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:

 

Motion To Dismiss A Criminal, Judge Michael E. Barton

DAVID J. BEAUVAIS (SB#84275)

1904 Franklin Street, Suit 800

Oakland, CA 94612

 

 

THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA CRUZ

 

 

 

People of California v. Clive Boustred

 

           

CASE No.  F17075 and F17078__

 

MOTION TO DISMIS JUDGE MICHAEL E. BARTON PURSUANT TO CCP SECTIONS: 170.1 (a) (1); 170.1 (a) (3); 170.1 (a) (3) (B); 170.1 (a) (6) (A); 170.1 (a) (6) (B); 170.1 (a) (6) (C);  170.3 (a) (1); 170.3 (a) (2); 170.3 (b) (2) (A); 170.3 (b) (2) (B); 170.3 (c) (2); 170.3 (c) (5) and 170.4 (d).

 

 

 

            COMES NOW THE PETITIONER Clive Boustred to exercise his right to the peremptory challenge of the dishonorable, degenerate, depraved and disgustingly disgraceful Judge Michael E. Barton, who has been assigned in a clear and convincing conspiracy to hear the above entitled malicious prosecution and SLAP suit designed to silence the crimes committed by Micalel E. Barton himself and assigned by the equally disgusting and guilty Robert B. Atack in his conspiracy with Barton, Stevens, Joseph, Lee, Danner, Drottar, Symons, Tracy, Robins, MacDonald and other co-conspirators in the assassination attempt and cover-up of said assassination attempt of Mr. Clive Boustred which occurred on March 10, 2003 as Mr. Boustred who was and has always followed the law, was returning home form the Santa Cruz ‘Superior’ Court house when these filthy criminals conspired to murder Mr. Boustred. 

These cases mark the 8th and 9th malicious prosecutions that have been carried out, well, one can’t say under the ‘color of law’ since the law does not provide such a colorful spectrum, to consider these prosecutions as even remotely obtaining any color under the law status would suggest an invisible color spectrum at law that goes beyond anything we know of in the universe, these cases are simply and basically flat out criminal acts committed out in the open by these ‘officials’.

One must ask what sort of a judge would order a dad to not be allowed to communicate with his little boys after the cops tried to murder the dad in front of his little boys? Or what sort of a judge would order that a grandfather not communicate with his grandchildren after the grandfather flew across three continents to see his son and grandchildren after the cops tried to murder his son in front of his grand children?  Surely such an act committed by any judge would class that judge as one of the filthiest lowlife kidnapping criminals and scumbags of the lowest ilk ever fond in the Court system.  Such a man is Michel E. Barton.  Lower level scum is hardly found in any corner of the planet.

Certainly there is far more integrity found behind bars than behind Michel E. Barton’s bench.  It is lowlife scumbags like Michael E. Barton who are establishing such utter and complete disgust, disregard and contempt for the judiciary in the United States of America.  Respect for the law and court is clearly far from Barton’s vocabulary and acts.  King George whom our Founder’s expelled from the continent was not as bad as Barton.

Let it be Judicially Noticed that this band of filthy criminals have again kidnapped Mr. Boustred’s children and literally stolen Mr. Boustred’s home while demanding $200,000 in bail!

Please, if expressive adjectives perhaps distort the reader of this document’s reality, what meaning does one put on a speeding bullet?  It is imperative for the reader of this document to comprehend and understand that there is no denial by the sheriffs, judges, DA or anyone that on March 10, 2003, without any lawful reason or any remotely reasonable right, Deputy Michael MacDonald the Shooting Instructor for the Santa Cruz Sheriffs, from a point bland range of 5 to 7 feet shot at Mr. Boustred with Mr. Boustred’s three and seven year old sons in the direct line of fire.  So please, consider that this pleading to kick a filthy criminal from unfairly presiding over any hearing or trial of Mr. Boustred is hardly unreasonable.

Let it also be Judicially Noted that Clive Boustred has the highest respect for the Law and Court and regularly quotes with the highest regard authorities and honorable justices who laid the foundations of law in the land.  Mr. Boustred has patiently and politely come before other Santa Cruz Superior Court Judges without objection.  The band of criminals who are prosecuting this SLAP case against Mr. Boustred have earned contempt.

On or about July 17, 2009, looking like some psychopathic and insane moron with red boils all over his forehead, the dishonorable and disgusting Judge Robert B. Atack provided even more solid and resounding proof of the conspiracy that exists in Santa Cruz Superior Court to shut down an innocent man whom the Santa Cruz Sheriffs attempted to murder in front of the his children, namely Mr. Clive Boustred.  Robert B. Atack, a key defendant in the IN UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION Case Number 08 00546 “Boustred verses Santa Cruz” (which names Robert B. Atack, Samuel S. Stevens, Irwin H. Joseph, Bob Lee and Michael E. Barton as defendants), after acting with complete disregard to his office, the Court and the law, with complete bias, handed these malicious SLAP cases against Mr. Boustred to his co-conspirator and colleague in crime Michael E. Barton.  What better proof could one ask for to confirm the conspiracy?

