Hardick v. Vreeken  https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2017/01/03/15-55563.pdf

Some great excerpts from this case:

The panel affirmed the district court’s denial, on summary judgment, of absolute and qualified immunity to social workers who plaintiff alleged maliciously used perjured testimony and fabricated evidence to secure plaintiff’s removal from her mother, and that this abuse of state power violated her Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment constitutional rights to her familial relationship with her mother. The panel held that the social workers were not entitled to absolute immunity from claims that they maliciously used perjured testimony and fabricated evidence to secure plaintiff’s removal. The panel held that plaintiff’s complaint targeted conduct well outside of the social workers’ legitimate role as quasi-prosecutorial advocates in presenting the case. The panel held that defendants’ case for qualified immunity was not supported by the law or the record. The panel determined that plaintiff produced more than sufficient admissible evidence to create a genuine dispute as to whether her removal from her mother’s custody violated her constitutional rights. The panel further stated that it could not conceive of circumstances in which social workers would not know and understand that they could not use criminal behavior in any court setting to interfere with a person’s fundamental constitutional liberty interest.

From Joanne:  And  I think that’s the real problem with the ARDC, Larkin and Opryszek and Melissa Smart,they have not fully grasped the concept that their action have directly affected the Fundamental Liberty Interests of many in probate and myself and Ken Ditkowsky to publish a blog that is highly critical of the scheme in guardianship to “target, guardianize, isolate, narcotize, drain the estate and eliminate” which is still currenly going on in probate.

Go ahead, ask poor Jay Brouckmeersch and Alan Frake how they feel about how they were murdered in probate, abused, isolated and no one in the courtroom cared, not the OSG, the judges or the GALs–no one, except for me and Ken Ditkowsky that firmly believe these are nothing but a string of felonies that lead to the ultimate goal of murder.

Why the authorities do nothing is beyond either of us.

But remember, even the 9th circuit and the US constitution declare that the 14th amendment to be free from lying, dastardly, scoundrel government appointed licensed social workers is a fundamental liberty interest–assured to each and every US citizen.

More quotes from this case:

Pursuant to an order of the Superior Court of Orange County California, arising from acrimonious juvenile dependency proceedings, Deanna Fogerty-Hardwick lost custody of her minor children, Preslie and Kendall. In this subsequent civil rights action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Preslie Hardwick sued the County and employees of its Social Services Agency (“SSA”). She contends that the social worker employees acting under color of state law maliciously used perjured testimony and fabricated evidence to secure her removal from her mother, and that this abuse of state power violated her Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment constitutional rights to her familial relationship with her mother. In a motion for summary judgment, the individual defendants unsuccessfully raised absolute and qualified immunity as shields against this action. They appeal, 4 HARDWICK V. VREEKEN claiming, among other things, that the law Preslie accuses them of violating was not “clearly established” at the time their allegedly wrongful conduct occurred. Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982). We have jurisdiction over this timely interlocutory appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, Nixon v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 731, 742–43 (1982) (absolute immunity), and Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 530 (1985) (qualified immunity). We affirm. 

This lawsuit is not the first stemming from the implosion of Preslie’s family. Her mother, Deanna, successfully sued some of the social workers in state court for the same conduct and pursuant to the same legal theory, and she recovered a sizable sum in damages plus attorneys’ fees. See FogartyHarwick v. County of Orange, No. G039045, 2010 WL 2354383, at *1 (Cal. Ct. App. June 14, 2010) (remanding to trial court with directions to strike injunctive relief from the judgment and affirming judgment in all other respects). To quote the California Court of Appeal, In this case, the jury specifically concluded that Vreeken and Dwojak lied, falsified evidence and suppressed exculpatory evidence–all of which was material to the dependency court’s decision to deprive Fogarty-Hardwick of custody–and that they did so with malice. These findings are clearly sufficient to satisfy the Supreme Court’s  definition of circumstances in which ‘qualified immunity would not be available.’

Absolute immunity from private lawsuits covers the official activities of social workers only when they perform quasi-prosecutorial or quasi-judicial functions in juvenile dependency court. Miller v. Gammie, 335 F.3d 889, 898 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc). The factor that determines whether absolute immunity covers a social worker’s activity or “function” under scrutiny is whether it was investigative or administrative, on one hand, or part and parcel of presenting the state’s case as a generic advocate on the other. Absolute immunity is available only if the function falls into the latter category. See id. at 896. Here, Preslie tells us that the social workers’ malicious activities about which she complains are as follows: 1) The allegedly false statements and omissions made in defendants’ court reports continuously submitted by them from February 17, 2000, through the termination of the dependency proceedings; 2) The statements made by the defendant social workers during an “off the record” discussion on February 17, 2000, and during an “on the record” discussion that same daywhere the social workers allegedly lied (but not while under oath) to the commissioner overseeing the dependency proceeding, triggering Preslie’s seizure; 3) The alleged fabrication of evidence throughout the dependency proceedings and repeated suppression of HARDWICK V. VREEKEN 7 exculpatoryevidence in defendants’ written court reports; and 4) Defendants’ corrupt recommendations that Preslie continue to be detained even though defendants allegedly knew they were lying to the court about the basis for the initial seizure and subsequent detention.

And so on and so forth.  I think we all get the point, and many you who are victims know the sordid tale of how licensed “professionals”, from attorneys, to judges to social workers, GALs and all sorts of nefarious characters appear in court only for the purpose of lying to the court and feathering their own nests. They could give a rat’s tail about the children or elderly person involved int he proceeding.

We need to push truth and integrity in the court rooms.  As for the psychopaths at the ARDC, they need to be tested with a PET brain scan and removed. Same for the judges elected in state court and appointed in federal court.  We also need the examination of all bank records.  I don’t care if a judge took a $10 bribe, they need to be removed from any position of authority.

We must return to Integrity and Justice for everyone, no matter how poor, unconnected and disenfranchised they are.

In the US the courts belong to everyone.  It is the hallmark of a democratic society.

JoAnne