Monday, April 22, 2024
26.0°F

Judgment excuses victim-witness advocate Ramos from case

by Ryan Murray
| September 13, 2013 2:33 PM

Another defendant in former Libby resident Rob Hubbard’s conspiracy case has been granted summary judgment by U.S. Magistrate Jeremiah C. Lynch in Missoula.

Carol Ramos, victim-witness advocate, was granted her judgment under the Montana Annotated Code section 2-9-305.

This passage of the code exempts Montana public employees from being “civilly sued for their actions taken within the course and scope of their employment.”

In August, Lynch granted two judgments for Libby Justice of the Peace Jay Sheffield and Deputy County Attorney Joe Cik.

Similar to the reasons Cik and Sheffield were granted summary judgment through prosecutorial and judicial immunity, Ramos was granted protection for performing her job.

Hubbard is suing several Lincoln County employees for what he believes is misconduct and even criminal conspiracy against him following a series of incidents with the law in 2010 and 2011.

The culminating incident was a partner-family member assault at Hubbard’s rental home along the Kootenai River outside of Libby.

Ramos’ role in the suit is due to her involvement in removing Hubbard’s two oldest children, Christian and Shayna, from the Hubbard home.

“In an action against a governmental entity, the employee whose conduct gave rise to the suit is immune from liability...if the governmental entity acknowledges or is bound by a judicial determination that the conduct upon which the claim is brought arises out of the course and scope of the employee’s employment,” the code reads.

It helped Ramos that Hubbard’s evidence was mostly nonexistent.

“The Court first notes that the claims Hubbard asserts against Ramos in his Amended Complaint are vague,” Lynch’s ruling reads. “But Hubbard’s specific allegations describing acts or omissions committed by Ramos are very limited.”

“In his brief in response to Ramos’ summary judgment motion, Hubbard similarly presents very limited information and arguments suggesting Ramos is liable. He asserts generally that Ramos is liable and that she should stand trial to defend her actions.”

In Lynch’s judgment, Ramos responded to what she believed Hubbard’s claims against her were regarding.

“She believes Hubbard claims she provided financial and material benefits to Christian in an attempt to bribe Christian and Shayna to testify falsely against Hubbard with respect to the family member assault prosecution against Hubbard,” Lynch’s judgment reads. “She explains that, as is customary in the course of her role as an advocate, various material and financial resources were made available to Christian and Shayna including cell phones, gifts and lunch meetings.”

Christian Hubbard, a minor at the time of the incident, testifies in his affidavit to this effect. No proof that he was bribed by Ramos or Cik has been brought forward.