In what must be one of the most bizarre child protection cases to date, government officials in America are defending a law suit against them which accuses Orange County’s social workers of lying, falsifying records and concealing evidence, all of which led to the unjust removal of two children from their mother.
The line of defense, put together by a law firm specialising in defending police officers in big money cases, goes like this: the social workers involved in the proceedings couldn’t have “clearly” known that dishonesty wasn’t acceptable in court and, even if they did know, they should remain immune from prosecution because they are government employees.
Even more remarkable still, is that this case has been going on for 16 years.
As it’s Friday, we thought we’d share part of the transcript from the case with you:
Exchanges between panel and Pancy Lin, a partner at Lynberg & Watkins, Oct. 7, 2016
Trott: How in the world could a person in the shoes of your clients possibly believe that it was appropriate to use perjury and false evidence in order to impair somebody’s liberty interest in the care, custody and control of that person’s children? How could they possibly not be on notice that you can’t do this?
Lin: I understand.
Trott: How could that possibly be?
Lin: I understand the argument that it seems to be common sense in our ethical, moral . . .
Trott: It’s more than common sense. It’s statutes that prohibit perjury and submission of false evidence in court cases.
Lin: State statutes.
Trott: Are you telling me that a person in your client’s shoes couldn’t understand you can’t commit perjury in a court proceeding in order to take somebody’s children away?
Lin: Of course not, your honor.
Trott: Of course not!
Owens: Isn’t the case over then?
Trott: The case is over.
Lin: Thus far we have not been presented with a clearly established right that tells us what our clients did which was remove the children pursuant to a court order . . .
Friedland: The issue here is committing perjury in a court to take away somebody’s children and you just said that’s obviously not okay to do.
Lin: According to our moral compass and our ethical guidelines, but we’re here to decide the constitutionality of it and we look to the courts to tell us.
Trott: You mean to tell us due process is consistent with a government official submitting perjured testimony and false evidence? How is that consistent? I mean I hate to get pumped up about this but I’m just staggered by the claim that people in the shoes of your clients wouldn’t be on notice that you can’t use perjury and false evidence to take away somebody’s children. That to me is mind boggling.
Lin: In criminal proceedings we know this to be true because . . .
Trott: No, no! It’s a court proceeding with a liberty interest, a fundamental liberty interest at stake.
Lin: And on the reverse side . . .
Trott: And you’re telling us that these officials [weren’t] on notice that you can’t commit perjury and put in false evidence?
Lin: I understand broadly the principle that common sense tells us that lying is wrong and lying to . . .
Trott: Yeah, but it’s more than common sense. We’re using statutes against this kind of behavior.
Lin: I, uh, I don’t. I was not presented [sic]. I have not been seen [sic] any federal law or case law or law that tells me that in this situation that we were faced in that, which is what we have to look at . . .
Trott: Well, say your clients hired six people to be actors and to go into court and to say, ‘We’re neighbors and we saw all this terrible stuff.’ And then your client presented those witnesses in court. You’re telling me that they would have no reason to believe that you can’t do that because there was no federal case that says you can’t bring actors into court to swear falsely against somebody?
Lin: But again here we’re appealing to a sort of broader definition of what is a clearly established right. I mean we have to find the clearly established right in the context our, um, social workers were presented with, which was they were faced with a court order.
Trott: Again, I cannot even believe for a micro-second that a social worker wouldn’t understand that you can’t lie and put in false evidence!
Owens: Let me ask the question a different way. Is there anything you know of that told social workers that they should lie and that they should create false evidence in a court proceeding?
Lin: No, and, of course, that is, uh, we contend that is not what happened here.
U.S. District Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit panel discussing dishonest Orange County government conduct: judges Stephen S. Trott, John B. Owens and Michelle T. Friedland in October 2016
Another thank you to Charles Pragnell at the National Child Protection Alliance for sharing this item with us.
daveyone1 said:
Reblogged this on World4Justice : NOW! Lobby Forum..
LikeLiked by 1 person
keith said:
this is the kind of scrutiny that needs to be happening in the UK family courts but unfortunately it doesnt. but why ?
they are breaking the law to destroy families and the the usual culprit can most of the time be traced back to the same old thing. Adoption.
As stated by Bridget Robb “because thats where the money is”.
LikeLiked by 3 people
finolamoss said:
Care courts, as Courts of Protection, are subverted by being made quasi inquisitorial, on the basis that the state can be trusted to intervene.
