i m here its heather-marie.
"now like 2 lawyers are adaging,"they are both interested" that fast! i know
1 lawyer who i respectfully XXXXX XXXXX may say,well just wait to see if she can, is able to "convince"your honor,why this suit should NOT be dismiss and god is good, as my own prowess, i might say so myself paul LOL title="Laughing"/> the fact it is so good! hint*
she did not lose!* so read it..
and I need a clear answer i think it mean"only to the EXTENT(judge last page say)to 1983,in cps"official"is only 1 got dismiss,out of MULTIPLE WORKERS,then he talk bout the egregious conduct, etc, and how ALL the claim(s)cause of actions are allow to move forward!!! here u go!
i am so thrilled i am shaking with "tina"and our staff, many people here with her child,and "tina" her dad tonight,at the student of law advocate ctr
i told her i think ALL her claims in indivi.capacity move forward yes! but i will triple check with you.
UPDATE:REMOVAL OF LINK BECAUSE OF SUCH SENSITIVE PRIVATE INFO
etc. but naturally your able to review,we are BEYOND happy tonight,she fought paul
get this TEN YEAR(return of child COMPLETELY UNDERMINE thanks to nj cps
agency DYFS,DCF,now called DCPP. and i have 2 attorneys ready to take her on
now,and ONE still tonight as i write your update ON FONE WITH TINA now and i m
just so happy .ok waiting to hear your well-written answer, STATE DID NOT REPLY
TO PER CLAIM OPPOSITION FROM "TINA" AND FORMER(Bob)remember ?
nope. I M HAPPY SHE EVEN WON AT RES JUDICATA! that is a rarity nationwide hard to do...yep and individual capacities, i think it say if i am right,only dismiss in official capac.right?
get back! we are so so happy tonight!
bellas law student powerhouse paralegal consulting and empowerment.
a NATION's first.
against inequities,involving abhorrent cps; under sec 1983
and gross negligent"intentional act"harming America's Most beautiful
innocent... and that is the children..and GOOD loving parent;grandparents U.S.A.
I truly aim to please you as a customer, but please keep in mind that I do not know what you already know or don't know, or with what you need help, unless you tell me. Please consider that I am answering the question or question that is posed in your posting based upon my reading of your post and sometimes misunderstandings can occur. If I did not answer the question you thought you were asking, please respond with the specific question you wanted answered.
Kindly remember the ONLY WAY experts receive any credit at all for spending time with customers is if you click on OK, GOOD or EXCELLENT SERVICE even though you have made a deposit or are a subscription customer. YOU MUST COMPLETE THE RATING FOR THE EXPERT TO RECEIVE ANY CREDIT, if not the site keeps your money on deposit.
Also remember, sometimes the law does not support what we want it to support, but that is not the fault of the person answering the question, so please be courteous.
i knew it!!!!!!!!!!!!! u know what ? this THREAD WILL STAY OPENNNN!
i want the world to know HEATHER-MARIE, and not even lawyers"yet" until AFTER the procurement of law school naturally,and not only jersey but in the multi-states,i am and SHALL succeed in the procurement of law degree juris doctor,THIS FIELD only,99% lol. i feel so happy paul thank you sir!
1. astute answers to "what i already knew!"
2.caring enough the site is awesome and your a extreme astute lawyer who unlike most "SEEN"the inequities,and i believe paul JUDGE---- do too!
lastly, paul so again"EACH ARGUEMENT" A SWEEP ALMOST"
DID U SEE THIS????
1 res judicata DO NOT APPLY. judge agree,with what your saying as other law research i utilize, premise on"claim even if mom/daughter seek damages fromm 03! the NEW CLAIM(s)again are from for MOM 2010
and"child"now 19 from her 10 years old,03-04 so it make sense right?
