Following legal procedure, Clive files the following Demure against the Santa Cruz DA. The Court simply ignores it and continues without any 5th Amendment mandated Grand Jury Indictment or Presentment. Clearly these Courts are a law unto themselves.
THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA CRUZ
This case involves a divorce case that has been blown out of control by a divorce case respondent and her lawyer who have repeatedly utilized law enforcement to assault Defendant. Starting with the first false CPS & 911 calls in 2002 for which Defendant’s ex-wife, Respondent Anamaria Boustred was ordered out of the family home on July 12, 2002 by the Honorable Judge Robert B. Atack, Exhibit A. Said divorce case Respondent and her Lawyer Vicky Pary have consistently continued a strategy to ‘employ’ law enforcement to further their goals.
This case was filed against Defendant in order to allow his ex-wife and her lawyer, Vicky Parry to steal Defendant’s home and as a retaliatory measure against Defendant by the Santa Cruz Sheriff’s, District Attorney, Commissioner Irwin H. Joseph, and Defendant’s ex and her Lawyer Vicky Parry who Defendant was suing for outrageous offences committed against Defendant and his children.
It was Anamaria Boustred’s false 911 call on March 10, 2003 which resulted in Santa Cruz Sheriff’s Shooting Instructor, Deputy Michael MacDonald, literally shooting, without provocation or any lawful reason at Mr. Clive Boustred with Mr. Boustred’s three and seven year old son’s in the Deputy’s direct line of fire. Following this extraordinary assault on Mr. Boustred and his children by the Santa Cruz Sheriff’s, Mr. Boustred has been consistently, outrageously and maliciously prosecuted by Santa Cruz County Sheriffs and District Attorney office.
Prosecution having failed to produce any indictment and Defendant having entered no plea, Defendant demurrers to the complaint as the charges are defective on their face and insufficient to establish a prima-facia evidence. The charges do not meet the elements nor conform to the governing statutes, pursuant to California Penal Code 1004(1),(4) & (5) or the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution for the United States of America.
PC §1004. The defendant may demur to the accusatory pleading at any time prior to the entry of a plea, when it appears upon the face thereof either:
(1). If an indictment, that the grand jury by which it was found had no legal authority to inquire into the offense charged, or, if any information or complaint that the court has no jurisdiction of the offense charged therein;
(4). That the facts stated do not constitute a public offense;
(5). That it contains matter which, if true, would constitute a legal justification or excuse of the offense charged, or other legal bar to the prosecution.
Prosecution claims in COUNT 1, F17078, that Defendant “On or about 09/02/2008 and 09/03/2008, in the above named Judicial District, the crime of RESISTING EXECUTIVE OFFICER, in violation of PENAL CODE SECTION 69, a Felony, was committed by CLIVE FRANK BOUSTRED, who did unlawfully attempt by means of threats and violence to deter and prevent Sheriff Steve Robbins, Sgt. Fred Plageman, and Sgt Christine Swannack who each was then and there an executive officer, from performing a duty imposed upon such officer by law, and did knowingly resist by the use of force and violence said executive officer in the performance of his/her duty.”
There are no facts supporting the Prosecutions’ claim.
To the contrary to the charges, Defendant went out of his way to communicate and provide the Santa Cruz Sheriffs with information and facts relating to the void nature of the order issued by Commissioner IRWIN H. JOSEPH evicting Defendant from Defendant’s home and homestead on the day IRWIN H. JOSEPH was attempting to have himself dismissed from the lawsuit Defendant had filed against IRWIN H. JOSEPH - See Exhibit H which includes 15 separate legal reasons by Commissioner IRWIN H. JOSEPH’S eviction order was void and of no legal force which Defendant emailed to the Santa Cruz Sheriffs on Wed 9/3/2008.
Defendant clearly went out of his way to peacefully cooperate with the Santa Cruz Sheriffs. To suggest anything to the contrary is insane!
