Clive Frank Boustred - Liberty For Lifelibertyforlife.com/abuse/2006_09_08 9TH circuit USA...

Uni

ted

Stat

es D

istri

ct C

ourt

For t

he N

orth

ern

Distri

ct o

f Califo

rnia

Plaintiffs, USDC: C05 00996 (JF RS) Trial By JuryClive BoustredPetitioner, In Propria Persona Sui Juris210 Suncrest Dr,Soquel, CA 95073Tel: (831) [email protected]

IN UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

Clive Frank Boustred,

RCB (minor son of Clive Frank Boustred),

WFB (minor son of Clive Frank Boustred),

InfoTelesys, Inc. Nevada,

Get IT Real, Inc. Nevada,

PLAINTIFFS,

v.

County of Santa Cruz, State of

California, et al.

DEFENDANT(S).

CASE # C0500996 (JF RS) Trial By Jury

DECLARATION & OPPOSITION TO

MOTIONS TO DISMISS AND STRIKE;

RESPONSE TO REQUESTS FOR MORE

DEFINITIVE STATEMENTS;

PETITION TO THE GOVERNMENT FOR

A REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES - FIFTH

AMENDMENT TO CIVIL RIGHTS

COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO

42 U.S.C. § 1983

Bivens v. Six Unknown Agents

403 U.S. 388 (1971)

19 U.S.C. § 1961-68

AND PERSUANT TO OTHER

APPLICABLE LAWS AS SO

DETERMINED, WITHOUT PREJUDICE;

DEMAND FOR RIGHT TO DISCOVERY;

DEMAND FOR SUMMARY JUDGEMENT;

DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY.

Under extraordinary duress as a consequence of three and a half years of

malicious prosecution by Defendants against Plaintiffs, Plaintiffs respectfully continue to

CIVIL RIGHTS AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT

of 93

1

12345678

9

10

112

3

4

Uni

ted

Stat

es D

istri

ct C

ourt

For t

he N

orth

ern

Distri

ct o

f Califo

rnia

bring this suit before the UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF

CALIFORNIA for Trial By Jury with good cause.

INDEX

A. INTRODUCTION..........................................................................5B. SUFFICIENCY OF CLAIM..............................................................7

SERVICE IS COMPLETE..................................................................................9NO JUDICIAL POWER IN THIS CASE..............................................................12PRO SE LITIGANTS ENTITLED TO WIDE LATITUDE.......................................13PROOF OF BIASED PERSPECTIVE AGAINST PLAINTIFFS...............................14PROHIBITION OF BIAS..................................................................................17

C. 5th AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT................................................18VENUE.........................................................................................................19PARTIES.......................................................................................................26

PLAINTIFFS..........................................................................................................................26DEFENDANTS..............................................................................................26CASE SYNOPSIS / EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.....................................................33DAMAGES....................................................................................................36

CLAIMS UPON WHICH RELIEF CAN BE GRANTED / CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS VIOLATED........................................................................40

First Claim For ReliefGeneral Claims As Stated In Earlier Filings.................40Second Claim For Relief Violation of U.S. Const. 4th & 14th Amendment [Seizures, searches and warrants, Unlawful Arrest and/or Unlawful Seizure and/or Unlawful Search and/or Excessive Force and/or Assault and/or Assault With A Deadly Weapon and/or Battery and/or Abnormally Dangerous Activities and/or Failure to Protect]...........................................41Third Claim For Relief Violation of U.S. Const. 5th Amendment [Criminal proceedings, deprivation of life, liberty and happiness].............................46Fourth Claim For ReliefViolation of U.S. Const. 6th Amendment [Criminal proceedings; public trial, impartial jury, nature and cause of the accusation]

49Fifth Claim For Relief Violation of U.S. Const. 7th Amendment [Trial by jury, Common law] 51Sixth Claim For Relief Violation of U.S. Const. 8th Amendment Unreasonable bail, excessive fines, cruel & unusual punishment and Wrongful Civil Proceedings..........................................................................53Seventh Claim For Relief Intentional/Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress, Fraud/Deceit 57Eighth Claim For Relief.............................................................................Conspiracy

59Ninth Claim For Relief............................................................Malicious Prosecution

60Tenth Claim For Relief Kidnap, accessory to kidnap, parental alienation, Mental Suffering, Alienation of Affections, Trespass To Chattel..................62Eleventh Claim For Relief...................................................................................Fraud

63Twelfth Claim For Relief................................................................Trespass To Land

65


of 93

1

1

2

3

456789

1011121314

151617181920212223242526272829303132333435363738394041424344454647

2

3

4

Uni

ted

Stat

es D

istri

ct C

ourt

For t

he N

orth

ern

Distri

ct o

f Califo

rnia

Thirteenth Claim For Relief...........................................................Abuse Of Process66

Fourteenth Claim For Relief.........................................Defamation, Libel, Slander67

Fifteenth Claim For Relief Disparagement Of Business Reputation Or Property, Interference With Business Relations, Pure Economic Loss, Intentional Interference With Prospective Economic Advantage,................68Sixteenth Claim For Relief.....Interference With Family And Political Relations

69Seventeenth Claim For Relief..................................................Invasion Of Privacy,

70Eighteenth Claim For Relief.................................................................Racketeering

71Nineteenth Claim For Relief.....................................Negligent Misrepresentation

72Twentieth Claim For Relief.......................................................................Negligence

74Twenty-first Claim For Relief.....................................................................Assumpsit

75Twenty-second Claim For Relief.....................................................Public Nuisance

76Twenty-third Claim For Relief..................................................................Conversion

77Twenty-fourth Claim For Relief...........................................Criminal Conversation

78Twenty-fifth Claim For Relief.............Violation of U.S. Const. Article III Judicial department responsability 79Twenty-sixth Claim For Relief......Violation of U.S. Const. Article IV State and the Federal guarantee against domestic violence......................................81Twenty-seventh Claim For Relief.........Violation of U.S. Const. 1st Amendment [Freedom of speech & petition of grievances]............................................83Twenty-eighth Claim For Relief...........Violation of U.S. Const. 2nd Amendment [Right to bear arms) 85Twenty-ninth Claim For Relief....................................................................Warranty

86D. DECLARATION & OPPOSITION TO MOTIONS TO DISMISS AND STRIKE........................................................................................88

MOTIONS TO DISMISS BECAUSE COMPLAINT IS AMENDED OR TIME BARED ARE BASELESS............................................................................................88THE COMPLAINT BY INFOTELESYS, INC. AND GET IT REAL, INC. IS BROUGHT AGAINST THE STATES ACROSS STATE BORDERS AND MAY BE REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPALS TO THE CORPORATE PERSONS WHO ARE THE ONLY REAL PARTIES OF INTEREST.................................................................................90PLAINTIFFS RCB AND WFB REMAIN IN THE CASE........................................94DEFENDANT’S CLAIM THAT NO FACTS HAVE BEEN PRODUCED IS BASELESS.................................................................................................................... 95DEFENDANTS CLAIM THAT NO RELEVANT LEGAL ANALYSIS HAS BEEN PUT FORWARD IS BASELESS..............................................................................95RESPONSE TO MOTIONS MADE ON BEHALF OF GLENWORTH FINANCIAL....96


of 93

1

123456789

10111213141516171819202122232425262728293031323334353637383940414243444546474849

2

3

4

Uni

ted

Stat

es D

istri

ct C

ourt

For t

he N

orth

ern

Distri

ct o

f Califo

rnia

RESPONSE TO MOTIONS MADE ON BEHALF OF SAMUEL S. STEVENS WHO HAS BEEN MORE THAN PROPERLY SERVED ON MULTIPLE OCCASIONS.......99RESPONSE TO MOTIONS MADE ON BEHALF OF FRANDEEN.......................101RESPONSE TO MOTIONS MADE ON BEHALF OF ANGELICA GLASS.............106RESPONSE TO MOTIONS MADE ON BEHALF OF PAUL MELTZER................108RESPONSE TO MOTIONS MADE ON BEHALF OF VICKI J. PARRY.................111

E. DEMAND FOR RIGHT TO DISCOVERY........................................117F. DEMAND FOR SUMMARY JUDGEMENT.......................................117G. DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY...................................................118H. PRAYER FOR RELIEF...............................................................118I. VERIFICATION............................................................................................119


of 93

1

123456789

101112

2

3

4

Uni

ted

Stat

es D

istri

ct C

ourt

For t

he N

orth

ern

Distri

ct o

f Califo

rnia

A. INTRODUCTIONPlaintiff Clive Boustred has literally been shot at thrown in jail and had his

children Plaintiffs RCB and WFB kidnapped from him by the State who also shot at WFB

& RCB aged 3 and 7 at the time. Plaintiffs InfoTelesys, Inc. and Get IT Real have been

wiped out as a consequence. Plaintiffs have been maliciously prosecuted for three and

a half years and denied any fair hearings or any due process at law. Defendants

including the Courts, Police and District Attorneys have acted criminally and have put up

nothing but a sham. Twenty Nine claims upon which relief can be granted are filed

against Defendants. Extensive corroborated and irrefutable evidence proving

Defendants liability for said claims is included with Plaintiffs complaint (See complaint &

Exhibits CD). This suit is brought by Plaintiffs who are international and national citizens

against the State of California and the U.S. Government and their employees and

affiliates across State borders. In accordance with the 11th Amendment, there is no

judicial power in this case. In accordance with the law, this matter can only be tried by

jury where the jury determines both the fact and law.

Judge Jeremy Fogel, a colleague and employee of Defendants, in excess of

jurisdiction has repeatedly delayed and dismissed this case from coming to trial by jury,

thereby conspiring with his colleagues and employer in the malicious prosecution of

Plaintiffs. Mr. Fogel, now with good cause a defendant in this case, attempts to invoke

obscure rules and procedures as thought they mitigate the law, claiming that he can

proceed to judge and preside over this Trial by Jury case because of “rules” while

ignoring the law and claiming that some ‘i' has not been doted or some ‘t’ has not been

crossed according to ‘rules of procedure’. Throughout Plaintiffs interactions with the

California and U.S. Courts, Judges have used rules and procedures to literally and


of 93

1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

252

3

4

Uni

ted

Stat

es D

istri

ct C

ourt

For t

he N

orth

ern

Distri

ct o

f Califo

rnia

blatantly disobey the law, even going as far as making themselves lawmakers and

moving the Judiciary who’s only function is to administer the Courts into the exclusive

position of that of the Legislature.

Mr. Fogel has gone as far as to ignore notice and time to respond (rules),

bringing forward hearings scheduled on or about September 28 to September 8, thereby

causing Petitioners excessive burden and stress in responding to ridiculous Motions to

Dismiss even without proper notice

Is Mr. Fogel’s scheduling of an unlawful hearing, while he himself is a defendant

to this case not a blatant and overt conspiracy between Mr. Fogel and his colleagues

and employer to further maliciously prosecute Plaintiffs? Over the last three and a half

years there have been numerous actions that prove overt and blatant conspiracy on

behalf of Defendants.

Mr.Fogel, acting in excess of jurisdiction, on one hand says that the Complaint is

too detailed and on the other hand that it is not detailed enough. On one hand he says

that Plaintiffs have submitted more than twenty claims upon which relief can be granted

and on the other hand Mr. Fogel dismisses the case because he says that no claims

upon which relief can be granted have been submitted. Consequentially, yet another

Amendment to the Complaint is filed so as to silence the pathetic attempts to have this

legitimate case dismissed by yet another judge acting with criminal intent who is way in

excess of jurisdiction.

All that is required to bring this case to Trial By Jury is a brief simple showing that

the pleader is entitled to relief without any judgment of merits or facts which are reserved

for the jury and not a biased judge.


of 93

1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

2

3

4

Uni

ted

Stat

es D

istri

ct C

ourt

For t

he N

orth

ern

Distri

ct o

f Califo

rnia

B. SUFFICIENCY OF CLAIMPlaintiffs have filed a more than sufficient legitimate claims upon which

relief can be granted along with significant factual evidence proving said claims and that Plaintiffs are likely to prevail in the claims.

All that is required to bring a case to trial in Federal Court is a showing that the pleader is entitled to relief: Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), the sufficiency of the complaint is tested with regard to the applicable standard in FRCP 8(a), which requires that a pleading setting forth a claim for relief contain a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief. A complaint which does not recount all relevant facts or recite the law should not necessarily be dismissed. La Salvia v. United Dairymen, 804 F.2d 1113, 1116 (9th Cir. 1986)

In light of the fact that FRCP 8(a)(2) merely requires a short and plain statement of the claim, rather than specific facts detailing every allegation, mere vagueness or lack of detail is not a ground for a motion to dismiss. Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 (1957). FRCP 12(b)(6) does not countenance dismissals based merely on a judge's disbelief of a complaint's factual allegations, Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (1989), nor is the failure to plead facts showing the plaintiff's theory of liability grounds for dismissal since the defendant can serve interrogatories requiring the plaintiff to particularize the theory of liability. In answering this question, the Court must assume that the plaintiff's allegations are true, including all facts alleged on information and belief, and must draw all reasonable inferences in the plaintiff's favor. Smith v. Jackson, 84 F.3d 1213, 1217 (9th Cir. 1996) Usher v. City of Los Angeles, 828 F.2d 556, 561 (9th Cir. 1987). Even if the face of the pleadings suggests that the chance of recovery is remote, the Court must allow the plaintiff to develop the case at this stage of the proceedings. United States v. City of Redwood, 640 F.2d 963, 966 (9th Cir. 1981)

The question presented by a motion to dismiss is not whether the plaintiff will prevail in the action, but whether the plaintiff is entitled to offer evidence in support of the claim. Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236


of 93

1

1

23456789

1011121314151617181920212223242526272829303132

2

3

4

Uni

ted

Stat

es D

istri

ct C

ourt

For t

he N

orth

ern

Distri

ct o

f Califo

rnia

(1974). If a plaintiff colorably states facts which, if proven, would entitle her to relief, a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim should not be granted. Dairies v. Kraft Foods, 232 F.3d 979, 994 (9th Cir. 2000)

Over three and a half years of malicious prosecution including seven SLAP cases initiated by and conspired to by Defendants all which were either initiated by an attempted murder or by anticompetitive and or other crimes committed by defendants gives rise to literally hundreds of claims upon which relief can be granted in this case. For each Defendant Plaintiffs have shown that there is a least one claim upon which relief can be granted.

Clearly Plaintiffs are entitled to relief and to offer in a trial by jury evidence in support of Plaintiffs multiple claims upon which relief can be granted. Clearly there is no basis for any dismissal or judgment of the case prior to trial by jury. Clearly there is no basis for judgment of the merits of the case by any individual who is a colleague and employee of the Defendants and is now a named defendant himself to this case.


of 93

1

123456789

10111213141516

2

3

4

Uni

ted

Stat

es D

istri

ct C

ourt

For t

he N

orth

ern

Distri

ct o

f Califo

rnia

SERVICE IS COMPLETE All Defendants have been properly served on more than one occasion

and again at every submission Plaintiffs have made. Furthermore and all the State and County Employees have been served through the Attorney General and County Counsel who as evidenced by this acknowledgement of the case and attempt to have State and County Employees dismissed from the case have proven a clear and obvious awareness of the Complaint and therefore service is totally and utterly complete on all State Employees as their Attorneys have acknowledged and responded to the Complaint. By law the Attorney General and County Counsel’s are responsible for forwarding to the complaint to all respective parties employed by the State.

Plaintiffs have more than met the statutory requirements of service on each and every Defendant. See PROOFS OF SERVICE September 9, 2005.

AUTHORITIESOne who helps a defendant avoid service of a summons is subject to

liability for contempt of court. CODE CIV. PROC. § 1209(a)(8); cf. In re Holmes, 145 Cal. App. 3d 934, 942, 193 Cal. Rptr. 790, 795 (1983) (assistance in evasion of service of subpoena punishable as contempt).

One serves a summons in an action against the state by serving the attorney general. GOV. CODE § 955.4(a). See generally ROBERT I. WEIL & IRA A. BROWN, JR., CALIFORNIA PRACTICE GUIDE: CIVIL PROCEDURE BEFORE TRIAL ¶¶ 4:69–:71 (1999).

One may serve a summons on a political subdivision of the state by delivering a copy of the summons and of the complaint to the clerk, secretary, president, presiding officer, or other head of its governing body. CODE CIV. PROC. § 416.50(a). see also GOV. CODE §§ 955.6(a), 955.8(a).

Due process does not require service of the summons and complaint upon the defendant personally; it requires merely that the plaintiff employ a method of service reasonably likely to provide notice. Greene v. Lindsey, 456 U.S. 444, 449–50 (1982); M. Lowenstein & Sons, Inc. v. Superior Court, 80 Cal. App. 3d 762, 768, 145 Cal. Rptr. 814, 817 (1978), disapproved on other


of 93

1

1

23456789

10111213141516171819202122232425262728293031

2

3

4

Uni

ted

Stat

es D

istri

ct C

ourt

For t

he N

orth

ern

Distri

ct o

f Califo

rnia

grounds, Johnson & Johnson v. Superior Court, 38 Cal. 3d 243, 254–55, 695 P.2d 1058, 1065 n.7, 211 Cal. Rptr. 517, 524 n.7 (1985).

In lieu of personal delivery of the summons on a corporation, association, or public entity, one may serve the summons by leaving a copy of the summons and of the complaint during usual office hours in the recipient’s office with the person who is apparently in charge and by afterwards mailing a copy of the summons and complaint (by first-class mail, postage prepaid) to the person to be served at the place where the copies of the summons and complaint were left. CODE CIV. PROC. § 415.20(a). See generally ROBERT I. WEIL & IRA A. BROWN, JR., CALIFORNIA PRACTICE GUIDE: CIVIL PROCEDURE BEFORE TRIAL ¶¶ 4:82–:91 (1999); 3 B.E. WITKIN, CALIFORNIA PROCEDURE, Actions §§ 926–929 (4th ed. 1997). Service of the summons is deemed complete on the tenth day after the mailing. CODE CIV. PROC. § 415.20(a). See also Ludka v. Athana Corp., 25 Cal. App. 3d 316, 321, 101 Cal. Rptr. 615, 618 (1972). See also Khourie, Crew & Jaeger v. Sabek, 220 Cal. App. 3d 1009, 1013, 269 Cal. Rptr. 687, 689 (1990)

One may also serve the summons in a similar manner by leaving a copy of the summons and of the complaint at the person’s “dwelling house, usual place of abode, usual place of business, or usual mailing address other than a United States Postal Service post office box,” Ellard v. Conway, 94 Cal. App. 4th 540, 546, 114 Cal. Rptr. 2d 399, 402–03 (2001). Or in the presence of a competent member of the household Bein v. Brechtel-Jochim Group, Inc., 6 Cal. App. 4th 1387, 1393, 8 Cal. Rptr. 2d 351, 354 (1992) (the guard at a gated community is considered a “competent member of the household” if he controls access to the residence); cf. CODE CIV. PROC. § 415.21. Or a person apparently in charge of his office, place of business, or usual mailing address, at least 18 years old, who must be informed of the contents of the documents, and by afterwards mailing a copy of the summons and complaint (by first-class mail, postage prepaid) to the person to be served at the place where the summons and complaint were left. Service of the summons is deemed complete on the tenth day after the mailing. CODE CIV. PROC. § 415.20(b).


of 93

1

123456789

1011121314151617181920212223242526272829303132

2

3

4

Uni

ted

Stat

es D

istri

ct C

ourt

For t

he N

orth

ern

Distri

ct o

f Califo

rnia

One may serve a summons by mail by mailing a copy of the summons and of the complaint by firstclass mail or airmail, postage prepaid) to the person to be served, together with two copies of the notice and acknowledgment and a return envelope, postage prepaid, addressed to the sender. CODE CIV. PROC. § 415.30(a). A post office box is a sufficient address for service by mail. Transamerica Title Ins. Co. v. Hendrix, 34 Cal. App. 4th 740, 745, 40 Cal. Rptr. 2d 614, 617 (1995). See generally ROBERT I. WEIL & IRA A. BROWN, JR., CALIFORNIA PRACTICE GUIDE: CIVIL PROCEDURE BEFORE TRIAL ¶¶ 4:92–:105.3, :134–:139 (1999); 3 B.E. WITKIN, CALIFORNIA PROCEDURE, Actions §§ 930–935 (4th ed. 1997).

