Memorandum Opposing Demurrer
Attorneys will not have anything to do with this case. As soon as the many I have approached heard that hypnosis was involved they would have nothing to do with the case.
Had the County and the courts fulfilled lawful duty earlier this case would have never been filed. Consider; the use of public money for legal defense of a public entity accused of negligence, violating laws to conceal from the courts facts substantiating neglect of duty and essential to my case, information that is public by law. All behavior contemptuous of law allowed by the Santa Barbara Superior Court in an obviously, collusive abuse of power.
claim June 3rd, 1997, which was later denied by Defendant County of Santa Barbara. Plaintiff then filed the complaint on August 12th 1997.
III
COMPLAINT ALLEGES CERTAIN AND SPECIFIC CAUSES OF ACTION
A complaint is invulnerable to a general demurrer if on any theory it states a cause of action (Truta v. Avis Rent A Car System , Inc. (1987) 193 Cal. App. 3d 802, 815, 238 Cal. Rptr.806).
The First Cause Of Action against the Defendant County of Santa Barbara is specific. Defendant County of Santa Barbara's had/has a duty to not violate the First Amendment rights of Chumash Medicine people. Information defining causation for plaintiffs injuries was given to Plaintiff by Defendant Medicine man and other Medicine people concerning a breach of Defendant County of Santa Barbara's duty in 1876. Defendant County of Santa Barbara authorized murders, massacres and tortures following the 'antap' effort (causing approximately 1000 local court commitment proceedings) to create an official understanding of their religion of hypnosis which is practiced on people without their awareness.
Defendant County of Santa Barbara had a duty to keep the product of the Medicine peoples effort (750 Court case files minimum) available for public viewing from 1876 to 1959. The Defendants breach of duty by neglecting to make records available was direct causation for the public to be ignorant of the Native Medicine peoples abilities and Plaintiffs parents to unknowingly hire Medicine people as caregivers to Plaintiff at age four. Defendants neglect and breach of duty was causation for widespread public vulnerability to hypnotic manipulation resulting in greater control and injury of Plaintiff.
Defendant County of Santa Barbara had a duty to preserve the product of the Native Medicine people, said court case files, in its custody in 1959. Defendant breached its duty when it neglected to copy the records to another medium for preservation before allowing their destruction, a breach of duty as defined by civil code and direct causation for the 'antap' to be angered and hypnotically instruct the defendant to create events injuring the Plaintiff for the purpose of forcing Plaintiff to take legal action with the intent of replacing the destroyed records.
IIII
CONCLUSION
Plaintiff has stated numerous, specific causes of action. Plaintiff contends that the actions of the Defendant County of Santa Barbara were and are malicious to the religion of Native people, a violation of the state and federal Constitution, and that those actions directly caused the 'antap' to instruct Defendant Medicine man to take action against the Plaintiff. Defendant County of Santa Barbara's acts are not "General Negligence" and the Defendant is liable.
Plaintiffs claim is timely, properly filed, denied and followed by complaint. Second Cause of Action is solely against Defendant and is unrelated to the first cause of action and should not be stricken.
The Third Cause of Action is specific in that serious injury to county residents was foreseeable by Defendant County of Santa Barbara after its first breach of duty in 1876 against Native people. The subsequent second breach of duty, witholding of public records from 1876 to 1959, caused widespread vulnerability which made possible and increased the injury to the Plaintiff. In 1959 the Defendant County of Santa Barbara breached its duty a third time by neglecting to preserve the records, an action which became direct causation for the Plaintiffs injury.
Plaintiff respectfully requests that Defendants demurrer and motion to strike Plaintiffs complaint be denied and if the demurrer is granted a 30 day leave to amend the complaint be allowed.
Date;_______________Christopher A. Brown, in PRO PER