This means, all expert evidence is effectively remitted , paid for and commissioned by the state.
But, the parent must then prove lack of abuse/welfare/best interests on the balance of probabilities in an inquisitorial system with usually no legal help, or hope.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Roger Crawford said:
For once, I’m speechless. . . .
LikeLiked by 1 person
maureenjenner said:
So, there are lies; damned lies and the obfuscation of governmental departments.
LikeLiked by 2 people
maureenjenner said:
Reblogged this on Musings of a Penpusher and commented:
So, there are lies; damned lies and the obfuscation of governmental departments.
LikeLiked by 1 person
finolamoss said:
Sorry only just realised this in in USA.
But then how could we find out about it in UK as care proceedings are in secret .
LikeLiked by 1 person
keith said:
it has already been exposed in the UK by high court judges such as Mark Horton and Justice Pauffley which are featured in the Mail online and other judges. even Sir James Munby is well aware of what has been going on but as yet no investigation, no questions being asked, nothing. But why.
LikeLiked by 1 person
finolamoss said:
Why — because the executive appear to control the judiciary .
We no longer have any separation of powers and with that gone, democracy or rule of law.
The executive/government policy has been, now for at least 15 years, by successive governments, of all political persuasions, to remove children and babies from their parents on the excuse of child protection.
But, with a minimum of a lump sum ever increasing payment of £30,000 per child adopted and unlimited discretionary payments adoption agencies are cashing in and some also assess parents so huge conflict. We also have a multibillion pound fostering industry increasingly now venue capital backed, and as foster carers are trying up Care Homes are being increasingly used as they can command 200,000 a year for corporations.
Social workers have been deskilled and have become assessors and court enforcers this is now deemed support. Social work is outsourced and child protection effectively privatise
The court system of joint experts forces parents to rely on experts paid and commissioned by the state, who are asserting their parental abuse.
It is clear the system is in breach of parents right to a fair hearing s6 and s8 HRA.
And there is little/no evidence that removal- adoption/foster care is in a child’s welfare . As Definitive adoption breakdown numbers are not known, nor are the outcomes for those adopted and fostered, And it does not augur well that the LAs want liability for child protection removed by statute as all is handed over to eventually no doubt venture capital backed private monopolies whose overriding duty is to their investors not the children.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Sabine Kurjo McNeill said:
Reblogged this on Victims Unite! and commented:
How institutions CONSPIRE to lie, cheat and MAKE SURE they get THEIR way…
LikeLiked by 1 person
truth1 said:
When a lawyer argues the ridiculous in court, he should be fined and have his license revoked for such inexcusable arguments. To even let him do so is to disrespect the enter judicial system and threaten it. It would not happen much before lawyers would tell clients to consider plea bargain rather than face an angry judge.
LikeLiked by 1 person
keith said:
Jail sentences should become routine when this kind of corruption is uncovered.
it should be 100% zero tolerance and nothing less. thats the only way to clean up this Nasty cesspool of criminals.
LikeLiked by 1 person
truth1 said:
I think I like your idea better than mine! Positions of responsibility should also have a higher accountability. Technically, In Canada and the UK at least. I am not quite as sure about this in the USA, since I have not studied their laws of licensing and relationship to the court. But in the other 2, lawyers are agents of the court in most respects. I would call that a very serious responsibility.
But then again, I do not believe that lawyers should be part of the courts. They need to be independent and should be the equivalent of Tenured in Universities, where you can not lose your license for disputing a law or protesting the court itself.
Further, law should not be complicated and built upon absurd technicalities. Judges should be required to know all laws that they hear in their court. It should not be up to lawyers. And anyone should be able to defend themselves or help in the defense of someone else.
Technicalities were designed to make law unapproachable and justify denying a case or finding against it. ” for got to include the specific statute/clause for your motion and we deny knowledge of it, even though we have been at this for years.
Law is the essence of evil!
LikeLike
finolamoss said:
Law is not evil, it is, if correctly drafted and voted for, our only protection against any tyranny of the state.
But successive governments for the past twenty years, have conspired to destroy he law, by vaguely drafted acts like the MCA, and vague offences like emotional abuse and hate speech, that offend the rule of law and defeat democracy see my blog post ‘The Fool of Law’ gooogle finolamoss.