CPS never argue against a pro-se plaintiff against this Dummies who think they are able to harm a child,lie on a GOOD happy,suburban mom
in this case,who was always THERE keeping child safe,and try to use
this weak argument of"1 light spanking" 10 yrs ago,this is so good paul
and also the arguement significant!(the fact the workers gross negligent
has to be clear here right paul??? the fact new jersey caseworker not one,but all of them up to 10! knew for years, the allegations were false
and HID,such truthful fact,kept child in group homes, "drugged up"as
found later paul and as a result of failure to return; MOM and child suffer
i await your response.look like the parent won after all when 100+ yes paul 100+ attorneys say NO,she can't win,she can't make it past first hurdle premise on "1 light discipline"one lil spanking,in 03-04,they we4re all wrong.and 2 OF THEM NOW ADMIT IT tonight.
i await your response,to "understand more about the aforesaid,look like almost a clean sweep! but again she was not suing them under 83 in official so"what happen there?" and again she is able to though still under 1983, if i am right from lawyer saying tonight,THIS IS REALLY GREAT that she is(As your saying able as individuals right????)
ok i am here,take ur time,be on with research,and tina here,so take ur time just almost a sweep lawyer say but i want YOUR opine.
i was speaking with "tina"and her (paul the teen 19 is i mean REALLY so beautiful!)at age 10 i c pix,then 19 just as beautiful lil girl,sad she has had a great life,PRIOR so sad, "all evidence"From a kid"proven,nickelodeon tv commercials,as truthful the suit say to "working on latina;spanish songs. to pop danze;hip hop stuff,so sad paul to" 9 hospitals(that WE all know of)as we know CPS hid boxes of real evidence,so we are sure more will during next phase discovery RIGHT PAUL???? what is next i think discovery just askin' thank you! or what happen now cause we have nothing else to see but the GREAT "almost sweep" etc. with the suit thank you...and yes the lil modicum of a "victory"is big whoop the AGENCY is"out of it,but wait !(next query to above is, "it say as FAR AS TO THE "EXTENT" the agency,so is the agency still "liable"individual or
the workers, either way it is awesome she won!
easier now attorney sayin to me how"he want to see me with tina awww"
cause I DID A "bEYONd"great job,wit her and the MOTHER too!we both
and the owner my colleague(melendez)get back to me thank you SOOOO
and also i know a "Settlement demand"PRIOR to the procurement via subpoena,(they are going to NOT!)want this,paul your reading the suit right?
look at al the'extreme cruelty GROSS Misconduct,heck a judge in state ct.
sure did paul,let me REMIND you before anything is the fed WISE judge got this BIG Huge hurdle right yes,but the new"state judge"who FIRST TIME learn of this BIG mess,of a lie after lie keeping DELIBERATE a parent of no past history of drugs,alcohol,abuse etc. nothing,but kept her from even a 1 phone call???? he call it the WORSE NEW JERSEY CASE WITH CPS.
that transcript she will be procuring now,and also again keep in mind paul the fact:
1. D.Y.F.S. has a longggggg NJ propensity to doing this but NEVER ok?
not 1 time was at all EVER! proven whereas; "child was rape"and or beat up;sexually abused,bullied in foster care,and where"Worker"no good self,KNEW but"evidence"was actually EXISTING! yes paul to
have existed,"is intent to deprive"IF SHE BURY IT RIGHT PAUL?
find out later; her own supervisory personnel"sign off on things"and yet
HID THIS TOO!
2. DYFS has lost another suit in 003,05,07,multiple settlement(s)09,10
2 or more "quiet"settement,i've learn about on MY OWN sure did and few after this 2011 cps settle another suit nj,and another just last year and now the CASE YOUR READING i sent you to review just now,with atty.
survive a MOTION TO DISMISS,for"individual workers"not the agency
etc. so now?Melendez!
we are so happy get back thank you.
MOST EXPERTS for years,say the JURY is not who dyfs will want to see
and MEDIA RUNNING THE STORY PAUL WE ESTABILSH tonight!
they did cover it in 08,09,2010 but were awaiting with bells on with mom
the BIGGEST (At this point decision)on if SEVERAL not 1 but all the most horrid workers known today,anywhere,DID this and if they can beat motion to dismiss,and we FINALLY PROVE by hard,HARD WORK here;
they were not able to Get away from such GROSS beyond"mere" negligence
INTENTIONAL misconduct! no jury experts are sharing with me by video consult,phone call(s)consulting NO JURY CPS will want to hear this
with DYFS NJ KNOWN NATIONWIDE as the worse cps agency for
many years,even was on tv about this several times,PRIOR;
to /"TINA" compelling; and much warranted claim(s)and her child.
