IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Alexandria Division A.O.

, a child of 12 on 16 September, and other children, with new children, led by James Renwick MANSHIP, a legal next friend, and other adult citizen next friends Individually and on behalf of all other children and parents similarly situated, Next Friend Manship files Pro Se, and as Disabled Veteran, In Forma Pauperis Plaintiffs, Case No: v. (MANSHIP for A.O., et al, v. ARLINGTON COUNTY- short title) 1: 11CV1003 JCC/JFA ARLINGTON COUNTY SHERRI BROTHERS, in her official capacity as Arlington County Virginia JURY Supervisor, Child Protective Services Division TRIAL MARITA Y. WILSON, in her official capacity as Arlington County Virginia DEMAND Social Worker, Child Protective Services Division TAMMEE GAYMON, in her official capacity as Arlington County Virginia Social Worker, Child Protective Services Division VALERIE CUFFEE, in her official capacity as Arlington County Virginia Social Worker, Child Protective Services Division SUZANNE EISNER, in her official capacity as Arlington County Virginia Director, Department of Human Services JASON McCANDLESS, in his official capacity as Arlington County Virginia Assistant County Attorney KAREN MARIE GRANE, in her official capacity as Arlington County Virginia JDR Court Appointed Guardian Ad Litem ESTHER WIGGINS, in her official capacity as Arlington County Virginia JDR Court Judge GEORGE VAROUTSOS, in his official capacity as Arlington County Virginia JDR Court Judge Defendants. PLAINTIFFS MEMORANDUM OF LAW AGAINST SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY FOR PROSECUTORS, SOCIAL WORKERS, JUDGES PER BELTRAN V. SANTA CLARA 2008 1. In the near total absence of resources available to the lead plaintiff in preparation of this Next Friend Court advocacy for the Liberty and Safety of 8 or now more children victims of the Arlington so-called Child Protective Services agency, and its rubber-stamp source of authority such as the Arlington Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Court Judge Wiggins Ex Parte awarded Emergency Restraining Order to remove S.S., 3 week old daughter of Nancy Hey Slitor, because the baby lost weight after leaving the Fairfax Hospital as most babies do, helpful emails are received from supporters from all across the country. One received 14 December 2011 cited Beltran v. Santa Clara (2008) that obliterates unjust Immunity for public servants.
PLAINTIFFS MEMORANDUM AGAINST IMMUNITY - BELTRAN v. SANTA CLARA

p. 1

2. From Beltran is derived a Court ruling that applies to so-called Guardian Ad Litem Karen Grane, assistant Arlington County attorney Jason McCandless, Social workers Tammee Gaymon and Sherri Brothers, at the least if not the whole raft of named defendants who have fabricated evidence: A prosecutor doesnt have absolute immunity if he fabricates evidence during a preliminary investigation, before he could properly claim to be acting as an advocate, see Buckley v. Fitzsimmons, 509 U.S. 259, 275 (1993), or makes false statements in a sworn BELTRAN v. SANTA CLARA 1205 affidavit in support of an application for an arrest warrant, see Kalina v. Fletcher, 522 U.S. 118, 129-30 (1997). Furthermore, as prosecutors and others investigating criminal matters have no absolute immunity for their investigatory conduct, a fortiori, social workers conducting investigations have no such immunity. See id. at 126. 3. In the gross injustice case of S.S., Arlington CPS social worker Dana Zemke in an Ex Parte hearing (that my any sense of justice should be Void Ab Initio) FALSELY CLAIMED that first time mother Nancy Hey Slitor was committing Child Abuse by starving her daughter, S.S., because the child lost weight after leaving Fairfax Hospital, TOTALLY CONCEALING from Judge Wiggins that the baby S.S. weight loss was WITHIN NORMS, TOTALLY CONCEALING the actions Nancy took - UNDER THE DIRECTION OF HER BABY DOCTORS - to help S.S. regain all the lost weight, and TOTALLY CONCEALING the FACTS that S.S. regained all the lost weight, that S.S. gained MORE WEIGHT at HOME in 4 days than S.S. gained under Arlington Hospital care in 5 days. 4. And yet, once the Arlington Child Snatching System was exposed for its FRAUD, like a wild animal caught in a trap, the Arlington Child Snatching System lashed out in its self-preservation instinct against Kit and Nancy Slitor, going into high gear, like gears that grind pork into sausage, bringing one and another, then another and another, ad nauseum, false allegations attacking the parents of S.S. 5. Immunity is far too often claimed by cowards to cover wrongdoing. Rightly, Immunity is ONLY for protection of HONEST public servants. Rightly, ONLY private Citizens in a Jury, or a Special Grand Jury are properly the instruments of investigation into the competing claims of prosecution for wrongdoing

PLAINTIFFS MEMORANDUM AGAINST IMMUNITY - BELTRAN v. SANTA CLARA

p. 2

and the protection of public servants who claim to be doing proper actions, not Judges who as paid public servants, would be pre-disposed to render a judgment in favor of a fellow public servant. 6. Due to severe time limitations this morning of 16 December, needing to be at Federal Court within an hour, no further discussion will now be presented. The text of Beltran will be provided below:
FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

LORI BELTRAN; ROBERT BELTRAN; COBY BELTRAN, by and through his Guardian Ad Litem Lori Beltran, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. SANTA CLARA COUNTY; MELISSA SUAREZ, individually and as an employee of the County of Santa Clara; JENNIFER HUBBS, individually and as an employee of the County of Santa Clara; EMILY TJHIN, individually and as an employee of the County of Santa Clara, Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Ronald M. Whyte, District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted December 12, 2007Pasadena, California Filed January 24, 2008 Before: Alex Kozinski, Chief Judge, Stephen Reinhardt, Andrew J. Kleinfeld, Michael Daly Hawkins, Kim McLane Wardlaw, William A. Fletcher, Ronald M. Gould, Richard A. Paez, Marsha S. Berzon, Richard R. Clifton and Sandra S. Ikuta, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam Opinion 1201 No. 05-16976