Clearly these criminals of the Santa Cruz ‘Superior’ Court lack the mental power to perceive that their actions will only further incriminate themselves and show them off to be what they are, a band of filthy criminals acting under the color of law to cover up the assassination attempt and cover up thereof of an innocent man and the kidnap of the mans children, destruction of his businesses and theft of his home.

To illustrate the sheer and utter moronic or imbecilic behavior of this cabal of criminals in Santa Cruz who have conspired to destroy a man whose work promised to save the Untied States and World from repeated depressions, wars and genocide, one simply has to compare dates. Commissioner Irwin H. Joseph, a failed real estate lawyer, desperate to be a judge, failed to obtain any proper accession to his general jurisdiction over Mr. Boustred, naturally found himself as the primary defendant in the ongoing lawsuit Mr. Boustred was prosecuting against Santa Cruz County.  Joseph issued a blatantly and totally illegal order to evict Mr. Boustred from Mr. Boustred’s home on the very same day Joseph filed to get himself dismissed from the lawsuit Mr. Boustred was prosecuting against him, Barton, Atack and Stevens.  Further proof of this blatant conspiracy is provided at http://www.libertyforlife.com/abuse/commissioner_irwin_josephs_crimes.htm incorporated herein by reference as one and part of this Declaration and Motion as is all the information and pages linked from http://www.libertyforlife.com/abuse/irwin_joseph.htm

These malicious SLAP cases against Mr. Boustred reflect the same outrageous charges one of Santa Cruz’s most outrageous criminal, Bob Lee, filed against Mr. Boustred after the Santa Cruz Sheriffs shot at Mr. Boustred and his children.  Lee accused Mr. Boustred of “assault with a deadly weapon” and “child endangerment.  Now Lee, who’s Sheriffs clearly should not be in the possession of any weapon, accuses Mr. Boustred a qualified military instructor of owning guns Mr. Boustred purchased lawfully.  Lee’s entire case is based on a claim that driving safely at 27 mph down a private road is a felony and that the sheriffs have the right to place people under false arrest and break into their homes and vehicles without search warrants.

This motion however is not to fight these outrageous cases, this motion is to show beyond any reasonable doubt that there is reason to believe that Michael E. Barton is not able to give Mr. Boustred a fair hearing or trial.  Judge Michel Barton has repeatedly violated my rights under the law and acted with significant bias against myself:

 

 

1.      I have produced and distributed a full length movie called the Dot.Bomb Conspiracy (attached) in which I openly accuse Michael E. Barton of being a filthy criminal who kidnapped my children.  The DVD exposes the extreme and outrageous criminal acts committed by Michael E. Barton against my sons and I.  Thousands of copies of the Dot.Bomb Conspiracy have been distributed throughout Santa Cruz and also filed in Court.  It is impossible to believe that Barton is not aware of the DVD I have made uncovering and publishing the extreme and outrageous criminal acts he has committed against my sons and I.

2.      Judge Michael Barton has been disqualified from three directly related cases stemming from an incident where a Santa Cruz Deputy Sheriff shot at my children and I: Santa Cruz Superior Court Cases F 06858, FL-16028 and CV 145884.

3.      I sent five thousand Christmas cards to families in Santa Cruz publically accusing Michael E. Barton of kidnapping my children and giving me sham trials and hearings and for breaking the law.

4.      I have sued Barton before in Federal Court, successfully as Barton refused to make any appearance in those cases wherein I was entitled to a summary judgment against Barton.  However, colleagues of Barton have attempted to unlawfully dismiss said cases and have refused to follow the law.  I will be suing Barton again and am in the process of preparing a lawsuit against the county, this time using a number of lawyers.  Barton is a key defendant in that pending lawsuit.

5.      I publish the www.libertyforlife.com website where I get around one million hits per month.  Multiple pages on the website directly refer to Michael E. Barton who I call a filthy criminal and a “lowlife scumbags of the worst ilk in our County” and refer to Barton’s acts as “heinous and evil”.  Approximately 30 different pages publically accuse Barton of being a filthy criminal some of these include:

·         http://www.libertyforlife.com/abuse/irwin_joseph.htm:

“The Santa Cruz Court’s criminal behavior shocks the conscience.  They issue clearly illegal emergency orders handing Clive’s children to Tichatschke who is a self confessed drug addict, sex addict and was apparently linked to child pornography, while Judges Stevens, Barton, Attack, and Commissioner Joseph and the Sheriffs kidnap Clive’s children and order that Clive not communicate in any way at all with his own children.  These criminals acting under the color of law are clearly lowlife scumbags of the worst ilk in our County.”

