CONYERS Statement for the Hearing on “Bringing Justice Closer to the People: Examining Ideas for Restructuring the 9th Circuit” Before the Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet

Dean of the U.S. House
of Representatives
John Conyers, Jr.

Today’s hearing provides an important opportunity to examine whether the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals is able to adequately perform its duties as it is currently structured.

The hearing takes on added importance in the wake of a series of decisions in the 9th Circuit and elsewhere overturning President Trump’s Muslim/Refugee ban.  Instead of coming to terms with the legal flaws with his own executive order, President Trump has chosen to attack the 9th Circuit, which has said is “in chaos” and “frankly in turmoil.”   Last night, after learning of the Hawaii court’s decision again rejecting his ban he said “people are screaming to break up the Ninth Circuit … You have to see how many times they have been overturned with their terrible decisions.”

Of course, none of what the President has charged about the 9th Circuit is true.  The Ninth circuit is as well organized as any in the country.  Of the very few Ninth Circuit cases the Supreme Court takes up, a significant portion are overturned, but that’s true for every circuit, several of which are overturned at a higher rate than the Ninth Circuit.  And overall less than 1/10 of 1% of Ninth Circuit decisions are overturned by the Supreme Court.

The reality is, this is not a new debate President Trump has brought us to.  It is one that we have had for decades.  Although I will not speculate about why there continues to be such interest by some of my Republican colleagues to divide the Ninth Circuit, there are several points we should keep in mind.

To begin with, splitting the Ninth Circuit would not “bring justice closer to the people.”  Instead, it would likely result in further delay, reduced access to justice, and wasted taxpayer dollars.

If the Ninth Circuit were divided there would not be sufficient judicial resources, particularly with respect to addressing the significant caseload demands of the district and bankruptcy courts.

Although legislative proposals introduced this Congress take differing approaches to dividing the Ninth Circuit and creating a new Twelfth Circuit, inevitably all of these have one common problem.  Such restructuring would result in a significant financial cost to American taxpayers because millions of dollars would be needed to construct a new Circuit headquarters and for other costs.

Another concern I have is that splitting the Ninth Circuit would do little to improve judicial efficiency.

And, none of the legislative proposals would actually resolve the heavy caseload problem because a clear majority of the Ninth Circuit cases come from California. 

Any circuit that includes all of California will still have the largest number of judges and appeals and it would still serve the largest population. 

Finally, I am particularly skeptical of any legislative proposal ostensibly intended to assist certain entities when, in fact, those very same entities oppose or question the need for such legislative “fix.” 

Dividing the Ninth Circuit is opposed by a majority of the judges in that Circuit as well as by the bar, including the American Bar Association. 

In fact, the White Commission, which Congress established to study this issue, concluded in 1998 that splitting the Circuit was impractical and unnecessary.

So for these reasons, I am opposed to dividing the Ninth Circuit. 

Nevertheless, I thank the Chairman for holding this hearing and look forward to the testimony from today’s esteemed witnesses.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

CONYERS & NADLER Call Out Trump's Misstatements On The Judiciary At Hearing On 9th Circuit Court Of Appeals

Washington, D.C. – At a hearing to reexamine the structure of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals,  House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member John Conyers, Jr. (D-MI) and senior Judiciary Member and Subcommittee Ranking Member Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) today called out President Donald Trump’s dangerous misstatements about the Judiciary in response to court rulings that blocked his Muslim/Refugee ban.

In his opposition to restructuring the 9^th Circuit, Ranking Member Conyers said, “The hearing takes on added importance in the wake of a series of decisions in the 9th Circuit and elsewhere overturning President Trump’s Muslim/Refugee ban.  Instead of coming to terms with the legal flaws with his own executive order, President Trump has chosen to attack the 9th Circuit, which has said is “in chaos” and “frankly in turmoil.”   Last night, after learning of the Hawaii court’s decision again rejecting his ban he said “people are screaming to break up the Ninth Circuit … You have to see how many times they have been overturned with their terrible decisions.”

“Of course, none of what the President has charged about the 9th Circuit is true.  The Ninth circuit is as well organized as any in the country.  Of the very few Ninth Circuit cases the Supreme Court takes up, a significant portion are overturned, but that’s true for every circuit, several of which are overturned at a higher rate than the Ninth Circuit.  And overall less than 1/10 of 1% of Ninth Circuit decisions are overturned by the Supreme Court.

“The reality is, this is not a new debate President Trump has brought us to.  It is one that we have had for decades.  Although I will not speculate about why there continues to be such interest by some of my Republican colleagues to divide the Ninth Circuit, there are several points we should keep in mind.”

Read Conyers' full Committee statement here.

Subcommittee Ranking Member Jerrold Nadler called conservatives’ calls to restructure the federal courts a dangerous attempt at judicial gerrymandering. In his opening statement he said, “What this debate is really all about is that conservatives do not like the more liberal rulings that occasionally emerge from the 9^th Circuit, and they believe they can manufacture a new circuit that will produce more conservative results.  That is a very different—and a more dangerous—matter.

