The information contained within this blog is for informational purposes only.And not intended to be used as legal advice. To obtain legal advice please contact an attorney.
In some Child Dependency cases there are fraudulent claims made to the courts by Social workers to remove children from homes.Upon researching this I have found that most County Prosecutors refuse to follow up with criminal charges. Even when supplied with evidence supporting the criminal act.
To pursue criminal charges you should first make an appointment with your local prosecutor and provide them with your information.If you have evidence that a crime has been committed and they refuse to file charges, Try discussing the following case laws.
RCW 36.27.020 Duties
The prosecuting shall:
(6) Institute and prosecute proceedings before magistrates for the arrest of persons charged with or reasonably suspected of felonies when the prosecuting attorney has information that any such offence has been committed and the prosecuting attorney shall for that purpose attend when required by them if the prosecuting attorney is not then in attendance upon the superior court.
RCW 36.27.020 defines mandatory duties of the county prosecutor and is supported by the following Shepardized case that has not been over turned;
Faunce v. Carter, 26 Wn. 2d. 211; 173 P.2d 526 (1986), "With reference to powers and duties imposed by statute on public officers, it is often difficult to determine whether they are mandatory or merely directory. Generally speaking, however, where the provisions effect the public interest or are intended to protect a private citizen against loss or injury to his property, they are held to be mandatory rather than directory."
Romano v. Yakey, 43 Wash. 15; 85 P. 990 (1906) "But we think the better and more responsible rule is established by the decisions of the courts of New York, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, and Iowa, which hold the opposite doctrine, and maintain that when the question is one of public right, and the object of the mandamus to procure the enforcement of a public duty, the relator is not required to show that he has any legal or special interest in the result, it being sufficient if he shows that he is interested, as a citizen, in having the laws executed and the right enforced. (People v. Collins, 19 Wend 56; People v. Halsey,37 N.Y. 344; State ex rel Huston et al v. Commissioners of Perry County, 5 Ohio 498; The County of Pike v. The State, 11 Ill. 202; City of Ottawa v. The People, 48 Id. 233; Hall ex rel v. people, 52 Id. 307; Hamilton v. The State, 3 Ind. 452; State v. County Judge of Marshall County, 7 Iowa 186.)
Section 6695, Bal. Code ( P.C., sec. 3114), permits any person to make complaint that a criminal offence has been committed, and if the magistrate to whom the complaint is made wrongfully refuses to act in the manner, we think the party applying for the warrant has a sufficient interest in the performance of the public duty to compel action by mandamus. This is especially true where it is made to appear that the prosecuting attorney is resisting the application.
Perjury cases are difficult to prove. So don't try to get charges filed purely upon a case of perjury. Unless you have very compelling evidence that show intent to provide false information to the court. What I'm finding is case workers are allowed to slip perjury through court purely on "MISTAKEN" information. Despite the fact the law states "Whether intentional or unintentional" it's perjury to supply misinformation to the court. The courts give loop holes for them to slip through. So document everything. Record everything. Try to do all your communications in writing.
So when you have several claims which are documented you can go to the prosecutor to pursue criminal charges.
No comments:
Post a Comment