The Judicial Council form is deemed to comply with the requirements of the Code of Civil Procedure. CODE CIV. PROC. § 415.30(e).

One may serve a defendant located in a state other than California by any of the methods authorized for service within California or by a method prescribed by the law of the place where the defendant is served. CODE CIV. PROC. § 413.10(b). See generally ROBERT I. WEIL & IRA A. BROWN, JR., CALIFORNIA PRACTICE GUIDE: CIVIL PROCEDURE BEFORE TRIAL ¶¶ 4:133, :146 (1999); 3 B.E. WITKIN, CALIFORNIA PROCEDURE, Actions § 921 (4th ed. 1997).

NO JUDICIAL POWER IN THIS CASE 11th Amendment: “The Judicial power of the United States shall not be

construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.” A judge has no power to dismiss InfoTelesys, Inc. and Get IT Real, Inc. from this suit. In fact in accordance with the 11th Amendment there is no judicial power in this suit. Any order by a judge in this case is void and of no force and effect. Jeremy Fogel was clearly and blatantly in excess of jurisdiction when he attempted to dismiss these parties from the suit and he violated Plaintiffs 11 th Amendment rights and continues to violate Plaintiffs rights in refusing to bring this matter before a Trail By Jury which amounts to noting less than the continued


of 93

1

123456789

10111213141516171819

20

2122232425262728293031

2

3

4

Uni

ted

Stat

es D

istri

ct C

ourt

For t

he N

orth

ern

Distri

ct o

f Califo

rnia

malicious prosecution of Plaintiffs. As a consequence with good cause Mr. Fogel is now himself a defendant in this case.

This matter must proceed immediately to Trial By Jury.

PRO SE LITIGANTS ENTITLED TO WIDE LATITUDE There are decisions in virtually every federal circuits that generously proclaim

that pro per petitions should be construed liberally and that pro per petitioners should be

held to less stringent standards than lawyers. See, e.g., Price v. Johnston (1948) 334

U.S. 266, 292; Chase v. Crips (10th Cir. 1975) 523 F.2d 595, 597; Curtis v. Illinois (7th

Cir. 1975) 512 F2d 717; Ham v. North Carolina (4th Cir. 1973) 471 F.2d 406, 407;

Hairston v. Alabama (5th Cir. 1972) 465 F.2d 675, 678 n5; Turrell v. Perini (6th Cir.

1969) 414 F.2d 1231, 1233; Montgomery v. Brierly (3rd Cir. 1969) 414 F.2d 552;

Pembrook v. Wilson, (9th Cir. 1966) 370 F.2d 37, 40; Whittaker v. Overholster (D.C. Cir.

1962) 299 F.2d 447, 448. See also Haines v. Kerner (1972) 404 U.S. 519.

This right is also protected under the First Amendment Free Speech Clause.

And within those rights, the pro se litigant's court submissions are to be construed

liberally and held to less stringent standards than submissions of lawyers. If the court

can reasonably read the submissions, it should do so despite failure to cite proper legal

authority, confusion of legal theories, poor syntax and sentence construction, or litigant's

unfamiliarity with rule requirements. Boag v. MacDougall, 454 U.S. 364, 102 S.Ct. 700,

70 L.Ed.2d 551 (1982); Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106, 97 S.Ct. 285, 50 L.Ed.2d

251 (1976) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46, 78 S.Ct. 99, 2 L.Ed.2d 80

(1957)); Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 92 S.Ct. 594, 30 L.Ed.2d 652 (1972);

McDowell v. Delaware State Police, 88 F.3d 188, 189 (3rd Cir. 1996); United States v.

Day, 969 F.2d 39, 42 (3rd Cir. 1992)(holding pro se petition cannot be held to same

standard as pleadings drafted by attorneys); Then v. I.N.S., 58 F.Supp.2d 422, 429

(D.N.J. 1999).


of 93

1

123

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

262

3

4

Uni

ted

Stat

es D

istri

ct C

ourt

For t

he N

orth

ern

Distri

ct o

f Califo

rnia

The courts provide pro se parties wide latitude when construing their pleadings

and papers. When interpreting pro se papers, the Court should use common sense to

determine what relief the party desires. S.E.C. v. Elliott, 953 F.2d 1560, 1582 (11th Cir.

1992). See also, United States v. Miller, 197 F.3d 644, 648 (3rd Cir. 1999) (Court has

special obligation to construe pro se litigants' pleadings liberally); Poling v. K.Hovnanian

Enterprises, 99 F.Supp.2d 502, 506-07 (D.N.J. 2000). Defendant has the right to

submit pro se briefs on appeal, even though they may be inartfully drawn but the court

can reasonably read and understand them. See, Vega v. Johnson, 149 F.3d 354 (5th

Cir. 1998). Courts will go to particular pains to protect pro se litigants against

consequences of technical errors if injustice would otherwise result. U.S. v. Sanchez, 88

F.3d 1243 (D.C.Cir. 1996).

PROOF OF BIASED PERSPECTIVE AGAINST PLAINTIFFS The following false charges were all the government required to bring Clive

Boustred to trial, no evidence, no Mens Rea, no Actus Rea, no Corpus Delecti, no

verified criminal complaint and despite evidence to the contrary proving Mr. Boustred’s

innocence and despite the fact that Stefan Tichatschke was in violation of a lawful court

order baring him from contact with Mr. Boustred’s children and despite the fact that Mr.

Tichatschke was the one who initiated the assault and despite the fact that Tichatschke

and Mrs. Anamaria Boustred had abandoned WFB aged three at the time in the middle

of a learner ski run and despite the fact that Mr. Boustred was rescuing his son WFB and

despite the fact that Mr. Boustred had filed a verified criminal complaint against

Tichatschke regarding this very incident two months before the government filed this

action on March 10, 2003 just before the government attempt to murder Clive Boustred

when deputy Sheriff Michael Macdonald shot at Mr. Boustred with RCB and WFB in the

line of fire:


of 93

1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

252

3

4

Uni

ted

Stat

es D

istri

ct C

ourt

For t

he N

orth

ern

Distri

ct o

f Califo

rnia

Plaintiffs have submitted before this court significantly more evidence and more

detailed charges than the government allows themselves to bring a matter to trial. Even

if the trial they gave Mr. Boustred was an utter sham trial where Mr. Boustred was not


of 93

1

12

3

42

3

4

Uni

ted

Stat

es D

istri

ct C

ourt

For t

he N

orth

ern

Distri

ct o

f Califo

rnia

allowed to present any evidence or facts that proved his innocence and where Mr.

Boustred was not allowed to put the law or to bring witnesses in his defense before the

jury, at least the government allows themselves to bring matters to trial. After driving

Plaintiffs into financial ruin from years of malicious prosecution so that Plaintiffs can’t

afford attorneys the government turns around and dismissed the corporate persons and

minor children of Mr. Boustred because they can’t afford an attorney! Companies are

persons according to the 14th Amendment. The government holds principles

accountable for actions by their companies, however now they claim that persons cant

represent themselves! The government claims that fathers are responsible and liable for

their children, yet when we turn to be responsible for our children and represent our own

kids they say we cant! Furthermore a colleague and employee of the defendants has

stepped in and dismissed the case before it gets to trial by jury.

The government is claiming that Plaintiffs cant petition the government for a

redress of grievances and the case must be dismissed even before trial.

Plaintiffs in Propria Persona Sui Juris are entitled to wide leeway in regard to

bringing suit, however, the government ignores the law and dismisses cases filed

against themselves. This matter needs to proceed to trial by jury.


of 93

1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

2

3

4

Uni

ted

Stat

es D

istri

ct C

ourt

For t

he N

orth

ern

Distri

ct o

f Califo

rnia

PROHIBITION OF BIAS United States District Court General Order No. 40, Prohibition of Bias, states:PrologueThe Court is committed to ensuring that all forms of bias and prejudice are eliminated from the practice of law in our district…. Duties and Procedures(1) The practice of law before the United States District Court for the Northern District of California must be free from prejudice and bias in any form. Treatment free of bias must be accorded all other attorneys, litigants, judicial officers, court room jurors or support personnel. The duty to exercise nonbiased behavior includes the responsibility to avoid comment or behavior manifesting prejudice or bias toward another. This duty is owed by all attorneys, judges, judicial officers and court personnel in connection with cases pending before the district court.


of 93

1

1

2

3

4

56

7

89

101112131415

2

3

4

Uni

ted

Stat

es D

istri

ct C

ourt

For t

he N

orth

ern

Distri

ct o

f Califo

rnia

C. 5th AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT Petitioner’s Original Complaint, Oppositions to Motions to Dismiss, Motions and

Responses to Motions, 1st Amended Civil Rights Complaint, 2nd Amendment to Civil

Rights Complaint, Exhibits and Authorities therein are included herein by reference

and made a part of this Amended Complaint. Plaintiffs 3rd Amendment to Civil

Rights Complaint was submitted under extreme duress as a consequence of multiple

malicious prosecutions of Plaintiffs by Defendants coinciding with the time of

submission, said filing contained errors and is replaced by this 5th Amendment To

Complaint.

This action is brought against the Counties of Santa Cruz, Placer and Marin, the State of California and the United States of America, individual employees of theses entities and the Courts for racketeering and multiple extremely serious criminal charges for which substantial evidence and proof has already been submitted (See Evidence CD). Under the law and Constitution of the United States of America, this action is brought forward to be tried by jury where the jury determines both the law and fact in accordance with the law. No judge has any authority to judge the facts or merits of this action as this action is brought against their colleagues and employer. The law dictates that such matters be fully tried by jury.

This action arises under the Civil Rights Act of 1871 (42 U.S.C. Sections 1983 and 1988) and the First, Second, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, Eleventh and Fourteenth Amendments and Article III and IV of the Constitution of the United States and Common-Law. This Court has jurisdiction of the federal claims under 28 U.S.C. Section 1331, 1332, 1343(3) 1343(4), 2201, and 2202.


of 93

1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10111213141516171819202122232425

2

3

4

Uni

ted

Stat

es D

istri

ct C

ourt

For t

he N

orth

ern

Distri

ct o

f Califo

rnia

VENUE Venue is proper in the Northern District of California, San Jose Division

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391, in that the subject matter of this action arose in this district, all defendants are subject to personal jurisdiction in this district.

Pursuant to the Eleventh Amendment due to the fact that this suit is brought by Citizens of Nevada (InfoTelesys, Inc. and Get IT Real, Inc.) against another state (California), Judges have no power in this case an the case must be tried by jury where the jury determines the law and fact. Additionally Pursuant to Due Process Clauses of the Constitution due to the fact that this suit is brought against colleagues and the employer of judges of the U.S. District Court, jurisdiction does not extend toward Judges of the Court and all matters both regarding fact and law may only be decided by Jury.

AUTHORITY: U.S. Constitution, Eleventh Amendment: “The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.” – Said power resides with the independent Jury.

ANALYSIS OF THE 11TH: The very construct of the Constitution, the essence of the formation of the United States of America, is founded on the principle of eliminating tyrannical government; the construct that the government cannot do what they want; the principle that all stand equal before the law and that all parties to suits are entitled to impartial decision makers; etc. Consequentially, the establishment of the 11th Amendment is based upon the principle that the judiciary (which consists of a group of individuals whom are employed by the State) naturally has no authority to preside over a case brought against their employer, the State. And what are the two powers in our courts? Either Judicial power or Jury power. Suits brought against the State can thus naturally only be adjudicated by Jury where the decision maker in the trial is no party to the suit and where the Jury in accordance with the construct of Trial By Jury, decides both the law and the fact. "The jury has the right to judge both the law and the facts" -


of 93

1

1

23456789

1011121314151617181920212223242526272829303132

2

3

4

Uni

ted

Stat

es D

istri

ct C

ourt

For t

he N

orth

ern

Distri

ct o

f Califo

rnia

Samuel Chase, 1804, Supreme Court Justice and signer of the Declaration of Independence.

In a Trial By Jury the judiciary has no function other than very basic administrative functions necessary to bring the matter to trial. The judiciary has no power to dismiss a case or weigh the merits of a case that is brought to trial by jury those are functions absolutely and completely reserved for the jury. Clearly the judiciary has not decision making authority in suits brought against their colleagues and much less any authority to dismiss a case or exclude evidence from such a case.

Great error has crept into many judicial decisions in regard to the idea of Sovereign immunity, which is not mentioned once in any way or in any part of the Constitution. Such a concept flies in the opposite direction of the principles and purposes upon which the government of the U.S. was established. There is absolutely no principle of Sovereign immunity under the Constitution. The Constitution goes to great lengths to ensure equality and responsibility under the law which is the exact opposite of any suggestion of a sovereign class or sovereign immunity. To the contrary, government entities and employees, if anyone, are to be held to a higher standard when it comes to responsibility under the law, they are utterly accountable – this after all was the purpose of establishing the U.S. and is the underlying construct of the Constitution.

There is categorically and absolutely zero implication or statement within the 11th Amendment that says that a State cannot be sued, it simply is not there. All the 11th says is that judges have no power (Judicial power), what other decision making remains? Naturally the other cornerstone of the judicial system: Jury power. There are two ways to decide a case in a Court: Either by Jury or by Judge. The very construct of Trial by Jury was given to our nation so that the very construct of Judicial corruption could be overcome. The very reason we give the Jury the power to decide both the law and the fact is because we know, as the founding fathers knew, that the government and in particular the judiciary would become corrupt. And how they have!


of 93

1

123456789

1011121314151617181920212223242526272829303132

2

3

4

Uni

ted

Stat

es D

istri

ct C

ourt

For t

he N

orth

ern

Distri

ct o

f Califo

rnia

Just take a look at what Judicial power has attempted to infer is implied by the 11th: they judiciary goes as absurdly far as to say that a State cannot be sued which is a classic example of the Judiciary attempting to making law because nowhere does the 11th say or infer such; the Judiciary has even tried to make new law saying that “they the government” are Sovereign; that “they the government” can Lord it over “we the people” as “Kings and Queens” who have been put on the throne by God Himself. And that they the government, like the Queen, can do no wrong because after all God put them on the nations throne, and God can do no wrong! How utterly and categorically pathetically absurd! The U.S.A. was founded so as to bring accountability to government, there is no king or queen in the U.S., all stand equal before the law.

The Queen of England’s idea that because the Bible states that God puts authorities on the throne, Romans 13:1 “for there is no authority except that which God has established” is such a foolish analysis as it ignores the fact that God also put people like Hitler on the ‘throne’. Clearly such a positioning is not one to be respected, but rather that perhaps God’s reasoning for such, is more likely to chastise us to stand up against such tyrants, to speak out for the common man, and to stand for justice.

The very behavior of Judicial power within the U.S. illustrates the exact purpose of the 11th which is to eliminate Judicial power in suits where judges are parties to the suit. In suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, the Judiciary is employed by the entity against which the suit is brought and therefore obviously has no authority to preside over such a suit as they have inherent bias. In such cases judges are predicted to behave exactly in the way Judge Jeremy Fogel has behaved in this suit because of his blatant and obvious bias.

Briefly, let us look at some of the absurdities Mr. Fogel has postulated:1. He states in black and white that Plaintiffs have stated more than 20

claims upon which relief can be granted. Then he turns around and dismisses the case claiming that Plaintiffs have not stated a claim upon which relief can be granted! Could you find a better example of bias?

2. He claims that employees of the State are immune to any wrongdoing! How un-American can you get? Here he relies entirely on “Judicial


of 93

1

123456789

1011121314151617181920212223242526272829303132333435

2

3

4

Uni

ted

Stat

es D

istri

ct C

ourt

For t

he N

orth

ern

Distri

ct o

f Califo

rnia

Legislation” as it is impossible for the legislature to make up such a law which flies in the face of the very construct and purpose of the Constitution.

3. He dismisses corporate persons, claiming that such a person has no right to speak in a court of law! He claims that such a person may only speak in court through the mouth of a Barrister. And we use the term Barrister instead of the word ‘lawyer’ to drive through the point of the Constitution which was to eliminate the heinous practice in England where judges silenced people by saying that they could not speak for themselves and that only a Barrister could speak on their behalf.

4. He dismisses a father’s right and legal responsibility to be responsible for and to speak for his very own minor children. Could there be any more basic principle under Common-Law than that of a Father being Head of Family? However, what is particularly interesting here, is the class of Judicial Legislation that Mr. Fogle is attempting to introduce into this case, namely that of the State placing themselves as the Head of Family. Mr. Fogel is suggesting that the State determines the best interest of our children. He is not only suggesting that a parent cannot speak for their own child he is legislating that the State owns the child and not the parent and that only the Sate determines the best interest of the child. In essence he is suggesting that the United States of America is now a Socialist, Communist and Fascist nation!

5. Mr. Fogel goes as far as to ignore standard practice that a person can be served by serving a competent person at their place of work coupled with service by mail in compliance with the statues and code. He attempts to suggest that his colleagues have not been served even when served in person and said service is videotaped and when the State and County Attorneys have recognized service!

6. One of the very fine examples of misappropriation of Judicial power displayed by Mr. Fogel was at the July 12, 2006 ‘Status Conference’. On that day Mr. Fogel displays typical judicial abuse found throughout our current treasonous U.S. Courts. Mr. Fogel ignores the law which clearly states that he has no authority to preside over a case where he is a party to the case, brushing aside the fact that not only are his employer and colleagues parties to the case but also that he has now been properly served and is now, with good cause, a defendant in this case. Mr. Fogel attempts to claim that because the Plaintiffs have not followed ‘rules of procedure’ (which are in themselves no law at all but merely suggestions as to how one should proceed) that somehow it is acceptable for Mr. Fogel to ignore the law and go ahead and rule with bias against Plaintiffs! Judge Fogel uses court rules to overrule the true law. Judge Fogel’s breaks the law under the guise of following an arbitrary procedure.

