TheEarthPLan.com

The Earth Plan:

LFL Founder Out Of Hiding With Extrodinary Solution to fix
Government
Peopleisim.org :

Peopleisim

The Construct of Live & Origin of Everything - Soulisim:

Soulisim

ADVERISE HERE:

 

6th Malicious Prosecution Counter Suit

Clive Frank Boustred
210 Suncrest Dr.
Soquel, CA 95073
clive@libertyforlife.com
+1 (408) 889-4351
In Propria Persona Sui Juris.


UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT  NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CLIVE FRANK BOUSTRED,

INFOTELESYS, Inc. (Nevada),
GET IT REAL, Inc. (Nevada)
Plaintiffs,

vs.

COUNTY OF SANTA CRUZ; SANTA CRUZ SHERIFF; SERIFF M959; CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL;
CHP OFFICER M. JOHNSON CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES; DMV OFFICER ROLANDO R. DELACRUZ; STATE OF CALIFORNIA; AND DOES 1 THROUGH N, INCLUSIVE,
Defendants.

CASE NO.: C07 00391

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS

DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY

Plaintiffs, CLIVE FRANK BOUSTRED, INFOTELESYS, INC. GET IT REAL, INC. hereby allege as follows:

JURISDICTION AND VENUE
1. This action arises under the Civil Rights Act of 1871 (42 U.S.C. Sections 1983 and 1988) and the First, Fourth, Ninth, Eleventh and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States. Via Trial By Jury only this Court has jurisdiction of the federal claims under 28 U.S.C. Section 1331, 1332, 1343(3) 1343(4), 2201, and 2202. Pursuant to the 11th Amendment there is no Judicial Power over this claim and the matter can only be decided and tried and any stage of the process by Trial by Jury.

2. Venue is proper in the Northern District of California, San Jose Division pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391, in that the subject matter of this action arose in this district, furthermore petitioner CLIVE FRANK BOUSTRED is subject to personal jurisdiction in this district and petitioners INFOTELESYS, INC. and GET IT REAL, INC., Nevada citizens, fall within the general U.S. District Court jurisdiction.

PARTIES
3. Plaintiff’s CLIVE FRANK BOUSTRED, INFOTELESYS, Inc. (Nevada) and GET IT REAL, INC. (Nevada) (hereinafter “Plaintiffs”) are, and at all relevant times herein were residents of the County of Santa Cruz, State of California and Reno, State of Nevada. 4. Defendant COUNTY OF SANTA CRUZ (hereinafter "COUNTY") is a political subdivision of the Defendant STATE OF CALIFORNIA (hereafter “STATE”). The SANTA CRUZ SHERIFFS (hereinafter “SHERIFFS”) is an agency within the COUNTY, STATE and NATION, and the DEPARTMENT OF MOTORVEHICLES (hereafter DMV) is an agency within the STATE OF CALIFORNIA and the CALLIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL (hereafter CHP) also an agency within the STATE OF CALIFORNIA. SHERIFFS, DMV and CHP are charged with enforcing the law and relevant provisions of the California Code and charged with knowledge and protection of citizens’ constitutional rights while enforcing such provisions.
5. Defendants M. JOHNSON M847 (CHP), ROLANDO R. DELACRUZ (DMV), SHERIFF with BADGE # M959, SANTA CRUZ SHERIFF and DOES 1 through N are sued herein in their individual and official capacities; in performing the unlawful acts hereinafter mentioned, these defendants conspired with each other and acted under color of the law, statutes, ordinances, regulations, customs and usages of the State of California, and pursuant to the official policy, custom and practice of the COUNTY, STATE and NATION. Each of these defendants is, and was at all times herein mentioned, the agent, employee or representative of each other defendant; and had the legal duty to oversee and supervise the hiring, conduct, employment and discipline of each and every other defendant named herein.

7. The names and capacities of Defendants DOES 1 through N are unknown to the Plaintiff. Each of these fictitiously named parties has acted as agent of or in concert with the named defendants in the matters referred to herein and is responsible in some manner for the damages suffered by Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs will amend this complaint to add the names and capacities of such defendants and claims when ascertained.

