Know when to sue if a lawyer(by deadline)shall not represent you. #YouARECapable everyone.
1-929-277-7848.
If a social worker acts in bad faith, while your case is open as per child et.al., then, make a note of it.
.
The "Good Faith defense" shall falter. Not appropriate,when you're suing timely, and able to prove the caseworker/social worker assigned to your case was acting in bad faith. Help Form click above or anywhere on this most imformative page.
Know how to execute and apply strategic action when you're seeking constitutional/civil right damages, pursuant to U.S.C.A.Title 42 Section 83;85,86 et.al., damages against a state-public employee. DEADLINES throughout do exist,from time of file, and throughout the conclusion,everyone...Ext. 806
-
Despite what an attorney assigned usually by the state itself, who are thinly-representing a liable state employee, as case law wholly support, a "public employee/state caseworker et.al., as others state employees, have no such immunity if he or she acted with malice in committing perjury, fabricating evidence, failing to disclose exculpatory evidence or obtaining evidence by duress."
Good luck to you.
Ext. 806 @ 1-929-277-7848
Ext. 6053
Ext. 920
Ext. 8620
Ext. 102
Ext. 9531
Currently...A case involving multiple act(s)of illegalities involving a child protection services defendant(s) listed in such warranted constitutional/civil rights suit. Such plaintiff's are currently at what is known as,
Summary Judgement.
-
The liable state worker's have attempted to have "each and every lawsuit claim for damages for almost a decade of child serious injuries/parental rights violation et.al., to have suit dismissed all viable claims,
despite overwhelming truthful facts; genuine issue(s)of material fact, involving such publicized and most warranted civil rights lawsuit,that deserve the right to finally go to a jury after decade of misconduct by a state agency(its individual employees) and God willing shall be going to the jury any day now during this year in 2017 as experts predict.
-
DAY 1:
Unbeknownst to you, the loving parent, your child is now removed/forced to remain out of your secure home.
Anonymous call comes into the 1-877-NJ-ABUSE hotline for example,(happening nationwide) as the call reporter cites,"serious injuries." Such anonymous call later turns out to be an ex family member, and or disgruntle ex et.al., and or other dysfunctional,jealous and or bias person and or person(s)out to cause YOU harm,as per child.
The agency is known nationwide as Child Protection Services,but also known as DCF,DCFS,DFPS,DSS,ACS,CYS,DCS
Child is said to be seriously injured, imminent danger exist et. al.,
Police get involved.
Cop examine child.
Child is fine. No injuries. Police officer/CPS all agree child is not at imminent risk of danger to life,limb,serious harm et.al.,
Officer said the child can go home. No medical attention needed/nor imminent risk to child. No exigent circumstance. Child is allowed to go home.
Cop also met with(SAME EVENING/DAY) an assigned employee for state agency, DCF.
Agency worker said, "Child is fine.
I agree with police dept.,and i am now going home. DCF employee goes home.
-Never seeing mother/no need since there was at "this point,most relevant at jury trial..."No imminent danger."
-Never even bothering to contactc/and or have police call/go visit mother,because no exigent circumstances et.al.,
-Never needed to go and meet with the mother,when the child was already proven to not be at all, IN DANGER.
Caseworker, through his/her supervisor also called-in during day/night in question, agrees and has allowed the caseworker to leave the police dept., and go home. No abuse here. No imminent danger(As required) to remove a child from the home/to preclude to SEIZE a child from going back home(if at a court-ordered weekend visit with an ex spouse, partner et.al.,
Summary Judgement.
-
The liable state worker's have attempted to have "each and every lawsuit claim for damages for almost a decade of child serious injuries/parental rights violation et.al., to have suit dismissed all viable claims,
despite overwhelming truthful facts; genuine issue(s)of material fact, involving such publicized and most warranted civil rights lawsuit,that deserve the right to finally go to a jury after decade of misconduct by a state agency(its individual employees) and God willing shall be going to the jury any day now during this year in 2017 as experts predict.
-
DAY 1:
Unbeknownst to you, the loving parent, your child is now removed/forced to remain out of your secure home.
