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:

 

I. CLAIMS UPON WHICH RELIEF CAN BE GRANTED / CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS VIOLATED

On Information and belief, DEFENDANTS violated the following Constitutional Rights giving rise to the following Claims upon which relief may be granted:

First Claim For Relief    Fraud by Jeremy Fogel

PLAINTIFFS:

All PLAINTIFFS

DEFENDANTS:

JEREMY FOGEL, Jeremy Fogel,

Jon Doe’s , 1 to n.

VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS & ULTIMATE FACTS

On or about October 3, 2006, September 12, 2006 and September 13, 2006 and other dates, in the above named Judicial District, the crime of FRAUD and or INTENTIONAL MISREPRESENTATION, in violation of the United States Constitution and Common Law was committed by the above listed DEFENDANT/S, who did willfully and unlawfully commit FRAUD and or INTENTIONAL MISREPRESENTATION by willful disobedience of a process and law by dismissing a case entitled to summary judgment and by issuing a fraudulent order that was false and misleading for multiple reasons including the fact that the above listed DEFENDANT/S claimed that the tort actions of murder, kidnap, grand theft auto, libel, slander, malicious prosecution, conspiracy, trespass, fraud, and violations of 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th, 11th and 14th Amendments and other laws were not ‘claims upon which relief could be granted’.  the above listed DEFENDANT/S had knowledge of the falsity, recklessness and indifference to the truth and intended to induce PLAINTIFF’S reliance on said misrepresentation.  the above listed DEFENDANT/S is member of a class in which PLAINIFFS had reason to expect would ordinarily be induced to be able to rely upon; and summary judgment ordinarily occurs when the real parties of interest defending a case fail to make any appearance or plea.  The above listed DEFENDANT/S intentionally concealed facts including the fact that PLAINTIFFS were entitled to a summary judgment and said DEFENDANTS knew or believed that they/he was not telling the truth; and did not have the confidence in the accuracy of his statement that he stated and he implied that he did; and the above listed DEFENDANT/S knew that they/he did not have the grounds for the order when he implied that he did.  The above listed DEFENDANT/S intentionally concealed facts and failed to disclose facts including the fact that PLAINTIFFS were entitled to a summary judgment by also refusing to answer PLAINTIFFS lawfully and properly filed Motions and Affidavits for summary judgment when the above listed DEFENDANT/S had a fiduciary duty to disclose said facts in particular since PLAINTIFFS filed said Motions and Affidavits Pro Se (In Pro Per) and that the above listed DEFENDANT/S has special knowledge that PLAINTIFF did not have when the above listed DEFENDANT/S had a fiduciary duty to issue said summary judgment and that said summary judgment was a fact basic to the transaction and the above listed DEFENDANT/S knew this fact and legal principle.

See JEREMY FOGEL’S orders dated October 3, 2006, September 12, 2006 and September 13, 2006 in UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION Case Number C 05-00996 JF

DAMAGE

Damage to PLAINTIFFS stemming from reliance on said misrepresentation placed in said fraudulent order that the above listed DEFENDANT/S intentionally concealed facts and failed to disclose facts including the fact that PLAINTIFFS were entitled to a summary judgment by also refusing to answer PLAINTIFFS lawfully and properly filed Motions and Affidavits for summary judgment when the above listed DEFENDANT/S had a fiduciary duty to disclose said facts in particular since PLAINTIFFS filed said Motions and Affidavits Pro Se (In Pro Per / In Propria Persona, Sui Juris) and that the above listed DEFENDANT/S has special knowledge that PLAINTIFF did not have when the above listed DEFENDANT/S had a fiduciary duty to issue said summary judgment and that said summary judgment was a fact basic to the transaction and the above listed DEFENDANT/S knew this fact and legal principle.

Damages incurred by Plaintiffs as a direct or indirect consequence to the above mentioned and referenced actions by DEFENDANTS are also incorporated herein as listed in the “K DAMAGES” section of this Complaint.

As a consequence of the willful and malicious actions of JEREMY FOGEL/Jeremy Fogel, PLAINTIFF’S have sustained extraordinary damage in a sum certain amount of $66,016,803,250.00.

AUTHORITIES

AUTHORITES in section “K. COMMON AUTHORITIES” are incorporated herein by reference in addition to the following AUTHORITIES:

TITLE 28—APPENDIX: RULES OF THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS: TITLE VII. JUDGMENT: Rule 55. Default:

(a) Entry. When a party against whom a judgment for affirmative relief is sought has failed to plead or otherwise defend as provided by these rules and that fact is made to appear by affidavit or otherwise, the clerk shall enter such party's default.

(b) Judgment. Judgment by default may be entered as follows:

(1) By the Clerk. When the plaintiff's claim against a defendant is for a sum certain or for a sum which can by computation be made certain, the clerk upon request of the plaintiff and upon affidavit of the amount due shall enter judgment for that amount and costs against the defendant, if the defendant has been defaulted for failure to appear and if the defendant is not an infant or incompetent person.

“Summary judgment must be granted where there is no genuine issue of material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” See, e.g., Nelson v. American National Red Cross, 26 F.3d 193, 196 (D.C. Cir. 1994).

Second Claim For Relief                 Fraud by James Ware

PLAINTIFFS:

All PLAINTIFFS

DEFENDANTS:

JAMES WARE, James Ware,

Jon Doe’s , 1 to n.

VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS & ULTIMATE FACTS

On or about October 3, 2006, September 12, 2006 and September 13, 2006 and other dates, in the above named Judicial District, the crime of FRAUD and or INTENTIONAL MISREPRESENTATION, in violation of the United States Constitution and Common Law was committed by JAMES WARE, who did willfully and unlawfully commit FRAUD and or INTENTIONAL MISREPRESENTATION by willful disobedience of a process and law by dismissing a case entitled to summary judgment and by issuing a fraudulent order that was false and misleading for multiple reasons including the fact that the above listed DEFENDANT/S claimed that the tort actions of assault, grand theft auto, libel, slander, malicious prosecution, conspiracy, fraud, and violations of 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th, 11th and 14th Amendments and other laws were not ‘claims upon which relief could be granted’.  the above listed DEFENDANT/S had knowledge of the falsity, recklessness and indifference to the truth and intended to induce PLAINTIFF’S reliance on said misrepresentation.  the above listed DEFENDANT/S is member of a class in which PLAINIFFS had reason to expect would ordinarily be induced to be able to rely upon; and summary judgment ordinarily occurs when the real parties of interest defending a case fail to make any appearance or plea.  the above listed DEFENDANT/S intentionally concealed facts including the fact that PLAINTIFFS were entitled to a summary judgment and he knew or believed that he was not telling the truth; and did not have the confidence in the accuracy of his statement that he stated and he implied that he did; and the above listed DEFENDANT/S knew that he did not have the grounds for the order when he implied that he did.  the above listed DEFENDANT/S intentionally concealed facts and failed to disclose facts including the fact that PLAINTIFFS were entitled to a summary judgment by also refusing to answer PLAINTIFFS lawfully and properly filed Motions and Affidavits for summary judgment when the above listed DEFENDANT/S had a fiduciary duty to disclose said facts in particular since PLAINTIFFS filed said Motions and Affidavits Pro Se (In Pro Per) and that the above listed DEFENDANT/S has special knowledge that PLAINTIFF did not have when JAMES WARE had a fiduciary duty to issue said summary judgment and that said summary judgment was a fact basic to the transaction and the above listed DEFENDANT/S knew this fact and legal principle.

See JAMES WARE’S orders dated October 3, 2006, September 12, 2006 and September 13, 2006 in UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION Case Number C07 00391.

DAMAGE

Damage to PLAINTIFFS stemming from reliance on said misrepresentation placed in said fraudulent order that the above listed DEFENDANT/S intentionally concealed facts and failed to disclose facts including the fact that PLAINTIFFS were entitled to a summary judgment by also refusing to answer PLAINTIFFS lawfully and properly filed Motions and Affidavits for summary judgment when the above listed DEFENDANT/S had a fiduciary duty to disclose said facts in particular since PLAINTIFFS filed said Motions and Affidavits Pro Se (In Pro Per) and that the above listed DEFENDANT/S has special knowledge that PLAINTIFF did not have when the above listed DEFENDANT/S had a fiduciary duty to issue said summary judgment and that said summary judgment was a fact basic to the transaction and the above listed DEFENDANT/S knew this fact and legal principle.

