Order & Motions To Dismiss

Clive Boustred
In Propria Persona, Sui Juris
210 Suncrest Dr.
Soquel, CA 95073
clive@coppercards.com

 

 

 

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,

            Cross-complainant,

 

     Santa Cruz Superior Court

     CASE NO M45132

 

OBJECTION – FAILURE TO RATIFY COMMENCEMENT, NO REAL PARTIES IN INTEREST; 

ORDER TO DISMISS CASE;

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO IMPANEL JURY TO DETERMINE NATURE AND CAUSE OF CRIMINAL CHARGE;

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO CAL JUROR NUMBER ONE TO THE STAND TO QUESTION JUROR NUMBER ONE WHO IS ACCUSED OF BEING A SHILL / PLANT;

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DETERMINE JURY INSTRUCTION FRAUD;

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO CALL ASS. DISTRICT ATTORNEY JEFFERY RANDOLPH TO THE STAND TO QUESTION REGARDING TAMPERING WITH EVIDENCE;

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO CALL JUDGE Ariadne J. Symons TO THE STAND TO QUESTION REGARDING FAILURE TO ADMONISH ASS. DA FOR TAMPERING WITH EVIDENCE;

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO CALL JUDGE Ariadne J. Symons TO THE STAND TO QUESTION REGARDING FAILURE TO ADMONISH OFFICERS FOR LYING ON THE STAND AND FOR ASSAULTING MR. BOUSTRED;

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO CALL JUDGE ARIADNE J. SYMONS TO THE STAND TO QUESTION REGARDING FAILURE TO ALLOW MR. BOUSTRED HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL;

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DECLARE A MISTRIAL.

 

Department: 1

Date: 5/15/2009

Time: 8:30

 

 

 

Defendant’s Counsel being out of the country to return for the hearing scheduled on May 15, 2009, Defendant submits these motions and declarations for said hearing incase the Court claims that sufficient notice regarding these Motions and efforts to declare a mistrial are untimely.


INTRODUCTION

For the purpose of making a record, by special appearance only Clive Frank Boustred patiently attended what was purported to be a Jury Trial.  Having made demands to see the Grand Jury Indictment or Presentment for the alleged criminal charges brought against Mr. Boustred neither the Santa Cruz Superior Court nor the Santa Cruz County District Attorney were able to show any such indictment or presentment as demanded by the 5th Amendment to the Constitution for the United States of America.

Despite having absolutely no lawful authority to arrest or prosecute Mr. Boustred, the Santa Cruz Superior Court and District Attorney proceeded to conduct a sham and mockery of a trial in what is the 7th malicious prosecution of Clive Frank Boustred since the Santa Cruz Sheriffs Shooting Instructor Michael MacDonald attempted to murder Mr. Boustred in front of Mr. Boustred’s three and seven year old sons.

Mr. Boustred who as a consequence of years of malicious prosecution and a completely unlawful, outrageous and criminal demand for $200,000 in bail, was not able to afford Counsel, a fact the Santa Cruz Court is intimately familiar with.  Mr. Boustred, unable to afford his counsel formally requested the assistance of counsel, however the Court denied Mr. Boustred his 6th Amendment right to Counsel.  In the 9th hour, Mr. Boustred was able to obtain counsel to represent him, Attorney Douglas Palaschak, however the Court refused to recognize Mr. Boustred’s counsel.  The Court claimed that in order to provide legal counsel a lawyer had to be a member of the private BAR association and denied Mr. Boustred any right to utilize Attorney Douglas Palaschak’s counsel.  His counsel being removed Mr. Boustred asks for a Public Defender, the Court refused to provide Mr. Boustred with Counsel, thereby denying Mr. Boustred his Sixth Amendment right to Counsel and an automatic right to retrial or dismissal:

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. - [PROPOSED: September 25th, 1789; ratified December 15th, 1791]

 

Having filed a motion to televise the trial, the Court claimed that there was not such filing and Michael MacDonald, the deputy who shot at Mr. Boustred, confiscated the camera from  internationally renowned producer Anthony J. Hilder’s who was representing On Second Thought (Since shooting at Mr. Boustred and his children MacDonald has been promoted to sergeant).  Mr. Boustred emailed the Court filing to Ass. DA and offered to email the court filing to the Court, however, the Court continued to refuse to recognize the proper media request and further denied On Second Thought TV any right to televise the proceedings. The Court instructed Mr. Hilder to submit a new media request, which he did and the Court promptly turned around and denied Mr. Hilder any right to televise the proceedings.