“Like clockwork, we see proposals to split up the 9^th Circuit whenever it delivers a controversial decision with which conservatives disagree.  Whether it is ruling that the Pledge of Allegiance should not include the words “under God”; overturning restrictions on abortion or gay rights, or, most recently its unanimous decision to uphold the temporary stay on President Trump’s unconstitutional Muslim and refugee ban, the 9^thCircuit has long been in the sights of Republican politicians.  Just last night, President Trump said at his campaign rally, “[p]eople are screaming, break up the 9^th Circuit. And I’ll tell you what, that 9^th Circuit – you have to see. Take a look at how many times they have been overturned with their terrible decisions.

“But to manipulate the federal courts in order to achieve the political ends you seek is highly inappropriate.  Just as there is a nation-wide movement to end legislative gerrymandering, we should resist this form of judicial gerrymandering as well.”

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Richard Cebull Has Popped Back Up From The 9th Circuit

Well, look what popped up from Salt Lake, Utah.

Conyers and Cohen Request Hearing On Judge Cebull's Violations of Office 

John Huber is from Utah.

Judge Richard Cebull is from U.S. Circuit Court 9th Circuit.

Even Trump has voiced issues about the 9th Circuit.

Heck, I even heard rumors about the 9th Circuit and its False Claims Act decisions but I must give respect where the media has failed to do to Judge Stephen Trott.

Right to Lie in Child Welfare Cases - Opinion 15-55563, 1-3-2017 by Beverly Tran on Scribd

I believe someone found some more stuff in those emails of the 9th Circuit.

I wonder if it had anything to do with real estate fraud, or sex trafficking of tiny humans, or drugs, or bribery, or blackmail?

Oh, the possibilities to throw a case.

Federal judge who sealed Cebull file retires amid sexual misconduct allegations

The federal judge who ordered that the results of a lengthy misconduct investigation into a former Montana chief judge be sealed resigned Monday amid allegations of sexual misconduct.

According the 

Alex Kozinski, the powerful judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit who was facing a judicial investigation over allegations that he subjected 15 women to inappropriate sexual behavior, announced Monday that he would retire effective immediately.

Kozinski is the U.S. 9th Circuit chief judge who in 2013 declared that the results of an official investigation into former Montana Chief District Judge Richard Cebull’s racist, homophobic, and sexist emails was “moot” because Cebull resigned from the bench.

Kozinki’s decision to abandon the order revealing the findings of the investigation was overruled by the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court Judicial Council. The ethics panel, after nine-month review,  revealed that over a four-year period, Cebull sent “hundreds” of emails “related to race, politics, religion, gender, sexual orientation, and politically sensitive issues.” However, the panel determined there was no bias in the Cebull’s judicial conduct.

The panel sealed the investigative file and it has never been made public.

---

Kozinski first came under fire in 2008 when the Los Angeles Times revealed that he maintained a publicly accessible website featuring sexually explicit photos and videos. After the allegations surfaced, Kozinski called for an investigation into his own conduct. As the Los Angeles Times reported, Kozinski was presiding over a closely watched obscenity trial when news about the website broke. An investigation found Kozinski and his son exercised carelessness in allowing the information on their private server to be publicly available, but he was not sanctioned.

The cascade of recent sexual misconduct allegations against Kozinski, which the Washington Post

 first reported on Dec. 8, involve accusations that Kozinski repeatedly showed pornography to female staffers in his courthouse chambers. An account the Post published Friday involved an unnamed recent University of Montana law student who says Kozinski inappropriately touched her.

From the One recent law student at the University of Montana said that Kozinski, at a 2016 reception, pressed his finger into the side of her breast, which was covered by her clothes, and moved it with some “deliberateness” to the center, purporting to be pushing aside her lapel to fully see her name tag.

---

U.S. Chief District Judge Richard Cebull, of Montana, retired in 2013 amid misconduct allegations after Cebull sent a racist email from his courthouse computer.

In 2015 this reporter, along with former Montana journalist Shane Castle, filed a First Amendment lawsuit against the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals demanding release of the investigative files so the public could review the emails and determine whether Cebull had demonstrated judicial bias during his time on the federal bench. The complaint argued that federal judges and court officers should not be exempt from federal Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) disclosure requirements.

“Plaintiffs seek disclosure of these discriminatory emails because this is a matter of public concern, and because various parties who appeared before Judge Cebull likely had their due process rights violated by his rulings,” the complaint stated. “Without access to the requested emails, the potential harm to numerous people is incalculable.”

After more than a year of litigation, the plaintiffs dropped the lawsuit in 20016 after it became apparent that suing the federal court in federal court was not the best mechanism for obtaining the records.

