2006_09_08 209TH 20circuit 20USA 20Civil 20Rights 20Claim 20Clive 20Frank 20Boustred 20 4th 20Amendment 20FILED by u82IvfKz

VIEWS: 6 PAGES: 119

									            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

								
To top