“Perhaps we will simply arrest Barton, Atack, Stevens, Joseph and Bob Lee after we form Grand Juries to indict them”

“So many people have been damaged by these criminals who wear black nighties in our court's that it's time to call all of us together and to indict criminals like Lee, Atack, Stevens, Barton and Joseph.”

“Michael E. Barton.  Barton is the man who kidnapped Clive’s children after the Sheriffs attempted to murder Clive in front of his boys in 2003”

·         http://www.libertyforlife.com/abuse/mp_clive_3sc.html:

“However, the most heinous and evil assault against Mr. Boustred was concocted by Santa Cruz Superior Court Judge Michael E. Barton.  Barton ordered that Mr. Boustred not communicate with his sons Richard and William for three years!  Of all the terrible crimes committed against Mr. Boustred the kidnap of his children by the state has been the most cruel and devastating.  The government took the children and handed them to the very person who lied to setup the police ambush and murder attempt and to Tichatschke who was barred by court order from contact with the children.”

·         http://www.libertyforlife.com/abuse/story_of_lfl.htm:

accuses Barton of being a “Criminal on the Bench” of kidnapping Mr. Boustred’s children – the page shows the Christmas Card that was sent to 5,000 Santa Cruz Residents also accusing Barton of being a criminal.

·         http://www.libertyforlife.com/abuse/2003_03_10tro.htm:

“Judge Michael E. Barton rushed in to commit more outrageous acts against Clive and his children after the sheriffs shot at Clive with Clive's children in the direct line of fire.  Barton immediately ordered that Clive not communicate with his children.”

·         http://www.libertyforlife.com/tlc/index.htm:

“Judge Samuel S. Stevens, Barton and Commissioner Irwin Joseph refused to set aside the clearly unlawful court orders that amount to nothing less than blatant and violent kidnap by State of Clive's children.  Clive sued those judges, however, they all claimed that they were above the law and not accountable.”

·         http://www.libertyforlife.com/abuse/mp_clive_1sc.html:

“Judge Michael E. Barton ordered that Clive not be allowed to communicate with Richard and William, who lived with Clive, for three years!  Despite all the facts proving Clive's innocence being brought before Barton, Barton repeatedly refused to remove the order that Clive not communicate with his children.  Barton even went as far as to deny Richard and Williams grandfather from talking to his grandchildren!  The Sheriffs and Court handed the children to their mother, who made the false 911 call, and to her lover, Steffan Tichatschke (Clive's former Personal Assistant).  The fact that a lawful Stipulated Order barred Tichatschke from contact with Richard or William was of no importance to the Sheriffs, DA or Court.  In a letter to Anamaria, Tichatschke states regarding himself: “Through frequent beatings I found that the best way to achieve things was by being deceptive. I was rebellious and learned how to lie…. I fled into Alcohol and Sex. I was literally addicted to sex and pornography. When I came to the US marijuana was added to the mix. …… I learned that being smart and selfish is a way to get through life pretty well and conveniently”.

·         http://www.libertyforlife.com/tlc/tro-ch120-3.htm: 

“This behavior is particularly interesting as it parallels the criminal behavior of Judge Michael E. Barton who literally kidnapped Clive's children so as to silence Clive after the Santa Cruz Sheriffs assassination attempt of Clive on March 10, 2003 failed.”

 

6.      On March 10, 2003, Judge Barton ignored the Temporary Restraining Orders I filed in court seeking protection from my wife and her adulterer’s continued setup attempts where my wife and her adulterer were calling the sheriff on me by making false accusations in order to aid her divorce position.  Later that day, as a direct result of my wife’s false allegations, a deputy sheriff shot at my children and I.  The only reason my boys and I are alive today is because the deputy missed when he shot at us.

7.      Judge Barton denied my right to a Temporary Restraining Order when I in fact I needed such an order and instead Judge Barton issued a TRO to the very persons perpetrating false accusations against me that caused the sheriffs to terrorize my boys and I and to even shoot at my boys and I.

8.      Judge Barton also ignored the most basic form of appeal, the Habeas Corpus I filed while I was falsely incarcerated on or about March 11, 2003, where I was seeking protection from malicious sheriffs and District Attorneys office who filed false charges against me to cover up the malpractice of shooting at my children and I.

