Plaintiffs Opposition to Defendant Sternes Motion to Dismiss, Support for Complaint, Injunctive Relief
10, inclusive, in their official ) Time: 2 p.m
and individual Capacities ) Assigned Magistrate Judge:
_____________________Defendants ) Hon. Stephen J. Hillman
PLAINTIFFS OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS MOTION TO DISMISS
1. Plaintiff opposes defendant STERNES motion to dismiss. Defendants Motion seeks dismissal pursuant to Rule 12 (b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or "(1) lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter" and "6) failure of the pleading to state a claim upon which relief can be granted".
2. Plaintiffs opposition DEFENDANTS MOTION TO DISMISS (hereafter DMD) is organized on a page by page parallel to the DMD. Opposition will show that the Federal jurisdiction under the public interest issues of the demanded specific performance, as they relate to the DMD, is appropriate because of the Federal question underlying the civil rights issues that led to the need for this suit demanding specific performance. Defendants motion should be denied.
3. Defendant Sterne has deprived plaintiff BROWN of civil rights when she personally falsified court documents that revealed she had deprived plaintiffs of rights have shown adequate evidence to invalidate pretrial defenses. Public interests control specific performance and defendants have defended a tort claim for the most part leaving specific performance all but un mentioned. EXHIBIT THREE demands reasonable defenses if injunctive relief is demanded by plaintiff relating to specific performance and there is a move to dismiss by the DMD. Co plaintiff BROWN is the sole proponent for of medical treatment which will protect the lives of plaintiss and the lives of their families. Defendant STERNE has damaged plaintiff BROWN with rights violations and will continue if not restrained. As plaintiff has shown with EXHIBIT-TWENTY, MOTION FOR STAY..... paragraphs 3 and 4, then EXHIBIT-EIGHTEEN showing the minute order does not reflect the record of defenses presented, (page 42 and 43 of REQUESTS FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE), the state court should reasonably be spared from attempting ajudication under conditions present and defendants motion to dismiss denied to prevent miscarriage of justice.
SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION
4. Plaintiff BROWN has shown redundant conclusive evidence of 14th Amendment violations that deprive all plaintiffs. The evidence supporting allegations against defendant STERNE is directly under the jurisdiction of this court by 42 U.S.C. 1983 and 42 U.S.C. 1985. The act is separate from the actor and issues of immunity. The acts are not officially permitted while public interests related to the protected rights of plaintiffs are great.
STATEMENT OF CLAIM
5. Equitable relief in the form of an injunction for a TRO has been stated. This is the only claim against STERNE, is adequate relief for plaintiff and is without harm to the rights of the defendant.
STATUTES OF LIMITATIONS
6. Plaintiff BROWN discovered altered transcripts in the fall of 2005. This most recent act shows violation of due process to evade accountability for the earlier rights violations. Since this is not a tort claim, both acts are triable for injunctive relief with no statuate of limitations applied.
P.3 lines 9 to 12.
7. Defendants pleading seeks to induce "emotional reasoning" by implying that plaintiff BROWN'S obligation to pay child support is some how more important to the federal court than the States courts ability to adjudicate under the Constitution lawfully. Balance to public interest issues related to demanded specific performance are conspicuously absent. This is an attempt to distort the severity of the defendants act of evasion by falsifying court transcripts. Plaintiff BROWN has always intended to pay child support but due to estoppel, medical and economic, he has not been able to so.
P.3 lines 13 to 15
8. Plaintiff BROWN has shown that STERNE has deprived him of equal protection of law, then altered court transcripts to conceal the fact. Estoppel is obvious when plaintiff sues for $2040.00 and is deprived of the right to present evidence, suffers economic loss, further disabling him with emotional stress, and then is asked to show cause for contempt when not making court ordered payments.
P.4 line 1 to 2
9. Plaintiff BROWN does allege STERNE removed part of the court proceeding in the courts transcripts record, but considering this is not a damage claim must only show there is a civil rights violation to apply injunctive relief ad furhterence of public interests.
P.5 lines 1 to 2
10. The debtors examination obviously can only be filed because of the judgment.
P.5 lines 3 to 7
11. Plaintiffs recognize their right to the equal protection of law was violated as STERNE and other defendants disable the proponent of experimental medical treatment that all plaintiffs need as well as many of the public. Herein is the public interest that equal protection of law, in this case, will satisfy.
P.5 lines 11 to 16
12. Sole proponent of vital medical treatment to plaintiffs makes the application for injunctive relief related to the state court defendant, complaint paragraph 31, 37.
P.6 lines 1 to 8 (Also P. 15, lines 4 to 10)
13. Subject matter jurisdiction of civil rights violations is established and complaint cannot be dismissed.
P.6 lines 10 to 18
14. Defendant cites F.R.C.P rule 8 (a) requiring simple, concise and direct averment but defendants motion to dismiss does not even mention the serious accumulative impacts of deprivations of rights by defendant STERNE and how this relates to plaintiff BROWNS role in completing the plaintiffs side of specific performance per California Health and Safety Code 1370.4. Instead invalid defenses to tort claims and cognitive distortions of fathers obligations by law unbalanced to the courts duty pursuant to Article VI, Paragraph 2 of the US Constitution to the citizen are presented and intended to create emotional reasoning or dissociation from the courts obligations to plaintiff.
