After watching the movie, "Against her Will: an incident in Baltimore", with Walter Matthau and Henry Morgan, 1991, I was struck by this obscure reference to King Henry II, Plantagenet, and Archbishop of Canterbury Thomas Becket on the topic of "Sovereign Immunity". The verdict of the movie? States have no immunity for damages inflicted upon anyone under their care.
I don't know whether I should state the obvious to me...
My interest in this obscure reference is not because I love the law inside the courtroom. Far from it. My interest stems from my awareness of who Charlie Lutes and myself were way back when dinosaurs were not yet a faint memory. To wit, Thomas Becket and Henry II were myself and Charlie. My mother, now, was Henry's wife, then: Eleanor of Aquitaine.
Sovereign Immunity is like saying that the parent has no liability for any damages which may occur to their children, especially in their parent's absence, since this begs the question: "How is it possible that they became separated in the first place?"
This begs the next question...
Does any State, or County, have immunity for damages brought to bear upon children under their foster care? Especially, under the fraudulent pretext of profiting from a foster child's avoidance of adoption by its foster parents by replacing adoption with a second birth record secured in another state effectively securing sovereign immunity for this fraud by implicitly denying Kyle was ever born of myself and his natural mother Sam? Once Kyle's second birth record reaches the age of majority (same as here, 18 years), my existence as his natural father will have become legally terminated. I never existed.
Meanwhile, the Los Angeles Children's court system of money making -- spearheaded by none other than the savvy Ed Edelman, goes on making oogles of dollars off of every child under its care whose father is unknown. All because the State Department of Vital Records in Sacramento made a big stew over how they wanted me to fill out Kyle's birth record, I am not listed on there as his natural father. And all because I had no legal counsel, nor strength of wit, upon exiting the hospital a few days after Kyle was born.
In the absence of legal facts, it is easy for someone else to claim to be the natural father of my son without my consent since I already lost custody. How mute!
It's no coincidence that numerous commissioners retired immediately upon the conclusion of our case involving our son: Kyle Feinberg, in Los Angeles' Children's Court. One of those commissioners, a Stanley Genser, presided over our case. He moved out of the Fairfax area into the more upscale Pacific Palisades upon his retirement.
It's also of no coincidence, nor of any trivial concern, that the county of Los Angeles Social Services began charging Sam and I, Kyle's natural parents, for child support the instant we both lost legal custody of Kyle. Sounds a little backwards, no?
Where is there sovereign immunity for fraud practiced upon bondable instruments, namely secondary birth certificates? Bondability is an asset considered inherently within the rights of a State's Birth Records Office due to the record being the property of that State. Master's and PhD Thesis papers are also bondable instruments. So are traffic tickets and bills enacted in Legislatures. Just about everything penned by a governmental body is bondable including state affiliated universities.
The damage upon my son that I bring into question is not merely emotional, nor is it merely psychological. It is one of a conflict of identity. Who is he? Is he a Kyle Anthony Connolly? Or, is he a Kyle Oliver Feinberg? Keeping Kyle ignorant of his source is no immunity to this conflicting identity. Nor does a legal fiction, come to its fruition in twelve more years, rewrite Kyle's DNA signature of who his natural parents really are.
The only reason why this second birth record, in another town, in another state, on a date of birth over six months after Kyle's actual birth, has any legitimacy is because it has never been judicially tested. So, the idea of sovereign immunity is implied -here-, but is not explicitly valid.