Three Cheers for Lisa Ballard and the Arkansas Supreme Court Committee on Professional Conduct
A brave police officer named Hunter Volner arrested and charged William Asa Hutchinson III, son of former Governor Asa Hutchinson, with DWI, speeding, refusing a chemical test, possession of cocaine and simultaneous possession of an illegal substance and a firearm.
The alleged conduct occurred on January 13, 2023. The information was dated January 15, 2023. It was filed on January 18, 2023. A copy is posted below.
On January 20, 2023, the Arkansas Supreme Court Committee on Professional Conduct filed an Order of Interim Suspension against Hutchinson III’s law license. (Also posted below.)
This is not the connected attorney’s first rodeo. He was arrested for driving while intoxicated three times in the past seven years according to the information.
The interim suspension comes exactly two years from when Mr. Hutchinson III’s previous probation and deferred suspension was terminated.
I cannot help but editorialize. Judge Susan Weaver transferred title to real estate I held in trust and possession of my personal property to a sleazy attorney’s alcoholic and fraudulent client, purportedly because I held the real estate in trust and did not hire an attorney to represent the trust for the hearing. I told Judge Weaver that I contacted many attorneys and none would get involved because it would bring his career to a screeching halt. I was sole trustee, settlor and beneficiary, so I wasn’t trying to represent another person.
Thus far the justices on the Court of Appeals have refused to let me make an appearance on behalf of my trust.
But, had I paid William Asa Hutchinson III $300 per hour or more to represent the trust, then assumably the trust would get to keep the property. I was named as a common defense defendant, and I was dismissed with prejudice (because I defended myself zealously). Judge Weaver was required to dismiss the common defense doctrine defendant at that time. Even a drunk and stoned attorney could probably have convinced the court of such.
I am grateful to Ms. Ballard and Sheriff Deputy Volner for doing their jobs. I pray there are enough people within the system who have the integrity to protect our nation from the tyrannical judicial officers and their attorney cronies who seem hell-bent on destroying our nation.
This is one small step in the right direction.
Can Our Government Restrict Who Talks About Law?
The Institute for Justice is doing important work protecting the freedoms enumerated in the United States Constitution and paralleled by the states. The following article is reposted by permission. It covers both the right to give advice about the law and touches on some bad practices of debt buyers like Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC.
You can read about other cases fought by the Institute for Justice here. If you love our freedoms and have expendable income, I hope you will consider donating to these good attorneys. We should reward the few who still have integrity.
Right to Provide Legal Advice
When wealthy Americans face legal troubles, they have a lot of sources of advice. Legions of lawyers, business consultants, accountants and others stand ready to provide their expertise for a price. But for many Americans who may lack the means to employ those experts, their only option is to turn their friends, family, or other community members, like their pastors.
That has certainly been the experience of Reverend John Udo-Okon, a Bronx-based pastor whose congregants turn to him for advice when they have trouble. Sometimes their troubles are spiritual. Sometimes marital. And sometimes legal—like many New Yorkers, Rev. John’s parishioners sometimes get sued, and they don’t know what to do.
A lot of those lawsuits are about consumer debt. Indeed, a lot of lawsuits in New York are about consumer debt: Roughly a quarter of all lawsuits filed in New York are suits to collect on a debt. In a given year, some 300,000 residents of New York City alone will be hit with a debt lawsuit. And many of these suits are, to say the least, questionable—brought by third parties that buy up old debts on the secondary market and file suits to collect, even if the defendant doesn’t owe the amount claimed or, sometimes, anything at all.
But despite the fact that many of these lawsuits lack merit, they are overwhelmingly successful, usually because the defendant doesn’t show up in court. As much as 90% of the time, the defendant in a consumer-debt lawsuit in New York fails to respond. And when a defendant does show up in one of these cases, the collectors often give up rather than try to prove the debt exists.
It seems like an area where a little bit of helpful advice could go a long way.
That is what led Reverend John to team up with Upsolve—a nonprofit co-founded and currently chaired by Rohan Pavuluri, that is dedicated to helping Americans access their civil legal rights for free. Upsolve began by offering a free app to walk people through Chapter 7 bankruptcy—an award-winning innovation that has now helped relieve hundreds of millions of dollars in debt.
But bankruptcy was only a start. Upsolve’s next project, the American Justice Movement, was designed to train volunteers like Reverend John to give the basic legal advice people need to defend themselves against the sorts of debt-collection suits that plague so many New Yorkers.
The truth is that responding to these lawsuits is not that complicated. New York has even created a form that allows people respond to a debt lawsuit by checking a handful of boxes. But even that form is complicated for people who have never navigated the legal system (one of the boxes asks whether someone wants to invoke the doctrine of “laches”), and the American Justice Movement is designed to bridge that gap by walking people through the form and answering their simple questions (like “what the heck is ‘laches’?”).
The problem? The sort of advice contemplated by Upsolve’s new project, where trained community advocates provide one-on-one advice, is a crime. If Reverend John (or anyone like him) gives someone advice about how to respond to a lawsuit, it could land him in jail for up to four years for engaging in the “unauthorized practice of law.”
That is why Reverend John and Upsolve have teamed up with the Institute for Justice to challenge New York’s prohibition on legal advice from people who are not lawyers under the First Amendment. After all, it cannot be a crime simply to give someone advice—if it were, the nation’s jails would be filled with bartenders, barbers, and meddling aunts. The reason the nation’s aunts walk free is that the First Amendment protects everyone’s right to provide each other with useful advice—including on important topics like their legal rights.
And, indeed, for much of American history, advice like Reverend John’s would have been perfectly legal. At the time of the American Founding, courts restricted who could appear before a judge in court, but no one pretended to have the right to regulate who talked about the law outside of court.
Those restrictions are not just anticompetitive. They are unconstitutional. Restrictions on who is allowed to talk about the law run afoul of the First Amendment, which protects all Americans right to speak—about history, about medicine, and about the law. Vindicating that important principle will give all Americans—not just those who are lucky enough to have licensed attorneys on-call—the ability to access useful information about their legal rights.
How Quickly We Forget: How Hitler Transferred Property and What Came Next
Americans love watching movies about the Nazis. The vast majority of us are rooting against the murderous thugs.
I am watching a series on Prime called “Hunters”. It stars Al Pacino as a Nazi Hunter. There is an FBI agent who suspects a rash of deaths are murders by a vigilante group determined to eradicate war criminals. I think she will eventually see the beauty in truth espoused by the self-appointed judge, jury and executioners.
Stylistically, Hunters has comic strip undertones.
Sadly, people, including some Jews, view the Holocaust through this animated lens.
The Jewish people have a mantra. “Forgive, but do not forget.”
Yet history is repeating itself right here in the land of the free.
