exercise your rights From: Marcel Bendshadler KC7AQK@worldnet.att.net
Marbury v. Madison, 5 US 137 “The Constitution of these United States is the supreme law of the land. Any law that is repugnant to the Constitution is null and void of law.”
Murdock v. Penn., 319 US 105 “No state shall convert a liberty into a privilege, license it, and attach a fee to it.”
Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham, 373 US 262 “If the state converts a liberty into a privilege, the citizen can engage in the right with impunity.”
U.S. v. Bishop, 412 US 346 If you have relied on prior decisions of the supreme Court, you have the perfect defense for willfulness.
Owen v. Independence, 100 S.C.T. 1398, 445 US 622 “Officers of the court have no immunity, when violating a Constitutional right, from liability. For they are deemed to know the law.”
Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 1974 Expounds upon Owen
Byers v. U.S., 273 U.S. 28 Unlawful search and seizure. Your rights must be interpreted in favor of the citizen.
Boyd v. U.S., 116 U.S. 616 “The court is to protect against any encroachment of Constitutionally secured liberties.”
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 “Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation, which would abrogate them.”
Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425 “An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed.”
Miller v. U.S., 230 F.2d. 486, 489 “The claim and exercise of a Constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime.”
Brady v. U.S., 397 U.S. 742, 748 “Waivers of Constitutional Rights, not only must they be voluntary, they must be knowingly intelligent acts done with sufficient awareness.”
“If men, through fear, fraud, or mistake, should in terms renounce or give up any natural right, the eternal law of reason and the grand end of society would absolutely vacate such renunciation. The right to freedom being a gift of ALMIGHTY GOD, it is not in the power of man to alienate this gift and voluntarily become a slave.” —Samuel Adams, 1772
United States v. Sandford, Fed. Case No.16, 221 (C.Ct.D.C. 1806) “In the early days of our Republic, ‘prosecutor’ was simply anyone who voluntarily went before the grand Jury with a complaint.”
Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1, 78 S.Ct. 1401 (1958). “No state legislator or executive or judicial officer can war against the Constitution without violating his undertaking to support it.”
United States v Dougherty, 473 F 2d 1113, 1122.
The court states, “...Judge Miller, joined by Judges Prettyman, Danaher And Bastian, stated that the pro se right is statutory only, and therefore (a) defendant must assert the right in order to be entitled to it and (b) in any event no reversal was required since no prejudice could be discerned” “The Government says the pro se right is statutory and subject to ‘extensive qualifications,’discerning in the decisions seven ‘factors’ on the basis of which the pro se right may be partially or entirely denied.”
“A bill of attainder is defined to be ‘a legislative Act which inflects punishment without judicial trial’” “...where the legislative body exercises the office of judge, and assumes judicial magistracy, and pronounces on the guilt of a party without any of the forms or safeguards of a trial, and fixes the punishment.” In re De Giacomo, (1874) 12 Blatchf. (U.S.) 391, 7 Fed. Cas No. 3,747, citing Cummings v. Missouri, (1866) 4 Wall, (U.S.) 323.
US v Will, 449 US 200,216, 101 S Ct, 471, 66 LEd2nd 392, 406 (1980) Cohens V Virginia, 19 US (6 Wheat) 264, 404, 5LEd 257 (1821) “When a judge acts where he or she does not have jurisdiction to act, the judge is engaged in an act or acts of treason.”
Mattox v. U.S., 156 US 237, 243. “We are bound to interpret the Constitution in the light of the law as it existed at the time it was adopted.”
S. Carolina v. U.S., 199 U.S. 437, 448 (1905). “The Constitution is a written instrument. As such, its meaning does not alter. That which it meant when it was adopted, it means now.”
United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1876). “The people of the United States resident within any State are subject to two governments: one State, and the other National, but there need be no conflict between the two.”
Grosjean v. American Press Co., 56 S.Ct. 444, 446, 297 U.S. 233, 80 LEd 660 “Freedom in enjoyment and use of all of one’s powers, faculties and property.”
ARGERSINGER v. HAMLIN, 407 U.S. 25 (1972) “The right of an indigent defendant in a criminal trial to the assistance of counsel, which is guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment… is not governed by the classification of the offense or by whether or not a jury trial is required. No accused may be deprived of his liberty as the result of any criminal prosecution, whether felony or misdemeanor, in which he was denied the assistance of counsel.”