 In jury selection when Mr. Boustred moved to remove the County’s shill, juror number one, a plan placed on the jury to force a guilty verdict, the Court denied Mr. Boustred his right to remove juror number one, the shill and jury Foreman form the jury.

Having proffered the videotape of the traffic stop, which not only proved irrefutably that Mr. Boustred properly provided the best identification he had, his business card, and also proved that without delay Mr. Boustred obeyed all of the officers orders, and which proved that Mr. Boustred was able to cognitively discuss issues in a smooth and controlled vice ant that Mr. Boustred was easily able to get off the truck by himself, proving Mr. Boustred was not intoxicated, the video however, proved something vastly more serious, the video proved that the officer assaulted Mr. Boustred.  Mr. Boustred moved to dismiss the case, however, neither the Court nor the Ass. DA would follow their oath of office and duty under the law and continued to maliciously prosecute Mr. Boustred.  Repeatedly through the hearing the Court took on the role of Prosecution, interjecting objections and arguments on behalf of the Prosecution, the Court acted as the Prosecution.

The Court refused to allow Mr. Boustred to enter onto the record the law or even the code.  Mr. Boustred was specifically precluded from in any way referring to U.S. Supreme Court KOLENDER v. LAWSON, 461 U.S. 352 (1983) 461 U.S. 352.  In Kolender v. Lawson, the Supreme Court ruled that Mr. Lawson did not have to give the police any name or identification.  Mr. Boustred was also ordered to not discuss or enter into the record or before the jury any matters relating to a Terry Stop:  Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1. The California court has defined "credible and reliable" identification as "carrying reasonable assurance that the identification is authentic and providing means for later getting in touch with the person who has identified himself." .  Censorship of Defendants rights are illustrated in the following slides showing where the Court denied Defenant his right to put the law before the jury or to argue any defense:

 

 

ARGUMENT

 

Clive Frank Boustred objects as there has been no ratification of commencement in this matter pursuant to Rule 17, real parties in interest.  There is only one form of action, whether criminal or civil, and that is a civil action requiring conformance with Rule 17(a).

These cases are ordered dismissed.

AUTHORITIES: Rule 17(a) Real Parties in Interest:

"Every action shall be prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest. An executor, administrator, guardian, bailee, trustee of an express trust, a party with whom or in whose name a contract has been made for the benefit of another, or a party authorized by statute may sue in that person's own name without joining the party for whose benefit the action is brought; and when a statute of the United States so provides, an action for the use or benefit of another shall be brought in the name of the United States. No action shall be dismissed on the ground that it is not prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest until a reasonable time has been allowed after objection for ratification of commencement of the action by, or joinder or substitution of, the real party in interest; and such ratification, joinder, or substitution shall have the same effect as if the action had been commenced in the name of the real party in interest."

 

Court’s can not find citizens guilty of numbers or codes, the Court must show the nature and cause of the crime a person has been accused of and be able to accurately describe the facts showing the clear intent, act and damage including bringing forward the damaged party/s.

AUTHORITY: Article the eighth [Amendment VI] [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.”

 

Failure to present clear a clear and concise account of the crime Clive Boustred is allegedly found guilty of obviously abates and eliminates any such finding of guilt and dismisses this case.  Facts in evidence prove Clive Boustred never failed to properly identify himself and never failed to obey officers orders (Despite said orders being illegal).  Facts in evidence prove the officer assaulted Clive Boustred.  Facts in evidence prove the Assistant District Attorney intentionally modified the transcript to exclude critical evidence.  Facts in evidence prove the Court refused to allow Defendant his right to defend himself by placing on the record the related law and findings of the Supreme Court and the very code Defendant was accused of.  Facts in evidence prove Defendant was improperly denied his right to Counsel.