Anonymous call comes into the 1-877-NJ-ABUSE hotline for example,(happening nationwide) as the call reporter cites,"serious injuries." Such anonymous call later turns out to be an ex family member, and or disgruntle ex et.al., and or other dysfunctional,jealous and or bias person and or person(s)out to cause YOU harm,as per child.
The agency is known nationwide as Child Protection Services,but also known as DCF,DCFS,DFPS,DSS,ACS,CYS,DCS
Child is said to be seriously injured, imminent danger exist et. al.,
Police get involved.
Cop examine child.
Child is fine. No injuries. Police officer/CPS all agree child is not at imminent risk of danger to life,limb,serious harm et.al.,
Officer said the child can go home. No medical attention needed/nor imminent risk to child. No exigent circumstance. Child is allowed to go home.
Cop also met with(SAME EVENING/DAY) an assigned employee for state agency, DCF.
Agency worker said, "Child is fine.
I agree with police dept.,and i am now going home. DCF employee goes home.
-Never seeing mother/no need since there was at "this point,most relevant at jury trial..."No imminent danger."
-Never even bothering to contactc/and or have police call/go visit mother,because no exigent circumstances et.al.,
-Never needed to go and meet with the mother,when the child was already proven to not be at all, IN DANGER.
Caseworker, through his/her supervisor also called-in during day/night in question, agrees and has allowed the caseworker to leave the police dept., and go home. No abuse here. No imminent danger(As required) to remove a child from the home/to preclude to SEIZE a child from going back home(if at a court-ordered weekend visit with an ex spouse, partner et.al.,
At this point, you're already having at least 3 public state employees all agreeing incontrovertibly the child is fine, no imminent risk,no imminent danger,no exigent circumstances et.al., along with a police report,documentation. PHOTOGRAPHS that clearly demonstrate as police cite and worker's for the state DCF no serious injuries, no risk whatsoever.
During such time, when a child was force to remain under state supervision and care and living with supposedly a grandmother, the father's mother residence, while "DCF" employees were "investigating" the entire investigation did NOT encompassed the child's own mother. (Violation) Parent was excluded/not even thought of...NEVER @ any time of such crucial; was not met with...
Day 1-Parent not yet spoken to/nor knew what was going on behind her back. State defendants, nevertheless told such non-parent to just "keep child here."Do not let mom have her girls.
DAY 2-Child,and her little sis, only 10 years old and age seven, were both seen, spoken to,no at imminent risk of any serious harm, and yet, were not able to return home to their own mom.
Day 3- Child was still at the non-parental residence,and force to be detained/seizure,in effect, day 1,2,3,4,5, 6,7
(ONE WEEK) No court order,judicial authorization,no warrant et.al.,
(ONE WEEK) No court order,judicial authorization,no warrant et.al.,
During week 2:
Day,8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15,
CHILD STILL WAS FORCE TO REMAIN OUT OF HER OWN HOME, IN "CLEAR-VIOLATION"OF HER CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO RETURN HOME AND TO BE FREE FROM UNLAWFUL, ILLEGAL/UNCONSTITUTIONAL SEIZURE,
AS A CHILD.
Day,8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15,
CHILD STILL WAS FORCE TO REMAIN OUT OF HER OWN HOME, IN "CLEAR-VIOLATION"OF HER CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO RETURN HOME AND TO BE FREE FROM UNLAWFUL, ILLEGAL/UNCONSTITUTIONAL SEIZURE,
AS A CHILD.
2 weeks: No court order"still."No Warrant. . .
The state agency,its public employees cite,
"No imminent danger." Such were memorialized in not one but NUMEROUS reports,from a caseworker to her supervisor,from a CPS SUPERVISOR back to his/her employees(caseworker) as other reports "later discovered" involve a caseworker even citing to the cops: "No abuse-assault against a child involving such parent can be substantiated."[End Quote]
There is no abuse that has been NOR can be proven/substantiated,against the 2 little girls,belonging to the owner/founder of W.O.N..