U.S. v. Prudden, 424 F.2d. 1021; U.S. v. Tweel, 550 F. 2d. 297, 299, 300 (1977) Silence can only be equated with fraud when there is a legal and moral duty to speak or when an inquiry left unanswered would be intentionally misleading. We cannot condone this shocking conduct... If that is the case we hope our message is clear. This sort of deception will not be tolerated and if this is routine it should be corrected immediately.
Morrison v. Coddington, 662 P. 2d. 155, 135 Ariz. 480(1983). Fraud and deceit may arise from silence where there is a duty to speak the truth, as well as from speaking an untruth.
In regard to courts of record: “If the court is not in the exercise of its general jurisdiction, but of some special statutory jurisdiction, it is as to such proceeding an inferior court, and not aided by presumption in favor of jurisdiction.” 1 Smith's Leading Cases, 816
In regard to courts of inferior jurisdiction, “if the record does not show upon its face the facts necessary to give jurisdiction, they will be presumed not to have existed.” Norman v. Zieber, 3 Or at 202-03
It is interesting to note the repeated references to fraud in the above quotes. Therefore the meaning of fraud should be noted:
Fraud. An intentional perversion of truth for the purpose of inducing another in reliance upon it to part with some valuable thing belonging to him or to surrender a legal right. A false representation of a matter of fact… which deceives and is intended to deceive another so that he shall act upon it to his legal injury. … It consists of some deceitful practice or willful device, resorted to with intent to deprive another of his right, or in some manner to do him injury… (Emphasis added) –Black’s Law Dictionary Fifth Edition, page 594.
Then take into account the case of McNally v. U.S., 483 U.S. 350, 371-372, Quoting U.S. v Holzer, 816 F.2d. 304, 307 Fraud in its elementary common law sense of deceit… includes the deliberate concealment of material information in a setting of fiduciary obligation. A public official is a fiduciary toward the public,… and if he deliberately conceals material information from them he is guilty of fraud.
POINTS OF LAW Which support and in turn are supported by the Constitution of the United States of America.
1. "Where the meaning of the Constitution is clear and unambiguous, there can be no resort to construction to attribute to the founders a purpose or intent not manifest in its letter." Norris v. Baltimore, 172, MD 667; 192 A 531.0.
2. "It cannot be assumed that the framers of the Constitution and the people who adopted it, did not intend that which is the plain import of the language used. When the language of the Constitution is positive and free of all ambiguity, all courts are not at liberty, by a resort to the refinements of legal learning, to restrict its obvious meaning to avoid the hardships of particular cases. We must accept the Constitution as it reads when its language is unambiguous, for it is the mandate of the Sovereign power." Cooke v. Iverson, 122, N.W. 251.
3. "All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void." Marbury v. Madison, 5 US (2 Cranch) 137, 174, 176, (1803)
4. "The Constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the legislature; the Constitution and not such ordinary act, must govern the case to which they both apply." Marbury v. Madison, 5 US 137, 176 (U.S.Supreme Ct)
5. "The Bill of Rights was provided as a BARRIER, to protect, the individual against the arbitrary extractions of the majorities, executives, legislatures, courts, sheriffs, and prosecutors, and it is the primary distinction between democratic and totalitarian processes." STANDLER - Supreme Court of Florida en banc, 36 so 2d 443, 445(1948)
6. "Government may not prohibit or control the conduct of a person for reasons that infringe upon constitutionally guaranteed freedoms." Smith v. U.S. 502 F 2d 512 CA Tex(1974)
7. "It is a duty as much as a right for all citizens to jealously and zealously protect their Fourth Amendment rights." U.S. Supreme Court, appeal of Chimel v. Calif. 89 S Ct 2034
8. "Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule in making or legislation which would abrogate them." Miranda v. Arizona, (U.S. Supreme Ct) 380 US 436(1966)
9. "There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of his exercise of Constitutional rights." Sherar v. Cullen, 481 F 2d 946(1973)
10. "We find it intolerable that one Constitutional right should have to be surrendered in order to assert another." Simmons v. U. S., 390, US 389(1968)
11. "The claim and exercise of a Constitutional right cannot be converted to a crime." Miller v.U. S., 230 F 486 at 489
12. "When Constitutional rights have been violated, remedies for violations are not dependant upon fictionalized distinctions." Kelly v. U. S., 379 F Sup 532
13. Ed 1165: "In determining whether...rights were denied, we are governed by the substance of things and not by mere form;" ID., Louisville & N.R. Co. v. Schmidt, 177 US 230, 20 Sup., Ct., 620 44 L Ed 747
14. "One need not be a criminal to claim Fifth Amendment (right), it applies to civil suits as well." Isaacs v. U.S., 256 F 2d 654.
