Liberty For Life Association

     C Jefferson

Liberty For Life

CONTENTS

Support our advertisers

Hire STRATEGIZE.com

The World's Leading Strategic Consultancy

STRATEGIZE CONSULTANCY


The Earth Pan

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

Peopleisim


The Construct of Live & Origin of Everything - Soulisim

Soulisim



MenuVert
Support Adverts it helps cover costs. Ads randomly generated by advertising companies:

ADVERTISE HERE:

 

Motions to dismiss are also simply ignored and denied by the Court. Judge Robert B. Atack who denies the Motions is one of the defendants in the lawsuit Clive is prosecuting against the County.

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

 

THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA CRUZ

 

 

Allegedly “The People of The State of California”

            Vs.

Clive Boustred,

            Defendant,

 

     Santa Cruz Superior Court

     CASE NO’s. F17075, F17078 & M45132

 

MOTION TO DISMISS;

FAILURE BY PROSECUTION TO PROVIDE CRITICAL EVIDENCE;

DEMAND FOR GRAND JURY INDICTMENT;

DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY ONLY.

 

Department: 7

Date: 3/6/2009

Time: 8:30

 

 

 

 

 

Defendant appears by special appearance only.

Defendant has not entered any plea.

Defendant demands to see the 5th Amendment dictated Grand Jury Indictment/Presentment  (Pursuant to CC §22 the Constitution is the highest law in California).

There is no Grand Jury Indictment, Defendant will not enter a plea until he has the opportunity to present to the Grand Jury (A not guilty plea is probably not the plea Defendant would enter to the alleged charges).

Exhibits & the DEMURRER TO COMPLAINT CHARGES PURSUANT TO CPS 1004 (1), (4) & (5) AND THE CONSTITUTION FOR THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA filed on or about February 3, 2009 are included herein by reference.

THE CHARGES ARE DEFECTIVE:

1.   The Real Party of Interest, Sgt. Christine Swannack who Defendant was dealing with at the Sheriffs Department relating to the matters charged is not amongst those bringing charges against Defendant and she has filed no criminal report or affidavit.

2.   The Sheriffs arrested Defendant before serving any related order on Defendant and before the meeting Defendant had setup with Sgt Christine Swannack on Tuesday 9th September to address the court order Judge Robert Atack had issued and the facts that proved way beyond any doubt that the order of Judge Robert Atack issued had been complied to by Defendant.  Defendant provided in writing proof well beyond doubt that Commissioner Irwin Joseph’s order to evict Defendant from Defendant’s homestead was without any legal basis, and the Sheriffs were also advised in this regard by attorney Kate Wells in addition to being advised that Irwin Joseph was the primary defendant in the lawsuit Defendant was actively prosecuting against the County and that Joseph was attempting to have himself dismissed from said lawsuit on the very day he was ordering Defendant evicted from Defendant’s homestead!

 

THE EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE SHERIFFS IS LACKING:

  1. There is no report from Sgt Christine Swannack.
  2. The Sheriffs in their reports refer to recordings of the conversations Defendant had with Sgt. Fred Plageman and Sgt Christine Swannack.  These recording prove Defendant’s innocence and the fact that the charges have no standing. These recordings have not been provided to Defense.
  3. Defense has not been provided any of the video evidence referred to by Prosecution.

 

THIS CASE IS MALICIOUS PROSECUTION. 

1.   Defendant has been unlawfully evicted from his home and homestead without due process by the illegal order of a non qualified officer. Violating Defendants 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th, 11th and 13th Amendments.  In addition to the improperly non-ratified 14th and the 21st repealed 18th Amendments

2.   Defendant has AGAIN been illegally ordered to not communicate with his own children without any hearing or due process also by a non qualified officer.  Violating Defendant and his children’s 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th, and 13th Amendments and committing a extreme and outrageous criminal act of kidnap of Defendant’s children AGAIN!