Significantly as the aforesaid is,and going to a jury to "resolve,as not in any way unclear, another report as the news,media viewed and validate,that a worker also cited in another report such factual insofar as:
The state has No "LEGAL"authority,nor right,nor basis to keep the girls away from their own mother[END QUOTE]
The state agency,its public employees cite,
"No imminent danger." Such were memorialized in not one but NUMEROUS reports,from a caseworker to her supervisor,from a CPS SUPERVISOR back to his/her employees(caseworker) as other reports "later discovered" involve a caseworker even citing to the cops: "No abuse-assault against a child involving such parent can be substantiated."[End Quote]
There is no abuse that has been NOR can be proven/substantiated,against the 2 little girls,belonging to the owner/founder of W.O.N..
Significantly as the aforesaid is,and going to a jury to "resolve,as not in any way unclear, another report as the news,media viewed and validate,that a worker also cited in another report such factual insofar as:
The state has No "LEGAL"authority,nor right,nor basis to keep the girls away from their own mother[END QUOTE]
The jury shall hear and agree that the state workers all knew,and or several of the liable defendants listed in the founder's publicize lawsuit for damages either knew and or:
>Reasonably should have known that the law was clearly-established;
>Knew you're not to hide,withhold such relevant pieces of factual evidence,that would have clearly allowed a little girl and her sister to return home on schedule after a weekend visit.
>Knew that you are NOT to act with malice,while knowingly committing PERJURY, when you're submitting a report knowingly false,and or altered,when your ORIGINAL report(s)clearly cite the girls are allowed to return home, and there is no imminent risk,no imminent danger, no serious injuries, NO ABUSE SUBSTANTIATED AGAINST THE PARENT whatsoever,and not cited by 1 worker but SEVERAL. When child was removed, as news media has validated prior to airing news story on such tragic case, the girls,at least one was severely gruesomely mistreated. The jury shall hear just how gruesome, with reports supporting such fact.
Parent finally after years, was cleared when an"out of county"special investigator,was forced to be assigned to this most sadden case and it was all because of a caseworker (several)who were lying, defying court orders,from lower superior court to higher court orders,not for 1 day, 1 month but shocking the conscience to many for YEARS.
>Reasonably should have known that the law was clearly-established;
>Knew you're not to hide,withhold such relevant pieces of factual evidence,that would have clearly allowed a little girl and her sister to return home on schedule after a weekend visit.
>Knew that you are NOT to act with malice,while knowingly committing PERJURY, when you're submitting a report knowingly false,and or altered,when your ORIGINAL report(s)clearly cite the girls are allowed to return home, and there is no imminent risk,no imminent danger, no serious injuries, NO ABUSE SUBSTANTIATED AGAINST THE PARENT whatsoever,and not cited by 1 worker but SEVERAL. When child was removed, as news media has validated prior to airing news story on such tragic case, the girls,at least one was severely gruesomely mistreated. The jury shall hear just how gruesome, with reports supporting such fact.
Parent finally after years, was cleared when an"out of county"special investigator,was forced to be assigned to this most sadden case and it was all because of a caseworker (several)who were lying, defying court orders,from lower superior court to higher court orders,not for 1 day, 1 month but shocking the conscience to many for YEARS.
Facts 100% TRUTH supporting damages to be awarded for mom/child/the family."
Not bald assertions,not conjecture,but actual facts against the defendants,shocking the conscience,
of a litany of experts throughout California, NJ DE PA.,NYC tri-state to Washington,NC. NATIONWIDE.
-State employee(s) multiple cite, "Child is doing just fine your honor." No risk,no concern and we can now go and close out this case,no need to keep the case open because she is fine now.
-State employees cite, The girls, are just fine judge, and we are "regularly" as required by law, "visiting the children each week and or per bi-weekly,each month to make sure "with dad" they are doing well,and they are just FINE.
-
State employees cite,
"The girls are BOTH home living with their father, the ex spouse of the mother, and they are doing "much better living with dad,making all legal/medical decisions for the kids judge, doing "way better"with the father, and his 2nd wife,than they were doing with the mother. .No need to allow the children to "visit with mom,judge."If the children see the mom, "it will be detrimental to both children,and put them at serious risk,harm them et.al., judge.?"
- State employees cite,"The daughter's are both THRIVING." Our job as caseworker's are now "done."'WE,have done our job here. The girls are "both LIVING WITH THE FATHER/DOING EXCEPTIONALLY WELL JUDGE "since both were removed from their mom."
