Justice Denied…Again? pb
WHO WAS RAMBLING…THE PLAINTIFFS OR THE JUDGE?
by Sharon Rondeau
Judge George H. King is chief judge for the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
(Jan. 1, 2013) — On Monday, The Post & Email reported that a federal lawsuit claiming deprivation of civil rights filed by two parents attempting to regain custody of their seven children in foster care was denied advancement in the courts on the basis of “in forma pauperis.”
The lawsuit was filed against government employees of Los Angeles County, including social workers at the Department of Children and Families under Title 42 of the U.S. Code.
The ruling by Judge George H. King renders the filers, Jeffrey and Erica Henderson, responsible for the filing fee, which is $450. The parents’ ability to earn a living has been disrupted since they were jailed in May 2011 and the children placed in foster homes.
King was born in Shanghai, China and is chief judge in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. In his denial of the in forma pauperis request, King opined that the lawsuit was “rambling” and “a…mostly unintelligible mishmash of duplicative, conclusory and irrelevant legal and factual allegations…”
King’s financial disclosure reports have been a topic of interest of the public interest law firm, Judicial Watch. As a criminal defense attorney, King did not receive favorable reviews from several clients, one of whom stated that he “always favors the government.”
Of King’s decision, Erica Henderson stated:
Jeffrey and I were very saddened and angered by the order by George H King that our motion to proceed in forma paupis was denied and our lawsuit returned. This means that in order for our lawsuit to continue we will have to do one or more of 3 things. Pay the fee, appeal the decision, or re-write the complaint. This was the sad news because we are very poor and we don’t have the resources we need to fight this battle properly. We will not be paying the fee, since it is the middle of winter, and our economic situation dictates that we live under a porch. Here is a link to the decision. www.protectfamilies.org/briefs/fed-01-01-2013-001.pdf
We are angered because the decision against the complaint is a decision against the common people. First of all, there is no rambling. The complaint is not long winded and it moves from point to point in good order to say the least. It was written by someone who has an advanced degree in English. The complaint is not 118 pages. The complaint is only 100 pages. The judge is obviously using the attachment, which is the law of the case to count as a part of the complaint which is not only legally wrong but it is wrong morally to deny someone who is not an attorney their right to petition their government based on a misinterpretation of rules. Jeffrey and I looked up the case law the judge cited and found that it was not a poor person proceeding in pro per that filed their 733 page complaint, it was an attorney. That case has nothing to do with proceeding in forma pauperis! So what does this mean to the poor families without an attorney trying to protect themselves from DCFS? It means that a judge can dismiss your complaint without doing anymore than citing an irrelevant law. If you dont know how to appeal and argue, then you lose.Lets look at the words the judge uses. Where does a non-attorney go to learn what a prolix is or the common law meaning of rambling? The word “mishmash” is not found in Black’s Law Dictionary, but any good Jew knows the origins of the word. Loud and clear, it is obvious that this judge hates Jews. Whatever happens in this case, let it be known that the most important victory will be exposing these conceited, disrespectful, hate-filled, lazy and corrupt public servants for what they are. Useless.The judge says that the allegations are “conclusory” which from our research means that we didn’t attach evidence. FACT: The 1983 is not a heightened pleading. There is no requirement to attach evidence. Lets say we do attach evidence, which we have mountains of. Those attachments would be considered part of the complaint! Lets break this down more carefully. We are suing the leaders of several divisions of the largest county in the United States. We might need a couple of pages to name the defendants and their accomplices.
The first 19 pages names the defendants. Is there any opportunity to cut 30 pages there? Not much, unless we start removing defendants, which is probably what they are insinuating. What about the next 34 pages of the Facts of the Case? How much can we trim from this? More than 5 pages? I don’t think so. If we remove the law of the case we get rid of 18 pages, but 25 more pages must be trimmed. The only place left to trim it is in the causes of action, which would be absurd.
Jeffrey and I have decided to appeal the decision. We are also going to trim our complaint to 70 pages and re-file ASAP. We would like nothing better then to expose the first level of the federal courts as being anti-poor, anti-people, and anti-family.
Thank you for everyone who is following this case closely and for all the support we have received. You should know that we are not discouraged, but we are disappointed to find that the coverup goes higher than the state level. We look forward to continuing the journey with you to discover if this corruption continues to the 9th circuit. G-d help us all if there is no justice in the 9th.
Addenda to the lawsuit are listed and can be read here. Jeffrey Henderson is currently studying for the Law School Admission Test and has received favorable pretest scores which the family hopes will garner him a full scholarship and stipend to attend law school. An interview with Jeffrey can be found here.
© 2013, The Post & Email. All rights reserved.
Tags: Department of Children and Families, in forma pauperis, Law School Admission Test, Los Angeles DCFS, The Hendersons, Title 42 USC, U.S. District Court Judge George H. King