15. Judicial immunity can only apply to acts of official capacity which also have "official discretion", always rightful and lawful. Deprivations of due process and altering court transcripts do not fall within "official discretion".
P.8 lines 1 to 11 (Also P.12)
16. Rooker Feldman doctrine cannot apply because plaintiffs seek no reversals of state court decisions. Plaintiffs seek only recognition of plaintiff BROWNS ability to comply with relation to the deprivations of rights he has suffered from defendants decisions which have economic and psychological impacts. The simple recognition of rights deprivations and the fact that they had economic and medical impacts effecting his ability to comply is all that is sought. State court decisions will stand but the Federal court is asked to recognize that state court decisions impaired plaintiff BROWN'S ability to comply or condition of estoppel within the state courts OSC for contempt. Basing injunctive relief on this simply prevents further miscarriage of justice. No where in the complaint do plaintiffs ask for review of state court decisions, only that the impacts of them be established as the effect plaintiff BROWNS ability to comply with the state court order.
REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE
17. Plaintiff Christopher A. Brown, as a pro se plaintiff, hereby requests the court to take judicial notice of the following documents pursuant to Federal Rules of Evidence, Rule 201.
Check of Joesph Nicholas Brouwer notated "STOP PAYMENT, DESIGNATED EXHIBIT TWENTY-EIGHT
18.Had the defendant in court used the above evidence the decision would have been against the defendant for $2040 instead of against plaintiff BROWN for $4500. The existence of the decision shows plaintiffs deprival.
19.The points listed of page 8,
Immunity only exists while official discretion is exercised. Plaintiff has shown that twice, official discretion was absent.
Plaintiffs claim is not tort claim
Plaintiffs only seek reasonable recognition of cause of plaintiff BROWN'S impaired ability to comply with state court order for purposes of defenses estoppel, see plaintiffs MOTION TO STRIKE DEFENDANTS (county) MOTION TO DISMISS. Civil rights violations established with EXHIBITS. 1 and 2 create subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 USC §1331
Lines 25 to 27
20. Claim is for injunctive relief, a temporary restraining order not monetary.
P. 9 lines 1 to 19
21. Plaintiff seek protection from STERNE for plaintiff BROWN to surely see specific follow through with the experimental treatment the COUNTY must undertake by California Health and Safety Code 1370.4
P. 9 Lines 20 to 27
22. The fact that all acts of defendant STERNE complained of were performed in judicial capacity, not pursuant to Article VI, Paragraph 2 of the US Constitution, the federal court has subject matter jurisdiction and authority to restrain.
P. 10 line 3 to 8
23. Plaintiffs seek relief from the Federal court to insure acts, not pursuant to Article VI, Paragraph 2 of the US Constitution by state courts, not propagate further injustice, damage or deprival's of equal protection, Defendant has no immunity to federal jurisdiction directed to prevent continued rights violations in the form of the injunctive relief.
P. 10 Lines 11 to 18
23. Defendant refers to case adjudicated under tort claim law. Goal of plaintiffs suit is specific performance of potentially vital, life saving treatment (see EXHIBIT 3), statutes of limitations cannot apply when Federal courts must examine public interests. Plaintiffs have established substantial public interests and relief, or protection of the sole proponent by restraint of STERNE as cognizable relief.
P.11 lines 13 to 16
24. Plaintiffs have established that transcripts were altered by written statement of a witness in court and can provide additional witnesses if doubt exists.
P.12 (see page 8, Rooker Feldman)
P.13 line 1 to 5
26. Clearly with consideration of EXHIBIT TWENTY-EIGHT plaintiff was unjustly impaired in the compliance with the state court order when he lost the small claims action when STERNE would not examine evidence therefore estoppel is an appropriate and justified conclusion to a charge of contempt, not yet decided, in the family law case. The state family law court will not hear estoppel, plaintiffs proper defense to contempt, justifying injunctive relief when the Federal question of civil rights is prominent in the estoppel, the temporary restraining order against defendants is justified.
P.13 lines 6 to 23
27. The ELEVENTH AMENDMENT states that judicial power does not extend to suits by citizens of other states against a state, or foreign citizens against a state. The NINTH AMENDMENT grants that rights not enumerated in the Constitution are retained by the people. All laws, pursuant to Article VI, are made under the Constitution. The ELEVENTH AMENDMENT does not enumerate that judicial power does not extend to suits by a citizen of a state against that same state, therefore, according to the NINTH AMENDMENT, plaintiffs retain that right to bring suit against defendant STERNE who acted without official desecration, outside of official capacity, against plaintiffs Constitutional rights, of the state court, rightfully relinquishing immunity to injunctive relief. Plaintiffs do not name the state of California as a defendant only suing defendant STERNE in whatever capacity is allowed, and then only seeking to prevent further injustice, having demonstrated much injustice already taken place.