Damages incurred by Plaintiffs as a direct or indirect consequence to the above mentioned and referenced actions by DEFENDANTS are also incorporated herein as listed in the “K DAMAGES” section of this Complaint.

As a consequence of the willful and malicious actions of the above listed DEFENDANT/S, PLAINTIFF’S have sustained extraordinary damage in a sum certain amount of $3,001,000.00.

AUTHORITIES

AUTHORITES in section “K. COMMON AUTHORITIES” are incorporated herein by reference in addition to the following AUTHORITIES:

TITLE 28—APPENDIX: RULES OF THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS: TITLE VII. JUDGMENT: Rule 55. Default:

(a) Entry. When a party against whom a judgment for affirmative relief is sought has failed to plead or otherwise defend as provided by these rules and that fact is made to appear by affidavit or otherwise, the clerk shall enter such party's default.

(b) Judgment. Judgment by default may be entered as follows:

(1) By the Clerk. When the plaintiff's claim against a defendant is for a sum certain or for a sum which can by computation be made certain, the clerk upon request of the plaintiff and upon affidavit of the amount due shall enter judgment for that amount and costs against the defendant, if the defendant has been defaulted for failure to appear and if the defendant is not an infant or incompetent person.

“Summary judgment must be granted where there is no genuine issue of material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” See, e.g., Nelson v. American National Red Cross, 26 F.3d 193, 196 (D.C. Cir. 1994).

Third Claim For Relief                      Fraud by Richard W. Wieking

PLAINTIFFS:

All PLAINTIFFS

DEFENDANTS:

RICHARD W. WIEKING, Richard W. Wieking

Jon Doe’s , 1 to n.

VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS & ULTIMATE FACTS

On or about October 3, 2006, September 12, 2006, September 13, 2006, March 19, 2007; April 9, 2007; April 25, 2007, May 7, 2007 and June 4, 2007 and other dates, in the above named Judicial District, the crime of FRAUD and or INTENTIONAL MISREPRESENTATION, in violation of the United States Constitution and Common Law was committed by the above listed DEFENDANT/S, who did willfully and unlawfully commit FRAUD and or INTENTIONAL MISREPRESENTATION by willful disobedience of a process and law by refusing to issue summary judgment in cases entitled to such.  the above listed DEFENDANT/S had knowledge of the falsity, recklessness and indifference to the truth and intended to induce PLAINTIFF’S reliance on said misrepresentation.  The above listed DEFENDANT/S is member of a class in which PLAINIFFS had reason to expect would ordinarily be induced to be able to rely upon; and summary judgment ordinarily occurs when the real parties of interest defending a case fail to make any appearance or plea.  By refusing to issue said summary judgment the above listed DEFENDANT/S intentionally concealed facts including the fact that PLAINTIFFS were entitled to a summary judgment and he knew or believed that he was hiding the truth; and did not have the confidence in the accuracy of his statement that he stated and he implied that he did by claiming to be the Clerk of the Court; and the above listed DEFENDANT/S knew that he did not have the grounds for not issuing said summary judgments when he implied by refusing to respond that he did.  RICHARD W. WIEKING intentionally concealed facts and failed to disclose facts including the fact that PLAINTIFFS were entitled to a summary judgment by also refusing to answer PLAINTIFFS lawfully and properly filed Motions and Affidavits for summary judgment when the above listed DEFENDANT/S had a fiduciary duty to disclose said facts in particular since PLAINTIFFS filed said Motions and Affidavits Pro Se (In Pro Per) and that the above listed DEFENDANT/S has special knowledge that PLAINTIFF did not have when the above listed DEFENDANT/S had a fiduciary duty to issue said summary judgment and that said summary judgment was a fact basic to the transaction and the above listed DEFENDANT/S knew this fact and legal principle.

See UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION Case Numbers C 05-00996 and C07 00391.

DAMAGE

Damage to PLAINTIFFS stemming from reliance on said misrepresentation placed in said fraudulent intentional concealment and failure to disclose fact that PLAINTIFFS were entitled to summary judgment by refusing to answer PLAINTIFFS lawfully and properly filed Motions and Affidavits for summary judgment when the above listed DEFENDANT/S had a fiduciary duty to disclose said facts in particular since PLAINTIFFS filed said Motions and Affidavits Pro Se (In Pro Per) and that the above listed DEFENDANT/S has special knowledge that PLAINTIFF did not have when the above listed DEFENDANT/S had a fiduciary duty to issue said summary judgment and that said summary judgment was a fact basic to the transaction and the above listed DEFENDANT/S knew this fact and legal principle.

Damages incurred by Plaintiffs as a direct or indirect consequence to the above mentioned and referenced actions by DEFENDANTS are also incorporated herein as listed in the “K DAMAGES” section of this Complaint.

As a consequence of the willful and malicious actions of the above listed DEFENDANT/S, PLAINTIFF’S have sustained extraordinary damage in a sum certain amounts of $66,016,803,250.00 and $3,001,000.00.

AUTHORITIES

AUTHORITES in section “K. COMMON AUTHORITIES” are incorporated herein by reference in addition to the following AUTHORITIES:

TITLE 28—APPENDIX: RULES OF THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS: TITLE VII. JUDGMENT: Rule 55. Default:

(a) Entry. When a party against whom a judgment for affirmative relief is sought has failed to plead or otherwise defend as provided by these rules and that fact is made to appear by affidavit or otherwise, the clerk shall enter such party's default.

(b) Judgment. Judgment by default may be entered as follows:

(1) By the Clerk. When the plaintiff's claim against a defendant is for a sum certain or for a sum which can by computation be made certain, the clerk upon request of the plaintiff and upon affidavit of the amount due shall enter judgment for that amount and costs against the defendant, if the defendant has been defaulted for failure to appear and if the defendant is not an infant or incompetent person.

“Summary judgment must be granted where there is no genuine issue of material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” See, e.g., Nelson v. American National Red Cross, 26 F.3d 193, 196 (D.C. Cir. 1994).

 

Fourth Claim For Relief                  Aggravated Battery and Aggravated Assault

PLAINTIFFS:

Clive Boustred, RCB, WEB

DEFENDANTS: 

MICHAEL MACDONALD, Michael Macdonald (Santa Cruz Deputy Sheriff)

VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS & ULTIMATE FACTS

On or about March 10, 2003, in the above named Judicial District, the crime of AGGRAVATED BATTERY and AGGRAVATED ASSAULT, in violation of Common Law and the Constitution of the United States of America and the 4th, 5th and 14th Amendments there to and PC § 34 and 37, a felony and misdemeanor respectively, was committed by MICHAEL MACDONALD, who did willfully and unlawfully under the color of law commit said crimes against PLAINTIFFS by discharging his firearm by shooting at PLAINTIFFS with a deadly weapon.

DAMAGES

As a proximate consequence of the willful and malicious actions of DEFENDANTS, PLAINTIFF’S have sustained extraordinary damage in a sum to be determined per proof, including severe and extreme emotional stress and anguish, parental alienation, lost time, lost business investments, lost business and prosperity, damaged reputation including both slander and libel, interference with the pursuit of happiness, loss of domestic tranquility, loss of general welfare, and the loss of basic liberties such as enjoying life with one’s own children!

On March 10, 2003 Santa Cruz Shooting Instructor Deputy Sheriff Michael Macdonald ran up to Plaintiff Clive Boustred’s vehicle on Mr. Boustred private property, and from a range of five to seven feet shot at Mr. Boustred.  The bullet missed and slammed into the door of Mr. Boustred’s vehicle.  WFB, Mr. Boustred’ son aged three was in the direct line of fire just behind Mr. Boustred, his seven year old son RCB was about two feet off the line of fire.

Mr. Boustred was returning home from the Santa Cruz Superior Court house where he had just filed a Temporary Restraining Order and Verified Criminal Complaint against his ex wife Anamaria Tichatschke (Formerly Anamaria Boustred) and former Personal Assistant, STEFAN TICHATSCHKE for endangering WFB by abandoning WFB in the middle of a learner ski run and for resuming false 911 calls.