[End Quote]
Not bald assertions,not conjecture,but actual facts against the defendants,shocking the conscience,
of a litany of experts throughout California, NJ DE PA.,NYC tri-state to Washington,NC. NATIONWIDE.
-State employee(s) multiple cite, "Child is doing just fine your honor." No risk,no concern and we can now go and close out this case,no need to keep the case open because she is fine now.
-State employees cite, The girls, are just fine judge, and we are "regularly" as required by law, "visiting the children each week and or per bi-weekly,each month to make sure "with dad" they are doing well,and they are just FINE.
-
State employees cite,
"The girls are BOTH home living with their father, the ex spouse of the mother, and they are doing "much better living with dad,making all legal/medical decisions for the kids judge, doing "way better"with the father, and his 2nd wife,than they were doing with the mother. .No need to allow the children to "visit with mom,judge."If the children see the mom, "it will be detrimental to both children,and put them at serious risk,harm them et.al., judge.?"
- State employees cite,"The daughter's are both THRIVING." Our job as caseworker's are now "done."'WE,have done our job here. The girls are "both LIVING WITH THE FATHER/DOING EXCEPTIONALLY WELL JUDGE "since both were removed from their mom."
[End Quote]
Department of Children and Families state employees in furtherance cite, not once but multiple times," The father is the only one who has ever had "full custody" NEVER turned over at any time, during almost 8 years his custodial rights. NEVER HAPPENED JUDGE. Such statement by multi-liable defendants was said,and in repeated fashion, while hindering the most serious injuries, and consistent repeated risk,staid injuries, violations to the daughter's of the owner of WON. Such injuries,and wrongful conduct by the employees for the state were so gruesome,
Judge(and on the record)as jury shall be able to view, cites, "Absolutely the worse case, in the entire state, his case files, that he has ever had in front of him,and or have seen in the state.
Experts think that says it all . . . "
[END QUOTE]
Judge(and on the record)as jury shall be able to view, cites, "Absolutely the worse case, in the entire state, his case files, that he has ever had in front of him,and or have seen in the state.
Experts think that says it all . . . "
[END QUOTE]
Remember everyone, our many worldwide viewers and supporters:
A state employee shall cite, when you're filing a lawsuit, that the Child Protection Services agency social worker, (caseworker) dcf defendant liable should still be granted "Immunity."
But, case law wholly support here in our state(tri-state 3rd Cir; NJ-DE-PA,) to 2nd Circuit;(NY) Ninth Cir;(California et.al.,)
and all other sister courts, that:
"A public employee has no such immunity if he or she acted with malice in committing perjury, or taking part in the fabication of evidence,statements et.al., fabricating evidence, failing to disclose exculpatory evidence or obtaining evidence by duress."
A state employee shall cite, when you're filing a lawsuit, that the Child Protection Services agency social worker, (caseworker) dcf defendant liable should still be granted "Immunity."
But, case law wholly support here in our state(tri-state 3rd Cir; NJ-DE-PA,) to 2nd Circuit;(NY) Ninth Cir;(California et.al.,)
and all other sister courts, that:
"A public employee has no such immunity if he or she acted with malice in committing perjury, or taking part in the fabication of evidence,statements et.al., fabricating evidence, failing to disclose exculpatory evidence or obtaining evidence by duress."
Our e-staff shall keep you all posted as it develops/near jury trial. Our founder/boss/owner at the nation's 1st #winning consulting specialized-research et.al., pro-se self file empower- educational ctr., thank you so much for your ongoing support. Help/Hotline when suing pro-se without a lawyer, by deadline CPS employee:Click here the help form and then call in today,
if your case(suing cps pro-se)is analogous,and if you're executing suit against cps without a lawyer by way of pro-se method. After implementing our e-staff required e-help form, wait 30 minutes,then call in to begin your 1-on-1 POWER session,with e-staff, the owner directly."
1-929-277-7848 Ext. 806
if your case(suing cps pro-se)is analogous,and if you're executing suit against cps without a lawyer by way of pro-se method. After implementing our e-staff required e-help form, wait 30 minutes,then call in to begin your 1-on-1 POWER session,with e-staff, the owner directly."
1-929-277-7848 Ext. 806