Kathianne
01-11-2017, 05:09 PM
This maybe the end of 'Everything.' I'm still shaking my head. I'd like to think 'only in CA", but it's government employees, so unlikely.
http://www.ocweekly.com/news/judges-reject-orange-countys-claim-that-social-workers-didnt-know-lying-in-court-was-wrong-7774616
Judges Reject Orange County's Claim That Social Workers Didn't Know Lying In Court Was Wrong
FRIDAY, JANUARY 6, 2017 AT 10:30 A.M.
Using taxpayer funds, government officials in Orange County have spent the last 16 years arguing the most absurd legal proposition in the entire nation: How could social workers have known it was wrong to lie, falsify records and hide exculpatory evidence in 2000 so that a judge would forcibly take two young daughters from their mother for six-and-a-half years?
...
But to grasp the ridiculousness of the government's stance, read key, Oct. 7, 2016 exchanges between the panel and Pancy Lin, a partner at Lynberg & Watkins.
Trott: How in the world could a person in the shoes of your clients possibly believe that it was appropriate to use perjury and false evidence in order to impair somebody's liberty interest in the care, custody and control of that person's children? How could they possibly not be on notice that you can't do this?
Lin: I understand.
Trott: How could that possibly be?
Lin: I understand the argument that it seems to be common sense in our ethical, moral . . .
Trott: It's more than common sense. It's statutes that prohibit perjury and submission of false evidence in court cases.
Lin: State statutes.
...
http://www.ocweekly.com/news/judges-reject-orange-countys-claim-that-social-workers-didnt-know-lying-in-court-was-wrong-7774616
Judges Reject Orange County's Claim That Social Workers Didn't Know Lying In Court Was Wrong
FRIDAY, JANUARY 6, 2017 AT 10:30 A.M.
Using taxpayer funds, government officials in Orange County have spent the last 16 years arguing the most absurd legal proposition in the entire nation: How could social workers have known it was wrong to lie, falsify records and hide exculpatory evidence in 2000 so that a judge would forcibly take two young daughters from their mother for six-and-a-half years?
...
But to grasp the ridiculousness of the government's stance, read key, Oct. 7, 2016 exchanges between the panel and Pancy Lin, a partner at Lynberg & Watkins.
Trott: How in the world could a person in the shoes of your clients possibly believe that it was appropriate to use perjury and false evidence in order to impair somebody's liberty interest in the care, custody and control of that person's children? How could they possibly not be on notice that you can't do this?
Lin: I understand.
Trott: How could that possibly be?
Lin: I understand the argument that it seems to be common sense in our ethical, moral . . .
Trott: It's more than common sense. It's statutes that prohibit perjury and submission of false evidence in court cases.
Lin: State statutes.
...