SUMMARY JUDGEMENT NOT GRANTED FOR A CASEWORKER. Suit then settled for $600,000 for 20 month removal and 2 years worth, of emotional physical injury to child. Parent joined in the lawsuit with such injured child.
|
If a reasonable minded jury are able to conclude:
|
A Motion for Summary Judgment when suing a state employee @ child protection services,police, or state employee(teacher to a correction officer etc.al.,) #LEARN #TakeTimelyAction when you are suing CPS,and or any state employee, by deadline.Pro-se. Ext. 1359
-
A grant of summary judgment is appropriate only where "the pleadings, the discovery and disclosure materials on file, and any affidavits show that there is no "genuine" issue as to any material fact...
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56( c).
The moving party bears the burden of demonstrating the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. See Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586 n.l 0 (1986).
The moving party everyone is the state employee, you're suing,the defendants.
When you're suing pro-se such state employee violating your right, you are the non-moving party.
"When considering whether there exist genuine issues of material fact, the court is required to examine the evidence of record in the light most favorable to the party opposing summary judgment, and resolve all reasonable inferences in that party's favor."
Wishkin v. Potter, 476 F.3d 180, 184 (3d Cir. 2007)
The "mere existence of some alleged factual dispute between the parties will not defeat an otherwise properly supported motion for summary judgment;" a factual dispute is genuine only where "the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the non-moving party." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247-48 (1986).
Actually...
(before calling our help/hotline over @ the nation's 1st EFFECTIVE ctr., of its kind:
Many never understood what is Summary Judgement, when you're timely(by deadline) pro-se or with a lawyer, suing a state employee for such violations, pursuant to Section 1983.
Let's take for example everyone, taken right from the winning suit of the owner/founder and her daughters suit shocking the conscience of all reasonable minds from lawyers, detective(s)to a former judge, who still remain at times in contact with the mother's family,(a judge who is now in private practice.)
Take for example:
A caseworker investigated your family "an allegation has arise."
A CPS worker, after he or she has found that the child is alert, happy, healthy on the day in question, and notes that "the agency DCFS,DYFS,DCPP,DHS can't substantiate any child abuse.
A CPS worker, goes on and adds,"there is a medical report proving that no abuse to this child, or her little sister can be proven/substantiated.
A CPS worker, cites that, "Based on such investigation by DCPP,DYFS,CPS the child can no longer be kept from her mother/state agency cannot substantiate abuse against such parent.
A CPS worker(different one) then speaks later to detective and cites, "No.DCPP,DYFS, can't prove any type of "assault/any abuse" on this child at all against the parent.Writes this down as clear as day and memorialize such later in the official final report(s) as well as the 1st caseworker assigned.
Child nevertheless only 10 and seven(2 girls)were still trapped over PGM residence(paternal grandparent's house.) for 2 weeks (after what you're reading above has stated, clearing parent.)
Day 1, 2,3, 4, 5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13-14 days your child is still seize without the necessary signed court order as required, and or a warrant to seize such child.) Two weeks and your child still is not home, but in a home that is not hers."
State worker then appears 2 weeks later, in court and cites the complete antithesis, from what the multi-worker's employed by such state agency has earlier said,and noted in their own internal DHS,DCF memo/reports, takes the stand, and while swearing to tell the truth cites, "Judge, abuse and child neglect was substantiated."
You lose such right as child to become reunited under 1 roof.
Now:
Defendant(the state employees)being sued,through their counsel,(lawyer) shall invoke(during your summary judgement phase in order to lessen your claim(s)for damages/and or to have suit thrown out in its entirety, such lawyer for the defense shall attempt to utilize an "affirmative defense."and or attempt to make it appear that "this was all done in GOOD faith."
But remember our many supporters/reader's universal that:
Good faith is not engaging in willful, misconduct. Good faith is not knowingly lying insofar as substantiating abuse against a loving good parent, then appearing in court,conspiring, taking the stand and citing the complete anti-thesis to secure a win.
