Get documents about "2006_09_08 209TH 20circuit 20USA 20Civil 20Rights 20Claim 20Clive 20Frank 20Boustred 20 4th 20Amendment 20FILED
Document Sample
1 Plaintiffs, USDC: C05 00996 (JF RS) Trial By Jury
2 Clive Boustred
3 Petitioner, In Propria Persona Sui Juris
4 210 Suncrest Dr,
5 Soquel, CA 95073
6 Tel: (831) 476-4300
7 clive@libertyforlife.com
8
IN UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN JOSE DIVISION
Clive Frank Boustred, CASE # C0500996 (JF RS) Trial By Jury
RCB (minor son of Clive Frank Boustred),
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
WFB (minor son of Clive Frank Boustred), DECLARATION & OPPOSITION TO
InfoTelesys, Inc. Nevada, MOTIONS TO DISMISS AND STRIKE;
Get IT Real, Inc. Nevada, RESPONSE TO REQUESTS FOR MORE
PLAINTIFFS, DEFINITIVE STATEMENTS;
PETITION TO THE GOVERNMENT FOR
v. A REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES - FIFTH
AMENDMENT TO CIVIL RIGHTS
County of Santa Cruz, State of COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO
California, et al. 42 U.S.C. § 1983
DEFENDANT(S). 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.
9
10 Under extraordinary duress as a consequence of three and a half years of
11 malicious prosecution by Defendants against Plaintiffs, Plaintiffs respectfully continue to
CIVIL RIGHTS AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT
Page 1 of 119
1 bring this suit before the UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF
2 CALIFORNIA for Trial By Jury with good cause.
3 INDEX
4 A. INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................... 5
5 B. SUFFICIENCY OF CLAIM ....................................................................................... 7
6 SERVICE IS COMPLETE ............................................................................................ 9
7 NO JUDICIAL POWER IN THIS CASE ...................................................................... 12
8 PRO SE LITIGANTS ENTITLED TO WIDE LATITUDE .............................................. 13
9 PROOF OF BIASED PERSPECTIVE AGAINST PLAINTIFFS ................................... 14
10 PROHIBITION OF BIAS ............................................................................................ 17
11 C. 5th AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT ....................................................................... 18
12 VENUE ...................................................................................................................... 19
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
13 PARTIES ................................................................................................................... 26
14 PLAINTIFFS ..........................................................................................................................................26
15 DEFENDANTS .......................................................................................................... 26
16 CASE SYNOPSIS / EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................ 33
17 DAMAGES................................................................................................................. 36
18 CLAIMS UPON WHICH RELIEF CAN BE GRANTED / CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS
19 VIOLATED ................................................................................................................ 40
20 First Claim For Relief General Claims As Stated In Earlier Filings .......................... 40
21 Second Claim For Relief Violation of U.S. Const. 4th & 14th Amendment [Seizures,
22 searches and warrants, Unlawful Arrest and/or Unlawful Seizure and/or Unlawful
23 Search and/or Excessive Force and/or Assault and/or Assault With A Deadly Weapon
24 and/or Battery and/or Abnormally Dangerous Activities and/or Failure to Protect]...... 41
25 Third Claim For Relief Violation of U.S. Const. 5th Amendment [Criminal
26 proceedings, deprivation of life, liberty and happiness] .............................................. 46
27 Fourth Claim For Relief Violation of U.S. Const. 6th Amendment [Criminal
28 proceedings; public trial, impartial jury, nature and cause of the accusation] ............. 49
29 Fifth Claim For Relief Violation of U.S. Const. 7th Amendment [Trial by jury,
30 Common law] 51
31 Sixth Claim For Relief Violation of U.S. Const. 8th Amendment Unreasonable bail,
32 excessive fines, cruel & unusual punishment and Wrongful Civil Proceedings ........... 53
CIVIL RIGHTS AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT
Page 2 of 119
1 Seventh Claim For Relief Intentional/Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress,
2 Fraud/Deceit 57
3 Eighth Claim For Relief Conspiracy ........................................................................ 59
4 Ninth Claim For Relief Malicious Prosecution.......................................................... 60
5 Tenth Claim For Relief Kidnap, accessory to kidnap, parental alienation, Mental
6 Suffering, Alienation of Affections, Trespass To Chattel............................................. 62
7 Eleventh Claim For Relief Fraud ............................................................................. 63
8 Twelfth Claim For Relief Trespass To Land ............................................................ 65
9 Thirteenth Claim For Relief Abuse Of Process ........................................................ 66
10 Fourteenth Claim For Relief Defamation, Libel, Slander ......................................... 67
11 Fifteenth Claim For Relief Disparagement Of Business Reputation Or Property,
12 Interference With Business Relations, Pure Economic Loss, Intentional Interference
13 With Prospective Economic Advantage, .................................................................... 68
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
14 Sixteenth Claim For Relief Interference With Family And Political Relations ........... 69
15 Seventeenth Claim For Relief Invasion Of Privacy, ................................................. 70
16 Eighteenth Claim For Relief Racketeering .............................................................. 71
17 Nineteenth Claim For Relief Negligent Misrepresentation ....................................... 72
18 Twentieth Claim For Relief Negligence ................................................................... 74
19 Twenty-first Claim For Relief Assumpsit.................................................................. 75
20 Twenty-second Claim For Relief Public Nuisance ................................................... 76
21 Twenty-third Claim For Relief Conversion ............................................................... 77
22 Twenty-fourth Claim For Relief Criminal Conversation ............................................ 78
23 Twenty-fifth Claim For Relief Violation of U.S. Const. Article III Judicial department
24 responsability 79
25 Twenty-sixth Claim For Relief Violation of U.S. Const. Article IV State and the
26 Federal guarantee against domestic violence ............................................................ 81
27 Twenty-seventh Claim For Relief Violation of U.S. Const. 1st Amendment [Freedom
28 of speech & petition of grievances] 83
29 Twenty-eighth Claim For Relief Violation of U.S. Const. 2nd Amendment [Right to
30 bear arms) 85
31 Twenty-ninth Claim For Relief Warranty.................................................................. 86
32 D. DECLARATION & OPPOSITION TO MOTIONS TO DISMISS AND STRIKE........... 88
CIVIL RIGHTS AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT
Page 3 of 119
1 MOTIONS TO DISMISS BECAUSE COMPLAINT IS AMENDED OR TIME BARED
2 ARE BASELESS........................................................................................................ 88
3 THE COMPLAINT BY INFOTELESYS, INC. AND GET IT REAL, INC. IS BROUGHT
4 AGAINST THE STATES ACROSS STATE BORDERS AND MAY BE REPRESENTED
5 BY PRINCIPALS TO THE CORPORATE PERSONS WHO ARE THE ONLY REAL
6 PARTIES OF INTEREST. .......................................................................................... 90
7 PLAINTIFFS RCB AND WFB REMAIN IN THE CASE ............................................... 94
8 DEFENDANT‟S CLAIM THAT NO FACTS HAVE BEEN PRODUCED IS BASELESS
9 .................................................................................................................................. 95
10 DEFENDANTS CLAIM THAT NO RELEVANT LEGAL ANALYSIS HAS BEEN PUT
11 FORWARD IS BASELESS. ....................................................................................... 95
12 RESPONSE TO MOTIONS MADE ON BEHALF OF GLENWORTH FINANCIAL ...... 96
13 RESPONSE TO MOTIONS MADE ON BEHALF OF SAMUEL S. STEVENS WHO
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
14 HAS BEEN MORE THAN PROPERLY SERVED ON MULTIPLE OCCASIONS. ....... 99
15 RESPONSE TO MOTIONS MADE ON BEHALF OF FRANDEEN ........................... 101
16 RESPONSE TO MOTIONS MADE ON BEHALF OF ANGELICA GLASS ................ 106
17 RESPONSE TO MOTIONS MADE ON BEHALF OF PAUL MELTZER .................... 108
18 RESPONSE TO MOTIONS MADE ON BEHALF OF VICKI J. PARRY .................... 111
19 E. DEMAND FOR RIGHT TO DISCOVERY.............................................................. 117
20 F. DEMAND FOR SUMMARY JUDGEMENT............................................................ 117
21 G. DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY ......................................................................... 118
22 H. PRAYER FOR RELIEF ....................................................................................... 118
23 I. VERIFICATION .................................................................................................... 119
24
25
CIVIL RIGHTS AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT
Page 4 of 119
1 A. INTRODUCTION
2 Plaintiff Clive Boustred has literally been shot at thrown in jail and had his
3 children Plaintiffs RCB and WFB kidnapped from him by the State who also shot at WFB
4 & RCB aged 3 and 7 at the time. Plaintiffs InfoTelesys, Inc. and Get IT Real have been
5 wiped out as a consequence. Plaintiffs have been maliciously prosecuted for three and
6 a half years and denied any fair hearings or any due process at law. Defendants
7 including the Courts, Police and District Attorneys have acted criminally and have put up
8 nothing but a sham. Twenty Nine claims upon which relief can be granted are filed
9 against Defendants. Extensive corroborated and irrefutable evidence proving
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10 Defendants liability for said claims is included with Plaintiffs complaint (See complaint &
11 Exhibits CD). This suit is brought by Plaintiffs who are international and national citizens
12 against the State of California and the U.S. Government and their employees and
13 affiliates across State borders. In accordance with the 11th Amendment, there is no
14 judicial power in this case. In accordance with the law, this matter can only be tried by
15 jury where the jury determines both the fact and law.
16
17 Judge Jeremy Fogel, a colleague and employee of Defendants, in excess of
18 jurisdiction has repeatedly delayed and dismissed this case from coming to trial by jury,
19 thereby conspiring with his colleagues and employer in the malicious prosecution of
20 Plaintiffs. Mr. Fogel, now with good cause a defendant in this case, attempts to invoke
21 obscure rules and procedures as thought they mitigate the law, claiming that he can
22 proceed to judge and preside over this Trial by Jury case because of “rules” while
23 ignoring the law and claiming that some „i' has not been doted or some „t‟ has not been
24 crossed according to „rules of procedure‟. Throughout Plaintiffs interactions with the
CIVIL RIGHTS AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT
Page 5 of 119
1 California and U.S. Courts, Judges have used rules and procedures to literally and
2 blatantly disobey the law, even going as far as making themselves lawmakers and
3 moving the Judiciary who‟s only function is to administer the Courts into the exclusive
4 position of that of the Legislature.
5 Mr. Fogel has gone as far as to ignore notice and time to respond (rules),
6 bringing forward hearings scheduled on or about September 28 to September 8, thereby
7 causing Petitioners excessive burden and stress in responding to ridiculous Motions to
8 Dismiss even without proper notice
9 Is Mr. Fogel‟s scheduling of an unlawful hearing, while he himself is a defendant
10 to this case not a blatant and overt conspiracy between Mr. Fogel and his colleagues
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
11 and employer to further maliciously prosecute Plaintiffs? Over the last three and a half
12 years there have been numerous actions that prove overt and blatant conspiracy on
13 behalf of Defendants.
14 Mr.Fogel, acting in excess of jurisdiction, on one hand says that the Complaint is
15 too detailed and on the other hand that it is not detailed enough. On one hand he says
16 that Plaintiffs have submitted more than twenty claims upon which relief can be granted
17 and on the other hand Mr. Fogel dismisses the case because he says that no claims
18 upon which relief can be granted have been submitted. Consequentially, yet another
19 Amendment to the Complaint is filed so as to silence the pathetic attempts to have this
20 legitimate case dismissed by yet another judge acting with criminal intent who is way in
21 excess of jurisdiction.
22 All that is required to bring this case to Trial By Jury is a brief simple showing that
23 the pleader is entitled to relief without any judgment of merits or facts which are reserved
24 for the jury and not a biased judge.
CIVIL RIGHTS AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT
Page 6 of 119
1 B. SUFFICIENCY OF CLAIM
2 Plaintiffs have filed a more than sufficient legitimate claims upon which relief can
3 be granted along with significant factual evidence proving said claims and that Plaintiffs
4 are likely to prevail in the claims.
5 All that is required to bring a case to trial in Federal Court is a showing that the
6 pleader is entitled to relief: Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), the
7 sufficiency of the complaint is tested with regard to the applicable standard in FRCP
8 8(a), which requires that a pleading setting forth a claim for relief contain a short and
9 plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief. A complaint
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10 which does not recount all relevant facts or recite the law should not necessarily be
11 dismissed. La Salvia v. United Dairymen, 804 F.2d 1113, 1116 (9th Cir. 1986)
12 In light of the fact that FRCP 8(a)(2) merely requires a short and plain statement
13 of the claim, rather than specific facts detailing every allegation, mere vagueness or lack
14 of detail is not a ground for a motion to dismiss. Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 (1957).
15 FRCP 12(b)(6) does not countenance dismissals based merely on a judge's disbelief of
16 a complaint's factual allegations, Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (1989), nor is the
17 failure to plead facts showing the plaintiff's theory of liability grounds for dismissal since
18 the defendant can serve interrogatories requiring the plaintiff to particularize the theory
19 of liability. In answering this question, the Court must assume that the plaintiff's
20 allegations are true, including all facts alleged on information and belief, and must draw
21 all reasonable inferences in the plaintiff's favor. Smith v. Jackson, 84 F.3d 1213, 1217
22 (9th Cir. 1996) Usher v. City of Los Angeles, 828 F.2d 556, 561 (9th Cir. 1987). Even if
CIVIL RIGHTS AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT
Page 7 of 119
1 the face of the pleadings suggests that the chance of recovery is remote, the Court must
2 allow the plaintiff to develop the case at this stage of the proceedings. United States v.
3 City of Redwood, 640 F.2d 963, 966 (9th Cir. 1981)
4 The question presented by a motion to dismiss is not whether the plaintiff will
5 prevail in the action, but whether the plaintiff is entitled to offer evidence in support of the
6 claim. Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974). If a plaintiff colorably states facts
7 which, if proven, would entitle her to relief, a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim
8 should not be granted. Dairies v. Kraft Foods, 232 F.3d 979, 994 (9th Cir. 2000)
9 Over three and a half years of malicious prosecution including seven SLAP
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10 cases initiated by and conspired to by Defendants all which were either initiated by an
11 attempted murder or by anticompetitive and or other crimes committed by defendants
12 gives rise to literally hundreds of claims upon which relief can be granted in this case.
13 For each Defendant Plaintiffs have shown that there is a least one claim upon which
14 relief can be granted.
15 Clearly Plaintiffs are entitled to relief and to offer in a trial by jury evidence in
16 support of Plaintiffs multiple claims upon which relief can be granted. Clearly there is no
17 basis for any dismissal or judgment of the case prior to trial by jury. Clearly there is no
18 basis for judgment of the merits of the case by any individual who is a colleague and
19 employee of the Defendants and is now a named defendant himself to this case.
20
CIVIL RIGHTS AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT
Page 8 of 119
1 SERVICE IS COMPLETE
2 All Defendants have been properly served on more than one occasion and again
3 at every submission Plaintiffs have made. Furthermore and all the State and County
4 Employees have been served through the Attorney General and County Counsel who as
5 evidenced by this acknowledgement of the case and attempt to have State and County
6 Employees dismissed from the case have proven a clear and obvious awareness of the
7 Complaint and therefore service is totally and utterly complete on all State Employees as
8 their Attorneys have acknowledged and responded to the Complaint. By law the
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
9 Attorney General and County Counsel‟s are responsible for forwarding to the complaint
10 to all respective parties employed by the State.
11 Plaintiffs have more than met the statutory requirements of service on each and
12 every Defendant. See PROOFS OF SERVICE September 9, 2005.
13 AUTHORITIES
14 One who helps a defendant avoid service of a summons is subject to liability for
15 contempt of court. CODE CIV. PROC. § 1209(a)(8); cf. In re Holmes, 145 Cal. App. 3d
16 934, 942, 193 Cal. Rptr. 790, 795 (1983) (assistance in evasion of service of subpoena
17 punishable as contempt).
18 One serves a summons in an action against the state by serving the attorney
19 general. GOV. CODE § 955.4(a). See generally ROBERT I. WEIL & IRA A. BROWN,
20 JR., CALIFORNIA PRACTICE GUIDE: CIVIL PROCEDURE BEFORE TRIAL ¶¶ 4:69–
21 :71 (1999).
CIVIL RIGHTS AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT
Page 9 of 119
1 One may serve a summons on a political subdivision of the state by delivering a
2 copy of the summons and of the complaint to the clerk, secretary, president, presiding
3 officer, or other head of its governing body. CODE CIV. PROC. § 416.50(a). see also
4 GOV. CODE §§ 955.6(a), 955.8(a).
5 Due process does not require service of the summons and complaint upon the
6 defendant personally; it requires merely that the plaintiff employ a method of service
7 reasonably likely to provide notice. Greene v. Lindsey, 456 U.S. 444, 449–50 (1982); M.
8 Lowenstein & Sons, Inc. v. Superior Court, 80 Cal. App. 3d 762, 768, 145 Cal. Rptr. 814,
9 817 (1978), disapproved on other grounds, Johnson & Johnson v. Superior Court, 38
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10 Cal. 3d 243, 254–55, 695 P.2d 1058, 1065 n.7, 211 Cal. Rptr. 517, 524 n.7 (1985).
11 In lieu of personal delivery of the summons on a corporation, association, or
12 public entity, one may serve the summons by leaving a copy of the summons and of the
13 complaint during usual office hours in the recipient‟s office with the person who is
14 apparently in charge and by afterwards mailing a copy of the summons and complaint
15 (by first-class mail, postage prepaid) to the person to be served at the place where the
16 copies of the summons and complaint were left. CODE CIV. PROC. § 415.20(a). See
17 generally ROBERT I. WEIL & IRA A. BROWN, JR., CALIFORNIA PRACTICE GUIDE:
18 CIVIL PROCEDURE BEFORE TRIAL ¶¶ 4:82–:91 (1999); 3 B.E. WITKIN, CALIFORNIA
19 PROCEDURE, Actions §§ 926–929 (4th ed. 1997). Service of the summons is deemed
20 complete on the tenth day after the mailing. CODE CIV. PROC. § 415.20(a). See also
21 Ludka v. Athana Corp., 25 Cal. App. 3d 316, 321, 101 Cal. Rptr. 615, 618 (1972). See
CIVIL RIGHTS AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT
Page 10 of 119
1 also Khourie, Crew & Jaeger v. Sabek, 220 Cal. App. 3d 1009, 1013, 269 Cal. Rptr. 687,
2 689 (1990)
3 One may also serve the summons in a similar manner by leaving a copy of the
4 summons and of the complaint at the person‟s “dwelling house, usual place of abode,
5 usual place of business, or usual mailing address other than a United States Postal
6 Service post office box,” Ellard v. Conway, 94 Cal. App. 4th 540, 546, 114 Cal. Rptr. 2d
7 399, 402–03 (2001). Or in the presence of a competent member of the household Bein
8 v. Brechtel-Jochim Group, Inc., 6 Cal. App. 4th 1387, 1393, 8 Cal. Rptr. 2d 351, 354
9 (1992) (the guard at a gated community is considered a “competent member of the
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10 household” if he controls access to the residence); cf. CODE CIV. PROC. § 415.21. Or
11 a person apparently in charge of his office, place of business, or usual mailing address,
12 at least 18 years old, who must be informed of the contents of the documents, and by
13 afterwards mailing a copy of the summons and complaint (by first-class mail, postage
14 prepaid) to the person to be served at the place where the summons and complaint were
15 left. Service of the summons is deemed complete on the tenth day after the mailing.
16 CODE CIV. PROC. § 415.20(b).
17 One may serve a summons by mail by mailing a copy of the summons and of the
18 complaint by firstclass mail or airmail, postage prepaid) to the person to be served,
19 together with two copies of the notice and acknowledgment and a return envelope,
20 postage prepaid, addressed to the sender. CODE CIV. PROC. § 415.30(a). A post office
21 box is a sufficient address for service by mail. Transamerica Title Ins. Co. v. Hendrix, 34
22 Cal. App. 4th 740, 745, 40 Cal. Rptr. 2d 614, 617 (1995). See generally ROBERT I.
CIVIL RIGHTS AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT
Page 11 of 119
1 WEIL & IRA A. BROWN, JR., CALIFORNIA PRACTICE GUIDE: CIVIL PROCEDURE
2 BEFORE TRIAL ¶¶ 4:92–:105.3, :134–:139 (1999); 3 B.E. WITKIN, CALIFORNIA
3 PROCEDURE, Actions §§ 930–935 (4th ed. 1997).
4 The Judicial Council form is deemed to comply with the requirements of the Code
5 of Civil Procedure. CODE CIV. PROC. § 415.30(e).
6 One may serve a defendant located in a state other than California by any of the
7 methods authorized for service within California or by a method prescribed by the law of
8 the place where the defendant is served. CODE CIV. PROC. § 413.10(b). See generally
9 ROBERT I. WEIL & IRA A. BROWN, JR., CALIFORNIA PRACTICE GUIDE: CIVIL
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10 PROCEDURE BEFORE TRIAL ¶¶ 4:133, :146 (1999); 3 B.E. WITKIN, CALIFORNIA
11 PROCEDURE, Actions § 921 (4th ed. 1997).
12 NO JUDICIAL POWER IN THIS CASE
13 11th Amendment: “The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed
14 to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the
15 United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign
16 State.” A judge has no power to dismiss InfoTelesys, Inc. and Get IT Real, Inc. from this
17 suit. In fact in accordance with the 11th Amendment there is no judicial power in this suit.
18 Any order by a judge in this case is void and of no force and effect. Jeremy Fogel was
19 clearly and blatantly in excess of jurisdiction when he attempted to dismiss these parties
20 from the suit and he violated Plaintiffs 11th Amendment rights and continues to violate
21 Plaintiffs rights in refusing to bring this matter before a Trail By Jury which amounts to
CIVIL RIGHTS AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT
Page 12 of 119
1 noting less than the continued malicious prosecution of Plaintiffs. As a consequence
2 with good cause Mr. Fogel is now himself a defendant in this case.
3 This matter must proceed immediately to Trial By Jury.
4 PRO SE LITIGANTS ENTITLED TO WIDE LATITUDE
5 There are decisions in virtually every federal circuits that generously proclaim
6 that pro per petitions should be construed liberally and that pro per petitioners should be
7 held to less stringent standards than lawyers. See, e.g., Price v. Johnston (1948) 334
8 U.S. 266, 292; Chase v. Crips (10th Cir. 1975) 523 F.2d 595, 597; Curtis v. Illinois (7th
9 Cir. 1975) 512 F2d 717; Ham v. North Carolina (4th Cir. 1973) 471 F.2d 406, 407;
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10 Hairston v. Alabama (5th Cir. 1972) 465 F.2d 675, 678 n5; Turrell v. Perini (6th Cir.