STATEMENT OF FACTS COMMON TO ALL COUNTS
8. On or about March 20, 2006 on Portola Avenue, CHP Officer named as M. Johnson from California Highway Patrol, with a reported Badge number of 17847 did unlawfully stop, harass, search, seize, assault, arrest and imprison Clive Frank Boustred, without probable cause or evidence when evidence in the form of multiple tests did in fact prove that Mr. Boustred was not guilty of any crime or violation. That following a physical test which Plaintiff passed and eight or so breath analyzer tests none which Plaintiff failed said officer/s did violently force Plaintiff Clive Frank Boustred to a forced blood test by forcing Plaintiff face down on a stretcher and piercing Plaintiff three times to extract blood from Plaintiff against Plaintiff expressed will. Said officer did falsify reports making the fraudulent claim that Mr. Boustred had a BAC Chemical Test Result of 0.08% or more when no such test results existed and when test results indicating that Mr. Boustred had a BAC result below 0.08%. Santa Cruz Sheriffs did falsely imprison Mr. Boustred and refuse to allow Mr. Boustred to take an independent BAC test. Sheriffs and or CHP did unlawfully steal Mr. Boustred’s vehicle and did unlawfully search said vehicle. Sheriffs and or CHP and or third parties forced Mr. Boustred to pay to recover his vehicle. Officer M. Johnson did also steal Mr. Boustred’s California Driving License and the Department of Motor Vehicles refused to return said drivers license to Mr. Boustred. Santa Cruz Sheriffs and or the Department of Motor Vehicles did libel and slander Mr. Boustred by advertising publicly that Mr. Boustred was charged with driving under the influence of alcohol and/or other such slanderous and libelous allegations which have and will cause and continue to cause Plaintiffs INFOTELESYS, INC. and GET IT REAL, INC. where Clive Frank Boustred is the Principle, CEO, Chairman, and President, ongoing damages from libel, lost business in inability to operate.
15. The Department of Motor Vehicles set aside the action effective 4/19/2006.

CLAIM FOR RELIEF NUMBER ONE
VIOLATION OF 42 U.S.C. SECTION 1983
(Violation of First and Fourteenth Amendments)
(All defendants)
16. Plaintiff’s refer to and incorporates herein by reference the allegations in Paragraphs 1 through 15 above.

17. As a direct and proximate result of defendants' unlawful actions as hereinbefore alleged and other actions against Plaintiffs since Santa Cruz Deputy Sheriff Michael Macdonald on March 10, 2003 did attempt to murder Clive Frank Boustred, Plaintiff’s have been deprived of their First and Fourteenth Amendment rights. Plaintiff’s have been subjected to a campaign of harassment and retaliation by defendants in violation of their First, Second, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, Ninth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. Plaintiff’s further allege that defendant COUNTY and STATE failed to properly train and supervise its agents in order to prevent the violation of clearly established constitutional rights, and thereby maintained illegal customs and policies, allowing continued retaliation and harassment of Plaintiff’s, and failed to properly train and supervise its agents in the handling of arrests so as to avoid the violation of an individual’s constitutional rights, including the Plaintiff’s herein.
18. Plaintiff’s further allege that defendants filed criminal charges against Plaintiff Clive Frank Boustred in bad faith, maliciously and without probable cause, and thereafter maliciously prosecuted Plaintiff with the specific intent to deprive Plaintiff’s of their constitutional rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
19. As a further direct and proximate result of defendants' unlawful actions as herein alleged, Plaintiff Clive Frank Boustred suffered severe physical, emotional stress and all Plaintiff’s suffered monetary damages including attorneys and medical fees, loss of business, libel and other damages yet to be ascertained entitling Plaintiffs to compensation under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 according to proof, as well as reasonable attorneys fees incurred in pursuing these claims under 42 U.S.C. Section 1988.
20. The individual defendants' conduct was not only shocking and outrageous, it was intentional and malicious, or at the least grossly negligent, exhibiting a reckless disregard for Plaintiff’s rights, causing Plaintiff Clive Frank Boustred to suffer humiliation, mental anguish, stress and emotional and physical distress and Plaintiff Clive Frank Boustred was injured in mind and body directly causing damage to Plaintiffs INFOTELESYS, INC. AND GET IT REAL, INC. where Plaintiff Clive Frank Boustred is Principal, President, CEO and Chairman all to Plaintiffs damage in amounts according to proof but not less than that listed herein. As such Plaintiffs are entitled to punitive damages against the individual defendants, according to proof.