Before the Deputy sheriff shot at Mr. Boustred, the Santa Cruz Sheriffs were aware Mr. Boustred was returning home from the Santa Cruz Court house.  The Sheriffs were also aware that Mr. Boustred’s ex wife Anamaria made false 911 calls and was ordered out of the family home eight months earlier.  The Sheriffs were also aware that Anamaria had a stolen million dollar life insurance policy on Mr. Boustred’s life, as Mr. Boustred had formerly filed a complaint detailing the stolen insurance policy with that very same Sheriffs office.  And the sheriffs were in possession of the Stipulated Custody Agreement and Order that showed the Mr. Boustred was not violating any court order.

Deputy Macdonald was prevented from taking a second shot by Sgt. Amy Christy.

Damages incurred by Plaintiffs as a direct or indirect consequence to the above mentioned and referenced actions by DEFENDANTS are also incorporated herein as listed in the “K DAMAGES” section of this Complaint.

AUTHORITIES

AUTHORITES in section “K. COMMON AUTHORITIES” are incorporated herein by reference in addition to the following AUTHORITIES:

§ 34 Aggravated Battery

Aggravated Battery is a battery committed with a dangerous weapon - A FELONY

§ 37 Aggravated Assault

Aggravated assault is an assault committed with a dangerous weapon - A MISDEMEANOR

Fifth Claim For Relief  Battery and Assault

PLAINTIFFS:

Clive Boustred

DEFENDANTS: 

BROZOZOWSKI, Brozozowski (Santa Cruz Deputy Sheriff)

VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS & ULTIMATE FACTS

On or about March 10, 2003, in the above named Judicial District, the crime of AGGRAVATED BATTERY and AGGRAVATED ASSAULT, in violation of Common Law and the Constitution of the United States of America and the 4th, 5th and 14th Amendments there to and PC § 33, a felony, was committed by BROZOZOWSKI, who did willfully and unlawfully under the color of law commit said crimes against PLAINTIFF by cutting PLAINTIFFS wrist with handcuffs and by drilling the knuckle of his fist into the nape of PLAINTIFFS neck.

DAMAGES

As a proximate consequence of the willful and malicious actions of DEFENDANTS, PLAINTIFF’S have sustained extraordinary damage in a sum to be determined per proof, including severe and extreme emotional stress and anguish, parental alienation, lost time, lost business investments, lost business and prosperity, damaged reputation including both slander and libel, interference with the pursuit of happiness, loss of domestic tranquility, loss of general welfare, and the loss of basic liberties such as enjoying life with one’s own children!

Damages incurred by Plaintiffs as a direct or indirect consequence to the above mentioned and referenced actions by DEFENDANTS are also incorporated herein as listed in the “K DAMAGES” section of this Complaint.

AUTHORITIES

AUTHORITES in section “K. COMMON AUTHORITIES” are incorporated herein by reference in addition to the following AUTHORITIES:

§ 33 Battery Defined

Battery is the intentional use of force or violence upon the person of another;

§ 38 Simple Assault

Simple assault is an assault committed without a dangerous weapon.

A MISDEMEANOR

Sixth Claim For Relief                         Misprision Of Felony – Irwin Joseph

PLAINTIFFS:

All PLAINTIFFS

DEFENDANTS: 

IRWIN JOSEPH, Irwin Joseph

Jon Doe’s , 1 to n.

VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS & ULTIMATE FACTS

On multiple occasions, including on or about 10/09/2007, 07/23/2007, 01/06/2006, 12/28/2005, 10/20/2005, in the above named Judicial District, the crime of MISPRISION OF FELONY, in violation of 18 U.S.C. SECTION 4, a felony, was committed by IRWIN JOSEPH, who did willfully and unlawfully commit MISPRISION OF FELONY, IRWIN JOSEPH having knowledge and evidence of the commission multiple felonies cognizable by a court of the United States committed against Plaintiffs, said IRWIN JOSEPH did conceal and did not make as soon as possible known the same to some judge of other person in civil or military authority under the United States, IRWIN JOSEPH did Breach his Duty and acted under color of state or territorial law.  Said multiple felonies committed against Plaintiffs being most grievous having been clearly stated and identified in pleadings before DEFENDANT, said felonies including but not limited to attempted murder, kidnap and treason.

Substantial information having been placed before IRWIN JOSEPH showing said felonies having been committed against PLAINTIFFS as shown in U.S. District Court San Jose case number C05 00996 JF RS which was provided to IRWIN JOSEPH.

Commissioner IRWIN JOSEPH not only intentionally ignored felonies committed against PLAINTIFFS, without subject matter jurisdiction he actively enjoined in the malicious prosecution of PLAINTIFFS and unlawfully fined PLAINTIFF Clive Boustred for simply seeking his constitutional rights.  IRWIN JOSEPH’s actions are criminal in nature and form and shock the conscience.

DAMAGES

As a proximate consequence of the willful and malicious actions of DEFENDANTS, PLAINTIFF’S have sustained extraordinary damage in a sum to be determined per proof, including severe and extreme emotional stress and anguish, parental alienation, lost time, lost business and prosperity, damaged reputation including both slander and libel, interference with the pursuit of happiness, loss of domestic tranquility, loss of general welfare, and the loss of basic liberties such as enjoying life with one’s own children!

Damages incurred by Plaintiffs as a direct or indirect consequence to the above mentioned and referenced actions by DEFENDANTS are also incorporated herein as listed in the “K DAMAGES” section of this Complaint.

AUTHORITIES

AUTHORITES in section “K. COMMON AUTHORITIES” are incorporated herein by reference in addition to the following AUTHORITIES:

Seventh Claim For Relief              Treason – Irwin Joseph

PLAINTIFFS:

All PLAINTIFFS

DEFENDANTS: 

IRWIN JOSEPH, Irwin Joseph

Jon Doe’s , 1 to n.

VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS & ULTIMATE FACTS

On multiple occasions, including on or about 10/09/2007, 07/23/2007, 01/06/2006, 12/28/2005, 10/20/2005, 01/25/2008 in the above named Judicial District, the crime of TREASON, in violation of 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1, a felony, was committed by IRWIN JOSEPH, who did willfully and unlawfully commit TREASON.  IRWIN JOSEPH having knowledge of the law and the fact that PLAINTIFF Clive Boustred never gave IRWIN JOSEPH general subject matter jurisdiction but only narrowly limited jurisdiction to hand back Clive Boustred’s passport which the Santa Cruz Superior Court has unlawfully taken from Clive Boustred, IRWIN JOSEPH acted under color of state or territorial law and Breached his Duty and exceeded subject matter jurisdiction in violation of 18 U.S.C. Section 1.

Let the JURY NOTE: Irwin Joseph proceeded to not only assume jurisdiction when he had none, he went on to maliciously prosecute PLAINTIFFS by continuing to hold RCB and WFB hostage, but also to prevent PLAINTIFFS from access to PLAINTIFFS capital thereby destroying new businesses PLAINTIFFS had started and incurring significant unnecessary financial expense, hardship and anguish.  Irwin Joseph’s actions were willful and malicious.

IRWIN JOSEPH has gone as far as continuing to rule and issue orders in PLAINTIFFS Clive Boustred, RCB and WFB cases when he has been properly served and is an active DEFENDANT in cases properly filed against himself by these PLAINTIFFS.   IRWIN JOSEPH”S disregard for the law and extreme bias extends to such extreme levels that he literally dismissed serious criminal charges and Verified Criminal Complaints filed against his co-conspirator Anamaria Tichatschke, he did that without even addressing one single count of the twenty two counts brought against Anamaria Tichatschke for her repeated and blatant violations of court orders, perjury and false 911 calls.  The fact that IRWIN JOSEPH is not even a Judge makes his actions all the more reprehensible.