7. Mr. Fogel is well aware that Plaintiff Clive Boustred’s children have been kidnapped from him by the State and that void orders have been employed by judges who are nationally renowned criminals. Yet when it comes to setting aside patently void orders that will eliminate a child hostage taking situation, Mr. Fogel ignores the fact that any judge in any court can set aside a void order and thereby he himself continues


of 93

1

123456789

10111213141516171819202122232425262728293031323334353637383940414243444546474849

2

3

4

Uni

ted

Stat

es D

istri

ct C

ourt

For t

he N

orth

ern

Distri

ct o

f Califo

rnia

to support and endorses kidnap and hostage taking. Mr. Fogel who has a duty to ensure that the government obeys the law, literally ignores extraordinary crimes committed before his eyes, then he in turn commits crime and tries to cover it up with ‘rules’.

The interesting elements regarding this very case, is that the case is about extreme governmental abuse and exactly the protections guaranteed by the Constitution and that embedded in the 11th Amendment. Without any cause the government literally shot at Clive and his children, falsely arrested and threw Clive in jail, kidnapped his children, then maliciously and outrageously prosecuted Clive to cover up. The government went as far as to order Clive to not communicate with his children then handed the children to a man who is ordered to have no contact with Clive’s children, a man who in his own words admits to having serious problems with drugs, sex and pornography. You don’t get much worse criminal activity. You can’t get much lower integrity or worse abuse. The judicial abuses employed in the cover-up in this situation are astounding and rampant, shocking the conscience, and are now deeply embedded in this very case. What is even more astonishing is Mr. Fogel himself wrote an article entitled 'Justice denied is a national problem’ for the San Jose Mercury’s series on “Tainted Trial, Stolen Justice”. In the article Mr. Fogel states: “Vigorous enforcement of ethical standards for prosecutors, defense attorneys and judges is essential” he goes on to state “Integrity and professional competence are minimum requirements for all of us who do the public's work”. Good advice, however, Mr. Fogel acts on the opposite side of his own critique.

There are 2 means to trial: 1 by judge (Judicial power) and 2 by jury (Jury power). Recognize that Judicial power can be questioned, however, Jury power may not be re-examined (7th) other than through abuse of process.

As a further note in exposing the corruption of our courts: No new law is made through judicial rulings. The use of “Judicial Precedence” by our Courts is totally misplaced. Only the Legislature has any authority to make law. The judiciary has absolutely no authority or power to make law. The underlying Common-Law construct is that no law is law unless the common person can understand it – this is Common-Law (which is not a Code based


of 93

1

123456789

10111213141516171819202122232425262728293031323334

2

3

4

Uni

ted

Stat

es D

istri

ct C

ourt

For t

he N

orth

ern

Distri

ct o

f Califo

rnia

system). Thus, there is no function for the ‘interpretation of the law’. If a law is ambiguous or difficult to understand, then under Common-Law it is therefore not law. The one and only function of the judiciary in the area of confusion as to interpretation of a law, is that if a law is not clearly definable and arguable as we have done above, then the judiciary’s only function is to send the law back to the Legislature to make it clear so that the common person can understand it. In trials by jury, the judiciary has no function other than basic administration.

All that is required to bring a matter to trial by jury is a claim on information OR belief by a plaintiff that a wrong has been committed by defendants to which relief might be entitled. This is a very low bar which has more than been met by Plaintiffs in this case. The matter must proceed to Trial by Jury. A judge not only has no authority to try matters of fact or law in this case due to the Trial by Jury demand, but also due to the protection from Judicial power as clearly established by the 11th Amendment.

PARTIES

PLAINTIFFS 1. Clive Frank Boustred, 2. RCB (Minor son of Clive Frank Boustred) 3. WFB (Minor son of Clive Frank Boustred)4. InfoTelesys, Inc. Nevada 5. Get IT Real, Inc. Nevada

DEFENDANTS 1. Defendant Michael Macdonald resides or works at Santa Cruz Sheriffs, 701 Ocean Street, Santa Cruz, CA 95060 as a Deputy Sheriff.The defendant is sued in his/her (Check one or both): individual official capacity.2. Defendant Samuel S. Stevens resides or works at Santa Cruz Superior Court, 701 Ocean Street, Santa Cruz, CA 95060 as a Superior Court Judge.The defendant is sued in his/her (Check one or both): individual official capacity.3. Defendant Steven Drottar


of 93

1

123456789

101112131415

16

17

1819202122

23

2425262728293031323334

2

3

4

Uni

ted

Stat

es D

istri

ct C

ourt

For t

he N

orth

ern

Distri

ct o

f Califo

rnia

resides or works at Santa Cruz District Attorneys Office, 701 Ocean Street, Santa Cruz, CA 95060 as an Ass. DA.The defendant is sued in his/her (Check one or both): individual official capacity.4. Defendant Anamaria Boustredresides or works at 33250 Fairway Ave, Soquel, CA 95073 as a house keeperThe defendant is sued in his/her (Check one or both): individual official capacity.5. Defendant Steffan Tichatschkeresides or works at 33250 Fairway Ave, Soquel, CA 95073 as an investorThe defendant is sued in his/her (Check one or both): individual official capacity.6. Defendant Vicki J. Parryresides or works at 100 Doyle Street, Suite G, Santa Cruz CA 95062 as an Officer of the court and member of the State Bar 80508.The defendant is sued in his/her (Check one or both): individual official capacity.7. Defendant Mark Tracyresides or works at Santa Cruz Sheriffs, 701 Ocean Street, Santa Cruz, CA 95060 as a Sheriff.The defendant is sued in his/her (Check one or both): individual official capacity.8. Defendant Art Danner (Deceased)resides or works at Santa Cruz Superior Court, 701 Ocean Street, Santa Cruz, CA 95060 as a Superior Court Judge.The defendant is sued in his/her (Check one or both): individual official capacity.9. Defendant M Poolresides or works at Santa Cruz Sheriffs, 701 Ocean Street, Santa Cruz, CA 95060 as a Deputy Sheriff.The defendant is sued in his/her (Check one or both): individual official capacity.10. Defendant Hemmingway (Deceased)resides or works at Santa Cruz Sheriffs, 701 Ocean Street, Santa Cruz, CA 95060 as a Lieutenant Sheriff.The defendant is sued in his/her (Check one or both): individual official capacity.11. Defendant Amy Christyresides or works at Santa Cruz Sheriffs, 701 Ocean Street, Santa Cruz, CA 95060 as a Sergeant Sheriff.The defendant is sued in his/her (Check one or both): individual official capacity.12. Defendant Brozozowskiresides or works at Santa Cruz Sheriffs, 701 Ocean Street, Santa Cruz, CA 95060 as a Deputy Sheriff.The defendant is sued in his/her (Check one or both): individual official capacity.


of 93

1

123456789

10111213141516171819202122232425262728293031323334353637383940414243444546474849

2

3

4

Uni

ted

Stat

es D

istri

ct C

ourt

For t

he N

orth

ern

Distri

ct o

f Califo

rnia

13. Defendant Bob Leeresides or works at Santa Cruz District Attorneys Office, 701 Ocean Street, Santa Cruz, CA 95060 as a District Attorney.The defendant is sued in his/her (Check one or both): individual official capacity.14. Defendant Michael E. Bartonresides or works at Santa Cruz Superior Court, 701 Ocean Street, Santa Cruz, CA 95060 as a Superior Court Judge.The defendant is sued in his/her (Check one or both): individual official capacity.15. Defendant Gregor Guy Smithresides or works at 214 Duboce Ave, San Francisco, CA 94103-1008 as an Officer of the court and member of the State Bar.The defendant is sued in his/her (Check one or both): individual official capacity.16. Defendant Paul Meltzerresides or works at as an Officer of the court and member of the State Bar.The defendant is sued in his/her (Check one or both): individual official capacity.17. Defendant Trilla E. Bahrkeresides or works at 2501 North Lake Blvd, P.O. Box 5609, Tahoe City, CA 96145 as a Superior Court Commissioner.The defendant is sued in his/her (Check one or both): individual official capacity.18. Defendant Bill Doyleresides or works at 2501 North Lake Blvd, P.O. Box 5609, Tahoe City, CA 96145-5609 as a Ass. District Attorney.The defendant is sued in his/her (Check one or both): individual official capacity.19. Defendant Christopher M. Cattran resides or works at 2501 North Lake Blvd, P.O. Box 5609, Tahoe City, CA 96145-5609 as a Ass. District Attorney.The defendant is sued in his/her (Check one or both): individual official capacity.20. Defendant Barbara J. Foxresides or works at Santa Cruz Superior Court, 701 Ocean Street, Santa Cruz, CA 95060 as a Clerk of the Court.The defendant is sued in his/her (Check one or both): individual official capacity.21. Defendant Griffin resides or works at Santa Cruz Sheriffs, 701 Ocean Street, Santa Cruz, CA 95060 as a Deputy Sheriff.The defendant is sued in his/her (Check one or both): individual official capacity.22. Defendant Robert Frandeenresides or works at as an Officer of the court and member of the State Bar.


of 93

1

123456789

101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748

2

3

4

Uni

ted

Stat

es D

istri

ct C

ourt

For t

he N

orth

ern

Distri

ct o

f Califo

rnia

The defendant is sued in his/her (Check one or both): individual official capacity.23. Defendant Raven Harris resides or works at Santa Cruz Child Protective Services.The defendant is sued in his/her (Check one or both): individual official capacity.24. Defendant Angela Glassresides or works at Santa Cruz Child Protective Services.The defendant is sued in his/her (Check one or both): individual official capacity.25. Defendant Mary Olimporesides or works at Santa Cruz Woman’s Crisis Center, Soquel Ave, Soquel, CA 95073 a Government Funded Entity.The defendant is sued in his/her (Check one or both): individual official capacity.26. Defendant Robert B. Atackresides or works at Santa Cruz Superior Court, 701 Ocean Street, Santa Cruz, CA 95060 as a Superior Court Judge.The defendant is sued in his/her (Check one or both): individual official capacity.27. Defendant Genworth Financialresides or works at representation at 1299 Ocean Avenue, Suite 900, Santa Monica, CA 90401-1000 as insurance agents The defendant is sued in his/her (Check one or both): individual official capacity.28. Defendant Attorney General of The State of Californiaresides or works at P.O. Box 944255, Sacramento, CA 94244-2550 as Attorney General of The State of CaliforniaThe defendant is sued in his/her (Check one or both): individual official capacity.29. Defendant Irwin Josephresides or works at Santa Cruz Superior Court, 701 Ocean Street, Santa Cruz, CA 95060 as a Commissioner.The defendant is sued in his/her (Check one or both): individual official capacity.30. Jason M. Heathresides or works at Santa Cruz County 701 Ocean Street, Santa Cruz, CA 95060 as an AttorneyThe defendant is sued in his/her (Check one or both): individual official capacity.31. Defendant Phyllis J. Hamilton and the Government and

associated entities of United States of America responsible for instituting the position and acts of said Defendant.

Resides or works at 450 Golden Gate Ave, San Francisco, CA 940102 as a U.S. District Court Judge.The defendant is sued in his/her (Check one or both): individual official capacity.


of 93

1

123456789

1011121314151617181920212223242526272829303132333435363738394041424344454647

2

3

4

Uni

ted

Stat

es D

istri

ct C

ourt

For t

he N

orth

ern

Distri

ct o

f Califo

rnia

32. Defendant Jeremy Fogel and the Government and associated entities of United States of America responsible for instituting the position and acts of said Defendant.

Resides or works at the U.S. District Court 280 S. 1st Street, San Jose, CAThe defendant is sued in his/her (Check one or both): individual official capacity.33. Defendant William M. KelsayResides or works at Santa Cruz Superior Court, 701 Ocean Street, Santa Cruz, CA 95060 as a Retired Superior Court Judge.The defendant is sued in his/her (Check one or both): individual official capacity.34. Jon Doe’s 1 to nThe defendants is sued in their: individual official capacity.

DEFENDANTS CATEGORIES:– Officers: Michael Macdonald, Amy Christy, M Pool, Mark

Tracy, Hemmingway (Deceased), Brozozowski, Griffin,– Judges, Commissioners & Clerks: Samuel S. Stevens , Art

Danner (Deceased), Michael E. Barton, Trilla E. Bahrke, Robert B. Atack, William M. Kelsay, Irwin Joseph, Phyllis J. Hamilton, Jeremy Fogel, Barbara J. Fox,

– District Attorneys: Steven Drottar, Bob Lee, Bill Doyle, Christopher M. Cattran,

– Private Parties: Anamaria Boustred, Steffan Tichatschke, Genworth Financial,

– Lawyers: Gregor Guy Smith, Robert Frandeen, Paul Meltzer, Vicki J. Parry, Jason M. Heath,

– State: Raven Harris, Angela Glass, County of Santa Cruz, County of Marin, County of Placer, Attorney General of The State of California, Attorney General of The United States of America, The State and Government and associated entities of The State of California, The State and Government and associated entities of The United States of America,

– Jon Doe’s , 1 to n.


of 93

1

123456789

101112131415

16

1718192021222324252627282930313233343536

2

3

4

Uni

ted

Stat

es D

istri

ct C

ourt

For t

he N

orth

ern

Distri

ct o

f Califo

rnia

CASE SYNOPSIS / EXECUTIVE SUMMARY On March 10, 2003, without probable cause Santa Cruz Sheriffs set

ambush, pursued Plaintiffs running up to Plaintiffs vehicle in front of Plaintiffs garage on private property and attempted from point blank range of five to seven feet to blow Plaintiff Clive Frank Boustred’s head off in front of his children RCB and WFB. WFB aged three at the time was in the direct line of fire behind his father, RCB aged seven was two feet off the line of fire.

After the assassination attempt failed, the government engaged in a series of outrageous malicious prosecutions against Plaintiff Clive Frank Boustred. Acting under the color of law, filing a barrage of malicious and false charges against, Clive including two false felonies and nine false misdemeanors, Defendants have sought to drive Petitioners into ruin. Clive has been falsely arrested on multiple occasions and held for five months without even any right to bail. Clive was given patently sham trials where the jury was rigged and he was not allowed to put any evidence proving his innocence before the jury and even had his testimony struck from the record, yet the government was allowed to put hearsay, double hearsay and know lies before the jury along with totally misleading information.

One of the most despicable and outrageous acts by the government against Clive following the assassination attempt, was to kidnap his children RCB and WFB. The government’s gunman literally violently chased WFB after shooting at the children, WFB wet his pants in fear, both boys were reduced to a zombie like state of shock. The government then handed the children to a man who was ordered to have no contact with the children, a man who in his own words admitted to having serious problems with drugs, pornography and sex. The government ordered that Clive not communicate with his children for three years. The boys lived with their dad before the government tried to kill their dad in front of them. The government went as far as to repeatedly deny the boys not only access to their father but also access to their grandparents. The government completely ignored and repeatedly covered up blatant & irrefutable crimes committed against Clive & his children


of 93

1

1

23456789

1011121314151617181920212223242526272829303132

2

3

4

Uni

ted

Stat

es D

istri

ct C

ourt

For t

he N

orth

ern

Distri

ct o

f Califo

rnia

Neither Clive nor his children have had any justice or any fair hearing in three and a half years. The California and U.S. District Courts have maintained that the government’s false charge that Clive drove at around forty miles per hour down his private road justified the government from shooting at Clive and his children, ordering that Clive not communicate with his children for three years, arresting and sentencing Clive to six months in jail, filing Clive’s name and DNA in the California Central Felons Index and also filing Clive’s name in California’s Central Child Abuse Index. Irrefutable proof showed that Clive drove a slow 27 miles per hour down his private road where the Sheriffs without warrant or any probable cause, laid in ambush, unlawfully chased and then attempted to assassinate Clive in front of his children.

Clive Frank Boustred was the Founder, President, Chairman, CEO and Key Man of InfoTelesys, Inc. that was well underway in building a next generation internet which amongst other exciting projects was building a global education system that literally had significant and real potential to eliminate world hunger – see the Get IT Ed project on the www.InfoTelsys.com site. The company was in the process of developing and deploying it’s IT-I2 satellite network capable of delivering one gigabit connections anywhere in the world. A joint education project in Afghanistan between InfoTelesys, World Vision, World Bank and numerous Afghan organizations was destroyed as a consequence of actions by Defendants. InfoTelesys, Inc. was even approached to build an education system for China’s largest education facility and as a direct consequence to ongoing malicious prosecution InfoTelesys could also not take up that opportunity.

InfoTelesys had amongst their team some of the worlds top banking systems experts and was in the process of building a competitor to the privately owned Federal Reserve Bank. History has show that U.S. Presidents who challenged the legality of the privately owned Federal Reserve Bank to take the peoples money and charge us interest on it, were either assassinated or shot at.

Judges acting in excess of jurisdiction in both California and U.S. District Courts under the color of law have employed rules and procedures to


of 93

1

123456789

101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233

2

3

4

Uni

ted

Stat

es D

istri

ct C

ourt

For t

he N

orth

ern

Distri

ct o

f Califo

rnia

beak the law and maliciously prosecute Plaintiffs and deny Plaintiffs any fair hearing or right to Trial By Jury, this now includes Judge Jeremy Fogel who was assigned to administer this case.

This action is brought against the Counties of Santa Cruz, Placer and Marin, the State of California and the United States of America, individual employees of these entities and the Courts for racketeering and multiple extremely serious criminal charges and claims upon which relief may be granted for which substantial evidence and proof has already been submitted (See Evidence CD). Under the law and Constitution of the United States of America, this action is brought forward to be tried by jury where the jury determines both the law and fact in accordance with the law. No judge has any authority to judge the facts or merits of this action as this action is brought against their colleagues and employer. The law dictates that such matters be fully tried by jury.

DAMAGES As a direct and proximate result of acts by Defendants as alleged

herein and alleged in the Original Complaint, Amendments, Motions and Responses to Motions also incorporated herein by reference as if part of the same document, Plaintiffs suffered damages including but not limited to those damages listed here under which have caused, and continue to cause, plaintiffs injuries. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that these injuries will result in permanent disability to them. As a result of these injuries, Plaintiffs have suffered general and specific damages in amounts not yet ascertained but in excess of one billion dollars:

Plaintiffs CLIVE FRANK BOUSTRED, RCB, WFB, and team members of corporate Plaintiffs, suffered great physical and emotional injuries all of which have caused, and continue to cause, plaintiff great mental, physical and nervous pain, suffering and alienation. As a further proximate result of the acts of defendants, plaintiffs were required to and did employ physicians to examine, treat and care for plaintiffs, and incurred additional medical expenses in amounts not yet ascertained. CLIVE FRANK BOUSTRED, RCB, WFB and team members of corporate Plaintiffs, are informed and believe and


of 93

1

123456789

1011121314

15

1617181920212223242526272829303132

2

3

4

Uni

ted

Stat

es D

istri

ct C

ourt

For t

he N

orth

ern

Distri

ct o

f Califo

rnia

thereon allege that these injuries will result in some permanent disability to them.