9.      On March 12, 2003, without malicious and criminal intent to cause serious emotional harm and parental alienation, without any good cause, Judge Barton ordered that I not communicate with my children for three years!  Barton issued said CLETS order without lawful authority or any lawful reason.  The intent of Barton was to damage me and silence me so that Barton’s employer and colleagues would not be held liable for criminal acts they committed against me.

10.  On April 23, 2003, when I brought an ex parte hearing before the court to remove Judge Barton’s order barring me from communicating with my children, the judge presiding over that case, Judge Stevens, was away on an emergency so the hearing was brought in front of Judge Barton. Judge Barton refused to act in the interests of my boys and denied that Richard 7, and William 3, be allowed to communicate with their father and be returned to their home despite significant evidence being submitted to the court proving that I am a loving and protective father and that the allegations made against me were false.

11.  Also without any legal basis, Judge Barton even refused to let my father, who flew out here from South Africa, see his grand children.

12.  Judge Barton allowed or arranged for Deputy Brozozowski, who was one of the deputies who assaulted me in my garage on March 10, 2003 after the Santa Cruz Sheriffs attempted to murder me by shooting at me, to be in court during hearings.  I was denied any right to file Pitches Motions against Brozozowski.

13.  When I asked Barton on what basis he made the decision to prevent me from seeing my boys, Barton responded by stating that he was not qualified to rule on the matter and that it needed to go before Judge Stevens a Judge who in 1997 attempted to steal my land and trees on my property 17445 Bear Creek Road, Boulder Creek CA.

14.  When I sought another ex parte hearing on Friday 25th April 2003 before Judge Stevens, based on Barton’s own recommendations, and Judge Stevens was again unavailable, I was returned to Judge Barton who again denied my legal rights and ordered that I pay my wife $500 in sanctions for calling another ex parte hearing even though Judge Barton himself had advised me to this degree.

15.  Barton has committed perjury on a number of occasions in my cases.  He submitted a declaration under oath claiming that he has not been dismissed from my cases when he had been.  Barton denied any knowledge of the Temporary Restraining Order I filed the morning before the Santa Cruz Sheriffs attempted to murder me in front of my children despite being repeatedly made aware of the TRO by myself in court and by pleadings filed in his court.  There is no reasonable way Barton could not have been aware of these issues, his so-called lack of knowledge is either fraudulent or Judge Barton has such a short term memory that he is certainly not fit to preside over any case.

16.  After I successfully filed a recusal of Judge Samuel S. Stevens in case Santa Cruz Superior Court CASE NO. M19946, Judge Barton assigned the case to himself.  Judge Barton denied my right to hearing of my Motions To Dismiss that Case.  When the false charges laid against me in Case M 19946 were dropped at a pretrial hearing, Judge Barton refused me any costs associated with that case, amongst many other costs, my costs for example included over $2,000 I had to pay to recover my vehicle after the Santa Cruz Sheriffs illegally impounded it off my church’s private parking lot.

17.  Judge Michael Barton has repeatedly violated my rights under the law and acted with significant bias against myself.

 

I have substantial evidence showing that a conspiracy exists between Judges Barton, Steven, Atack, Simons, former Danner and Commissioner Joseph in addition to members of the Sheriffs department, District Attorneys office, Planning Department and Board of Supervisors.  This band of criminals has actively engaged in swindling people out of their money, property and possessions in Santa Cruz.  They are subject to a number of lawsuits in this regard.  When one of them is caught red-handed committing crimes such as Art Danner, Sheriff Mark Tracy, Irwin Joseph or Samuel Steven, they quietly resign without any consequence.

 

With good cause, I know that Judge Michael Barton is prejudiced against my interests the DVD’s, papers, public speeches and articles I have written regarding Barton call this criminal for what he is, I am convinced that I will not have a fair and impartial hearing and trial before said Judge.  It is utterly impossible to believe that a reasonable person could believe that Judge Michael Barton would give me a fair trial. 

 

I respectfully request that an unbiased qualified judge be assigned to this case.

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 on July 19, 2009 at Santa Cruz California.

 

Dated: July 19, 2004                                               _________________________________

                                                                                                Clive Boustred, Sui Juris

 VERIFICATION

County of Santa Cruz                     ]

                                                            ]  ss.

State of California                            ]

 

I, Clive Boustred, being the undersigned, declare under penalty of perjury as follows:

 

That the afore-going Document(s), Affidavit(s), Declaration(s), and/or Materials, Id., including referenced and/or attached documents, and/or duplicates of such documents are exacting copies of the originals in my/or my counsel’s (specifically not American Bar Association, or professional “Attorney’s”) possession.  That I have read the foregoing document(s) and attachments, and know and understand their contents, and having personal knowledge, know them to be true.  As to those matters submitted therein upon information and/or belief, as to those matters, I also believe them true.