I am the victim of a Hitleresque judicial officer named Susan Kaye Weaver.
She took my property, both real and personal, in a hearing in which I was forbidden to defend against the improper seizure.
The Arkansas judge used the excuse that the real property was held in trust. She said that if I spoke on behalf of the trust, I would be committing the unauthorized practice of law. She had the County Sheriff and three deputies on hand who could arrest me at her whim. She knew I am ill and ruled with a hardened heart. (I have an acute auto-immune disease and gave the Court copies of a recent blood test that would indicate that I should be resting at home; not driving 3.5 hours roundtrip to attend kangaroo court.)
This same judge, in the same case, made a sua sponte ruling to dismiss my countersuit against the fraudster who was suing me. But, in the hearing of March 17, 2022, I, the trustee and settlor of the trust that held the title to the real estate, was in the courtroom and Judge Weaver failed to question me as a witness. Judges are allowed to question witnesses. Judge Weaver questioned the fraudster. She did not ask any questions that would elicit the truth, but I know she knows she could have asked me as trustee what my side of the story was. She had already read my counterclaim and exhibits throughout the prior year of litigation. She did not want to see the truth.
She just wanted to give property that was mine or meant to be mine to attorney William Zac White’s client and to pay Mr. White.
She had the Gestapo standing by in case I protested.
You can read the court documents on Court Connect, case 65CV-21-20 and appeal CV-22-435. The transcript is posted below, but I warn you, Court Reporter Jana Perry made substantial falsifications to the transcript in order to support Judge Weaver and Attorney White’s agenda.
Judge Susan Weaver’s Web of Deceit
Judge Susan Weaver transferred ownership of real estate I placed in trust to a man who defrauded me of hundreds of thousands of dollars and put part of his plan in writing. His attorney William Zac White gave me the original writing and I gave a copy to Judge Weaver.
Judge Weaver used the excuse that I am not a licensed attorney and therefore can’t say a word in defense of my trust. Apparently she contends that she must leave her brain at the door when she enters the courthouse.
The Arachnid Judge went a step further and transferred my personal property that was in the house to Mr. White’s client. I had no trial and was not allowed to speak in my own defense at the hearing. The transcript of that hearing was falsified by court reporter Jana Perry, but it is still apparent that I was not given an opportunity to protect my individual property.
Judge Susan Weaver also allowed Mr. White to obtain license for another client, Richard Gawenis, to take property his mother put in trust. Mr. Gawenis did not serve summons on the trustee in that case, either.
An attorney for the trustee got involved and convinced Judge Weaver to overturn the bad ruling. Mr. White appealed and lost.
On November 22, 2022, a different attorney, Danny R. Crabtree filed another suit for Richard Gawenis. This time it is an unlawful detainer against the rightful beneficiaries of his mother’s trust. 71CV-22-195. Mr. Crabtree told an outright lie, claiming the property is owned by Zelda Walls.
It seems no coincidence that Mr. Danny Crabtree also represented William White in the civil rights action I filed against him.
The defendants’ attorney filed a response and motion to dismiss. The main point is that the trust and not Zelda Walls owns the property in question.
Mr. Crabtree had the audacity to oppose the MTD on the basis that the Court must stay within the four corners of the complaint and the complaint states that the property is owned by Zelda Walls. This is a violation of Rule 11. Mr. Crabtree is fully aware that the property is held in a trust. Further, Zelda Walls was the settlor of the trust, but not the sole beneficiary.
It will be interesting to see if Judge Weaver recognizes the line between a trust and the settlor of the trust in the Gawenis case. She was acutely aware of the difference in my case, even though she was a bit off. My case is a rare exception because I am sole beneficiary, trustee, and settlor. Zelda Walls was not.
It is also notable that Mr. Crabtree captioned the unlawful detainer plaintiff “RICHARD GLENN GAWENIS, AS GUARDIAN OF THE PERSON AND ESTATE OF ZELDA WALLS” but Mr. White captioned the plaintiff in my case “MICHEAL PIETRCZAK” without naming Walter Pietrczak in his capacity as attorney in fact to Micheal Pietrczak.
Hopefully Judge Weaver will be caught in her own web and prosecuted for rendering dishonest services.
Is Arkansas a Good Place to Invest or Retire? NO!
Yes, Arkansas has natural beauty and cheap real estate prices compared to many states.
But judges like Susan Kaye Weaver in Faulkner County and Searcy County give permission to attorney William Zac White to take real estate and personal property from anyone who does not have enough money to hire a lawyer at $300 per hour.
My property and property rights were taken from me without just cause and without a trial.
Property held in a trust was also given to Mr. White’s client and presumably Mr. White.
I am not making this up. It is 100% true.
You can read the docket for Pietrczak v. Laura Lynn and Rural Revival Living Trust on Court Connect. (65CV-21-20)
I appealed the orders. My briefs were filed timely on November 23, 2022. Pietrczak and Attorney William Zac White failed to file an opposing brief. Why bother when the Court consistently finds in their favor without filing any meaningful brief? (CV-22-435)
This is not the first time Judge Susan Weaver transferred property rights without requiring the recipient to follow procedure. See matters involving Richard Gawenis and the Zelda Walls Living Trust, 71CV-20-119, 71PR-19-91 and CV-21-349.
There, the errant judge corrected herself on one lower court case, but not the other, only after the trust paid an attorney for representation. The correction was upheld on appeal.
I left my home state to buy a house and retire in Arkansas. Now I am forced to go back to work, at 60, with a disease that causes fatigue and is triggered by stress.
How do I know Judge Weaver was wrong? I was present in the three hearings and read the official transcripts created by Court Reporter Jana Perry. Ms. Perry’s renditions were fictionalized. But Judge Weaver and Ms. Perry refuse to play the recordings of the hearings, the best evidence, for the public. Thus far the Court of Appeals justices have also refused to settle the record.
If you are considering moving your company or retiring to Arkansas, feel free to call me first. You will probably decide I am an intelligent and reasonable woman, and that I am not exaggerating about the corruption of the Arkansas judiciary. Your assets will not be safe in this state.
Laura Hammett (760) 966-6000
More Musings on the ILLegal System: Reposted by Permission of the Post Modern Justice Media Project
What is Post Modern Justice?
My name is Alexander C. Baker, J.D. My friends call me Alex. I hold a Juris Doctorate, and I also have a significant amount of real-world experience litigating matters in Civil, Family, Child Welfare and Probate Court. This qualifies me as a legal expert. In my expert opinion, the American court system was never intended to achieve justice, as that term was once commonly understood. Rather, the “justice” system was designed to accomplish three goals, in order of importance: (1) to expand the state; (2) to transfer wealth to state actors; and (3) to destroy families (thus facilitating 1 and 2).