IRWIN JOSEPH repeatedly insisted on presiding over PLAINTIFF Clive Boustred, RCB and WFB’s Santa Cruz Superior Court Case FL 16028 when IREIN JOSEPH had no subject matter jurisdiction in that case, and he went as far as to consistently refused to enforce Stipulated Court Orders and Agreements refusing to allow PLAINTIFF Clive Boustred to remover DEFENDANT Anamaria Tichatschke from title to Clive Boustred’s home in accordance with Stipulated Court Orders and even refusing to allow Clive Boustred to refinance his home so as to be able to pay off Credit Cards at high interests.  IRWIN JOSEPH was repeatedly put on notice regarding his Treason and the consequential damages he was causing by consistently refusing to allow PLAINTIFF’S any right to a speeding trial.

DEFEDNANT IRWIN JOSPEH’S knowledge of the law is entirely lacking, he is utterly unqualified to preside over any case.  IRWIN JOSEPH does not even know what the United States Constitution dictates.  While IRWIN JOSEPH’S complete lack of knowledge of the law is a serious problem, his sheer incompetence of basic fairness and ethics is a far greater problem, the man would not even be suitable to decide on children’s squabble in kindergarten.

DAMAGES

As a proximate consequence of the willful and malicious actions of DEFENDANTS, PLAINTIFF’S have sustained extraordinary damage in a sum to be determined per proof, including severe and extreme emotional stress and anguish, parental alienation, lost time, lost business investments, lost business and prosperity, damaged reputation including both slander and libel, interference with the pursuit of happiness, loss of domestic tranquility, loss of general welfare, and the loss of basic liberties such as enjoying life with one’s own children!

IRWIN JOSEPH’S arrogant treason has caused PLAINTIFFS significant interest charges on loans that PLAINTIFFS incurred entirely as a result of IRWIN JOSEPH’S refusal to follow the law and Stipulated Court Orders and Agreements.  IRWIN JOSEPH is liable for all the additional interest PLAINTIFFS incurred in addition to the associated lost business etc.

Damages incurred by Plaintiffs as a direct or indirect consequence to the above mentioned and referenced actions by DEFENDANTS are also incorporated herein as listed in the “K DAMAGES” section of this Complaint.

AUTHORITIES

AUTHORITES in section “K. COMMON AUTHORITIES” are incorporated herein by reference in addition to the following AUTHORITIES:

18 U.S.C. Section 1 “Whenever a judge acts where he/she does not have jurisdiction to act, the judge is engaged in an act or acts of treason.” U.S. v. Will, 449 U.S. 200, 216, 101 S.Ct. 471, 66 .Ed.2d 392, 406 (1980); Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. (6 Wheat) 264, 404, 5 L.Ed 257 (1821)

Eighth Claim For Relief                  Aggravated Kidnap / Kidnap / Parental Alienation

PLAINTIFFS:

Clive Boustred, RCB, WFB with damage to All Plaintiffs

DEFENDANTS: 

IRWIN JOSEPH, Irwin Joseph

SAMUEL S. STEVENS, Samuel S. Stevens

MICHAEL E. BARTON, Michael E. Barton

ANAMARIA BOUSTRED/TICHATSCHKE, Anamaria Boustred/Tichatschke

MARK TRACY, Mark Tracy (Former Sheriff)

MICHAEL MACDONALD, Michael Macdonald (Deputy Sheriff)

M POOL, M Pool (Deputy Sheriff)

HEMMINGWAY, Hemmingway (deceased)

AMY CHRISTY, Amy Christy

BROZOZOWSKI, Brozozowski

BOB LEE, Bob Lee (Santa Cruz District Attorney)

STEVE DROTTAR, Steve Drottar

STEFAN TICHATSCHKE, Stefan Tichatschke

VICKI J. PARRY, Vicki J. Parry

JOHN A. CHRISTERSON (CA State Bar 889096), John A. Christerson

DENNIS J. KEHOE (State Bar 34687), Dennis J. Kehoe

LEONARD DUECK (VP Twin Lakes Baptist Church, Inc.), Leonard Dueck

Twin Lakes Baptist Church, Inc.

MARK SPURLOCK, Mark Spurlock

JEREMY FOGEL, Jeremy Fogel,

JAMES WARE, James Ware

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON, Phyllis J. Hamilton

COUNTY OF SANTA CRUZ, County of Santa Cruz

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, State of California

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, United States of America

Jon Doe’s , 1 to n.

VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS & ULTIMATE FACTS

Without any hearing or proper notice in an Ex Parte emergency hearing on or about February 20, 2002 under the color of law Judge Thomas Kelley apparently issued an order unlawfully modifying the Stipulated Custody Order and Agreement covering the custody of PLAINTIFF Clive Boustred’s children RCB and WFB, this void ex parte order precipitated into the attempted murder of Clive Boustred on March 10, 2003.

Following the attempted murder of Clive Boustred on March 10 , 2003, when Santa Cruz Sheriffs Shooting Instructor Michael Macdonald without cause shot at Clive Boustred with WFB aged three also in the direct line of fire and RCB aged seven only two feet off the line of fire and the violent kidnap of RCB and WFB from their father Clive Boustred the custodial parent, on multiple occasions up until present time, in the above named Judicial District, commit the crime of AGGRAVATED KIDNAP and or KIDNAP and or PARENTAL ALIENATION, in violation of Constitutionally Guaranteed Rights, including PLAINTIFFS 1st, 5th, 9th and 14th Amendment Rights and U.S.C. Section 1738A and 42 and  654, 663, the Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act of 1980, CA PC § 278, 278.5, 280, §40 Aggravated Kidnapping, § 44.1 Second degree kidnapping, § 45 Simple Kidnapping, § 46 False imprisonment, California Civil Code § 771, a felony and or misdemeanor was committed by DEFENDANT/S listed above, who did willfully and unlawfully under the color of law commit AGGRAVATED KIDNAP and or KIDNAP and or PARENTAL ALIENATION in addition to INTERFERENCE WITH FAMILY AND POLITICAL RELATIONS of PLAINTIFFS.

DAMAGES

As a proximate consequence of the willful and malicious actions of DEFENDANTS, PLAINTIFF’S have sustained extraordinary damage in a sum to be determined per proof, including severe and extreme emotional stress and anguish, parental alienation, lost time, lost business investments, lost business and prosperity, damaged reputation including both slander and libel, interference with the pursuit of happiness, loss of domestic tranquility, loss of general welfare, and the loss of basic liberties such as enjoying life with one’s own children!

Damages incurred by Plaintiffs as a direct or indirect consequence to the above mentioned and referenced actions by DEFENDANTS are also incorporated herein as listed in the “K DAMAGES” section of this Complaint.

Authorities

AUTHORITES in section “K. COMMON AUTHORITIES” are incorporated herein by reference in addition to the following AUTHORITIES:

Parent Can Sue For Interference With Parental Rights

Either parent can sue for interference with parental rights:

STRODE V. GLEASON, 510 P.2d 250 (1973);

Federal Court Has Jurisdiction on Divorce Claims

Federal Courts can rule on federal claims (constitutional questions) involved in state divorce cases and award money damages for federal torts or in diversity of citizenship cases involving intentional infliction of emotional distress by denial of parental rights, "visitation", as long as the Federal Court is not asked to modify custodial status:

LLOYD V. LOEFFLER, 518 F.Supp 720 (custodial father won $95,000 against parental kidnapping wife)

FENSLAGE V. DAWKINS, 629 F.2d 1107 ($130,000 damages for parental kidnapping)

KAJTAZI V. KAJTAZI, 488 F.Supp 15 (1976)

SPINDEL V. SPINDEL, 283 F.Supp. 797 (1969)

HOWARD V. KUNEN, USDC Mass CA No. 73-3813-G, 12/3/73 (unreported)

SCHWAB V. HUTSON, USDC, S.Dist. MI, 11/70 (unreported)

LORBEER V. THOMPSON, USDC Colorado (1981)

Custody May Be Changed If Constitutional Rights Abridged

Custody can be changed if visitation is denied.

Wife can be held in contempt if visitation is denied.

