conclude that the Defendant's politically-biased rejection was "so outrageous in character, and so extreme in degree, as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency, and to be regarded as atrocious, and utterly intolerable in a civilized community." Id. For these reasons, Mr. Raven's Motion to Amend must be denied as futile.” Raven v. Sajet, 334 F. Supp. 3d 22, 36 (D.D.C. 2018) The District Court contradicts itself by condemning federal fiduciary ‘alleged’ actions as “odious” ibid. and then excusing Respondents’ actions as less than “odious” ibid.? What nonsense! It is for a jury to decide how “odious” ibid., since the Court declares the actions were “odious” ibid.! Webster’s even uses ‘EVIL’ as a synonym for Respondents’ actions and so now ‘evil’ Respondents’ actions as fiduciaries are now “tolerable in a civilized society?” This is insanity!
BIVENS & UNQUALIFIED IMMUNITY
The Panel erred by conferring “qualified Immunity” on Respondents when “The principles of qualified immunity shield an officer from personal liability when an officer reasonably believes that his or her conduct complies with the law. ”(Bold
12 “b. A fiduciary who commits a breach of his duty as a fiduciary is guilty of tortious conduct to the person for whom he should act.” (also a+c) § 874 Violation of Fiduciary Duty, Chapter 43, Restatement of the Law of Torts 13 § 19–1308.01., § 19–1308.02., § 19–1308.03., § 19–1308.04., § 19–1308.10, UNIFORM TRUST CODE, DOC 14 “it is for the jury to determine whether, in the particular case, the conduct has been sufficiently extreme and outrageous to result in liability.(bold added.)” Harris v. Jones, 281 Md. 560, 569 (Md. 1977) 13