Our organization is called “Post Modern Justice Media Project” (“PMJMP”). Our goal is to educate the public about the realities of an American court system that is so thoroughly corrupt that it can best be described as organized crime. While the entire “justice” system – civil and criminal – is highly problematic, we are especially concerned about the financial and emotional devastation routinely imposed upon innocent people unfortunate enough to find themselves trapped in the Family Law, Juvenile or Probate Courts.
But why the term “Postmodernism” ?
“Postmodernism” is the name given to a branch of philosophy (actually, anti-philosophy) characterized by identitarianism and its endless questioning of truth and reality as such. Now widely accepted across academia, the postmodern view holds that there is no objective truth – about anything. There is no objective reality. Instead, there are only competing historical narratives that have been socially constructed for strategic purposes in a never-ending power struggle between various dominant oppressor groups and their helpless victims.
Rich oppress poor. Whites oppress blacks. Men oppress women. Straights oppress gays who oppress queer who oppress trans who oppress non-binary. In this sense, postmodernism is identical to Marxism.
Unlike postmodernists however, old-school Marxists believed that a purely scientific approach could be undertaken to manage a national economy for the benefit of all. Ludwig von Mises destroyed this notion by presenting the Calculation Problem, which demonstrates that because the factors of production are not traded on the market, there are no meaningful prices, and so even the most rudimentary economic calculations regarding profit and loss become impossible. Mises’ theory was subsequently confirmed empirically in the Soviet Union, North Korea, and elsewhere.
So, by the 1960s, socialists needed a new “philosophy” to support their totalitarian ambitions. Enter Jacque Derrida and the other French intellectuals who pioneered postmodernism. If we can’t rely on truth and reason to get what we want, they thought, we’ll just do away with those outmoded concepts altogether. And so they did.
To a postmodern there is no such thing as “the” truth. You have “your” truth, but I have “my” truth, and they have “their” truth. Nobody has any greater claim on truth than anybody else. Any effort to make such a claim is a form of oppression.
The astute libertarian might take an approach similar to Hans-Hermann Hoppe’s Argumentation Ethic, by asking this of postmoderns: Isn’t postmodernism itself just another truth claim, subject to dismissal as a subjective historical narrative? In that light, postmodernism would seem to be self-refuting, but I digress.
“Post Modern Justice” is a stylized and branded icon for our organization, and which name is meant to contain a reference to and implied critique of the evident manifestation of postmodernism into the so-called “justice” system. “Law” once embodied a set of moral and ethical principles to guide us on the difference between acceptable and unacceptable behavior in society. What we now call the Common Law was a grass roots phenomenon in medieval England that arrived at a moral and ethical code not too different from the Ten Commandments, or the “golden rule”, or from libertarianism’s Non-Agression Axiom: It is wrong to initiate force or fraud.
“Law” was once understood as being a set of rules which, if obeyed consistently, would produce a peaceful and prosperous society. And, when disputes between people arise (as they inevitably do), then the law could be applied to achieve a morally and ethically sound resolution to the dispute. The resolution was given the name “justice”.
Under this original view, one could speak of the law, just as one could speak of the truth. The truth and the law were closely related. Indeed, witnesses in a legal proceeding are sworn to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. I wonder how much longer it will be before witness are sworn to tell their “own personal truth”. Perhaps witnesses should solemnly swear to “share their feelings”?
While the Anglo-American legal system can never have been said to comport with a truly libertarian ethic, today, no moral or ethical principles of any kind remain in the legal system. Principles have been replaced by rules. Endless rules. Hundreds of thousands of pages of statutes, case law, rules of civil procedure, rules of criminal procedure, rules of court, rules of evidence, local rules, administrative rules, restatements of the rules, and so on, before you ever get to Orders, which are issued under the rules, but also function as rules.
There are exceptions to every rule, and in many instances, exceptions to the exceptions. Far from a resource to resolve conflict, the “law” on the books is designed to be arguable. The longer and more protracted the litigation, the more wealth that is extracted and the more psychological trauma that is inflicted.
In fact, future attorneys are trained in law school to “argue both sides”, i.e. to become highly-skilled at fashioning competing and mutually exclusive legal arguments from one set of facts. This is the opposite of what I once conceived the law to be. In addition to such vagueness and argue-ability of the “law”, on many issues the “law” explicitly grants judges wide “discretion”. “Discretion” is code for “the judge can just make up a law on the spot”.
In any type of legal proceeding, both the law and the facts can be disputed. In some cases, where the facts are not in dispute, the matter may be adjudicated purely as a matter of law. Under a proper concept of “law”, such purely legal cases are relatively rare, because a law based in moral principles is easy for the layperson to understand. It is unlikely that people who agree on the facts would often disagree about an interpretation of the law.
Under the common law legal system we inherited from England, juries – not judges – were supposed to decide cases. But the trying of the law comes first, and under postmodern “law”, a judge can decide any procedural issue for either side, regardless of the facts (assuming for the moment that there are such things as “facts”). Thus, it is an easy matter for any judge to decide and dispense with any case before it ever reaches a jury. Despite the U.S. Constitution promising the right to a jury trial in civil matters, less than 1% of cases ever make it to a jury.
Worse, in some of the most important areas of the law, like Family, Child Welfare and Probate Law, jury trials have been completely done away with, replaced by a “bench trial”. In true postmodern fashion, the judge in a “bench trial” becomes both judge and jury, not only ruling on (i.e. making up) the “law”, but just in case the judge can’t think of a way to pervert the “law” to achieve a desired result, also making all the necessary “findings of fact”. Since objective truth does not exist, the postmodern judge feels perfectly justified in declaring his or her (or zher or their) preferred narrative on the situation, regardless of the evidence or testimony or the consequences or any other such mundane distractions.
I can faithfully report to you that in today’s postmodern courtroom, judges routinely accept obvious and provable lies as “facts”, apply those “facts” to the subjective discretionary ambiguities now passing for the “law”, then make whatever “order” or “ruling” they want, for whatever reason or for no reason. This is standard procedure in every courthouse in America. I challenge any attorney or judge or anyone who has every been party to any case to dispute this.
Today’s postmodern “law” and “facts” mean whatever any judge says they mean. Two judges can apply the same “law” to similar “facts” and arrive at opposite conclusions. The same one judge can apply the “law” differently from one case to the next. Judges advance utterly fictitious narratives favoring one side, while disallowing any testimony at all from the other side, all with no responsibility.
Postmodern lawyers and judges have now deconstructed law and facts and rendered the terms meaningless, in the same way the postmodern philosophers and professors have deconstructed truth and reality and rendered it meaningless.
I’m not exaggerating, not even a little, when I say:
A judge in any case can decide any issue for anybody regardless of anything.
