Thanks Tim.

From: “timlahrman@aol.com” <timlahrman@aol.com>
To: kenditkowsky@yahoo.com
Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2015 8:33 PM
Subject: well worth passing around —

305 F.3d 660 (2002)

A.D. BROKAW, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Karen WEAVER, Mercer County, State of Illinois, et al., Defendants-Appellees.

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=14218329132479969725&q=A.D.+Brokaw+&hl=en&as_sdt=4,112,127,268,269,270,271,272,314,

315,331,332,333,334,335,377,378

In support of her position, A.D. cites Nesses, 68 F.3d 1003. In that case, Nesses brought suit in federal court against the lawyers and some of the judges involved in a breach of contract case which he had filed in Indiana state court and lost. Id. at 1004. Nesses claimed that his opponents’ lawyers used their political clout to turn the state judges against him. Id. The district court dismissed Nesses’ suit for lack of jurisdiction based on the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. Id. This court rejected that conclusion, reasoning that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine did not bar Nesses’ claim because his suit was not premised on a claim that the state court judgment denied him some constitutional right; rather, his federal claim was based on a right independent of the state court proceeding. As we explained in Nesses, any other conclusion would mean that “there would be no federal remedy for a violation of federal rights whenever the violator so far succeeded in corrupting the state judicial process as to obtain a favorable judgment , ….” Id. at 1005. Moreover, we reasoned that such a “result would be inconsistent with cases in which, for example, police officers are sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for having fabricated evidence that resulted in the plaintiff’s being convicted in a state court .” Id.