In light of the recent allegations surrounding Kozinski, Castle said efforts to bring sunshine to the federal judiciary is more important than ever.

“I always thought a compelling reason for getting the emails was to see who else in the judiciary sent or received the offensive emails, or perhaps responded to them,” Castle said. “This latest news is just further proof we need a FOIA equivalent for the judiciary and legislative branches, so civil servants wielding huge amounts of power over other people’s lives can’t hide in these black boxes.”

---

The Great Falls Tribune first broke the Cebull scandal in 2012 after Cebull admitted to sending a racially charged email about President Barack Obama from his courthouse chambers.

Cebull, of Billings, was nominated by former President George W. Bush and received his commission in 2001 and he served as chief judge for the District of Montana from 2008 until his retirement in 2013.

This reporter received a copy of the offensive email. The source who sent it said they had received it from a family member, who received it from one of the recipients on the email thread. The subject line of the email, which Cebull sent from his official courthouse email address on Feb. 20 at 3:42 p.m., read: “A MOM’S MEMORY.”

A photo that accompanied Cebull’s racist email.

The forwarded text read as follow:

“Normally I don’t send or forward a lot of these, but even by my standards, it was a bit touching. I want all of my friends to feel what I felt when I read this. Hope it touches your heart like it did mine.

“A little boy said to his mother; ‘Mommy, how come I’m black and you’re white? His mother replied, ‘Don’t even go there Barack! From what I can remember about that party, you’re lucky you don’t bark!'”

On March 1, 2012, a day after the story broke, Cebull wrote a letter to Kozinski requesting an inquiry into his actions to determine whether sending the email constituted “misconduct.” Cebull waived his confidentiality as to making the request and the existence of any proceedings. The Montana Human Rights Network was among an unknown number of groups and individuals who filed official judicial misconduct complaints with the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

The scandal touched off a national firestorm and calls for Cebull’s immediate resignation, including from within the halls of Congress, rained down.

A timeline of the Cebull investigation is as follows:

Feb. 10, 2012: Judge Richard F. Cebull receives an email titled “A Mom’s Memory” on his courthouse email account.

· Feb. 20, 2012: Judge Cebull forwards that email  to six friends and his personal email address.

· Feb. 29, 2012: As a reporter for the Great Falls Tribune, I receive a copy of the email sent from Cebull’s email account and call him to ask him about it. He admits to sending the email and says he did so because he does not like President Obama.

· March 1, 2012: Judge Cebull writes an apology to President Barack Obama.

· March 1, 2012: Judge Cebull writes to 9th Circuit Chief Judge Alex Kozinski requesting an inquiry into his actions to determine whether his actions constitute “misconduct.” Cebull waives his confidentiality as to making the request and the existence of any proceedings that ensue.

· March 1, 2012: Cathy A. Catterson, executive of the 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals issues a statement in which she proclaims the Judicial Council of the 9th Circuit  “is expected to act expeditiously in investigating and resolving this matter.”

· March 1, 2012: Groups begin circulating petitions calling for Cebull’s resignation.

· March 5, 2012: The Montana Human Rights Network files an official judicial misconduct complaint with the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals and calls on Cebull to resign.

· March 6, 2012: The ranking Democrat on the House judiciary, Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., calls for the House Judiciary Committee to hold hearings on Cebull’s conduct.

· March 12, 2012: The Montana Human Rights Network sends a letter to Cebull along with a petition signed by more than 2,800 people calling on Cebull to resign.

· March 23, 2012:  9th Circuit Court of Appeals Chief Judge Alex Kozinski appoints a five-judge judicial committee to investigate Cebull’s actions. Judge M. Margaret McKeown is assigned to preside over the case.

· October, 2012: Cebull announces he’ll take senior status effective March, 15, 2013

· December, 2012: The Special Committee submits its report to the Judicial Council in December 2012.

· March 15, 2013: The Judicial Council issues an order and memorandum, though the order is not to be released until after the 63-day appeal period.

· April 2, 2013: The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of appeals in a statement on its website makes the preceding two facts known to the public and announces Cebull submitted a retirement letter stating his last day would be May 3, 2013. The council states it will have no further comment until the conclusion of the appeal period.

· May 3, 2013: Cebull retires. According to federal law, as an Article III federal district judge he is entitled to continue to collect his $174,000 annual salary until his death.

· May 13, 2013: Four days before the order and memorandum are to become public, Kozinksi issues a statement saying the order stemming from the investigation is “moot” because Cebull retired from active duty. Kozinski says the Judicial Council “now finds it necessary to review the procedural status and will consider the matter” at its June 28 meeting.

· June 28, 2013: The Judicial Council meets to consider the Cebull misconduct complaint.