15. "Fifth Amendment (right) is available to outside of criminal court proceedings and serves to protect persons in all settings..." Miranda v. Arizona, (U.S. Supreme Ct.) 380 US 436(1966)
16. "Civil contempts are sometimes civil in name only, entailing what are in reality criminal punishments." Wyman v. Uphaus, 360 US 72(1959)
17. "To penalize the failure to give a statement which is self incriminatory is beyond the power of Congress." U.S. v. Lombarde, 228 F. 980
18. "All acts of legislature...contrary to natural right and justice are void." Robin v. Hardaway, 1 Jefferson 109(1772)
19. "law of the land...renders judgment only after trial." Dartmouth College v. Woodward 4 Wheet, US 518, 4 Ed 629(1814)
20. "due course of law...is synonymous with 'due process of law' or 'law of the land'''... Kansas Pac. Ry. Co. v. Dunmeyer, 19 Kan 542 (See also Davidson v. New Orelans, 96 US 97, 24, L Ed 616).
21. "Lack of counsel of choice can be conceivably even worse than no counsel at all, or of having to accept counsel beholden to one's adversary." Burgett v. Texas, 389 US 109
22. "A state or federal court which arbitrarily refuses to hear a party by counsel...civil or criminal, denies the party a hearing, and therefore denies him due process of law in a Constitutional sense." Reynolds, v. Cochran, 365 US 525, 51 Ed @d 754, 81 S Ct 723 in Am Jur P.979
23. "A plaintiff need not pursue his state remedies before instituting a 1983 action." Monroe v. Pape (or perhaps Pope), 365 US 167(1961)
24. "To maintain an action under (42 USC) 1983, it is not necessary to allege or prove that the defendants intended to deprive Plaintiff of his Constitutional rights or that they acted willfully, purposely, or in furtherance of a conspiracy... it is sufficient to establish that the deprivation... was the natural consequences of Defendants acting under the color of law..." Ethridge v Rhodos, DC Ohio 268 F Sup 83(1967), Whirl v. Kern, CA 5 Texas 407 F 2d 781 (1968) Ury v. Santee, DC Ill,(1969)
25. "In a 42-1983 action, the allegations of the Complaint and the inferences to be drawn therefrom, upon a motion to dismiss, must be taken most favorably to the Plaintiff." Nanez v. Ritger, DC Wis. 304 F Sup 354(1969)
26. "When any court violates the clean and unambiguous language of the Constitution, a fraud is perpetrated and no one is bound to obey it." State v. Sutton, 63 Minn. 147 65 NW 262 30 LRA 630 AM ST 459
27. "Disobedience or evasion of a Constitutional mandate may not be tolerated, even though such disobedience may...promote in some respects the best interests of the public." Slote v. Bd. of Examiners, 274 N.Y. 367; 2 NE 2d 12; 112 ALR 660. (See also Watson v. Memphis, 375 US 526; 10 L Ed 529; 83 S Ct 1314.)
28. "It is the duty of the courts to be watchful for the CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS of the citizen, against any stealthy encroachments thereon." Boyd v. U.S., 116 US 616, 635, (1885)
29. "The judicial branch has only one duty - to lay the Article of the Constitution which is involved beside the statute which is challenged and to decide whether the latter squares with the former...the only power it (the Court) has...is the power of judgment." U.S. v. Butler, 297 US(1936)
30. "A claim under the civil rights act expressly gives the District Court Jurisdiction, no matter how imperfectly the claim is stated." Harmon v. Superior Ct of the State of California, 307 F 2d 796, CA 9(1962)
31. "A court is without power to render a judgment it lacks jurisdiction of the parties or of the subject matter...In such cases, the judgment is void, has no authority and may be impeached." O'Leary v. Waterbury Title Co., 117 Conn 39, 43, 166 A. 673
32. "Courts, (must) indulge every reasonable presumption against waiver of fundamental constitutional rights, and...not presume acquiescence in the loss of fundamental rights." Dimmock v. Scalded, 293 US 474(1935) 304 US at 464
33. "A complaint may not be dismissed on motion if it states some sort of claim, baseless though it may prove to be and inartistically as the complaint may be drawn. This is particularly true where the Plaintiff is not represented by counsel." Brooks v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 91 F Sup 101 DC SD NY(1950)
34. "a motion to dismiss is not to be granted unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of acts which would entitle him to relief." "Haines v. Keener, 404 US 519, 30 L Ed 2d 652, 92 S CT 594(1972)
35. "Decency, security, and liberty alike demand that government officials shall be subjected to the same ruses of conduct that are commands to the citizen." Olmstead v. U.S., 277 US 438 485; 48 S CT L ED 944(1928)
36. "Judges may be punished criminally for willful deprivation of...rights on the strength of 18 usc 242." Imbler v. Pachtman, US 47 L Ed 2d 128, 96 S Ct 37. "Judges have no immunity from prosecution for their judicial acts." Bradley v. Fisher, US 13 Wall 335(1871)
