Attorney Says Injunction Impossible, Not True?

A lawyer I talked to said it was impossible for a federal court to put an injunction on a state case.

I asked, because injunction is used to stop a process that will cause irreparable damage or harm to a person.

Losing my son, and the termination of my parental rights, would be an irreparable harm.

It is also true that the state violated so many laws and rules, it was the ONLY way they were able to take my son, and win any of the hearings. They won every hearing totally illegally.

To comply with their "services" is a further attempt to cause prejudice to my name and reputation and would potentially affect my future. They want someone to confirm what they claim is true, either that I'm "drug seeking" or that I'm mentally ill, or both. I'm neither, and the people they appoint to do evaluations are paid by the state and have an interest in making the state happy.

I have had several medical issues during this time I have been told I'm "pro se" and it has prevented me from making timely objections or appeals, and I never even had any of the documentation necessary for filing for appeal.

So this lawyer tells me filing for violations of due process and my rights is somnething I can do, but he says I cannot ask for an injunction against the state case, which is moving along, unaccountable, because of their vast violations.

If I want to protect my right to privacy and know I do not need these "services", and know they were "WON" illegally, I should not be forced to comply with them.

I have no doubt that I could win a case against the state and state workers, for what they've done. I am positive I can win a federal case against them. I have neough evidence.

But what seems strange to me, is that if one is filing for violations of law, violations of due process, why WOULDN'T the federal court put an injunction on the state process?

I did this once, if I recall, in Oregon. I filed for injunction in federal court, against a state case or persons. As a result, everything came to a halt. Eventually, it was pushed forward, the state case, but from my research then, I was able to file injunction and it was honored until the judge had a look at it. Then, I lost for whatever reason.

But in this situation, it seems entirely appropriate that the federal court would allow injunction against the state case, with the knowledge that I could lose my son, a very important thing.

This lawyer I spoke with in California, said no, I couldn't do this. He took a 4.9 million dollar case against the state on behalf of a woman with similiar facts and evidence the state had violated her rights.

It would seem absolutely unjust that the federal court could not intervene. Typically, other judges will not take action or get involved in state matters, but sometimes, they do. Sometimes it is necessary, for example, in the child sex abuse cases, to get a federal right or law opinionn or memorandum, from federal court, before going forward in state court. Often, a lawyer or party will file something in federal court, asking a legal question. The federal judge will decided and then hand the matter back down to the state court.

Also, I know the federal court WILL sometimes put an injunction on state matters, because I did it myself, in Oregon. I filed for injunction, and I got injunction.

The federal courts can and DO put injunctions on state matters. The real question is, can they do this in a dependency hearing?

I would think it makes sense that they could.

If a state court is obviously violating a series of laws and rules of civil procedure, and trampling someone's federa rights in order to cause harm, take a child, or violate someone's right to privacy, I would think the federal courts woiuld be interested in this.

If it's not been done before, perhaps I could set a precedent.

What Judge or jury would NOT think this is sensible and the ONLY just recourse? One must have recourse, and if the violations are severe enough to cause irreparable harm, it seems to me this is cause enough for injunction. I would say it is a grave and serious miscarriage of justice to do otherwise, or think otherwise.

Federal judges know a thing or two.

I may have to go to Washington state to do this, but there is a civil rights law firm in D.C. which said they'd like to see some of my evidence, of my multiple requests for discovery and copy of my case file. And while Forrest oddly defends my being hung up on in a hearing and not having any notice to be pro se, which deprives me of being able to represent myself, other lawyers over here say it's totally strange and they don't believe me at first. When I tell them it's true they can't believe what they're hearing. And that's on the record and was recorded and there were plenty of witnesses to it as well.