 

Executed this 19th day of July Two-Thousand-Nine.

SEAL:                                                 _____________________________

                                                            Clive Boustred – AT LAW

                                                            In Propria Persona, Sui Juris

 

SUBSCRIPTION

Subscribed this 19th day of July Two-Thousand-Nine, under exigent circumstances.

 

 

SEAL:                                                 _____________________________

                                                            Clive Boustred – AT LAW

                                                            In Propria Persona, Sui Juris


 

 

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

 

“The Legislature supports and affirms the constitutional right of every person to communicate on any subject.  This section is intended to preserve the right of every accused person to a fair trial, the right of the people to due process of law, and the integrity of judicial proceedings.” –from CCP 132.5

 

 

I.

A PEREMPTORY CHALLENGE IS PROPER PURSUANT TO CCP §170

 

170.3.  (a) (1) Whenever a judge determines himself or herself to be disqualified, the judge shall notify the presiding judge of the court of his or her recusal and shall not further participate in the proceeding, except as provided in Section 170.4, unless his or her disqualification is waived by the parties as provided in subdivision (b).

   (2) If the judge disqualifying himself or herself is the only judge or the presiding judge of the court, the notification shall be sent to the person having authority to assign another judge to replace the disqualified judge.

   (b) (1) A judge who determines himself or herself to be disqualified after disclosing the basis for his or her disqualification on the record may ask the parties and their attorneys whether they wish to waive the disqualification, except where the basis for disqualification is as provided in paragraph (2).

  A waiver of disqualification shall recite the basis for the disqualification, and is effective only when signed by all parties and their attorneys and filed in the record.

   (2) There shall be no waiver of disqualification where the basis therefor is either of the following:

   (A) The judge has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party.

   (B) The judge served as an attorney in the matter in controversy, or the judge has been a material witness concerning it.

   (3) The judge shall not seek to induce a waiver and shall avoid any effort to discover which lawyers or parties favored or opposed a waiver of disqualification.

   (4) In the event that grounds for disqualification are first learned of or arise after the judge has made one or more rulings in a proceeding but before the judge has completed judicial action in a proceeding, the judge shall, unless the disqualification be waived, disqualify himself or herself, but in the absence of good cause the rulings he or she has made up to that time shall not be set aside by the judge who replaces the disqualified judge.

   (c) (1) If a judge who should disqualify himself or herself refuses or fails to do so, any party may file with the clerk a written verified statement objecting to the hearing or trial before the judge and setting forth the facts constituting the grounds for disqualification of the judge.  The statement shall be presented at the earliest practicable opportunity after discovery of the facts constituting the ground for disqualification.  Copies of the statement shall be served on each party or his or her attorney who has appeared and shall be personally served on the judge alleged to be disqualified, or on his or her clerk, provided that the judge is present in the courthouse or in chambers.

   (2) Without conceding his or her disqualification, a judge whose impartiality has been challenged by the filing of a written statement may request any other judge agreed upon by the parties to sit and act in his or her place.

   (3) Within 10 days after the filing or service, whichever is later, the judge may file a consent to disqualification in which case the judge shall notify the  presiding judge or the person authorized to appoint a replacement of his or her  recusal as provided in subdivision (a), or the judge may file a written verified answer admitting or denying any or all of the allegations contained in the party's statement and setting forth any additional facts material or relevant to the question of disqualification.  The clerk shall forthwith transmit a copy of the judge's answer to each party or his or her attorney who has appeared in the action.

   (4) A judge who fails to file a consent or answer within the time allowed shall be deemed to have consented to his or her disqualification and the clerk shall notify the presiding judge or person authorized to appoint a replacement of the recusal as provided in subdivision (a).

   (5) No judge who refuses to recuse himself or herself shall pass upon his or her own disqualification or upon the sufficiency in law, fact, or otherwise, of the statement of disqualification filed by a party.  In every such case, the question of disqualification shall be heard and determined by another judge agreed upon by all the parties who have appeared or, in the event they are unable to agree within five days of notification of the judge's answer, by a judge selected by the chairperson of the Judicial Council, or if the chairperson is unable to act, the vice chairperson.  The clerk shall notify the executive officer of the Judicial Council of the need for a selection.  The selection shall be made as expeditiously as possible.

  No challenge pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section 170.3 or Section 170.6 may be made against the judge selected to decide the question of disqualification.