CLAIM FOR RELIEF NUMBER TWO
VIOLATION OF 42 U.S.C. SECTION 1983
(Violation of Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments)
(All defendants)
21. Plaintiffs refer to and incorporates herein by reference the allegations in Paragraphs 1 through 20 above.
22. As direct and proximate result of defendant’s unlawful actions in arresting Plaintiff Clive Frank Boustred punitively and without probable cause as described in detail under factual allegations, defendants deprived Plaintiffs of their Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights to be free from unlawful unreasonable, and/or discriminatory harassment, search and seizure.

23. As a further direct and proximate result of defendants' unlawful actions as herein alleged, Plaintiff Clive Frank Boustred suffered severe physical, emotional stress directly causing damage to Plaintiffs INFOTELESYS, INC. AND GET IT REAL, INC. where Plaintiff Clive Frank Boustred is Principal, President, CEO and Chairman, causing monetary damages including attorneys fees, libel, loss of business, ability to operate and other damages yet to be ascertained, entitling Plaintiff’s to compensation under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 according to proof, as well as reasonable attorneys fees incurred in pursuing these claims under 42 U.S.C. Section 1988.
24. The individual defendants' conduct was not only shocking and outrageous, it was intentional and malicious, or at the least grossly negligent, exhibiting a reckless disregard for Plaintiff’s rights, causing Plaintiff Clive Frank Boustred to suffer humiliation, mental anguish, stress and emotional and physical distress and Plaintiff Clive Frank Boustred was injured in mind and body directly causing damage to Plaintiffs INFOTELESYS, INC. AND GET IT REAL, INC. where Plaintiff Clive Frank Boustred is Principal, President, CEO and Chairman, all to Plaintiff’s damage in amounts according to proof. As such Plaintiff’s are entitled to punitive damages against the individual defendants, according to proof, but not less than:
Medical Costs (preliminary), Vehicle Recovery $1,000
Assault, False Arrest, False Imprisonment $1,000,000
Libel, Slander & infliction of emotional stress $1,000,000
Business Loss (Preliminary) 1,000,000
TOTAL $3,001,000

CLAIM FOR RELIEF NUMBER THREE
(Injunctive Relief)
25. Plaintiff’s refers to and incorporate herein by reference the allegations in Paragraphs 1 through 24 above.
26. As a direct and proximate result of defendants’ actions, as described hereinabove, Plaintiffs have suffered and may continue to suffer irreparable harm. Plaintiff’s constitutional rights are subject to violation at any time at defendants’ discretion.
27. Not only are Plaintiff’s suffering irreparable injury, Plaintiff’s have no plain, speedy or adequate remedy at law, thereby rendering preliminary and permanent injunctions appropriate. Money damages will not adequately compensate Plaintiff’s for the denial of their constitutional and civil liberties and if defendants are not preliminarily and/or permanently enjoined, a multiplicity of lawsuits will be required because defendants’ unlawful conduct is continuous and ongoing and not only affects Plaintiff’s but also others similarly situated.

CLAIM FOR RELIEF NUMBER FOUR
(Failure to Train and Supervise/Maintenance of Unlawful Customs and Policies)