· July 2, 2013: Kozinski releases another statement indicating that the Judicial Council reviewed misconduct complaints 12-90026 and 12-90032 against Cebull. Judicial Council issues a  “final order,” which is to be made public on Sept. 4 “if no petition for review is filed before that date.” Only Cebull and the complainant associated with docket No. 12-90032 have the right to view the final order and consider it for appeal.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Conyers and Cohen Request Hearing On Judge Cebull's Violations of Office

Democrats seek hearing into judge's Obama email

Chief Judge Richard F. Cebull makes a speech during a Naturalization Ceremony at the James F. Battin Federal Courthouse on June 23, 2011. Cebull is under fire for a racist email he forwarded to six friends from his work computer. The joke he forwarded questioned the parentage of President Barack Obama, indicating his mother was so drunk at the time of conception, that Obama is fortunate his father was not a dog. (AP Photo/Billings Gazette, James Woodcock)examine a Montana judge's conduct in forwarding an email that included a racist joke involving bestiality and President Barack Obama's mother.

HELENA, Mont. (AP) — Two top Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee called for a hearing Tuesday to Reps. John Conyers of Michigan and Steve Cohen of Tennessee told Committee Chairman Lamar Smith, R-Texas, in their letter that the committee has a duty to investigate the potential consequences of Judge Richard Cebull's email.

"At a minimum, forwarding this email illustrates poor judgment and of conduct that was unbecoming of a federal judge," they wrote. "More troubling, however, is the possibility that public disclosure of the judge's conduct may not only undermine the public's view of his personal credibility and impartiality as a judge, but also the integrity of the ... federal judiciary."

A hearing would determine whether further investigation or legislative action was needed, they wrote. Congress can remove a federal judge for misconduct by impeachment in the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate confirmation, but such action is rare.

Smith had no immediate response to their hearing request.

At least three complaints have been filed with the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals against Cebull regarding the email, which he forwarded to six friends on Feb. 20. One of the complaints was filed by Cebull himself. He asked 9th Circuit Chief Judge Alex Kozinski "to conduct an inquiry as to whether recent activity of mine constitutes misconduct."

Cebull did not return a message from The Associated Press on Tuesday. He has previously said that he forwarded the email because he disliked Obama and denied allegations of racism. News of the email broke Thursday when it was forwarded to a Great Falls Tribune reporter.

The judge sent Obama a letter of apology Thursday in which he said he accepted responsibility, assured the president that it will never happen again and said he had asked for a judicial review.

"Honestly, I don't know what else I can do," Cebull wrote. "Please forgive me and, again, my most sincere apology."

The White House confirmed Tuesday that it had received the letter.

Cebull was nominated by former President George W. Bush and received his commission in 2001. He has served as chief judge of the District of Montana since 2008.

The two other known complaints have been filed by the good-government advocate, Common Cause, and by the Montana Human Rights Network.

David Madden, the assistant executive for the 9th Circuit, declined to say whether other complaints have been filed, citing confidentiality in the judicial misconduct process. Cebull and the other groups waived confidentiality when they filed their complaints, he said.

"We have acknowledged receiving Judge Cebull's complaint and announced that the matter will be investigated. That is the extent of what we can say publicly at this time," Madden said.

The 9th Circuit has the ability to censure or reprimand the judge, order that no new cases be assigned to him for a designated period of time or ask the judge to retire. If the conduct potentially constitutes grounds for impeachment, the 9th circuit could refer the matter to the Judicial Conference of the United States, which oversees the federal court system.

Conyers and Cohen wrote that a legislative inquiry is necessary regardless of the results of the 9th Circuit's conclusions.

The last federal judge to be impeached and convicted was U.S. District Judge G. Thomas Porteous of Louisiana in 2010. Prosecutors said gambling and drinking problems led Porteous to begin accepting cash and other favors from attorneys and bail bondsmen with business before his court.

U.S Representatives John Conyers, Jr.and Steve Cohen's Letter to Chairman Smith Regarding Judge Cebull Mar...

SCOTUS Listens To Why CPS Has Immunized Omnipotency

Here is what at stake.


If the Ninth Circuit's decision is not overturned, you are looking at an all scale war on baby snatching.


This is not the first time SCOTUS has entertained a child welfare issue, or more specifically, an issue in dealing with interrogating a child without parental consent.


The entire matter of child welfare, from its immunized omnipotent powers to its questionable practices of generating revenue-maximization schemes is coming to light.

Oregon Attorney General
John Kroger defending CPS

No matter what happens, be it false claims, rape, murder, fraud, kiddy kickbacks, antitrust violations, abuse, or torture, child protective services always seems to get away, scot free and ends up getting more federal funding out the deal.


So, as SCOTUS examines the issue of whether child protective services can snatch and rape a child, and as John Kroger defends CPS, I shall sit back and sharpen my tongue to give a provocative thrashing on this issue of reparations.  Money does not always right a wrong.


Suits of law are not always about asking for money to make oneself whole again.  Sometimes a person can be made whole again making sure it never happens to anyone else.