   (6) The judge deciding the question of disqualification may decide the question on the basis of the statement of disqualification and answer and such written arguments as the judge requests, or the judge may set the matter for hearing as promptly as practicable.  If a hearing is ordered, the judge shall permit the parties and the judge alleged to be disqualified to argue the question of disqualification and shall for good cause shown hear evidence on any disputed issue of  fact.  If the judge deciding the question of disqualification determines that the judge is disqualified, the judge hearing the question shall notify the presiding judge or the person having authority to appoint a replacement of the disqualified judge as provided in subdivision (a) of Section 170.3.

   (d) The determination of the question of the disqualification of a judge is not an appealable order and may be reviewed only by a writ of mandate from the appropriate court of appeal sought within 10 days of notice to the parties of the decision and only by the parties to the proceeding.

 

170.4.  (d) Except as provided in this section, a disqualified judge shall have no power to act in any proceeding after his or her disqualification or after the filing of a statement of disqualification until the question of his or her disqualification has been determined.

 

 

 

CASES BEFORE HONEST JUDGES:

 

a)      D.C.Cal. 1980.  In order to satisfy fair hearing requirement of due process clause, a tribunal, whether administrative or judicial, must be impartial; adjudicator may neither have pecuniary interest in outcome nor have been target of personal abuse or criticism from party before him.  U.S.C.A.Const Amend. 14.  McClure v. Harris, 503  - 8A Cal D 2d-387

b)      Due process is not concerned with mere technical formalism, but rather it is the substance that determines whether a litigant has been deprived of it”.  Vita-Pharmacals, Inc. v. Board of Pharmacy, 243 P.2d 890, 110 C.A.2d 826.

c)      D.D.Cal 1975.  At heart of any due process hearing is requirement of an impartial decision maker.  U.S.C.A.Const.Amend 5.  Ponce v Housing Authority of Tulare County, 389 F.Supp. 635. - 8A Cal D 2d-386

d)      U.S.Cal. 1982.  “Due process demands impartiality on the part of those who function in judicial or quasi-judicial capacities.”   U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 5.  Schweiker v. McClure, 102 S.Ct. 1665, 456 U.S. 188, 72 L.Ed.2d 1.

e)       “Due process clause guarantees aggrieved party opportunity to present case and have its merits fairly judged.”  U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 14.  Jackson Water Works, Inc. v. Public Utilities Com'n of State of Cal., 793 F.2d 1090, certiorari denied 107 S.Ct. 1334, 479 U.S. 1102, 94 L.E.2d 184.

f)       Under due process clause, every party is entitled to impartial tribunal.  Jackson Water Works, Inc. v. Public Utilities Com'n of State of Cal., 793 F.2d 1090, certiorari denied 107 S.Ct. 1334, 479 U.S. 1102, 94 L.E.2d 184. - 8A Cal D 2d-385

g)      Cal.Ap. 1982.  Fundamental fairness, i.e. due process, includes right to present legal and factual issues in deliberate and orderly manner.  U.S.C.A.Const.Amend. 14.  White v. Division of Medical Quality, Bd. of Medical Quality Assur., 180 Cal.Rptr. 516, 128 C.A.3d 699. - 8A Cal D 2d-387

h)      Cal.App.  1962.  Due process requires fair trial before impartial tribunal, and such trial requires that person or body who decides cases must known, consider, and appraise evidence.  Le Strange v. City of Berkley, 26 Cal.Rptr. 550, 210 C.A.2d 313. - 8A Cal D 2d-387

i)        C.A.Cal 1983.  Central meaning of procedural due process is that parties whose rights are to be affected are entitled to be heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner.  U.S.C.A. Const.Amends. 5, 14.  Orloff v. Cleland, 708 F.2d 372. - 8A Cal D 2d-387

j)        D.D.Cal 1984.  Opportunity to be heard guaranteed by due process is opportunity which must be granted at meaningful time and in meaningful manner.  U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 14.  Aminoil, Inc. v. U.S. E.P.A. 599 F.Supp. 69. - 8A Cal D 2d-387

k)      Touchstone of due process is fundamental fairness.”  U.S.C.A.Const. Ammend. 14; West's Ann.Const. art. 1 Sec.Sec. 7(a).  Salas v. Cortez, 593 P.2d 226, 154 Cal.Rptr. 529, 24 C.3d 22, certiorari denied 100 S.Ct. 209, 444 U.S. 900, 62 L.Ed.2d 136.

l)         “Due process is denied where the procedure tends to shock the sense of fair play.”  U.S.C.A.Const.Amend. 5.  Howard v. U.S., 375 F.2d 294, certiorari denied 87 S.Ct. 2129, 388 U.S. 915, 18 L.Ed.2d 1365.

U.S.Cal. 1982.  Due process demands impartiality on the part of those who function in judicial or quasi-judicial capacities.   U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 5.  Schweiker v. McClure, 102 S.Ct. 1665, 456 U.S. 188, 72 L.Ed.2d 1.