(Against SHERIFFS and CITY)
28. Plaintiff’s refer to and incorporate herein by reference the allegations in Paragraphs 1 through 27 above.
29. At all relevant times herein, the SHERIFFS, DMV, CHP, COUNTY and STATE jointly and as separate entities, developed, encouraged, tolerated and approved the above-described conduct of the individual defendants, and each of them, thereby causing the deprivation of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights.
30. Due to several prior complaints and lawsuits, defendants SHERIFFS, COUNTY, STATE, DMV and CHP are fully informed and aware of the rights of Plaintiff’s. Plaintiff’s allege that the COUNTY, STATE, SHERIFFS, DMV and CHP have a history of harassing, threatening, ticketing and arresting Plaintiff Clive Frank Boustred on baseless charges, and by actively encouraging and acting upon false arrests and malicious prosecution, in order to intimidate and retaliate against Plaintiff’s. And that said history of harassment has directly caused any and all delays in the filing of this case and that defendants continue to deny Plaintiff Clive Frank Boustred even the most rudimentary right to access his own capital so as to be able to afford legal counsel and other basic rights.
31. Defendants COUNTY, STATE, SHERIFFS, DMV and CHP were informed and knew beyond a reasonable doubt that their conduct as described hereinabove was an unconstitutional violation of Plaintiff’s rights. The relevant exemption for political activity is spelled out clearly in the STATE and U.S. code and Constitutions, yet they failed to train and supervise their employees to prevent retaliation and violation of Plaintiff’s rights and maintained their unlawful customs and policies in the face of complaints about and knowledge of the illegality of their conduct. Plainly the supervisory mechanism of the COUNTY, STATE, SHERIFFS, DMV and CHP was not properly engaged to prevent the malicious and continued violation of the First, Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights of individuals and corporations, establishing a custom and policy of harassment and retaliation.
32. Defendants COUNTY, STATE, SHERIFFS, DMV and CHP were either intentionally acting or failing to act, illegally acting or failing to act in a custom or manner pursuant to their policies, and/or were so grossly negligent in their internal training, supervision and discipline of the individually named defendants and unnamed defendants john does 1 to N that they were jointly and separately deliberately indifferent to and demonstrated a reckless disregard toward the violation of federal constitutional rights which was likely to occur and did occur from their policies and customs, all in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

33. Additionally defendants COUNTY, STATE, SHERIFFS, DMV and CHP have displayed deliberate indifference to the rights of citizens and, based upon the principles set forth in Monell v. New York City Separtment of Social Services , 436 U.S. 658 (1978), and are thereby liable for all injuries and damages sustained by Plaintiff’s as set forth in this complaint.
34. The above-described policies and customs were the driving force behind the actions of the individual defendants, supervisors, agents and/or employees of the COUNTY, STATE, SHERIFFS, DMV and CHP resulting in pecuniary and nonpecuniary injury to Plaintiff’s. Said damages were incurred as a direct and proximate result of the acts and omissions of said entity defendants in failing to properly train and supervise their employees and in maintaining unlawful customs and policies.

DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY
35. Plaintiff hereby demands a Trial by Jury on the above cause of action.
36. Pursuant to the 11th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, Trial by Jury is the only manner in which any matter, including pretrial hearings, can be heard in the above cause of action as pursuant to the 11th Amendment there is no Judicial Power in this case since parties to this case are citizens of Nevada who have commenced and prosecuted against the State of California which is a Foreign State according to the 11th:
11th Amendment: “The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.” A judge has no power in this case. Pursuant to the 11th any action or order by a judge in this case is void and of no force and effect.
37. Jury Selection. To maintain impartiality, Plaintiffs demand JURY POOL SELECTION to be randomly taken from the local County of Santa Cruz Telephone Directory and that all parties monitor this Jury selection.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff’s pray for the following relief as to the herein before alleged violations of their civil rights:
A. A judgment awarding Plaintiff’s general, special and damages plus prejudgment interest thereon in amounts according to proof, but not less than;
Medical Costs (preliminary), Vehicle Recovery $1,000
Assault, False Arrest, False Imprisonment $1,000,000
Libel, Slander & infliction of emotional stress $1,000,000
Business Loss (Preliminary) 1,000,000
TOTAL $3,001,000
B. A judgment awarding punitive damages against the individual defendants according to proof;
C. A judgment for injunctive relief to prevent further violation of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights;
D. A judgment awarding Plaintiffs reasonable attorneys fees;
E. A judgment awarding Plaintiffs their costs of suit; and
F. Such other and further relief as the Court deems proper.

Dated: Thursday, January 18, 2007
_____________________
Clive Frank Boustred
Principal and Plaintiff in Propria Persona, Sui Juris.