14 Feb 2012
HOME
Pharma/CDC on Brain damage from vaccines, Fauci, Phages, Bioweapons manufacture
HHS.gov is Incompetent; BMJ calls fraud "crime.")
Official: CFIDS and MS-Lyme are the
same disease; Epstein-Barr
ELISA = arbitrary cutoff.
Disclaimer
1998, CIA Oilmen & Israelis plan to overthrow Saddam for the oil.
Bush/Gore Oil/War-(Oct,2000)
Bush's own explainer (Oct
2000):
Iraq Oil
Iraq was an oil-theft war.
Another case of DCF filing false criminal charges to avoid liability in the Administrative Review requested, and the corrupt federal court decision:
| Case: Carroll v. Ragaglia, et al |   Printer-friendly
version |
___ F. Supp. 2d ___ , 2003
U.S. Dist LEXIS 20902 (D. Conn. 2003)
Abuse and Neglect, Civil Rights :
US Districut Court, Connecticut
November 10, 2003
A plaintiff's multitude of claims against the Department of Children and Families' former commissioner, and a number of its employees, fell by the wayside recently when a federal district court granted summary judgment on all the claims against all defendants, thereby dismissing the case in total. In Carroll v. Ragaglia, et. al., a former DCF licensed foster parent brought a multi-count complaint against former DCF commissioner Kristine Ragaglia, a DCF social worker, a former DCF social worker, and a DCF investigator, seeking monetary damages and injunctive relief stemming from allegations of child abuse brought against the plaintiff while caring for a special needs child with behavioral problems.
The allegations that gave rise to the plaintiff's complaint stemmed from incidents that occurred on our about October 2000. In July 1998, the plaintiff and his wife agreed to care for a special needs child with serious behavioral issues, including a diagnosis of reactive attachment disorder ("RAD").
The record indicates that the plaintiff brought several complaints to DCF, including calling and writing the commissioner, about DCF's lack of support and training in dealing with an RAD child. In October 2000, the child's school social worker reported that she and a school nurse observed marks on the boy's neck and arms, and DCF launched an investigation into allegations of physical abuse by the plaintiff. Allegations included incidents of grabbing the child by the neck and dragging him into the bedroom, choking, pulling on his shirt, putting his hands over the child's mouth to stop him from yelling, bruising, etc.
Further reports by various individuals alleged additional incidents of abuse, and subsequently DCF substantiated the abuse reports, notified the plaintiff that abuse reports had substantiated him as an abuser, and the state filed criminal charges against the plaintiff for assault in the third degree and risk of injury to a minor.
Plaintiff's attorney requested an administrative hearing to challenge the "abuser" determination, which commenced in January 2001 – but was later stayed pending the disposition of the criminal proceeding. In September 2001, the criminal charges were dismissed. Plaintiff subsequently filed this action in federal district court.
Plaintiff's complaint consisted of five counts – all of which dismissed pursuant to the defendants' motion for summary judgment.
Count One alleged the defendants intentionally inflicted emotional distress through "wanton, reckless and malicious conduct …"
Count Two alleged that defendants' actions constituted abuse of process and vexatious litigation.
Count Three alleged that the defendants' actions violated plaintiff’s rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Count Four alleged that the defendants' actions violated state constitutional provisions (for the same reason as count Three), and
Count Five alleged that the defendants defamed the plaintiff.
In thoroughly crafted decision that eviscerates any sense that the plaintiff's claims were based on sound judgment and meritorious facts, the court addressed each count – granting summary judgment for a plethora or reasons relating to the § 1983 count, including qualified immunity, lack of foundational support for a 14th amendment based claim, and failure to provide evidence that the state failed to provide procedural and substantive due process.
In addition, the monetary claims failed in that the 11th amendment's sovereign immunity doctrine barred recovery when focusing on the plaintiff's official capacity. The state constitutional claims failed because the plaintiff's claim that the state constitution afforded greater substantive due process than the federal constitution was devoid of support in this case.
The tort action for intentional infliction of emotional distress was not "extreme and outrageous," thus failing to reach the bar necessary to survive summary judgment.
The court dismissed the abuse of process and vexatious litigation claims summarily, citing lack of merit, while the defamation claim failed because there was neither a publication or "specific evidence to support [the] claim."
Finally, the court denied the request for an injunction because the plaintiff never sought to reinstate the administrative hearing to expunge all DCF records regarding the October 2001 incident to "clear his name." Plaintiff was aware of the administrative and court remedies available to him, but failed exercise those remedies.
The case may be accessed by
utilizing electronic research services
(such as LEXIS or Westlaw), or by going
to the District of Connecticut’s web
site at
http://www.ctd.uscourts.gov/Opinions/111003.PCD.Carroll.pdf
(JES 11/03)