11 1969) 414 F.2d 1231, 1233; Montgomery v. Brierly (3rd Cir. 1969) 414 F.2d 552;
12 Pembrook v. Wilson, (9th Cir. 1966) 370 F.2d 37, 40; Whittaker v. Overholster (D.C. Cir.
13 1962) 299 F.2d 447, 448. See also Haines v. Kerner (1972) 404 U.S. 519.
14 This right is also protected under the First Amendment Free Speech Clause.
15 And within those rights, the pro se litigant's court submissions are to be construed
16 liberally and held to less stringent standards than submissions of lawyers. If the court
17 can reasonably read the submissions, it should do so despite failure to cite proper legal
18 authority, confusion of legal theories, poor syntax and sentence construction, or litigant's
19 unfamiliarity with rule requirements. Boag v. MacDougall, 454 U.S. 364, 102 S.Ct. 700,
20 70 L.Ed.2d 551 (1982); Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106, 97 S.Ct. 285, 50 L.Ed.2d
21 251 (1976) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46, 78 S.Ct. 99, 2 L.Ed.2d 80
22 (1957)); Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 92 S.Ct. 594, 30 L.Ed.2d 652 (1972);
23 McDowell v. Delaware State Police, 88 F.3d 188, 189 (3rd Cir. 1996); United States v.
24 Day, 969 F.2d 39, 42 (3rd Cir. 1992)(holding pro se petition cannot be held to same
CIVIL RIGHTS AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT
Page 13 of 119
1 standard as pleadings drafted by attorneys); Then v. I.N.S., 58 F.Supp.2d 422, 429
2 (D.N.J. 1999).
3 The courts provide pro se parties wide latitude when construing their pleadings
4 and papers. When interpreting pro se papers, the Court should use common sense to
5 determine what relief the party desires. S.E.C. v. Elliott, 953 F.2d 1560, 1582 (11th Cir.
6 1992). See also, United States v. Miller, 197 F.3d 644, 648 (3rd Cir. 1999) (Court has
7 special obligation to construe pro se litigants' pleadings liberally); Poling v. K.Hovnanian
8 Enterprises, 99 F.Supp.2d 502, 506-07 (D.N.J. 2000). Defendant has the right to
9 submit pro se briefs on appeal, even though they may be inartfully drawn but the court
10 can reasonably read and understand them. See, Vega v. Johnson, 149 F.3d 354 (5th
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
11 Cir. 1998). Courts will go to particular pains to protect pro se litigants against
12 consequences of technical errors if injustice would otherwise result. U.S. v. Sanchez, 88
13 F.3d 1243 (D.C.Cir. 1996).
14 PROOF OF BIASED PERSPECTIVE AGAINST PLAINTIFFS
15 The following false charges were all the government required to bring Clive
16 Boustred to trial, no evidence, no Mens Rea, no Actus Rea, no Corpus Delecti, no
17 verified criminal complaint and despite evidence to the contrary proving Mr. Boustred‟s
18 innocence and despite the fact that Stefan Tichatschke was in violation of a lawful court
19 order baring him from contact with Mr. Boustred‟s children and despite the fact that Mr.
20 Tichatschke was the one who initiated the assault and despite the fact that Tichatschke
21 and Mrs. Anamaria Boustred had abandoned WFB aged three at the time in the middle
22 of a learner ski run and despite the fact that Mr. Boustred was rescuing his son WFB and
23 despite the fact that Mr. Boustred had filed a verified criminal complaint against
24 Tichatschke regarding this very incident two months before the government filed this
25 action on March 10, 2003 just before the government attempt to murder Clive Boustred
CIVIL RIGHTS AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT
Page 14 of 119
1 when deputy Sheriff Michael Macdonald shot at Mr. Boustred with RCB and WFB in the
2 line of fire:
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
3
CIVIL RIGHTS AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT
Page 15 of 119
1 Plaintiffs have submitted before this court significantly more evidence and more
2 detailed charges than the government allows themselves to bring a matter to trial. Even
3 if the trial they gave Mr. Boustred was an utter sham trial where Mr. Boustred was not
4 allowed to present any evidence or facts that proved his innocence and where Mr.
5 Boustred was not allowed to put the law or to bring witnesses in his defense before the
6 jury, at least the government allows themselves to bring matters to trial. After driving
7 Plaintiffs into financial ruin from years of malicious prosecution so that Plaintiffs can‟t
8 afford attorneys the government turns around and dismissed the corporate persons and
9 minor children of Mr. Boustred because they can‟t afford an attorney! Companies are
10 persons according to the 14th Amendment. The government holds principles
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
11 accountable for actions by their companies, however now they claim that persons cant
12 represent themselves! The government claims that fathers are responsible and liable for
13 their children, yet when we turn to be responsible for our children and represent our own
14 kids they say we cant! Furthermore a colleague and employee of the defendants has
15 stepped in and dismissed the case before it gets to trial by jury.
16 The government is claiming that Plaintiffs cant petition the government for a
17 redress of grievances and the case must be dismissed even before trial.
18 Plaintiffs in Propria Persona Sui Juris are entitled to wide leeway in regard to
19 bringing suit, however, the government ignores the law and dismisses cases filed
20 against themselves. This matter needs to proceed to trial by jury.
21
CIVIL RIGHTS AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT
Page 16 of 119
1 PROHIBITION OF BIAS
2 United States District Court General Order No. 40, Prohibition of Bias, states:
3 Prologue
4 The Court is committed to ensuring that all forms of bias and prejudice are eliminated from the
5 practice of law in our district….
6 Duties and Procedures
7 (1) The practice of law before the United States District Court for the Northern District of
8 California must be free from prejudice and bias in any form. Treatment free of bias must be
9 accorded all other attorneys, litigants, judicial officers, court room jurors or support personnel.
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10 The duty to exercise nonbiased behavior includes the responsibility to avoid comment or
11 behavior manifesting prejudice or bias toward another. This duty is owed by all attorneys,
12 judges, judicial officers and court personnel in connection with cases pending before the district
13 court.
14
15
CIVIL RIGHTS AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT
Page 17 of 119
1 C. 5th AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT
2 Petitioner‟s Original Complaint, Oppositions to Motions to Dismiss, Motions and
3 Responses to Motions, 1st Amended Civil Rights Complaint, 2nd Amendment to Civil
4 Rights Complaint, Exhibits and Authorities therein are included herein by reference
5 and made a part of this Amended Complaint. Plaintiffs 3rd Amendment to Civil
6 Rights Complaint was submitted under extreme duress as a consequence of multiple
7 malicious prosecutions of Plaintiffs by Defendants coinciding with the time of
8 submission, said filing contained errors and is replaced by this 5th Amendment To
9 Complaint.
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10 This action is brought against the Counties of Santa Cruz, Placer and Marin, the
11 State of California and the United States of America, individual employees of theses
12 entities and the Courts for racketeering and multiple extremely serious criminal charges
13 for which substantial evidence and proof has already been submitted (See Evidence
14 CD). Under the law and Constitution of the United States of America, this action is
15 brought forward to be tried by jury where the jury determines both the law and fact in
16 accordance with the law. No judge has any authority to judge the facts or merits of this
17 action as this action is brought against their colleagues and employer. The law dictates
18 that such matters be fully tried by jury.
19 This action arises under the Civil Rights Act of 1871 (42 U.S.C. Sections 1983
20 and 1988) and the First, Second, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, Eleventh and
21 Fourteenth Amendments and Article III and IV of the Constitution of the United States
CIVIL RIGHTS AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT
Page 18 of 119
1 and Common-Law. This Court has jurisdiction of the federal claims under 28 U.S.C.
2 Section 1331, 1332, 1343(3) 1343(4), 2201, and 2202.
3 VENUE
4 Venue is proper in the Northern District of California, San Jose Division pursuant
5 to 28 U.S.C. § 1391, in that the subject matter of this action arose in this district, all
6 defendants are subject to personal jurisdiction in this district.
7 Pursuant to the Eleventh Amendment due to the fact that this suit is brought by
8 Citizens of Nevada (InfoTelesys, Inc. and Get IT Real, Inc.) against another state
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
9 (California), Judges have no power in this case an the case must be tried by jury where
10 the jury determines the law and fact. Additionally Pursuant to Due Process Clauses of
11 the Constitution due to the fact that this suit is brought against colleagues and the
12 employer of judges of the U.S. District Court, jurisdiction does not extend toward Judges
13 of the Court and all matters both regarding fact and law may only be decided by Jury.
14 AUTHORITY: U.S. Constitution, Eleventh Amendment: “The Judicial power of
15 the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity,
16 commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State,
17 or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.” – Said power resides with the
18 independent Jury.
19 ANALYSIS OF THE 11TH: The very construct of the Constitution, the essence of
20 the formation of the United States of America, is founded on the principle of eliminating
21 tyrannical government; the construct that the government cannot do what they want; the
22 principle that all stand equal before the law and that all parties to suits are entitled to
CIVIL RIGHTS AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT
Page 19 of 119
1 impartial decision makers; etc. Consequentially, the establishment of the 11th
2 Amendment is based upon the principle that the judiciary (which consists of a group of
3 individuals whom are employed by the State) naturally has no authority to preside over a
4 case brought against their employer, the State. And what are the two powers in our
5 courts? Either Judicial power or Jury power. Suits brought against the State can thus
6 naturally only be adjudicated by Jury where the decision maker in the trial is no party to
7 the suit and where the Jury in accordance with the construct of Trial By Jury, decides
8 both the law and the fact. "The jury has the right to judge both the law and the facts" -
9 Samuel Chase, 1804, Supreme Court Justice and signer of the Declaration of
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10 Independence.
11 In a Trial By Jury the judiciary has no function other than very basic
12 administrative functions necessary to bring the matter to trial. The judiciary has no
13 power to dismiss a case or weigh the merits of a case that is brought to trial by jury
14 those are functions absolutely and completely reserved for the jury. Clearly the judiciary
15 has not decision making authority in suits brought against their colleagues and much
16 less any authority to dismiss a case or exclude evidence from such a case.
17 Great error has crept into many judicial decisions in regard to the idea of
18 Sovereign immunity, which is not mentioned once in any way or in any part of the
19 Constitution. Such a concept flies in the opposite direction of the principles and
20 purposes upon which the government of the U.S. was established. There is absolutely
21 no principle of Sovereign immunity under the Constitution. The Constitution goes to
22 great lengths to ensure equality and responsibility under the law which is the exact
CIVIL RIGHTS AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT
Page 20 of 119
1 opposite of any suggestion of a sovereign class or sovereign immunity. To the contrary,
2 government entities and employees, if anyone, are to be held to a higher standard when
3 it comes to responsibility under the law, they are utterly accountable – this after all was
4 the purpose of establishing the U.S. and is the underlying construct of the Constitution.
5 There is categorically and absolutely zero implication or statement within the 11th
6 Amendment that says that a State cannot be sued, it simply is not there. All the 11th
7 says is that judges have no power (Judicial power), what other decision making
8 remains? Naturally the other cornerstone of the judicial system: Jury power. There are
9 two ways to decide a case in a Court: Either by Jury or by Judge. The very construct of
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10 Trial by Jury was given to our nation so that the very construct of Judicial corruption
11 could be overcome. The very reason we give the Jury the power to decide both the law
12 and the fact is because we know, as the founding fathers knew, that the government and
13 in particular the judiciary would become corrupt. And how they have!
14 Just take a look at what Judicial power has attempted to infer is implied by the
15 11th: they judiciary goes as absurdly far as to say that a State cannot be sued which is a
16 classic example of the Judiciary attempting to making law because nowhere does the
17 11th say or infer such; the Judiciary has even tried to make new law saying that “they the
18 government” are Sovereign; that “they the government” can Lord it over “we the
19 people” as “Kings and Queens” who have been put on the throne by God Himself. And
20 that they the government, like the Queen, can do no wrong because after all God put
21 them on the nations throne, and God can do no wrong! How utterly and categorically
CIVIL RIGHTS AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT
Page 21 of 119
1 pathetically absurd! The U.S.A. was founded so as to bring accountability to
2 government, there is no king or queen in the U.S., all stand equal before the law.
3 The Queen of England‟s idea that because the Bible states that God puts
4 authorities on the throne, Romans 13:1 “for there is no authority except that which God
5 has established” is such a foolish analysis as it ignores the fact that God also put people
6 like Hitler on the „throne‟. Clearly such a positioning is not one to be respected, but
7 rather that perhaps God‟s reasoning for such, is more likely to chastise us to stand up
8 against such tyrants, to speak out for the common man, and to stand for justice.
9 The very behavior of Judicial power within the U.S. illustrates the exact purpose
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10 of the 11th which is to eliminate Judicial power in suits where judges are parties to the
11 suit. In suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States
12 by Citizens of another State, the Judiciary is employed by the entity against which the
13 suit is brought and therefore obviously has no authority to preside over such a suit as
14 they have inherent bias. In such cases judges are predicted to behave exactly in the
15 way Judge Jeremy Fogel has behaved in this suit because of his blatant and obvious
16 bias.
17 Briefly, let us look at some of the absurdities Mr. Fogel has postulated:
18 1. He states in black and white that Plaintiffs have stated more than 20 claims upon
19 which relief can be granted. Then he turns around and dismisses the case
20 claiming that Plaintiffs have not stated a claim upon which relief can be granted!
21 Could you find a better example of bias?
22 2. He claims that employees of the State are immune to any wrongdoing! How un-
23 American can you get? Here he relies entirely on “Judicial Legislation” as it is
CIVIL RIGHTS AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT
Page 22 of 119
1 impossible for the legislature to make up such a law which flies in the face of the
2 very construct and purpose of the Constitution.
3 3. He dismisses corporate persons, claiming that such a person has no right to
4 speak in a court of law! He claims that such a person may only speak in court
5 through the mouth of a Barrister. And we use the term Barrister instead of the
6 word „lawyer‟ to drive through the point of the Constitution which was to eliminate
7 the heinous practice in England where judges silenced people by saying that
8 they could not speak for themselves and that only a Barrister could speak on
9 their behalf.
10 4. He dismisses a father‟s right and legal responsibility to be responsible for and to
11 speak for his very own minor children. Could there be any more basic principle
12 under Common-Law than that of a Father being Head of Family? However, what
13 is particularly interesting here, is the class of Judicial Legislation that Mr. Fogle is
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
14 attempting to introduce into this case, namely that of the State placing
15 themselves as the Head of Family. Mr. Fogel is suggesting that the State
16 determines the best interest of our children. He is not only suggesting that a
17 parent cannot speak for their own child he is legislating that the State owns the
18 child and not the parent and that only the Sate determines the best interest of the
19 child. In essence he is suggesting that the United States of America is now a
20 Socialist, Communist and Fascist nation!
21 5. Mr. Fogel goes as far as to ignore standard practice that a person can be served
22 by serving a competent person at their place of work coupled with service by mail
23 in compliance with the statues and code. He attempts to suggest that his
24 colleagues have not been served even when served in person and said service is
25 videotaped and when the State and County Attorneys have recognized service!
26 6. One of the very fine examples of misappropriation of Judicial power displayed by
27 Mr. Fogel was at the July 12, 2006 „Status Conference‟. On that day Mr. Fogel
28 displays typical judicial abuse found throughout our current treasonous U.S.
29 Courts. Mr. Fogel ignores the law which clearly states that he has no authority to
30 preside over a case where he is a party to the case, brushing aside the fact that
31 not only are his employer and colleagues parties to the case but also that he has
32 now been properly served and is now, with good cause, a defendant in this case.
33 Mr. Fogel attempts to claim that because the Plaintiffs have not followed „rules of
CIVIL RIGHTS AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT
Page 23 of 119
1 procedure‟ (which are in themselves no law at all but merely suggestions as to
2 how one should proceed) that somehow it is acceptable for Mr. Fogel to ignore
3 the law and go ahead and rule with bias against Plaintiffs! Judge Fogel uses
4 court rules to overrule the true law. Judge Fogel‟s breaks the law under the
5 guise of following an arbitrary procedure.
6 7. Mr. Fogel is well aware that Plaintiff Clive Boustred‟s children have been
7 kidnapped from him by the State and that void orders have been employed by
8 judges who are nationally renowned criminals. Yet when it comes to setting
9 aside patently void orders that will eliminate a child hostage taking situation, Mr.
10 Fogel ignores the fact that any judge in any court can set aside a void order and
11 thereby he himself continues to support and endorses kidnap and hostage
12 taking. Mr. Fogel who has a duty to ensure that the government obeys the law,
13 literally ignores extraordinary crimes committed before his eyes, then he in turn
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
14 commits crime and tries to cover it up with „rules‟.
15
16 The interesting elements regarding this very case, is that the case is about
17 extreme governmental abuse and exactly the protections guaranteed by the Constitution
18 and that embedded in the 11th Amendment. Without any cause the government literally
19 shot at Clive and his children, falsely arrested and threw Clive in jail, kidnapped his
20 children, then maliciously and outrageously prosecuted Clive to cover up. The
21 government went as far as to order Clive to not communicate with his children then
22 handed the children to a man who is ordered to have no contact with Clive‟s children, a
23 man who in his own words admits to having serious problems with drugs, sex and
24 pornography. You don‟t get much worse criminal activity. You can‟t get much lower
25 integrity or worse abuse. The judicial abuses employed in the cover-up in this situation
26 are astounding and rampant, shocking the conscience, and are now deeply embedded
27 in this very case. What is even more astonishing is Mr. Fogel himself wrote an article
CIVIL RIGHTS AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT
Page 24 of 119
1 entitled 'Justice denied is a national problem‟ for the San Jose Mercury‟s series on
2 “Tainted Trial, Stolen Justice”. In the article Mr. Fogel states: “Vigorous enforcement of
3 ethical standards for prosecutors, defense attorneys and judges is essential” he goes on
4 to state “Integrity and professional competence are minimum requirements for all of us
5 who do the public's work”. Good advice, however, Mr. Fogel acts on the opposite side
6 of his own critique.
7 There are 2 means to trial: 1 by judge (Judicial power) and 2 by jury (Jury
8 power). Recognize that Judicial power can be questioned, however, Jury power may not
9 be re-examined (7th) other than through abuse of process.
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10 As a further note in exposing the corruption of our courts: No new law is made
11 through judicial rulings. The use of “Judicial Precedence” by our Courts is totally
12 misplaced. Only the Legislature has any authority to make law. The judiciary has
13 absolutely no authority or power to make law. The underlying Common-Law construct is
14 that no law is law unless the common person can understand it – this is Common-Law
15 (which is not a Code based system). Thus, there is no function for the „interpretation of
16 the law‟. If a law is ambiguous or difficult to understand, then under Common-Law it is
17 therefore not law. The one and only function of the judiciary in the area of confusion as
18 to interpretation of a law, is that if a law is not clearly definable and arguable as we have
19 done above, then the judiciary‟s only function is to send the law back to the Legislature
20 to make it clear so that the common person can understand it. In trials by jury, the
21 judiciary has no function other than basic administration.
CIVIL RIGHTS AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT
Page 25 of 119
1 All that is required to bring a matter to trial by jury is a claim on information OR
2 belief by a plaintiff that a wrong has been committed by defendants to which relief might
3 be entitled. This is a very low bar which has more than been met by Plaintiffs in this
4 case. The matter must proceed to Trial by Jury. A judge not only has no authority to try
5 matters of fact or law in this case due to the Trial by Jury demand, but also due to the
6 protection from Judicial power as clearly established by the 11th Amendment.
7 PARTIES
8 PLAINTIFFS
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
9 1. Clive Frank Boustred,
10 2. RCB (Minor son of Clive Frank Boustred)
11 3. WFB (Minor son of Clive Frank Boustred)
12 4. InfoTelesys, Inc. Nevada
13 5. Get IT Real, Inc. Nevada
14 DEFENDANTS
15 1. Defendant Michael Macdonald
16 resides or works at Santa Cruz Sheriffs, 701 Ocean Street, Santa Cruz, CA
17 95060 as a Deputy Sheriff.
18 The defendant is sued in his/her (Check one or both): individual official
19 capacity.
20 2. Defendant Samuel S. Stevens
21 resides or works at Santa Cruz Superior Court, 701 Ocean Street, Santa Cruz,
22 CA 95060 as a Superior Court Judge.
23 The defendant is sued in his/her (Check one or both): individual official
24 capacity.
25 3. Defendant Steven Drottar
CIVIL RIGHTS AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT
Page 26 of 119
1 resides or works at Santa Cruz District Attorneys Office, 701 Ocean Street, Santa
2 Cruz, CA 95060 as an Ass. DA.
3 The defendant is sued in his/her (Check one or both): individual official
4 capacity.
5 4. Defendant Anamaria Boustred
6 resides or works at 33250 Fairway Ave, Soquel, CA 95073 as a house keeper
7 The defendant is sued in his/her (Check one or both): individual official
8 capacity.
9 5. Defendant Steffan Tichatschke
10 resides or works at 33250 Fairway Ave, Soquel, CA 95073 as an investor
11 The defendant is sued in his/her (Check one or both): individual official
12 capacity.
13 6. Defendant Vicki J. Parry
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
14 resides or works at 100 Doyle Street, Suite G, Santa Cruz CA 95062 as an
15 Officer of the court and member of the State Bar 80508.
16 The defendant is sued in his/her (Check one or both): individual official
17 capacity.
18 7. Defendant Mark Tracy
19 resides or works at Santa Cruz Sheriffs, 701 Ocean Street, Santa Cruz, CA
20 95060 as a Sheriff.
21 The defendant is sued in his/her (Check one or both): individual official
22 capacity.
23 8. Defendant Art Danner (Deceased)
24 resides or works at Santa Cruz Superior Court, 701 Ocean Street, Santa Cruz,
25 CA 95060 as a Superior Court Judge.
26 The defendant is sued in his/her (Check one or both): individual official
27 capacity.
28 9. Defendant M Pool
29 resides or works at Santa Cruz Sheriffs, 701 Ocean Street, Santa Cruz, CA
30 95060 as a Deputy Sheriff.
31 The defendant is sued in his/her (Check one or both): individual official
32 capacity.
33 10. Defendant Hemmingway (Deceased)
CIVIL RIGHTS AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT
Page 27 of 119
1 resides or works at Santa Cruz Sheriffs, 701 Ocean Street, Santa Cruz, CA
2 95060 as a Lieutenant Sheriff.
3 The defendant is sued in his/her (Check one or both): individual official
4 capacity.
5 11. Defendant Amy Christy
6 resides or works at Santa Cruz Sheriffs, 701 Ocean Street, Santa Cruz, CA
7 95060 as a Sergeant Sheriff.
8 The defendant is sued in his/her (Check one or both): individual official
9 capacity.
10 12. Defendant Brozozowski
11 resides or works at Santa Cruz Sheriffs, 701 Ocean Street, Santa Cruz, CA
12 95060 as a Deputy Sheriff.