FOOTNOTES P. 13
28. The monetary amount contingent to denial of specific performance has been withdrawn, (attached) and was only included in the case as a contingent relief if the COUNTY is unwilling to develop the experimental treatments described in EXHIBIT THREE. The COUNTY is required by state law to undertake the development of the described treatment and the state court to operate courts pursuant to the Constitution, Article VI, Paragraph 2. Plaintiffs have shown with evidence that the COUNTY and defendant STERNE of the state courts are related enough and defendants for an unspoken pattern, practice and policy to exist that targets plaintiff BROWN
P.14 lines 5 to 9
29. Defendant attempts to misrepresent plaintiffs suit as a tort claim when suit does not seek monetary damages. Suit seeks compliance with state laws by COUNTY which has major public interests to the COUNTY all the states (EXHIBIT TWENTY-ONE) and enforcement of rights guaranteed by the US Constitution. There is very likely a positive effect on the public treasury, the defense is twice erroneous. The injunction only seeks to hold municipality to state laws and the courts it interacts with to the U.S. Constitution and plaintiffs have shown that the COUNTY (EXHIBIT FOUR) and the state courts of it, are not in compliance with state law, (see REQUESTS FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE, state court documents) while depriving plaintiff BROWN of civil rights with at least 13 violations/deprivations, of rights including EXHIBIT TWENTY-EIGHT, enabling evasion of medical performance defined by state law, the development of experimental medical treatments, specific performance in this case.
P.14 lines 10 to 19
30. Plaintiffs have shown that the state courts are consistently unable to render due process towards plaintiff BROWN and defendant COUNTY benefits from that plaintiffs misfortune in that plaintiff BROWN is the sole proponent for medical treatments that may possibly bring great relief to all plaintiffs as well as the general public and the defendant County which plaintiffs have shown evades conformance with California Health and Safety Code 1370.4., violating state law and freedom of information laws in the process.
31.DMD of the defendant of the state court, bound as a purpose to acting in the public interest in official capacity, represents plaintiff BROWN'S Constitutional rights and other plaintiffs right to equal protection of law by seeking to compel the COUNTY to conforming to laws, EXHIBIT FOUR and H.S.C. 1370.4, via this suit as one of the state courts "financial affairs", when plaintiffs claim is for relief from civil rights violations of the state court and failures to follow state laws by the COUNTY having large public interest, something that can be seen as the entire purpose of the COUNTYS financial affairs (estoppel in this case), which the state court defendant seems to claim administrative control of. Defendants motion to dismiss should be denied.
32. Defendant COUNTY has benefited by being enabled in the evasion of law, from the state court decisions depriving plaintiffs of rights. Shifting funding channels at some time in the past does not remove special interest for collusion's inherent to official entities working together closely over time. Injunctive relief and the demanded specific performance are the appropriate and equitable relief.
P.15 (Lines 4 to 10 see also P.6)
Lines 15 to 19
33. A duty to observe the Constitution has been violated by an authority of the court particularly charged with upholding it. The state court will not use the fact of its own abuses of law under color of authority when they are proven justifies injunctive relief.
P.15 lines 11 to 17
34. Declaratory relief is reasonably seen as unavailable to plaintiffs with disabilities who cannot find counsel who will challenge municipal authority who has used influence with state courts to evade compliance with state law.
P.16 lines 4 to 10,
See P.6 and P.13, immunity and the XI Amendment.
P.16 lines 11 to 27
35. Declaratory relief is reasonably unavailable with considerations of the limited legal capacity of the disabled pro se plaintiff. Plaintiff has established all the pre requisites for injuntive relief. 1) A right EXHIBIT ONE and TWO, has been violated and the act was commited by defendant under the color of state law.
P.17 lines 1 to 12
36. Plaintiff shows that over time defendant STERNES conduct fits into a pattern that defines a general conspiracy. The conspiracy is enabled by the same emotional reasoning that the DMD employs that maximizes plaintiff obligation under law while all but ignoring that the courts have duties to the citizen that are gauranteed by the Constitution.
P.17 lines 16 to 26
37. Plaintiff complaint contain cognizable theory well evidenced and they cognitivly defend against it. However the lack of concern for the medical public interest stated on pages 19, 20 and 21 of the First Amended Complaint can hardly justify the statement "one cannot determine from the complaint who is being sued for what relief on what theory." Defendant feigns confusion, strictly frivolous averment in light of EXHIBIT THREE.
P.18 lines 1 to 7
38. The cause of action has been plainly stated suffciently and defendants defenses show that the complaint is understood and there is standing by all plaintiff for injunctive relief which serves the public interest through the demanded specific performance.
PRAYER FOR JUDGEMENT
39. Plaintiff prays that this opposition is used with commitment to public interests and justice and so prays that defendants motion is denied.
Date;________________________ _________________________________ plaintiff, Christopher A. Brown,
Back to the purpose of law