ENTWISTLE V. ENTWISTLE, 402 NYS 2d 213

 

Custody can be changed if wife is "disrespectful" of "visitation" order:

MURASKIN V. MURASKIN 283 NW 2d 140 (N. Dakota 1979)

 

U.S.C. Section 1738A and 42 and  654, 663

The Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act (28 U.S.C. Section 1738A and 42

U.S.C. Section 654, 663) is a federal statute enacted in 1980 to address kidnapping by noncustodial parents and inconsistent child custody decisions made by state courts. The law provides for penalties for kidnapping and requires states to recognize and enforce the custody decisions of courts in other states, rather than make a second, and possibly inconsistent, decision.

California Penal Code Kidnap

278.  Every person, not having a right to custody, who maliciously takes, entices away, keeps, withholds, or conceals any child with the intent to detain or conceal that child from a lawful custodian shall be punished by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000), or both that fine and imprisonment, or by imprisonment in the state prison for two, three, or four years, a fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars ($10,000), or both that fine and imprisonment.

 

278.5.  (a) Every person who takes, entices away, keeps, withholds, or conceals a child and maliciously deprives a lawful custodian of a right to custody, or a person of a right to visitation, shall be punished by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000), or both that fine and imprisonment, or by imprisonment in the state prison for 16 months, or two or three years, a fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars ($10,000), or both that fine and imprisonment.

   (b) Nothing contained in this section limits the court's contempt power.

   (c) A custody order obtained after the taking, enticing away, keeping, withholding, or concealing of a child does not constitute a defense to a crime charged under this section.

280.  Every person who willfully causes or permits the removal or concealment of any child in violation of Section 8713, 8803, or 8910 of the Family Code shall be punished as follows:

   (a) By imprisonment in a county jail for not more than one year if the child is concealed within the county in which the adoption proceeding is pending or in which the child has been placed for adoption, or is removed from that county to a place within this state.

   (b) By imprisonment in the state prison, or by imprisonment in a county jail for not more than one year, if the child is removed from that county to a place outside of this state.

§ 44 Aggravated Kidnapping

Aggravated kidnapping is the doing of any of the following acts with the intent thereby to force the victim, or some other person, to give up anything of apparent or prospective value, or to grant any advantage or immunity, in order to secure the release of the person under the offender’s actual or apparent control:

(1)       the forcible seizing and carrying of any person from one place to another; or

(2)       the enticing or persuading of any person to go from one place to another; or

(3)       the imprisoning or forcible secreting of any person.

A FELONY

§ 44.1 Second degree kidnapping

A.        Second degree kidnapping is the doing of any of the acts listed in Subsection B wherein the victim is:

(1)       used as a hostage or shield;

(2)       used to facilitate the commission of a felony or the flight after an attempt to commit or the commission or a felony;

 (4)      imprisoned or kidnapped for 72 or more hours, except as provided by RS 14:45 (A) (4) or (5); or

(5)       imprisoned or kidnapped when the offender is armed with a dangerous weapon or leads the victim to reasonably believe he is armed with a dangerous weapon.

B.        for the purposes of this section, Kidnapping is:

(1)       the forcible seizing and carrying or any person from one place to another; or

(2)       the enticing or persuading of any person to go from one place to another; or

(3)       the imprisoning or forcible secreting of any person

A FELONY

§ 45 Simple Kidnapping

A.        Simple kidnapping is:

(1)       the intentional and forcible seizing and carrying of any person from one place to another without his consent.

(2)       The intentional taking, enticing or decoying away, for an unlawful purpose, of any child not his own and under the age of fourteen years, without the consent of his parent or the person charged with its custody.

(3)       The intentional taking, enticing or decoying away, without the consent of the proper authority, or any person who has been lawfully committed to an orphan, insane, feeble-minded or other similar institution.

(4)       The intentional taking, enticing or decoying away and removing from the state, by any parent of his or her child, from the custody of any person to whom custody has been awarded by any court of competent jurisdiction of any state, without the consent of the legal custodian, with intent to defeat the jurisdiction of the said court over the custody of the child.

(5)       the taking, enticing or decoying away and removing from the state, by any person, other than the parent, of a child temporarily placed in his custody by any court of competent jurisdiction in the state, with the intention to defeat the jurisdiction of said court over the custody of the child. A FELONY

§ 46 False imprisonment

False imprisonment is the intentional confinement or detention of another, without his consent and without proper legal authority. A MISDEMEANOR

Federal Court Has Jurisdiction Over Custody Matters

Federal judges can set aside or overturn state courts to preserve constitutional rights:

MITCHUM V. FOSTER, 407 US 225 (1972)

Title 28 US Code sec. 2284.

Federal Courts can rule on federal claims (constitutional questions) involved in state divorce cases and award money damages for federal torts or in diversity of citizenship cases involving intentional infliction of emotional distress by denial of parental rights, "visitation", as long as the Federal Court is not asked to modify custodial status:

LLOYD V. LOEFFLER, 518 F.Supp 720 (custodial father won $95,000 against parental kidnapping wife)

FENSLAGE V. DAWKINS, 629 F.2d 1107 ($130,000 damages for parental kidnapping)

KAJTAZI V. KAJTAZI, 488 F.Supp 15 (1976)

SPINDEL V. SPINDEL, 283 F.Supp. 797 (1969)

HOWARD V. KUNEN, USDC Mass CA No. 73-3813-G, 12/3/73 (unreported)

SCHWAB V. HUTSON, USDC, S.Dist. MI, 11/70 (unreported)

LORBEER V. THOMPSON, USDC Colorado (1981)

 

Right of parents to the care, custody and to nurture their children is of such character that it cannot be denied without violating those fundamental principals of liberty and justice which lie at the base of all our civil and political institutions, AND SUCH RIGHT IS A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT PROTECTED BY THIS AMENDMENT AND AMENDMENTS 5, 9, and 14:

DOE V. IRWIN, 441 f. SUPP. 1247, U.S. DISTRICT COURT OF MICHIGAN (1977)

 

Parents have fundamental constitutionally protected interest in continuity of legal bond with their children:

MATTER OF DELANEY, 617 P.2d 886, Oklahoma (1980)

 

The United States Supreme Court noted that a parent's right to "the companionship, care, custody and management of his or her children" is an interest "far more precious" than any property right:

MAV V. ANDERSON, 345 U.S. 528, 533; 73 S.Ct. 840, 843 (1952)

 

"No bond is more precious and none should be more zealously protected by the law as the bond between parent and child.":

CARSEN V. ELROD, 411 F.Supp. 645, 649 (U.S. District Court Eastern Dist. Virginia 1976)

 

"A parent's right to the preservation of his relationship with his child derives from the fact that the parent's achievement of a rich and rewarding life is likely to depend significantly on his ability to participate in the rearing of his children. A child's corresponding right to protection from interference in the relationship deprives form the psychic importance to him of being raised by a loving, responsible, reliable adult." - FRANZ V. UNITED STATES, 707 F.2d 582, 595-599 (U.S. Ct. App. D.C. Circuit 1983)

 

Loss of First Amendment Freedoms, for even minimal periods of time, unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury. Though First Amendment rights are not absolute, they may be curtailed only by interests of vital importance, the burden of proving which rests on their government. - ELROD V. BURNS, 96 S Ct 2673; 427 US 347, (1976).

Parent's right to custody of child is a right encompassed within protection of this amendment which may not be interfered with under guise of protecting public interest by legislative action which is arbitrary or without reasonable relation to some purpose within competency of state to effect. - REYNOLD V. BABY FOLD, INC., 369 NE 2d 858; 68 Ill 2d 419, appeal dismissed 98 S Ct 1598, 435 US 963, IL, (1977).

 

The United States Supreme Court noted that a parent's right to "the companionship, care, custody and management of his or her children" is an interest "far more precious" than any property right. - MAY V. ANDERSON, 345 US 528, 533; 73 S Ct 840, 843, (1952).

 

A parent's right to care and companionship of his or her children are so fundamental, as to be guaranteed protection under the First, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. - IN RE: J.S. AND C., 324 A 2d 90; supra 129 NJ Super, at 489.

 

Parent's rights have been recognized as being "essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free man." - MEYER V. NEBRASKA, 262 or 426 US 390 ; 43 S Ct 625, (1923).

 

No bond is more precious and none should be more zealously protected by the law as the bond between parent and child." - CARSON V. ELROD, 411 F Supp 645, 649; DC E.D. VA (1976).