13 The defendant is sued in his/her (Check one or both): individual official
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
14 capacity.
15 13. Defendant Bob Lee
16 resides or works at Santa Cruz District Attorneys Office, 701 Ocean Street, Santa
17 Cruz, CA 95060 as a District Attorney.
18 The defendant is sued in his/her (Check one or both): individual official
19 capacity.
20 14. Defendant Michael E. Barton
21 resides or works at Santa Cruz Superior Court, 701 Ocean Street, Santa Cruz,
22 CA 95060 as a Superior Court Judge.
23 The defendant is sued in his/her (Check one or both): individual official
24 capacity.
25 15. Defendant Gregor Guy Smith
26 resides or works at 214 Duboce Ave, San Francisco, CA 94103-1008 as an
27 Officer of the court and member of the State Bar.
28 The defendant is sued in his/her (Check one or both): individual official
29 capacity.
30 16. Defendant Paul Meltzer
31 resides or works at as an Officer of the court and member of the State Bar.
32 The defendant is sued in his/her (Check one or both): individual official
33 capacity.
CIVIL RIGHTS AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT
Page 28 of 119
1 17. Defendant Trilla E. Bahrke
2 resides or works at 2501 North Lake Blvd, P.O. Box 5609, Tahoe City, CA 96145
3 as a Superior Court Commissioner.
4 The defendant is sued in his/her (Check one or both): individual official
5 capacity.
6 18. Defendant Bill Doyle
7 resides or works at 2501 North Lake Blvd, P.O. Box 5609, Tahoe City, CA
8 96145-5609 as a Ass. District Attorney.
9 The defendant is sued in his/her (Check one or both): individual official
10 capacity.
11 19. Defendant Christopher M. Cattran
12 resides or works at 2501 North Lake Blvd, P.O. Box 5609, Tahoe City, CA
13 96145-5609 as a Ass. District Attorney.
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
14 The defendant is sued in his/her (Check one or both): individual official
15 capacity.
16 20. Defendant Barbara J. Fox
17 resides or works at Santa Cruz Superior Court, 701 Ocean Street, Santa Cruz,
18 CA 95060 as a Clerk of the Court.
19 The defendant is sued in his/her (Check one or both): individual official
20 capacity.
21 21. Defendant Griffin
22 resides or works at Santa Cruz Sheriffs, 701 Ocean Street, Santa Cruz, CA
23 95060 as a Deputy Sheriff.
24 The defendant is sued in his/her (Check one or both): individual official
25 capacity.
26 22. Defendant Robert Frandeen
27 resides or works at as an Officer of the court and member of the State Bar.
28 The defendant is sued in his/her (Check one or both): individual official
29 capacity.
30 23. Defendant Raven Harris
31 resides or works at Santa Cruz Child Protective Services.
32 The defendant is sued in his/her (Check one or both): individual official
33 capacity.
CIVIL RIGHTS AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT
Page 29 of 119
1 24. Defendant Angela Glass
2 resides or works at Santa Cruz Child Protective Services.
3 The defendant is sued in his/her (Check one or both): individual official
4 capacity.
5 25. Defendant Mary Olimpo
6 resides or works at Santa Cruz Woman‟s Crisis Center, Soquel Ave, Soquel, CA
7 95073 a Government Funded Entity.
8 The defendant is sued in his/her (Check one or both): individual official
9 capacity.
10 26. Defendant Robert B. Atack
11 resides or works at Santa Cruz Superior Court, 701 Ocean Street, Santa Cruz,
12 CA 95060 as a Superior Court Judge.
13 The defendant is sued in his/her (Check one or both): individual official
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
14 capacity.
15 27. Defendant Genworth Financial
16 resides or works at representation at 1299 Ocean Avenue, Suite 900, Santa
17 Monica, CA 90401-1000 as insurance agents
18 The defendant is sued in his/her (Check one or both): individual official
19 capacity.
20 28. Defendant Attorney General of The State of California
21 resides or works at P.O. Box 944255, Sacramento, CA 94244-2550 as Attorney
22 General of The State of California
23 The defendant is sued in his/her (Check one or both): individual official
24 capacity.
25 29. Defendant Irwin Joseph
26 resides or works at Santa Cruz Superior Court, 701 Ocean Street, Santa Cruz,
27 CA 95060 as a Commissioner.
28 The defendant is sued in his/her (Check one or both): individual official
29 capacity.
30 30. Jason M. Heath
31 resides or works at Santa Cruz County 701 Ocean Street, Santa Cruz, CA 95060
32 as an Attorney
CIVIL RIGHTS AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT
Page 30 of 119
1 The defendant is sued in his/her (Check one or both): individual official
2 capacity.
3 31. Defendant Phyllis J. Hamilton and the Government and associated
4 entities of United States of America responsible for instituting the position
5 and acts of said Defendant.
6 Resides or works at 450 Golden Gate Ave, San Francisco, CA 940102 as a U.S.
7 District Court Judge.
8 The defendant is sued in his/her (Check one or both): individual official
9 capacity.
10 32. Defendant Jeremy Fogel and the Government and associated entities of
11 United States of America responsible for instituting the position and acts
12 of said Defendant.
13 Resides or works at the U.S. District Court 280 S. 1st Street, San Jose, CA
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
14 The defendant is sued in his/her (Check one or both): individual official
15 capacity.
16 33. Defendant William M. Kelsay
17 Resides or works at Santa Cruz Superior Court, 701 Ocean Street, Santa Cruz,
18 CA 95060 as a Retired Superior Court Judge.
19 The defendant is sued in his/her (Check one or both): individual official
20 capacity.
21 34. Jon Doe‟s 1 to n
22 The defendants is sued in their: individual official capacity.
23
24 DEFENDANTS CATEGORIES:
25 – Officers: Michael Macdonald, Amy Christy, M Pool, Mark Tracy, Hemmingway
26 (Deceased), Brozozowski, Griffin,
27 – Judges, Commissioners & Clerks: Samuel S. Stevens , Art Danner (Deceased),
28 Michael E. Barton, Trilla E. Bahrke, Robert B. Atack, William M. Kelsay, Irwin
29 Joseph, Phyllis J. Hamilton, Jeremy Fogel, Barbara J. Fox,
30 – District Attorneys: Steven Drottar, Bob Lee, Bill Doyle, Christopher M. Cattran,
31 – Private Parties: Anamaria Boustred, Steffan Tichatschke, Genworth Financial,
CIVIL RIGHTS AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT
Page 31 of 119
1 – Lawyers: Gregor Guy Smith, Robert Frandeen, Paul Meltzer, Vicki J. Parry, Jason M.
2 Heath,
3 – State: Raven Harris, Angela Glass, County of Santa Cruz, County of Marin, County
4 of Placer, Attorney General of The State of California, Attorney General of The
5 United States of America, The State and Government and associated entities of The
6 State of California, The State and Government and associated entities of The United
7 States of America,
8 – Jon Doe‟s , 1 to n.
9
10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
CIVIL RIGHTS AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT
Page 32 of 119
1 CASE SYNOPSIS / EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
2 On March 10, 2003, without probable cause Santa Cruz Sheriffs set ambush,
3 pursued Plaintiffs running up to Plaintiffs vehicle in front of Plaintiffs garage on private
4 property and attempted from point blank range of five to seven feet to blow Plaintiff Clive
5 Frank Boustred‟s head off in front of his children RCB and WFB. WFB aged three at the
6 time was in the direct line of fire behind his father, RCB aged seven was two feet off the
7 line of fire.
8 After the assassination attempt failed, the government engaged in a series of
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
9 outrageous malicious prosecutions against Plaintiff Clive Frank Boustred. Acting under
10 the color of law, filing a barrage of malicious and false charges against, Clive including
11 two false felonies and nine false misdemeanors, Defendants have sought to drive
12 Petitioners into ruin. Clive has been falsely arrested on multiple occasions and held for
13 five months without even any right to bail. Clive was given patently sham trials where
14 the jury was rigged and he was not allowed to put any evidence proving his innocence
15 before the jury and even had his testimony struck from the record, yet the government
16 was allowed to put hearsay, double hearsay and know lies before the jury along with
17 totally misleading information.
18 One of the most despicable and outrageous acts by the government against
19 Clive following the assassination attempt, was to kidnap his children RCB and WFB.
20 The government‟s gunman literally violently chased WFB after shooting at the children,
21 WFB wet his pants in fear, both boys were reduced to a zombie like state of shock. The
22 government then handed the children to a man who was ordered to have no contact with
CIVIL RIGHTS AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT
Page 33 of 119
1 the children, a man who in his own words admitted to having serious problems with
2 drugs, pornography and sex. The government ordered that Clive not communicate with
3 his children for three years. The boys lived with their dad before the government tried to
4 kill their dad in front of them. The government went as far as to repeatedly deny the
5 boys not only access to their father but also access to their grandparents. The
6 government completely ignored and repeatedly covered up blatant & irrefutable crimes
7 committed against Clive & his children
8 Neither Clive nor his children have had any justice or any fair hearing in three
9 and a half years. The California and U.S. District Courts have maintained that the
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10 government‟s false charge that Clive drove at around forty miles per hour down his
11 private road justified the government from shooting at Clive and his children, ordering
12 that Clive not communicate with his children for three years, arresting and sentencing
13 Clive to six months in jail, filing Clive‟s name and DNA in the California Central Felons
14 Index and also filing Clive‟s name in California‟s Central Child Abuse Index. Irrefutable
15 proof showed that Clive drove a slow 27 miles per hour down his private road where the
16 Sheriffs without warrant or any probable cause, laid in ambush, unlawfully chased and
17 then attempted to assassinate Clive in front of his children.
18 Clive Frank Boustred was the Founder, President, Chairman, CEO and Key Man
19 of InfoTelesys, Inc. that was well underway in building a next generation internet which
20 amongst other exciting projects was building a global education system that literally had
21 significant and real potential to eliminate world hunger – see the Get IT Ed project on the
22 www.InfoTelsys.com site. The company was in the process of developing and deploying
CIVIL RIGHTS AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT
Page 34 of 119
1 it‟s IT-I2 satellite network capable of delivering one gigabit connections anywhere in the
2 world. A joint education project in Afghanistan between InfoTelesys, World Vision,
3 World Bank and numerous Afghan organizations was destroyed as a consequence of
4 actions by Defendants. InfoTelesys, Inc. was even approached to build an education
5 system for China‟s largest education facility and as a direct consequence to ongoing
6 malicious prosecution InfoTelesys could also not take up that opportunity.
7 InfoTelesys had amongst their team some of the worlds top banking systems
8 experts and was in the process of building a competitor to the privately owned Federal
9 Reserve Bank. History has show that U.S. Presidents who challenged the legality of the
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10 privately owned Federal Reserve Bank to take the peoples money and charge us
11 interest on it, were either assassinated or shot at.
12 Judges acting in excess of jurisdiction in both California and U.S. District Courts
13 under the color of law have employed rules and procedures to beak the law and
14 maliciously prosecute Plaintiffs and deny Plaintiffs any fair hearing or right to Trial By
15 Jury, this now includes Judge Jeremy Fogel who was assigned to administer this case.
16 This action is brought against the Counties of Santa Cruz, Placer and Marin, the
17 State of California and the United States of America, individual employees of these
18 entities and the Courts for racketeering and multiple extremely serious criminal charges
19 and claims upon which relief may be granted for which substantial evidence and proof
20 has already been submitted (See Evidence CD). Under the law and Constitution of the
21 United States of America, this action is brought forward to be tried by jury where the jury
22 determines both the law and fact in accordance with the law. No judge has any authority
CIVIL RIGHTS AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT
Page 35 of 119
1 to judge the facts or merits of this action as this action is brought against their colleagues
2 and employer. The law dictates that such matters be fully tried by jury.
3 DAMAGES
4 As a direct and proximate result of acts by Defendants as alleged herein and
5 alleged in the Original Complaint, Amendments, Motions and Responses to Motions also
6 incorporated herein by reference as if part of the same document, Plaintiffs suffered
7 damages including but not limited to those damages listed here under which have
8 caused, and continue to cause, plaintiffs injuries. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
9 thereon allege that these injuries will result in permanent disability to them. As a result
10 of these injuries, Plaintiffs have suffered general and specific damages in amounts not
11 yet ascertained but in excess of one billion dollars:
12 Plaintiffs CLIVE FRANK BOUSTRED, RCB, WFB, and team members of
13 corporate Plaintiffs, suffered great physical and emotional injuries all of which have
14 caused, and continue to cause, plaintiff great mental, physical and nervous pain,
15 suffering and alienation. As a further proximate result of the acts of defendants, plaintiffs
16 were required to and did employ physicians to examine, treat and care for plaintiffs, and
17 incurred additional medical expenses in amounts not yet ascertained. CLIVE FRANK
18 BOUSTRED, RCB, WFB and team members of corporate Plaintiffs, are informed and
19 believe and thereon allege that these injuries will result in some permanent disability to
20 them.
21 As a result of these injuries, CLIVE FRANK BOUSTRED, RCB, WFB and team
22 members of corporate Plaintiffs, have required medical services and associated costs
CIVIL RIGHTS AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT
Page 36 of 119
1 and have suffered general and specific damages in amounts not yet ascertained.
2 Plaintiffs have been informed and believe and thereon allege that they will incur
3 additional medical and related expenses in the future, the exact amounts of which are
4 currently unknown.
5 As a further proximate result of the acts of defendants, CLIVE FRANK
6 BOUSTRED, InfoTelesys, Inc. and Get IT Real, Inc. were prevented from attending to
7 usual business and occupation and thereby lost earnings and revenue and in fact
8 InfoTelesys, Inc., it‟s subsidiaries partners and Get IT Real, Inc. were destroyed as a
9 direct and proximate result of the acts of defendants to damage in amounts not yet fully
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10 ascertained but no less than one billion dollars. As a further proximate result of
11 defendants' actions, plaintiff's present and future earning capacity has been greatly
12 impaired in amounts not yet ascertained but no less than one billion dollars.
13 Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that they will be deprived
14 from attending to their usual business for a period in the future which cannot yet be
15 ascertained, and will thereby sustain further loss of earning in amounts not yet
16 ascertained but in excess of one billion dollars.
17 As a further proximate result of defendants' acts, plaintiffs have been damaged in
18 that have been required to expend money and have been prevented from earning
19 money or continuing to develop products and service and having been delayed in
20 deployment of advanced products services and technology and have lost significant and
21 major contracts and agreements with international and local enterprises and have lost
22 the ability to obtain funding for projects and future projects and have lost extraordinary
CIVIL RIGHTS AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT
Page 37 of 119
1 and significant competitive advantages and have lost domain names, patents and
2 trademarks and have and will continue to incur costs and associated losses as in
3 amounts not yet ascertained but well in excess of one billion dollars.
4 As a further proximate result of the acts of defendants, plaintiffs were prevented
5 from attending to their usual occupation and thereby lost earnings causing damage in
6 amounts not yet ascertained but in excess of one billion dollars.
7 As a further proximate result of defendants' actions, plaintiffs present and future
8 earning capacity has been greatly impaired in amounts not yet ascertained but well in
9 excess of one billion dollars.
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10 As a further proximate result of defendants' acts, as alleged herein and by
11 reference, Plaintiffs have been damaged in that they need and have incurred legal,
12 business and related services and sundry expenses reasonably required to respond to
13 the ongoing malicious prosecution of Plaintiffs in amounts not yet full ascertained but
14 including over $140,000 in legal costs alone.
15 As a further proximate result of the acts of defendants, plaintiffs will continue to
16 incur, business, legal, medical and related expenses in amounts not yet ascertained.
17 As hereinbefore alleged, CLIVE FRANK BOUSTRED, RCB and WFB were held
18 captive by defendants on multiple occasions, and were violently seized and Clive Frank
19 Boustred was falsely arrested on multiple occasions, maliciously and without valid
20 warrant or right to bail or any order of commitment or any other legal authority of any
21 kind, without permission or even any reasonable cause to believe that any offense had
22 been committed other than the offences committed against Plaintiffs by Defendants.
CIVIL RIGHTS AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT
Page 38 of 119
1 The aforementioned acts of defendants in falsely arresting and imprisoning
2 CLIVE FRANK BOUSTRED and holding hostage RCB and WFB were without probable
3 cause and carried out by using excessive force against plaintiffs and were willful and
4 malicious and were intended to oppress and cause injury to plaintiffs. Plaintiffs are
5 therefore entitled to an award of punitive damages against defendants.
6 Defendants' conduct was not only outrageous it was intentional and malicious
7 and shocks the conscience and is grossly negligent, exhibiting a reckless disregard for
8 plaintiffs' rights and conspiring against plaintiffs, causing plaintiffs to suffer humiliation,
9 mental anguish, financial burdens, excessive court hearings and the need to answer
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10 multiple false charges frivolous motions, false imprisonment, kidnap, stress and
11 emotional and physical distress and plaintiffs were injured financially and in mind and
12 body in amounts not yet fully ascertained but in excess of one billion dollars.
13 On information and/or belief Defendants intentionally conspired against and
14 maliciously prosecuted Defendants so as to cause Defendant damages listed herein
15 resulting in pecuniary and nonpecuniary injury to plaintiff. Said damages were incurred
16 as a direct and proximate result of the Conspiracy and Malicious Prosecution of
17 Defendants.
18 Defendants owed a duty to plaintiffs not to cause the harm as herein alleged.
19 Defendants breached said duty. The acts of defendants were willful, wanton and
20 malicious and were intended to oppress and cause injury to Plaintiffs and justify the
21 awarding of exemplary and punitive damages in amounts according to proof.
CIVIL RIGHTS AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT
Page 39 of 119
1 Additionally Defendants have displayed deliberate indifference to the rights of
2 plaintiffs, and, based upon the principles set forth in Monell v. New York City Department
3 of Social Services , 436 U.S. 658 (1978), are thereby liable for all injuries and damages
4 sustained by plaintiff as set forth in this complaint.
5
6 CLAIMS UPON WHICH RELIEF CAN BE GRANTED /
7 CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS VIOLATED
8 On Information and belief, Defendants violated the following constitutional
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
9 Articles and Amendments giving rise to Claims upon which relief can be granted:
10 First Claim For Relief General Claims As Stated In Earlier
11 Filings
12 PLAINTIFFS: All Plaintiffs
13 DEFENDANTS: All Defendants
14 VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS & ULTIMATE FACTS
15 On information and/or belief, Plaintiff refers to and incorporates herein the
16 allegations in the original Complaint, Amendments to the Compliant, Motions and
17 Responses to Motions relating to the above listed claim upon which relief can be
18 granted.
CIVIL RIGHTS AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT
Page 40 of 119
1 DAMAGES
2 Damages incurred by Plaintiffs as a direct or indirect consequence to the above
3 mentioned and referenced actions by defendants are incorporated herein as listed in the
4 “DAMAGES” section of this Complaint commencing on page 36 and as listed in the
5 original Complaint, Amendments to the Compliant, Motions and Responses to Motions.
6 EVIDENCE
7 Plaintiff refers to and incorporates herein the evidence in the original Complaint,
8 Amendments to the Compliant, Motions and Responses to Motions and that
United States District Court
9 incorporated on the Evidence CD‟s
For the Northern District of California
10 Second Claim For Relief Violation of U.S. Const. 4th & 14th
11 Amendment [Seizures, searches and warrants, Unlawful Arrest
12 and/or Unlawful Seizure and/or Unlawful Search and/or
13 Excessive Force and/or Assault and/or Assault With A Deadly
14 Weapon and/or Battery and/or Abnormally Dangerous Activities
15 and/or Failure to Protect]
16 4th Amendment: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses,
17 papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated,
18 and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation,
19 and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be
20 seized”.
21 14th Amendment: Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States
22 and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State
CIVIL RIGHTS AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT
Page 41 of 119
1 wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the
2 privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any
3 person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny any person within
4 its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
5 PLAINTIFFS: All Plaintiffs
6 DEFENDANTS:
7 – Officers: Michael Macdonald , Amy Christy, M Pool, Mark Tracy, Hemmingway
8 (Deceased), Brozozowski, Griffin.
9 – Judges, Commissioners & Clerks: Samuel S. Stevens , Art Danner (Deceased),
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10 Michael E. Barton, Trilla E. Bahrke, Robert B. Atack, William M. Kelsay, Irwin
11 Joseph, Phyllis J. Hamilton, Jeremy Fogel, Barbara J. Fox.
12 – District Attorneys: Steven Drottar, Bob Lee, Bill Doyle, Christopher M. Cattran
13 – Private Parties: Anamaria Boustred, Steffan Tichatschke, Genworth Financial.
14 – Lawyers: Gregor Guy Smith, Robert Frandeen, Paul Meltzer, Vicki J. Parry, Jason M.
15 Heath
16 – State: Raven Harris, Angela Glass, County of Santa Cruz, County of Marin, County
17 of Placer, Attorney General of The State of California, Attorney General of The
18 United States of America, The State and Government and associated entities of The
19 State of California, The State and Government and associated entities of The United
20 States of America
21 – Jon Doe‟s , 1 to n.
22 VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS & ULTIMATE FACTS
23 Plaintiff refers to and incorporates herein the allegations in the original
24 Complaint, Amendments to the Compliant, Motions and Responses to Motions and adds
25 the following violations by the above listed Defendants of Plaintiffs 4th and 14th
26 Amendment rights:
CIVIL RIGHTS AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT
Page 42 of 119
1 On March 10, 2003 Officers Michael Macdonald, Amy Christy, M Pool,
2 Hemmingway (Deceased), Brozozowski and John Does 1-n did unlawfully and without
3 probable cause employ Excessive Force and did Assault including Assault With A
4 Deadly Weapon and did Batter and did conduct Abnormally Dangerous Activities and
5 Failed to Protect and did Unlawfully Arrest and Unlawfully Seize and Unlawfully Search
6 Plaintiffs Clive Frank Boustred, RCB and WFB.
7 As alleged, defendant OFFICERS unlawfully assaulted with a deadly weapon,
8 battered, seized, searched and arrested plaintiff, maliciously and without probable
9 cause, warrant or any order of commitment or any other legal authority of any kind
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10 without permission or reasonable cause to believe that any offense had been committed
11 in violation of plaintiff‟s right under the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution to be
12 free from unreasonable search, seizure and excessive force. Additionally, defendant
13 OFFICERS failed and refused to intervene to protect plaintiff from the excessive force of
14 their fellow OFFICERS even though they had the opportunity to protect the plaintiff.