As a result of these injuries, CLIVE FRANK BOUSTRED, RCB, WFB and team members of corporate Plaintiffs, have required medical services and associated costs and have suffered general and specific damages in amounts not yet ascertained. Plaintiffs have been informed and believe and thereon allege that they will incur additional medical and related expenses in the future, the exact amounts of which are currently unknown.

As a further proximate result of the acts of defendants, CLIVE FRANK BOUSTRED, InfoTelesys, Inc. and Get IT Real, Inc. were prevented from attending to usual business and occupation and thereby lost earnings and revenue and in fact InfoTelesys, Inc., it’s subsidiaries partners and Get IT Real, Inc. were destroyed as a direct and proximate result of the acts of defendants to damage in amounts not yet fully ascertained but no less than one billion dollars. As a further proximate result of defendants' actions, plaintiff's present and future earning capacity has been greatly impaired in amounts not yet ascertained but no less than one billion dollars.

Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that they will be deprived from attending to their usual business for a period in the future which cannot yet be ascertained, and will thereby sustain further loss of earning in amounts not yet ascertained but in excess of one billion dollars.

As a further proximate result of defendants' acts, plaintiffs have been damaged in that have been required to expend money and have been prevented from earning money or continuing to develop products and service and having been delayed in deployment of advanced products services and technology and have lost significant and major contracts and agreements with international and local enterprises and have lost the ability to obtain funding for projects and future projects and have lost extraordinary and significant competitive advantages and have lost domain names, patents and trademarks and have and will continue to incur costs and associated losses as in amounts not yet ascertained but well in excess of one billion dollars.

As a further proximate result of the acts of defendants, plaintiffs were prevented from attending to their usual occupation and thereby lost earnings


of 93

1

123456789

101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233

2

3

4

Uni

ted

Stat

es D

istri

ct C

ourt

For t

he N

orth

ern

Distri

ct o

f Califo

rnia

causing damage in amounts not yet ascertained but in excess of one billion dollars.

As a further proximate result of defendants' actions, plaintiffs present and future earning capacity has been greatly impaired in amounts not yet ascertained but well in excess of one billion dollars.

As a further proximate result of defendants' acts, as alleged herein and by reference, Plaintiffs have been damaged in that they need and have incurred legal, business and related services and sundry expenses reasonably required to respond to the ongoing malicious prosecution of Plaintiffs in amounts not yet full ascertained but including over $140,000 in legal costs alone.

As a further proximate result of the acts of defendants, plaintiffs will continue to incur, business, legal, medical and related expenses in amounts not yet ascertained.

As hereinbefore alleged, CLIVE FRANK BOUSTRED, RCB and WFB were held captive by defendants on multiple occasions, and were violently seized and Clive Frank Boustred was falsely arrested on multiple occasions, maliciously and without valid warrant or right to bail or any order of commitment or any other legal authority of any kind, without permission or even any reasonable cause to believe that any offense had been committed other than the offences committed against Plaintiffs by Defendants.

The aforementioned acts of defendants in falsely arresting and imprisoning CLIVE FRANK BOUSTRED and holding hostage RCB and WFB were without probable cause and carried out by using excessive force against plaintiffs and were willful and malicious and were intended to oppress and cause injury to plaintiffs. Plaintiffs are therefore entitled to an award of punitive damages against defendants.

Defendants' conduct was not only outrageous it was intentional and malicious and shocks the conscience and is grossly negligent, exhibiting a reckless disregard for plaintiffs' rights and conspiring against plaintiffs, causing plaintiffs to suffer humiliation, mental anguish, financial burdens, excessive court hearings and the need to answer multiple false charges frivolous motions, false imprisonment, kidnap, stress and emotional and


of 93

1

123456789

101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233

2

3

4

Uni

ted

Stat

es D

istri

ct C

ourt

For t

he N

orth

ern

Distri

ct o

f Califo

rnia

physical distress and plaintiffs were injured financially and in mind and body in amounts not yet fully ascertained but in excess of one billion dollars.

On information and/or belief Defendants intentionally conspired against and maliciously prosecuted Defendants so as to cause Defendant damages listed herein resulting in pecuniary and nonpecuniary injury to plaintiff. Said damages were incurred as a direct and proximate result of the Conspiracy and Malicious Prosecution of Defendants.

Defendants owed a duty to plaintiffs not to cause the harm as herein alleged. Defendants breached said duty. The acts of defendants were willful, wanton and malicious and were intended to oppress and cause injury to Plaintiffs and justify the awarding of exemplary and punitive damages in amounts according to proof.

Additionally Defendants have displayed deliberate indifference to the rights of plaintiffs, and, based upon the principles set forth in Monell v. New York City Department of Social Services , 436 U.S. 658 (1978), are thereby liable for all injuries and damages sustained by plaintiff as set forth in this complaint.

CLAIMS UPON WHICH RELIEF CAN BE GRANTED / CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS VIOLATED

On Information and belief, Defendants violated the following constitutional Articles and Amendments giving rise to Claims upon which relief can be granted:


of 93

1

123456789

101112131415161718

19

20

212223

2

3

4

Uni

ted

Stat

es D

istri

ct C

ourt

For t

he N

orth

ern

Distri

ct o

f Califo

rnia

First Claim For Relief General Claims As Stated In Earlier

Filings

PLAINTIFFS: All Plaintiffs

DEFENDANTS: All Defendants

VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS & ULTIMATE FACTSOn information and/or belief, Plaintiff refers to and incorporates herein

the allegations in the original Complaint, Amendments to the Compliant, Motions and Responses to Motions relating to the above listed claim upon which relief can be granted.

DAMAGESDamages incurred by Plaintiffs as a direct or indirect consequence to

the above mentioned and referenced actions by defendants are incorporated herein as listed in the “DAMAGES” section of this Complaint commencing on page 30 and as listed in the original Complaint, Amendments to the Compliant, Motions and Responses to Motions.

EVIDENCEPlaintiff refers to and incorporates herein the evidence in the original

Complaint, Amendments to the Compliant, Motions and Responses to Motions and that incorporated on the Evidence CD’s

Second Claim For Relief Violation of U.S. Const. 4 th & 14 th

Amendment [Seizures, searches and warrants, Unlawful Arrest

and/or Unlawful Seizure and/or Unlawful Search and/or

Excessive Force and/or Assault and/or Assault With A Deadly

Weapon and/or Battery and/or Abnormally Dangerous Activities

and/or Failure to Protect]4th Amendment: “The right of the people to be secure in their

persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and


of 93

1

1

2

3

4

56789

101112131415

16171819

20

21

22

23

24

25

26272829

2

3

4

Uni

ted

Stat

es D

istri

ct C

ourt

For t

he N

orth

ern

Distri

ct o

f Califo

rnia

particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized”.

14th Amendment: Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


DEFENDANTS:– Officers: Michael Macdonald , Amy Christy, M Pool, Mark

Tracy, Hemmingway (Deceased), Brozozowski, Griffin.– Judges, Commissioners & Clerks: Samuel S. Stevens , Art

Danner (Deceased), Michael E. Barton, Trilla E. Bahrke, Robert B. Atack, William M. Kelsay, Irwin Joseph, Phyllis J. Hamilton, Jeremy Fogel, Barbara J. Fox.

– District Attorneys: Steven Drottar, Bob Lee, Bill Doyle, Christopher M. Cattran

– Private Parties: Anamaria Boustred, Steffan Tichatschke, Genworth Financial.

– Lawyers: Gregor Guy Smith, Robert Frandeen, Paul Meltzer, Vicki J. Parry, Jason M. Heath

– State: Raven Harris, Angela Glass, County of Santa Cruz, County of Marin, County of Placer, Attorney General of The State of California, Attorney General of The United States of America, The State and Government and associated entities of The State of California, The State and Government and associated entities of The United States of America

– Jon Doe’s , 1 to n.VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS & ULTIMATE FACTS

Plaintiff refers to and incorporates herein the allegations in the original Complaint, Amendments to the Compliant, Motions and Responses to Motions and adds the following violations by the above listed Defendants of Plaintiffs 4th and 14th Amendment rights:

On March 10, 2003 Officers Michael Macdonald, Amy Christy, M Pool, Hemmingway (Deceased), Brozozowski and John Does 1-n did unlawfully and without probable cause employ Excessive Force and did Assault including


of 93

1

123456789

10

11

121314151617181920212223242526272829303132333435363738

2

3

4

Uni

ted

Stat

es D

istri

ct C

ourt

For t

he N

orth

ern

Distri

ct o

f Califo

rnia

Assault With A Deadly Weapon and did Batter and did conduct Abnormally Dangerous Activities and Failed to Protect and did Unlawfully Arrest and Unlawfully Seize and Unlawfully Search Plaintiffs Clive Frank Boustred, RCB and WFB.

As alleged, defendant OFFICERS unlawfully assaulted with a deadly weapon, battered, seized, searched and arrested plaintiff, maliciously and without probable cause, warrant or any order of commitment or any other legal authority of any kind without permission or reasonable cause to believe that any offense had been committed in violation of plaintiff’s right under the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution to be free from unreasonable search, seizure and excessive force. Additionally, defendant OFFICERS failed and refused to intervene to protect plaintiff from the excessive force of their fellow OFFICERS even though they had the opportunity to protect the plaintiff.

As alleged on or about March 12, 2003, Michael E. Barton without probable cause issued a CLETS order barring Plaintiff Clive Frank Boustred from communicating with his minor sons RCB and WFB, said order was issued without cause and under no legal authority what so ever, said order was issued maliciously with the intent to harm and to kidnap and hold hostage RCB and WFB from their father so as to maliciously prosecute Plaintiffs. In hearings and motions before the Court on multiple occasions following March 12, 2003, Michael E. Barton, and Samuel S. Steven, Art Danner (Deceased), William M. Kelsay, Irwin Joseph, Phyllis J. Hamilton and Jeremy Fogel did unlawfully uphold said unlawful CLETS order and void custody orders following said CLETS order with the effect of kidnapping and holding hostage RCB and WFB from their father Clive Frank Boustred. Anamaria Boustred, Steffan Tichatschke, Robert Frandeen, Vicki J. Parry, Raven Harris, Angela Glass and John Does 1-n did conspire with said unlawful seizure, kidnap, malicious prosecution and hostage taking.

In 2004, Santa Cruz Sheriffs, John Does 1-n, broke into and illegally searched and stole evidence from Plaintiff Clive Boustred’s home.

On repeated occasions since July 12, 2002, Defendants Glenworth Financial, Samuel S. Stevens and the State have against Clive Boustred’s


of 93

1

123456789

101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233

2

3

4

Uni

ted

Stat

es D

istri

ct C

ourt

For t

he N

orth

ern

Distri

ct o

f Califo

rnia

explicit instruction and will, unlawfully forced Plaintiff Clive Boustred to have a million dollar life insurance policy against his life which is owned by a party who has not only threatened his life but has actively and criminally conspired to the extent that Plaintiff was literally shot at, said defendants violated Plaintiffs 4th Amendment rights.



As a direct and proximate result of these acts of these defendants as alleged herein, CLIVE FRANK BOUSTRED, RCB, WFB suffered great physical and emotional injuries all of which have caused, and continue to cause, plaintiff great mental, physical and nervous pain, suffering and alienation. CLIVE FRANK BOUSTRED, RCB, WFB is informed and believes and thereon alleges that these injuries will result in some permanent disability to him. As a result of these injuries, CLIVE FRANK BOUSTRED, RCB, WFB has suffered general damages in amounts not yet ascertained.

As a further proximate result of defendants' acts, as alleged herein, CLIVE FRANK BOUSTRED, RCB, WFB has been damaged in that he needs and has incurred legal services, medical services, business costs, and sundries reasonably required in the treatment and relief of the injuries herein alleged in amounts not yet ascertained.

As a further proximate result of the acts of defendants, CLIVE FRANK BOUSTRED, RCB, WFB will incur medical, business and related expenses in the future. The full amount of these expenses is not known to plaintiff at this time.

As a further proximate result of the acts of defendants, CLIVE FRANK BOUSTRED, InfoTelesys, Inc. and Get IT Real, Inc. were prevented from attending to usual business and thereby lost earnings to damage in amounts not yet ascertained but in excess of one billion dollars.


of 93

1

12345

6789

1011121314151617181920212223242526272829303132

2

3

4

Uni

ted

Stat

es D

istri

ct C

ourt

For t

he N

orth

ern

Distri

ct o

f Califo

rnia

As a further proximate result of defendants' actions, plaintiff's present and future earning capacity has been greatly impaired in amounts not yet ascertained but in excess of one billion dollars.

The aforementioned acts of defendants in falsely arresting and imprisoning CLIVE FRANK BOUSTRED without probable cause and using excessive force against plaintiff were willful and malicious and were intended to oppress and cause injury to plaintiff. Plaintiff is therefore entitled to an award of punitive damages against defendant officers.

Having a million dollar target on your forehead is extraordinary unnerving. Defendants actions have disabled Plaintiffs ability to focus or concentrate thereby eliminating Plaintiffs liberty and pursuit of happiness and simply capacity to function in business.



Third Claim For Relief Violation of U.S. Const. 5 th

Amendment [Criminal proceedings, deprivation of life, liberty

and happiness]5th Amendment: No Person shall be held to answer for a capital, or

otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.


of 93

1

123456789

101112

13141516

17

18

19

202122232425262728

2

3

4

Uni

ted

Stat

es D

istri

ct C

ourt

For t

he N

orth

ern

Distri

ct o

f Califo

rnia


DEFENDANTS CATEGORIES:– Officers: Michael Macdonald, Amy Christy, M Pool, Mark




– Private Parties: Anamaria Boustred, Steffan Tichatschke– Lawyers: Gregor Guy Smith, Robert Frandeen, Paul Meltzer,

Vicki J. Parry, Jason M. Heath,– State: Raven Harris, Angela Glass, County of Santa Cruz,

County of Marin, County of Placer, Attorney General of The State of California, Attorney General of The United States of America, The State and Government and associated entities of The State of California, The State and Government and associated entities of The United States of America,


VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS & ULTIMATE FACTSPlaintiff refers to and incorporates herein the allegations in the original

Complaint, Amendments to the Compliant, Motions and Responses to Motions and adds the following violations to Plaintiffs 5th Amendment rights:

Without any indictment of a Grand Jury Defendants Michael Macdonald, Amy Christy, M Pool, Mark Tracy, Hemmingway (Deceased), Brozozowski, Griffin, Samuel S. Stevens , Art Danner (Deceased), Michael E. Barton, Trilla E. Bahrke, Steven Drottar, Bob Lee, Bill Doyle, Christopher M. Cattran, County of Santa Cruz, County of Marin, County of Placer, County of Marin, Attorney General of The State of California, Attorney General of The United States of America, The State and Government and associated entities of The State of California, The State and Government and associated entities of The United States of America and Jon Doe’s 1 to n held Plaintiff Clive Frank Boustred to answer for multiple infamous crimes, without probable cause or any evidence and said defendants deprived Plaintiffs of liberty, property, without due process of law.


of 93

1

1

2

3456789

101112131415161718192021

22232425262728293031323334353637

2

3

4

Uni

ted

Stat

es D

istri

ct C

ourt

For t

he N

orth

ern

Distri

ct o

f Califo

rnia

On information and belief defendants Samuel S. Stevens, Art Danner (Deceased), Michael E. Barton, Trilla E. Bahrke, Robert B. Atack, William M. Kelsay, Irwin Joseph, Phyllis J. Hamilton, Jeremy Fogel, Barbara J. Fox and Jon Doe’s 1 to n repeatedly on multiple occasions between 2002 and present denied Plaintiffs the most rudimentary due process rights violating Plaintiffs 5th Amendment rights in Criminal and civil proceedings and depriving Plaintiffs of liberty and happiness.


the above mentioned actions by defendants and incorporated herein are listed in the “DAMAGES” section of this Complaint commencing on page 30 and in the original Complaint, Amendments to the Compliant, Motions and Responses to Motions.



Fourth Claim For Relief Violation of U.S. Const. 6 th

Amendment [Criminal proceedings; public trial, impartial jury,

nature and cause of the accusation]6th Amendment: In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall

enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witness against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining Witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.


of 93

1

1234567

89

10111213

1415161718

19

20

21

2223242526272829

2

3

4

Uni

ted

Stat

es D

istri

ct C

ourt

For t

he N

orth

ern

Distri

ct o

f Califo

rnia

PLAINTIFFS: Clive Frank Boustred

DEFENDANTS:– Officers: Michael Macdonald, Amy Christy, M Pool, Mark








Complaint, Amendments to the Compliant, Motions and Responses to Motions and adds the following 6th Amendment violations against Plaintiffs by the above listed Defendants:

On multiple occasions Defendants listed above actively worked and/or conspired to deny Clive Frank Boustred the right to a speedy trial by repeatedly delaying proceedings, failing to file or accept filings, refusing to provide due process, refusing to hear Plaintiffs motions, refusing to consider evidence, refusing to allow relevant evidence, by refusing to allow appeals, by creating burdensome and slow appeal processes, by giving Plaintiff patently sham trials then throwing Plaintiff into a slow and burdensome appeal process, by creating a burdensome bureaucratic system of codes and rules that are impossible for the average citizen to understand or follow, by demanding excessive paperwork, by filing frivolous and false cases against Plaintiff, by demanding Plaintiffs meet specific structural forms in filing irregardless of content or the law or the facts or what is just and right, thereby denying Plaintiffs the right to a speedy trial in criminal proceedings.


of 93

1

1

2

3456789

1011121314151617181920

212223242526272829303132333435363738

2

3

4

Uni

ted

Stat

es D

istri

ct C

ourt

For t

he N

orth

ern

Distri

ct o

f Califo

rnia

On multiple occasions since March 10, 2003, Defendants Samuel S. Stevens , Art Danner (Deceased), Michael E. Barton, Trilla E. Bahrke, Robert B. Atack, William M. Kelsay, Irwin Joseph, Phyllis J. Hamilton, Jeremy Fogel, and John Does 1-n denied Plaintiff the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.

On information and belief, Defendants Art Danner, Trilla E. Bahrke, Steven Drottar, Bob Lee, Bill Doyle, Christopher M. Cattran and John Does 1-n. denied Plaintiff a public trial by an impartial jury, actively conspiring and working to fix the jury in favor of the Prosecution, denying the submission of evidence favorable to Plaintiff, allowing prosecution to submit lies and hearsay and double hearsay before the jury, denying favorable testimony by Plaintiff and by placing shills on the jury and denying Plaintiff the right to have Witnesses in his favor testify.

Art Danner, Steven Drottar, Bob Lee and John Does 1-n failed to inform Plaintiff Clive Boustred of the nature and cause of the accusation brought against him.





Fifth Claim For Relief Violation of U.S. Const. 7 th Amendment

[Trial by jury, Common law]7th Amendment: In Suits at common law, where the value in

controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-


of 93

1

123456789

101112131415

161718192021

22232425

26

27

282930

2

3

4

Uni

ted

Stat

es D

istri

ct C

ourt

For t

he N

orth

ern

Distri

ct o

f Califo

rnia

examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.