hey paul,remember sir, YOUR 1 who was not"sure either"mom suit portion remember?will survive"everything"but she did!!!
remember,your saying oh heather the child claim is THERE without a shadow of a doubt naturally easily.yep.will settle if prudent;
and the "parent"not sure premise on 1 substantiated of a fake abuse i.e. "spanking!"but look judge did not care in fed.ct.
meaning that was ten years ago! and CPS stil fail to return her!
they should have as the court say,"mom said CLEARLY''
the light spanking,was not the BASIS!(to keep a child from home)but 33 "really bad,serious horrid allegations"were what kept mom from child as APPEAL AGREE PAUL get this 04,07,09 told dyfs to properly INVESTIGATE,"stop violating mom"and child etc.to be returned,OR AT LEAST PARENTING TIME AS HER RIGHTS ARE TO BE RECOGNIZE,BUT DYFS CROOKED SELF NEVER EVEN DID NOTHING BUT HINDER,HINDER HINDER, 7.5yrs.paul!
LAST NOTE:ONE LAWYER TONIGHT DID SAY,HEATHER-MARIE
"TINA"is right,this is surely NOT state bias court,from here in
NJ NY,PA, cps workers,to fla.,michigan crooked dhs,to hawaii,all over,workers are like this,but lawyer saying to her,and myself NOT THIS TIME;
court ALLOW IT but not fed.ct.so glad we are "there"now in federal court
where i believe FINAL JUSTICE after 10 long painful years,to a once
HAPPY un-abusive family will come$ and help so many when they do win
more than i,and she has right now.
i am so happy!
thnk you sir! your awesome
(when your having a moment,BEFORE i accept plz review fast the case
above with attorney who again case was i think surviving motion to dismiss against the workers;as as tina's not the actual workers who let a lil boy! be physically abused,and "emotionally traumatize verbal abuse."yep.
oh yes,already spoke with tonight a few.
and have multiple consult all weekend and this week.
i know she is even with money tight,by seeing if she is able to commence discovery;and she will be subpoena "ALL."this is a definite,paul.equally are all guilty for yes covering the fact she was INNOCENT,and how 1 spanking;
all social workers;cps,dyfs,dcpp,dcf, workers in new jersey on this lawsuit, paul yep, they ALL knew!( documentation exhibit demonstrated how workers in new jersey,were just not able to substantiate abuse premise on 1 light spanking to daughter 10 years old, not injured;
VERY VERY smart at 10
very healthy same day playing and loving her mother,and a good life,
as a little girl with hard working educated mom,
but they SAT ON THE REPORT PAUL 03-04 throughout 09 etc. 2010
this, is how it all went downhill from there,and KNEW "Dad" a addict"met 1 of their own.(a state county ems)wrker no good herself,and she also was a lady who herself,"consult with dyfs on cases!" mom LEARN later this, as her "ex custody lawyer" who help her also find cases,so the causative
LINK PAUL IS THERE!
and,all workers again "sat on the report clearing mother of the spanking
which we ALL know is not abuse naturally and the 33 serious allegations
etc. just lied all the time,to keep child with 'dad"who clearly was not fit
to parent a cat, let alone daughters! BUT DID THIS AGAIN CAUSE HIS NEW WIFE,DID CONSULT ON CASES(AS A Self Admitted consultant
and ems"county" worker,supervisor.
so we are glad this was found out;learned,discover supporting such link
as to WHY 10+ workers AND supervisors will RISK everything and now?
they are being re-assigned,2 fired so far,furtively ! and more i am sure
will.hopefully ONE DAY LOCK UP but until then LAWSUIT IN FEDERAL COURT AGAINST CPS worker,is good enough,
more suits pro-se we are proving is the way to at "The least"get EM WHERE IT HURTS, in the pockets,as many attorneys always say this,and let us hope now we get
one for her,meaning here at my network,and staff and i are going to begin
the quest,not just tonight but morning,but TILL THEN we are helping steady as all others,pro-se.
i accept 2 answers here,thank you again!