-Good faith is not misrepresenting the facts,with such intent, with full clear knowledge insofar as being in a courtroom advising mom/judge, child is doing well,"thriving" while you, the DCS,DCFS state employee was aware, the entire time, the children were not doing well at all.
-Good faith is not conspiring to deprive one of her or his constitutional/fundamental right to parent a child,while lying further insofar as a child not living where a state worker earlier said she was."
There is NO GOOD FAITH in engaging in perjury, such MALICE, by continually and knowingly,
misrepresenting, knowingly, deliberate, in an effort to deprive one of their right, to be return home from a non-custodial parent's residence..."(in the owner/founder's case) her girls again were away from home(due home)and was SEIZE by such time at the conclusion of a "court-ordered holiday visit for the 4th of july." Owner,Ms.S.Melendez daughter's never returned,and took years for her to even know they were still alive, to receive 1 hug, as the news-media validate such truth.
Ext.
920
A jury, once the child wins/parent at the level of Summary Judgement, such jury shall be able to conclude, as experts agree, that what the state worker and or worker's did to such child was clear.
A.)Violated her constitutional right to be returned home, since it was clear on the D.I.Q."Day in Question" no reasonable employee @ CPS would've concluded, there was imminent danger.
.
B.)After said removal, from such good loving parent, the division youth family/dcpp,dcfs,dcf lied consistently, while entering false information(knowingly)willfully, with the "intent" and or with the knowledge of what the truth really was.
1-929-277-7848.
Another example:
Child Protection Services has knowledge that:
-Child is at risk under state supervision i.e, bullying(in foster home/group home) mistreatment, starving, maltreatment,raped, sexually abused, suicide ideation/attempted suicide.
-Child was removed-(while living with the other parent.(a known serious felon convicted of robberies,heroine dealing and or heroine possession,et.al, crack cocaine,a known drug addict,who also served time in prison/jail, and was known to such caseworker, but not reported to the judge, nor the other parent, fighting hard to procure her child."
-CPS arranged for such removal furtively, and or through the meeting of the minds, in a conspired-act to keep this quiet from the other parent.
-Document(s)support a meeting of the minds involving more than 1 caseworker to "keep quiet" to not let a judge presiding in family court learn of such child being left alone with a man who has a heroine/crack/cocaine/alcohol issue, a clear danger.
-
Such document(s)support naturally a conspired act when it says "Judge can't learn/or trouble will definitely come to us cps workers IF judge learn about this and or if the mom who lost custody.
CPS workers(after unconstitutionally seizing such child) hid the fact the child was at grave ris at each turn; hindering that the child was no doing well whatsoever in state care and or that the child, under 18 at the time was being assaulted gruesomely, all while DCPP,DHS,DCFS knew of such horror.
-
Caseworker knew each time, when child was removed from such home and placed in multiple foster homes and residential group homes et.al., but yet "hid" such per court hearing as long as they feasibly can, to avoid having a hearing on allowing the good, loving parent to have the child returned to their primary home.
-CPS knew that at the time of investigating the reason insofar as why the child was removed from the other parent's home, worker knew this would NOT be investigated, but rather ignore such relevance in its entirety, until YOU procure such crucial life-altering info, proving what you already knew. Such fraud on the court, is clear as experts agree coast-to-coast insofar as:
-Intent in such a case is able to be proven, @ jury level.
-Malfeasance-fraud,malice et.al., against a state employee and or multi-employees, knowingly; intent on behalf of the liable caseworker who withheld not once but repeatedly hindering what should have, by law, been presented to the juvenile dependency; family court immediate, and to the parent,fighting to have child returned as judge adjudicating. In alleging fraud or mistake, a party must state however(clearly) and particularity the circumstances constituting such (actual) fraud, Malice, intent, knowledge, and other conditions of a person's mind is also allowed to be alleged when suing a state employee everyone ...
Learn as much as you're feasibly able to ...