This is a case of child welfare reform.

Justices Weigh School Interviews on Sex Abuse

The U.S. Supreme Court today took up what potentially could be a major test involving the rights of children when interacting with the police and other government investigators in schools.

But in the case over whether school interviews of children by investigators constitute unreasonable "seizures" under the Fourth Amendment, the arguments today quickly stumbled over procedural issues.

"It just seems like the whole case has evaporated," Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg told Oregon Attorney General John R. Kroger early in the arguments in Camreta v. Greene(Case No. 09-1454). She was referring to the fact that the child in the case, identified as S.G., has not sought money damages from the two investigators who were found to have violated her rights.

The justices spent much of the hour debating whether the appeal presented a live case or controversy, as required by federal law. By the end, the court seemed inclined to throw out the appeal or set aside a federal appeals court ruling which had held that child-abuse investigators must have a court order or parental permission to interview a child at school about potential sex abuse at home.

Kroger said setting aside the ruling by a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, in San Francisco, would be acceptable since it would wipe the warrant or parent consent requirement off the books.

"Child-protective workers face an enormous burden to acquire a warrant before even talking to the child," Kroger said.

The Obama administration was the state's ally before the high court, with Acting Principal Deputy Solicitor General Leondra R. Kruger urging the justices to "correct the mistake the 9th Circuit made in this case."

"What we have is a decision that changes the legal landscape for child-protective workers who are doing their best to protect children," Kruger said.

She also said that wiping out the 9th Circuit decision would be acceptable, although that would put up a roadblock to the development of clear legal rules that could guide investigators.

Carolyn A. Kubitschek, the lawyer representing S.G. and her mother, said several times today that overly zealous child-abuse investigations could be harmful to children.

The state's position is that "there are no limits, no constraints" on what investigators could do in interviewing a child in school, Kubitschek said.

In the case from Bend, Ore., 9-year-old S.G. was pulled from her classroom one day in 2003 and taken to a school office, where she was interviewed by a state child-protective-services caseworker and a deputy sheriff.

The authorities suspected the girl was being sexually abused at home. After lengthy questioning, the girl told the investigators that she had been touched inappropriately by her father. The girl and her sister were briefly removed from their home, but criminal charges against their father were later dismissed. The father did accept a plea agreement over abuse charges involving another child.

S.G.'s mother sued not only the investigators who questioned her daughter, but also the Bend-La Pine school district and the school counselor who had removed the girl from class. The mother says in court papers that only after two hours of denying any abuse did S.G. tell the investigators what the girl believed they wanted to hear—that her father had touched her improperly. The school district was dismissed as a defendant in earlier proceedings.

The justices today eventually did get around to exploring the merits of in-school interviews of potential child-abuse victims.

Justice Antonin Scalia wondered, only half-seriously, whether faced with hurdles over removing schoolchildren to a private room to be interviewed, they would be forced to sidle up alongside them in school hallways to inquire about abuse.

Justice Stephen G. Breyer asked whether it constituted a "seizure" under the Fourth Amendment when students were confined to class by school officials for misbehavior.

Kubitschek said most interactions between school personnel and students (as opposed to state investigators) would be governed by cases that give school authorities wide disciplinary latitude.

There seemed to be little sympathy on the court for the idea that the 9th Circuit was right on the merits and that such child-abuse interviews would require a search warrant or parental permission.

"It's hard to swallow that if a child is asked [in circumstances similar to this case] and says she is being abused, that it is unreasonable" for state investigators to take the next steps in an investigation, Justice Sonia Sotomayor said.

A decision in the case is expected by June. On March 23, the court will take up another case involving the police and schools. In J.D.B. v. North Carolina (No. 09-11121), the justices will consider whether a student interviewed at school about suspected neighborhood thefts should have been given a Miranda warning.

U.S. Supreme Court Oral Arguments of Camreta v. Greene Transcripts, March 1, 2011

Camreta v. Greene U.S. Supreme Court Case No. 09-1454

Camreta v. Greene Ninth Circuit Opinion No. 06-35333

Another $9,650,722.24 Reasons Why You Will Stop Lying, Stealin' & Selling Tiny Humans

No matter how long it takes, we are coming.

Stop stealin' children.

Much love, Deanna, much love.

Welcome to the end of trafficking tiny humans in Foster Care and Adoption.

My turn...