Following emailing the Santa Cruz Sheriffs extensive evidence proving the order evicting Defendant from his home and homestead was void, Defendant had setup a meeting with the Santa Cruz Sheriffs to fully discuss the issue and attorney Ms. Wells also contacted and communicated with the Santa Cruz Sheriffs in this regard. The Santa Cruz Sheriffs scheduled a meeting on Tuesday September the 9th for Defendant to sit down with them to discuss Commissioner Joseph’s illegal eviction order. The Santa Cruz Sheriffs arrested Defendant on Saturday September 6th before the date they had scheduled to meet with Defendant in regard to the Commissioner’s unlawful eviction order!
Furthermore, the Defendant was not present when the Commissioner issued the illegal order and Defendant had never been served the order – the Sheriffs arrested Defendant before he had even been served the order – a fact the Sheriffs were aware of as they had discussed this on the phone with the Defendant!
Prosecution claims in COUNT 2 (F17075): “On of about 09/02/2008, in the above named Judicial District, the crime of DISOBEYING COURT ORDER, in violation of PENAL CODE SECTION 166(a)(4), a Misdemeanor, was committed by CLIVE FRANK BOUSTRED, who did unlawfully commit contempt of court by willful disobedience of a process and order lawfully issued by a court, to wit, Family Law Findings and Order after Hearing, FL 16028.”
Commissioner IRWIN H. JOSEPH does not have subject jurisdiction in said Family Law case FL 16028 not only because Mr. Boustred never gave IRWIN H. JOSEPH any such subject matter jurisdiction as required by law, but because Mr. Boustred specifically limited IRWIN H. JOSEPH’S jurisdiction to one and only one factor and that being the return of Mr. Boustred’s passport. In all hearings IRWIN H. JOSEPH ignored Mr. Boustred’s demand for a qualified Judge – it should be judicially noticed that said Commissioner has acted in a similar fashion in many other Family Court cases Defendant has been made aware of.
Said order issued by Commissioner IRWIN H. JOSEPH to evict Defendant from Defendant’s home on the very day Commissioner IRWIN H. JOSEPH was attempting to have himself dismissed from the United States District Court Case C08 00546 Defendant was in the process of prosecuting against Commissioner IRWIN H. JOSEPH, is clearly not only a void order, it is a criminal act by said Commissioner which not only shocks the conscience it violates fundamental homestead laws and completely disregards a lawful Stipulated Order issued by a qualified Judge the Honorable Judge Robert B. Atack.
See the following Exhibits for proof:
EXHIBIT A: Stipulated Court Orders of August 13, 2002; Judy 12 and 31, 2002 representing a final judgment and the payout of respondent for the home at 210 Suncrest Dr. in August of 2002. Note this is also the only lawful Custody order regarding Petitioner’s children
EXHIBIT D: Commissioner Irwin H. Joseph’s first attempt to issue an illegal order to evict Petitioner from his Homestead and office. Note the day the Commissioner orders the eviction is the very day the Commissioner is attempting to have himself dismissed from the lawsuit Petitioner filed against the Commissioner (May 23, 2008) – see Exhibit E. The Sheriffs agreed this order was void. Petitioner provided the court proof of payout of the home to his ex wife in compliance with the July 31, 2002 Stipulated Order. Mr. Boustred’s room mate, Amy Miller (who was in critical condition in hospital at the time of the hearing, about which Joseph was noticed), however took the illegal order seriously and moved out of Mr. Boustred’s home as soon as she go out of hospital, Amy died two months later.
EXHIBIT E: U.S. District Court Case C08 00546 where Joseph attempted to have himself dismissed from the case Defendant was prosecuting against him on May 23, 2008
EXHIBIT F: Commissioner Irwin H. Joseph’s second attempt to issue an order to evict Petitioner from his Homestead. Note the Santa Cruz Sheriffs falsely arrested Petitioner four days before they scheduled a meeting with Petitioner to discuss the order. They held Petitioner on a $200,000 bail while the Commissioner had another hearing in an attempt to have himself dismissed from the case Petitioner filed against the Commissioner. See Exhibit G.
EXHIBIT G: U.S. District Court Case C08 00546 where Joseph attempted again to have himself dismissed from the case while Petitioner was held under false arrest with bail set at $200,000 -see Exhibit H.
EXHIBIT H: Email and proof sent to sheriffs that Irwin Joseph’s eviction order was utterly void and an illegal and a criminal act by said Commissioner.