15 As alleged on or about March 12, 2003, Michael E. Barton without probable
16 cause issued a CLETS order barring Plaintiff Clive Frank Boustred from communicating
17 with his minor sons RCB and WFB, said order was issued without cause and under no
18 legal authority what so ever, said order was issued maliciously with the intent to harm
19 and to kidnap and hold hostage RCB and WFB from their father so as to maliciously
20 prosecute Plaintiffs. In hearings and motions before the Court on multiple occasions
21 following March 12, 2003, Michael E. Barton, and Samuel S. Steven, Art Danner
22 (Deceased), William M. Kelsay, Irwin Joseph, Phyllis J. Hamilton and Jeremy Fogel did
CIVIL RIGHTS AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT
Page 43 of 119
1 unlawfully uphold said unlawful CLETS order and void custody orders following said
2 CLETS order with the effect of kidnapping and holding hostage RCB and WFB from their
3 father Clive Frank Boustred. Anamaria Boustred, Steffan Tichatschke, Robert
4 Frandeen, Vicki J. Parry, Raven Harris, Angela Glass and John Does 1-n did conspire
5 with said unlawful seizure, kidnap, malicious prosecution and hostage taking.
6 In 2004, Santa Cruz Sheriffs, John Does 1-n, broke into and illegally searched
7 and stole evidence from Plaintiff Clive Boustred‟s home.
8 On repeated occasions since July 12, 2002, Defendants Glenworth Financial,
9 Samuel S. Stevens and the State have against Clive Boustred‟s explicit instruction and
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10 will, unlawfully forced Plaintiff Clive Boustred to have a million dollar life insurance policy
11 against his life which is owned by a party who has not only threatened his life but has
12 actively and criminally conspired to the extent that Plaintiff was literally shot at, said
13 defendants violated Plaintiffs 4th Amendment rights.
14 DAMAGES
15 Damages incurred by Plaintiffs as a direct or indirect consequence to the above
16 mentioned and referenced actions by defendants are incorporated herein as listed in the
17 “DAMAGES” section of this Complaint commencing on page 36 and as listed in the
18 original Complaint, Amendments to the Compliant, Motions and Responses to Motions.
19 As a direct and proximate result of these acts of these defendants as alleged
20 herein, CLIVE FRANK BOUSTRED, RCB, WFB suffered great physical and emotional
21 injuries all of which have caused, and continue to cause, plaintiff great mental, physical
22 and nervous pain, suffering and alienation. CLIVE FRANK BOUSTRED, RCB, WFB is
CIVIL RIGHTS AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT
Page 44 of 119
1 informed and believes and thereon alleges that these injuries will result in some
2 permanent disability to him. As a result of these injuries, CLIVE FRANK BOUSTRED,
3 RCB, WFB has suffered general damages in amounts not yet ascertained.
4 As a further proximate result of defendants' acts, as alleged herein, CLIVE
5 FRANK BOUSTRED, RCB, WFB has been damaged in that he needs and has incurred
6 legal services, medical services, business costs, and sundries reasonably required in the
7 treatment and relief of the injuries herein alleged in amounts not yet ascertained.
8 As a further proximate result of the acts of defendants, CLIVE FRANK
9 BOUSTRED, RCB, WFB will incur medical, business and related expenses in the future.
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10 The full amount of these expenses is not known to plaintiff at this time.
11 As a further proximate result of the acts of defendants, CLIVE FRANK
12 BOUSTRED, InfoTelesys, Inc. and Get IT Real, Inc. were prevented from attending to
13 usual business and thereby lost earnings to damage in amounts not yet ascertained but
14 in excess of one billion dollars.
15 As a further proximate result of defendants' actions, plaintiff's present and future
16 earning capacity has been greatly impaired in amounts not yet ascertained but in excess
17 of one billion dollars.
18 The aforementioned acts of defendants in falsely arresting and imprisoning
19 CLIVE FRANK BOUSTRED without probable cause and using excessive force against
20 plaintiff were willful and malicious and were intended to oppress and cause injury to
21 plaintiff. Plaintiff is therefore entitled to an award of punitive damages against defendant
22 officers.
CIVIL RIGHTS AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT
Page 45 of 119
1 Having a million dollar target on your forehead is extraordinary unnerving.
2 Defendants actions have disabled Plaintiffs ability to focus or concentrate thereby
3 eliminating Plaintiffs liberty and pursuit of happiness and simply capacity to function in
4 business.
5 EVIDENCE
6 Plaintiff refers to and incorporates herein the evidence in the original Complaint,
7 Amendments to the Compliant, Motions and Responses to Motions and that
8 incorporated on the Evidence CD‟s
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
9 Third Claim For Relief Violation of U.S. Const. 5th
10 Amendment [Criminal proceedings, deprivation of life, liberty
11 and happiness]
12 5th Amendment: No Person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise
13 infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases
14 arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War
15 or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in
16 jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness
17 against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
18 nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
19 PLAINTIFFS: All Plaintiffs
20 DEFENDANTS CATEGORIES:
21 – Officers: Michael Macdonald, Amy Christy, M Pool, Mark Tracy, Hemmingway
22 (Deceased), Brozozowski, Griffin,
CIVIL RIGHTS AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT
Page 46 of 119
1 – Judges, Commissioners & Clerks: Samuel S. Stevens , Art Danner (Deceased),
2 Michael E. Barton, Trilla E. Bahrke, Robert B. Atack, William M. Kelsay, Irwin
3 Joseph, Phyllis J. Hamilton, Jeremy Fogel, Barbara J. Fox,
4 – District Attorneys: Steven Drottar, Bob Lee, Bill Doyle, Christopher M. Cattran,
5 – Private Parties: Anamaria Boustred, Steffan Tichatschke
6 – Lawyers: Gregor Guy Smith, Robert Frandeen, Paul Meltzer, Vicki J. Parry, Jason M.
7 Heath,
8 – State: Raven Harris, Angela Glass, County of Santa Cruz, County of Marin, County
9 of Placer, Attorney General of The State of California, Attorney General of The
10 United States of America, The State and Government and associated entities of The
11 State of California, The State and Government and associated entities of The United
12 States of America,
13 – Jon Doe‟s , 1 to n.
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
14
15 VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS & ULTIMATE FACTS
16 Plaintiff refers to and incorporates herein the allegations in the original
17 Complaint, Amendments to the Compliant, Motions and Responses to Motions and adds
18 the following violations to Plaintiffs 5th Amendment rights:
19 Without any indictment of a Grand Jury Defendants Michael Macdonald, Amy
20 Christy, M Pool, Mark Tracy, Hemmingway (Deceased), Brozozowski, Griffin, Samuel S.
21 Stevens , Art Danner (Deceased), Michael E. Barton, Trilla E. Bahrke, Steven Drottar,
22 Bob Lee, Bill Doyle, Christopher M. Cattran, County of Santa Cruz, County of Marin,
23 County of Placer, County of Marin, Attorney General of The State of California, Attorney
24 General of The United States of America, The State and Government and associated
25 entities of The State of California, The State and Government and associated entities of
26 The United States of America and Jon Doe‟s 1 to n held Plaintiff Clive Frank Boustred to
CIVIL RIGHTS AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT
Page 47 of 119
1 answer for multiple infamous crimes, without probable cause or any evidence and said
2 defendants deprived Plaintiffs of liberty, property, without due process of law.
3 On information and belief defendants Samuel S. Stevens, Art Danner
4 (Deceased), Michael E. Barton, Trilla E. Bahrke, Robert B. Atack, William M. Kelsay,
5 Irwin Joseph, Phyllis J. Hamilton, Jeremy Fogel, Barbara J. Fox and Jon Doe‟s 1 to n
6 repeatedly on multiple occasions between 2002 and present denied Plaintiffs the most
7 rudimentary due process rights violating Plaintiffs 5th Amendment rights in Criminal and
8 civil proceedings and depriving Plaintiffs of liberty and happiness.
United States District Court
9 DAMAGES
For the Northern District of California
10 Damages incurred by Plaintiffs as a direct or indirect consequence to the above
11 mentioned actions by defendants and incorporated herein are listed in the “DAMAGES”
12 section of this Complaint commencing on page 36 and in the original Complaint,
13 Amendments to the Compliant, Motions and Responses to Motions.
14 EVIDENCE
15 Plaintiff refers to and incorporates herein the evidence in the original Complaint,
16 Amendments to the Compliant, Motions and Responses to Motions and that
17 incorporated on the Evidence CD‟s
18
CIVIL RIGHTS AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT
Page 48 of 119
1 Fourth Claim For Relief Violation of U.S. Const. 6th
2 Amendment [Criminal proceedings; public trial, impartial jury,
3 nature and cause of the accusation]
4 6th Amendment: In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a
5 speedy and public trial by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime
6 shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law,
7 and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the
8 witness against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining Witnesses in his favor,
9 and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10 PLAINTIFFS: Clive Frank Boustred
11 DEFENDANTS:
12 – Officers: Michael Macdonald, Amy Christy, M Pool, Mark Tracy, Hemmingway
13 (Deceased), Brozozowski, Griffin,
14 – Judges, Commissioners & Clerks: Samuel S. Stevens , Art Danner (Deceased),
15 Michael E. Barton, Trilla E. Bahrke, Robert B. Atack, William M. Kelsay, Irwin
16 Joseph, Phyllis J. Hamilton, Jeremy Fogel, Barbara J. Fox,
17 – District Attorneys: Steven Drottar, Bob Lee, Bill Doyle, Christopher M. Cattran,
18 – Lawyers: Gregor Guy Smith, Robert Frandeen, Paul Meltzer, Vicki J. Parry, Jason M.
19 Heath,
20 – State: Raven Harris, Angela Glass, County of Santa Cruz, County of Marin, County
21 of Placer, Attorney General of The State of California, Attorney General of The
22 United States of America, The State and Government and associated entities of The
23 State of California, The State and Government and associated entities of The United
24 States of America,
25 – Jon Doe‟s , 1 to n.
26
CIVIL RIGHTS AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT
Page 49 of 119
1 VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS & ULTIMATE FACTS
2 Plaintiff refers to and incorporates herein the allegations in the original
3 Complaint, Amendments to the Compliant, Motions and Responses to Motions and adds
4 the following 6th Amendment violations against Plaintiffs by the above listed Defendants:
5 On multiple occasions Defendants listed above actively worked and/or conspired
6 to deny Clive Frank Boustred the right to a speedy trial by repeatedly delaying
7 proceedings, failing to file or accept filings, refusing to provide due process, refusing to
8 hear Plaintiffs motions, refusing to consider evidence, refusing to allow relevant
9 evidence, by refusing to allow appeals, by creating burdensome and slow appeal
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10 processes, by giving Plaintiff patently sham trials then throwing Plaintiff into a slow and
11 burdensome appeal process, by creating a burdensome bureaucratic system of codes
12 and rules that are impossible for the average citizen to understand or follow, by
13 demanding excessive paperwork, by filing frivolous and false cases against Plaintiff, by
14 demanding Plaintiffs meet specific structural forms in filing irregardless of content or the
15 law or the facts or what is just and right, thereby denying Plaintiffs the right to a speedy
16 trial in criminal proceedings.
17 On multiple occasions since March 10, 2003, Defendants Samuel S. Stevens ,
18 Art Danner (Deceased), Michael E. Barton, Trilla E. Bahrke, Robert B. Atack, William M.
19 Kelsay, Irwin Joseph, Phyllis J. Hamilton, Jeremy Fogel, and John Does 1-n denied
20 Plaintiff the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.
21 On information and belief, Defendants Art Danner, Trilla E. Bahrke, Steven
22 Drottar, Bob Lee, Bill Doyle, Christopher M. Cattran and John Does 1-n. denied Plaintiff
CIVIL RIGHTS AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT
Page 50 of 119
1 a public trial by an impartial jury, actively conspiring and working to fix the jury in favor of
2 the Prosecution, denying the submission of evidence favorable to Plaintiff, allowing
3 prosecution to submit lies and hearsay and double hearsay before the jury, denying
4 favorable testimony by Plaintiff and by placing shills on the jury and denying Plaintiff the
5 right to have Witnesses in his favor testify.
6 Art Danner, Steven Drottar, Bob Lee and John Does 1-n failed to inform Plaintiff
7 Clive Boustred of the nature and cause of the accusation brought against him.
8 DAMAGES
United States District Court
9 Damages incurred by Plaintiffs as a direct or indirect consequence to the above
For the Northern District of California
10 mentioned and referenced actions by defendants are incorporated herein as listed in the
11 “DAMAGES” section of this Complaint commencing on page 36 and as listed in the
12 original Complaint, Amendments to the Compliant, Motions and Responses to Motions.
13 EVIDENCE
14 Plaintiff refers to and incorporates herein the evidence in the original Complaint,
15 Amendments to the Compliant, Motions and Responses to Motions and that
16 incorporated on the Evidence CD‟s
17 Fifth Claim For Relief Violation of U.S. Const. 7th Amendment
18 [Trial by jury, Common law]
19 7th Amendment: In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall
20 exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a
CIVIL RIGHTS AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT
Page 51 of 119
1 jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to
2 the rules of the common law.
3 PLAINTIFFS: All Plaintiffs
4 DEFENDANTS:
5 – Judges, Commissioners & Clerks: Samuel S. Stevens , Art Danner (Deceased),
6 Michael E. Barton, Trilla E. Bahrke, Robert B. Atack, William M. Kelsay, Irwin
7 Joseph, Phyllis J. Hamilton, Jeremy Fogel, Barbara J. Fox,
8 – State: County of Santa Cruz, County of Marin, County of Placer, Attorney General of
9 The State of California, Attorney General of The United States of America, The State
10 and Government and associated entities of The State of California, The State and
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
11 Government and associated entities of The United States of America,
12 – Jon Doe‟s , 1 to n.
13 VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS & ULTIMATE FACTS
14 Plaintiff refers to and incorporates herein the allegations in the original
15 Complaint, Amendments to the Compliant, Motions and Responses to Motions and adds
16 the following:
17 In Santa Cruz Superior Court Case FL 16028, F 06858, and CV 148542, Placer
18 County Superior Court case Ct 72-002045, Defendants listed above repeatedly denied
19 Plaintiffs their 7th Amendment right to Trial by Jury in suits of common law.
20 DAMAGES
21 Damages incurred by Plaintiffs as a direct or indirect consequence to the above
22 mentioned and referenced actions by defendants are incorporated herein as listed in the
23 “DAMAGES” section of this Complaint commencing on page 36 and as listed in the
24 original Complaint, Amendments to the Compliant, Motions and Responses to Motions.
CIVIL RIGHTS AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT
Page 52 of 119
1 EVIDENCE
2 Plaintiff refers to and incorporates herein the evidence in the original Complaint,
3 Amendments to the Compliant, Motions and Responses to Motions and that
4 incorporated on the Evidence CD‟s
5 Sixth Claim For Relief Violation of U.S. Const. 8th Amendment
6 Unreasonable bail, excessive fines, cruel & unusual punishment
7 and Wrongful Civil Proceedings
8 8th Amendment: Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines
9 imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10 PLAINTIFFS: All Plaintiffs
11 DEFENDANTS:
12 – Officers: Michael Macdonald, Amy Christy, M Pool, Mark Tracy,
13 Hemmingway (Deceased), Brozozowski, Griffin,
14 – Judges, Commissioners & Clerks: Samuel S. Stevens , Art Danner
15 (Deceased), Michael E. Barton, Trilla E. Bahrke, Robert B. Atack, William M. Kelsay,
16 Irwin Joseph, Phyllis J. Hamilton, Jeremy Fogel, Barbara J. Fox,
17 – District Attorneys: Steven Drottar, Bob Lee, Bill Doyle, Christopher M.
18 Cattran,
19 – State: Raven Harris, Angela Glass, County of Santa Cruz, County of
20 Marin, County of Placer, Attorney General of The State of California, Attorney
21 General of The United States of America, The State and Government and associated
22 entities of The State of California, The State and Government and associated entities
23 of The United States of America,
24 – Jon Doe‟s , 1 to n.
25
CIVIL RIGHTS AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT
Page 53 of 119
1 VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS & ULTIMATE FACTS
2 Plaintiff refers to and incorporates herein the allegations in the original
3 Complaint, Amendments to the Compliant, Motions and Responses to Motions and adds
4 the following violations of Plaintiffs 8th Amendment rights by Defendants:
5 In Santa Cruz Superior Court Case FL 16028, F 06858, and CV 148542, Placer
6 County Superior Court case Ct 72-002045 and Marin County Superior Court Defendants
7 listed above repeatedly denied Plaintiffs protection under the 8th Amendment and
8 demanded excessive bail and fines and imposed cruel and unusual punishment on
9 Plaintiffs.
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10 On or about March 10, 2003 in Santa Cruz Superior Court Case F 06858
11 Defendant Michael E. Barton, Art Danner and John Does 1-n set excessive bail at fifteen
12 times the legal schedule of the alleged charges when there was absolutely no evidence
13 supporting the alleged charges and when there was substantial evidence proving the
14 alleged charges were false.
15 On or about March 12, 2003, Defendant Michael E. Barton inflicted cruel and
16 unusual punishment on Plaintiffs Clive Boustred, RCB and WFB by ordering that Clive
17 Boustred not communicate with his sons RCB and WFB for three years, this punishment
18 was totally without merit or based on any probable cause or facts that even remotely
19 related to ordering that Clive Boustred not communicate with his sons and was inflicted
20 with malice as cruel and unusual punishment violating Plaintiffs 8th Amendment Rights.
21 On repeated occasions since March 12, 2003 Defendants listed above inflicted
22 outrageous and cruel punishment on Plaintiffs Clive Frank Boustred, RCB and WFB by
CIVIL RIGHTS AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT
Page 54 of 119
1 denying plaintiffs the right to live together, to enjoy each others company, to
2 communicate, to have the common interactions between father and child, said actions
3 were malicious and cruel and unusual punishment inflicted upon Plaintiffs.
4 Defendants Art Danner (Deceased) and John Does 1-n inflicted cruel and
5 unusual punishment on Plaintiffs by sentencing Clive Frank Boustred to six months
6 imprisonment without any right to bail despite a formal appeal having been filed and
7 despite no final judgment after Art Danner gave Clive Boustred a sham trial and where
8 Clive Boustred was falsely found guilty of three of the four charges.
9 In Placer County Case Number Ct 72-002045, Defendant Trilla E. Bahrke and
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10 John Does 1-n gave Clive Boustred a sham trial then had Clive Boustred arrested
11 without any right to bail and held for twenty one days before issuing a cruel and unusual
12 sentence for twenty one days for the afore mentioned SLAP suit. This sentence was
13 after the Santa Cruz Sheriffs, including but not limited to Deputy Griffin, stole Clive
14 Boustred‟s vehicle off his church‟s parking lot and after the Santa Cruz District Attorney
15 filed four new false charges against Clive Boustred in Santa Cruz Superior Court Case
16 number M19946 on the six month eve of the Santa Cruz Sheriffs assassination attempt
17 against Clive Boustred.
18 Plaintiff Clive Boustred was subject to strip searches in jail and forced to allow
19 Sheriffs to look up his anus. Such behavior on behalf of the sheriffs is demeaning, cruel
20 and unusual and flat out sick and perverted.
CIVIL RIGHTS AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT
Page 55 of 119
1 Plaintiff Clive Boustred was subject to unhealthy and filthy conditions in the Santa
2 Cruz Jail which was ridiculously overcrowded and diseased including rampant Staff
3 infections amongst inmates which went completely ignored by the sheriffs.
4 Plaintiffs have not listed herein all the 8th Amendment violations Defendants
5 made against Plaintiffs as Plaintiffs remain under the duress and cruel and unusual
6 punishment that the Defendants have intentionally inflicted against Plaintiffs as Plaintiffs
7 are overburdened from simply responding to the paperwork that has been thrust on
8 Plaintiffs, let alone dealing with the emotional, financial and physical burdens.
United States District Court
9 DAMAGES
For the Northern District of California
10 Damages incurred by Plaintiffs as a direct or indirect consequence to the above
11 mentioned and referenced actions by defendants are incorporated herein as listed in the
12 “DAMAGES” section of this Complaint commencing on page 36 and as listed in the
13 original Complaint, Amendments to the Compliant, Motions and Responses to Motions.
14 EVIDENCE
15 Plaintiff refers to and incorporates herein the evidence in the original Complaint,
16 Amendments to the Compliant, Motions and Responses to Motions and that
17 incorporated on the Evidence CD‟s
18
CIVIL RIGHTS AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT
Page 56 of 119
1 Seventh Claim For Relief Intentional/Negligent Infliction of
2 Emotional Distress, Fraud/Deceit
3 PLAINTIFFS: All Plaintiffs
4 DEFENDANTS: All Defendants
5 VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS & ULTIMATE FACTS
6 Plaintiff refers to and incorporates herein the allegations in the original Complaint,
7 Amendments to the Compliant, Motions and Responses to Motions and adds the
8 following violations of Plaintiffs rights by Defendants:
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
9 On or about February 20, 2003, in violation of Rules 7-103 and 7-108 of the
10 Rules of Professional Responsibility and Conduct of The State Bar of California and
11 without any basis for an urgency and without giving proper notice in violation of section §
12 240 of California‟s Family Code and also without any legal basis, Defendant Vicki J.
13 Parry called an unethical and unlawful ex parte hearing to “clarify” an order prohibiting
14 Petitioner Clive Boustred‟s former personal assistant and his wife‟s lover, Defendant
15 Stefan Tichatschke, from contact with RCB and WFB. Vicki J. Parry unlawfully secured
16 a void Order unlawfully granting Stefan Tichatschke the right to have contact with
17 Petitioner‟s RCB and WFB. On repeated occasions, Defendants Samuel S. Stevens,
18 Art Danner (Deceased), Michael E. Barton, Trilla E. Bahrke, William M. Kelsay, Irwin
19 Joseph, Phyllis J. Hamilton, Jeremy Fogel, Michael Macdonald, Amy Christy, M Pool,
20 Mark Tracy, Hemmingway (Deceased), Brozozowski, Griffin, Steven Drottar, Bob Lee,
21 Bill Doyle, Christopher M. Cattran, Anamaria Boustred, Steffan Tichatschke, Genworth
22 Financial, Gregor Guy Smith, Robert Frandeen, Paul Meltzer, Vicki J. Parry, Jason M.
CIVIL RIGHTS AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT
Page 57 of 119
1 Heath, Raven Harris, Angela Glass, and Jon Doe‟s 1 to n. Intentionally and/or
2 Negligently Inflicted Emotional Distress and committed Fraud and engaged in
3 Racketeering against Defendants.
4 Defendants' conduct as described herein was not only outrageous it was
5 intentional and malicious, or at the least grossly negligent, exhibiting a reckless
6 disregard for plaintiffs' rights and conspiring against plaintiffs, causing plaintiffs to suffer
7 humiliation, mental anguish, financial burdens, excessive court hearing and need to
8 answer false charges, stress and emotional and physical distress and plaintiffs were
9 injured financially and in mind and body all to their damage in amounts according to
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10 proof. Defendants owed a duty to plaintiffs not to cause the harm as herein alleged.