DEFENDANTS:– Judges, Commissioners & Clerks: Samuel S. Stevens , Art


– State: County of Santa Cruz, County of Marin, County of Placer, Attorney General of The State of California, Attorney General of The United States of America, The State and Government and associated entities of The State of California, The State and Government and associated entities of The United States of America,


Plaintiff refers to and incorporates herein the allegations in the original Complaint, Amendments to the Compliant, Motions and Responses to Motions and adds the following:

In Santa Cruz Superior Court Case FL 16028, F 06858, and CV 148542, Placer County Superior Court case Ct 72-002045, Defendants listed above repeatedly denied Plaintiffs their 7th Amendment right to Trial by Jury in suits of common law.






of 93

1

12

3

4

56789

10111213141516171819202122

232425262728

29303132

2

3

4

Uni

ted

Stat

es D

istri

ct C

ourt

For t

he N

orth

ern

Distri

ct o

f Califo

rnia

Sixth Claim For Relief Violation of U.S. Const. 8 th Amendment

Unreasonable bail, excessive fines, cruel & unusual punishment

and Wrongful Civil Proceedings 8th Amendment: Excessive bail shall not be required, nor

excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.









Complaint, Amendments to the Compliant, Motions and Responses to Motions and adds the following violations of Plaintiffs 8th Amendment rights by Defendants:

In Santa Cruz Superior Court Case FL 16028, F 06858, and CV 148542, Placer County Superior Court case Ct 72-002045 and Marin County Superior Court Defendants listed above repeatedly denied Plaintiffs protection under the 8th Amendment and demanded excessive bail and fines and imposed cruel and unusual punishment on Plaintiffs.

On or about March 10, 2003 in Santa Cruz Superior Court Case F 06858 Defendant Michael E. Barton, Art Danner and John Does 1-n set excessive bail


of 93

1

1

2

3

456

7

8

9101112131415161718192021222324

252627282930313233343536

2

3

4

Uni

ted

Stat

es D

istri

ct C

ourt

For t

he N

orth

ern

Distri

ct o

f Califo

rnia

at fifteen times the legal schedule of the alleged charges when there was absolutely no evidence supporting the alleged charges and when there was substantial evidence proving the alleged charges were false.

On or about March 12, 2003, Defendant Michael E. Barton inflicted cruel and unusual punishment on Plaintiffs Clive Boustred, RCB and WFB by ordering that Clive Boustred not communicate with his sons RCB and WFB for three years, this punishment was totally without merit or based on any probable cause or facts that even remotely related to ordering that Clive Boustred not communicate with his sons and was inflicted with malice as cruel and unusual punishment violating Plaintiffs 8th Amendment Rights.

On repeated occasions since March 12, 2003 Defendants listed above inflicted outrageous and cruel punishment on Plaintiffs Clive Frank Boustred, RCB and WFB by denying plaintiffs the right to live together, to enjoy each others company, to communicate, to have the common interactions between father and child, said actions were malicious and cruel and unusual punishment inflicted upon Plaintiffs.

Defendants Art Danner (Deceased) and John Does 1-n inflicted cruel and unusual punishment on Plaintiffs by sentencing Clive Frank Boustred to six months imprisonment without any right to bail despite a formal appeal having been filed and despite no final judgment after Art Danner gave Clive Boustred a sham trial and where Clive Boustred was falsely found guilty of three of the four charges.

In Placer County Case Number Ct 72-002045, Defendant Trilla E. Bahrke and John Does 1-n gave Clive Boustred a sham trial then had Clive Boustred arrested without any right to bail and held for twenty one days before issuing a cruel and unusual sentence for twenty one days for the afore mentioned SLAP suit. This sentence was after the Santa Cruz Sheriffs, including but not limited to Deputy Griffin, stole Clive Boustred’s vehicle off his church’s parking lot and after the Santa Cruz District Attorney filed four new false charges against Clive Boustred in Santa Cruz Superior Court Case number M19946 on the six month eve of the Santa Cruz Sheriffs assassination attempt against Clive Boustred.


of 93

1

123456789

1011121314151617181920212223242526272829303132

2

3

4

Uni

ted

Stat

es D

istri

ct C

ourt

For t

he N

orth

ern

Distri

ct o

f Califo

rnia

Plaintiff Clive Boustred was subject to strip searches in jail and forced to allow Sheriffs to look up his anus. Such behavior on behalf of the sheriffs is demeaning, cruel and unusual and flat out sick and perverted.

Plaintiff Clive Boustred was subject to unhealthy and filthy conditions in the Santa Cruz Jail which was ridiculously overcrowded and diseased including rampant Staff infections amongst inmates which went completely ignored by the sheriffs.

Plaintiffs have not listed herein all the 8th Amendment violations Defendants made against Plaintiffs as Plaintiffs remain under the duress and cruel and unusual punishment that the Defendants have intentionally inflicted against Plaintiffs as Plaintiffs are overburdened from simply responding to the paperwork that has been thrust on Plaintiffs, let alone dealing with the emotional, financial and physical burdens.






of 93

1

123456789

10111213

141516171819

2021222324

2

3

4

Uni

ted

Stat

es D

istri

ct C

ourt

For t

he N

orth

ern

Distri

ct o

f Califo

rnia

Seventh Claim For Relief Intentional/Negligent Infliction of

Emotional Distress, Fraud/Deceit



VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS & ULTIMATE FACTSPlaintiff refers to and incorporates herein the allegations in the original Complaint, Amendments to the Compliant, Motions and Responses to Motions and adds the following violations of Plaintiffs rights by Defendants:

On or about February 20, 2003, in violation of Rules 7-103 and 7-108 of the Rules of Professional Responsibility and Conduct of The State Bar of California and without any basis for an urgency and without giving proper notice in violation of section § 240 of California’s Family Code and also without any legal basis, Defendant Vicki J. Parry called an unethical and unlawful ex parte hearing to “clarify” an order prohibiting Petitioner Clive Boustred’s former personal assistant and his wife’s lover, Defendant Stefan Tichatschke, from contact with RCB and WFB. Vicki J. Parry unlawfully secured a void Order unlawfully granting Stefan Tichatschke the right to have contact with Petitioner’s RCB and WFB. On repeated occasions, Defendants Samuel S. Stevens, Art Danner (Deceased), Michael E. Barton, Trilla E. Bahrke, William M. Kelsay, Irwin Joseph, Phyllis J. Hamilton, Jeremy Fogel, Michael Macdonald, Amy Christy, M Pool, Mark Tracy, Hemmingway (Deceased), Brozozowski, Griffin, Steven Drottar, Bob Lee, Bill Doyle, Christopher M. Cattran, Anamaria Boustred, Steffan Tichatschke, Genworth Financial, Gregor Guy Smith, Robert Frandeen, Paul Meltzer, Vicki J. Parry, Jason M. Heath, Raven Harris, Angela Glass, and Jon Doe’s 1 to n. Intentionally and/or Negligently Inflicted Emotional Distress and committed Fraud and engaged in Racketeering against Defendants.

Defendants' conduct as described herein was not only outrageous it was intentional and malicious, or at the least grossly negligent, exhibiting a reckless disregard for plaintiffs' rights and conspiring against plaintiffs, causing plaintiffs to suffer humiliation, mental anguish, financial burdens, excessive court hearing and need to answer false charges, stress and


of 93

1

1

2

3

4

56789

1011121314151617181920212223242526272829303132

2

3

4

Uni

ted

Stat

es D

istri

ct C

ourt

For t

he N

orth

ern

Distri

ct o

f Califo

rnia

emotional and physical distress and plaintiffs were injured financially and in mind and body all to their damage in amounts according to proof. Defendants owed a duty to plaintiffs not to cause the harm as herein alleged. Defendants breached said duty.

The aforementioned acts of defendants were willful, wanton, malicious and oppressive and justify the awarding of exemplary and punitive damages in amounts according to proof.





Eighth Claim For Relief Conspiracy



VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS & ULTIMATE FACTSPlaintiff refers to and incorporates herein the allegations in the original Complaint, Amendments to the Compliant, Motions and Responses to Motions, collectively the “COMPLAINT” and adds the following relating to Defendants conspiracy against Plaintiffs:

On information and/or belief and on the specific dates, times and events listed in the “COMPLAINT”, Defendants intentionally conspired against Defendants on multiple occasions so as to cause Defendant damages listed herein resulting in pecuniary and nonpecuniary injury to plaintiff. Said damages were incurred as a direct and proximate result of the Conspiracy of Defendants.


of 93

1

1234567

89

10111213

14151617

18

19

20

2122232425262728293031

2

3

4

Uni

ted

Stat

es D

istri

ct C

ourt

For t

he N

orth

ern

Distri

ct o

f Califo

rnia

Additionally Defendants have displayed deliberate indifference to the rights of plaintiffs, and, based upon the principles set forth in Monell v. New York City Department of Social Services , 436 U.S. 658 (1978), are thereby liable for all injuries and damages sustained by plaintiff as set forth in this complaint.





Ninth Claim For Relief Malicious Prosecution










of 93

1

12345

6789

1011

12131415

16

17

18

1920212223242526272829303132333435

2

3

4

Uni

ted

Stat

es D

istri

ct C

ourt

For t

he N

orth

ern

Distri

ct o

f Califo

rnia


Complaint, Amendments to the Compliant, Motions and Responses to Motions and adds the following violations of Plaintiffs ABOVE LISTED rights by Defendants:

As hereinbefore alleged, CLIVE FRANK BOUSTRED, RCB and WFB were maliciously prosecuted by the above listed Defendants on multiple occasions as referenced throughout the Complaint and responses to Motions, so as to drive Plaintiffs into financial ruin and chaos in order to eliminate liability for crimes committed defendants against plaintiff.



The aforementioned acts of defendants in falsely arresting and imprisoning CLIVE FRANK BOUSTRED were willful and malicious and were intended to oppress and cause injury to him and maliciously proscute him. Plaintiffs are therefore entitled to an award of punitive damages.



Tenth Claim For Relief Kidnap, accessory to kidnap,

parental alienation, Mental Suffering, Alienation of Affections,

Trespass To Chattel

PLAINTIFFS: Clive Boustred, RCB & WFB


Tracy, Hemmingway (Deceased), Brozozowski, Griffin,


of 93

1

123456789

10

11121314151617181920

21222324

25

26

27

28

29

3031

2

3

4

Uni

ted

Stat

es D

istri

ct C

ourt

For t

he N

orth

ern

Distri

ct o

f Califo

rnia

– Judges, Commissioners & Clerks: Samuel S. Stevens , Art Danner (Deceased), Michael E. Barton, Trilla E. Bahrke, William M. Kelsay, Irwin Joseph, Phyllis J. Hamilton, Jeremy Fogel,


– Private Parties: Anamaria Boustred, Steffan Tichatschke,– Lawyers: Gregor Guy Smith, Robert Frandeen, Paul Meltzer,

Vicki J. Parry, Jason M. Heath,– State: Raven Harris, Angela Glass, County of Santa Cruz,



Plaintiff refers to and incorporates herein the allegations in the original Complaint, Amendments to the Compliant, Motions and Responses to Motions relating to said charge.





Eleventh Claim For Relief Fraud




Danner (Deceased), Michael E. Barton, Trilla E. Bahrke, Robert B. Atack,


of 93

1

123456789

10111213141516171819

202122232425

26272829

30

31

32

33343536

2

3

4

Uni

ted

Stat

es D

istri

ct C

ourt

For t

he N

orth

ern

Distri

ct o

f Califo

rnia

William M. Kelsay, Irwin Joseph, Phyllis J. Hamilton, Jeremy Fogel, Barbara J. Fox,


– Private Parties: Anamaria Boustred, Steffan Tichatschke, Genworth Financial,




Plaintiff refers to and incorporates herein the allegations in the original Complaint, Amendments to the Compliant, Motions and Responses to Motions and adds the following violations of Plaintiffs ABOVE LISTED Amendment rights by Defendants:

Additional further specific allegations to be argued in trial following depositions and discovery.






of 93

1

123456789

10111213141516171819202122

232425262728

2930313233

2

3

4

Uni

ted

Stat

es D

istri

ct C

ourt

For t

he N

orth

ern

Distri

ct o

f Califo

rnia

Twelfth Claim For Relief Trespass To Land



Tracy, Hemmingway (Deceased), Brozozowski– State: Raven Harris, County of Santa Cruz, County of Marin,

County of Placer, Attorney General of The State of California, Attorney General of The United States of America, The State and Government and associated entities of The State of California, The State and Government and associated entities of The United States of America,


Plaintiff refers to and incorporates herein the allegations in the original Complaint, Amendments to the Compliant, Motions and Responses to Motions relating to the above charge (March 10, 2003 and other dates).

Additional further specific allegations to be argued in trial following depositions and discovery. For example, it is not confirmed as to the specific names of the officers who entered Plaintiff Clive Boustred’s home and conducted an illegal search in 2004.






of 93

1

1

2

3

456789

10111213141516171819

202122232425

26272829

2

3

4

Uni

ted

Stat

es D

istri

ct C

ourt

For t

he N

orth

ern

Distri

ct o

f Califo

rnia

Thirteenth Claim For Relief Abuse Of Process




Complaint, Amendments to the Compliant, Motions and Responses to Motions relating to the above charge.

Additional further specific allegations to be argued in trial following depositions and discovery.





Fourteenth Claim For Relief Defamation, Libel, Slander




the allegations in the original Complaint, Amendments to the Compliant, Motions and Responses to Motions relating to the above listed claims upon which relief can be granted.


of 93

1

1

2

3

456789

101112131415

16171819

20

21

22

2324252627

2

3

4

Uni

ted

Stat

es D

istri

ct C

ourt

For t

he N

orth

ern

Distri

ct o

f Califo

rnia





Fifteenth Claim For Relief Disparagement Of Business

Reputation Or Property, Interference With Business Relations,

Pure Economic Loss, Intentional Interference With Prospective

Economic Advantage,








of 93

1

123456

789

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

1718192021

222324252627

2

3

4

Uni

ted

Stat

es D

istri

ct C

ourt

For t

he N

orth

ern

Distri

ct o

f Califo

rnia



Sixteenth Claim For Relief Interference With Family And

Political Relations









Seventeenth Claim For Relief Invasion Of Privacy,




the allegations in the original Complaint, Amendments to the Compliant,


of 93

1

1234

5

6

7

8

910111213

141516171819

20212223

24

25

26

272829

2

3

4

Uni

ted

Stat

es D

istri

ct C

ourt

For t

he N

orth

ern

Distri

ct o

f Califo

rnia

Motions and Responses to Motions relating to the above listed claims upon which relief can be granted.





Eighteenth Claim For Relief Racketeering





Including but not limited to Defendants other than Private Party Defendants engaging in multiple forms of Racketeering in the legal industry and incarceration industry.




of 93

1

12

345678

9101112

13

14

15

1617181920212223

242526272829

2

3

4

Uni

ted

Stat

es D

istri

ct C

ourt

For t

he N

orth

ern

Distri

ct o

f Califo

rnia



Nineteenth Claim For Relief Negligent Misrepresentation

PLAINTIFFS: Clive Boustred, RCB and WFB

DEFENDANTS:– Lawyers: Gregor Guy Smith, Robert Frandeen, Paul Meltzer– Jon Doe’s , 1 to n.


the allegations in the original Complaint, Amendments to the Compliant, Motions and Responses to Motions relating to the above listed claims upon which relief can be granted and also that Negligent Misrepresentation listed in the Evidence CD folder: “\EXHIBITS\Exhibit C - Case Files\Exhibit C-8 - Federal Court Habeas” and the file “Opening Brief Clive Boustred 6th Appellat Court v6 FILED.doc” included herein by reference.

On information and belief, without lawful authority and in blatant defiance of lawful orders by their Father, Defendant Robert Frandeen intentionally, fraudulently and negligently misrepresented RCB and WFB. See also RESPONSE TO MOTIONS MADE ON BEHALF OF FRANDEEN page 80 incorporated herein by reference.

On information and belief, Defendant Paul Meltzer was negligent in representing Clive Boustred in false and fraudulent criminal charges that were brought against Clive Boustred in Santa Cruz Superior Court Case F 06858, Mr. Meltzer went as far as failing to challenge unlawful denials of critical Pitches Motions; failing to challenging the charges which has no basis at law to the extent of not only no Actus Rea, No Mensrea and no Corpus Delecti but also the blatant fact that no Real Party of Interest brought these charges against Clive Boustred amongst many other most fundamental issues at law which reflect blatant legal misrepresentation by Mr. Meltzer and also Gregor Guy Smith. RESPONSE TO MOTIONS MADE ON BEHALF OF PAUL


of 93

1

1234

5

6

7

89

1011121314151617181920212223242526272829303132

2

3

4

Uni

ted

Stat

es D

istri

ct C

ourt

For t

he N

orth

ern

Distri

ct o

f Califo

rnia

MELTZER page 85 incorporated herein by reference. And Evidence CD folder: “\EXHIBITS\Exhibit C - Case Files\Exhibit C-8 - Federal Court Habeas” and the file “Opening Brief Clive Boustred 6th Appellat Court v6 FILED.doc” also included herein by reference.





Twentieth Claim For Relief Negligence








of 93

1

1234

56789

10

11121314

15

16

17

1819202122

232425262728

2

3

4

Uni

ted

Stat

es D

istri

ct C

ourt

For t

he N

orth

ern

Distri

ct o

f Califo

rnia



Twenty-first Claim For Relief Assumpsit

PLAINTIFFS: Clive Boustred, InfoTelesys, Inc., Get IT Real, Inc.

DEFENDANTS:– Private Parties: Anamaria Boustred, Steffan Tichatschke,

Genworth Financial,– Lawyers: Gregor Guy Smith, Robert Frandeen, Paul Meltzer– State: Raven Harris, Attorney General of The State of

California, Attorney General of The United States of America, The State and Government and associated entities of The State of California, The State and Government and associated entities of The United States of America,


On information and/or belief, Plaintiff refers to and incorporates herein the allegations in the original Complaint, Amendments to the Compliant, Motions and Responses to Motions relating to the above listed claim upon which relief can be granted and adds the following violations:

Defendant Stefan Tichatschke breeched his Contract with InfoTelesys, Inc. and Get IT Real, Inc. and is libel for damages according to contract.

Defendant Anamaria Boustred breeched her marriage contract with Clive Boustred and is libel for damages according to contract.

State Defendant’s breeched their contract with Clive Boustred a Naturalized Citizen who the State entered into Contract with, the State is libel for the breech of contract by their employees.

Defendants Gregor Guy Smith and Paul Meltzer breeched their contracts with Clive Boustred to represent him in accordance with the law.

