Texas Police Brutality

Part 7


13. In conjunction with the filing of their lawsuit, Defendants Brockman, Cotter and East obtained a legally invalid and unconstitutional court order. (See Exhibit "1" attached hereto.) They were able to obtain Exhibit "1" because Exhibit "1" was presented to a corrupt judge who routinely violates the Texas Family Code and the United States Constitution. Even if some basis existed for Defendants Cotter, Brockman and East to believe that Matthew Bennett was improperly cared for, it was not reasonable or prudent for them to request immediate removal of the Plaintiff Matthew Bennett from the care of Brenda Bennett, nor was it reasonable or necessary for them to insist that Matthew Bennett be arrested and/or incarcerated, and then examined by a physician who was unfamiliar with his medical history. The most reasonable and prudent action would have been for them to obtain Matthew Bennett's medical records from Children Medical Hospital and/or request one or more of the physicians at Children's Medical Hospital that were knowledgeable of Matthew Bennett's medical condition to explain his medical problems to them. At no time did any Defendant have either probable cause to believe or any personal knowledge that Matthew Bennett was in any sort of immediate or imminent danger or that the care provided by Brenda Bennett to Matthew Bennett threatened Matthew Bennett's health or safety.

14. Brockman, Cotter and East knew that they had not complied with Texas Family Code Art. 261.101 and they knew that they had no probable cause to act and that they had not presented the issuing magistrate with any factual basis justifying the issuance of Exhibit "1". Brockman, Cotter and East presented Exhibit "1" to Defendants Thomason and Vegas on March 26, 1997. Brockman, Cotter and/or East falsely represented that Exhibit "1" authorized Thomason, Vegas, Brockman, Cotter and/or East to forcibly enter the Plaintiff's home and seize and remove Plaintiff Matthew Bennett from his home and forcibly take him to a physician of their choosing to be examined. (This decision was dangerous and life threatening to Matthew Bennett because a routine medical examination without a thorough review and knowledge of the Plaintiff's medical condition contained in the records from Children's Medical Hospital in Dallas would very likely cause a physician conducting a routine medical examination of Matthew Bennett to reach dangerously false and incorrect medical decisions regarding Matthew Bennett.) Exhibit "1" could not be used as a lawful basis to enter the Plaintiff's home because the Plaintiff's home is not described anywhere in Exhibit "1" and the Fourth Amendment requires a particularized description of the place to be searched.

15. On March 26, 1997 all of the Defendants jointly conducted an illegal and unconstitutional forced entry into the Plaintiff's home. This occurred without announcing either purpose or authority by any of the Defendants. The Defendants then, under threat of force of arms, illegally seized and removed Matthew Bennett from his home. All of these acts violated the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. No valid warrant or valid court order existed that authorized any of the aforementioned acts. Shortly after their seizure, the Defendants returned Matthew Bennett to the Plaintiff's home.

16. On or about March 27, 1997 Defendants Brockman and Vegas returned to the Plaintiff's home and without court order authorizing either a search or an arrest, invaded the Plaintiff's home for a second time and seized Matthew Bennett and then caused Matthew Bennett to be incarcerated in a mental hospital in Greenville, Texas. Plaintiff Brenda Bennett attempted to show all of the Defendants copies of Matthew Bennett's medical records. These records demonstrated that he was a physically sick child that was being properly cared for by his mother. These Defendants refused to examine these medical records. Defendants Brockman, Cotter and East did not inform the mental hospital in Greenville, Texas of Matthew Bennett's medical history and medical problems. Because of this failure, Matthew Bennett was denied the correct, necessary and proper medical care and treatment and his life was needlessly placed in jeopardy as a direct result of their reckless and/or intentional conduct. As a result of the Defendants' acts, Plaintiff Matthew Bennett was removed from all necessary medications. This caused Matthew Bennett to suffer needless pain and suffering and needlessly placed in him jeopardy.


TRUE DEMOCRACY     SPRING 2001     Copyright © 2001 by News Sourse, Inc.