11 Defendants breached said duty.
12 The aforementioned acts of defendants were willful, wanton, malicious and
13 oppressive and justify the awarding of exemplary and punitive damages in amounts
14 according to proof.
15 DAMAGES
16 Damages incurred by Plaintiffs as a direct or indirect consequence to the above
17 mentioned and referenced actions by defendants are incorporated herein as listed in the
18 “DAMAGES” section of this Complaint commencing on page 36 and as listed in the
19 original Complaint, Amendments to the Compliant, Motions and Responses to Motions.
CIVIL RIGHTS AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT
Page 58 of 119
1 EVIDENCE
2 Plaintiff refers to and incorporates herein the evidence in the original Complaint,
3 Amendments to the Compliant, Motions and Responses to Motions and that
4 incorporated on the Evidence CD‟s
5 Eighth Claim For Relief Conspiracy
6 PLAINTIFFS: All Plaintiffs
7 DEFENDANTS: All Defendants
8 VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS & ULTIMATE FACTS
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
9 Plaintiff refers to and incorporates herein the allegations in the original Complaint,
10 Amendments to the Compliant, Motions and Responses to Motions, collectively the
11 “COMPLAINT” and adds the following relating to Defendants conspiracy against
12 Plaintiffs:
13 On information and/or belief and on the specific dates, times and events listed in
14 the “COMPLAINT”, Defendants intentionally conspired against Defendants on multiple
15 occasions so as to cause Defendant damages listed herein resulting in pecuniary and
16 nonpecuniary injury to plaintiff. Said damages were incurred as a direct and proximate
17 result of the Conspiracy of Defendants.
18 Additionally Defendants have displayed deliberate indifference to the rights of
19 plaintiffs, and, based upon the principles set forth in Monell v. New York City Department
20 of Social Services , 436 U.S. 658 (1978), are thereby liable for all injuries and damages
21 sustained by plaintiff as set forth in this complaint.
CIVIL RIGHTS AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT
Page 59 of 119
1 DAMAGES
2 Damages incurred by Plaintiffs as a direct or indirect consequence to the above
3 mentioned and referenced actions by defendants are incorporated herein as listed in the
4 “DAMAGES” section of this Complaint commencing on page 36 and as listed in the
5 original Complaint, Amendments to the Compliant, Motions and Responses to Motions.
6 EVIDENCE
7 Plaintiff refers to and incorporates herein the evidence in the original Complaint,
8 Amendments to the Compliant, Motions and Responses to Motions and that
United States District Court
9 incorporated on the Evidence CD‟s
For the Northern District of California
10 Ninth Claim For Relief Malicious Prosecution
11 PLAINTIFFS: All Plaintiffs
12 DEFENDANTS:
13 – Officers: Michael Macdonald, Amy Christy, M Pool, Mark Tracy, Hemmingway
14 (Deceased), Brozozowski, Griffin,
15 – Judges, Commissioners & Clerks: Samuel S. Stevens , Art Danner (Deceased),
16 Michael E. Barton, Trilla E. Bahrke, Robert B. Atack, William M. Kelsay, Irwin
17 Joseph, Phyllis J. Hamilton, Jeremy Fogel, Barbara J. Fox,
18 – District Attorneys: Steven Drottar, Bob Lee, Bill Doyle, Christopher M. Cattran,
19 – Lawyers: Gregor Guy Smith, Robert Frandeen, Paul Meltzer, Vicki J. Parry, Jason M.
20 Heath,
21 – State: Raven Harris, Angela Glass, County of Santa Cruz, County of Marin, County
22 of Placer, Attorney General of The State of California, Attorney General of The
23 United States of America, The State and Government and associated entities of The
24 State of California, The State and Government and associated entities of The United
25 States of America,
CIVIL RIGHTS AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT
Page 60 of 119
1 – Jon Doe‟s , 1 to n.
2 VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS & ULTIMATE FACTS
3 Plaintiff refers to and incorporates herein the allegations in the original
4 Complaint, Amendments to the Compliant, Motions and Responses to Motions and adds
5 the following violations of Plaintiffs ABOVE LISTED rights by Defendants:
6 As hereinbefore alleged, CLIVE FRANK BOUSTRED, RCB and WFB were
7 maliciously prosecuted by the above listed Defendants on multiple occasions as
8 referenced throughout the Complaint and responses to Motions, so as to drive Plaintiffs
9 into financial ruin and chaos in order to eliminate liability for crimes committed
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10 defendants against plaintiff.
11 DAMAGES
12 Damages incurred by Plaintiffs as a direct or indirect consequence to the above
13 mentioned and referenced actions by defendants are incorporated herein as listed in the
14 “DAMAGES” section of this Complaint commencing on page 36 and as listed in the
15 original Complaint, Amendments to the Compliant, Motions and Responses to Motions.
16 The aforementioned acts of defendants in falsely arresting and imprisoning
17 CLIVE FRANK BOUSTRED were willful and malicious and were intended to oppress
18 and cause injury to him and maliciously proscute him. Plaintiffs are therefore entitled to
19 an award of punitive damages.
CIVIL RIGHTS AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT
Page 61 of 119
1 EVIDENCE
2 Plaintiff refers to and incorporates herein the evidence in the original Complaint,
3 Amendments to the Compliant, Motions and Responses to Motions and that
4 incorporated on the Evidence CD‟s
5 Tenth Claim For Relief Kidnap, accessory to kidnap,
6 parental alienation, Mental Suffering, Alienation of Affections,
7 Trespass To Chattel
8 PLAINTIFFS: Clive Boustred, RCB & WFB
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
9 DEFENDANTS:
10 – Officers: Michael Macdonald, Amy Christy, M Pool, Mark Tracy, Hemmingway
11 (Deceased), Brozozowski, Griffin,
12 – Judges, Commissioners & Clerks: Samuel S. Stevens , Art Danner (Deceased),
13 Michael E. Barton, Trilla E. Bahrke, William M. Kelsay, Irwin Joseph, Phyllis J.
14 Hamilton, Jeremy Fogel,
15 – District Attorneys: Steven Drottar, Bob Lee, Bill Doyle, Christopher M. Cattran,
16 – Private Parties: Anamaria Boustred, Steffan Tichatschke,
17 – Lawyers: Gregor Guy Smith, Robert Frandeen, Paul Meltzer, Vicki J. Parry, Jason M.
18 Heath,
19 – State: Raven Harris, Angela Glass, County of Santa Cruz, County of Marin, County
20 of Placer, Attorney General of The State of California, Attorney General of The
21 United States of America, The State and Government and associated entities of The
22 State of California, The State and Government and associated entities of The United
23 States of America,
24 – Jon Doe‟s , 1 to n.
CIVIL RIGHTS AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT
Page 62 of 119
1 VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS & ULTIMATE FACTS
2 Plaintiff refers to and incorporates herein the allegations in the original
3 Complaint, Amendments to the Compliant, Motions and Responses to Motions relating
4 to said charge.
5 DAMAGES
6 Damages incurred by Plaintiffs as a direct or indirect consequence to the above
7 mentioned and referenced actions by defendants are incorporated herein as listed in the
8 “DAMAGES” section of this Complaint commencing on page 36 and as listed in the
United States District Court
9 original Complaint, Amendments to the Compliant, Motions and Responses to Motions.
For the Northern District of California
10 EVIDENCE
11 Plaintiff refers to and incorporates herein the evidence in the original Complaint,
12 Amendments to the Compliant, Motions and Responses to Motions and that
13 incorporated on the Evidence CD‟s
14 Eleventh Claim For Relief Fraud
15 PLAINTIFFS: All Plaintiffs
16 DEFENDANTS:
17 – Officers: Michael Macdonald, Amy Christy, M Pool, Mark Tracy, Hemmingway
18 (Deceased), Brozozowski, Griffin,
19 – Judges, Commissioners & Clerks: Samuel S. Stevens , Art Danner (Deceased),
20 Michael E. Barton, Trilla E. Bahrke, Robert B. Atack, William M. Kelsay, Irwin
21 Joseph, Phyllis J. Hamilton, Jeremy Fogel, Barbara J. Fox,
22 – District Attorneys: Steven Drottar, Bob Lee, Bill Doyle, Christopher M. Cattran,
23 – Private Parties: Anamaria Boustred, Steffan Tichatschke, Genworth Financial,
CIVIL RIGHTS AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT
Page 63 of 119
1 – Lawyers: Gregor Guy Smith, Robert Frandeen, Paul Meltzer, Vicki J. Parry, Jason M.
2 Heath,
3 – State: Raven Harris, Angela Glass, County of Santa Cruz, County of Marin, County
4 of Placer, Attorney General of The State of California, Attorney General of The
5 United States of America, The State and Government and associated entities of The
6 State of California, The State and Government and associated entities of The United
7 States of America,
8 – Jon Doe‟s , 1 to n.
9 VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS & ULTIMATE FACTS
10 Plaintiff refers to and incorporates herein the allegations in the original
11 Complaint, Amendments to the Compliant, Motions and Responses to Motions and adds
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
12 the following violations of Plaintiffs ABOVE LISTED Amendment rights by Defendants:
13 Additional further specific allegations to be argued in trial following depositions
14 and discovery.
15 DAMAGES
16 Damages incurred by Plaintiffs as a direct or indirect consequence to the above
17 mentioned and referenced actions by defendants are incorporated herein as listed in the
18 “DAMAGES” section of this Complaint commencing on page 36 and as listed in the
19 original Complaint, Amendments to the Compliant, Motions and Responses to Motions.
20 EVIDENCE
21 Plaintiff refers to and incorporates herein the evidence in the original Complaint,
22 Amendments to the Compliant, Motions and Responses to Motions and that
23 incorporated on the Evidence CD‟s
24
CIVIL RIGHTS AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT
Page 64 of 119
1 Twelfth Claim For Relief Trespass To Land
2 PLAINTIFFS: All Plaintiffs
3 DEFENDANTS:
4 – Officers: Michael Macdonald, Amy Christy, M Pool, Mark Tracy, Hemmingway
5 (Deceased), Brozozowski
6 – State: Raven Harris, County of Santa Cruz, County of Marin, County of Placer,
7 Attorney General of The State of California, Attorney General of The United States of
8 America, The State and Government and associated entities of The State of
9 California, The State and Government and associated entities of The United States
10 of America,
11 – Jon Doe‟s , 1 to n.
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
12 VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS & ULTIMATE FACTS
13 Plaintiff refers to and incorporates herein the allegations in the original
14 Complaint, Amendments to the Compliant, Motions and Responses to Motions relating
15 to the above charge (March 10, 2003 and other dates).
16 Additional further specific allegations to be argued in trial following depositions
17 and discovery. For example, it is not confirmed as to the specific names of the officers
18 who entered Plaintiff Clive Boustred‟s home and conducted an illegal search in 2004.
19 DAMAGES
20 Damages incurred by Plaintiffs as a direct or indirect consequence to the above
21 mentioned and referenced actions by defendants are incorporated herein as listed in the
22 “DAMAGES” section of this Complaint commencing on page 36 and as listed in the
23 original Complaint, Amendments to the Compliant, Motions and Responses to Motions.
CIVIL RIGHTS AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT
Page 65 of 119
1 EVIDENCE
2 Plaintiff refers to and incorporates herein the evidence in the original Complaint,
3 Amendments to the Compliant, Motions and Responses to Motions and that
4 incorporated on the Evidence CD‟s
5 Thirteenth Claim For Relief Abuse Of Process
6 PLAINTIFFS: All Plaintiffs
7 DEFENDANTS: All Defendants
8 VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS & ULTIMATE FACTS
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
9 Plaintiff refers to and incorporates herein the allegations in the original
10 Complaint, Amendments to the Compliant, Motions and Responses to Motions relating
11 to the above charge.
12 Additional further specific allegations to be argued in trial following depositions
13 and discovery.
14 DAMAGES
15 Damages incurred by Plaintiffs as a direct or indirect consequence to the above
16 mentioned and referenced actions by defendants are incorporated herein as listed in the
17 “DAMAGES” section of this Complaint commencing on page 36 and as listed in the
18 original Complaint, Amendments to the Compliant, Motions and Responses to Motions.
CIVIL RIGHTS AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT
Page 66 of 119
1 EVIDENCE
2 Plaintiff refers to and incorporates herein the evidence in the original Complaint,
3 Amendments to the Compliant, Motions and Responses to Motions and that
4 incorporated on the Evidence CD‟s
5 Fourteenth Claim For Relief Defamation, Libel, Slander
6 PLAINTIFFS: All Plaintiffs
7 DEFENDANTS: All Defendants
8 VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS & ULTIMATE FACTS
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
9 On information and/or belief, Plaintiff refers to and incorporates herein the
10 allegations in the original Complaint, Amendments to the Compliant, Motions and
11 Responses to Motions relating to the above listed claims upon which relief can be
12 granted.
13 DAMAGES
14 Damages incurred by Plaintiffs as a direct or indirect consequence to the above
15 mentioned and referenced actions by defendants are incorporated herein as listed in the
16 “DAMAGES” section of this Complaint commencing on page 36 and as listed in the
17 original Complaint, Amendments to the Compliant, Motions and Responses to Motions.
18 EVIDENCE
19 Plaintiff refers to and incorporates herein the evidence in the original Complaint,
20 Amendments to the Compliant, Motions and Responses to Motions and that
21 incorporated on the Evidence CD‟s
CIVIL RIGHTS AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT
Page 67 of 119
1 Fifteenth Claim For Relief Disparagement Of Business
2 Reputation Or Property, Interference With Business Relations,
3 Pure Economic Loss, Intentional Interference With Prospective
4 Economic Advantage,
5 PLAINTIFFS: All Plaintiffs
6 DEFENDANTS: All Defendants
7 VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS & ULTIMATE FACTS
8 On information and/or belief, Plaintiff refers to and incorporates herein the
9 allegations in the original Complaint, Amendments to the Compliant, Motions and
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10 Responses to Motions relating to the above listed claims upon which relief can be
11 granted.
12 DAMAGES
13 Damages incurred by Plaintiffs as a direct or indirect consequence to the above
14 mentioned and referenced actions by defendants are incorporated herein as listed in the
15 “DAMAGES” section of this Complaint commencing on page 36 and as listed in the
16 original Complaint, Amendments to the Compliant, Motions and Responses to Motions.
17 EVIDENCE
18 Plaintiff refers to and incorporates herein the evidence in the original Complaint,
19 Amendments to the Compliant, Motions and Responses to Motions and that
20 incorporated on the Evidence CD‟s
CIVIL RIGHTS AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT
Page 68 of 119
1 Sixteenth Claim For Relief Interference With Family And
2 Political Relations
3 PLAINTIFFS: All Plaintiffs
4 DEFENDANTS: All Defendants
5 VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS & ULTIMATE FACTS
6 On information and/or belief, Plaintiff refers to and incorporates herein the
7 allegations in the original Complaint, Amendments to the Compliant, Motions and
8 Responses to Motions relating to the above listed claims upon which relief can be
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
9 granted.
10 DAMAGES
11 Damages incurred by Plaintiffs as a direct or indirect consequence to the above
12 mentioned and referenced actions by defendants are incorporated herein as listed in the
13 “DAMAGES” section of this Complaint commencing on page 36 and as listed in the
14 original Complaint, Amendments to the Compliant, Motions and Responses to Motions.
15 EVIDENCE
16 Plaintiff refers to and incorporates herein the evidence in the original Complaint,
17 Amendments to the Compliant, Motions and Responses to Motions and that
18 incorporated on the Evidence CD‟s
CIVIL RIGHTS AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT
Page 69 of 119
1 Seventeenth Claim For Relief Invasion Of Privacy,
2 PLAINTIFFS: All Plaintiffs
3 DEFENDANTS: All Defendants
4 VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS & ULTIMATE FACTS
5 On information and/or belief, Plaintiff refers to and incorporates herein the
6 allegations in the original Complaint, Amendments to the Compliant, Motions and
7 Responses to Motions relating to the above listed claims upon which relief can be
8 granted.
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
9 DAMAGES
10 Damages incurred by Plaintiffs as a direct or indirect consequence to the above
11 mentioned and referenced actions by defendants are incorporated herein as listed in the
12 “DAMAGES” section of this Complaint commencing on page 36 and as listed in the
13 original Complaint, Amendments to the Compliant, Motions and Responses to Motions.
14 EVIDENCE
15 Plaintiff refers to and incorporates herein the evidence in the original Complaint,
16 Amendments to the Compliant, Motions and Responses to Motions and that
17 incorporated on the Evidence CD‟s
CIVIL RIGHTS AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT
Page 70 of 119
1 Eighteenth Claim For Relief Racketeering
2 PLAINTIFFS: All Plaintiffs
3 DEFENDANTS: All Defendants
4 VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS & ULTIMATE FACTS
5 On information and/or belief, Plaintiff refers to and incorporates herein the
6 allegations in the original Complaint, Amendments to the Compliant, Motions and
7 Responses to Motions relating to the above listed claim upon which relief can be
8 granted.
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
9 Including but not limited to Defendants other than Private Party Defendants
10 engaging in multiple forms of Racketeering in the legal industry and incarceration
11 industry.
12 DAMAGES
13 Damages incurred by Plaintiffs as a direct or indirect consequence to the above
14 mentioned and referenced actions by defendants are incorporated herein as listed in the
15 “DAMAGES” section of this Complaint commencing on page 36 and as listed in the
16 original Complaint, Amendments to the Compliant, Motions and Responses to Motions.
17 EVIDENCE
18 Plaintiff refers to and incorporates herein the evidence in the original Complaint,
19 Amendments to the Compliant, Motions and Responses to Motions and that
20 incorporated on the Evidence CD‟s
CIVIL RIGHTS AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT
Page 71 of 119
1 Nineteenth Claim For Relief Negligent Misrepresentation
2 PLAINTIFFS: Clive Boustred, RCB and WFB
3 DEFENDANTS:
4 – Lawyers: Gregor Guy Smith, Robert Frandeen, Paul Meltzer
5 – Jon Doe‟s , 1 to n.
6 VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS & ULTIMATE FACTS
7 On information and/or belief, Plaintiff refers to and incorporates herein the
8 allegations in the original Complaint, Amendments to the Compliant, Motions and
9 Responses to Motions relating to the above listed claims upon which relief can be
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10 granted and also that Negligent Misrepresentation listed in the Evidence CD folder:
11 “\EXHIBITS\Exhibit C - Case Files\Exhibit C-8 - Federal Court Habeas” and the file
12 “Opening Brief Clive Boustred 6th Appellat Court v6 FILED.doc” included herein by
13 reference.
14 On information and belief, without lawful authority and in blatant defiance of
15 lawful orders by their Father, Defendant Robert Frandeen intentionally, fraudulently and
16 negligently misrepresented RCB and WFB. See also RESPONSE TO MOTIONS MADE
17 ON BEHALF OF FRANDEEN page 101 incorporated herein by reference.
18 On information and belief, Defendant Paul Meltzer was negligent in representing
19 Clive Boustred in false and fraudulent criminal charges that were brought against Clive
20 Boustred in Santa Cruz Superior Court Case F 06858, Mr. Meltzer went as far as failing
21 to challenge unlawful denials of critical Pitches Motions; failing to challenging the
22 charges which has no basis at law to the extent of not only no Actus Rea, No Mensrea
CIVIL RIGHTS AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT
Page 72 of 119
1 and no Corpus Delecti but also the blatant fact that no Real Party of Interest brought
2 these charges against Clive Boustred amongst many other most fundamental issues at
3 law which reflect blatant legal misrepresentation by Mr. Meltzer and also Gregor Guy
4 Smith. RESPONSE TO MOTIONS MADE ON BEHALF OF PAUL MELTZER page 108
5 incorporated herein by reference. And Evidence CD folder: “\EXHIBITS\Exhibit C -
6 Case Files\Exhibit C-8 - Federal Court Habeas” and the file “Opening Brief Clive
7 Boustred 6th Appellat Court v6 FILED.doc” also included herein by reference.
8 DAMAGES
United States District Court
9 Damages incurred by Plaintiffs as a direct or indirect consequence to the above
For the Northern District of California
10 mentioned and referenced actions by defendants are incorporated herein as listed in the
11 “DAMAGES” section of this Complaint commencing on page 36 and as listed in the
12 original Complaint, Amendments to the Compliant, Motions and Responses to Motions.
13 EVIDENCE
14 Plaintiff refers to and incorporates herein the evidence in the original Complaint,
15 Amendments to the Compliant, Motions and Responses to Motions and that
16 incorporated on the Evidence CD‟s
CIVIL RIGHTS AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT
Page 73 of 119
1 Twentieth Claim For Relief Negligence
2 PLAINTIFFS: All Plaintiffs
3 DEFENDANTS: All Defendants
4 VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS & ULTIMATE FACTS
5 On information and/or belief, Plaintiff refers to and incorporates herein the
6 allegations in the original Complaint, Amendments to the Compliant, Motions and
7 Responses to Motions relating to the above listed claim upon which relief can be
8 granted.
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
9 DAMAGES
10 Damages incurred by Plaintiffs as a direct or indirect consequence to the above
11 mentioned and referenced actions by defendants are incorporated herein as listed in the
12 “DAMAGES” section of this Complaint commencing on page 36 and as listed in the
13 original Complaint, Amendments to the Compliant, Motions and Responses to Motions.
14 EVIDENCE
15 Plaintiff refers to and incorporates herein the evidence in the original Complaint,
16 Amendments to the Compliant, Motions and Responses to Motions and that
17 incorporated on the Evidence CD‟s
CIVIL RIGHTS AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT
Page 74 of 119
1 Twenty-first Claim For Relief Assumpsit
2 PLAINTIFFS: Clive Boustred, InfoTelesys, Inc., Get IT Real, Inc.
3 DEFENDANTS:
4 – Private Parties: Anamaria Boustred, Steffan Tichatschke, Genworth Financial,
5 – Lawyers: Gregor Guy Smith, Robert Frandeen, Paul Meltzer
6 – State: Raven Harris, Attorney General of The State of California, Attorney General of
7 The United States of America, The State and Government and associated entities of
8 The State of California, The State and Government and associated entities of The
9 United States of America,
10 – Jon Doe‟s , 1 to n.
United States District Court
11 VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS & ULTIMATE FACTS
For the Northern District of California
12 On information and/or belief, Plaintiff refers to and incorporates herein the
13 allegations in the original Complaint, Amendments to the Compliant, Motions and
14 Responses to Motions relating to the above listed claim upon which relief can be granted
15 and adds the following violations:
16 Defendant Stefan Tichatschke breeched his Contract with InfoTelesys, Inc. and
17 Get IT Real, Inc. and is libel for damages according to contract.
18 Defendant Anamaria Boustred breeched her marriage contract with Clive
19 Boustred and is libel for damages according to contract.
20 State Defendant‟s breeched their contract with Clive Boustred a Naturalized
21 Citizen who the State entered into Contract with, the State is libel for the breech of
22 contract by their employees.