 

State Judges, as well as federal, have the responsibility to respect and protect persons from violations of federal constitutional rights. - GROSS V. STATE OF ILLINOIS, 312 F 2d 257; (1963).

Custody is a Constitutionally Secured Right – Enabling Federal Jurisdiction

The Court stressed, "the parent-child relationship is an important interest that undeniably warrants deference and, absent a powerful countervailing interest, protection." A parent's interest in the companionship, care, custody and management of his or her children rises to a constitutionally secured right, given the centrality of family life as the focus for personal meaning and responsibility.

A child has an equal right to be raised by the father, and must be awarded to the father if he is the better parent, or mother is not interested:

STANLEY V. ILLINOIS, 405 US 645, 651; 92 S Ct 1208, (1972).

 

A parent's right to the custody of his or her children is an element of "liberty" guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States:

MATTER OF GENTRY, 369 N.W.2d. 889, Mich. Appellate Div. (1983)

 

The rights of parents to the care, custody and nurture of their children is of such character that it cannot be denied without violating those fundamental principles of liberty and justice which lie at the base of all our civil and political institutions, and such right is a fundamental right protected by this amendment (First) and Amendments 5, 9, and 14. -  DOE V. IRWIN, 441 F Supp 1247; U.S. D.C. of Michigan, (1985).

Ex Parte Hearings on Custody Orders Unconstitutional

Ex Parte conferences, hearings or Orders denying parental rights or personal liberties are unconstitutional, cannot be enforced, can be set aside in federal court, and can be the basis of suits for money damages.

RANKIN V. HOWARD, 633 F.2d 844 (1980);

GEISINGER V. VOSE, 352 F.Supp. 104 (1972).

If Mother has Boyfriend Custody Awarded To Father

If custodial mother has boyfriend living with her, state can change custody to father.

JARRETT V. JARRETT, 101 S.Ct. 329

Father has Right to Custody

Custody can be awarded to father of girls of "tender years" if mother commits perjury, and is otherwise immoral.

BEABER V. BEABER, 322 NE 2d 910.

Judges Criminally Liable For Willful Depravation of Custody Rights or any Constitutional Violation

Fathers' Rights Case Law Title 42 USC 1983 is for (federal) civil rights violations. "Judges may be punished criminally for willful deprivation of rights on the strength of Title 18 U.S.A. 241 and 242."

"Judges may be punished criminally for willful deprivation of rights on the strength of Title 18 U.S.A. 241 and 242."

[The fact that There are federal rules\laws regarding suing including judges for violations of constitutional rights is proof enough that it occurs.]: - IMBLER V. PACHTMAN, 424 U.S. 409; 96 S.Ct. 984 (1976)

 

"When a judge acts intentionally and knowingly to deprive a person of his constitutional rights, he exercises no discretion or individual judgement; he acts no longer as a judge, but as a "minister" of his own prejudice.": PIERSON V. RAY, 386 U.S. 547 at 567 (1967)

 

"Referring both to the objective and subjective elements, we have held that qualified immunity (Ed. Note: or "good faith") would be defeated if an official "knew or reasonably should have known that the action he took within his sphere of official responsibility would violate the constitutional rights of the [plaintiff], or if he took the action with the malicious intention to cause a deprivation of constitutional rights or other injury. . ." - HARLOW V. FITZGERALD, 102 S.Ct. 2727 at 2737, 457 U.S. 800 (1982)

 

Every person who, under color of any statute ordinance, regulation, custom, or by usage, of any State or Territory, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress. EVERY PERSON SHALL BE LIABLE IN AN ACTION AT LAW SUIT IN EQUITY N0 EXCLUSION FOR JUDGES BY ANY ACT OF CONGRESS UNITED STATES CODE, TITLE 42, SECTION 1985 (3) If two or more persons . . . conspire. . for the purpose of depriving. any person. . . of the equal protection of the laws . . . the party so injured or deprived may have an action for the recovery of damages . . . RECOVERY OF DAMAGES AGAINST ANY ONE OR MORE OF THE CONSPIRATORS N0 EXCLUSION FOR JUDGES BY ANY ACT OF CONGRESS UNITED STATES CODE, TITLE 42, SECTION 1986 Every person who, having knowledge that any of the wrongs . . . are about to be committed, and having power to prevent or aid in preventing the commission of the same, neglects or refuses so to do . . . shall be liable . . . EVERY PERSON SHALL BE LIABLE FOR ALL DAMAGES NO EXCLUSION FOR JUDGES BY ANY ACT OF CONGRESS UNITED STATES CODE, TITLE 42, SECTION 1988: - UNITED STATES CODE, TITLE 42, SECTION 1983

 

"We should, of course, not protect a member of the judiciary "who is in fact guilty of using his power to vent his spleen upon others, or for any other personal motive not connected with the public good." - GREGOIRE V. BIDDLE, 177 F.2d 579, 581.

 

"Government immunity violates the common law maxim that everyone shall have remedy for an injury done to his person or property." - FIREMAN'S INS/ CO. OF NEWARK, N.J. V. WASHBURN COUNTY, 2 Wis.2d 214, 85 N.W.2d 840 (1957)

 

Immunity fosters neglect and breeds irresponsibility, while liability promotes care and caution, which caution and care is owed by the government to its people." - RABON V. ROWEN MEMORIAL HOSP., INC, 269 NSI. 13, 152 S.E.2d 485, 493 (`1967)

 

"Actions by state officers and employees, even if unauthorized or in excess of authority can be actions under 'color of law'." -  STRINGER V. DILGER, 313 F.2d 536 (U.S. Ct. App 10th Circ. - 1963

 

"A judge is not immune from criminal sanctions under the civil rights act."   "State officials acting in their official capacities, even if in abuse of their lawful authority , generally are held to act "under color" of law. This is because such officials are " clothed with the authority" of state law, which gives them power to perpetrate the very wrongs that Congress intended Section 1983 to prevent. " - EX PARTE VIRGINIA, 100 U.S. 339, 346-347 (1879)

 

"The language and purpose of the civil rights acts, are inconsistent with the application of common law notions of official immunity. . . "  - JACOBSEN V. HENNE, 335 F.2d 129, 133 (U.S. Ct. App. 2nd Circ. - 1966) Also see" ANDERSON V. NOSSER, 428 F.2d 183 (U.S. Ct. App. 5th Circ. - 1971)

 

"Governmental immunity is not a defense under (42 USC 1983) making liable every person who under color of state law deprives another person of his civil rights." - WESTBERRY V. FISHER, 309 F.Supp. 95 (District Ct.- of Maine - 1970 "

 

Judicial immunity is no defense to a judge acting in the clear absence of jurisdiction." - BRADLEY V. FISHER, U.S. 13 Wall. 335 (1871)

 

As long as a DEFENDANT who abridges a plaintiff's constitutional rights acts pursuant to a statute of local law which empowers him to commit the wrongful act, an action under the Federal Civil Rights statute is established. 42 U.S.C.A. 1981 et seq. - LAVERNE V. CORNING, 316 F.Supp. 629

 

"The Supreme Court initially discussed judicial immunity in Randall v. Brigham, 74 U.S. (7 Wall.) 523, 19 L.Ed. 285 (1869). In Randall, the Court wrote that judges of superior or general jurisdiction courts were not liable to civil actions for their judicial acts, even when such acts, where the acts, in excess of jurisdiction, are done maliciously or corruptly." [Editor's Note: In more recent cases: Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 (1978) and Dennis v. Sparks, 449 U.S. 24 it was found that judges were really not acting in a malicious and corrupt manner and the proofs also showed that. Congress by its words and meaning enacted the Civil Rights Act of 1871 and that meaning included judges to be held responsible to an injured plaintiff for the deprivation of Constitutional Rights. Any judge made case finding to the contrary is hereby challenged as unconstitutional and unlawful. No Court has ever challenged the Constitutionality of the Civil Rights Act of 1871, and therefore said Congressionally enacted legislation stands as law. The only way to change an act of Congress is by an act of Congress. No judge can change it and any such findings and changes are not to be upheld in Federal Courts as lawful. No changes in the wording have ever been made to Title 42 U.S.C.A. 1981, 1983, 1985, 1986 and 1988 and therefore these Congressionally enacted laws are enforceable in the Federal Courts. The only change made to Title 42 U.S.C.A. 1983 took place in 1979. At this time the words "or the District of Columbia" were inserted following "Territory". If any judges or persons representing judges had wanted to make a change this would have been an opportune time to do so. No action was ever taken to change the wording of the law and it remains as such today.]  - RANDALL V. BRIGHAM, 74 U.S. (7 Wall.) 523, 19 L.Ed. 285 (1869).