This is the third way totalitarian state that has been deliberately created by stealth.
The legal profession has also, particularly in the last 10 years, been destroyed and replaced by ABS companies, and commercial awareness, due to funding and structure they are not now independent of the state.
OS in COP appointed by state, same with CAFASS guardians, and legal aid contracts to certain criminal ABSs.
We have state bias prosecutions by CPS who now have become almost an investigatory body taking on role of police.
Little legal aid is now available, and what there is, for abuse in private divorce/custody and public discrimination actions, distorts the law, to benefit government agenda.
It also appears allowed appeals to CA, Supreme court serve similar adgendae.
Judges, lawyers owe their overriding duty to justice, that is to the truth and providing a fair hearing.
So it is not the law but the subversion of it that is evil.
LikeLiked by 1 person
truth1 said:
And evil is wealth and wealth is evil.
LikeLiked by 1 person
finolamoss said:
And the UK is now only about huge profit making particularly out of wefare health and educaton and prisons and courts
LikeLiked by 1 person
towardchange said:
Reblogged this on Parents Rights Blog and commented:
Even more remarkable still, is that this case has been going on for 16 years.
LikeLiked by 1 person
keith said:
Maybe Donald Trump will sort out this cesspool of criminals trying to cover up their dirty rotten racket.
LikeLike
Alastair Patterson said:
This an interesting example of a common misunderstanding about family justice. Family justice is not concerned with justice. Family justice is an instrument to promote the child’s welfare.
If it is necessary to lie and fabricate evidence in a family court to promote the child’s welfare, then that is ok. Social workers are saying that,
‘I had to lie and fabricate evidence to use this instrument for protecting the child.’
LikeLike
truth1 said:
Not disputing Alastair at all. I am faulting the lies of courts and law. Abe Lincoln was said to destroy Democracy in order to save it. that is called a contradiction in the world of logic and reason. LIkewise, tell me, anyone, how a child’s interests are served by ignoring justice. If justice IS truly justice, then it is always the friend of those harmed by injustice. Lies and fabrication are the scorn of all law and justice. They sabotage justice. They rape justice! Any judge, any lawyer, any juror, any social worker, any witness, who lies and/or fabricates anything in a court of law should face the highest penalty that would result from that lie.
That we as a society are so easy on the enemies of justice means we are not worthy of justice, and that we shall soon pay the ultimate price of not guarding justice with our lives. We don’t hesitate to fight or send others to fight questionable wars and die, but not a drop of blood for justice. I am on the wrong planet!
LikeLiked by 1 person
keith said:
i agree and totally understand your mode of thinking.
A challenge to the corrupt system needs to happen on a more aggressive scale. maybe then the Govt will act on it and do the right thing.
as Trump supporters say. “its time to drain the cesspool”.
LikeLike
keith said:
what they did is a crime against humanity and a criminal offence.
i say they should be jailed along with anyone else from that dept who aided and abetted this dirty tactic.
LikeLiked by 1 person
truth1 said:
You’re absolutely right. Watching justice get raped and children suffer for it. NOT having it! Unacceptable!
LikeLiked by 1 person
keith said:
The Million Dollar Questions is,… how do we tare down the Wall of Deception that protects the whole rotten system.
LA staff, Family court Judges and other professionals guilty of participating in this scandal need to be Jailed and assets seized under the proceeds of crime act and paid to the Victims . no excuses.
LikeLiked by 1 person
truth1 said:
You and I know. Too many are not interested in much of anything beyond their immediate personal lives. Not enough people care about much. That is our real obstacle and no easy solution, either.
LikeLiked by 2 people
keith said:
The sad thing is you are right. most people are just getting on with their day to day lives and dont really know whats going on.
its called the bubble world of Tv & Entertainment keeping the masses like couched potatoes so they dont start using their brains to think about more important things and it works a Treat.
unfortunately most of the general public are hooked on whats happening in corrie, Eastenders or the latest Football scores.
Very sad indeed.
LikeLiked by 1 person
tummum said:
It is true, I had a Respondent from the Council lie. I put it in writing and got a response back apologising to the Judge and I stating they did not mean to mislead. Not good when a Judge has already come to a decision. I got restricted as did the Council and Journalists and this was years after my CA 1989 Case ended. Then after I challenged it and forwarded it to the Judge, I got restricted even worse yet the Respondent had lied, not me xx
LikeLiked by 1 person