23 Defendants Gregor Guy Smith and Paul Meltzer breeched their contracts with
24 Clive Boustred to represent him in accordance with the law.
CIVIL RIGHTS AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT
Page 75 of 119
1 Defendant Raven Harris and Santa Cruz County Human Resources Agency
2 breeched the contract entered into between said parties on or about March 29, 2003 and
3 are libel for said breech of contract.
4 DAMAGES
5 Damages incurred by Plaintiffs as a direct or indirect consequence to the above
6 mentioned and referenced actions by defendants are incorporated herein as listed in the
7 “DAMAGES” section of this Complaint commencing on page 36 and as listed in the
8 original Complaint, Amendments to the Compliant, Motions and Responses to Motions.
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
9 EVIDENCE
10 Plaintiff refers to and incorporates herein the evidence in the original Complaint,
11 Amendments to the Compliant, Motions and Responses to Motions and that
12 incorporated on the Evidence CD‟s
13 Twenty-second Claim For Relief Public Nuisance
14 PLAINTIFFS: All Plaintiffs
15 DEFENDANTS: All Defendants
16 VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS & ULTIMATE FACTS
17 On information and/or belief, Plaintiff refers to and incorporates herein the
18 allegations in the original Complaint, Amendments to the Compliant, Motions and
19 Responses to Motions relating to the above listed claim upon which relief can be
20 granted.
CIVIL RIGHTS AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT
Page 76 of 119
1 DAMAGES
2 Damages incurred by Plaintiffs as a direct or indirect consequence to the above
3 mentioned and referenced actions by defendants are incorporated herein as listed in the
4 “DAMAGES” section of this Complaint commencing on page 36 and as listed in the
5 original Complaint, Amendments to the Compliant, Motions and Responses to Motions.
6 EVIDENCE
7 Plaintiff refers to and incorporates herein the evidence in the original Complaint,
8 Amendments to the Compliant, Motions and Responses to Motions and that
United States District Court
9 incorporated on the Evidence CD‟s
For the Northern District of California
10 Twenty-third Claim For Relief Conversion
11 PLAINTIFFS: All Plaintiffs
12 DEFENDANTS: All Defendants
13 Deputy Griffin, The Attorney General of The State of California, the State of
14 California and the County of Santa Cruz and John Does 1-n.
15 VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS & ULTIMATE FACTS
16 On information and/or belief, Plaintiff refers to and incorporates herein the
17 allegations in the original Complaint, Amendments to the Compliant, Motions and
18 Responses to Motions relating to the above listed claim upon which relief can be granted
19 in addition to:
20 On or about September 9, 2003 Deputy Griffin, the County of Santa Cruz and
21 State of California and John Does 1-n committed Conversion by unlawfully taking Clive
CIVIL RIGHTS AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT
Page 77 of 119
1 Boustred‟s vehicle from the Twin Lakes Church‟s parking lot and County and Sheriff
2 employees did repeatedly refuse to return said vehicle and did unlawfully extort money
3 in exchange for said vehicle from Clive Boustred.
4 DAMAGES
5 Damages incurred by Plaintiffs as a direct or indirect consequence to the above
6 mentioned and referenced actions by defendants are incorporated herein as listed in the
7 “DAMAGES” section of this Complaint commencing on page 36 and as listed in the
8 original Complaint, Amendments to the Compliant, Motions and Responses to Motions
United States District Court
9 and include well over one thousand dollars paid by Mr. Boustred to recover his vehicle.
For the Northern District of California
10 EVIDENCE
11 Plaintiff refers to and incorporates herein the evidence in the original Complaint,
12 Amendments to the Compliant, Motions and Responses to Motions and that
13 incorporated on the Evidence CD‟s
14 Twenty-fourth Claim For Relief Criminal Conversation
15 PLAINTIFFS: All Plaintiffs
16 DEFENDANTS: Steffan Tichatschke
17 VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS & ULTIMATE FACTS
18 On information and/or belief, Plaintiff refers to and incorporates herein the
19 allegations in the original Complaint, Amendments to the Compliant, Motions and
20 Responses to Motions relating to the above listed claim upon which relief can be granted
21 and adds the following violations:
CIVIL RIGHTS AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT
Page 78 of 119
1 On or about dates extending from January 2002 through to July 12, 2003,
2 Defendant Stefan Tichatschke who at the time was acting as a Personal Assistant to
3 Clive Boustred, committed Criminal Conversion with Anamaria Boustred damaging the
4 marriage of Clive Boustred and thus inflicting significant harm on all Plaintiffs.
5 DAMAGES
6 Damages incurred by Plaintiffs as a direct or indirect consequence to the above
7 mentioned and referenced actions by defendants are incorporated herein as listed in the
8 “DAMAGES” section of this Complaint commencing on page 36 and as listed in the
United States District Court
9 original Complaint, Amendments to the Compliant, Motions and Responses to Motions.
For the Northern District of California
10 EVIDENCE
11 Plaintiff refers to and incorporates herein the evidence in the original Complaint,
12 Amendments to the Compliant, Motions and Responses to Motions and that
13 incorporated on the Evidence CD‟s
14 Twenty-fifth Claim For Relief Violation of U.S. Const.
15 Article III Judicial department responsability
16 U.S. Constitution, Article III, Section 1: The judicial Power of the United States, shall be
17 vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time
18 to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall
19 hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their
20 Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in
21 Office.
22 Section 2… The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury;
CIVIL RIGHTS AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT
Page 79 of 119
1 PLAINTIFFS: All Parties
2 DEFENDANTS:
3 – Judges, Commissioners & Clerks: Samuel S. Stevens, Art Danner (Deceased),
4 Michael E. Barton, Trilla E. Bahrke, Robert B. Atack, William M. Kelsay, Irwin
5 Joseph, Phyllis J. Hamilton, Jeremy Fogel
6 – State: County of Santa Cruz, County of Marin, County of Placer, Attorney General of
7 The State of California, Attorney General of The United States of America, The State
8 and Government and associated entities of The State of California, The State and
9 Government and associated entities of The United States of America,
10 – Jon Doe‟s , 1 to n.
11 VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS & ULTIMATE FACTS
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
12 Plaintiff refers to and incorporates herein the allegations in this document, the
13 original Complaint, Amendments to the Compliant, Motions and Responses to Motions
14 and adds the following violations against Plaintiffs by the above listed Defendants:
15 Defendant Art Danner, rated as Not Qualified by the California Judicial
16 Nominations Committee was in blatant violation of the U.S. Constitution, Article III,
17 Section 1, allowed to preside as a judge in the Santa Cruz Superior Court. Art Danners
18 criminal past was and is well published and know and specifically made know by Plaintiff
19 to Defendants. Defendants failed to act in accordance with the law and caused
20 extraordinary violations against Plaintiffs.
21 Defendants Art Danner (Deceased) Trilla E. Bahrke failed to give Plaintiff Clive
22 Boustred a Trial by Jury and instead corrupted the process so that the trial was not by
23 jury but by a corrupted mix of trial by judge and jury where the jury was not allowed to
CIVIL RIGHTS AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT
Page 80 of 119
1 make decisions at law or in regard to evidence in accordance with the Constructional
2 guarantee.
3 All above listed Defendants are sitting in bad behavior due to multiple treasonous
4 and outrageous violations of the construct of the Constitution committed by said
5 Defendants as listed herein and to be listed following discovery and depositions.
6 DAMAGES
7 Damages incurred by Plaintiffs as a direct or indirect consequence to the above
8 mentioned and referenced actions by defendants are incorporated herein as listed in the
United States District Court
9 “DAMAGES” section of this Complaint commencing on page 36 and as listed in the
For the Northern District of California
10 original Complaint, Amendments to the Compliant, Motions and Responses to Motions.
11 EVIDENCE
12 Plaintiff refers to and incorporates herein the evidence in the original Complaint,
13 Amendments to the Compliant, Motions and Responses to Motions and that
14 incorporated on the Evidence CD‟s
15 Twenty-sixth Claim For Relief Violation of U.S. Const.
16 Article IV State and the Federal guarantee against domestic
17 violence
18 U.S. Constitution, Article IV, Section 4. The United States shall guarantee to
19 every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of
20 them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when
21 the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.
CIVIL RIGHTS AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT
Page 81 of 119
1 PLAINTIFFS: All Parties
2 DEFENDANTS:
3 – Officers: Michael Macdonald, Amy Christy, M Pool, Mark Tracy, Hemmingway
4 (Deceased), Brozozowski, Griffin,
5 – Judges, Commissioners & Clerks: Samuel S. Stevens , Art Danner (Deceased),
6 Michael E. Barton, Trilla E. Bahrke, Robert B. Atack, William M. Kelsay, Irwin
7 Joseph, Phyllis J. Hamilton, Jeremy Fogel, Barbara J. Fox,
8 – Lawyers: Gregor Guy Smith, Robert Frandeen, Paul Meltzer
9 – District Attorneys: Steven Drottar, Bob Lee, Bill Doyle, Christopher M. Cattran,
10 – State: Raven Harris, Angela Glass, County of Santa Cruz, County of Marin, County
11 of Placer, Attorney General of The State of California, Attorney General of The
United States District Court
12 United States of America, The State and Government and associated entities of The
For the Northern District of California
13 State of California, The State and Government and associated entities of The United
14 States of America,
15 – Jon Doe‟s , 1 to n.
16 VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS & ULTIMATE FACTS
17 Plaintiff refers to and incorporates herein the allegations in this document, the
18 original Complaint, Amendments to the Compliant, Motions and Responses to Motions
19 and adds the following violations against Plaintiffs by the above listed Defendants:
20 On March 10, 2003 and on repeated occasions and continuing to this very day,
21 the above listed Defendants failed to protect Plaintiffs Clive Boustred, RCB and WFB
22 from domestic violence and did in fact engage directly in domestic violence against said
23 Plaintiffs as listed extensively throughout the COMPLAINT.
24 DAMAGES
25 Damages incurred by Plaintiffs as a direct or indirect consequence to the above
26 mentioned and referenced actions by defendants are incorporated herein as listed in the
CIVIL RIGHTS AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT
Page 82 of 119
1 “DAMAGES” section of this Complaint commencing on page 36 and as listed in the
2 original Complaint, Amendments to the Compliant, Motions and Responses to Motions.
3 EVIDENCE
4 Plaintiff refers to and incorporates herein the evidence in the original Complaint,
5 Amendments to the Compliant, Motions and Responses to Motions and that
6 incorporated on the Evidence CD‟s
7 Twenty-seventh Claim For Relief Violation of U.S. Const. 1st
8 Amendment [Freedom of speech & petition of grievances]
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
9 U.S. Constitution, Article IV, Section 4: Congress shall make no law respecting
10 an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the
11 freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble,
12 and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
13 PLAINTIFFS: All Parties
14 DEFENDANTS:
15 – Officers: Michael Macdonald, Amy Christy, M Pool, Mark Tracy, Hemmingway
16 (Deceased), Brozozowski, Griffin,
17 – Judges, Commissioners & Clerks: Samuel S. Stevens , Art Danner (Deceased),
18 Michael E. Barton, Trilla E. Bahrke, Robert B. Atack, William M. Kelsay, Irwin
19 Joseph, Phyllis J. Hamilton, Jeremy Fogel, Barbara J. Fox,
20 – District Attorneys: Steven Drottar, Bob Lee, Bill Doyle, Christopher M. Cattran,
21 – State: Raven Harris, Angela Glass, County of Santa Cruz, County of Marin, County
22 of Placer, Attorney General of The State of California, Attorney General of The
23 United States of America, The State and Government and associated entities of The
CIVIL RIGHTS AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT
Page 83 of 119
1 State of California, The State and Government and associated entities of The United
2 States of America,
3 – Jon Doe‟s , 1 to n.
4 VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS & ULTIMATE FACTS
5 Plaintiff refers to and incorporates herein the allegations in this document, the
6 original Complaint, Amendments to the Compliant, Motions and Responses to Motions
7 and adds the following violations against Plaintiffs by the above listed Defendants:
8 California and U.S. Courts have so corrupted the Constitution so as to make it
9 impossible to redress grievances, the California Code of Civil Procedure § 170.1 process
United States District Court
10 is so utterly ineffective that lawyers advise not to use it, the Judicial Nominations
For the Northern District of California
11 Committee ignores complaints filed against judges, Senators and Congresspersons
12 ignore petitions for grievances despite significant and irrefutable evidence showing the
13 grievances are valid and extremely serious. Defendants have violated Plaintiffs rights
14 under U.S. Constitution, Article IV, Section 4.
15 DAMAGES
16 Damages incurred by Plaintiffs as a direct or indirect consequence to the above
17 mentioned and referenced actions by defendants are incorporated herein as listed in the
18 “DAMAGES” section of this Complaint commencing on page 36 and as listed in the
19 original Complaint, Amendments to the Compliant, Motions and Responses to Motions.
CIVIL RIGHTS AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT
Page 84 of 119
1 EVIDENCE
2 Plaintiff refers to and incorporates herein the evidence in the original Complaint,
3 Amendments to the Compliant, Motions and Responses to Motions and that
4 incorporated on the Evidence CD‟s
5 Twenty-eighth Claim For Relief Violation of U.S. Const. 2nd
6 Amendment [Right to bear arms)
7 2nd Amendment: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free
8 State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
9 PLAINTIFFS: Clive Boustred
10 DEFENDANTS:
11 – Officers: Michael Macdonald, Amy Christy, M Pool, Mark Tracy, Hemmingway
12 (Deceased), Brozozowski, Griffin,
13 – Judges, Commissioners & Clerks: Samuel S. Stevens , Art Danner (Deceased),
14 Michael E. Barton, Trilla E. Bahrke, Robert B. Atack, William M. Kelsay, Irwin
15 Joseph, Phyllis J. Hamilton, Jeremy Fogel, Barbara J. Fox,
16 – District Attorneys: Steven Drottar, Bob Lee, Bill Doyle, Christopher M. Cattran,
17 – State: County of Santa Cruz, County of Marin, County of Placer, Attorney General of
18 The State of California, Attorney General of The United States of America, The State
19 and Government and associated entities of The State of California, The State and
20 Government and associated entities of The United States of America,
21 – Jon Doe‟s , 1 to n.
22 VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS & ULTIMATE FACTS
23 Plaintiff refers to and incorporates herein the allegations in this document, the
24 original Complaint, Amendments to the Compliant, Motions and Responses to Motions
25 and adds the following violations against Plaintiffs by the above listed Defendants:
CIVIL RIGHTS AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT
Page 85 of 119
1 On or about March 12, 2003, Defendants‟ ordered Plaintiff Clive Boustred to get
2 rid of his arms in blatant violation of the 2nd Amendment.
3 DAMAGES
4 Damages incurred by Plaintiffs as a direct or indirect consequence to the above
5 mentioned and referenced actions by defendants are incorporated herein as listed in the
6 “DAMAGES” section of this Complaint commencing on page 36 and as listed in the
7 original Complaint, Amendments to the Compliant, Motions and Responses to Motions.
8 EVIDENCE
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
9 Plaintiff refers to and incorporates herein the evidence in the original Complaint,
10 Amendments to the Compliant, Motions and Responses to Motions and that
11 incorporated on the Evidence CD‟s
12 Twenty-ninth Claim For Relief Warranty
13 PLAINTIFFS: All Parties
14 DEFENDANTS:
15 – Officers: Michael Macdonald, Amy Christy, M Pool, Mark Tracy, Hemmingway
16 (Deceased), Brozozowski, Griffin,
17 – Judges, Commissioners & Clerks: Samuel S. Stevens , Art Danner (Deceased),
18 Michael E. Barton, Trilla E. Bahrke, Robert B. Atack, William M. Kelsay, Irwin
19 Joseph, Phyllis J. Hamilton, Jeremy Fogel, Barbara J. Fox,
20 – District Attorneys: Steven Drottar, Bob Lee, Bill Doyle, Christopher M. Cattran,
21 – State: County of Santa Cruz, County of Marin, County of Placer, Attorney General of
22 The State of California, Attorney General of The United States of America, The State
23 and Government and associated entities of The State of California, The State and
24 Government and associated entities of The United States of America,
CIVIL RIGHTS AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT
Page 86 of 119
1 – Jon Doe‟s , 1 to n.
2 VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS & ULTIMATE FACTS
3 Plaintiff refers to and incorporates herein the allegations in this document, the
4 original Complaint, Amendments to the Compliant, Motions and Responses to Motions
5 and adds the following violations against Plaintiffs by the above listed Defendants:
6 In order to complete naturalization, Clive Frank Boustred, was required to swear
7 allegiance to the Constitution of the United States, said Constitution was given as a
8 Warrantee to Clive Frank Boustred. Similar Warrantee is afforded all citizens and other
9 Plaintiffs. Defendants listed in this Claim breached that Warrantee. As a consequence
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10 Plaintiffs have suffered damages listed herein.
11 DAMAGES
12 Damages incurred by Plaintiffs as a direct or indirect consequence to the above
13 mentioned and referenced actions by defendants are incorporated herein as listed in the
14 “DAMAGES” section of this Complaint commencing on page 36 and as listed in the
15 original Complaint, Amendments to the Compliant, Motions and Responses to Motions.
16 EVIDENCE
17 Plaintiff refers to and incorporates herein the evidence in the original Complaint,
18 Amendments to the Compliant, Motions and Responses to Motions and that
19 incorporated on the Evidence CD‟s
20
CIVIL RIGHTS AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT
Page 87 of 119
1 D. DECLARATION & OPPOSITION TO MOTIONS TO
2 DISMISS AND STRIKE
3 Defendants and their surrogate colleague and employee of some of the
4 Defendants are attempting to force Plaintiff to try this matter before a judge when a
5 judge has no power in this case (11th Amendment & Due Process mandates). While
6 demanding more definitive statements and evidence, despite the sufficiency of Plaintiffs
7 complaints and an extraordinary volume of evidence Plaintiffs have filed along with the
8 complaint, Defendants refuse to answer Discovery, Interrogatories or Depositions then
9 move to have the case dismissed for a „lack of evidence‟ or some other frivolous claim.
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10 Attempts by Defendants to have the case dismissed along the basis of a failure
11 to state a claim upon which relief can be granted is looking rather pathetic in light of over
12 twenty nine well established claims upon which relief can be granted coupled with
13 volumes of evidence and documentation of Defendants culpability.
14 Response to Defendants motions to dismiss and strike are covered in general
15 and specifically where appropriate – responses herein are amended to the related
16 motion of each Defendant:
17 MOTIONS TO DISMISS BECAUSE COMPLAINT IS
18 AMENDED OR TIME BARED ARE BASELESS
19 Considering that Defendants have embarked on three and a half years of
20 malicious prosecution against Plaintiffs with the express purpose of forcing Plaintiffs into
21 a situation where they cannot hold Defendants accountable for outrageous and
22 malicious crimes Defendants committed against Plaintiffs, and that this case was filed a
CIVIL RIGHTS AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT
Page 88 of 119
1 year and a half ago, and that this case has been delayed as a direct consequence of
2 frivolous attempts to have the case dismissed, and then to turn and request that the
3 case be dismissed on a basis that a filing may or may not be a few days late is “highly
4 disconcerting”. Furthermore Defendants including Angela Glass specifically demand
5 more definitive statements and responses to ongoing frivolous Motions to Dismiss and
6 Strike, Defendants are thus specifically requesting Amendments to the Complaint and
7 Plaintiffs are entitled to continue to amend the complaint. Naturally significant
8 amendments to the complaint can occur once discovery has taken place, a step in due
9 process that the Defendants and Court are refusing to follow.
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10 The active and outrageously malicious prosecution of Plaintiffs by Defendants
11 specifically eliminates any time-bar on any element to this case. The claim that Plaintiffs
12 did not file any tort claims against Santa Cruz is blatantly fraudulent see Original
13 Complaint which includes copies of the actual tort claims and refusal of accountability by
14 the county see Exhibits CD - EXHIBITS\Exhibit E – Claims for all the claims filed which
15 were filed then properly amended thus avoiding any statutes of limitations. Let it be
16 Noticed that Santa Cruz Superior Court gave Plaintiff Clive Boustred a blatantly sham
17 trial in 2004 then remanded him into custody without any right to bail so as to specifically
18 prevent Mr. Boustred from filing the suit against the County. The behavior of the Court
19 and County and utterly blatant violations at law so as to maliciously prosecute Mr.
20 Boustred and force statutes of limitations by literally locking Mr. Boustred behind bars on
21 false charges is outrageous and shocks the conscience. Any judge with the slightest
22 hint of integrity would have severely sanctions the County of Santa Cruz and the
CIVIL RIGHTS AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT
Page 89 of 119
1 government employees who carried out these outrageous crimes against Plaintiffs.
2 Plaintiffs claims were timely and are specifically not time-bard as a consequence of the
3 County‟s outrageous behavior.
4 Statutory Limitations go out the window in malicious prosecution cases: “Duty of
5 a trial court to afford every defendant a fair and impartial trial is of constitutional
6 dimension; where the procedure has fallen short of that standard, an accused has been
7 denied due process and the inherent power of the court to correct matters by granting a
8 new trial transcends statutory limitations. People v. Oliver, 120 Cal.Rptr. 368, 46 C.A.3d
9 747.
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10 THE COMPLAINT BY INFOTELESYS, INC. AND GET IT
11 REAL, INC. IS BROUGHT AGAINST THE STATES ACROSS
12 STATE BORDERS AND MAY BE REPRESENTED BY
13 PRINCIPALS TO THE CORPORATE PERSONS WHO ARE THE
14 ONLY REAL PARTIES OF INTEREST.
15 A corporation in the U.S.A. is recognized as “person” as defined by the 14th
16 Amendment and is therefore Constitutionally guaranteed the right to self representation.
17 By law a corporation may be represented by their principles who are the real parties of
18 interest. This argument at law has been well substantiated in Plaintiffs earlier filings and
19 has not and can not be refuted by any parties. Rulings buy incompetent judges do not
20 make any new laws. C.L.D. Const. Inc. v. City of San Ramon (2004) and Caressa
21 Camille, In.d v. Alcoholic Beverage Control Apeals Board do not make any new law,
22 these cases were ruled in error to the most basic construct of Constitutional law.
CIVIL RIGHTS AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT
Page 90 of 119
1 Constitution overrules Common-Law? Judges and attorneys efforts to usurp the
2 Legislature authority amounts to treason: Article I, Section 1. “All legislative Powers
3 herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of
4 a Senate and House of Representatives.”
