THE CASE I HAVE BEEN INVOLVED WITH FOR THE LAST 2 YEARS AS AN ADVOCATE IS CALLED “JENKINS”. THE LIES TOLD TO THE COURT IN DOCUMENTS, THE FILLING OUT OF FRAUDULENT AFFIDAVITS HAVE BEEN SO PREVALENT, AND THE REPRESENTATION FROM THE DEPENDENCY COURT ATTORNEY RIKKA FOUNTAIN WEEKS SO SHODDY FROM MY PERSPECTIVE THAT IT FEELS AS IF WE ARE IN A SNAKE PIT. TAKE A LOOK AT THIS CASE BELOW TO BETTER UNDERSTAND MY FEARS FOR CHILDREN AND FAMILIES IN LANCASTER, CALIFORNIA.
CA SOCIAL WORKERS SEEK IMMUNITY FROM PERJURY, 9TH CIR. SAYS NO
January 5, 2017 (Fault Lines) — Had the recent case of Harwick v. County of Orange from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals gone the other way, the precedent would’ve made social workers and their employers immune from liability should they maliciously commit perjury and fabricate evidence while “securing” a child’s removal from her parent. Considering that circuit’s jurisdictional reach, that’s a lot of social workers who would be given free rein to lie and cheat while they went about their duties.
Preslie Hardwick sued Orange County and social workers Marcia Vreeken, Helen Dwojak and Elaine Wilkins in federal court,* and after the defendants appealed the federal judge’s decision to let the suit go forward, the panel ruled that Hardwick had 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 under the 4th and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. Harwick produced evidence of the following events involving the social workers/(civil) defendants:
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 day where 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 exculpatory evidence 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.