real quick(or when reading this)the "agency dyfs(nj)it reads,the agency is dismissed"insofar as the officia capacities;and the workers"but they are on the hook for the actual"individual"am i correct paul?so do it mean the mom and daughter,are able to regarding the damages;liable also not just the caseworkers,foster parents(hired by dyfs)and the supervisors,but do it again mean also,the agency can be held liable individual(dyfs itself)
or again the main ulprit the workers,get back no rush,thank you so much!
and again i ACCEPT 2 answers, your the best!
oh i see! thank you sir.
as one case pending quite analogous, (i sent u the link i think couple days ago)well,that lawyer is suing the same way she did,i.e. she encompass as your sentient of,(aware)the dyfs and "individual caseworkers"etc. foster parents contracted by state of nj, the'lawyer suit'similar,expound as she did how the workers "under the watch naturally of dyfs etc.acted outside scope etc.of employment etc. color of law etc.and i know that firm won the right to move forward as "tina"and her daughter for money damages,at the depo; phase now; etc. and i m
just saying all this premise on fact,in that case too the agency was not to be held liable,BUT the workers are! so amazing "tina" with our help
was able to do exactly.the same just about,and more yes,damages as we shared with you as your even seeing "NOT JUST GROSS" and or a mere act of omission or negligent,but downright illegal,so much of the evidence paul that should have been disclose,was conceal,all the furtive"foster care danger"all hidden,knowingly evidence support it.
so this suit,yea is more powerful than the one pending with lawyer.
naturally.luckily TINA is able to prove it,as attachment,several was presented,and i do believe paul even when not always warranted at this stage, it show the judge in fed.ct. "TINA"child was really gang rape and harmed,not 1x but repeatedly. outside group home (still under state supervision)and inside group home,BOTH
remember your adage,not sure if she was able"to get em'on outside the group home rape"well this is what the fed.ct. CLEARLY is allowing to all move forward,i m happy because paul think about it,"it happen while the state was"lieing,false statement of "child is fine" under (key word here) is
UNDER,state supervision no 'harm' is coming her way judge,but yet the evidence support the complete antithesis.
FED.CT. so far is rightfully not agreeing with dyfs thinly-weak arguement
about well,"some of the abuse"happen outside the foster home???"i am sure fed.ct. is ignoring this because they "read"the dr. report where it say it and would have not done this IN TINA FAVOR,if a state agency whose
SUPERVISING the child,is not :liable for that...Naturally they are,because
the child again was"under their care and supervision"
and they had FULL responsibility for her,no 1 else,since it was the state
who assume custody,"control"and "supervision of this child paul,when they decided to remove her,and FAIL to reunite by the non-adherence
of cps protocol,policy,procedural.by the way this INCREDIBLE ruling appear to be is the judge did not at all BUY"any of the state"weak arguement and we love it!
perfectly said again thank you sir.They have no case,and discovery shall
illuminate this,in furtherance,to what the judge already ruled"correct"on.
NO DISMISS of lawsuit,Motion to dismiss involving DYFS crooked workers shall be DENIED,such a great thing! Will help so many others in such nationwide cases with CPS,and here in nj/ny/pa tri-state area.
appreciate it paul.
i will be keeping you in touch. and now! next? (continue all sunday)as i help the innocent.pro-se(self file)litigants,legal research"properly" etc. write-up researching with them,and for them, we are also today going to call more lawyer(s) and paul will just commence a new thread during week so we can close this one thank you so much.we agree,and thank you again paul.
i ACCEPT another answer, well worth the three i've accept since friday yes!
and oh paul i ran this by,(Real quick final note)for this thread, i spoke to a law professor,he has 25 years in law field mostly cases in California,Family Court,and NYS "criminal law" and NJ he has done "pro-hac vice"we both know what this is,and he is interested IF i am able to procure attorney here in NJ,for which he has won prior,cases in cali,lawsuit against cps,san diego and ventura county i think it is,and riverside nys (1)and he was reading this all weekend,and he say,"Heather,the 'attorney on "just answers"paul is correct on all counts,as your saying really same as him,he read the thread and the decision,and he is very interested,will even FLY when warranted,for "tina's victory he say,she is going to make out just fine money damages
is there"meritorious claim(s) one "after another"and now we are looking
today monday tue. for a nj lawyer to work with him,then he can represent
her with a nj attorney! through pro hac vice,i hope so paul.i am trying as you know.