5 It must be noted that the whim and caprice of a judge, no matter at what level of
6 the court, is by no means an establishment of the “will of the people” as represented by
7 the Common Law precedent concept. The judiciary has no right to legislate law. The
8 judiciary also has no need or right to interpret the law, the function of the judiciary is to
9 administer the courts. The judiciary‟s vital role is to ensure that the law of the land is
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10 fairly followed. In Common Law, it is clear that no law can exist that cannot be
11 understood by the common man, eliminating the need to “interpret” the law. I.e. if a law
12 is ambiguous, if it is open to interpretation, then that law does not meet the fundamental
13 construct of Common Law. In cases where law is ambiguous, the only function of the
14 Judiciary is to send the law back to the legislature.
15 There is no lawful mandate that any matter must be represented in court by a
16 class of individuals called attorneys or lawyers. The 13th Amendment which was
17 properly ratified at the Virginia General Assembly on March 12, 1819 and which has
18 subsequently disappeared unlawfully from the Constitution reads: "If any citizen of the
19 United States shall accept, claim, receive, or retain any title of nobility or honour, or shall
20 without the consent of Congress, accept and retain any present, pension, office, or
21 emolument of any kind whatever, from any Emperor, King, Prince, or foreign Power,
22 such person shall cease to be a citizen of the United States, and shall be incapable of
CIVIL RIGHTS AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT
Page 91 of 119
1 holding any office of trust or profit under them, or either of them." dictates that any
2 individual who pledges allegiance to the BAR and takes on the title “Esq” looses their
3 citizenship. How is it that some judges who themselves, according to this ratified
4 amendment, are not entitled to hold office, go as far as to insist that only „attorneys‟ may
5 speak for corporations or children. Not only is such a ruling trying to force attorneys to
6 speak on behalf of corporations unlawful but it is blatantly treasonous to the construct of
7 the Constitution in light of the hated practice in England of courts only allowing Barristers
8 to speak on behalf of persons, which clearly our Constitution eliminates. Furthermore
9 considering that Defendants are directly responsible for driving Plaintiff into financial ruin
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10 as a consequence of their malicious prosecution and thereby make it impossible for
11 Plaintiffs to afford competent counsel, such a ruling dismissing corporate parties in this
12 basis is clearly utterly unjust. Corporate parties remain in this case.
13 A person in law, includes both a natural person, i.e., a human being, and an
14 artificial person, i.e., a corporation. In strict sense, in law, a person is any being capable
15 of having rights and duties and is of two classes only, namely, natural person and legal
16 person. A natural person is a human being who has the capacity for rights and duties. A
17 corporation is a legal person.. See First National Bank of Boston v Belluth, 435 U.S. 765,
18 98 S.Ct. 1407, 55 L.Ed.2d 707. Lawrence v Craven Tire Co., 169 S.E.2d 440, 210 Va.
19 138. §1-201(29) of the U.P.C. defines the word “person” as follows: an individual, a
20 corporation, an organization, or other legal entity. The word has been statutorily defined
21 as follows: "Person" includes individual, partnership, and corporation, but does not
22 include governmental unit. 11 U.S.C. §101(30). An individual, a corporation, a
CIVIL RIGHTS AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT
Page 92 of 119
1 partnership, an association, a joint-stock company, a trust, any unincorporated
2 organization, or a government or political subdivision thereof. As used in this paragraph
3 the term "trust" shall include only a trust where the interest or interests of the beneficiary
4 or beneficiaries are evidenced by a security. 15 U.S.C. §77(b)(2). An individual, a
5 corporation, a partnership, an association, a joint-stock company, a business trust, or an
6 unincorporated organization. 15 U.S.C. §78(c)(9). An individual or company. 15 U.S.C.
7 §79(b)(1) "Person" and "whoever" means an individual, partnership, committee,
8 association, corporation, or any other organization or group of persons. 18 U.S.C.
9 §591(g). The term "person" and the term "whoever" include any individual, corporation,
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10 company, association, firm, partnership, society, or joint-stock company. 18 U.S.C.
11 §917(1). Any employee, or agent of the United States or any State or political subdivision
12 thereof, and any individual, partnership, association, joint-stock company, trust, or
13 corporation. 18 U.S.C. §2510(6). "Person" includes one or more individuals, labor
14 organizations, partnerships, associations, corporations, legal representatives, mutual
15 companies, joint-stock companies, trusts, unincorporated organizations, trustees,
16 trustees in bankruptcy, or receivers. 29 U.S.C. §403 (d). An individual, a corporation, an
17 organization, or other legal entity. U.C.C. §1-201(29). "Person" includes an individual or
18 an organization. U.C.C. §1-201(30). A natural person or an organization. 12 C.F.R.
19 §226.2(v). Principles of a cooperation represent the person of the corporation and are
20 not only liable for actions of the corporation but are also entitled to speak for the
21 corporation and are in fact the only Real Parties of Interest of the corporation. An
22 attorney is not a Real Party of Interest for a corporation or for that matter a minor child
CIVIL RIGHTS AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT
Page 93 of 119
1 (other than their own children), consequentially an attorney cannot speak for the
2 corporation or child, everything an attorney submits on behalf of a corporate person or
3 child is by definition of the law, hearsay.
4 PLAINTIFFS RCB AND WFB REMAIN IN THE CASE
5 The court and defendants have failed to give any reason at law as to why a
6 father cannot represent his children and have failed to answer arguments supporting this
7 right already submitted. Under Common-Law a father owns his children and is not only
8 fully entitled to represent his children he is also fully responsible for his children and their
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
9 actions. Clive Boustred claims and is RCB and WFB‟s guardian ad litem and father and
10 head of family. Furthermore, a Father cannot alienate his right to the Custody and
11 control of his child People ex rel Barry v. Mercien 3 Hill 399. Any attempt to dismiss
12 RCB and WFB from the case is unlawful and void. See also argument in previous
13 section. Ruddock v. Ohls and J.W. v. Superior Court and J.W. v. Superior Court and the
14 “Code” is not law and does not make any new law but violates Constitutional law and
15 Common-law.
16 It is exceptionally important to recognize that the United States of America is not
17 a Communist or Socialist nation, the State is not the Head of Family and the State
18 cannot usurp the right retained by Fathers to represent their children - any claim made to
19 the contrary is treasonous – 9th Amendment: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of
20 certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the
21 people.”
CIVIL RIGHTS AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT
Page 94 of 119
1 DEFENDANT’S CLAIM THAT NO FACTS HAVE BEEN
2 PRODUCED IS BASELESS
3 Defendants claim that no facts have been put forward implicating any
4 wrongdoing. Firstly, significant factual evidence has been put forward in the Complaint
5 and Exhibits CD implicating each and every defendant for multiple crimes committed
6 against Plaintiffs. Secondly, factual matters are judged by the Jury in trial, any attempt
7 to have a judge who is a colleague of Defendants judge these facts is in excess of
8 jurisdiction for that judge. Thirdly, Plaintiffs have been specifically prohibited from
9 conducting discovery and have not been allowed to serve interrogatories on defendants,
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10 seeking dismissal based on such a claim relating to any lack of evidence prior to
11 discovery is not only baseless it is inappropriate.
12 DEFENDANTS CLAIM THAT NO RELEVANT LEGAL
13 ANALYSIS HAS BEEN PUT FORWARD IS BASELESS.
14 Defendants claim that no relevant legal analysis in opposition to the relief
15 defendant seeks has been put forward is false. See also Exhibits CD -
16 EXHIBITS\Exhibit F - CASE LAW\applicable_case_law.htm which includes one hundred
17 and ninety seven pages of applicable case law. Significant legal precedent exists to
18 bring this matter to trial and said precedents have been properly presented. Defendants
19 attempts to seek dismissal of the case are baseless and of no legal merit in the first
20 place. All that is needed to bring the matter to trial in accordance to Federal standards is
21 a showing that Plaintiffs have filed a claim upon which relief may be granted, facts and
22 matters at law will be determined in trial not in any “pre-trial-trial”.
CIVIL RIGHTS AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT
Page 95 of 119
1 RESPONSE TO MOTIONS MADE ON BEHALF OF
2 GLENWORTH FINANCIAL
3 The question at law regarding Gelnworth Financial claiming that they can
4 maintain a life insurance policy on someone‟s life when that person opposes such, is a
5 14th Amendment issue as Gelnworth Financial appears to be basing a claim to such an
6 outrageous right on some sort of State law. In regard to 4th Amendment rights, the
7 question at law and fact which the jury must determine is whether holding a million dollar
8 reward on someone life is an unreasonable seizure of a persons rights to be secure in
9 their persons. How would you feel walking around every day with a million dollar target
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10 on your forehead?
11 The question is whether Glenworth Financial or the State has violated the 4th &
12 14th Amendments or whether both parties are in violation. As Plaintiffs have been
13 denied any right to discovery or depositions, naturally the matter is not yet clear,
14 however, clearly Plaintiffs have a claim upon which relief is not only entitled but which is
15 desperately required. See Second Claim for Relief.
16 It would appear that Glenworth Financials has not violated Plaintiffs 5th
17 Amendment rights.
18 Plaintiffs are entitled to conduct discovery against Glenworth Financial.
19 The Court never had any basis at law or any authority or jurisdiction to dismiss
20 Plaintiffs complaint in the first place – this matter can only be tried by Jury.
21 Clearly Glenworth Financial has violated Plaintiffs most basic Constitutional right
22 to liberty by placing a million dollar target on Plaintiff life against Plaintiffs express
CIVIL RIGHTS AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT
Page 96 of 119
1 instruction and will, especially when Plaintiff has literally been shot at as a consequence
2 of the unlawful million dollar life insurance policy. Evidence of this attempted murder
3 having been well established and undeniably proven and is also directly related to a
4 false 911 call made by the beneficiary of the policy, Defendant Anamaria Boustred.
5 Glenworth Financials reveals their true color when they state that they do not
6 have to pay out any insurance if someone “feloniously and intentionally kills the insurer”
7 (we presume, they mean “insured” not “insurer”). Glenworth Financial gladly collects
8 payments all while realizing that they will not be forced to pay out anything if another
9 attempt to shoot Plaintiff hits it‟s mark. However, this does not help plaintiff whom
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10 continues to have a million dollar target on his head. Does state law allow an insurance
11 company to insure someone‟s life against their will(14th)? Does this not violate a citizens
12 right to be secure in their persons (4th)?
13 Further evidence relating to Glenwoth Financial‟s liability: On or about Wed, Feb
14 9, 2005 Plaintiffs spoke with and sent a fax to the insurer regarding canceling policy
15 raising all the relevant issues stated herein. On or about Wednesday, March 02, 2005,
16 Plaintiffs again made the request to have the policy cancelled, plaintiffs spoke to Angela
17 Price who refused to cancel policy and requests to speak to the company president
18 George Cippel were denied. On or about March 2, 2005 Plaintiffs spoke with Barbara
19 Alleman again requesting the policy be cancelled and advising them that Plaintiffs was
20 shot at and the policy was placing Plaintiff‟s life in danger – the conversation was
21 recorded a copy of which is included in the updated Evidence CD attached here to.
CIVIL RIGHTS AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT
Page 97 of 119
1 There is no question that Deputy Sheriff Michael Macdonald shot at Plaintiffs as
2 a consequence of the false police call Defendant Anamaria Boustred made on March 10,
3 2003, this irrefutable fact specifically proves that Gelnworth Financial‟s claim that no
4 facts supporting allegations by Plaintiffs have been put forward is false. In spite of this
5 blatant and obvious evidence which is not speculation but irrefutable fact, Glenworth
6 Financial‟s continues to insist on allowing Anamaria Boustred to hold a million dollar life
7 insurance policy on her ex husband‟s life who‟s life she not only personally threatened
8 but actively conspired to end. Clearly Plaintiffs are entitled to bring Glenworth Financials
9 to court on this well substantiated claim and irrefutable evidence.
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10 Clearly plaintiffs have more than stated a claim upon which a Plaintiffs are
11 entitled to urgent relief and motions filed to dismiss this case are baseless and frivolous
12 and amount to further malicious prosecution of plaintiffs. Plaintiffs are entitled to bring
13 this matter to trial by jury.
14 It is a fact that Gelnworth Financial has failed to respond to allegations or claims
15 for relief. Only hearsay has been submitted purportedly on their behalf no officer of the
16 corporation has appeared or made any statement in defense of the corporation.
17 Plaintiffs are entitled to a summary judgment against Gelnworth Financial and all
18 Defendants.
CIVIL RIGHTS AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT
Page 98 of 119
1 RESPONSE TO MOTIONS MADE ON BEHALF OF SAMUEL
2 S. STEVENS WHO HAS BEEN MORE THAN PROPERLY SERVED
3 ON MULTIPLE OCCASIONS.
4 A claim of insufficient service of process is pretty pathetic to say the least. A
5 claim that the digital copy served on Stevens contains a virus is utterly bogus and
6 baseless. Firstly Stevens could simply scan the disk for viruses and secondly if the CD
7 contained a virus then the government would actually be able to accuse Plaintiff of some
8 sort of crime instead of making up the nonsense they have been repeatedly filing against
9 Mr. Boustred to maliciously prosecute him. Title XVII-Government Paperwork
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10 Elimination Act, S. 244, and other acts ensure that digital copies are formally recognized.
11 The motion made to dismiss Stevens is baseless. Furthermore Stevens has been
12 properly served with not only the summons and complaint in original paper form but he
13 and all defendants have been served each and every filing in this case in excess of
14 State and Federal Procedures.
15 See PROOFS OF SERVICE Filed for : September 9, 2005 hearing:
16 2. Defendant Samuel S. Stevens
17 How Served: Left physical paper copies thereof at defendants place of work
18 with a person of suitable age and discretion – Receptionist “Roy Blane”
19 Date Served: May 10, 2005
20 Also Served: By mail - Date Served: June 6, 2005
21 Proof of Service: Exhibit A
22
CIVIL RIGHTS AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT
Page 99 of 119
1 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: Rule 5. Service and Filing of Pleadings and
2 Other Papers, States:
3 (b) Making Service.
4 (1) Service under Rules 5(a) and 77(d) on a party represented by an attorney is
5 made on the attorney unless the court orders service on the party.
6 (2) Service under Rule 5(a) is made by:
7 (A) Delivering a copy to the person served by:
8 (ii) leaving it at the person‟s office with a clerk or other person in charge, or if no
9 one is in charge leaving it in a conspicuous place in the office; or
10 (B) Mailing a copy to the last known address of the person served. Service by
11 mail is complete on mailing.
12
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
13 Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Stevens and all the State
14 Employees and their attorney have more than adequately been served on multiple
15 occasions with both hard paper copies of the suit and digital copies of the suit with the
16 summons and all necessary papers. Stevens has been served the operative complaint.
17 The complaint was not served electronically it was mailed and physically handed to
18 Stevens. Furthermore Stevens and all the State Employees have been served through
19 the Attorney General who as evidenced by this acknowledgement of the case in this
20 attempt to have Stevens dismissed from the case, proves a clearly awareness of the
21 complaint and therefore service is complete on all State Employees. Furthermore by law
22 the Attorney General is responsible for forwarding to the complaint to all respective
23 parties employed by the State.
24 Allegations that Plaintiffs have not stated authorities is absurd. The Complaint is
25 based on core Constitutional law and Common-Law which has been more than
26 adequately stated – see also Exhibits CD - EXHIBITS\Exhibit F - CASE
CIVIL RIGHTS AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT
Page 100 of 119
1 LAW\applicable_case_law.htm which includes one hundred and ninety seven pages of
2 applicable case law. Let it be noted that Defendants have not responded to any of the
3 lawful authorities Plaintiffs have stated.
4 Samuel S. Stevens has not appeared or responded to the complaint. The motion
5 to dismiss Stevens from the case is hearsay. Plaintiffs are entitled to summary judgment
6 against Samuel S. Stevens and all the other parties who have refused to respond to the
7 complaint.
8 RESPONSE TO MOTIONS MADE ON BEHALF OF
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
9 FRANDEEN
10 Multiple claims upon which relief can be granted have been filed against
11 Frandeen, including 14th Amendment rights violations by Frandeen (see 2nd Claim); 5th
12 Amendment rights violations (3rd Claim); 6th Amendment rights violations (4th Claim);
13 Violation of U.S. Const. 7th Amendment [Trial by jury, Common law] (5th Claim);
14 Violation of U.S. Const. 8th Amendment Unreasonable bail, excessive fines, cruel &
15 unusual punishment and Wrongful Civil Proceedings (6th Claim); Intentional/Negligent
16 Infliction of Emotional Distress, Fraud/Deceit (7th Claim); Conspiracy (8th Claim);
17 Malicious Prosecution (9th Claim); Kidnap, accessory to kidnap, parental alienation,
18 Mental Suffering, Alienation of Affections, Trespass To Chattel (10th Claim); Fraud (11th
19 Claim); Abuse of Process (13th Claim); Defamation Libel Slander (14th Claim);
20 Disparagement Of Business Reputation Or Property, Interference With Business
21 Relations, Pure Economic Loss, Intentional Interference With Prospective Economic
22 Advantage (15th Claim); Interference With Family And Political Relations (16th Claim);
CIVIL RIGHTS AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT
Page 101 of 119
1 Invasion of Privacy (17th Claim); Racketeering (18th Claim); Negligent Misrepresentation
2 (19th Claim); Negligence (20th Claim); Assumpsit (21st Claim); Public Nuisance (22nd
3 Claim); Conversion (23rd Claim); Violation of U.S. Const. Article IV State and the
4 Federal guarantee against domestic violence (26th Claim).
5 Obviously Plaintiffs never “conceded” to any of the baseless merits filed by a
6 person purporting to represent Frandeen in an attempt to have Frandeen dismissed from
7 the case. For counsel who claims to be representing Frandeen to suggest such is
8 cheap.
9 Facts supporting these causes of action are included in the Evidence CD
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10 including Frandeen‟s fraudulent and libelous statements made on or about May 27,
11 2003 when he conspired with other Defendants against Mr. Boustred, see the following
12 files on the Evidence CD (included herein by reference) for significant volumes of
13 evidence against Frandeen:
14 court filing VERFIED CRIMINAL COMPLAINT FRANDEEN 4-12-04
15 v1.doc
16 court filing ex parte response to Frandeen 2-18-03 v4.doc
17 court filing object to frandeen 7-2-03 v4.doc
18 court filing response to frandeen 7-16-03 declaration v2.doc
19 response to frandeen aug 8 2003 declaration v2.doc
20 court filing ex parte response to Frandeen 2-18-03 v4.doc
21 court filing object to frandeen 7-2-03 v4.doc
22 court filing response to frandeen 7-16-03 declaration v2.doc
CIVIL RIGHTS AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT
Page 102 of 119
1 response to frandeen aug 8 2003 declaration v2.doc
2 The VERFIED CRIMINAL COMPLAINT filed against FRANDEEN
3 (EXHIBITS\Exhibit C - Case Files\Exhibit C-2\ court filing VERFIED CRIMINAL
4 COMPLAINT FRANDEEN 4-12-04 v1.doc – included herein along with Authorities stated
5 therein by reference) includes many specific and detailed facts proving Frandeen‟s
6 many violations of Plaintiffs most basic rights see II STATEMENT OF FACTS; COUNT 1
7 to 7 PERJRY; COUNT 8: CONSPIRACY; VIII POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; and
8 DECLARATION IN SUPPORT there of included herein by reference.
9 Frandeen repeatedly actively worked to hold RCB and WFB hostage from their
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10 father. These facts are pretty obvious in this case as shown by abundant evidence
11 proving such. Is Frandeen attempting to suggest that RCB and WFB were not shot at
12 then kidnapped and unlawfully held from their father? Without lawful authority from their
13 father Frandeen stepped in to represent RCB and WFB who he totally misrepresented
14 and did in fact maliciously prosecute. Said facts will be presented in detail before the
15 Jury.
16 Defense counsel is clearly attempting to have facts judged by a colleague and
17 employee of Defendants prior to trial in an attempt to avoid facing Trial By Jury.
18 Defense counsel can be held liable for behaving in such a fashion.
19 Plaintiffs are entitled to conduct discovery and depose Frandeen, however
20 Plaintiffs have been denied any such right.
21 Defense counsel‟s representation of cases: Silberg v. Anderson (1990) and Fox
22 v. Pollack (1986), Ells v. Rosenblum (1995) is neither relevant nor law. A judge‟s ruling
CIVIL RIGHTS AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT
Page 103 of 119
1 does not legislate any new law. The construct of “Case Law” so wildly employed by
2 judges and lawyers to make „so-called new law‟ is utterly treasonous to the construct of
3 the Constitution, law and government of the U.S.A.. There is no protection of litigation
4 privileges that allows any individual to embark on conspiracy, kidnap, malicious
5 prosecution, hostage taking, libel etc. utterly without Probable Cause and in blatant
6 violation of ethical behaviors and the most rudimentary right of parents and children. Mr.
7 Frandeen actively initiated and directed malicious prosecution against Plaintiffs as
8 blatantly proven in the evidence already before the court.
9 There is no special class of individual under the Constitution that abridges or
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10 grants any special privileges or immunities – in the U.S. all are equal before the law,
11 which after all, was one of the key constructs and principles of the Constitution. No
12 code, including California Civil Code section 47(b) or any judicial ruling can change the
13 law or grant any special privileges or immunities which are expressly and specifically
14 excluded by Article 1 Section 9 and 10, Original 13th Amendment and the 14th
15 Amendment. Frandeen is libel to all torts filed against him, including malicious
16 prosecution. Neither the court nor counsel has proven any deficiencies in Plaintiffs
17 complaint which clearly and blatantly entitles Plaintiffs to move the matter to trial by jury.
18 The Motion to Strike is baseless and fraudulently claims that no factual evidence
19 has been submitted – as shown above large volumes of irrefutable evidence supporting
20 Plaintiffs claims have been before the court for many months. In regard to SLAP
21 allegations, Plaintiffs have submitted significant volumes of evidence proving that
22 Defendants have violated an extraordinary volume of Plaintiffs Constitutional rights,
CIVIL RIGHTS AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT
Page 104 of 119
1 there is no basis what so ever to suggest that this case falls under any Anti-SLAP
2 Statute – Furthermore, Frandeen is no longer attempting to represent RCB and WFB, if
3 this were a SLAP suit then there would be no interest on behalf of Plaintiffs to continue
4 the suit. Plaintiffs adamantly maintain their right to continue this suit which Plaintiffs are
5 entitled to hold Frandeen and other Defendants accountable for the heinous and
6 outrageous crimes they committed against Plaintiffs. Despite the fact that this case
7 clearly does not fall within any domain of Anti-SLAP law, Plaintiffs have exhibited such a
8 large volume of evidence that proves that Plaintiffs will prevail in this case that
9 Defendants are clearly desperate to prevent this matter from coming to trial by jury
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10 where they know they will loose. In regard to SLAP suits, what do the seven false and
11 frivolous suits Defendants filed against Plaintiff Clive Boustred amount to? (And
12 incidentally how come the Anti SLAP legislation specifically attempts to preclude SLAP
13 suits filed by the government?) And how can the Defendants explain their repeated and
14 blatant disregard to the law and due process in each of these cases of which Freandeen
15 was a co-conspirator SLAP cases filed against Plaintiff.
