Plaintiffs Reply to Defendants Opposition to Plaintiffs Application for Injunctive Relief
I. PLAINTIFFS REPLY TO DEFENDANTS OPPOSITION TO APPLICATION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
1. Defendants counsel asserts in its OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS EXPARTE APPLICATION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF (hereinafter "OIA"), page 3, lines 11-12, that plaintiffs application for injunctive relief is "duplicative" of the application in the plaintiffs first amended complaint. Plaintiffs application is not a duplicate as it contains a case citation comprising approximately half of the pleading. In that case citation, EX PARTE YOUNG, 209 U.S. 123 (1908), Board of Liquidation v. McComb, 92 U.S. 531 -541, 23 L. ed. 623-628. [209 U.S. 123, 159] makes a significant statement relative to this case.
......... the use of the name of the state to enforce an unconstitutional act to the injury of complainants is a proceeding without the authority of, and one which does not affect, the state in its sovereign or governmental capacity.
2. This statement is ignored in the defendants opposition. The function of the State courts will be unaffected by granting the requested relief.
II. PLAINTIFFS HAVE SHOWN THAT PLAINTIFF BROWN HAS BEEN DEPRIVED OF RIGHTS SECURED BY THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES. (42 USC 1985, 42 USC 1983)
3. Plaintiffs have shown rights violations or protection of laws of the United States at least ten times with exhibits of this case,
EXHIBIT NUMBER DESCRIPTION
Transcripts, 209449, March 30, 2004. (5) pgs., W/COMP.)
Witness letter from hearing (1) p., W/COMP.)
Transcripts case 209449 May, 16 1997 (4 pgs.)
Motion to disqualify, case 220298 (3 pgs.) MINUTE ORDER, June 8, 1998, case 220298 (1 p.)
AMENDED ORDER (of June 8, 1998), April 17, 2000 (1 p.)
NOTICE OF CONTINUANCE, SEPT. 4, 1998, case 220298(1 p.)
ORDER SHORTENING TIME, case 229276, March 8, 1999 (2 p.)
REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCE, Ronald R. Brooks sc 1094523
TENTATIVE DECISIONS case 01129618 DEC. 23. 2003 (1 p.)
TENTATIVE DECISIONS. Marsden hearing, May 3, 2006, case 209449 (1 p.)
OPENING BRIEF, Marsden hearing, May 3, 2006, case 209449 (4 pgs.)
4. Within those legal actions it might be shown that more than twice that number of rights deprivations against plaintiff BROWN have occurred in defendants COUNTIES state courts, undocumented by this lawsuit. This does not include the COUNTIES violations of State Subpoena laws allowed by the state courts.
|THREE||Mental Health DEPT. letter (1) p., W/COMP.)|
|FOUR||Failure To Appear case 220298. (1) p., W/COMP.)|
5. Regarding plaintiff COUSINS, exhibits showing a pattern and practice.
FIVE Phone transcripts (1) page, W/COMP.)
SIX Phone transcripts(1) page, W/COMP.)
6. Plaintiffs have shown that plaintiff BROWN is the sole proponent for experimental medical treatments for years, which can have public benefits and can act to assist the county in fulfilling it's duty to state laws (California Health and Safety Code 1370.4) reducing its cost in health care and protecting the citizens generally.
TWENTY-ONE Cost of Homelessness, February 2006 (2 pgs.)
TWENTY-TWO News article, O'Garro suicide 9-27-2000 (2 pages) TWENTY-THREE Declaration of Anthony Cruz (1 page)
TWENTY-FOUR Declaration of Joe Hufman (1 page)
TWENTY-FIVE Petition For Effective Treatment (1 page)
TWENTY-SIX Request For Appointment W/mental health (1 page)
TWENTY-SEVEN Letter, A. Creavans RE: suicide Josh Robbins (1 page)
7. The public in santa Barbara expressed its interest this week.
TO THE HONORABLE, JUDGE OF THE ABOVE ENTITLED COURT. Plaintiffs, hereby request the court to take judicial notice of the following documents pursuant to Federal Rules of Evidence, Rule 201.
REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE - Letter published June 18, 2006, by Heinz Hoffmann in the Santa Barbara Independent newspaper, page 9. Letters,-
DESIGNATED EXHIBIT TWENTY-EIGHT (attached)
8.(NOTE: EXHIBIT THREE describes a treatment that may counter the undesireable or difficult aspects of using hypnosis on schizophrenics.)
9. Plaintiffs have shown a "public interest" for the "SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE" demanded and plaintiff BROWN as being its historical sole proponent, therefore granting the requested injunctive relief serves the public interest.
"SHOWING OF A SUFFICIENT LIKELIHOOD THAT PLAINTIFF WILL BE INJURED AGAIN IS NECESSARY" (OIA page 3. lines 22 -23)
10. EXHIBIT EIGHTEEN shows that the state court on June 13, 2006, within the time of this instant case, produced a minute order that did not reflect the filed brief (EXHIBIT NINETEEN) or the oral defense plaintiff BROWN had provided at the Marsden hearing. The state courts act to support the COUNTY in its evasion of state laws by burdening
plaintiff with a fouled record of orders, which to amend, take time and economic means from plaintiff if he is to act to preserve his rights while the COUNTY violates state and federal laws depriving plaintiffs of needed medical information.
11. On June 13, 2006, the defendants STERNE, MCLAUGLIN and DE OCA conducted administrative matters in plaintiff BROWNS family law matters, wherein the court continued the OSC for contempt to July 25, 2006 with a status hearing on July 11. Defendant DE OCA was still unwilling to use defenses of disability due to deprivation of right, defendant STERNE willing to continue hearing the matter as if doing so somehow proved that no rights have been violated and that being a defendant in this case had no bearing.
12. At the Marsden hearing of May 3, 2006, defendant DE OCA did not file plaintiffs reasons (EXHIBIT ONE and TWO) for requesting disqualification of STERNE and the court would not accept them at the hearing. The defendant was unwilling to consider that any past deprivation of right impaired plaintiff in any way relating to contempt and only sought to have plaintiff psychologically evaluated by the COUNTY mental health department.
13. EXHIBIT THIRTEEN shows a deprivation of due process by the state court in a legal action against the COUNTY for negligent mental health care. A case dismissed, wherein the plaintiff showed that the county mental department would not use county records to evaluate/improve their mental health care.
CONCLUSION AND PRAYER
14. Plaintiffs have shown that all the requirements of injunctive relief are satisfied. Defendants OIA is frivolous in the light of the proof offered and ignores the public interest as it might be shown as "served" in good faith by such pleadings. Plaintiffs pray for the granting of injunctive relief in the form of a TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER enabling plaintiffs seek the demanded specific performance and its medical benefits to them with its inherent public interest.
plaintiff, Christopher Brown
Back to the complaint CV06-2085
Back to the Purpose of Law