The Commissioner’s other orders barring Defendant from communicating with Defendant’s children, Exhibit I, and barring Defendant “from providing any evidence, oral or documentary, as to any claim he has or may advance regarding this right to be reimbursed by the Respondent relative to any issue.” and Waver of Rule 3.1312 Exhibit J, illustrate how completely out of control and vindictive this Commissioner is.
The Prosecution claims in COUNT 1 (F17078): “On or about 0906/2008, in the above named Judicial District, the crime of UNLAWFUL ASSAULT WEAPON ACTIVITY, in violation of PENAL COD SECTION 12280(a)(1), a Felony, was committed by CLIVE FRANK BOUSTRED, who did unlawfully transport a Colt Car-3. Hbar Elite, .223 caliber, assault rifle.”
Defendant was not involved in any Assault Weapon Activity. Like any good dad, Defendant was taking his son’s target shooting with Defendants lawfully purchased and licensed 223 caliber target rifle! All of Petitioner’s arms were purchased more than a decade ago lawfully from licensed gun shops. It should be judicially noticed that Petitioner clearly does not intend to use his arms for any purpose other than shooting with his children and target shooting which Petitioner, a qualified shooting instructor, has done for all his life.
The Prosecution claims in COUNT 2 (F17078): “On or about 0906/2008, in the above named Judicial District, the crime of CARRYING A LOADED FIREARM IN A VEHICLE IN A CITY, in violation of PENAL CODE SECTION 12301(a)(1), a Felony, was committed by CLIVE FRANK BOUSTRED, who did unlawfully carry a loaded firearm in a vehicle, while on a public street, in prohibited areas of the county of Santa Cruz. It is further alleged, pursuant to section 12031(a)(2)(a), that the defendant was previously convicted of a felony offense.”
Defendant was not carrying a loaded firearm in a vehicle in a city. This charge is similar to the false charge the Sheriffs accused Defendant of when they shot at Defendant and his children and accused Defendant of “assault with a deadly weapon”! Defendant has not been lawfully convicted or committed of any felony.
The day the Sheriffs shot at Mr. Boustred and his children, to cover up, the Sheriffs accused Mr. Boustred of driving at an alleged 40mph down his private road, which is not a crime. NETCOM evidence proved Mr. Boustred drove at 27mph and slower on that day, yet it is this fact that the prosecution is claiming is the so-called Felony Defendant was outrageously and fraudulently charged with and given a sham trial for – Defendant welcomes the opportunity to re-visit this outrageous charge. Based on the allegation, every person who drives at 27mph down a private road is a felon! Defendant is not a felon and considers such an allegation extreme and outrageous slander and libel.
The Santa Cruz Sheriffs who shot at Mr. Boustred not only made up false charges to file against Mr. Boustred consisting of two Felonies and two Misdemeanors, they also made up a false reason to ‘chase’ Mr. Boustred in the first place see EXHIBIT K where the Sheriffs falsely charge Mr. Boustred of a Felony Kidnap! However, the DA and Sheriffs never prosecuted Mr. Boustred for the Felony Kidnap Mr. Boustred never committed, instead they themselves committed the Felony Kidnap of Mr. Boustred’s children!
Relating to the Sheriffs shooting at Mr. Boustred, Mr. Boustred was given a completely sham trial by a Judge in bad standing who was rated by the Judicial Nominations Committee as “Not Qualified”. In said trial, Mr. Boustred was prevented from submitting any evidence that proved his innocence – for the Opening Brief incorporating extensive evidence and proof regarding said sham trial see http://www.libertyforlife.com/abuseopening_brief_SC-Danner.htm, incorporated herein by reference.
When the United States District Court issued and Order to Show Cause as to why Mr. Boustred was found guilty of a Felony for traveling at 27mph or an alleged 40mph down his private road with no other vehicles or people on the road, Santa Cruz County responded with a “Notice of Non Interest” EXVIBIT L, voiding said trial, charges and claims by the County.
Clearly driving safely at 27 mph down a private road is not a Felony and Mr. Boustred is not a Felon. However, Mr. Boustred has been denied any fair hearing since the Sheriffs Shot at him, save the Honorable Judge Robert B. Atack dismissing two other outrageous possibly also ‘divorce related’ suits filed against Mr. Boustred and the Honorable Judge Sigel dismissing another false case maliciously prosecuted against Defendant.