#LEARN #STUDY and never give up. You're more than capable to win at such phase of"Summary Judgement."
Fill out and implement our required e-help form from facebook popular page and or:
Click here.
Then wait 30 min., and call in, to begin your 1-on-1.
1-929-277-7848 Ext. 6053
-
A grant of summary judgment is appropriate only where "the pleadings, the discovery and disclosure materials on file, and any affidavits show that there is no "genuine" issue as to any material fact...
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56( c).
The moving party bears the burden of demonstrating the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. See Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586 n.l 0 (1986).
The moving party everyone is the state employee, you're suing,the defendants.
When you're suing pro-se such state employee violating your right, you are the non-moving party.
"When considering whether there exist genuine issues of material fact, the court is required to examine the evidence of record in the light most favorable to the party opposing summary judgment, and resolve all reasonable inferences in that party's favor."
Wishkin v. Potter, 476 F.3d 180, 184 (3d Cir. 2007)
The "mere existence of some alleged factual dispute between the parties will not defeat an otherwise properly supported motion for summary judgment;" a factual dispute is genuine only where "the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the non-moving party." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247-48 (1986).
Actually...
(before calling our help/hotline over @ the nation's 1st EFFECTIVE ctr., of its kind:
Many never understood what is Summary Judgement, when you're timely(by deadline) pro-se or with a lawyer, suing a state employee for such violations, pursuant to Section 1983.
Let's take for example everyone, taken right from the winning suit of the owner/founder and her daughters suit shocking the conscience of all reasonable minds from lawyers, detective(s)to a former judge, who still remain at times in contact with the mother's family,(a judge who is now in private practice.)
Take for example:
A caseworker investigated your family "an allegation has arise."
A CPS worker, after he or she has found that the child is alert, happy, healthy on the day in question, and notes that "the agency DCFS,DYFS,DCPP,DHS can't substantiate any child abuse.
A CPS worker, goes on and adds,"there is a medical report proving that no abuse to this child, or her little sister can be proven/substantiated.
A CPS worker, cites that, "Based on such investigation by DCPP,DYFS,CPS the child can no longer be kept from her mother/state agency cannot substantiate abuse against such parent.
A CPS worker(different one) then speaks later to detective and cites, "No.DCPP,DYFS, can't prove any type of "assault/any abuse" on this child at all against the parent.Writes this down as clear as day and memorialize such later in the official final report(s) as well as the 1st caseworker assigned.
Child nevertheless only 10 and seven(2 girls)were still trapped over PGM residence(paternal grandparent's house.) for 2 weeks (after what you're reading above has stated, clearing parent.)
Day 1, 2,3, 4, 5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13-14 days your child is still seize without the necessary signed court order as required, and or a warrant to seize such child.) Two weeks and your child still is not home, but in a home that is not hers."
State worker then appears 2 weeks later, in court and cites the complete antithesis, from what the multi-worker's employed by such state agency has earlier said,and noted in their own internal DHS,DCF memo/reports, takes the stand, and while swearing to tell the truth cites, "Judge, abuse and child neglect was substantiated."
You lose such right as child to become reunited under 1 roof.
Now:
Defendant(the state employees)being sued,through their counsel,(lawyer) shall invoke(during your summary judgement phase in order to lessen your claim(s)for damages/and or to have suit thrown out in its entirety, such lawyer for the defense shall attempt to utilize an "affirmative defense."and or attempt to make it appear that "this was all done in GOOD faith."
But remember our many supporters/reader's universal that:
Good faith is not engaging in willful, misconduct. Good faith is not knowingly lying insofar as substantiating abuse against a loving good parent, then appearing in court,conspiring, taking the stand and citing the complete anti-thesis to secure a win.
-Good faith is not misrepresenting the facts,with such intent, with full clear knowledge insofar as being in a courtroom advising mom/judge, child is doing well,"thriving" while you, the DCS,DCFS state employee was aware, the entire time, the children were not doing well at all.