3.   Defendant has been prevented from accessing his office, safes and evidence at his homestead office which are necessary for defendant to prove his innocence.  Defendant does not even know if said evidence has been stolen by the Prosecution.  Violating Defendant’s 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th, and 13th Amendments.

 

AUTHORITIES

Prosecution having failed to produce any indictment or presentment pursuant to the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution for the United States of America:

Constitution for the United States of America, Article the Seventh [Amendment V] [Grand Jury; Only Tried Once; Remain Silent; Due Process; Just Compensation] [PROPOSED: September 25th, 1789; ratified December 15th, 1791]:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

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,”.

 

CALIFORNIA CODES- CIVIL CODE SECTION 22:

22.  Law is a solemn expression of the will of the supreme power of the State.

22.1.  The will of the supreme power is expressed:

   (a) By the Constitution.    (b) By statutes.

22.2.  The common law of England, so far as it is not repugnant to or inconsistent with the Constitution of the United States, or the Constitution or laws of this State, is the rule of decision in all the courts of this State.

CONSTITUTION FOR THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

Article the third [Amendment I] [Free Speech, Religion, Press & Protests]
[PROPOSED: September 25th, 1789; ratified December 15th, 1791]
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Article the fourth [Amendment II] [Right to Own & Carry Guns/Arms]
[PROPOSED: September 25th, 1789; ratified December 15th, 1791]
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Article the sixth [Amendment IV] [No Search or Seizure Without Probable Cause & Oath/Affirmation]
[PROPOSED: September 25th, 1789; ratified December 15th, 1791]
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Article the eighth [Amendment VI] [Speedy Jury Trial With Counsel & Questioning Accuser for All Criminal Cases Where Crime Committed]
[PROPOSED: September 25th, 1789; ratified December 15th, 1791]
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Article the ninth [Amendment VII] [Right To Unchallenged Trial By Jury Under Common Law]
[PROPOSED: September 25th, 1789; ratified December 15th, 1791]
In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Article the tenth [Amendment VIII] [Reasonable Bail & Punishment]
[PROPOSED: September 25th, 1789; ratified December 15th, 1791]
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Article the eleventh [Amendment IX] [Rights Shall Not Diminish]
[PROPOSED: September 25th, 1789; ratified December 15th, 1791]
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Article the twelfth [Amendment X] [Limitation of Federal Power]
[PROPOSED: September 25th, 1789; ratified December 15th, 1791]
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Article. XI. [Amendment XI] [Only Jury Power in Suits Against State]
[PROPOSED: March 4th, 1794; ratified February 7th, 1795; declared ratified January 8th, 1798]
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.

Article XII [Amendment XIII-I] [Titles of Nobility]
[Proposed 1810; Ratified 1819]
If any Citizen of the United States shall accept, claim, receive or retain any Title of Nobility or Honour, or shall, without the Consent of Congress, accept and retain any present, Pension, Office or Emolument of any kind whatever, from any Emperor, King, Prince or foreign Power, such Person shall cease to be a Citizen of the United States, and shall be incapable of holding any Office of Trust or Profit under them, or either of them.

MOTION & DEMANDS

 

  1. This case, as a matter of law and the most elementary ethics, must be dismissed.
  2. The illegal and criminal orders issued by Irwin Joseph must be set aside
  3. The Stipulated order issued by Judge Robert Atack regarding the custody of Defendant’s children and the payoff of Defendants homestead in 2002 must be enforced.

 

Respectfully submitted and Verified by Special Appearance Only:

VERIFICATION

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 27, 2009__________________________________

Clive Boustred, In Propria Persona Sui Juris


 

MenuVert

The Earth Plan's Peopleisim  is THE Solution to the Worlds Problems do IT!
It's time to shut down the Pedophiles & Lucifer Worshipers who sacrifice children - please visit & support Veterans For Child Rescue.
Liberty For Life can not endorse any adverts below as they are randomly generated by advertising companies.