Prosecution’s claim that Mr. Boustred is a felon and has been lawfully convicted of a Felony will clearly not meet the standards necessary to constitute a public offense and will show any jury the simple fact that the Santa Cruz Sheriffs have been maliciously prosecuting Defendant ever since they shot at Defendant and his children.
The same argument and failure to state facts that constitute any public offence apply to the remaining COUNTS filed against Defendant in F17078:
The Prosecution claims in COUNT 3 (F17078): “On or about 0906/2008, in the above named Judicial District, the crime of POSSESSION OF FIREARM BY A FELON, in violation of PENAL CODE SECTION 12021, (A)(1) a Felony, was committed by CLIVE FRANK BOUSTRED, who did unlawfully own, possess, purahase, receive, and have custody and control of the following firearms: 1) Colt Car-3 Hbar Elite, .223 caliber assault rifle, 2) Springfield Armory, V 10, .45 caliber pistol, 3) Cal Webley, Army model revolver, .455/.476 caliber, and, 4) Mossberg, 12 gage shotgun, model 5500 MK 2, the said Defendant having theretofore been duly and legally convicted of a felony”
The Prosecution claims in COUNT 4 (F17078): “On or about 0906/2008, in the above named Judicial District, the crime of POSSESSION OF AMMUNITION, in violation of PENAL CODE SECTION 12316(b)(1) a Felony, was committed by CLIVE FRANK BOUSTRED, who did unlawfully own, possess and have under control ammunition and reloaded ammunition.
Defendant had never been served the order
In regard to Case number M45132, with the extraordinary breadth of malicious prosecutions filed against Defendant, Defendant is not exactly sure what he is being charged with in this case. When officers stopped the vehicle Defendant was a passenger in on or about 7/21/2008 relating to the charges in M45132, once the officers learned Mr. Boustred’s name and were falsely advised by a Santa Cruz Sheriff that Mr. Boustred was guilty of a “Felony Child Endangerment” (yet more fabrications by Santa Cruz Sheriffs), Defendant, a passenger in the vehicle, was singled out from the other passengers and arrested and charged with being “drunk in public”. Mr. Boustred was neither drunk nor in public. None of the other five passengers or the driver were charged or arrested as they too had committed no crime.
It should be Judicially noted that when Mr. Boustred enquired of the officers who were arresting him what the MENS REA, ACTUS REUS or CORPUS DELICTI he was being accused of was, the officers where utterly unfamiliar with these three most basic elements that are necessary to make up a crime. According to the officers, they had never even heard of the terms before and were still clueless when Mr. Boustred explained the terms as Act, Intent and Damage (perhaps the officers were drunk?). It appears that we have armed officers who have no clue as to the three fundamental and mandatory elements of a crime roaming the street arresting people the Sheriff’s don’t like. Perhaps the prosecution believes that asking officers the reason why one is being singled out and arrested for no apparent reason is “obstructing / delaying a peace officer”, an officer who has absolutely no clue as to the most fundamental and basic elements of the law are?
By failing to provide any facts substantiating the underlying claim that Defendant “did knowingly resist by the use of force and violence”, when Defendant was peacefully and actively cooperating with the Sheriffs over the telephone and email and provided the Sheriffs with extensive evidence (Exhibit H) regarding proof that Commissioner IRWIN H. JOSEPH’S void order evicting Defendant from Defendant’s homestead on the day JOSEPH was attempting to have himself dismissed from the case Defendant was actively prosecuting against JOSEPH (Exhibit B), the prosecution has failed to state any facts constituting a public offence and the entire case is undermined and constitutes no public offence.
The Sheriffs had no right nor any legal basis to obtain a warrant to arrest Defendant who had not even been served the illegal order he was being accused of disobeying. Defendant fully cooperated with and communicated with and setup a meeting with the Sheriffs to discuss the order Defendant had not been served. The Sheriffs arrested Defendant before said meeting or service of said order on Defendant.