Defendant Raven Harris and Santa Cruz County Human Resources Agency breeched the contract entered into between said parties on or about March 29, 2003 and are libel for said breech of contract.


of 93

1

1234

5

67

8

910111213141516171819202122232425262728293031323334

2

3

4

Uni

ted

Stat

es D

istri

ct C

ourt

For t

he N

orth

ern

Distri

ct o

f Califo

rnia





Twenty-second Claim For Relief Public Nuisance










of 93

1

123456

789

10

11

12

13

1415161718

192021222324

25262728

2

3

4

Uni

ted

Stat

es D

istri

ct C

ourt

For t

he N

orth

ern

Distri

ct o

f Califo

rnia

Twenty-third Claim For Relief Conversion


DEFENDANTS: All DefendantsDeputy Griffin, The Attorney General of The State of California, the State of

California and the County of Santa Cruz and John Does 1-n.


the allegations in the original Complaint, Amendments to the Compliant, Motions and Responses to Motions relating to the above listed claim upon which relief can be granted in addition to:

On or about September 9, 2003 Deputy Griffin, the County of Santa Cruz and State of California and John Does 1-n committed Conversion by unlawfully taking Clive Boustred’s vehicle from the Twin Lakes Church’s parking lot and County and Sheriff employees did repeatedly refuse to return said vehicle and did unlawfully extort money in exchange for said vehicle from Clive Boustred.


the above mentioned and referenced actions by defendants are incorporated herein as listed in the “DAMAGES” section of this Complaint commencing on page 30 and as listed in the original Complaint, Amendments to the Compliant, Motions and Responses to Motions and include well over one thousand dollars paid by Mr. Boustred to recover his vehicle.




of 93

1

1

2

3

4

5

6789

10111213141516

17181920212223

24252627

2

3

4

Uni

ted

Stat

es D

istri

ct C

ourt

For t

he N

orth

ern

Distri

ct o

f Califo

rnia

Twenty-fourth Claim For Relief Criminal Conversation


DEFENDANTS: Steffan Tichatschke


the allegations in the original Complaint, Amendments to the Compliant, Motions and Responses to Motions relating to the above listed claim upon which relief can be granted and adds the following violations:

On or about dates extending from January 2002 through to July 12, 2003, Defendant Stefan Tichatschke who at the time was acting as a Personal Assistant to Clive Boustred, committed Criminal Conversion with Anamaria Boustred damaging the marriage of Clive Boustred and thus inflicting significant harm on all Plaintiffs.





Twenty-fifth Claim For Relief Violation of U.S. Const.

Article III Judicial department responsabilityU.S. Constitution, Article III, Section 1: The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.


of 93

1

1

2

3

456789

10111213

141516171819

20212223

24

25

26272829303132

2

3

4

Uni

ted

Stat

es D

istri

ct C

ourt

For t

he N

orth

ern

Distri

ct o

f Califo

rnia

Section 2… The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury;

PLAINTIFFS: All Parties

DEFENDANTS:– Judges, Commissioners & Clerks: Samuel S. Stevens, Art

Danner (Deceased), Michael E. Barton, Trilla E. Bahrke, Robert B. Atack, William M. Kelsay, Irwin Joseph, Phyllis J. Hamilton, Jeremy Fogel



Plaintiff refers to and incorporates herein the allegations in this document, the original Complaint, Amendments to the Compliant, Motions and Responses to Motions and adds the following violations against Plaintiffs by the above listed Defendants:

Defendant Art Danner, rated as Not Qualified by the California Judicial Nominations Committee was in blatant violation of the U.S. Constitution, Article III, Section 1, allowed to preside as a judge in the Santa Cruz Superior Court. Art Danners criminal past was and is well published and know and specifically made know by Plaintiff to Defendants. Defendants failed to act in accordance with the law and caused extraordinary violations against Plaintiffs.

Defendants Art Danner (Deceased) Trilla E. Bahrke failed to give Plaintiff Clive Boustred a Trial by Jury and instead corrupted the process so that the trial was not by jury but by a corrupted mix of trial by judge and jury where the jury was not allowed to make decisions at law or in regard to evidence in accordance with the Constructional guarantee.

All above listed Defendants are sitting in bad behavior due to multiple treasonous and outrageous violations of the construct of the Constitution committed by said Defendants as listed herein and to be listed following discovery and depositions.


of 93

1

123

4

56789

10111213141516171819202122232425262728293031323334

2

3

4

Uni

ted

Stat

es D

istri

ct C

ourt

For t

he N

orth

ern

Distri

ct o

f Califo

rnia





Twenty-sixth Claim For Relief Violation of U.S. Const.

Article IV State and the Federal guarantee against domestic

violenceU.S. Constitution, Article IV, Section 4. The United States shall

guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.





– Lawyers: Gregor Guy Smith, Robert Frandeen, Paul Meltzer– District Attorneys: Steven Drottar, Bob Lee, Bill Doyle,

Christopher M. Cattran,– State: Raven Harris, Angela Glass, County of Santa Cruz,




of 93

1

123456

789

10

11

12

13

1415161718

19

20

21222324252627282930313233343536

2

3

4

Uni

ted

Stat

es D

istri

ct C

ourt

For t

he N

orth

ern

Distri

ct o

f Califo

rnia

VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS & ULTIMATE FACTSPlaintiff refers to and incorporates herein the allegations in this

document, the original Complaint, Amendments to the Compliant, Motions and Responses to Motions and adds the following violations against Plaintiffs by the above listed Defendants:

On March 10, 2003 and on repeated occasions and continuing to this very day, the above listed Defendants failed to protect Plaintiffs Clive Boustred, RCB and WFB from domestic violence and did in fact engage directly in domestic violence against said Plaintiffs as listed extensively throughout the COMPLAINT.





Twenty-seventh Claim For Relief Violation of U.S. Const. 1 st

Amendment [Freedom of speech & petition of grievances]U.S. Constitution, Article IV, Section 4: Congress shall make no law

respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.



Tracy, Hemmingway (Deceased), Brozozowski, Griffin,


of 93

1

123456789

10

111213141516

17181920

21

22

2324252627

28

29

3031

2

3

4

Uni

ted

Stat

es D

istri

ct C

ourt

For t

he N

orth

ern

Distri

ct o

f Califo

rnia

– Judges, Commissioners & Clerks: Samuel S. Stevens , Art Danner (Deceased), Michael E. Barton, Trilla E. Bahrke, Robert B. Atack, William M. Kelsay, Irwin Joseph, Phyllis J. Hamilton, Jeremy Fogel, Barbara J. Fox,





California and U.S. Courts have so corrupted the Constitution so as to make it impossible to redress grievances, the California Code of Civil Procedure § 170.1 process is so utterly ineffective that lawyers advise not to use it, the Judicial Nominations Committee ignores complaints filed against judges, Senators and Congresspersons ignore petitions for grievances despite significant and irrefutable evidence showing the grievances are valid and extremely serious. Defendants have violated Plaintiffs rights under U.S. Constitution, Article IV, Section 4.






of 93

1

123456789

1011121314151617181920212223242526

272829303132

33343536

2

3

4

Uni

ted

Stat

es D

istri

ct C

ourt

For t

he N

orth

ern

Distri

ct o

f Califo

rnia

Twenty-eighth Claim For Relief Violation of U.S. Const. 2 nd

Amendment [Right to bear arms)2nd Amendment: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the

security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

PLAINTIFFS: Clive Boustred








On or about March 12, 2003, Defendants’ ordered Plaintiff Clive Boustred to get rid of his arms in blatant violation of the 2nd Amendment.




of 93

1

1

2

345

6

7

89

10111213141516171819202122232425262728

293031323334

2

3

4

Uni

ted

Stat

es D

istri

ct C

ourt

For t

he N

orth

ern

Distri

ct o

f Califo

rnia



Twenty-ninth Claim For Relief Warranty









In order to complete naturalization, Clive Frank Boustred, was required to swear allegiance to the Constitution of the United States, said Constitution was given as a Warrantee to Clive Frank Boustred. Similar Warrantee is afforded all citizens and other Plaintiffs. Defendants listed in this Claim breached that Warrantee. As a consequence Plaintiffs have suffered damages listed herein.


the above mentioned and referenced actions by defendants are incorporated herein as listed in the “DAMAGES” section of this Complaint commencing on


of 93

1

1234

5

6

7

89

1011121314151617181920212223242526272829303132

33343536

2

3

4

Uni

ted

Stat

es D

istri

ct C

ourt

For t

he N

orth

ern

Distri

ct o

f Califo

rnia

page 30 and as listed in the original Complaint, Amendments to the Compliant, Motions and Responses to Motions.



D. DECLARATION & OPPOSITION TO MOTIONS TO DISMISS AND STRIKE

Defendants and their surrogate colleague and employee of some of the Defendants are attempting to force Plaintiff to try this matter before a judge when a judge has no power in this case (11th Amendment & Due Process mandates). While demanding more definitive statements and evidence, despite the sufficiency of Plaintiffs complaints and an extraordinary volume of evidence Plaintiffs have filed along with the complaint, Defendants refuse to answer Discovery, Interrogatories or Depositions then move to have the case dismissed for a ‘lack of evidence’ or some other frivolous claim.

Attempts by Defendants to have the case dismissed along the basis of a failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted is looking rather pathetic in light of over twenty nine well established claims upon which relief can be granted coupled with volumes of evidence and documentation of Defendants culpability.

Response to Defendants motions to dismiss and strike are covered in general and specifically where appropriate – responses herein are amended to the related motion of each Defendant:

MOTIONS TO DISMISS BECAUSE COMPLAINT IS

AMENDED OR TIME BARED ARE BASELESSConsidering that Defendants have embarked on three and a half years

of malicious prosecution against Plaintiffs with the express purpose of forcing Plaintiffs into a situation where they cannot hold Defendants accountable for


of 93

1

12

34567

8

9

10111213141516171819202122232425

26

27

282930

2

3

4

Uni

ted

Stat

es D

istri

ct C

ourt

For t

he N

orth

ern

Distri

ct o

f Califo

rnia

outrageous and malicious crimes Defendants committed against Plaintiffs, and that this case was filed a year and a half ago, and that this case has been delayed as a direct consequence of frivolous attempts to have the case dismissed, and then to turn and request that the case be dismissed on a basis that a filing may or may not be a few days late is “highly disconcerting”. Furthermore Defendants including Angela Glass specifically demand more definitive statements and responses to ongoing frivolous Motions to Dismiss and Strike, Defendants are thus specifically requesting Amendments to the Complaint and Plaintiffs are entitled to continue to amend the complaint. Naturally significant amendments to the complaint can occur once discovery has taken place, a step in due process that the Defendants and Court are refusing to follow.

The active and outrageously malicious prosecution of Plaintiffs by Defendants specifically eliminates any time-bar on any element to this case. The claim that Plaintiffs did not file any tort claims against Santa Cruz is blatantly fraudulent see Original Complaint which includes copies of the actual tort claims and refusal of accountability by the county see Exhibits CD - EXHIBITS\Exhibit E – Claims for all the claims filed which were filed then properly amended thus avoiding any statutes of limitations. Let it be Noticed that Santa Cruz Superior Court gave Plaintiff Clive Boustred a blatantly sham trial in 2004 then remanded him into custody without any right to bail so as to specifically prevent Mr. Boustred from filing the suit against the County. The behavior of the Court and County and utterly blatant violations at law so as to maliciously prosecute Mr. Boustred and force statutes of limitations by literally locking Mr. Boustred behind bars on false charges is outrageous and shocks the conscience. Any judge with the slightest hint of integrity would have severely sanctions the County of Santa Cruz and the government employees who carried out these outrageous crimes against Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs claims were timely and are specifically not time-bard as a consequence of the County’s outrageous behavior.

Statutory Limitations go out the window in malicious prosecution cases: “Duty of a trial court to afford every defendant a fair and impartial trial is of constitutional dimension; where the procedure has fallen short of


of 93

1

123456789

101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233

2

3

4

Uni

ted

Stat

es D

istri

ct C

ourt

For t

he N

orth

ern

Distri

ct o

f Califo

rnia

that standard, an accused has been denied due process and the inherent power of the court to correct matters by granting a new trial transcends statutory limitations. People v. Oliver, 120 Cal.Rptr. 368, 46 C.A.3d 747.

THE COMPLAINT BY INFOTELESYS, INC. AND GET IT

REAL, INC. IS BROUGHT AGAINST THE STATES ACROSS

STATE BORDERS AND MAY BE REPRESENTED BY

PRINCIPALS TO THE CORPORATE PERSONS WHO ARE THE

ONLY REAL PARTIES OF INTEREST.A corporation in the U.S.A. is recognized as “person” as defined by the

14th Amendment and is therefore Constitutionally guaranteed the right to self representation. By law a corporation may be represented by their principles who are the real parties of interest. This argument at law has been well substantiated in Plaintiffs earlier filings and has not and can not be refuted by any parties. Rulings buy incompetent judges do not make any new laws. C.L.D. Const. Inc. v. City of San Ramon (2004) and Caressa Camille, In.d v. Alcoholic Beverage Control Apeals Board do not make any new law, these cases were ruled in error to the most basic construct of Constitutional law.

Constitution overrules Common-Law? Judges and attorneys efforts to usurp the Legislature authority amounts to treason: Article I, Section 1. “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.”

It must be noted that the whim and caprice of a judge, no matter at what level of the court, is by no means an establishment of the “will of the people” as represented by the Common Law precedent concept. The judiciary has no right to legislate law. The judiciary also has no need or right to interpret the law, the function of the judiciary is to administer the courts. The judiciary’s vital role is to ensure that the law of the land is fairly followed. In Common Law, it is clear that no law can exist that cannot be understood by the common man, eliminating the need to “interpret” the law. I.e. if a law is ambiguous, if it is open to interpretation, then that law does not meet the


of 93

1

123

4

5

6

7

8

910111213141516171819202122232425262728293031

2

3

4

Uni

ted

Stat

es D

istri

ct C

ourt

For t

he N

orth

ern

Distri

ct o

f Califo

rnia

fundamental construct of Common Law. In cases where law is ambiguous, the only function of the Judiciary is to send the law back to the legislature.

There is no lawful mandate that any matter must be represented in court by a class of individuals called attorneys or lawyers. The 13th

Amendment which was properly ratified at the Virginia General Assembly on March 12, 1819 and which has subsequently disappeared unlawfully from the Constitution reads: "If any citizen of the United States shall accept, claim, receive, or retain any title of nobility or honour, or shall without the consent of Congress, accept and retain any present, pension, office, or emolument of any kind whatever, from any Emperor, King, Prince, or foreign Power, such person shall cease to be a citizen of the United States, and shall be incapable of holding any office of trust or profit under them, or either of them." dictates that any individual who pledges allegiance to the BAR and takes on the title “Esq” looses their citizenship. How is it that some judges who themselves, according to this ratified amendment, are not entitled to hold office, go as far as to insist that only ‘attorneys’ may speak for corporations or children. Not only is such a ruling trying to force attorneys to speak on behalf of corporations unlawful but it is blatantly treasonous to the construct of the Constitution in light of the hated practice in England of courts only allowing Barristers to speak on behalf of persons, which clearly our Constitution eliminates. Furthermore considering that Defendants are directly responsible for driving Plaintiff into financial ruin as a consequence of their malicious prosecution and thereby make it impossible for Plaintiffs to afford competent counsel, such a ruling dismissing corporate parties in this basis is clearly utterly unjust. Corporate parties remain in this case.

A person in law, includes both a natural person, i.e., a human being, and an artificial person, i.e., a corporation. In strict sense, in law, a person is any being capable of having rights and duties and is of two classes only, namely, natural person and legal person. A natural person is a human being who has the capacity for rights and duties. A corporation is a legal person.. See First National Bank of Boston v Belluth, 435 U.S. 765, 98 S.Ct. 1407, 55 L.Ed.2d 707. Lawrence v Craven Tire Co., 169 S.E.2d 440, 210 Va. 138. §1-201(29) of the U.P.C. defines the word “person” as follows: an individual, a


of 93

1

123456789

101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233

2

3

4

Uni

ted

Stat

es D

istri

ct C

ourt

For t

he N

orth

ern

Distri

ct o

f Califo

rnia

corporation, an organization, or other legal entity. The word has been statutorily defined as follows: "Person" includes individual, partnership, and corporation, but does not include governmental unit. 11 U.S.C. §101(30). An individual, a corporation, a partnership, an association, a joint-stock company, a trust, any unincorporated organization, or a government or political subdivision thereof. As used in this paragraph the term "trust" shall include only a trust where the interest or interests of the beneficiary or beneficiaries are evidenced by a security. 15 U.S.C. §77(b)(2). An individual, a corporation, a partnership, an association, a joint-stock company, a business trust, or an unincorporated organization. 15 U.S.C. §78(c)(9). An individual or company. 15 U.S.C. §79(b)(1) "Person" and "whoever" means an individual, partnership, committee, association, corporation, or any other organization or group of persons. 18 U.S.C. §591(g). The term "person" and the term "whoever" include any individual, corporation, company, association, firm, partnership, society, or joint-stock company. 18 U.S.C. §917(1). Any employee, or agent of the United States or any State or political subdivision thereof, and any individual, partnership, association, joint-stock company, trust, or corporation. 18 U.S.C. §2510(6). "Person" includes one or more individuals, labor organizations, partnerships, associations, corporations, legal representatives, mutual companies, joint-stock companies, trusts, unincorporated organizations, trustees, trustees in bankruptcy, or receivers. 29 U.S.C. §403 (d). An individual, a corporation, an organization, or other legal entity. U.C.C. §1-201(29). "Person" includes an individual or an organization. U.C.C. §1-201(30). A natural person or an organization. 12 C.F.R. §226.2(v). Principles of a cooperation represent the person of the corporation and are not only liable for actions of the corporation but are also entitled to speak for the corporation and are in fact the only Real Parties of Interest of the corporation. An attorney is not a Real Party of Interest for a corporation or for that matter a minor child (other than their own children), consequentially an attorney cannot speak for the corporation or child, everything an attorney submits on behalf of a corporate person or child is by definition of the law, hearsay.


of 93

1

123456789

1011121314151617181920212223242526272829303132

2

3

4

Uni

ted

Stat

es D

istri

ct C

ourt

For t

he N

orth

ern

Distri

ct o

f Califo

rnia

PLAINTIFFS RCB AND WFB REMAIN IN THE CASE The court and defendants have failed to give any reason at law as to

why a father cannot represent his children and have failed to answer arguments supporting this right already submitted. Under Common-Law a father owns his children and is not only fully entitled to represent his children he is also fully responsible for his children and their actions. Clive Boustred claims and is RCB and WFB’s guardian ad litem and father and head of family. Furthermore, a Father cannot alienate his right to the Custody and control of his child People ex rel Barry v. Mercien 3 Hill 399. Any attempt to dismiss RCB and WFB from the case is unlawful and void. See also argument in previous section. Ruddock v. Ohls and J.W. v. Superior Court and J.W. v. Superior Court and the “Code” is not law and does not make any new law but violates Constitutional law and Common-law.

