Memorandum Opposing Demurrer
Attorneys will not have anything to do with this case. As soon as the many I have approached heard that hypnosis was involved and missing insanity actions they ran as if they were acting for a reason they did not know. Although this case is not directly about the missing court case files it is about the failure of the mental health technician, the county, to inspect arrest and booking records that would confirm the missing court case files and my claims to the mental health department that I had been hypnotically, without my awareness, influenced.
Had the County and the courts fulfilled lawful duty earlier this case would have never been filed. Consider; the use of public money for legal defense of a public entity accused of negligence, violating laws to conceal from the courts or public, facts substantiating neglect of duty, essential to a citizens legal case and now medical case. Information that is public by law! Contempt of justice, law and civic decency in a collusive abuse of power.
PAGE 2 (CT 24)
3. Defendants attorney attempts to use immunity from liability for injuries resulting from cracked sidewalks and other liabilities on municipal property or from the actions of employees, generally (Demurrer 8:13-15).
Government Code 815, "Liability for injuries generally; Immunity of public entity; defenses. "Except as otherwise provided by statute."
Government Code 854.8 (d), "Nothing in this section exonerates a public employee from liability caused by his negligent act or omission......may but is not required........except that the public entity shall pay,.........any judgment based on a claim against a public employee who lawfully engaged in the practice of one of the healing arts under any law of this state for malpractice arising from an act or omission in the scope of his employment and shall pay any compromise or settlement of a claim or action,".
4. Plaintiffs complaint concerns negligence, omission and malpractice in the specific performance of the duties of the psychiatric physician "one of the healing arts" as defined with particularity in regard to statutory liability and case law cited. The County of Santa Barbara is liable for specific negligence as defined by statute.
PLAINTIFFS REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE; IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT, COUNTY'S MOTION TO STRIKE PLAINTIFFS COMPLAINT; TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE THOMAS R. ADAMS OF THE ABOVE ENTITLED COURT.
4. Christopher A. Brown, the plaintiff in this legal action, under the provisions of Evidence Code 452 (h) [note 83] and 453, requests that the court take judicial notice of the attached, filed claim form, EXHIBIT C and EXHIBIT D, establishing plaintiffs complaint within the statute of limitations Government Code Section 910.2.
PAGE 3 (CT 25)
5. EXHIBIT C is a copy of the signed, stamped, March 23, 1998 claim form complying fully with Government Code 910.2. A letter from S.B. co. risk management manager, Charles Mitchell of April 14, 1998 is attached as EXHIBIT D.
Defendants attorney has not produced "sufficient information" for judicial notice and California Evidence codes 452, 453 and Code of Civil procedure 430.70 do not apply.
PLAINTIFFS OPPOSITION TO COUNTY'S DEMURRER
6. On January 20 1998, the Santa Barbara County mental health department failed to provide sufficiently (Demurrer 3:17-18) the psychiatric physicians fundamental equipment and facility, information concerning human behavior. A violation of the intent of Government Code 855 (typo, Complaint 3: 21-22).
Government Code 855 (a), "A public entity that operates or maintains any medical facility that is subject to regulation by the State Department of Health Services is liable for injury proximately caused by the failure of the public entity to provide adequate or sufficient personnel, or facilities, unless the public entity establishes...........".
7. The Defendant, County of Santa Barbara, cannot establish "that it exercised reasonable diligence to comply with the applicable statute".
8. Plaintiff cites Welfare and Institutions code 7325.5 (Complaint 3: 22-23) (Demurrer 3:24-25) particularly to demonstrate the competent physicians statutory directive to use available information to protect the patient and the public.
PAGE 3 (CT 26)
9. On four occasions Santa Barbara County Health employees ignored the intent of Government Code 53069.5 when Plaintiff informed them of deaths caused in the same way as Plaintiffs condition.
10. Plaintiffs complaint (Demurrer 4:1-4) does indicate another ground of liability. Plaintiff requests permission to amend his complaint.
11. (Demurrer 4:19-20) Plaintiffs citation of Civil Code 3333.1 does establish liability of negligent, government health care provider.
12. (Demurrer 4:27-28) Plaintiff intends to name and sue public employees in his amended complaint.
13. Attorney for defendant, (Demurrer 5:12&17), fails to apply the relationship of the particularity of cited cases that the Plaintiff uses in pleading. Plaintiffs complaint contains considerable specificity applicable to medical or psychiatric malpractice and negligence. Plaintiffs citations of legal cases and statutes (Demurrer 5:19-20) are valid in the establishment of liability as related and referred to in his Complaint.
14. Attorney for Defendant assumes Plaintiff required or requested diagnosis for mental illness or addiction. Plaintiff requested specific treatment for a condition known to him and County mental health refused to inform themselves, an action the Defendant was fully capable of, for the purposes of correctly identifying the Plaintiffs condition.
15. Defendants Demurrer, 6:8-28 through 7:14, is in error. Plaintiffs tort claim is valid and attached as EXHIBIT C is a copy of the signed, stamped, March 23, 1998 claim form complying fully with Government Code 910.2. A letter from S.B. co. risk management manager, Charles Mitchell of April 14, 1998 is attached as EXHIBIT D. Defendants attorney has not produced "sufficient information" for Judicial notice and California Evidence codes 452, 453 and California Civil code of procedure 430.70 do not apply.
16. Plaintiff will incorporate "Doe" defendants in the amended complaint for compliance with California Civil code of Procedure 474.
17. Plaintiff has proven that his claim is timely, complying fully with Government Code section 910.2 Plaintiff respectfully requests that Defendants demurrer and motion to strike Plaintiffs complaint be denied and if the demurrer is granted a 30 day leave to amend the complaint be allowed.
Respectfully submitted
Christopher A. Brown,
in PRO PER
DECLARATION OF CHRISTOPHER A. BROWN
Christopher A. Brown, the plaintiff in this pro per legal action filed in Santa Barbara County Superior Court attaches hereto the following EXHIBITS.
1. EXHIBIT C; A true and correct copy of the claim form filed with the Supervisors Clerk of the Board, March 23, 1998.
2. EXHIBIT D; A true and correct copy of a letter sent by S.B. co. risk Manager Charles A. Mitchell to Plaintiff.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and executed on December..........1998 at Santa Barbara California.
Christopher A. Brown,