C.A.9 (Cal.) 1986.  Due process clause guarantees aggrieved party opportunity to present case and have its merits fairly judged.  U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 14.  Jackson Water Works, Inc. v. Public Utilities Com'n of State of Cal., 793 F.2d 1090, certiorari denied 107 S.Ct. 1334, 479 U.S. 1102, 94 L.E.2d 184.

Under due process clause, every party is entitled to impartial tribunal.  Jackson Water Works, Inc. v. Public Utilities Com'n of State of Cal., 793 F.2d 1090, certiorari denied 107 S.Ct. 1334, 479 U.S. 1102, 94 L.E.2d 184.

C.A.Cal 1967.  Due process is denied where the procedure tends to shock the sense of fair play.  U.S.C.A.Const.Amend. 5.  Howard v. U.S., 375 F.2d 294, certiorari denied 87 S.Ct. 2129, 388 U.S. 915, 18 L.Ed.2d 1365.

8A Cal D 2d-386

D.D.Cal 1975.  At heart of any due process hearing is requirement of an impartial decision maker.  U.S.C.A.Const.Amend 5.  Ponce v Housing Authority of Tulare County, 389 F.Supp. 635.

D.C.Cal. 1971.  Procedural due process must obtain whenever individual is subject to "grievous loss" at hands of state or its instrumentalities.  42 U.S.C.A. Sec. 1983; U.S.C.A.Const.Amend. 14.  Clutchette v. Procunier, 328 F.Supp. 767, modified, cause remanded 497 F.2d 809, modified 510 F.2d 613, certiorari granted Enomoto v. Clutchette, 95 S.Ct. 2414, 421 U.S. 101, 44 L.Ed.2d 810, vacated, on remand 536 F.2d 305, on remand 471 F.Supp 1113.

Rudimentary principles of due process require presence of counsel when rights of individual are seriously threatened by governmental action.  U.S.C.A.Const.Amends. 6, 14. Clutchette v. Procunier, 328 F.Supp. 767, modified, cause remanded 497 F.2d 809, modified 510 F.2d 613, certiorari granted Enomoto v. Clutchette, 95 S.Ct. 2414, 421 U.S. 101, 44 L.Ed.2d 810, vacated, on remand 536 F.2d 305, on remand 471 F.Supp 1113.

 

8A Cal D 2d-387

Cal.Ap. 1982.  Fundamental fairness, i.e. due process, includes right to present legal and factual issues in deliberate and orderly manner.  U.S.C.A.Const.Amend. 14.  White v. Division of Medical Quality, Bd. of Medical Quality Assur., 180 Cal.Rptr. 516, 128 C.A.3d 699.

8A Cal D 2d-387

Cal.App. 1974.  Procedural due process requires that the property of a deprivation of substantial right to be resolved in a manner consisted with essential fairness.  Ursino v. Superior Court, In and For City and County of San Francisco, 114 Cal.Rptr. 404, 39 C.A.3d 611.

Cal.App.  1966.  The essentials of due process are regular and orderly procedure in court of competent jurisdiction, notice t defendant, opportunity for defendant to be heard,   and fair hearing.  State Acting By and Through Dept. of Water Resources v. Natomas Co., 49 Cal.Rptr 64, 239 C.A.2d 547.

Cal.App.  1962.  Due process requires fair trial before impartial tribunal, and such trial requires that person or body who decides cases must known, consider, and appraise evidence.  Le Strange v. City of Berkley, 26 Cal.Rptr. 550, 210 C.A.2d 313.

Cal.App. 1859.  There are two essentials to due process in a judicial proceeding: (1) that the court have jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter of the action, and (2) that the parties have reasonable notice and an opportunity for hearing.  West's Ann.Const.art. 1, Sec.Sec. 2, 13.  Datta v. Staab, 343 P.2d 977, 173 C.A.2d 613.

Law Rev 1977.  Standards of judicial review.  50 So.Cal.L.R. 689.

251.6  Notice and hearing.

C.A.9 (Cal) 1985.  If individual bringing procedural due process challenge demonstrates likelihood of irreparable harm, resulting from lack of predeprivation hearing, it is unlikely that government will be able to demonstrate any public interest that will overcome individual's interest, and some additional form of predeprivation process will probably be require; in absence of such showing, however, courts must balance governmental interests in retaining existing process against private interest that will effect and probability of erroneous deprivation associated with that process.  U.S.C.A. Const.Amends. 5, 14.  Jolly v. U.S. 764 F.2d 642.

C.A.Cal 1983.  Central meaning of procedural due process is that parties whose rights are to be affected are entitled to be heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner.  U.S.C.A. Const.Amends. 5, 14.  Orloff v. Cleland, 708 F.2d 372.