It is exceptionally important to recognize that the United States of America is not a Communist or Socialist nation, the State is not the Head of Family and the State cannot usurp the right retained by Fathers to represent their children - any claim made to the contrary is treasonous – 9 th

Amendment: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

DEFENDANT’S CLAIM THAT NO FACTS HAVE BEEN

PRODUCED IS BASELESSDefendants claim that no facts have been put forward implicating any

wrongdoing. Firstly, significant factual evidence has been put forward in the Complaint and Exhibits CD implicating each and every defendant for multiple crimes committed against Plaintiffs. Secondly, factual matters are judged by the Jury in trial, any attempt to have a judge who is a colleague of Defendants judge these facts is in excess of jurisdiction for that judge. Thirdly, Plaintiffs have been specifically prohibited from conducting discovery and have not been allowed to serve interrogatories on defendants, seeking dismissal based on such a claim relating to any lack of evidence prior to discovery is not only baseless it is inappropriate.


of 93

1

1

23456789

10111213141516171819

20

21

22232425262728293031

2

3

4

Uni

ted

Stat

es D

istri

ct C

ourt

For t

he N

orth

ern

Distri

ct o

f Califo

rnia

DEFENDANTS CLAIM THAT NO RELEVANT LEGAL

ANALYSIS HAS BEEN PUT FORWARD IS BASELESS.Defendants claim that no relevant legal analysis in opposition to the

relief defendant seeks has been put forward is false. See also Exhibits CD - EXHIBITS\Exhibit F - CASE LAW\applicable_case_law.htm which includes one hundred and ninety seven pages of applicable case law. Significant legal precedent exists to bring this matter to trial and said precedents have been properly presented. Defendants attempts to seek dismissal of the case are baseless and of no legal merit in the first place. All that is needed to bring the matter to trial in accordance to Federal standards is a showing that Plaintiffs have filed a claim upon which relief may be granted, facts and matters at law will be determined in trial not in any “pre-trial-trial”.

RESPONSE TO MOTIONS MADE ON BEHALF OF

GLENWORTH FINANCIAL The question at law regarding Gelnworth Financial claiming that they

can maintain a life insurance policy on someone’s life when that person opposes such, is a 14th Amendment issue as Gelnworth Financial appears to be basing a claim to such an outrageous right on some sort of State law. In regard to 4th Amendment rights, the question at law and fact which the jury must determine is whether holding a million dollar reward on someone life is an unreasonable seizure of a persons rights to be secure in their persons. How would you feel walking around every day with a million dollar target on your forehead?

The question is whether Glenworth Financial or the State has violated the 4th & 14th Amendments or whether both parties are in violation. As Plaintiffs have been denied any right to discovery or depositions, naturally the matter is not yet clear, however, clearly Plaintiffs have a claim upon which relief is not only entitled but which is desperately required. See Second Claim for Relief.

It would appear that Glenworth Financials has not violated Plaintiffs 5 th

Amendment rights.


of 93

1

1

2

3456789

101112

13

14

1516171819202122232425262728293031

2

3

4

Uni

ted

Stat

es D

istri

ct C

ourt

For t

he N

orth

ern

Distri

ct o

f Califo

rnia

Plaintiffs are entitled to conduct discovery against Glenworth Financial.The Court never had any basis at law or any authority or jurisdiction to

dismiss Plaintiffs complaint in the first place – this matter can only be tried by Jury.

Clearly Glenworth Financial has violated Plaintiffs most basic Constitutional right to liberty by placing a million dollar target on Plaintiff life against Plaintiffs express instruction and will, especially when Plaintiff has literally been shot at as a consequence of the unlawful million dollar life insurance policy. Evidence of this attempted murder having been well established and undeniably proven and is also directly related to a false 911 call made by the beneficiary of the policy, Defendant Anamaria Boustred.

Glenworth Financials reveals their true color when they state that they do not have to pay out any insurance if someone “feloniously and intentionally kills the insurer” (we presume, they mean “insured” not “insurer”). Glenworth Financial gladly collects payments all while realizing that they will not be forced to pay out anything if another attempt to shoot Plaintiff hits it’s mark. However, this does not help plaintiff whom continues to have a million dollar target on his head. Does state law allow an insurance company to insure someone’s life against their will(14th)? Does this not violate a citizens right to be secure in their persons (4th)?

Further evidence relating to Glenwoth Financial’s liability: On or about Wed, Feb 9, 2005 Plaintiffs spoke with and sent a fax to the insurer regarding canceling policy raising all the relevant issues stated herein. On or about Wednesday, March 02, 2005, Plaintiffs again made the request to have the policy cancelled, plaintiffs spoke to Angela Price who refused to cancel policy and requests to speak to the company president George Cippel were denied. On or about March 2, 2005 Plaintiffs spoke with Barbara Alleman again requesting the policy be cancelled and advising them that Plaintiffs was shot at and the policy was placing Plaintiff’s life in danger – the conversation was recorded a copy of which is included in the updated Evidence CD attached here to.

There is no question that Deputy Sheriff Michael Macdonald shot at Plaintiffs as a consequence of the false police call Defendant Anamaria


of 93

1

123456789

101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233

2

3

4

Uni

ted

Stat

es D

istri

ct C

ourt

For t

he N

orth

ern

Distri

ct o

f Califo

rnia

Boustred made on March 10, 2003, this irrefutable fact specifically proves that Gelnworth Financial’s claim that no facts supporting allegations by Plaintiffs have been put forward is false. In spite of this blatant and obvious evidence which is not speculation but irrefutable fact, Glenworth Financial’s continues to insist on allowing Anamaria Boustred to hold a million dollar life insurance policy on her ex husband’s life who’s life she not only personally threatened but actively conspired to end. Clearly Plaintiffs are entitled to bring Glenworth Financials to court on this well substantiated claim and irrefutable evidence.

Clearly plaintiffs have more than stated a claim upon which a Plaintiffs are entitled to urgent relief and motions filed to dismiss this case are baseless and frivolous and amount to further malicious prosecution of plaintiffs. Plaintiffs are entitled to bring this matter to trial by jury.

It is a fact that Gelnworth Financial has failed to respond to allegations or claims for relief. Only hearsay has been submitted purportedly on their behalf no officer of the corporation has appeared or made any statement in defense of the corporation. Plaintiffs are entitled to a summary judgment against Gelnworth Financial and all Defendants.

RESPONSE TO MOTIONS MADE ON BEHALF OF SAMUEL

S. STEVENS WHO HAS BEEN MORE THAN PROPERLY SERVED

ON MULTIPLE OCCASIONS.A claim of insufficient service of process is pretty pathetic to say the

least. A claim that the digital copy served on Stevens contains a virus is utterly bogus and baseless. Firstly Stevens could simply scan the disk for viruses and secondly if the CD contained a virus then the government would actually be able to accuse Plaintiff of some sort of crime instead of making up the nonsense they have been repeatedly filing against Mr. Boustred to maliciously prosecute him. Title XVII-Government Paperwork Elimination Act, S. 244, and other acts ensure that digital copies are formally recognized. The motion made to dismiss Stevens is baseless. Furthermore Stevens has been properly served with not only the summons and complaint in original paper


of 93

1

123456789

101112131415161718

19

20

21

22232425262728293031

2

3

4

Uni

ted

Stat

es D

istri

ct C

ourt

For t

he N

orth

ern

Distri

ct o

f Califo

rnia

form but he and all defendants have been served each and every filing in this case in excess of State and Federal Procedures.See PROOFS OF SERVICE Filed for : September 9, 2005 hearing:

2. Defendant Samuel S. Stevens How Served: Left physical paper copies thereof at defendants place

of work with a person of suitable age and discretion – Receptionist “Roy Blane”

Date Served: May 10, 2005Also Served: By mail - Date Served: June 6, 2005Proof of Service: Exhibit A

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: Rule 5. Service and Filing of Pleadings and Other Papers, States:

(b) Making Service.(1) Service under Rules 5(a) and 77(d) on a party represented by an

attorney is made on the attorney unless the court orders service on the party.(2) Service under Rule 5(a) is made by:(A) Delivering a copy to the person served by: (ii) leaving it at the person’s office with a clerk or other person in

charge, or if no one is in charge leaving it in a conspicuous place in the office; or

(B) Mailing a copy to the last known address of the person served. Service by mail is complete on mailing.

Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Stevens and all the State Employees and their attorney have more than adequately been served on multiple occasions with both hard paper copies of the suit and digital copies of the suit with the summons and all necessary papers. Stevens has been served the operative complaint. The complaint was not served electronically it was mailed and physically handed to Stevens. Furthermore Stevens and all the State Employees have been served through the Attorney General who as evidenced by this acknowledgement of the case in this attempt to have Stevens dismissed from the case, proves a clearly awareness of the complaint and therefore service is complete on all State Employees. Furthermore by law the Attorney General is responsible for forwarding to the complaint to all respective parties employed by the State.


of 93

1

123456789

101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536

2

3

4

http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/Rule5.htm#Rule77_d_

Uni

ted

Stat

es D

istri

ct C

ourt

For t

he N

orth

ern

Distri

ct o

f Califo

rnia

Allegations that Plaintiffs have not stated authorities is absurd. The Complaint is based on core Constitutional law and Common-Law which has been more than adequately stated – see also Exhibits CD - EXHIBITS\Exhibit F - CASE LAW\applicable_case_law.htm which includes one hundred and ninety seven pages of applicable case law. Let it be noted that Defendants have not responded to any of the lawful authorities Plaintiffs have stated.

Samuel S. Stevens has not appeared or responded to the complaint. The motion to dismiss Stevens from the case is hearsay. Plaintiffs are entitled to summary judgment against Samuel S. Stevens and all the other parties who have refused to respond to the complaint.


FRANDEENMultiple claims upon which relief can be granted have been filed

against Frandeen, including 14th Amendment rights violations by Frandeen (see 2nd Claim); 5th Amendment rights violations (3rd Claim); 6th Amendment rights violations (4th Claim); Violation of U.S. Const. 7th Amendment [Trial by jury, Common law] (5th Claim); Violation of U.S. Const. 8th Amendment Unreasonable bail, excessive fines, cruel & unusual punishment and Wrongful Civil Proceedings (6th Claim); Intentional/Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress, Fraud/Deceit (7th Claim); Conspiracy (8th Claim); Malicious Prosecution (9th Claim); Kidnap, accessory to kidnap, parental alienation, Mental Suffering, Alienation of Affections, Trespass To Chattel (10th Claim); Fraud (11th Claim); Abuse of Process (13th Claim); Defamation Libel Slander (14th Claim); Disparagement Of Business Reputation Or Property, Interference With Business Relations, Pure Economic Loss, Intentional Interference With Prospective Economic Advantage (15th Claim); Interference With Family And Political Relations (16th Claim); Invasion of Privacy (17th

Claim); Racketeering (18th Claim); Negligent Misrepresentation (19th Claim); Negligence (20th Claim); Assumpsit (21st Claim); Public Nuisance (22nd Claim); Conversion (23rd Claim); Violation of U.S. Const. Article IV State and the Federal guarantee against domestic violence (26th Claim).


of 93

1

123456789

10

11

12

13141516171819202122232425262728293031

2

3

4

Uni

ted

Stat

es D

istri

ct C

ourt

For t

he N

orth

ern

Distri

ct o

f Califo

rnia

Obviously Plaintiffs never “conceded” to any of the baseless merits filed by a person purporting to represent Frandeen in an attempt to have Frandeen dismissed from the case. For counsel who claims to be representing Frandeen to suggest such is cheap.

Facts supporting these causes of action are included in the Evidence CD including Frandeen’s fraudulent and libelous statements made on or about May 27, 2003 when he conspired with other Defendants against Mr. Boustred, see the following files on the Evidence CD (included herein by reference) for significant volumes of evidence against Frandeen:

court filing VERFIED CRIMINAL COMPLAINT FRANDEEN 4-12-04 v1.doc

court filing ex parte response to Frandeen 2-18-03 v4.doc court filing object to frandeen 7-2-03 v4.doc court filing response to frandeen 7-16-03 declaration v2.doc response to frandeen aug 8 2003 declaration v2.doc court filing ex parte response to Frandeen 2-18-03 v4.doc court filing object to frandeen 7-2-03 v4.doc court filing response to frandeen 7-16-03 declaration v2.doc response to frandeen aug 8 2003 declaration v2.doc

The VERFIED CRIMINAL COMPLAINT filed against FRANDEEN (EXHIBITS\Exhibit C - Case Files\Exhibit C-2\ court filing VERFIED CRIMINAL COMPLAINT FRANDEEN 4-12-04 v1.doc – included herein along with Authorities stated therein by reference) includes many specific and detailed facts proving Frandeen’s many violations of Plaintiffs most basic rights see II STATEMENT OF FACTS; COUNT 1 to 7 PERJRY; COUNT 8: CONSPIRACY; VIII POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; and DECLARATION IN SUPPORT there of included herein by reference.

Frandeen repeatedly actively worked to hold RCB and WFB hostage from their father. These facts are pretty obvious in this case as shown by abundant evidence proving such. Is Frandeen attempting to suggest that RCB and WFB were not shot at then kidnapped and unlawfully held from their father? Without lawful authority from their father Frandeen stepped in to


of 93

1

123456789

1011121314151617181920212223242526272829303132

2

3

4

Uni

ted

Stat

es D

istri

ct C

ourt

For t

he N

orth

ern

Distri

ct o

f Califo

rnia

represent RCB and WFB who he totally misrepresented and did in fact maliciously prosecute. Said facts will be presented in detail before the Jury.

Defense counsel is clearly attempting to have facts judged by a colleague and employee of Defendants prior to trial in an attempt to avoid facing Trial By Jury. Defense counsel can be held liable for behaving in such a fashion.

Plaintiffs are entitled to conduct discovery and depose Frandeen, however Plaintiffs have been denied any such right.

Defense counsel’s representation of cases: Silberg v. Anderson (1990) and Fox v. Pollack (1986), Ells v. Rosenblum (1995) is neither relevant nor law. A judge’s ruling does not legislate any new law. The construct of “Case Law” so wildly employed by judges and lawyers to make ‘so-called new law’ is utterly treasonous to the construct of the Constitution, law and government of the U.S.A.. There is no protection of litigation privileges that allows any individual to embark on conspiracy, kidnap, malicious prosecution, hostage taking, libel etc. utterly without Probable Cause and in blatant violation of ethical behaviors and the most rudimentary right of parents and children. Mr. Frandeen actively initiated and directed malicious prosecution against Plaintiffs as blatantly proven in the evidence already before the court.

There is no special class of individual under the Constitution that abridges or grants any special privileges or immunities – in the U.S. all are equal before the law, which after all, was one of the key constructs and principles of the Constitution. No code, including California Civil Code section 47(b) or any judicial ruling can change the law or grant any special privileges or immunities which are expressly and specifically excluded by Article 1 Section 9 and 10, Original 13th Amendment and the 14th Amendment. Frandeen is libel to all torts filed against him, including malicious prosecution. Neither the court nor counsel has proven any deficiencies in Plaintiffs complaint which clearly and blatantly entitles Plaintiffs to move the matter to trial by jury.

The Motion to Strike is baseless and fraudulently claims that no factual evidence has been submitted – as shown above large volumes of irrefutable evidence supporting Plaintiffs claims have been before the court for many


of 93

1

123456789

101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233

2

3

4

Uni

ted

Stat

es D

istri

ct C

ourt

For t

he N

orth

ern

Distri

ct o

f Califo

rnia

months. In regard to SLAP allegations, Plaintiffs have submitted significant volumes of evidence proving that Defendants have violated an extraordinary volume of Plaintiffs Constitutional rights, there is no basis what so ever to suggest that this case falls under any Anti-SLAP Statute – Furthermore, Frandeen is no longer attempting to represent RCB and WFB, if this were a SLAP suit then there would be no interest on behalf of Plaintiffs to continue the suit. Plaintiffs adamantly maintain their right to continue this suit which Plaintiffs are entitled to hold Frandeen and other Defendants accountable for the heinous and outrageous crimes they committed against Plaintiffs. Despite the fact that this case clearly does not fall within any domain of Anti-SLAP law, Plaintiffs have exhibited such a large volume of evidence that proves that Plaintiffs will prevail in this case that Defendants are clearly desperate to prevent this matter from coming to trial by jury where they know they will loose. In regard to SLAP suits, what do the seven false and frivolous suits Defendants filed against Plaintiff Clive Boustred amount to? (And incidentally how come the Anti SLAP legislation specifically attempts to preclude SLAP suits filed by the government?) And how can the Defendants explain their repeated and blatant disregard to the law and due process in each of these cases of which Freandeen was a co-conspirator SLAP cases filed against Plaintiff.

This counsel claiming to represent Frandeen’s Motion to Strike is baseless and frivolous and in itself is a SLAP proceeding against Plaintiffs designed to complicate and delay this matter from coming before a trial by jury. Plaintiffs are entitled to recover fees and costs associated in defending against this SLAP action by Natalie P. Vance, “Esq”. Ms. Vance’s behavior in this case corresponds to Frandeens type of behavior which clearly and blatantly illustrates malpractice – significant volumes of evidence were submitted regarding Frandeens actions in this case, however, Ms. Vance choose to fraudulently lead the court into believing that no such evidence has been submitted. Plaintiffs request that the court sanction Ms. Vance.

Furthermore, nothing but hearsay has been submitted in an attempt to have Frandeen dismissed from this case. Defendant Frandeen has not


of 93

1

123456789

1011121314151617181920212223242526272829303132

2

3

4

Uni

ted

Stat

es D

istri

ct C

ourt

For t

he N

orth

ern

Distri

ct o

f Califo

rnia

appeared or answered one single charge brought against him in the complaint. Plaintiffs are entitled to summary judgment against Frandeen.


ANGELICA GLASSFollowing the Deputy shooting at Petitioner Clive Boustred, RCB and

WFB, through meetings with Petitioner Clive Boustred including a meeting on or about April 24, 2003, Angela Glass was fully aware of the facts of the case, in particular that it was impossible for Petitioner Clive Boustred to be guilty of the charges filed against him. Despite this factual evidence, CPS reported Petitioner Clive Boustred to California’s Central Child Abuse Index as “Inconclusive” – and that was based on Clive driving at 27 miles per hour down his private road with his kids in the car! If CPS was not able to conclude anything, why did they liable Petitioner’s name by registering his name with California’s Central Child Abuse Index? Evidence proving Angels Glass’s direct link to claims and liability therefore is found in the following files on the Evidence CD - EXHIBITS\Exhibit C - Case Files\Exhibit C-2\CPS:

1. cps to angela glass 4-12-03 v2.doc2. cps to angela glass 4-16-03 v3.doc3. cps to angela glass 4-18-03 v3.doc4. cps to angela glass 4-29-03 v3.doc5. CPS Exhibits v1.doc6. CPS Level I statement v3.doc7. CPS responce7 FINAL.doc8. DOJ child abuse 4-17-03 v4.doc

And CPS_child_abuse_index_l.gif included in the amended Exhibits/Evidence CD in the same directory.