ASFA Gives Social Workers The Right To Lie In Child Welfare Cases

Learn more: BEVERLY TRAN: ASFA Gives Social Workers The Right To Lie In Child Welfare Cases http://beverlytran.blogspot.com/2016/11/asfa-gives-social-workers-right-to-lie.html#ixzz5PLD35NHe
Stop Medicaid Fraud in Child Welfare 

9th Circuit Opinion Says Child Welfare Workers Do Not Have"Right To Lie"

Learn more: BEVERLY TRAN: 9th Circuit Opinion Says Child Welfare Workers Do Not Have"Right To Lie" http://beverlytran.blogspot.com/2017/03/9th-circuit-opinion-says-child-welfare.html#ixzz5PLDpCsLk
Stop Medicaid Fraud in Child Welfare 

Do Social Workers Have a Constitutional "Right to Lie" Case 9th Cir 15-55563 by Beverly Tran on Scribd

Right to Lie in Child Welfare Cases - Opinion 15-55563, 1-3-2017 by Beverly Tran on Scribd

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

9th Circuit Opinion Says Child Welfare Workers Do Not Have"Right To Lie"

On January 3, 2017, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals rendered its opinion in the "Right To Lie" case.

9th Circuit Judge Stephen Trott

I can not give this opinion its proper honors due, so instead, I have provided a few highlights of Judge Stephen Trott's opinion.

No official with an IQ greater than room temperature in Alaska could claim that he or she did not know that the conduct at the center of this case violated both state and federal law.  The social workers in this case are alleged to have knowingly and maliciously violated the law in their attempt to sever Preslie’s protected relationship with her mother. Perjury is a crime under both federal and California state law, as is the knowing submission of false evidence to a court.

Then, there was this one.

When asked about these legal facts during oral argument, the following colloquy occurred: 

Judge Trott: Are you telling me that a person in your client’s shoes could not understand you cannot commit perjury in a court proceeding in order to take somebody’s children away? 

Answer: Of course not. 

Judge Owens: Was there anything you know of that told social workers that they should lie and they should create false evidence in a court proceeding? 

Answer: No . . . .

In a nutshell, the Justices ripped these child welfare workers, the county, and the legal community a new one by stating that

Trust me, I will be following up on this one because I want to know if the DOJ is going to follow up with criminal charges and if there exists an attorney, or just a warm body with a valid P number who is game on calling me to assist in bringing forth an action of false claims.

Hell, State can bring forth an action against Orange County.

But, of course, nothing will happen and the child welfare system will continue to operate as usual, well, they may snatch more kids to make up for the settlement of the case.

Right to Lie in Child Welfare Cases - Opinion 15-55563, 1-3-2017 by Beverly Tran on Scribd

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

SCOTUS Refuses To Give Foster Kids Civil Rights

"Wizards of SCOTUS, do foster kids have civil rights?"

Here is a tale of a band of rebels who dared to ask the mightiest court in the nation if foster kids have civil rights.  Of course, it is told with tongue in cheek for sake of conveying the message, but I believe I get my point across.

Without boring people with the legalese, I will run it quickly run it down:

The lawyers representing foster kids end up seeing kids abused and neglected in foster care because they have too many cases.  So everyone got together to see if they could sue.

The Children's Advocacy Institute (CAI) of University of San Diego filed in District court under 42 U.S.C. 1983 on the question of whether minors, where the state has filed in loco parentis (ie. Foster care, juvenile delinquents, mental health, 15 U.S.C. 15(c)), have civil rights to be protected while in placement.

The case was kicked out because the judge said, "how do you expect a federal court to tell a state court what to do, even if what they do is treating kids like crap.  Foster kids have no civil rights.  They are state property and we can not tell the state what to do."

Then CAI went to the 9th Circuit and asked them if foster kids have civil rights.  The federal Appeals Court said "You heard what they said, no."  Of course, went to all the judges of 9th Circuit and asked again, "Do foster kids have civil rights?"  9th Circuit opined with a "Hell no."

Well, CAI went to SCOTUS with all their friends to ask the mighty Justices if foster kids had civil rights.  SCOTUS, in its infamous wisdom refused to say anything and slammed the door on anyone else who dares ask the question again on October 15, 2012.

The end?  Perhaps not.  Let's see what Children's Rights is going to do about their cases.

U.S. Supreme Court Amici Curiea Brief On Whether Foster Children Have Civil Rights Under Federal Law

On a side note, I spoke with Congressman John Conyers, Jr. on the issue of whether foster kids have civil rights.  I thought it only proper to bring it to his attention so I encourage anyone with a vested interest in this subject matter to contact him and ask him the same question.

Make sure to tell him I sent you.

B-351 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
202-225-6906

2426 Rayburn Building
Washington, DC 20515
(202) 225-5126

669 Federal Bldg.
231 W. Lafayette
Detroit, MI 48226
313-961-5670
313-226-2085 (Fax)




Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

It was brought to my attention that the big bad legal system does no justice to individuals who have been victims of fraud.


There was no fraud in this case.  The issue that was presented before SCOTUS was one of attorney fees.


In reading the actual opinion below, one shall see that damages were not the matter at hand.  Damages were decided previously.


In the previous 9th Circuit Court Opinion, the case was bifurcated on specific questions. 


