In a 2017 9th Circuit, Judge Stephen Trott was scathing in denouncing Social Workers who claimed immunity for their perjury:
No official with an IQ greater than room temperature in Alaska could claim that he or she did not know that the conduct at the center of this case violated both state and federal law.
The opinion goes on to explain:
The social workers in this case are alleged to have knowingly and maliciously violated the law in their attempt to sever Preslie's protected relationship with her mother. Perjury is a crime under both federal and California state law, as is the knowing submission of false evidence to a court.
The Social Workers tried to claim immunity from prosecution, essentially claiming that anything done in the line of work is protected. In a clear step forward for the interest of justice, the Judge held:
Both crimes make no distinction between criminal and civil proceedings. This malicious criminal behavior is hardly conduct for which qualified immunity is either justified or appropriate. The doctrine exists to protect mistaken but reasonable decisions, not purposeful criminal conduct. As the Supreme Court repeated in Sheehan, officials who knowingly violate the law are not entitled to immunity. 135 S. Ct. at 1774 (quoting Ashcroft, 131 S. Ct. at 2085). Hardwick v. Cty. of Orange, 844 F.3d 1112, 1118-19 (9th Cir. 2017)
Part I of "I AM THE STORM", by Mark Andrews.
Commentaires