Angela Glass and CPS is commissioned with the responsibility of protecting children’s rights. Angela Glass failed in her duty to protect RCB and WFB and instead conspired to maliciously prosecute the Plaintiffs of this case so as to cover up the extreme crimes committed against Plaintiffs. On information or belief Angela Glass made fraudulent filings outrageously and


of 93

1

12

3

4

56789

10111213141516171819202122232425262728293031

2

3

4

Uni

ted

Stat

es D

istri

ct C

ourt

For t

he N

orth

ern

Distri

ct o

f Califo

rnia

seriously libeling Clive Boustred’s name by filing Clive Boustred’s name in California’s Central Child abuse index.

Petitioners need to deposition Angela Glass to determine who is responsible for this extreme and outrageous liable of Petitioner Clive Boustred’s good name. Further information regarding conspiracy also needs to be investigated through the depositions and discovery of Angela Glass and other CPS employees.

Angela Glass’s request for amore definitive statement is only reasonable after Plaintiffs have been granted their due process right to discovery and the deposition of defendants.

It is a fact that Angela Glass has failed to respond to any allegation or claim for relief. She has not appeared and only hearsay has been submitted purportedly on her behalf. Plaintiffs are entitled to a summary judgment against Angela Glass and all Defendants.

RESPONSE TO MOTIONS MADE ON BEHALF OF PAUL

MELTZERPetitioner Clive Boustred retained Paul Meltzer to defend him from

false charges filed in Santa Cruz Superior Court Case F 06858. Despite repeatedly asking Mr. Meltzer to bring the case to trial, Mr. Meltzer continued the case against Mr. Boustred’s objections, thereby subjecting Mr. Boustred to extraordinary damages through the continued burden of extended malicious prosecution and the unlawful holding of Petitioners RCB and WFB from their father. Mr. Meltzer conspired with other Defendants to maliciously prosecute Mr. Boustred, Mr. Meltzer went as far as refusing to challenge Judge Art Danner who was assigned to the case despite significant evidence having been put before Mr. Meltzer regarding Danners criminal background and the fact that he was rated as not qualified. Mr. Meltzer refused to provide Mr. Boustred with evidence relating to the timing of the alleged chase despite Mr. Boustred’s repeated requests for such as said evidence which was in the possession of Mr. Meltzer proved that it was impossible for Mr. Boustred to be guilty of the VC § 2800.2(a) and related charges brought against Mr. Boustred – not only did Mr. Meltzer specifically conceal this critical


of 93

1

123456789

1011121314

15

16

1718192021222324252627282930

3132

2

3

4

Uni

ted

Stat

es D

istri

ct C

ourt

For t

he N

orth

ern

Distri

ct o

f Califo

rnia

evidence from Mr. Boustred but Mr. Meltzer refused to make any motions to have the case dismissed because said evidence proved Mr. Boustred’s innocence.

Despite Plaintiff Clive Boustred being specifically charged with resisting arrest and despite Mr. Boustred’s repeated demands that Meltzer specifically demand related discovery, Meltzer refused to demand discovery on Deputy Brozozowski who violently assaulted Mr. Boustred during the false arrest – Mr. Meltzer was aware of these facts and conspired with the prosecution so as to avoid the background crimes Brozozowski committed including the crimes he committed against Mr. Boustred coming before any jury and to avoid placing Brozozowski on the stand before the jury. – see evidence in form of emails sent to Mr. Meltzer included in the supplemental Evidence CD /Meltzer directory:

1. 2003_12_19 to Meltzer RE Court.txt2. 2003_12_10 Meltzer to Clive - Letter dated December 10

2003.txt3. 2003_12_9 Meltzer RE Letter dated December 9 2003.txt4. 2003_12_09 Meltzer - RE Moving Forward.txt5. 2003_11_21 Clive to Meltzer - Moving Forward.htm

Despite there being no mandate that Plaintiffs prove and fight this case before going to trial, Plaintiffs have listed herein a precursory listing of evidence and specific violations of Mr. Boustred’s rights by Meltzer which fall under the following claims to which Plaintiffs are entitled relief:

Second Claim For Relive: Failure to Protect; Third Claim For Relief : Violation of U.S. Const. 5th Amendment [Criminal proceedings, deprivation of life, liberty and happiness]; Fourth Claim For Relief : Violation of U.S. Const. 6th Amendment [Criminal proceedings; public trial, impartial jury, nature and cause of the accusation; Seventh Claim For Relief : Intentional/Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress, Fraud/Deceit; Ninth Claim For Relief : Malicious Prosecution; Tenth Claim For Relief : Kidnap, accessory to kidnap, parental alienation, Mental Suffering, Alienation of Affections, Trespass To Chattel; Eleventh Claim For Relief : Fraud; Nineteenth Claim For Relief : Negligent Misrepresentation; Twenty-first Claim For Relief : Assumpsit;


of 93

1

123456789

101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233

2

3

4

Uni

ted

Stat

es D

istri

ct C

ourt

For t

he N

orth

ern

Distri

ct o

f Califo

rnia

Twenty-sixth Claim For Relief : Violation of U.S. Const. Article IV State and the Federal guarantee against domestic violence; Seventh Claim For Relief : Intentional/Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress, Fraud/Deceit; Eighth Claim For Relief : Conspiracy; Thirteenth Claim For Relief : Abuse Of Process; Fourteenth Claim For Relief : Defamation, Libel, Slander; Fifteenth Claim For Relief : Disparagement Of Business Reputation Or Property, Interference With Business Relations, Pure Economic Loss, Intentional Interference With Prospective Economic Advantage,; Sixteenth Claim For Relief : Interference With Family And Political Relations; Seventeenth Claim For Relief : Invasion Of Privacy,; Eighteenth Claim For Relief : Racketeering; Twentieth Claim For Relief : Negligence; Twenty-second Claim For Relief : Public Nuisance; Twenty-third Claim For Relief : Conversion;

Plaintiffs have stated multiple claims upon which relief may be granted against Paul Meltzer coupled with substantial evidence proving such, to suggest anything to the contrary is absurd. Law and Facts in this case are to be tried by jury not in motions to dismiss.

If Meltzer wants a more definitive statement then Plaintiffs must be granted their due process rights to discovery and the deposition of Mr. Meltzer. Petitioners have been denied any right to depose or serve interrogatories on Mr. Meltzer.

It is a fact that Paul Meltzer has failed to respond to any allegation or claim for relief. Only hearsay has been submitted purportedly on his behalf and he has failed to appear. Plaintiffs are entitled to a summary judgment against Paul Meltzer and all Defendants.

RESPONSE TO MOTIONS MADE ON BEHALF OF VICKI J.

PARRYDetails directly linking Ms. Parry to claims upon which relief can be

granted have already been submitted and ignored by counsel purporting to represent Parry. Additional evidence is included on the Supplemental Evidence CD /Parry directory – in particular this evidence proves that Parry was fully aware of her actions and proves Parry actions in court as evidenced


of 93

1

123456789

101112131415161718192021222324

25

26

2728293031

2

3

4

Uni

ted

Stat

es D

istri

ct C

ourt

For t

he N

orth

ern

Distri

ct o

f Califo

rnia

by filings in the Evidence CD were overt and intentional criminal acts as listed under the following claims upon which relief can be granted:

Second Claim For Relief : Violation of U.S. Const. 4th & 14th Amendment [Seizures, searches and warrants, Unlawful Arrest and/or Unlawful Seizure and/or Unlawful Search and/or Excessive Force and/or Assault and/or Assault With A Deadly Weapon and/or Battery and/or Abnormally Dangerous Activities and/or Failure to Protect]; Third Claim For Relief : Violation of U.S. Const. 5th Amendment [Criminal proceedings, deprivation of life, liberty and happiness]; Fourth Claim For Relief : Violation of U.S. Const. 6th Amendment [Criminal proceedings; public trial, impartial jury, nature and cause of the accusation]; Ninth Claim For Relief : Malicious Prosecution; Tenth Claim For Relief : Kidnap, accessory to kidnap, parental alienation, Mental Suffering, Alienation of Affections, Trespass To Chattel; Eleventh Claim For Relief : Fraud; Seventh Claim For Relief : Intentional/Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress, Fraud/Deceit; Eighth Claim For Relief : Conspiracy; Thirteenth Claim For Relief : Abuse Of Process; Fourteenth Claim For Relief : Defamation, Libel, Slander; Fifteenth Claim For Relief : Disparagement Of Business Reputation Or Property, Interference With Business Relations, Pure Economic Loss, Intentional Interference With Prospective Economic Advantage,; Sixteenth Claim For Relief : Interference With Family And Political Relations; Seventeenth Claim For Relief : Invasion Of Privacy,; Eighteenth Claim For Relief : Racketeering; Twentieth Claim For Relief : Negligence; Twenty-second Claim For Relief : Public Nuisance; Twenty-third Claim For Relief : Conversion.

Parry is so culpably linked to all the claims that for her to attempt to deny such a relationship ridiculous. Evidence proving Parry’s liability for said claims upon which relief can be granted is included in the Evidence CD - EXHIBITS\Exhibit C - Case Files\Exhibit C-2\parry_schemes directory:

1. 2003_03_11_exparte_req_p1.gif2. 2003_03_11_osc_custody_mod_declaration_p1.gif3. 2003_03_11_osc_custody_mod_declaration_p2.gif4. 2003_03_11_osc_custody_mod_p1.gif5. 2003_03_11_osc_custody_mod_p1_barton_signature.gif


of 93

1

123456789

101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233

2

3

4

Uni

ted

Stat

es D

istri

ct C

ourt

For t

he N

orth

ern

Distri

ct o

f Califo

rnia

6. 2003_03_11_osc_custody_mod_p2.gif7. 2003_03_11_osc_custody_mod_p2_barton_signature.gif8. 2003_03_11_osc_custody_mod_p3_barton_signature.gif9. 2003_03_11_osc_custody_mod_p4_barton_signature.gif10.2003_03_11_osc_custody_mod_p5_barton_signature.gif11.2003_03_11_osc_custody_mod_p6_barton_signature.gif12.2003_03_11_osc_custody_mod_p7_barton_signature.gif13.2003_03_11_osc_custody_mod_p8_barton_signature.gif14.2003_03_11_tro_100_p1.gif15.2003_03_11_tro_100_p2.gif16.2003_03_11_tro_100_p3.gif17.2003_03_11_tro_100_p4.gif18.2003_03_11_tro_110_p1.gif19.2003_03_11_tro_110_p2.gif20.2003_03_11_tro_110_p3.gif21.2003_03_12_proof_service_parry.gif22.2003_03_14_proof_serv_attp_sherifs.gif23.2003_03_25_tro_125_p1.gif24.2003_03_25_tro_125_p2.gif25.2003_03_25_tro_125_p3.gif

Further evidence is proving Parry’s liability to the above mentioned claims upon which relief may be granted is included on the Supplemental Evidence CD /Parry directory:

1. parry ex parte 12-30-03 v2.doc2. perry 3-3-03 v2.doc3. perry 3-6-03.doc4. perry 5.doc5. perry jan 24 03.doc6. perry RE ORDER 20-10-05.doc7. 2003_01_23 Parry to Danner.jpg8. 2003_01_15 Parry to Danner.jpg9. 2003_02_20 declaration re exparte hearing p1.jpg10.2003_02_20 declaration re exparte hearing p2.jpg


of 93

1

123456789

101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233

2

3

4

Uni

ted

Stat

es D

istri

ct C

ourt

For t

he N

orth

ern

Distri

ct o

f Califo

rnia

11.2003_02_20 declaration re exparte hearing p3.jpg12.2003_02_20 declaration re exparte hearing.jpg13.2003_02_20 ex-parte order p1.jpg14.2003_02_20 parry ex-parte clarification re order p1.jpg15.2003_02_20 parry ex-parte clarification re order p2.jpg16.2003_02_20 parry ex-parte clarification re order p3.jpg17.2003_02_20 parry notice for exparte hearing sent to wrong

address.jpg18.003_02_20_void_kelly_order_p1.jpg19.003_02_20_void_kelly_order_p2.jpg20.2003_02_24 ana declaration of prejudice ccp 170.6.jpg21.2003_02_24 ana response to Feb 20 declaration P1.jpg22.2003_02_24 ana response to Feb 20 declaration P2.jpg23.2003_02_24 ana response to Feb 20 declaration P3.jpg24.2003_02_24 ana response to Feb 20 declaration P4.jpg25.2003_02_24 ana response to Feb 20 declaration P5.jpg26.2003_02_24 ana response to Feb 20 declaration P6.jpg27.2003_02_24 ana response to Feb 20 declaration P7.jpg28.2003_02_24 ana response to Feb 20 declaration P8.jpg29.2003_02_24 parry response to Feb 20 declaration P1.jpg30.2003_02_24 parry response to Feb 20 declaration P2.jpg

Mrs. Parry’s client Anamaria Boustred left a voice mail for Plaintiff Clive Boustred, in Plaintiffs possession, stating that her Lawyer, Mrs. Parry, knew all the judges, implying that she could do anything, Defendant Anamaria Boustred threatened that unless Petitioner Clive Boustred gave her a better settlement offer he would loose his children.

On or about February 20, 2003, in violation of Rules 7-103 and 7-108 of the Rules of Professional Responsibility and Conduct of The State Bar of California and without any basis for an urgency and without giving proper notice in violation of section § 240 of California’s Family Code and also without any legal basis, Vicki J. Parry called an ex parte hearing to “clarify” an order prohibiting Petitioner Clive Boustred’s former personal assistant and his wife’s lover, Defendant Stefan Tichatschke, from contact with RCB and WFB.


of 93

1

123456789

101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233

2

3

4

Uni

ted

Stat

es D

istri

ct C

ourt

For t

he N

orth

ern

Distri

ct o

f Califo

rnia

Vicki J. Parry unlawfully secured a void Order unlawfully granting Stefan Tichatschke the right to have contact with Petitioner’s RCB and WFB.

It was this void order that Defendants Anamaria Boustred and Stefan Tichatschke employed some days later to setup a dangerous situation where Defendant Anamaria Boustred left WFB, aged three at the time, in the middle of a learner ski run. When Petitioner Clive Boustred came to rescue his son, Defendant Stefan Tichatschke attempted to start a fight with Petitioner Clive Boustred. Petitioner Clive Boustred removed his sons from the dangerous situation, returned to Santa Cruz where the next day he went to Court to file for a TRO prohibiting his ex-wife from causing dangerous situations for the children and making false police calls, a TRO that the Santa Cruz Superior Court to this day refuses to hear.

It was on his way home from court that Petitioners Clive Boustred, RCB and WFB were shot at by the Santa Cruz Deputy who claimed to be acting on a fraudulent 911 call Defendant Anamaria Boustred made Plaintiffs contest that Parry directly conspired with defendant Anamaria and Tichatschke in this regard. Some time after the filing of the Santa Cruz SLAP suit F 06858 against Petitioner Clive Boustred, the former classmate of the Santa Cruz Assistant DA who filed the F 06858 SLAP suit, filed a SLAP suite against Petitioner Clive Boustred in Placer County Plaintiffs contend that Parry also conspired with other Defendants to maliciously prosecute Plaintiffs in regard to that case.

The question here is what role Defendant Viki Pary played in provoking and conspiring to obtain void orders, and the setting up of Petitioner Clive Boustred. What is the referenced relationship Vicki J. Parry has with the Santa Cruz judges and sheriffs? Furthermore, the question is what role Defendant Viki Pary had in advising Defendant Anamaria Boustred regarding the false 911 call Anamaria Boustred made on March 10, 2003 that resulted in Plaintiff’s Clive Boustred, RCB and WFB being shot at. Clearly Plaintiffs are entitled to conduct discovery against Parry.

Substantial evidence exists of a conspiracy against Petitioner Clive Boustred by Santa Cruz Authorities of which Mrs. Parry is directly implicated. Furthermore, Mrs. Parry in insolence to her oath of office, sought at all times


of 93

1

123456789

101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233

2

3

4

Uni

ted

Stat

es D

istri

ct C

ourt

For t

he N

orth

ern

Distri

ct o

f Califo

rnia

to complicate matters in the Boustred’s divorce proceedings so as to maliciously prosecute Plaintiffs. Mrs. Parry was directly responsible for destroying two settlement agreements. There are likely further charges against Mrs. Parry, which will emerge following depositions that are necessary in order to clarify these issues.

It is a fact that Vicki J. Parry has failed to respond to allegations or claims for relief. Only hearsay has been submitted purportedly on her behalf and she has failed to appear. Plaintiffs are entitled to a summary judgment against Vicki J. Parry and all Defendants.

E. DEMAND FOR RIGHT TO DISCOVERYPlaintiffs demand their right to conduct discovery and to conduct

depositions and interrogatories against Defendants.

F. DEMAND FOR SUMMARY JUDGEMENT Only hearsay has been submitted purportedly on the behalf of

Defendants. Defendants have not come forward in any form to indicate that those filing papers and motions on their behalf are in fact representing them. No Defendant has made any appearance in defense of charges brought against them.

It is a fact that not one real party of interest has responded to any of the allegations or claims upon which relief can be granted.

Plaintiffs are entitled to and demand summary judgment against Defendants and the reward of Relief Sought.

G. DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURYPlaintiffs hereby demand a trial by jury on all of the above causes of

action where the jury determines both fact and law.


of 93

1

123456789

10

11

121314

15

16171819202122232425

26

2728

29

2

3

4

Uni

ted

Stat

es D

istri

ct C

ourt

For t

he N

orth

ern

Distri

ct o

f Califo

rnia

H. PRAYER FOR RELIEFWHEREFORE, Plaintiffs prays for the following relief as to all Claims for

Relief and Plaintiffs pray for the following relief: A. A judgment awarding plaintiffs general, special and punitive

damages against defendant Defendants in amounts according to proof but/or no less than listed herein;

B. A judgment awarding plaintiffs general and special and punitive damages against Defendants amounts according to proof;

C. A judgment awarding plaintiffs reasonable attorney’s fees;D. A judgment awarding plaintiffs their costs of suit; andE. Such other and further relief as the Court deems proper.F. Prayers for relief as listed in the original Complaint,

Amendments to the Compliant, Motions and Responses to Motions.

I. VERIFICATIONI, Clive Boustred, am a Party in the above-entitled action and the

Chairman, President and CEO of the Corporate Parties and the Father to the Minor Children herein. I have read the foregoing Document(s), Affidavit(s), Declaration(s), and/or Materials, Id., including referenced and/or attached documents, and/or duplicates of such documents and know the contents thereof. The same is true of my own knowledge, except as to those matters which are therein alleged on information and belief, and as to those matters, I believe it to be true.

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct and that this declaration was executed at Santa Cruz, California on September five two thousand and six.

Date: September 5, 2006____________________________________Clive Boustred, representing Plaintiffs, In Propria Persona Sui Juris, Without Prejudice UCC 1-207


of 93

1

1

23456789

1011121314

15

161718192021222324252627282930

31

2

3

4

Clive Frank Boustred - Liberty For Lifelibertyforlife.com/abuse/2006_09_08 9TH circuit USA...

Documents

Transcript of Clive Frank Boustred - Liberty For Lifelibertyforlife.com/abuse/2006_09_08 9TH circuit USA...