In other words, there is no law. There is no justice. You have no rights. Long ago redefined, “Law”, “justice” and “rights” are simply the names given to what the State does to people in court buildings.
Post Modern Justice is what happens in Court. Enter at your own risk. Leave if you can figure out how.
July 11, 2020
Alexander C. Baker, J.D.
President, Post Modern Justice Media Project
I Could Not Say It Better Myself: So I reposted By Permission of the Post Modern Justice Media Project
- Alex Baker
- Dec 16, 2020
- 10 min read
Top Ten Most Corrupt Laws in the United States
10. The Federal Reserve Act
Allowing a central bank to print un-backed paper money in any amount is counterfeiting, by definition. And counterfeiting is a form of theft, because it allows those with the printing press to transfer real wealth away from those who earned it, and into the hands of themselves and their close friends. For a more detailed explanation, please see The Origin of Money and How It Was Stolen From You.
The Fed should be abolished. Money and banking should be returned to the private sector. Among many other cruelties, the Fed can finance Title IV D funding of the kidnapping and extortion racket known as Child Welfare and Dependency Courts. Truly, the Federal Reserve could be #1 on the list, but we’ve pushed it down to # 10 because most everybody already knows about it.
9. Unpublished Appeal Court Opinions
Any time a Court of Appeal rules on a case, its opinion becomes the law. Such “Case law” may be cited in a new case to show how that case is like the earlier one, and why the Court should rule the same way now. Except, nowadays, the vast majority of Appellate Opinions are issued as “unpublished”, meaning we are not allowed to cite the case. Think about it. If the Opinion is valid, then why would we not want it published? And if the Opinion is not valid, why should we allow it to happen in the first place?
All Appeal Court Opinions must be published. If the result is “conflicting” laws, good. It will shine a spotlight on the problems, and hasten needed reform.
8. Contempt of Court is Non-Appealable
Contempt of Court is a finding by a judge that a person “willfully” violated a court order. Some court orders are valid, and should be obeyed. And a court needs a mechanism to enforce them. But there are severe problems with the present system.
It is common for Family Court judges to illegally order parties not to talk about their case on social media, or even to their own children. Restraining orders can issue that say the same thing. Violate that, and you can go to jail. Like Judge Bruce Mills sent Joe Sweeney to jail for posting facts about his divorce from Keri Evilsizor.
On the other hand, judges will turn right around and allow some people to get away with violating court orders, for example raiding a trust fund. Like Judge Gregory Weingart let Clair Marlo get away with taking $225,000 cash from a disputed property in the now-infamous Baker v. Baker case.
Contempt is found when it shouldn’t be, and not found when it should be. Either way there is nothing that can be done, because Contempt orders are non-appealable. Yes, you can file a Writ, but those are almost always denied, and the Appeal Court doesn’t even have to give you a reason why. Writs just come back saying “denied”.
7. “Temporary” Child Custody Orders
The right to family unity is a fundamental constitutional right. Constitutional rights cannot be taken away without due process. Under any sane legal system, a parent has a right to frequent contact with their child unless and until that parent is convicted of committing a crime against that child. Not accused. Convicted.
It is extremely common in Family Court for the judge to award ‘temporary” sole custody to one parent, and either no visitation, or only monitored visitation to the other parent, all upon allegations only. Getting to a “final” custody order often takes years of expensive litigation, and is never final anyway, as custody is always modifiable. The fight is never over. None of this is constitutional, and none of it makes any sense for a society that values family, which ours no longer does.
No judge has any right to make any order besides 50-50 joint custody until there is a trial finding that a parent did something really bad.
6. Domestic Violence Restraining Orders for Non-Threatening Speech
California’s Domestic Violence Prevention Act (“DVPA”), defines “abuse” to include “disturbing the peace”, which case law interprets to mean “any conduct that destroys the mental or emotional calm” of the other person. This has resulted in cases where a 3 -year restraining order issued solely on the basis of man forwarding the wife’s text messages to her parents, or another man winning a copyright infringement case against his ex-wife and discussing it on a blog, or another man posting pictures of visiting his children on Facebook after the Judge ordered him “not to discuss the divorce with the children”.
Non-threatening speech is not violence. These Family Law DVRO are being used as strategic weapons in property and custody disputes. It’s wrong. It’s hurtful, most of all to the children, who are used as both a weapon and a shield. It must stop.
5. “Dispensing with” Notice
Notice is a fundamental part of Due Process. California’s Probate and Family Codes contain rules saying that on a hearing for Temporary Guardianship of a Child, Notice requirement may be done away with for “good cause”. What constitutes “good cause” ? It is simply a checkbox on a standard form, and no explanation is required.
In one case, a judge awarded temporary guardianship of a child at an unnoticed, ex parte hearing. That same day they took the child away from the legally married, biological parents, who had no idea the hearing had taken place. This happened 5 days after DCFS cleared the father of the one (1) vague allegation that he had “inappropriately touched” the child 4 years prior.
Another case involved an estranged husband leaving his wife and son in Canada, and somehow getting a judge in Los Angeles to grant an ex parte custody award based on a provably false allegation that his estranged wife had “kidnapped” the child. In fact, the family had been living in Canada for 3 years. In contradiction to the Hague Convention, the man somehow got U.S. officials to cross the border and seize the child, and mother has never seen him since.
No judge should be allowed to conduct any kind of court proceeding regarding parental rights unless all parties are present.
4. Automatic Hearsay Exception for Child Welfare Reports
California Welfare and Institutions Code § 355 makes Hearsay evidence by “peace officers”, “social workers”, “health care practitioners”, and “teachers” automatically admissible as evidence, as long as it is found in a “social study” or a “report”. Not only is it admissible, but the law literally says that it shall be sufficient evidence for a finding of “jurisdiction” over the children, i.e. to seize and permanently hold the children in the foster care system. This is a very profitable situation, as County agencies receive federal money under Title IV D for each child taken.
Let’s look at the Hearsay Rule and why it is important. Hearsay is an out of court statement offered for its truth. So any time a witness is testifying, and says something like, “…Joe told me Bob hit him…” that is hearsay. The witness has no knowledge of Bob hitting Joe, the Court needs Joe to testify. Wait, it gets worse.
All written declarations and reports are out-of-court statements, thus hearsay by definition. Typical social worker reports contain triple hearsay. One group of social workers writes the report, which is full of out-of-court statements relaying the out-of-court statements of other social workers and peace officers, who assert that the child made certain out-of-court statements that somebody did something wrong. That’s triple hearsay. And yet, it is not possible to cross examine any of these accusers. The Judge, who is acting as jury, will simply accept anything in a report as the truth, and “the law” backs up the judge. If that doesn’t constitute a show trial, I don’t know what does.
The Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause promises that defendants have a right to cross examine accusers. This is one of the most important protections of all, and this “Accusatory Hearsay Exception” law just does away with it. Seriously.
3. All Non-Jury Court Systems
We inherited our jury trial court system from England, and it worked quite well for a long time. Any kind of case, criminal or civil, consists of a Plaintiff alleging a series of facts about the conduct of the Defendant, which if proven, add up to a violation some a particular law. The parties can dispute the facts, of course. He said, she said. Sometimes, the parties can dispute the law. In essence, the Defendant says to the Plaintiff, “So what? Even if all the facts you allege are true, it doesn’t violate any law.”
According to the system of Anglo-American jurisprudence, the judge is the trier of the law, while the jury is the trier of the facts. When it comes to factual disputes, judges were NEVER supposed to decide cases. The role of the judge is to ensure a fair process, but not to decide the case. It is the jury who decides the winner and loser in a court case. The right to a jury trial in a criminal case is enshrined in the 6th Amendment, while the right to a jury trial in a civil case is found in the 7th Amendment. The fundamental right to petition the government is found in the 1st Amendment.
Over a hundred years ago, they started coming up with ideas like Family Court, Probate Court, and Child Welfare Court systems. In clear violation of the Constitution, they simply decided these would be Judge trials instead of jury trials. Gone are not only the juries, but in criminal matters – like Custody and Child Welfare cases – missing also are a whole set of procedural safeguards such as the right to an attorney, right to confront your accuser, right to see the evidence against you, right remain silent, etc.
2. The Litigation Privilege (aka the Perjury Privilege)
The Litigation Privilege holds that you cannot sue a person based on what they said in a court proceeding. Not even if it is defamatory. Not even if it cost you a fortune and you can prove it. Not even if it was a false statement, under oath about a material issue. Statements made in court are said to be “absolutely privileged”. We might as well call the Litigation Privilege what it really is – the perjury privilege.
The supposed rationale for the Litigation Privilege is that we want to encourage witnesses to come forward and testify in court cases. If every witness was worried about being sued for what they said, then many would be intimidated and afraid to come to court. The Litigation Privilege is said to “preserve the integrity of the court system”.
Do you believe that the Litigation Privilege preserves the integrity of the court system? I think the opposite. Witnesses who are telling the truth do not need to fear being sued, because, well, they are telling the truth. Just like people who tell the truth on their blogs don’t need to worry about being sued. It is liars who would be afraid to come to court and tell lies. Don’t we want liars to be afraid to lie? Why do we invite liars to testify, and how could anyone buy in to the notion that this preserves the integrity of the system? Is it any wonder that every Civil and Family Law case devolves into a cesspool of dishonesty?
1. Judicial Immunity
Judicial Immunity means you can’t sue a judge for damages. Not even if they lied. Not even if they broke the law. Not even if they injured you on purpose with actual, premeditated malice. The leading Supreme Court case on Judicial Immunity is called Stump v. Sparkman, and a review will help illustrate just what the system allows judges to get away with.
In 1971, a woman came to Judge Stump’s courtroom and Petitioned for an Order to sterilize her 15 year old daughter. The woman claimed her daughter was “somewhat retarded”. Judge Stump did not order any evidentiary hearing, and did not appoint any lawyer to represent the teenager. Rather, Judge Stump simply signed the Order. The girl was told she needed an appendectomy, and did not discover she was sterilized until years later when she got married and could not have children.
The case reached the Supreme Court in 1978. By a 5-3 decision, the High Court found that Judge Stump was immune from suit, because issuing Orders of this kind was a judicial function. Stump v. Sparkman is a landmark case that sets out the test to determine whether a judge’s action is “in the complete absence of all jurisdiction”, or merely “in excess of jurisdiction”.
The explanation for Judicial Immunity is much the same as the Litigation Privilege. Supposedly, a judge cannot do his job if he is worried that any decision he makes might be second-guessed, and subject him to liability. To this I say:
BULLSHIT.
Any professional should be subject to liability if they screw up their job badly enough. If an engineer designs a structure that falls apart when the wind blows, shouldn’t they be responsible? If a contractor’s brand new plumbing leaks and causes significant damage, shouldn’t he have to pay for it? Should we not be able to sue a surgeon if she makes a bad mistake and injures you?
Is it possible for a professional to do their job properly with the thought hanging over their head that they might be sued if they hurt you? The answer is: Yes. They had damn well better do the job right or they are going to get sued. That’s the only remedy we have, short of taking the law into our own hands. Do we want vigilante justice?
If you had no recourse against somebody who injures you, what kind of legal system even exists? And the previous examples related to accidental injuries. What about intentional injuries? Judicial Immunity protects judges even when it can be proven that they injured a person on purpose. Seriously, there is case law that says this.
No one, not even a judge, should be above the law. We want judges to be afraid of making illegal, injurious decisions. Yes, that’s exactly what we want. Be afraid, the same way every professional is afraid they might hurt someone. Like most professionals, Judges should have liability insurance to cover them for negligence, but be held personally liable for fraud or other intentional torts. Why wouldn’t we want judges to go to jail and pay steep restitution if it is proven they harmed somebody on purpose?
As it stands, we are not the least bit surprised that Judicial Immunity has resulted in a system that runs on bribery and corruption. From the judge’s perspective, corruption is all upside, with no downside. Judges are completely above the law. And since the decisions that judges make ARE the law, we might as well face up to this sad and disturbing conclusion:
As long as there is Judicial Immunity, there is no law.
Visit The Post Modern Justice Media Project here.
“Railroading, Stonewalling & Gaslighting” – Brilliant and Brave Author Alex Baker’s Book
The following excerpt is reposted here by permission of the author and copyright holder.
Link to the non-profit Post Modern Justice Media Project
- Alex Baker
- Oct 11, 2022
- 12 min read
Trafficking a Child at a Secret Hearing
Below is a chapter excerpted from my upcoming book “Railroading, Stonewalling & Gaslighting.” The Augustus civil rights case was recently touched on in an article by Juliette Fairley.
———–
No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.
– U.S. Constitution, Amend. V.
Even a broken clock is right twice a day. Similarly, even the United States Supreme Court occasionally issues an opinion seemingly consistent with freedom. They did so in Troxel v. Granville (2000), where they affirmed what should never have even come into question – that parents have a fundamental right to raise their children.
“Due process” supposedly means that the government is not allowed to interfere with your rights unless they have shown a good reason, and given you your day in court. In my view, rights are unalienable meaning that they cannot be interfered with at all, and what he have now are mere privileges that the government can take away. But let’s leave that to one side, and consider the Augustus Civil Rights Case . [1]
Los Angeles couple Donecia and Mark Augustus are the legally married, kind and loving biological parents of a daughter named Sasha, born in 2003. Now an adult, at all relevant times, Sasha was a minor child. Back in about 2015, Sasha and her best friend both decided they wanted to go live with somebody besides their parents. Apparently a rift began when the then 12-year-olds were disallowed from wearing certain types of clothing.