Injunctive relief was to have the County declare that its Central Registry for Child Abuse and Neglect was inadequate in providing due process.  Done.


Damages are just what it says, damage.  That was previously remanded to the District Court and decided.  How much, we will never know.


Prospective relief is with the attorney fees.  SCOTUS denied $60,000 for attorney fees.  Attorney fees are part of that whole conundrum called due process, sort of a reimbursement scheme.  Someone should argue that due process is entirely denied to individuals who have diligently sought competent counsel who would take on a due process issue under indigent status.  Hmm.....


Stay tuned.

Court says county doesn't have to pay for mistake

The Supreme Court ruled unanimously Tuesday that Los Angeles County does not have to pay attorney fees to a couple listed as child abusers even though they were declared innocent years ago.

By JESSE J. HOLLAND

Associated Press

WASHINGTON —

The Supreme Court ruled unanimously Tuesday that Los Angeles County does not have to pay attorney fees to a couple listed as child abusers even though they were declared innocent years ago.

Craig and Wendy Humphries were arrested by sheriff's deputies nine years ago after their rebellious daughter accused them of abuse. State courts ruled the allegation was false but they remain on California's Child Abuse Central Index.

In 2008, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco found the system unconstitutional because there's no way for the innocent to clear their names. It ordered the state to come up with a new system and the county to pay $60,000 in attorney fees to the Humphries.

The high court reversed and remanded that decision, saying Los Angeles County does not have to pay.

Los Angeles County argued that it could only be held liable and pay damages if a county policy or custom caused a violation of a constitutional right under a 1978 Supreme Court decision in Monell v. New York City Department of Social Services.

The Child Abuse Central Index was a state policy, the county argued.

The federal appeals courts had also split on whether Monell applies only to damages, or if it also applies to prospective relief as well like injunctions or declaratory judgments such as the 9th Circuit's decision to give the Humphries attorney fees.

Justice Stephen Breyer, who wrote the 8-0 opinion for the court, said that it does.

"We conclude that Monell's holding applies to claims against municipalities for prospective relief as well as to claims for damages," Breyer said.

Justice Elena Kagan did not take part in the consideration and decision of the case because she worked on it while in the solicitor general's office.

The ruling addressed only a narrow technical question - whether Monell applied to non-monetary prospective relief - and doesn't affect the appellate court ruling that the Humphries' constitutional rights were violated, said Andrew J. Pincus, a Washington, D.C., attorney who argued the couple's case before the Supreme Court.

"That finding of a constitutional violation remains in full force," Pincus said in an e-mailed statement.

The Humphries still contend that the county "acted, and failed to act, pursuant to its policies and customs," Pincus said. "That issue will be litigated before the district court."

The case was Los Angeles County v Humphries, 09-350.

Los Angeles County v Humphries, 09-350.

JUDICIARY: Markup On Medical Cannabis, National Injunctions & Busting Up The 9th Circuit

Markup of H.R. 5634, H.R. 6755, H.R. 3487, H.R. 6754, H.R.6730, H.R.6758, H.R. 2899, H.R. 6063, H.R. 6342, H.R. 6342, H.R. 6762, and H.R. 6176

In a nutshell, there is a push to keep weed illegal, except for the pharmaceuticals to buy, and I mean that literally in the form of campaign contributions, to push for more federally funded research so they can get their marketing monopoly price point together, so they can go ahead and bill Medicaid, Medicare and TRICARE top dollar for top shelf smoke products, to maximize revenues and profits.

I have not even checked, but I bet it has something to do with stuff like Purdue getting their patent to push their new drugs for opioid addition from being addicted to their old drugs.

Anyway, then there was another Bill trying to figure out how to get more certain groups of kids to go into the science and technology fields.

I shall ascertain that these certain groups hail from the population of "The Poors" (always said with clinched teeth). 

All they had to do was ask me and I would have told them that there are basically four reasons why poor people do not go to university to study science and technology.

1. Poor people cannot afford to go to university;
2. K-12 educational system has placed the United States at the bottom of the barrel when it comes to literacy because of lead poisoning and other experimental contaminants;
3. It is cheaper to import intellectual resources, like doctors and engineers from the EB-5 and HB-1 programs;
4. Since the U.S. has privatized, the nation exfiltrates data for processing, you know, like the major corporations that left the U.S. to manufacture in foreign countries using slave labor, packaged up in patent boxes, then implement a Social Impact Bond program through a child welfare NGO to launder more money into political campaigns.

The federal courts are not friendly to "The Poors" (always said with clinched teeth).

Judges live in socially, hermetically sealed chambers (pun intended) and do not have a freaking clue that  certain people are watching them lobby from the bench, or rather reading those emails.

Some want to split the 9th Circuit because it is too big and does not match the Electoral College make up, while others want to consolidate other Circuits, I guess, to downsize, privatize and continue to strip civil rights from the people and make that money with more Social Impact Bond NGO programs to "save those savages".