The Sheriffs had no warrant or right to search Defendant’s vehicle or home, neither did they have any decency to sit in ambush for Defendant when Defendant went to pick up his little boys who are so desperate to see their dada as Defendant is to see his sons. Defendant was arrested away from and outside of his locked vehicle (The sheriffs took Defendant’s key’s from Defendant after Defendant was being transported to the Santa Cruz Jail so as to go back and search Defendants vehicle. After arresting Defendant, the Sheriffs falsely arrested Defendant’s room mate at Defendant’s home and held him on a six hour hold in jail, they then broke into Defendant’s home while assisting Defendant’s ex-wife to trespass on and steal evidence from Defendants home and homestead and gave possession of Defendant’s home and homestead to Defendant’s ex-wife who was paid off in full pursuant to the Stipulated Court Order issued by the Honorable Judge Robert B. Atack on August 13, 2002 by Defendant, said order having also been served on the Sheriffs – Exhibit H).
It should also be judicially noticed that Defendant has been forced to pay $200,000 in bail to the Santa Cruz Sheriffs – As a consequence of the Santa Cruz Sheriffs and District Attorney’s ongoing malicious prosecution, Defendant has finally been forced into bankruptcy. However, spread with the costs of defending himself, finding a place to live, having his businesses wiped out, again, Defendant has not been able to afford a Bankruptcy attorney and his bankruptcy case was dismissed (inexplicitly according to the bankruptcy Trustee).
Commissioner IRWIN H. JOSEPH has apparently issued another void order to authorized a clerk to sign away Defendant’s rights to Defendant’s home and homestead in violation of the Stipulated Court Order issued by the Honorable Judge Robert B. Atack and JOSEPH issued an order to set aside the Honorable Judge Robert B. Atack’s order.
The facts stated in these cases do not constitute a public offense and the matters contained therein, which, if true, constitute legal justification or excuse of the so-called offenses charged in addition to other legal bar’s to the prosecution such as the fact that the Santa Cruz District Attorney and many of the Santa Cruz Sheriff’s colleagues are or have been defendants in cases Defendant prosecuted against them, thereby preventing said Sheriff’s and District Attorney from obtaining subject matter jurisdiction over Defendant as they clearly and blatantly have reasons to be biased against Defendant.
Article the seventh [Amendment V], of the Constitution for the United States of America dictates that “No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury”. The prosecution has produced no indictment of any Grand Jury against Defendant. This case must be dismissed as it fails to meet the mandate of the 5th Amendment.
In a 1906 Supreme Court Case, [Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43 (1906)], the Supreme Court recognized that the Grand Jury function is to “stand between the prosecutor and the accused,” and to determine whether a charge is legitimate, or is “dictated by malice or personal ill will”. In another Supreme Court Case, [United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338 (1974)], the Supreme Court stated that the independent grand jury’s purpose is not only to investigate possible criminal conduct, but to act as a “protector of citizens against arbitrary and oppressive governmental action,”.
Pursuant to PC §1004 (1), (4) & (5), in the interests of justice, especially considering the outrageous slew of malicious prosecutions that have been frivolously filed under the color of law against Defendant, these 7th, 8th and 9th malicious prosecutions against Defendant should be dismissed. After all, should a man have to be put through such hell to get divorced from his adulterous wife who takes off with his former Personal Assistant?
Let it be judicially noticed that Defendant has had his career and companies wiped out, and his children and home taken from him and handed to the man who reported daily to Defendant as Defendant’s Personal Assistant, a man who by the only lawful Stipulated Court order in Defendant’s divorce case, is bared from any contact with Defendant’s children. Yet it is Defendant who is now unlawfully barred by from any contact with Defendant’s young sons. Defendant could not even wish his sons Happy Christmas and he could not even wish is son happy 9th birthday this last Wednesday. Is this what the Santa Cruz Superior Court, Santa Cruz District Attorney and Sheriffs want to be recognized for?
I, Clive Boustred, am a Party in the above-entitled action. I have read the foregoing Document(s), Affidavit(s), Declaration(s), and/or Materials, Id., including referenced and/or attached documents, and/or duplicates of such documents and know the contents thereof. The same is true of my own knowledge, except as to those matters which are therein alleged on information and belief, and as to those matters, I believe it to be true. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America and the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief, and that I have executed this Declaration at Santa Cruz California
Date: February 3, 2009 __________________________________
Clive Boustred, In Propria Persona Sui Juris