38. "Government immunity violates the common law maxim that everyone shall have remedy for an injury done to his person or property." Fireman's Ins. Co. of Newark, N.J. v. Washburn County, 2 Wis 2d 214, 85 N.W. 2d 840(1957)
39. "Immunity fosters neglect and breeds irresponsibility, while liability promotes care and caution, which caution and care is owed by the government to its people." Rabon v. Rowen Memorial Hosp., Inc., 269 NS 1, 13, 152 SE 1d 485, 493(1967) 40. "Actions by state officers and employees, even if unauthorized or in excess of authority, can be actions under 'color of law'." Stringer v. Dilger, CA 10 Colo 313 F 2d 536(1963)
41. "A judge is not immune from criminal sanctions under the civil rights act." Ex Parte Virginia, 100 US 339(1879), (54 US v. Moylon 417 F 2d 1002, 1006(1969))
42. "the language and purpose of the civil rights acts, are inconsistent with the application of common law notions of official immunity..." Jacobsen v. Henne, CA 2 NY 335 F 2d 129, 133 (1966). (See also Anderson v. Nosser, CA 5 Miss 428 F 2d 183 (1971))
43. "Governmental immunity is not a defense under (42 USC 1983) making liable every person who under color of state law deprives another person of his civil rights." Westberry v. Fisher, DC Me. 309 F Sup 95(1970)
44. "Judicial immunity is no defense to a judge acting in the clear absence of jurisdiction." Bradley v. Fisher, US 13 Wall 335 (1871)
45. "When the responsibilities of lawmaker, prosecutor, judge, jury and disciplinarian are thrust upon a judge he is obviously incapable of holding the scales of justice perfectly fair and true." Fisher v. Pace, 336 US 155 at 167
46. "the jury...acts not only as a safeguard against judicial excesses, but also as a barrier to legislative and executive oppression. The Supreme Court... recognizes that the jury...is designed to protect Defendants against oppressive governmental practices." United States ex rel Toth v. Quarles, 350 US 11, 16 (1955)
47. The Jury has "an unreviewable and irreversible power...to acquit in disregard of the instructions of the law given by the trial judge." U.S. v. Dougherty, 473 F 2d 1113, 1139 (1972)
48. "The common law right of the jury to determine the law as well as the facts remains unimpaired." State v. Croteau, 23 Vt 14, 54 AM DEC 90 (1849)
50. "A conviction obtained where the accused was denied counsel is treated as void for all purposes." Burgett v. Texas, 389, US 109 (1967)
51. "A conviction under an unconstitutional law is...illegal and void and cannot be a legal cause of imprisonment; the courts must liberate a person imprisoned under it...one imprisoned...may be discharged by the writ of 'Habeas Corpus'." (16 Am Jur Sec 150)
52. "Our system of taxation is based on voluntary assessment and payment, not upon distraint." 362 US S 145, 176, 80 S Ct 630, 647 4 L Ed 623 (1960)
53. "To lay with one hand the power of government on the property of the citizen, and with the other to bestow it on favored individuals...is none the less robbery because it was done under the forms of law and is called taxation." Miller 20 Wall 655, 663, 664 (1874)
54. K.H. Through Murphy v. Morgan, 914 F.2d 846 (C.A.7 (Ill.), 1990. “No case authoritative within this circuit, however, had held that the state had a comparable obligation to protect children from their own parents, and we now know that the obligation does not exist in constitutional law.”
***************************************************************** "In all criminal cases whatever, the jury shall have the right to determine the law, and the facts...as in civil cases." Under Article IV, Section 2 of the United States Constitution the above law (which appears in the Constitution of Oregon and the constitutions of numerous other states) has the standing and force of Constitutional law in all states.
your name address city, state, zip phone number Date
Dear Sir or Madam, In accordance with (your state code) State code Section (you may want to add and the Freedom of Information Act and the Privacy Rights request for records) I hereby request a complete copy of your files on the following persons. (Names of all individuals involved)
The information I/we are requesting includes, but is not limited to:
All records All C.T.S. files All forms sections All electronic recordings All foster home files All funding, placement, and or support All corespondence files All narrative files All handwritten files All court records All counseling sections All records of a tangential nature All files with any reference to our names All legal files All "dummy" files All medical memos All intra office memos All names of Social Workers from CPS AND other providers involved with each case/person All administrarive sections
Please be advised that the accuracy and completeness of your reply to this request may be the subject of future judicial proceedings. The "investigative summary" will not be considered a sufficient reply to this reqeust. I expect to receive this information in no more than 10 working days from today. Please call me at the telephone number listed below when they are ready, and I will pick them up at your office.