With Good Cause Defendant moves to:

Dismiss the case;

If the case is not dismissed to Motion for a New Trial;

Notice Of Motion And Motion To Impanel Jury To Determine Nature And Cause Of Criminal Charge;

Notice Of Motion And Motion To Cal Juror Number One To The Stand To Question Juror Number One Who Is Accused Of Being A Shill / Plant;

Notice Of Motion And Motion To Determine Jury Instruction Fraud;

Notice Of Motion And Motion To Call Ass. District Attorney Jeffery Randolph To The Stand To Question Regarding Tampering With Evidence;

Notice Of Motion And Motion To Call Judge Ariadne J. Symons To The Stand To Question Regarding Failure To Admonish Ass. Da For Tampering With Evidence;

Notice Of Motion And Motion To Call Judge Ariadne J. Symons To The Stand To Question Regarding Failure To Admonish Officers For Lying On The Stand And For Assaulting Mr. Boustred.

Notice Of Motion And Motion To Call Judge Ariadne J. Symons To The Stand To Question Regarding Failure To Allow Mr. Boustred His Right To Counsel.

Notice of Motion and Motion to Declare a Mistrial is given for the previously mentioned reasons.

 

CONCLUSION

This trial was a sham and a farce; not only was the Defendant not entitled to Counsel as dictated by the Sixth Amendment; the Judge acted as the Prosecutor; the Judge ordered that the code the Defendant was accused of not even be talked about by the Defendant; the Judge would not allow the code the Defendant was accused of to be put in Jury Instructions of the Defendant to submit any Jury Instructions what so ever; the Judge would not allow the Defendant to even mention related cases such as Terry v. Ohio or KOLENDER v. LAWSON; the Judge refused to remand the police officers when they were caught lying on the stand regarding their testimony and claim that they could not look up a drivers license without a birth date for a person with a unique name amongst other lies; the Judge refused to remand the Ass. DA when the Ass. DA purposefully and intentionally deleted key and critical evidence from the transcript which proved Defendant’s innocence.

For these and other reasons Defendant did not receive a fair trial a mistrial must be declared.  Furthermore, no evidence exists that Defendant broke any law, he properly identified himself and obeyed all orders despite the orders being issued without legal merit or probable cause, the case must be dismissed.

The Appellate system has been proven to be a farce by extensive studies by experts across the nation who partook in the San Jose Mercury News Tainted Trails Stolen Justice series.  It appears that the courts are dependant on the corruption of the Appellate System, knowing full well that they can give Defendant’s completely sham trials and that the Appellate system will simply deny any appeal.

 

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: April 30, 2009__________________________________

Clive Boustred, In Propria Persona Sui Juris – Non Assumpsit


 

Clive Boustred

In Propria Persona, Sui Juris

210 Suncrest Dr.

Soquel, CA 95073

clive@coppercards.com

 

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SANTA CRUZ

 

Petitioner: Allegedly “The People of The State of California”

      Defendant: Clive Boustred

PROOF OF SERVICE

CASE NO: F17075, F17078 & M45132

 

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 “OBJECTION – FAILURE TO RATIFY COMMENCEMENT, NO REAL PARTIES IN INTEREST;  ORDER TO DISMISS CASE; NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO IMPANEL JURY TO DETERMINE NATURE AND CAUSE OF CRIMINAL CHARGE; NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO CAL JUROR NUMBER ONE TO THE STAND TO QUESTION JUROR NUMBER ONE WHO IS ACCUSED OF BEING A SHILL / PLANT; NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DETERMINE JURY INSTRUCTION FRAUD; NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO CALL ASS. DISTRICT ATTORNEY JEFFERY RANDOLPH TO THE STAND TO QUESTION REGARDING TAMPERING WITH EVIDENCE; NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO CALL JUDGE Ariadne J. Symons TO THE STAND TO QUESTION REGARDING FAILURE TO ADMONISH ASS. DA FOR TAMPERING WITH EVIDENCE; NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO CALL JUDGE Ariadne J. Symons TO THE STAND TO QUESTION REGARDING FAILURE TO ADMONISH OFFICERS FOR LYING ON THE STAND AND FOR ASSAULTING MR. BOUSTRED; NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO CALL JUDGE ARIADNE J. SYMONS TO THE STAND TO QUESTION REGARDING FAILURE TO ALLOW MR. BOUSTRED HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL; NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DECLARE A MISTRIAL.” 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 mailing: ________________________

(2) Place of Mailing: _________________________

 

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

 

 

Signature: ________________________________ Date: ______________

 

 

  1. (a) Name of person served: Santa Cruz Superior Court

(b) Address: 701 Ocean St. Santa Cruz CA 95060

  1. (a) Name of person served: Santa Cruz District Attorney

(b) Address: 701 Ocean St. Santa Cruz CA 95060