Sasha decided that life would be so much better if she could go live with her “cool aunt,” Shaunta Montgomery, Donecia’s sister. Next thing you know, Sasha was making a vague allegation that her father Mark had engaged in “inappropriate touching” sometime before. The matter was investigated by the Los Angeles Police and Department of Child Protective Services (“DCFS”) and determined not to be credible. The matter was laid to rest, or so one would think.
Fast forward to 2018. During 2018, there were periods of time when the Augustuses allowed their then-15-year-old daughter to stay with her aunt. But, at no time did Donecia or Mark Augustus ever agree to, or discuss, or even consider surrendering their parental rights – to Shaunta or anyone else.
Next thing you know, in October 2018, Shaunta files a Petition for Temporary Guardianship of Sasha. The one and only reason for the guardianship was the years-old allegation against her father Mark, which had already been investigated by L.A.P.D. A new investigation was commenced by DCFS.
In November 2018, Shaunta appeared before Judge Gus T. May for a hearing on her Petition for Temporary Guardianship of Sasha. At that hearing, Judge May enquired about 2 crucial things – (1) whether Donecia and Mark had been served Notice (they had not) and (2) whether the DCFS investigation had been completed (it had not). Shaunta asked Judge May for some clarification:
Shaunta: Okay. So there’s no temporary guardianship. She can be with her parents?
Judge May: Correct. Until we get the [DCFS] Reports, yes. [2]
Judge May indicated that he would not issue the Letters of Temporary Guardianship without the DCFS report being complete, and without Donecia and Mark being served. That would make sense, right? The hearing on Temporary Guardianship was continued to December 11, 2018.
Then, on December 6, 2018, five days before the hearing, DCFS completed its investigation, once again clearing Mark Augustus of the one vague allegation against him. Since that one allegation was the only basis for Shaunta’s Petition for Temporary Guardianship, one would think the whole thing would be resolved. Think again.
On December 11, 2018, the hearing on Temporary Guardianship of Sasha went forward. Present was Shaunta (representing herself), and also the newly-appointed “Minor’s Counsel” William Spiller, Jr. (representing Sasha). Minor’s Counsel is paid for by County of Los Angeles.
Exactly how Spiller got appointed is unknown to me. One thing I do know is that William Spiller was previously suspended and disciplined by the California State Bar, because he was found to have commited “acts of moral turpitude,” basically because he was losing medical malpractice cases on purpose. [3] If you have any idea of what CalBar routinely lets lawyers get away with, you can appreciate how terrible Spiller’s conduct must have been. Yet, this is a guy that County of L.A. now pays to represent children in court? WTF?
Minor’s Counsel William Spiller, Jr. Perpetrates Fraud Upon The Court
So, on December 11, 2018, Spiller and Shaunta come before Judge May. The very first thing Spiller says is that the 15-year-old Sasha has “waived” her appearance. One would think that a 15-year-old girl who is bold enough to want to ditch her parents is bold enough to show up in court. But no, Spiller will do all the talking, thank you very much.
Spiller proceeds to defraud the Court in ways that should shock your conscience. [4] First, Donecia and Mark had not been served notice of the hearing. Not to worry, Spiller is prepared with a bullshit story about that. Second, Spiller did not present the DCFS Report exonerating Mark Augustus. Judge May began the hearing by stating:
Judge May: I haven’t received any of the things I need to decide the case today [i.e. the DCFS report and a Proof of Service for the hearing]. [5]
If law existed, or if the “Bill of Rights” protected anyone, that would have been the end of the December 11, 2018 hearing. Instead, Judge May allowed the hearing to go forward. And what a shit-show it was.
In accordance with what I reasonably infer to be L.A. County’s policy and custom, Mr. Spiller proceeded to falsely state that Donecia and Mark Augustus had been homeless (completely false, they have never been homeless or anything close); that Mark Augustus was “on the lam” and “avoiding the proceedings” (completely false, he simply hadn’t been served Notice); that efforts had been made to notify Donecia and Mark Augustus (completely false and nonsensical, for Sasha’s parents had no reason to avoid the hearing, knowing that DCFS had just cleared Mark Augustus, again, of the one vague allegation against him). [6]
At the December 11, 2018 secret Temporary Guardianship Hearing, when Judge May inquired about the status of the DCFS Report, and of Mr. Spiller’s own report (which naturally would contain the DCFS findings), Mr. Spiller stated:
William Spiller, Jr.: Yeah, let me apologize to the Court. We finished our report, and filed it, I think, yesterday, because we were – well, let me back up. [7]
The normally extremely smooth and well-spoken Mr. Spiller was quite discombobulated, likely because he knew he was lying to the Court. In fact, by December 11, 2018, all parties had received a copy of the DCFS Report exonerating Mark Augustus. And, Mr. Spiller had completed his Report, which included mention that Mark Augustus had been exonerated, but Mr. Spiller did not file his Report until several days after the December 11, 2018 secret hearing at which temporary guardianship was fraudulently obtained.
Based on these facts, I infer that the reason Mr. Spiller did not file his report at the December 11, 2018 hearing was that he intended to enrich himself on County money by getting appointed as Minor’s Counsel, while County of L.A. enriches itself by gaining a pretext on which to increase its funding. If Spiller told the truth – that the Augustuses had not been served and that Mark Augustus had already been exonerated – the case would be over (and so would Spiller’s opportunity to milk the County of Los Angeles for a lot of money).
I further believe that Mr. Spiller failed to file his report also because he is a malignant narcissist who derives sadistic pleasure from inflicting emotional distress upon innocent human beings, as evidenced by his prior discipline by the Bar Association for losing meritorious court cases on purpose.
To be clear, I am not aware of any psychiatric diagnoses of William Spiller, Jr. But malignant narcissism is a reasonable inference, because anyone besides a narcissistic sadist would never be able to do this sort of thing in the first place. At the very least, after being caught losing cases on purpose and having his license suspended, a normal person would have learned his lesson and changed his ways.
Other than being a person who has no empathy whatsoever, what else explains William Spiller, Jr.’s ability to come to court and tell lies so that a child can be taken away from her parents?