Sincerely, your name address city, state, zip date signed
(I would have this notorized prior to signing and send this letter certified with return service/signature requested. CPS would have to sign for this letter. Also send a copy uncertified, that way they would get both copies. Also include below the date signed, mailed by US POSTAL Mail on whatever date you sent it)
Citizens Court Watch + & Thank You For Taking The Time To Read This Websites
I Hope That This Websites Can Help You & Others With Your Court Cases / Laws.
You Can E-Mail US AT email@example.comYou Can Also Write To Us at Rommel P. Westlaw @ P.O. Box 18010 Spokane, Washington. 99228-0010 U.S.A. P.O. Box 960 Newman Lake, Wa. 99025 or P.O. Box 1144 Bonners Ferry, ID 83805
Phone Messages Call Us at (Washington D.C. Offices) At # 202-670-LAWS (5297) Florida # 561-90-PRO-SE (7-7673) Spokane, Wa. # 509-701-5683 or 509-465-4528 Wisconsin # 920-39-JUDGE (5-8343) Texas # 512-887-8779 All Calls Are Welcome
You May Help Others By Making $$$ A Small Donation Or Help With Your Time. PLEASE REMEMBER DO NOT TAKE THE LAW INTO YOUR OWN HANDS 911*
Disclaimer and Fair Use Pages For Westlaw Books + See Full Disclaimer Page + Its Five 5 Button Down From The Top Of This Website + You Can Click # Button + To Read The Whole Disclaimer For This Website and My Other Website's Info. !
Disclaimer of Warranties and Liabilities: This site does not warrant the accuracy, completeness, timeliness, safety or merchantability of fitness for a particular purpose of the information contained in This site nor in any way endorse the individuals or institutions listed in This site.
In No Event Shall Westlawbooks.com, or Any Other Web Address Etc. or Domain from Westlaw Books or its staff, its sponsors, its contributors or its ISP be liable for any damages whatsoever, including, without limitation, direct, special, indirect, consequential, or incidental damages, or damages for lost profits, loss of money or revenue, or loss of use, arising out of or related to the westlawbooks.com or Any Other Web Address or Domain from Westlaw Books or my other internet Web Site or the information contained in it, whether such damages arise in contract, negligence, tort, under statute, in equity, at law or otherwise.
If you have a Complaint About Westlaw Books Dot Com or My Other Domain's ? Content of this Website, how about telling the webmaster first? You can Contact the Webmaster In Writing At P. O. Box 18010 Spokane, WA. 99228-0010 U.S.A.
Disclaimer: + This is A Disclaimer from the Owner of this Website + Please Read ! + Nothing Here Is To Be Construed As "Legal Advice". We Are Not Lawyers, And We Are Not Pretending To Be Lawyers. This manual and website and information is intended purely as a communication of information in accordance with the right of free speech. It does not constitute either general or specific legal advice. Anyone who is seeking any legal advice should consult a competent professional.
The following is provided for informational purposes only and is intended to be used as a guide prior to consultation with an attorney familiar with your specific legal situation. Westlaw Books is not engaged in rendering legal or other Info. & professional advice, and this form is not a substitute for the advice of an attorney.
Permission to quote statements we make and use our graphics is hereby granted without obtaining permission. We do Not copyright our quotes or graphics we create, which we Want to be widely dissembled to further the cause of Liberty and Justice for your Families and For All Families. If you use our materials, we certainly would appreciate being informed. Thank you !
Although ALL the Author's and Publisher's Citizens Court Watch Dot Com have made every effort to ensure that the information in this book was correct at press time, the author's and publisher's do not assume and hereby disclaim any liability to any party for any loss, damage, or disruption caused by errors or omissions, whether such errors or omissions result from any negligence, accident, or any other cause etc.
Disclaimer and Fair Use Pages For Westlaw Books + See Full Disclaimer Page + Its Five 5 Button Down From The Top Of This Website + You Can Click # Button + To Read The Whole Disclaimer For This Website and My Other Website's Info. !