C.A.Cal 1985.  Fundamental requirements of due process is the opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner in terms of the threatened conduct, U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 5.  Sieffa Club v. Watt, 608 F.Supp. 305.

D.D.Cal 1984.  Opportunity to be heard guaranteed by due process is opportunity which must be granted at meaningful time and in meaningful manner.  U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 14.  Aminoil, Inc. v. U.S. E.P.A. 599 F.Supp. 69.

D.C.Cal. 1980.  In order to satisfy fair hearing requirement of due process clause, a tribunal, whether administrative or judicial, must be impartial; adjudicator may neither have pecuniary interest in outcome nor have been target of personal abuse or criticism from party before him.  U.S.C.A.Const Amend. 14.  McClure v. Harris, 503

D.C.Cal. 1970.  The due process right to predetermination hearing, with right to confront and question witnesses, is the constitutional norm and not the exception when government action seriously injures an individual and the crucial decision is based upon facts alleged by a third party.  Crow v. California Dept. of Human Resources, 325 F.Supp. 1314, certiorari denied 92 S.Ct. 2495, 408 U.S. 924, 33 L.Ed.2d 335, revised 490 F.2d 580, vacated 95 S.Ct. 1110, 420 U.S. 917, 43 L.Ed.2d 388.

Cal. 1985.  Fundamental fairness includes both right to adequate notice and right to defend against charged violations.  Harry Carian Sales v. Agricultural Labor Relations Bd.  (United Farm Workers of America, AFL-CIO), 703 P.2d 27, 216 Cal.Rptr. 688, 39 C.3d 209.

Cal. 1982.  Rudiments of fair play include notice, opportunity to respond, and a hearing.  West's Ann.Const.Art. 1, Sec. 7; U.S.C.A.Const.Amend, 14.  In re Marriage of Flaherty, 646 P.2d 179, 183 Cal.Rptr. 508, 31 C.3d 637.

Cal. 1979.  Where prior notice of potentially adverse decision is constitutionally required, such notice must, at minimum, be reasonably calculated to afford affected persons realistic opportunity to protect their interests.  U.S.C.A.Const.Amend 14.  Horn v. Ventura County, 596 P.2d 1134, 156 Cal.Rptr. 718, 24 C.3d 605.

Cal. 1975.  Fundamental requisite of due process is the meaningful opportunity to be heard and to explain one's actions.  People v. Coleman, 533 P.2d 1024, 120 Cal.Rptr. 384, 13 C.3d 867.

Cal. 1968.  Since right to hearing is one of rudiments of fair play assured by Fourteenth Amendment, there can be no compromise on footing of convenience or expediency when that minimal requirement has been neglected or ignored.  U.S.C.A.Const.Amend. 14.  Endler v. Schutzbank, 436, P.2d 297, 65 Cal.Rptr. 297, 68 C.2d 162.

Cal.App.2Dist. 1989.  Due process requires notice and opportunity for a hearing before an impartial tribunal.  U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 14; West's Ann.Cal. Const.Art. 1, Sec. 7, 15.  Bennett v. Bodily, 259 Cal.Rptr. 199, 211 C.A.3d 133, review denied.

 

 

DAVID J. BEAUVAIS (SB#84275)

1904 Franklin Street, Suit 800

Oakland, CA 94612

 

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SANTA CRUZ

 

 

People of California v. Clive Boustred    

 

PROOF OF SERVICE

CASE NO: F17075 and F17078

 

State of California, County of Santa Cruz,

 

1.         I am over the age of eighteen and not a party to the above-entitled action, my business address is_______________________________________________

 

2.         I served the “MOTION TO DISMIS JUDGE MICHAEL E. BARTON PURSUANT TO CCP SECTIONS: 170.1 (a) (1); 170.1 (a) (3); 170.1 (a) (3) (B); 170.1 (a) (6) (A); 170.1 (a) (6) (B); 170.1 (a) (6) (C);  170.3 (a) (1); 170.3 (a) (2); 170.3 (b) (2) (A); 170.3 (b) (2) (B); 170.3 (c) (2); 170.3 (c) (5) and 170.4 (d).” by enclosing a true copy in a sealed envelope addressed to each person whose name and address is shown below and depositing the envelope in the United States mail with the postage fully prepaid.

 

(1) Date of Service: ______________

(2) Place of Service: Santa Cruz, CA

 

3.         I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.

 

Date: July 20, 2009

 

________________________________

 

4.         (a) Name of person served: Judge Michael E. Barton

(b) Address: 710 Ocean Street, Santa Cruz , CA 95060

 

 

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.