factbat.com

In Marin County Superior Court on Tuesday -- remarkably, the first court day following the “4^th of July” holiday celebrating America’s emancipation from tyrannical oppression -- Superior Court Judge "So and So" (omitted since case is ongoing) ruled that regardless of the fact that charges had been filed alleging unlawful acts perpetrated by the Marin County Prosecutor’s Office, and prosecutor, the county entity is immune from suit, and therefore Marin is not liable for any damages which resulted.

This premature ruling dismissing the cause of action against Marin County, was in response to a demurrer filed by the Marin County Counsel which claimed immunity for its client. However, the demurrer was opposed both in written arguments submitted prior to the judge’s tentative ruling sustaining the demurrer “without leave to amend”, and oral arguments in open court opposing the tentative ruling.

The arguments were clear in citing recent Supreme Court opinions which question the legitimacy of prosecutorial immunity, and which have noted the inordinate disparities and criminality such immunity has cultivated, and is still cultivating, within the judicial system in this nation.

The plaintiff quoted Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy who in a recent case -- Pottawattamie v. McGhee -- had cited a 1993 ruling that said “prosecutors could be sued for actions before charges are filed.” Furthermore, it was argued strongly that it would be repugnant if any law were interpreted to mean that one is above the law.

The Judge heard arguments that California Government Code 821.6 is not sufficient to constitute statutory authority to bar litigation against Marin County in this instance because of the unlawful actions alleged. There are inherent pre-conditions in the legislation which must be proven to exist. The law states “A public employee is not liable for injury caused by his instituting or prosecuting any judicial or administrative proceeding within the scope of his employment, even if he acts maliciously and without probable cause.”

What is significant to discrediting the court’s position is the fact that no unlawful act could ever be considered as a legitimate portion of the “scope of employment” of any state or federal employee. To say otherwise is preposterous, and if it were actually true then this nation either would no longer be democratic, or the office would require some form of overhaul before it were allowed to exist within one.

Any contention or sentiment that law enforcement personnel or judiciary officers in this nation can exist above the law is ludicrous. Furthermore, this clearly exposes the true nature of the criminality that has long been festering within the court system in America, evidenced by the fact that much of the malfeasance is trickling down from the top.

This helps to illuminate the mislogic and ill-reasoning which has allowed the economic crisis -- this nation now languishes under -- to take such a suffocating grip on the lower sector. Illegitimate rulings in state and federal courts are also enabling many corporations to act with impunity. Courts now routinely excuse companies’ brazen destruction of the environment and utter contempt for the many consumers who have been supporting them for decades. Thanks to a crippled court system, companies are allowed to daily attack the citizenry with armies of legal sophists whom pervert the law in order to rob consumers of their right to reasonable redress for injuries sustained.

To merely trust the government with extended and irascible powers to create overbearing legislation will only reap for this nation a worse and unmitigated fate. It is imperative that the people of this nation begin to rise up and take back the courts that are so rightfully theirs, and which are sustained by the sovereign power of the individual.

This author is the Plaintiff in the above case, and will be filing an amended complaint since the majority of the ruling by the court did not seek to quash the remaining portions of the lawsuit. However, the fight to hold Marin County liable for unlawful acts is in no way over, and there are several other options which can sustain a cause of action against the public entity.

It is my aim to hold all of the courts in California accountable for defending what they full well know are not actual laws since they do not comply with the United States Constitution. Marin County just happens to be one of the worst in the State, and thus I am beginning my fight against the disparities evident there.

Therefore, I will be seeking alternate forms of support. For anyone who is interested in assisting me financially in repairing the fractured legal system in America, or who is a passionate legal activist and consumer advocate willing to lend a hand, and who is dedicated to protecting, defending and preserving the United States Constitution and the rule of law that is the backbone of this Republic; Please respond to this factbat.com article in the comments section or send me an email to sc_tek@hotmail.com.

Also, if you are so inclined, you can submit a donation to my Pay-Pal account using the above email.  

For anyone interested in perusing some of the arguments which will accompany the amended complaint, below are some of the Supreme Court opinions the judge in the aforementioned case does not appear to be aware of...or simply elected to disregard.

In A Supreme Court ruling it was decided that a lower “District Court dismissed the complaints for lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter on the theory that these actions, although in form against the named individuals, were, in substance and effect, against the State of Ohio, and thus barred by the Eleventh Amendment. The Court of Appeals affirmed the action of the District Court, agreeing that the suit was, in legal effect, one against the State of Ohio, and, alternatively, that the common law doctrine of executive immunity barred action against the state officials who are respondents here (471 F.2d 430 (1972)).”

“We are confronted with the narrow threshold question whether the District Court properly dismissed the complaints. We hold that dismissal was inappropriate at this stage of the litigation, and accordingly reverse the judgments and remand for further proceedings. We intimate no view on the merits of the allegations, since there is no evidence before us at this stage.”

“…the defendants are alleged to have "intentionally, recklessly, willfully and wantonly" caused an unnecessary deployment of the Ohio National Guard on the Kent State campus, and, in the same manner, ordered the Guard members to perform allegedly illegal actions…Fairly read, the complaints allege that each of the named defendants, in undertaking such actions, acted either outside the scope of his respective office, or, if within the scope, acted in an arbitrary manner, grossly abusing the lawful powers of office.” Scheuer v. Rhodes 416 U.S. 232 Volume 416 1974 (full text US Supreme Court cases from Justia and Oyez supremejustia.com/us/416/232/case.html.)

“The primary question presented is whether the District Court acted prematurely, and hence erroneously, in dismissing the complaints on the stated ground, thus precluding any opportunity for the plaintiffs by subsequent proof to establish a claim.”

“When a federal court reviews the sufficiency of a complaint, before the reception of any evidence either by affidavit or admissions, its task is necessarily a limited one. The issue is not whether a plaintiff will ultimately prevail, but whether the claimant is entitled to offer evidence to support the claims. Indeed, it may appear on the face of the pleadings that a recovery is very remote and unlikely, but that is not the test. Moreover, it is well established that, in passing on a motion to dismiss, whether on the ground of lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter or for failure to state a cause of action, the allegations of the complaint should be construed favorably to the pleader.”

"In appraising the sufficiency of the complaint we follow, of course, the accepted rule that a complaint should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief." (Conley v. Gibson, 335 U.S. 41, 335 U.S. 45-46 (157)). See also Gardner v. Toilet Goods Assn., 387 U.S. 167, 387 U.S. 173 (1967).

“It is well established that the Eleventh Amendment bars suits not only against the State when it is the named party, but also when it is the party in fact. Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651 (1974); Poindexter v. Greenhow, 114 U.S. 270, 114 U.S. 287 (1885); Cunningham v. Macon & Brunswick R. Co., 109 U.S. 146 (1883). “Its applicability ‘is to be determined not by the mere names of the titular parties, but by the essential nature and effect of the proceeding as it appears from the entire record.’" Ex parte New York, 356 U.S. 490, 256 U.S. 500 (1921).

“However, since Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 193 (1908), it has been settled that the Eleventh Amendment provides no shield for a state official confronted by a claim that he had deprived another of a federal right under the color of state law. Ex parte Young teaches that, when a state officer acts under a state law in a manner violative of the Federal Constitution, he ‘comes into conflict with the superior authority of that Constitution, and he is, in that case, stripped of his official or representative character, and is subjected in his person to the consequences of his individual conduct. The State has no power to impart to him any immunity from responsibility to the supreme authority of the United States.’" Id. at 209 U.S. 159-160.

Ex parte Young,