An Unreasonable Seizure If Ever There Was One
At the December 11, 2018 hearing, Mr. Spiller threatened to invoke the power and authority of the Los Angeles County Child Abduction Unit to locate and take Sasha child into their custody, stating on the record that “we have done that before”. [8]
In the preceding quotation, in saying “we”, William Spiller Jr. was referring to himself and the Los Angeles County Child Abduction Unit working together in joint action. This is important to the legal case against Spiller because, on paper, Spiller is arguably not a government actor, thus not subject to the supposed protections of the constitution. But precedent has established that a private citizen can be held as a defacto government agent when the two act in concert. [9]
Later in the afternoon of December 11, 2018, Donecia showed up at Santa Monica High School to pick up her daughter Sasha. However, Shaunta also showed up, now armed with the fraudulently-obtained Letters of Temporary Guardianship order, and backed up by the threat of force inherent in the authority of the Los Angeles County Child Abduction Unit.
Shaunta showed the Letters of Temporary Guardianship order to Donecia. Fearing the authority of the government, believing that government agents are authorized to use force to carry out court orders, Donecia reluctantly acquiesced and allowed Shaunta to take Sasha into custody. Fear of government force is the only reason Donecia Augustus allowed Shaunta Montgomery to take Sasha on December 11, 2018.
Such facts shock the conscience.
Follow the Money
The costs of operating the Los Angeles County District Attorney Child Abduction Unit are paid for utilizing County funds. Likewise, the cost of William Spiller’s services as minor’s counsel are paid for utilizing County funds. According to the May 17, 2019 County of Los Angeles Auditor-Controller Review, signed by Assistant Auditor-Controller Dr. Peter Hughes:
Under California Rules of Court 5.240, a court may appoint private counsel to represent a child in family law cases involving child custody or visitation, on a case by case basis. Minors’ counsel costs are paid for utilizing County funds. According to the Court’s records, minors’ counsel costs increased by 17%, from $1.6 million in Fiscal Year (FY) 2016-17, to $1.8 million in FY 2017-18. During the same period, the number of cases where minors’ counsel was appointed increased by 13%, from 787 to 889 cases. [10]
Any fraudulent scheme perpetrated by multiple people (i.e. a conspiracy) achieves multiple purposes. For William Spiller, the motive is pretty obvious – money. Ultimately this bogus guardianship case litigated for 2 ½ years, with no resolution. The case was dismissed when Sasha turned 18 in July 2021.
Shaunta Montgomery also has her reasons. Shaunta is an open lesbian, always wanting a daughter. Among those who know the entire Montgomery/Augustus extended family, it is no secret that Shaunta took a disliking to Mark Augustus long ago, disapproving of Donecia marrying him. It caused a family divide that the court system exploited. That’s how the game works.
Is There A Right To Lie ?
To summarize, the actions of Defendants in the Augustus civil rights case constituted a fraud upon the court because (a) the Letters of Temporary Guardianship order was made at a secret, unnoticed (thus unconstitutional) hearing; (b) at the secret hearing, Defendants actively concealed the fact that five days prior Mark Augustus was exonerated by DCFS of the one vague allegation against him; (c) the Petition for Temporary Guardianship was entirely founded on that one vague allegation; (d) Defendants supported their efforts by making numerous intentional misrepresentations; (e) but for the Court’s reliance on Defendants’ intentional misrepresentations, the Letters of Temporary Guardianship would not have been issued – not on December 11, 2018, and not ever.
In many previous cases, government actors defend themselves by asserting “privilege” or “immunity.” “Privilege” and “immunity” are basically rules that T.H.E.Y. made up that say that government officials can lie and harm you on purpose and you can’t do anything about it.
There are a couple of recent cases that may give some hope for justice against lying government officials. In Hardwick v. County of Orange (2017), Orange County, California social workers argued that, strictly speaking, there was nothing in the U.S. Constitution that prohibits a child welfare worker from lying to achieve a removal to foster care. Seriously, that’s what they argued. In a rare breath of fresh air, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals opined that:
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 [social workers lying in court as a false pretext to take a child away from the parent] 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. [11]
Another recent “right to lie” case is Benavidez v. County of San Diego (2021), where the Ninth Circuit found that:
To support a [federal civil rights] claim of judicial deception, a plaintiff must show that the defendant deliberately or recklessly made false statements or omissions that were material to the finding. A plaintiff who provides direct evidence of false statements can allege deliberate fabrication of evidence in violation of constitutional due process guarantees. [12]
Challenging California’s Bullshit Accusatory Hearsay Exception Law
If it is so obvious that courts won’t allow lying to support taking custody of a child away from parents, how was the Augustus guardianship case allowed to litigate for 2 ½ years? This question became especially perplexing after attorney Marc Angelucci entered the case in July 2020.
I found about about the Augustus matter in June of 2020. At the time, I was civil rights attorney Marc Angelucci’s right hand man. I drafted a Motion to Set Aside and Vacate the Order of Temporary Guardianship, based on a lack of Notice at the original hearing, and also based on the fact that Mark Augustus had been cleared of the allegation. By then, the case had been transferred to a different Superior Court Judge, the Hon. Michael Small.
On July 8th, 2020, Marc and I showed up for the hearing, expecting a ruling on our Motion to Set Aside. Spiller had not even bothered to oppose our motion. However, Spiller said that he had not been served the papers, and so he needed a continuance.
First, Spiller had so been served. He was lying (shocker, I know). But second, and to the point, it’s hypocritical and ironic in the extreme. Spiller complains that he had not been served while haing no problem taking the Augustuses’ child away from them on a hearing where they had not been served.
Judge Small granted a continuance on our motion. Unfortunately, Marc Angelucci never got to argue the motion to Judge Small, because Marc Angelucci was murdered on July 11, 2020. There is a lot more about Marc’s murder (and who I believe is responsible) elsewhere in this book.
When Judge Small finally took up the Augustuses’ Motion to Set Aside, he denied it. As to Mark Augustus having been cleared of the underlying, ancient allegation against him, Judge Small stated that he didn’t have jurisdiction to overrule Judge May. That’s actually not true, a Motion to Set Aside is a valid procedure for reversing a Trial Court order. [13]
Wait till you hear why Judge Small didn’t care that the Augustuses had not been served notice of that December 11, 2018 hearing. You know, the one where the government took their kid away from them. Judge Small cited California Probate Code Statute § 2250 (e)(1) that says that the Court can “dispense with” notice requirements on a guardianship hearing for “good cause.” [14]
Being perfectly vague, that statute says nothing whatsoever about what might constitute “good cause” to “dispense with” the need to put parents on notice that a hearing is going to take place at which their kid can be taken away from them.
In practice, the “good cause” to “dispense with” the need to put the Augustuses on notice of a guardianship hearing was a single checkbox on a court form.