D.C. No. CV-03-03767-RMW OPINION BELTRAN v. SANTA CLARA
1203 COUNSEL Robert R. Powell and Dennis R. Ingols, The Law Ofces of Robert R. Powell, San Jose, California, for the plaintiffs- appellants. Melissa R. Kiniyalocts, Deputy County Counsel, and Ann Miller-Ravel, County Counsel, Santa Clara County, San Jose, California, for the defendants-appellees. OPINION PER CURIAM: 1. Melissa Suarez, a social worker for Santa Clara Countys child protective services, investigated whether Lori Beltran was abusing her son, Coby. After this investigation, Suarezs supervisor Emily Tjhin led a child dependency petition, which Tjhin signed under penalty of perjury. This petition included a three-page statement of facts describing the ndings of Suarezs investigation. Suarez also led a separate custody petition, which she signed under penalty of perjury. The custody petition attached and incorporated by reference the three-page statement of facts from the dependency petition.

PLAINTIFFS MEMORANDUM AGAINST IMMUNITY - BELTRAN v. SANTA CLARA

p. 3

1204
BELTRAN v. SANTA CLARA

The dependency petition was denied, Coby was returned to his parents, and the Beltrans sued Suarez and Tjhin under 42 U.S.C. 1983, charging constitutional violations in removing Coby from the Beltrans custody and attempting to place him under the supervision of the state. Specically, the Beltrans claimed that Suarez and Tjhin fabricated much of the infor- mation in the three-page statement of facts. Relying on Doe v. Lebbos, 348 F.3d 820, 825-26 (9th Cir. 2003), the district court held that Suarez and Tjhin had absolute immunity for their actions connected to signing and ling the dependency and custody petitionsincluding the alleged fabrication of evidence and false statements. It therefore dismissed plain- tiffs claims that were based on the allegedly false petition statements. The district court eventually granted summary judgment to the defendants on the remainder of plaintiffs claims, but those issues are not before us, as plaintiffs appeal only the dismissal of claims based on absolute immunity. [1] 2. Parties to section 1983 suits are generally entitled only to immunities that existed at common law. Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 417-18 (1976). We have therefore granted state actors absolute immunity only for those func- tions that were critical to the judicial process itself, such as initiating a prosecution. Miller v. Gammie, 335 F.3d 889, 896 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (quoting Imbler, 424 U.S. at 431). It follows that social workers have absolute immunity when they make discretionary, quasi-prosecutorial decisions to institute court dependency proceedings to take custody away from parents. Id. at 898. But they are not entitled to absolute immunity from claims that they fabricated evidence during an investigation or made false statements in a depen- dency petition afdavit that they signed under penalty of per- jury, because such actions arent similar to discretionary decisions about whether to prosecute. A prosecutor doesnt have absolute immunity if he fabricates evidence during a preliminary investigation, before he could properly claim to be acting as an advocate, see Buckley v. Fitzsimmons, 509 U.S. 259, 275 (1993), or makes false statements in a sworn BELTRAN v. SANTA CLARA
1205 afdavit in support of an application for an arrest warrant, see Kalina v. Fletcher, 522 U.S. 118, 129-30 (1997). Further- more, as prosecutors and others investigating criminal matters have no absolute immunity for their investigatory conduct, a fortiori, social workers conducting investigations have no such immunity. See id. at 126. [2] The district courts error is perfectly understandable, as it relied on our incorrect ruling in Doe v. Lebbos, which we overrule today. We reverse the district courts ruling that defendants are entitled to absolute immunity and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. REVERSED AND REMANDED. DATED: 16 December anno domini 2011 Respectfully submitted by: __________________________ James Renwick Manship, Sr. Next Friend, Lead Plaintiff, Pro Se, and In Forma Pauperis Amos 5:15 Project: Hate evil and love the good. Remodel your Courts into True Halls of Justice. God and Country Foundation, Box 76, Mount Vernon, Virginia 22121-0076, Phone: 703-672-1776 Facsimile: 703-638-1146

PLAINTIFFS MEMORANDUM AGAINST IMMUNITY - BELTRAN v. SANTA CLARA

p. 4

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on the 16th day of December 2011, I will file the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court, asking the Clerk to use the CM/ECF system to notify the Arlington County government attorney to notify other employee defendants, and certify I will send electronically to the various adult co-plaintiffs. Ara L. Tramblian, Deputy County Attorney Arlington County Attorneys Office 2100 Clarendon Boulevard, Suite 403 Arlington, Virginia 22201 703-228-3100 (voice) 703-228-7106 (fax) also to assistant Attorney General, attorney for the Commonwealth of Virginia employees: Farnaz Farkish Assistant Attorney General 900 East Main Street Richmond, Virginia 23219 and also to Arlington juvenile judge appointed Guardian Ad Litem attorney Karen Grane, who properly should NOT be the beneficiary of representation by the Assistant Attorney General: Karen Marie Grane 2007 North 15th Street, Suite 1 Arlington, Virginia 22201 NOTE: For Granes basement office shared with other favored Arlington JDR Court appointed Guardian Ad Litem attorneys Mina Ketchie and Isabel Kaldenbach,

__________________________________ James Renwick Manship, Sr., Next Friend, Pro Se, In Forma Pauperis Amos 5:15 Project, God and Country Foundation, Box 76, Mount Vernon, Virginia 22121 703-NRA-1776

PLAINTIFFS MEMORANDUM AGAINST IMMUNITY - BELTRAN v. SANTA CLARA

p. 5