ptsc <ptsc@my-deja.com> wrote: > On Fri, 29 Sep 2000 11:15:44 -0500, "Kelly Martin" <kmartin@kiva.net> wrote:
>> "Keith Henson" <hkhenson@netcom3.netcom.com> wrote in message
>> news:8r2dve$sm9$2@slb0.atl.mindspring.net...
>>> Unfortunately, the *county* pays, and there is no recourse for me to
>>> recover what I pay to defend myself.
>>Well, there is the malicious prosecution tort, but that is so
>>incredibly hard to win that it's not even worth contemplating.
> In CA at least (if not elsewhere) a malicious prosecution claim against a
> government employee acting within the scope of his duties requires proof
> of actual malice.
Thinking about this point, if some members of the DA's office (speculation mode only here) *were* in a conspiracy with the cult, then since it is a sure thing the cult has actual malice against me (which I could show from hours of taping their agents Richardson and Petty) the members of the DA's office would be contaminated with the cult's malice toward me. Of course, there is also the very hard to explain matter of the unmailed notice to appear . . . . > Needless to say this virtually never happens, as that's a very tough case
> to make.
I agree. But it might be worth the trouble to file a suit just to be able to ask questions that I could not get answered any other way. I don't think there is any other way I could find out why the notice was not mailed. I could be completely off base if normal office practice creates several "Defendant's original" copies. If they did not conspire with the cult in an attempt to try to entrap me into the crime of "failure to appear" I would like to know so as to have a better opinion of Riverside public officials. Keith Henson