The Court finds notice of the time and place of hearing has been dispensed with for Mark Augustus (father) and Donecia Augustus (mother). [15]
It’s difficult to imagine a more unconstitutional law than Probate Code § 2250 (e)(1). That’s why we added a constitutional challenge into the Augustuses’ federal civil rights case. Supposedly, we are supposed to have the ability to challenge whether a law is constitutional either “facially” or “as applied” in this particular instance. We named the State of California as nomial defendant to our constitutional challenge of the statute. We served the state Attorney General’s office. In fact, in recent years, the U.S. Supreme Court has struck down at least two state statutes as unconstitutionally vague. [16]
State’s response? Attorney General Rob Bonta’s opposition does not speak to the substance of our challenge. Rather, he contends that we are simply not allowed to “sue” the State. Except, as we make clear in our opposition, we are not “suing” the State of California. We are challenging the constitutionality of a bullshit law, one that says they can take your kid away at a secret, unnoticed hearing. But, according to the Motion to Dismiss filed by State of California, we are simply not allowed to challenge this law, or any law.
At this writing, the Augustus civil rights case remains pending in federal court in Los Angeles. We shall see how it turns out.
[1] See First Amended Complaint in the Augustus case – https://drive.google.com/file/d/1I-LHTUrHVmS52FzMgYKtiKOCfaJfpvoS/view?usp=sharing [2] See Exhibit “B” to the First Amended Complaint [3] See EXHIBIT “F” to the First Amended Complaint, pp. 73-82 [4] “Shock the conscience” is a legal term of art, and is the purported standard for determining that a due process violation has occurred. [5] See Exhibit “D” to the First Amended Complaint, pp. 21-30 [6] See Exhibit “D” to the First Amended Complaint, pp. 21-30 [7] See Exhibit “D” to the First Amended Complaint, p. 22 [8] See EXHIBIT “B” to First Amended Complaint, p. 27 [9] See e.g. U.S. Supreme Court in Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co. 398 U.S. 144 (1970). [10] See EXHIBIT “H” to First Amended Complaint, p. 89 [11] Hardwick v. Cty. of Orange, 844 F.3d 1112, 1118-19 (9th Cir. 2017) [12] Benavidez v. Cty. of San Diego, 993 F.3d 1134, 1140 (9th Cir. 2021) [13] See Cal. Code Civ. Pro. § 453, and § 662. [14] See Cal. Prob. Code § 2250 (e)(1). [15] See EXHIBIT “A” to First Amended Complaint, p. 4 [16] See Sessions v. Dimaya, 138 S. Ct. 1204, 1207 (2018), striking down a residual clause from a state civil statute, and see also Johnson v. United States, 576 U. S. ___, ___, 135 S. Ct. 2551, 192 L. Ed. 2d 569, 578, striking down a residual clause from a state criminal statute.
Civil Rights Suit Against Appointed Minor’s Counsel William Spiller, Jr. Headed to Alternative Dispute Resolution
This case has made it further than most 42 U.S.C. 1983 suits. The civil rights statute was written by the legislature who attempt to be responsive to the will of the People, but judges misinterpret it to exclude the conduct of almost every government actor, especially when the defendant is a judge or other court employee.
Two California state judges, Gus T. May and Michael C. Small were dismissed after the complaint was filed.
The original complaint and the first amended, operative complaint are posted below. They are a great read. Mr. Sobel’s integrity as an officer of the court in pursuit of justice overshadows his one commonplace error. (Yes, attorney Sobel used that awful character chain “and/or”, the use of which I intend to challenge at the Supreme Court if the case of Micheal Pietrczak v. Laura Lynn et al reaches that level.)
I wrote about attorney William Spiller, Jr. more than a decade ago, chronicling his lucrative gig supposedly representing children in family and dependency court. He racked up obscene bills that seemed to require the superhuman ability to work ceaselessly. The bills were paid by taxpayers or the middle class and affluent parents forced to pay under the authority of the courts.
The results of Mr. Spiller’s misrepresentations were devastating.
Supreme Court’s Betrayal of Public Trust by Silence
Supreme Court Declines to Hear Parents’ Case Against Child Protective Services Investigator for Retaliation Against Their Family
Court leaves open the question of whether retaliatory investigations by government officials, even when they lack probable cause, are unconstitutional
J. Justin Wilson · January 10, 2023 (Reposted by permission of Institute for Justice.)
IJ is a public interest law firm. We represent clients free of charge in cutting-edge litigation defending vital constitutional rights. You can join us by supporting our work here: ij.org/support
Yesterday, the United States Supreme Court declined to hear a case against a child protective services (CPS) official who abusively investigated a Missouri family. The result of the Court’s decision will serve to embolden CPS and other government officials nationwide to wield retaliatory investigations against average people as punishment for standing up for their rights.
This case started with a tragic incident involving a sexual assault of a minor boy by a sheriff’s deputy for Scott County, Missouri. The incident happened while the officer was on duty, so the parents (who are going by their initials in this case to maintain their son’s privacy) threatened to take legal action against the sheriff’s department. After all, it was known to the department that the deputy had been disciplined in previous law enforcement jobs. In response, the local child protective services investigator—who has worked with the department—opened a retaliatory investigation into the parents for child neglect. She claimed that the parents were the ones to blame for letting their son be sexually abused.
What followed was a nightmare for the family, involving multiple interviews of the already traumatized boy, a referral to a clinic for an inspection of the boy’s genitals and rectum, and a threat to take away the father’s law-enforcement license. The investigator only backed off from harassing the family after the family found pro bono lawyers to help them defend their rights. These lawyers helped the family appeal the investigator’s findings of child neglect, which were quickly overturned by the review board based on the lack of evidence.
Once the parents cleared their names, they sued the investigator for violating their First Amendment rights. The district court agreed with their claim and denied the investigator her defense of qualified immunity. The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals disagreed, however, writing that “[e]ven assuming that the facts in the complaint are true,” there is no such thing as retaliatory investigation claims in the Eighth Circuit. In other words, the court gave a blank check to government officials to punish individuals by investigating them.
By refusing to grant the parents’ petition for certiorari, the Supreme Court allowed this decision to stand.
“Government investigations are reputation-damaging, stressful and costly,” said Anya Bidwell, an attorney for the Institute for Justice, which represented the parents in their appeal to the Supreme Court. “No one should be the victim of retaliation through a governmental investigation just because they seek to vindicate their rights. This is government intimidation and abuse of power at its worst. The Court should have taken the parents’ case and made it clear to all government officials that retaliatory investigations are unconstitutional.”
Department of Health and Human Services statistics indicate that CPS case workers investigate the home lives of roughly 3.5 million children every year. And CPS investigations represent just a fraction of governmental investigations launched each year against citizens. “The Institute for Justice is committed to the idea that government officials do not have carte blanche to make citizens’ lives miserable and bully them into silence through investigations,” said Patrick Jaicomo, IJ’s senior attorney and a co-counsel in the case. “Officials can’t be allowed to weaponize their investigative powers. We will not rest until the Supreme Court says so.”
A Higher Law 