and "media"WILL be taking over this story(2 reporters)air it 08,2010 the
prior suit,but this one is won!(last won was toss out prior to statute of limit
but NOT THIS ONE)
such a great victory...
the caseworker(s)are surely liable.
and the cali atty.adaging,"the nj dyfs"lose so many cases,in fed ct.
and will be prudent to settle.give child full-closure,and the mother.
if not? A JURY SURE WILL HAVE A FIELD DAY,hearing why one by
1. hid evidence BONAFIDE. not "hearsay. by a angry parent.
2.conceal nj little girl age 10,from her mother,for almost 8 yrs,lied in court as to the status"true condition as JUDGE even said,relating to her welfare in "State"care and UNDER state supervision,then knew child was "not living with dad" but yet deprive mom DUE PROCESS,to have
a hearing,on returning"child to the mother"since child was moved from her father residence.
lastly i want u to also remember:
DYFS NJ,advocate for a troubled father to have custody right paul?
Mom light spanking"appeal three times NOT ONCE,but three times"
on the record,advise dyfs workers sternly(To preclude from depriving a
child from her parent" by "Swift investigation"of 33 alllegations"and if not founded,child AND parent can "no longer be DEPRIVE..."such right.
The allegations took "to be investigated paul from 03-04,jan.may 2010!
There just is no excuse,for this at paul. Cali lawyer interested adaging
"if the appeal order this
THREE TIMES, and was never done."what excuse will dyfs have at trial
to "why the caseworkers(10)failed to investigate?UNLESS by all means
even those of "unlawful nature"he adage,"is what MATTER to CPS"
... nothing more..."As long as the girl was kept from the other parent,it was well worth "breaking the law"the lawyer said to me all morning.
and THIS IS SINISTER,this is illegal,and he goes,"This is going to help
cement her lawsuit,that is basically after this recent decision already won.
This was a shock to him,adaging,how"to IGNORE any state appeal that
is advising them of a court-directive for not 1 month!(Bad enough)but 7 yrs? he say this suit is won PERIOD.
as a result that kept depriving child to safety by"Being return to mom"and
deprive PARENT as FED.CT. say,"of a life with her child paul."
ok thank you paul definitely of course i am goin to keep you posted.
and enjoy rest of your weekend! thank you again.
off to attorney hunt!
and i will let you know,when 1 is brought on.we sure will advise ya!
will keep you posted....
paul query relating to this thread;appreciate it.'
1. (the won-motion to dismiss for money damages,for child and mom is consistent with the actual(all of the claim(s)am i correct from 02-2010) and or only 2010 injury? if a lawyer is reading this right,he should know
if i stand corrected,the magistrate adage,"can sue from 2003-2010? since RES JUDICATA"does not apply" and or "mom claim(s)
as cited,new claim etc.
hers is yes from 2010(but daughter if we are reading this right,is from 03,the "day of removal"and for the continued-misrepresention ongoing;
the actual failure to return throughout 7 years. just need a bit of clarity of this.
2.Reason i ask is i thik 1 lawyer,was not"reading this right to say it is only
for the"2010"claim(s)from whe mom learn of such gruesome paridgm of
sex abuse,rape(s)sexual molestation;and psychiatric hospitalization etc.
suicide attempt,and when mom was cleared officially after"7"years of NO
proper investigation;(2010 clear)i don't think a atty.today was reading this at all accurate,if your wanting it re-sent to you i shall do let me know.
I told him this is inaccurate,the suit clearly allow all damage(s)cause of
action,etc. 1 through 10 etc. all claims to move forward,NONE were toss
out.etc only"agency"premise on"official capacity." some lawyer(s)i know
just read too fast,but yet and or "maybe because this is a local counsel"
i think he is not into suing"state worker"even though he admit,they are
lousy worse in NATION lol.and but i also think he has"alot of state court
biz,and is not comfy,doing this,but i told him,just be HONEST,and say it.
because unless i am reading this wrong,as 2 other lawyers saturday it is
claims from not just 2010(yes mom is from as judge put it)2010,so she is
able to move forward! and but DAUGHTER is from 2003, if i am correct
in their individual capacities.