 

"I agree with the substantive standard announced by the Court today, imposing liability when a public-official DEFENDANT "knew or should have known" of the constitutionally violative effect of his actions. This standard would not allow the official who actually knows that he was violating the law to escape liability for his actions, even if he could not "reasonably have been expected" to know what he actually did know. Thus the clever and unusually well-informed violator of constitutional rights will not evade just punishment for his crimes. I, also agree that this standard applies "across the board," to all "government officials performing discretionary functions.," - Harlow at 2739, Justice Brennan, Justice Marshall, and Justice Blackmum concurring. In Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547, Mr. Justice Douglas, dissenting

 

"Judges are not immune for their nonjudicial activities, i.e., activities which are ministerial or administrative in nature." - SANTIAGO V. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, 435 F.Supp. 136

 

"It is not a judicial function for judge to commit intentional tort, even though tort occurs in courthouse." - YATES V. VILLAGE OF HOFFMAN ESTATES, ILLINOIS, 209 F.Supp. 757

 

"There was no judicial immunity to civil actions for equitable relief under Civil Rights Act of 1871. 42 U.S.C.A. 1983 Shore v. Howard. 414 F.Supp. 379 "There is no judicial immunity from criminal liability". Id. "Repeated pattern of failing to advise litigants of their constitutional and statutory rights is serious judicial misconduct." - MATTER OF PEEVES, 480 N.Y.S. 2d 463.

 

"When a judge knows that he lacks jurisdiction or acts in face of clearly valid statutes or case law expressly depriving him of jurisdiction, judicial immunity is lost." - RANKIN V. HOWARD, 633 F.2d 844.

 

"There is no judicial immunity from criminal liability." - SHORE V. HOWARD, 414 F.Supp. 379

 

"State judges, as well as federal, have the responsibility to respect and protect persons from violations of federal constitutional rights." - GOSS V. STATE OF ILLINOIS, 312 F2d. 1279 (U.S.Ct.App. - Illinois - 1963)

 

"Conduct of trial judge must be measured by standard of fairness and impartiality." - GREENER V. GREEN, 460 F.2d 1279 (U.S.Ct. App. - Pa. - 1972)

 

Judges must maintain a high standard of judicial performance with particular emphasis upon conducting litigation with scrupulous fairness and impartiality. 28 USCA § 2411; - PFIZER V. LORD, 456 F 2d 532; cert denied 92 S Ct 2411; US Ct App MN, (1972).

 

"A judge knows that he lacks jurisdiction, or acts in the face of clearly valid statutes or case law expressly depriving him of jurisdiction, judicial immunity is lost." Id. "Law requires not only impartial tribunal, but that tribunal appears to be impartial." 28 U.S.C.A. 455.-  IN RE TIP-PAHANDS ENTERPRISES, INC., 27 B.R. 780 (U.S. Bankruptcy Ct.)

 

Municipality and Sate may be Sued

A parent may bring a suit against a municipality which failed to provide protection against an ex-spouse, under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983. The parent may recover damages for her son's death and her own injuries, where the police force assured her of protection from a violent ex-spouse:

RAUCCI V. TOWN OF ROTTERDAM, No. 89-7693, U.S. Dist. Ct. --N.Y., April 27, 1990

Police Officers No Immunity

Police officer loses qualified immunity to claim that facially neutral policy has been executed in a discriminatory manner in a domestic violence situation if that police officer knows that the policy has a discriminatory impact:

HANSEN V. CITY OF ) LEGAL DEPT., 864 F.2d 1026, 3rd Cir. (1988)

Attorney’s Can Be Sued

Attorney can be sued for malpractice under consumer protection laws.

DEBAKEY V. STAGG, 605 SW 2d 631 (1980)

The Court Has a Duty To Ensure Constitutional Rights

It is the duty of the courts to be watchful for CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS of the citizen, against any stealthy encroachments thereon." -BOYD V. U.S., 116 US 616, 635, (1885)

" In short, the federal courts could step in where the state courts were unable or unwilling to protect federal rights." - ALLEN v. McCURRY, 449 U.S. 90 (1980)

Evil Orders Are Unconstitutional

Laws and court procedures that are "fair on their faces" but administered "with an evil eye or a heavy hand" was discriminatory and violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

YICK WO V. HOPKINS, 118 S.Ct. 356 (1886)

Justice Delayed is Justice Denied

Justice delayed is justice denied.

MAGNA CHARTA, Art.40, June 15, 1215.

Void Orders

Judge's dismissal for no cause is reversible.

FOMAN V. DAVIS, 371 US 178 (1962)

Non-Lawyers Entitled To Court

Non-lawyers can assist or represent litigants in court.

JOHNSON V. AVERY, 89 S.Ct. 747

Members of group who are competent nonlawyers can assist other members of group achieve the goals of the group in court without being charged with "unauthorized practice of law"

BROTHERHOOD OF RAILWAY TRAINMEN V. VIRGINIA , 377 US 1;

NAACP V. BUTTON, 371 US 415 (1962);

SIERRA CLUB V. NORTON, 92 S.Ct. 1561;

UNITED MINE WORKERS V. GIBBS, 383 US 715;

FARETTA V. CALIFORNIA, 422 US 806.

Pro Se To Be Considered Without Technicality

Pro Se (Without a Lawyer, representing self) pleadings are to be considered without technicality; pro se litigants pleadings are not to be held to the same high standards of perfection as lawyers.

HAINES V. KERNER, 92 S.Ct. 594;

JENKINS V. MCKEITHEN, 395 US 411, 421 (1969);

PICKING V. PENNA. RWY. CO. 151 F.2d 240;

PUCKETT V. COX, 456 F.2d 233.

 

The pleading of one who pleads pro se for the protection of civil rights should be liberally construed:

BLOOD V. MARGIS, 322 F.2d 1086 (1971)

Ninth Claim For Relief                       Treason – Jeremy Fogel

PLAINTIFFS:

All PLAINTIFFS

DEFENDANTS: 

JEREMY FOGEL, Jeremy Fogel,

Jon Doe’s , 1 to n.

VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS & ULTIMATE FACTS

On multiple occasions, including on or about September 9, 2005, January 27, 2006, March 3, 2006, July 12, 2006, July 21, 2006, October 3, 2006, September 12, 2006 and September 13, 2006, in the above named Judicial District, the crime of TREASON, in violation of 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1, a felony, was committed by JEREMY FOGEL, who did willfully and unlawfully commit TREASON.  JEREMY FOGEL having knowledge of the law and the fact that PLAINTIFFS in U.S. District Court San Jose case number C07 00391 had filed said case under the 11th Amendment in which said case was filed not only against JEREMY FOGEL’s employer but also his colleagues and that said case was filed by citizens of another State across state borders against the State and thus in accordance with not only due process, but also in accordance with the 11th Amendment of the United States Constitution JEREMY FOGEL had no Judicial power in said case and JEREMY FOGEL thus exceeded subject matter jurisdiction by making rulings in a case in which Judicial power was clearly prohibited JEREMY FOGEL acted under color of state and or territorial law.

U.S. Constitution, Eleventh Amendment: “The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.”  