In the end, Judiciary will do what they are blackmailed and bribed to do.

Now, you do not need to watch the video, but you should skip through it, because, hey, what do I know?

Goodlatte Markup Statement on the Medical Cannabis Research Act

House Judiciary Committee Approves the SUCCESS Act

House Judiciary Committee Approves Legislation to Improve Federal Court System

Goodlatte Statement at Markup of the Injunctive Authority Clarification Act of 2018 

House Judiciary Committee Approves Bill on Nationwide Injunctions

Goodlatte Markup Statement on the CIRCUIT Act

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Los Angeles Central Registry Case Revealed

LA County defends child abuse listing


By David G. Savage, Tribune Washington Bureau
3:39 PM PDT, October 5, 2010

Washington…A lawyer for Los Angeles County told the U.S. Supreme Court Tuesday that the failure to remove a wrongly accused couple from California's index of reported child abusers was the state's responsibility, not the county's.


I do not think so.  The County received funding, through state budget appropriations to execute this function as a sub-receipient to federal funding.

"It's the state's data base," said attorney Timothy Coates. "There are no state standards and no specific criteria for removing someone from the list. We don't have any procedures on how to go about that."
The case of Craig and Wendy Humphries has highlighted the difficulty of getting off the state index once a person's name has been reported to Sacramento for abusing a child. The state's law requires many agencies and employees, including schools, police and child care workers, to report instances of suspected child abuse.

Not only that, the state entered into contractual agreement upon acceptance of the federal SACWIS and other grants.  The state is the recipient.  The county would be the sub-recipient according to federal guidelines.  No immunity for either.

More than 800,000 names are on California's index, and employers consult the list before hiring people to work with children.

The Humphries were reported to state authorities in 2001 based on the word of his teenage daughter, but a juvenile court judge later pronounced them innocent of the charges. They have been fighting in court for several years to clear their names.



In January of 2009, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals described their "nightmarish encounter" with the California system and ruled that both the state and county were liable for violating their constitutional rights. "There is no effective procedure for the Humphries to challenge this listing," the appeals court said.

Here is the decision:


9th Circuit Opinion in Humphries v Los Angeles County

Humphries v. L.A. County

But the lawyers for the county appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the county should not be liable for this state program. "Where the state law requires a local entity to do something," Coates said, "it's essentially the state making the decision."

As Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg noted, the state of California did not appeal the decision, but the Humphries remain on the state index.

Here are the transcripts for the oral arguments of October 5, 2010:


U.S. Supreme Court Transcript for LA County v. Humphries

Justice Bennen asks a very powerful question as it is a reflection of the national ignorance of child welfare fraud.

JUSTICE BREYER: -- against State. I mean, 

here you have a statute and the statute doesn't have any method to get out off -- get out of it, even when you should. Their claim is this is a State matter, the State's responsible, it's unconstitutional, go sue the State and tell the State to do it. Now that's a - what's wrong with that position?

2001 was a free-for-all in child welfare funding.  Fraud was rampant.  The main argument as to why a name is not expunged from the central registry is that, if the state and the county removed a person's name from the central registry, it would be an admission of liability in violations of due process.  See, without trial, charge, plea, verdict, or even knowing about it, you are placed on the central registry within a 48 hour period and rarely notified of the action.

By failing to remove a person's name from the central registry, the only recourse after exhausting all administrative avenues would be to bring an instant action.  That takes money and knowledge.  In 2001, the number of attorneys willing to take on any issues dealing with child welfare, was countable on one hand, if lucky.

Child welfare is an entitlement program, funded through Social Security.  This means, through the poverty means test, the person placed on the central registry was poor.  Poor people have no legal representation because state funded legal aid organizations are restricted from taking cases which will generate financial gain and would loose funding if it bit the hand that fed them, meaning a conflict of interest.

Incorporate the cost factor of litigation into the equation, meaning that the governmental entities would motion up on every minutia to the minimum cost of $200 an hour to the plaintiff, the person whose name was placed on the central registry, and you have a mutational algorithm to protect the racketeering enterprise.

"Every day for the last nine years the (Humphries) have suffered a violation of their due process rights," said Washington attorney Andrew Pincus.

Well of course they have suffered.  That is just a tactic to wear out a challenger.

Despite the county's battle in the courts, an official of Los Angeles Department of Children and Family Services said that reported child abusers can appeal the listing. Michael Watrobski, chief grievance review manager, said the state told local reporting agencies in May of 2008 that they should offer appeals, and he said his office has heard 313 such challenges this year.

Watrobski said in an interview that he did not understand the county's legal argument in the courts. "I have no idea. I really don't understand that," he said.

After the Supreme Court argument, the lawyer for Los Angeles County was asked about Watrobski's office and his assertion that appeals have been heard for more than two years. "That's news to me. I have never heard that," Coates said.