ok update sir.
i am just reading this(i knew it)i am interviewing alot of lawyers we know ny
is huge! and in nj naturally my tri-state,but 1 in cali"still"calling me daily since saturday thats nice! and he himself adage,"the other atty.must have a connection with state"we know how this goes,i.e. alot of regular state court biz,and not interested,but just is trying to "wimp out" by not saying it,lol i agree on that,and sad but that is how the ball bounces,in this crooked cps game.But i m still glad the CALI attorney will fly out he say as soon as i m able to locate atty. in ny or nj tri-state,where then the 2 of them naturally can easily handle this entire case,from here on in,he say it is much"easier"now! all around for the mother"tina"and her injured child.
same as your saying,she "won"and deep down he say DYFS NJ know it and will be prudent to reach her by now even and offer a settlement.
But we all will see!
just wanted you to know,a update,definitely keeping you posted,no prob there.i will be calling another 50 if warranted,as i did for her a year when
file(most did not call back sad...)but as your seeing the ones who say she
"Can't win"or it is so hard getting pass even for"some lawyers"motion to dismiss,but look! all dozens who turn her down was WRONG .
she got pass,it with a sweep
Attachments are only available to registered users.
but i am still calling new attorneys,i have not reach ever for her,since we have some time right now.
(BEFORE she on her own mail letters out re:
yep. i do agree sir,histrionic(s)even by simple search on net.establish the countless lawsuit(s)won per year,almost past decade from paul 03, when this happen to child.mom.( MAJOR failure of the system)2 boys won 7.5 mill
1 son die rip. sad story the 2 remain are teens now,and other boy was who
die 7 only sad,and more suit 12.5 settle yep(year after!)04-05
then 07(closed-settlement NOT public i find it,as a GREAT paralegal and legal professional researcher will do...i find that one,and another not made public (Settlement(s) i find)are in totality almost 8 yep and then another one made public few back to back! yep from 2010-2012.just last year yep.and 1 pending now!(third district)i sent link to u,is pending sure is,so that attorney i call up and left msg.for waiting for his call)as we speak.
your saying"get out of calling state attorneys?) wait,i mean when i say
state i mean i m calling the'NEW JERSEY"STATE LICENSE ATTY'S" as i think in order to be pro hac vice,qualified(the nice lawyer in california)
he say i have to get a nj attorney license,whose able to work with him
am i correct?or we are missing something,please expound thx.
NEW YORK has so many great civil right cases,and i just need 1 to say
YES! we will come on board(but don't he have to be license paul in nj)
to take it on
hi good evening.
just seeing this,and thank you again.
i just wanted more clarification.
i have place many calls,shall continue,as
our student of law staff,and we are all aggressively
hunting for right attorney for her.thank you again!
definitely keeping you posted on all of this,
paul.But meanwhile; should "tina"commence the sending out of letters
for discovery request;subpeonas;for interrogatories;etc. or she still i think has time,correct?(decision as your aware came down allowing her to move forward a week ago,today. (but again we ALL are aggresively searching for a lawyer. and or i am not sure but she also want to know to
write a settlement demand?
I know a lawyer mention to me"wait"on the demand letter for now though.
But just want your consensus on both thank you.
DISCLAIMER: Answers from Experts on JustAnswer are not substitutes for the advice of an attorney. JustAnswer is a public forum and questions and responses are not private or confidential or protected by the attorney-client privilege. The Expert above is not your attorney, and the response above is not legal advice. You should not read this response to propose specific action or address specific circumstances, but only to give you a sense of general principles of law that might affect the situation you describe. Application of these general principles to particular circumstances must be done by a lawyer who has spoken with you in confidence, learned all relevant information, and explored various options. Before acting on these general principles, you should hire a lawyer licensed to practice law in the jurisdiction to which your question pertains.
The responses above are from individual Experts, not JustAnswer. The site and services are provided “as is”. To view the verified credential of an Expert, click on the “Verified” symbol in the Expert’s profile. This site is not for emergency questions which should be directed immediately by telephone or in-person to qualified professionals. Please carefully read the Terms of Service (last updated February 8, 2012).