16 This counsel claiming to represent Frandeen‟s Motion to Strike is baseless and
17 frivolous and in itself is a SLAP proceeding against Plaintiffs designed to complicate and
18 delay this matter from coming before a trial by jury. Plaintiffs are entitled to recover fees
19 and costs associated in defending against this SLAP action by Natalie P. Vance, “Esq”.
20 Ms. Vance‟s behavior in this case corresponds to Frandeens type of behavior which
21 clearly and blatantly illustrates malpractice – significant volumes of evidence were
22 submitted regarding Frandeens actions in this case, however, Ms. Vance choose to
CIVIL RIGHTS AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT
Page 105 of 119
1 fraudulently lead the court into believing that no such evidence has been submitted.
2 Plaintiffs request that the court sanction Ms. Vance.
3 Furthermore, nothing but hearsay has been submitted in an attempt to have
4 Frandeen dismissed from this case. Defendant Frandeen has not appeared or
5 answered one single charge brought against him in the complaint. Plaintiffs are entitled
6 to summary judgment against Frandeen.
7 RESPONSE TO MOTIONS MADE ON BEHALF OF
8 ANGELICA GLASS
9 Following the Deputy shooting at Petitioner Clive Boustred, RCB and WFB,
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10 through meetings with Petitioner Clive Boustred including a meeting on or about April 24,
11 2003, Angela Glass was fully aware of the facts of the case, in particular that it was
12 impossible for Petitioner Clive Boustred to be guilty of the charges filed against him.
13 Despite this factual evidence, CPS reported Petitioner Clive Boustred to California‟s
14 Central Child Abuse Index as “Inconclusive” – and that was based on Clive driving at 27
15 miles per hour down his private road with his kids in the car! If CPS was not able to
16 conclude anything, why did they liable Petitioner‟s name by registering his name with
17 California‟s Central Child Abuse Index? Evidence proving Angels Glass‟s direct link to
18 claims and liability therefore is found in the following files on the Evidence CD -
19 EXHIBITS\Exhibit C - Case Files\Exhibit C-2\CPS:
20 1. cps to angela glass 4-12-03 v2.doc
21 2. cps to angela glass 4-16-03 v3.doc
22 3. cps to angela glass 4-18-03 v3.doc
CIVIL RIGHTS AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT
Page 106 of 119
1 4. cps to angela glass 4-29-03 v3.doc
2 5. CPS Exhibits v1.doc
3 6. CPS Level I statement v3.doc
4 7. CPS responce7 FINAL.doc
5 8. DOJ child abuse 4-17-03 v4.doc
6 And CPS_child_abuse_index_l.gif included in the amended Exhibits/Evidence CD
7 in the same directory.
8 Angela Glass and CPS is commissioned with the responsibility of protecting
9 children‟s rights. Angela Glass failed in her duty to protect RCB and WFB and instead
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10 conspired to maliciously prosecute the Plaintiffs of this case so as to cover up the
11 extreme crimes committed against Plaintiffs. On information or belief Angela Glass
12 made fraudulent filings outrageously and seriously libeling Clive Boustred‟s name by
13 filing Clive Boustred‟s name in California‟s Central Child abuse index.
14 Petitioners need to deposition Angela Glass to determine who is responsible for
15 this extreme and outrageous liable of Petitioner Clive Boustred‟s good name. Further
16 information regarding conspiracy also needs to be investigated through the depositions
17 and discovery of Angela Glass and other CPS employees.
18 Angela Glass‟s request for amore definitive statement is only reasonable after
19 Plaintiffs have been granted their due process right to discovery and the deposition of
20 defendants.
21 It is a fact that Angela Glass has failed to respond to any allegation or claim for
22 relief. She has not appeared and only hearsay has been submitted purportedly on her
CIVIL RIGHTS AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT
Page 107 of 119
1 behalf. Plaintiffs are entitled to a summary judgment against Angela Glass and all
2 Defendants.
3 RESPONSE TO MOTIONS MADE ON BEHALF OF PAUL
4 MELTZER
5 Petitioner Clive Boustred retained Paul Meltzer to defend him from false charges
6 filed in Santa Cruz Superior Court Case F 06858. Despite repeatedly asking Mr. Meltzer
7 to bring the case to trial, Mr. Meltzer continued the case against Mr. Boustred‟s
8 objections, thereby subjecting Mr. Boustred to extraordinary damages through the
9 continued burden of extended malicious prosecution and the unlawful holding of
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10 Petitioners RCB and WFB from their father. Mr. Meltzer conspired with other
11 Defendants to maliciously prosecute Mr. Boustred, Mr. Meltzer went as far as refusing to
12 challenge Judge Art Danner who was assigned to the case despite significant evidence
13 having been put before Mr. Meltzer regarding Danners criminal background and the fact
14 that he was rated as not qualified. Mr. Meltzer refused to provide Mr. Boustred with
15 evidence relating to the timing of the alleged chase despite Mr. Boustred‟s repeated
16 requests for such as said evidence which was in the possession of Mr. Meltzer proved
17 that it was impossible for Mr. Boustred to be guilty of the VC § 2800.2(a) and related
18 charges brought against Mr. Boustred – not only did Mr. Meltzer specifically conceal this
19 critical evidence from Mr. Boustred but Mr. Meltzer refused to make any motions to have
20 the case dismissed because said evidence proved Mr. Boustred‟s innocence.
21 Despite Plaintiff Clive Boustred being specifically charged with resisting arrest
22 and despite Mr. Boustred‟s repeated demands that Meltzer specifically demand related
CIVIL RIGHTS AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT
Page 108 of 119
1 discovery, Meltzer refused to demand discovery on Deputy Brozozowski who violently
2 assaulted Mr. Boustred during the false arrest – Mr. Meltzer was aware of these facts
3 and conspired with the prosecution so as to avoid the background crimes Brozozowski
4 committed including the crimes he committed against Mr. Boustred coming before any
5 jury and to avoid placing Brozozowski on the stand before the jury. – see evidence in
6 form of emails sent to Mr. Meltzer included in the supplemental Evidence CD /Meltzer
7 directory:
8 1. 2003_12_19 to Meltzer RE Court.txt
9 2. 2003_12_10 Meltzer to Clive - Letter dated December 10 2003.txt
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10 3. 2003_12_9 Meltzer RE Letter dated December 9 2003.txt
11 4. 2003_12_09 Meltzer - RE Moving Forward.txt
12 5. 2003_11_21 Clive to Meltzer - Moving Forward.htm
13 Despite there being no mandate that Plaintiffs prove and fight this case before
14 going to trial, Plaintiffs have listed herein a precursory listing of evidence and specific
15 violations of Mr. Boustred‟s rights by Meltzer which fall under the following claims to
16 which Plaintiffs are entitled relief:
17 Second Claim For Relive: Failure to Protect; Third Claim For Relief : Violation of
18 U.S. Const. 5th Amendment [Criminal proceedings, deprivation of life, liberty and
19 happiness]; Fourth Claim For Relief : Violation of U.S. Const. 6th Amendment [Criminal
20 proceedings; public trial, impartial jury, nature and cause of the accusation; Seventh
21 Claim For Relief : Intentional/Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress, Fraud/Deceit;
22 Ninth Claim For Relief : Malicious Prosecution; Tenth Claim For Relief : Kidnap,
CIVIL RIGHTS AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT
Page 109 of 119
1 accessory to kidnap, parental alienation, Mental Suffering, Alienation of Affections,
2 Trespass To Chattel; Eleventh Claim For Relief : Fraud; Nineteenth Claim For Relief :
3 Negligent Misrepresentation; Twenty-first Claim For Relief : Assumpsit; Twenty-sixth
4 Claim For Relief : Violation of U.S. Const. Article IV State and the Federal guarantee
5 against domestic violence; Seventh Claim For Relief : Intentional/Negligent Infliction of
6 Emotional Distress, Fraud/Deceit; Eighth Claim For Relief : Conspiracy; Thirteenth Claim
7 For Relief : Abuse Of Process; Fourteenth Claim For Relief : Defamation, Libel, Slander;
8 Fifteenth Claim For Relief : Disparagement Of Business Reputation Or Property,
9 Interference With Business Relations, Pure Economic Loss, Intentional Interference With
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10 Prospective Economic Advantage,; Sixteenth Claim For Relief : Interference With Family
11 And Political Relations; Seventeenth Claim For Relief : Invasion Of Privacy,; Eighteenth
12 Claim For Relief : Racketeering; Twentieth Claim For Relief : Negligence; Twenty-
13 second Claim For Relief : Public Nuisance; Twenty-third Claim For Relief : Conversion;
14 Plaintiffs have stated multiple claims upon which relief may be granted against
15 Paul Meltzer coupled with substantial evidence proving such, to suggest anything to the
16 contrary is absurd. Law and Facts in this case are to be tried by jury not in motions to
17 dismiss.
18 If Meltzer wants a more definitive statement then Plaintiffs must be granted their
19 due process rights to discovery and the deposition of Mr. Meltzer. Petitioners have been
20 denied any right to depose or serve interrogatories on Mr. Meltzer.
21 It is a fact that Paul Meltzer has failed to respond to any allegation or claim for
22 relief. Only hearsay has been submitted purportedly on his behalf and he has failed to
CIVIL RIGHTS AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT
Page 110 of 119
1 appear. Plaintiffs are entitled to a summary judgment against Paul Meltzer and all
2 Defendants.
3 RESPONSE TO MOTIONS MADE ON BEHALF OF VICKI J.
4 PARRY
5 Details directly linking Ms. Parry to claims upon which relief can be granted have
6 already been submitted and ignored by counsel purporting to represent Parry.
7 Additional evidence is included on the Supplemental Evidence CD /Parry directory – in
8 particular this evidence proves that Parry was fully aware of her actions and proves
9 Parry actions in court as evidenced by filings in the Evidence CD were overt and
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10 intentional criminal acts as listed under the following claims upon which relief can be
11 granted:
12 Second Claim For Relief : Violation of U.S. Const. 4th & 14th Amendment
13 [Seizures, searches and warrants, Unlawful Arrest and/or Unlawful Seizure and/or
14 Unlawful Search and/or Excessive Force and/or Assault and/or Assault With A Deadly
15 Weapon and/or Battery and/or Abnormally Dangerous Activities and/or Failure to
16 Protect]; Third Claim For Relief : Violation of U.S. Const. 5th Amendment [Criminal
17 proceedings, deprivation of life, liberty and happiness]; Fourth Claim For Relief :
18 Violation of U.S. Const. 6th Amendment [Criminal proceedings; public trial, impartial jury,
19 nature and cause of the accusation]; Ninth Claim For Relief : Malicious Prosecution;
20 Tenth Claim For Relief : Kidnap, accessory to kidnap, parental alienation, Mental
21 Suffering, Alienation of Affections, Trespass To Chattel; Eleventh Claim For Relief :
22 Fraud; Seventh Claim For Relief : Intentional/Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress,
CIVIL RIGHTS AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT
Page 111 of 119
1 Fraud/Deceit; Eighth Claim For Relief : Conspiracy; Thirteenth Claim For Relief : Abuse
2 Of Process; Fourteenth Claim For Relief : Defamation, Libel, Slander; Fifteenth Claim
3 For Relief : Disparagement Of Business Reputation Or Property, Interference With
4 Business Relations, Pure Economic Loss, Intentional Interference With Prospective
5 Economic Advantage,; Sixteenth Claim For Relief : Interference With Family And
6 Political Relations; Seventeenth Claim For Relief : Invasion Of Privacy,; Eighteenth
7 Claim For Relief : Racketeering; Twentieth Claim For Relief : Negligence; Twenty-
8 second Claim For Relief : Public Nuisance; Twenty-third Claim For Relief : Conversion.
9 Parry is so culpably linked to all the claims that for her to attempt to deny such a
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10 relationship ridiculous. Evidence proving Parry‟s liability for said claims upon which
11 relief can be granted is included in the Evidence CD - EXHIBITS\Exhibit C - Case
12 Files\Exhibit C-2\parry_schemes directory:
13 1. 2003_03_11_exparte_req_p1.gif
14 2. 2003_03_11_osc_custody_mod_declaration_p1.gif
15 3. 2003_03_11_osc_custody_mod_declaration_p2.gif
16 4. 2003_03_11_osc_custody_mod_p1.gif
17 5. 2003_03_11_osc_custody_mod_p1_barton_signature.gif
18 6. 2003_03_11_osc_custody_mod_p2.gif
19 7. 2003_03_11_osc_custody_mod_p2_barton_signature.gif
20 8. 2003_03_11_osc_custody_mod_p3_barton_signature.gif
21 9. 2003_03_11_osc_custody_mod_p4_barton_signature.gif
22 10. 2003_03_11_osc_custody_mod_p5_barton_signature.gif
CIVIL RIGHTS AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT
Page 112 of 119
1 11. 2003_03_11_osc_custody_mod_p6_barton_signature.gif
2 12. 2003_03_11_osc_custody_mod_p7_barton_signature.gif
3 13. 2003_03_11_osc_custody_mod_p8_barton_signature.gif
4 14. 2003_03_11_tro_100_p1.gif
5 15. 2003_03_11_tro_100_p2.gif
6 16. 2003_03_11_tro_100_p3.gif
7 17. 2003_03_11_tro_100_p4.gif
8 18. 2003_03_11_tro_110_p1.gif
9 19. 2003_03_11_tro_110_p2.gif
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10 20. 2003_03_11_tro_110_p3.gif
11 21. 2003_03_12_proof_service_parry.gif
12 22. 2003_03_14_proof_serv_attp_sherifs.gif
13 23. 2003_03_25_tro_125_p1.gif
14 24. 2003_03_25_tro_125_p2.gif
15 25. 2003_03_25_tro_125_p3.gif
16 Further evidence is proving Parry‟s liability to the above mentioned claims upon
17 which relief may be granted is included on the Supplemental Evidence CD /Parry
18 directory:
19 1. parry ex parte 12-30-03 v2.doc
20 2. perry 3-3-03 v2.doc
21 3. perry 3-6-03.doc
22 4. perry 5.doc
CIVIL RIGHTS AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT
Page 113 of 119
1 5. perry jan 24 03.doc
2 6. perry RE ORDER 20-10-05.doc
3 7. 2003_01_23 Parry to Danner.jpg
4 8. 2003_01_15 Parry to Danner.jpg
5 9. 2003_02_20 declaration re exparte hearing p1.jpg
6 10. 2003_02_20 declaration re exparte hearing p2.jpg
7 11. 2003_02_20 declaration re exparte hearing p3.jpg
8 12. 2003_02_20 declaration re exparte hearing.jpg
9 13. 2003_02_20 ex-parte order p1.jpg
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10 14. 2003_02_20 parry ex-parte clarification re order p1.jpg
11 15. 2003_02_20 parry ex-parte clarification re order p2.jpg
12 16. 2003_02_20 parry ex-parte clarification re order p3.jpg
13 17. 2003_02_20 parry notice for exparte hearing sent to wrong
14 address.jpg
15 18. 003_02_20_void_kelly_order_p1.jpg
16 19. 003_02_20_void_kelly_order_p2.jpg
17 20. 2003_02_24 ana declaration of prejudice ccp 170.6.jpg
18 21. 2003_02_24 ana response to Feb 20 declaration P1.jpg
19 22. 2003_02_24 ana response to Feb 20 declaration P2.jpg
20 23. 2003_02_24 ana response to Feb 20 declaration P3.jpg
21 24. 2003_02_24 ana response to Feb 20 declaration P4.jpg
22 25. 2003_02_24 ana response to Feb 20 declaration P5.jpg
CIVIL RIGHTS AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT
Page 114 of 119
1 26. 2003_02_24 ana response to Feb 20 declaration P6.jpg
2 27. 2003_02_24 ana response to Feb 20 declaration P7.jpg
3 28. 2003_02_24 ana response to Feb 20 declaration P8.jpg
4 29. 2003_02_24 parry response to Feb 20 declaration P1.jpg
5 30. 2003_02_24 parry response to Feb 20 declaration P2.jpg
6 Mrs. Parry‟s client Anamaria Boustred left a voice mail for Plaintiff Clive
7 Boustred, in Plaintiffs possession, stating that her Lawyer, Mrs. Parry, knew all the
8 judges, implying that she could do anything, Defendant Anamaria Boustred threatened
9 that unless Petitioner Clive Boustred gave her a better settlement offer he would loose
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10 his children.
11 On or about February 20, 2003, in violation of Rules 7-103 and 7-108 of the
12 Rules of Professional Responsibility and Conduct of The State Bar of California and
13 without any basis for an urgency and without giving proper notice in violation of section §
14 240 of California‟s Family Code and also without any legal basis, Vicki J. Parry called an
15 ex parte hearing to “clarify” an order prohibiting Petitioner Clive Boustred‟s former
16 personal assistant and his wife‟s lover, Defendant Stefan Tichatschke, from contact with
17 RCB and WFB. Vicki J. Parry unlawfully secured a void Order unlawfully granting Stefan
18 Tichatschke the right to have contact with Petitioner‟s RCB and WFB.
19 It was this void order that Defendants Anamaria Boustred and Stefan
20 Tichatschke employed some days later to setup a dangerous situation where Defendant
21 Anamaria Boustred left WFB, aged three at the time, in the middle of a learner ski run.
22 When Petitioner Clive Boustred came to rescue his son, Defendant Stefan Tichatschke
CIVIL RIGHTS AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT
Page 115 of 119
1 attempted to start a fight with Petitioner Clive Boustred. Petitioner Clive Boustred
2 removed his sons from the dangerous situation, returned to Santa Cruz where the next
3 day he went to Court to file for a TRO prohibiting his ex-wife from causing dangerous
4 situations for the children and making false police calls, a TRO that the Santa Cruz
5 Superior Court to this day refuses to hear.
6 It was on his way home from court that Petitioners Clive Boustred, RCB and
7 WFB were shot at by the Santa Cruz Deputy who claimed to be acting on a fraudulent
8 911 call Defendant Anamaria Boustred made Plaintiffs contest that Parry directly
9 conspired with defendant Anamaria and Tichatschke in this regard. Some time after the
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10 filing of the Santa Cruz SLAP suit F 06858 against Petitioner Clive Boustred, the former
11 classmate of the Santa Cruz Assistant DA who filed the F 06858 SLAP suit, filed a SLAP
12 suite against Petitioner Clive Boustred in Placer County Plaintiffs contend that Parry also
13 conspired with other Defendants to maliciously prosecute Plaintiffs in regard to that
14 case.
15 The question here is what role Defendant Viki Pary played in provoking and
16 conspiring to obtain void orders, and the setting up of Petitioner Clive Boustred. What is
17 the referenced relationship Vicki J. Parry has with the Santa Cruz judges and sheriffs?
18 Furthermore, the question is what role Defendant Viki Pary had in advising Defendant
19 Anamaria Boustred regarding the false 911 call Anamaria Boustred made on March 10,
20 2003 that resulted in Plaintiff‟s Clive Boustred, RCB and WFB being shot at. Clearly
21 Plaintiffs are entitled to conduct discovery against Parry.
CIVIL RIGHTS AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT
Page 116 of 119
1 Substantial evidence exists of a conspiracy against Petitioner Clive Boustred by
2 Santa Cruz Authorities of which Mrs. Parry is directly implicated. Furthermore, Mrs.
3 Parry in insolence to her oath of office, sought at all times to complicate matters in the
4 Boustred‟s divorce proceedings so as to maliciously prosecute Plaintiffs. Mrs. Parry was
5 directly responsible for destroying two settlement agreements. There are likely further
6 charges against Mrs. Parry, which will emerge following depositions that are necessary
7 in order to clarify these issues.
8 It is a fact that Vicki J. Parry has failed to respond to allegations or claims for
9 relief. Only hearsay has been submitted purportedly on her behalf and she has failed to
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10 appear. Plaintiffs are entitled to a summary judgment against Vicki J. Parry and all
11 Defendants.
12
13 E. DEMAND FOR RIGHT TO DISCOVERY
14 Plaintiffs demand their right to conduct discovery and to conduct depositions and
15 interrogatories against Defendants.
16
17 F. DEMAND FOR SUMMARY JUDGEMENT
18 Only hearsay has been submitted purportedly on the behalf of Defendants.
19 Defendants have not come forward in any form to indicate that those filing papers
20 and motions on their behalf are in fact representing them. No Defendant has made
21 any appearance in defense of charges brought against them.
CIVIL RIGHTS AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT
Page 117 of 119
1 It is a fact that not one real party of interest has responded to any of the
2 allegations or claims upon which relief can be granted.
3 Plaintiffs are entitled to and demand summary judgment against Defendants
4 and the reward of Relief Sought.
5
6 G. DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY
7 Plaintiffs hereby demand a trial by jury on all of the above causes of action where
8 the jury determines both fact and law.
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
9
10 H. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
11 WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs prays for the following relief as to all Claims for Relief
12 and Plaintiffs pray for the following relief:
13 A. A judgment awarding plaintiffs general, special and punitive damages
14 against defendant Defendants in amounts according to proof but/or no less than listed
15 herein;
16 B. A judgment awarding plaintiffs general and special and punitive damages
17 against Defendants amounts according to proof;
18 C. A judgment awarding plaintiffs reasonable attorney‟s fees;
19 D. A judgment awarding plaintiffs their costs of suit; and
20 E. Such other and further relief as the Court deems proper.
CIVIL RIGHTS AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT
Page 118 of 119
1 F. Prayers for relief as listed in the original Complaint, Amendments to the
2 Compliant, Motions and Responses to Motions.
3
4 I. VERIFICATION
5 I, Clive Boustred, am a Party in the above-entitled action and the Chairman,
6 President and CEO of the Corporate Parties and the Father to the Minor Children
7 herein. I have read the foregoing Document(s), Affidavit(s), Declaration(s), and/or
8 Materials, Id., including referenced and/or attached documents, and/or duplicates of
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
9 such documents and know the contents thereof. The same is true of my own
10 knowledge, except as to those matters which are therein alleged on information and
11 belief, and as to those matters, I believe it to be true.
12 I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct and
13 that this declaration was executed at Santa Cruz, California on September five two
14 thousand and six.
15 Date: September 5, 2006____________________________________
16 Clive Boustred, representing Plaintiffs,
17 In Propria Persona Sui Juris, Without Prejudice UCC 1-207
18
CIVIL RIGHTS AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT
Page 119 of 119