-Good faith is not conspiring to deprive one of her or his constitutional/fundamental right to parent a child,while lying further insofar as a child not living where a state worker earlier said she was."
There is NO GOOD FAITH in engaging in perjury, such MALICE, by continually and knowingly,
misrepresenting, knowingly, deliberate, in an effort to deprive one of their right, to be return home from a non-custodial parent's residence..."(in the owner/founder's case) her girls again were away from home(due home)and was SEIZE by such time at the conclusion of a "court-ordered holiday visit for the 4th of july." Owner,Ms.S.Melendez daughter's never returned,and took years for her to even know they were still alive, to receive 1 hug, as the news-media validate such truth.
Ext.
920
A jury, once the child wins/parent at the level of Summary Judgement, such jury shall be able to conclude, as experts agree, that what the state worker and or worker's did to such child was clear.
A.)Violated her constitutional right to be returned home, since it was clear on the D.I.Q."Day in Question" no reasonable employee @ CPS would've concluded, there was imminent danger.
.
B.)After said removal, from such good loving parent, the division youth family/dcpp,dcfs,dcf lied consistently, while entering false information(knowingly)willfully, with the "intent" and or with the knowledge of what the truth really was.
1-929-277-7848.
Another example:
Child Protection Services has knowledge that:
-Child is at risk under state supervision i.e, bullying(in foster home/group home) mistreatment, starving, maltreatment,raped, sexually abused, suicide ideation/attempted suicide.
-Child was removed-(while living with the other parent.(a known serious felon convicted of robberies,heroine dealing and or heroine possession,et.al, crack cocaine,a known drug addict,who also served time in prison/jail, and was known to such caseworker, but not reported to the judge, nor the other parent, fighting hard to procure her child."
-CPS arranged for such removal furtively, and or through the meeting of the minds, in a conspired-act to keep this quiet from the other parent.
-Document(s)support a meeting of the minds involving more than 1 caseworker to "keep quiet" to not let a judge presiding in family court learn of such child being left alone with a man who has a heroine/crack/cocaine/alcohol issue, a clear danger.
-
Such document(s)support naturally a conspired act when it says "Judge can't learn/or trouble will definitely come to us cps workers IF judge learn about this and or if the mom who lost custody.
CPS workers(after unconstitutionally seizing such child) hid the fact the child was at grave ris at each turn; hindering that the child was no doing well whatsoever in state care and or that the child, under 18 at the time was being assaulted gruesomely, all while DCPP,DHS,DCFS knew of such horror.
-
Caseworker knew each time, when child was removed from such home and placed in multiple foster homes and residential group homes et.al., but yet "hid" such per court hearing as long as they feasibly can, to avoid having a hearing on allowing the good, loving parent to have the child returned to their primary home.
-CPS knew that at the time of investigating the reason insofar as why the child was removed from the other parent's home, worker knew this would NOT be investigated, but rather ignore such relevance in its entirety, until YOU procure such crucial life-altering info, proving what you already knew. Such fraud on the court, is clear as experts agree coast-to-coast insofar as:
-Intent in such a case is able to be proven, @ jury level.
-Malfeasance-fraud,malice et.al., against a state employee and or multi-employees, knowingly; intent on behalf of the liable caseworker who withheld not once but repeatedly hindering what should have, by law, been presented to the juvenile dependency; family court immediate, and to the parent,fighting to have child returned as judge adjudicating. In alleging fraud or mistake, a party must state however(clearly) and particularity the circumstances constituting such (actual) fraud, Malice, intent, knowledge, and other conditions of a person's mind is also allowed to be alleged when suing a state employee everyone ...
Learn as much as you're feasibly able to ...
#LEARN #STUDY and never give up. You're more than capable to win at such phase of"Summary Judgement."
Fill out and implement our required e-help form from facebook popular page and or:
Click here.
Then wait 30 min., and call in, to begin your 1-on-1.
1-929-277-7848 Ext. 6053