JEREMY FOGEL did Breach his Duty and exceeded subject matter jurisdiction in violation of 18 U.S.C. Section 1.  “Whenever a judge acts where he/she does not have jurisdiction to act, the judge is engaged in an act or acts of treason.” U.S. v. Will, 449 U.S. 200, 216, 101 S.Ct. 471, 66 .Ed.2d 392, 406 (1980); Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. (6 Wheat) 264, 404, 5 L.Ed 257 (1821)

Let the JURY NOTE: JEREMY FOGEL proceeded to not only assume jurisdiction when he had none, he went on to ignore extremely serious felonies committed against PLAINTIFFS including false arrest, assault, attempted murder, kidnap and JEREMY FOGEL allowed the continued kidnap of RCB and WFB.  As a DEFENDANT in the afore mentioned Federal case, JEREMY FOGEL, exceeded subject matter jurisdiction and dismissed the case against himself and his co-conspirators and even dismissed the case against DEFENDANTS who had made no appearance what so ever.  JEREMY FOGEL’s actions were willful and malicious. 

DAMAGES

As a proximate consequence of the willful and malicious actions of DEFENDANTS, PLAINTIFF’S have sustained extraordinary damage in a sum to be determined per proof, including severe and extreme emotional stress and anguish, parental alienation, lost time, lost business investments, lost business and prosperity, damaged reputation including both slander and libel, interference with the pursuit of happiness, loss of domestic tranquility, loss of general welfare, and the loss of basic liberties such as enjoying life with one’s own children!

As a consequence of the willful and malicious actions of JEREMY FOGEL/Jeremy Fogel, PLAINTIFF’S have sustained extraordinary damage in a sum certain amount of $66,016,803,250.00.

Damages incurred by Plaintiffs as a direct or indirect consequence to the above mentioned and referenced actions by DEFENDANTS are also incorporated herein as listed in the “K DAMAGES” section of this Complaint.

AUTHORITIES

AUTHORITES in section “K. COMMON AUTHORITIES” are incorporated herein by reference in addition to the following AUTHORITIES:

18 U.S.C. Section 1 “Whenever a judge acts where he/she does not have jurisdiction to act, the judge is engaged in an act or acts of treason.” U.S. v. Will, 449 U.S. 200, 216, 101 S.Ct. 471, 66 .Ed.2d 392, 406 (1980); Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. (6 Wheat) 264, 404, 5 L.Ed 257 (1821)

Tenth Claim For Relief                      Misprision Of Felony – Jeremy Fogel

PLAINTIFFS:

All PLAINTIFFS

DEFENDANTS: 

JEREMY FOGEL, Jeremy Fogel,

Jon Doe’s , 1 to n.

VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS & ULTIMATE FACTS

On multiple occasions, including on or about September 9, 2005, January 27, 2006, March 3, 2006, July 12, 2006, July 21, 2006, October 3, 2006, September 12, 2006 and September 13, 2006, in the above named Judicial District, the crime of MISPRISION OF FELONY, in violation of 18 U.S.C. SECTION 4, a felony, was committed by JEREMY FOGEL, who did willfully and unlawfully commit MISPRISION OF FELONY, JEREMY FOGEL having knowledge and evidence of the commission multiple felonies cognizable by a court of the United States committed against Plaintiffs, said JEREMY FOGEL did conceal and did not make as soon as possible known the same to some judge of other person in civil or military authority under the United States, JEREMY FOGEL did Breach his Duty and acted under color of state or territorial law.  Said multiple felonies committed against Plaintiffs being most grievous having been clearly stated and identified with evidence in pleadings before JEREMY FOGEL, said felonies including but not limited to false arrest, assault, attempted murder, kidnap and treason.

Substantial information having been placed before JEREMY FOGEL showing said felonies having been committed by JEREMY FOGEL in UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION Case Number C 05-00996 JF

DAMAGES

As a proximate consequence of the willful and malicious actions of DEFENDANTS, PLAINTIFF’S have sustained extraordinary damage in a sum to be determined per proof, including severe and extreme emotional stress and anguish, parental alienation, lost time, lost business investments, lost business and prosperity, damaged reputation including both slander and libel, interference with the pursuit of happiness, loss of domestic tranquility, loss of general welfare, and the loss of basic liberties such as enjoying life with one’s own children!

Damages incurred by Plaintiffs as a direct or indirect consequence to the above mentioned and referenced actions by DEFENDANTS are also incorporated herein as listed in the “J.  DAMAGES” section of this Complaint.

AUTHORITIES

AUTHORITES in section “K. COMMON AUTHORITIES” are incorporated herein by reference.

Eleventh Claim For Relief          Conspiracy

PLAINTIFFS:

All Plaintiffs

DEFENDANTS: 

All DEFENDANTS

Jon Doe’s , 1 to n.

VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS & ULTIMATE FACTS

On multiple dates before and on March 10, 2003 to present, in the above named Judicial District, the crime of CONSPIRACY, in violation of Common Law and the Constitution of The United States of America, a felony, was committed by DEFENDANTS, who did by implied actions or willfully and unlawfully commit CONSPIRACY against PLAINTIFFS.  Said actions by conspirators make up concerted CONSPIRACY against PLAINTIFFS which reached common objectives and thus infers said agreement by DEFENDANTS to commit CONSPIRACY.  DEFENDANTS were fully aware that their concerted actions would cause damage to PLAINIFFS.  Overt and blatant criminal acts were intentionally undertaken by certain DEFENDANTS as a concerted part of the multiplicity of CONSPIRACY to commit crimes against PLAINTIFFS.

A well established international conspiracy to form a New World Order obtained control of the U.S. Dollar in 1913[1].  As confirmed by multiple sources, said conspirators set about to establish communism in the United States and other Nations[2].  DEFENDANTS have enjoined in that well established conspiracy and have committed crimes against PLAINTIFFS which are an integral part of said New World Order conspiracy, including the implementation of a Police State in the United States; the claim made by DEFENDANT judges and DA’s in this case that the Sate holds the position of head of family and is authorized to take children from their custodial parent and modify Stipulated Custody Agreements and Orders which is in conformance with said conspiracy’s implementation of socialism/communism; the loaning to PLAINTIFFS money that co-conspirators created out of nothing and then the charging PLAINTIFFS usurious interest rates on said money (Banking DEFENDANTS having charged PLAINTIFFS interest rates as high as 30%); the denials of Constitutionally protected rights in conformance with said conspiracy’s implementation of socialist fascism / communism within the U.S. amongst other crimes committed which further the goals of said conspiracy which have included the malicious prosecution of PLAINTIFFS so as to silence PLAINTIFFS ability to defend themselves and said CONSPIRIACY had prevented PLAINTIFFS from deploying and developing technology and products that threaten said conspiracy.

By kidnapping PLAINTIFF Clive Boustred’s children RCB and WFB while maliciously prosecuting Clive Boustred, conspirators emulate a pattern and practice employed by the New World Order conspirators in Communist U.S.S.R. under Stalin.  PLAINTIFFS have been refused any opportunity to depose any of said individuals and it is believed and assumed and alleged that they are part of the conspiracy against PLAINTIFFS.

In addition Santa Cruz Superior Court Presiding Judge for 2007, Heather D. Morse, is added as a DEFENDANT in this cause of action as it is alleged and believed and proven that she has actively conspired against Clive Boustred by committing misprision of treason by refusing to prosecute and act of Treason Committed by Irwin Joseph.  On or about August 1, 2007 Clive Boustred formally filed a Notice of Treason and proof of said Treason against Irwin Joseph, whom by self admission admitted guilt of Treason when Irwin Joseph who was sued by Clive Boustred insisted on presiding over Santa Cruz Superior Court Case FL 16928 where Clive Boustred was the Plaintiff.  As Presiding Judge, Heather D. Morse not only had a duty to remove Irwin Joseph from presiding over a case in which he has a clear personal interest and bias, Morse had lawful responsibility and duty to remove Irwin Joseph from the bench.  Defendant BARRY BASKIN enjoined in said conspiracy to keep commissioner IRWIN JOSEPH presiding over Clive Boustred’s divorce case where IRWIN JOSEPH consistently conspired without any subject matter jurisdiction to deny Clive Boustred his legal rights, despite IRWIN JOSEPH admitting that he had been sued by Clive Boustred, said BARRY BASKIN concluded that IRWIN JOSEPH was not biased and that as a commissioner IRWIN JOSEPH was entitled to preside over Clive Boustred’s divorce case when Clive Boustred had stipulated that he required a qualified judge and not a commissioner.

DEFENDANTS VICKI PARRY, ANAMARIA TICHATSCHKE and IRWIN JOSEPH having repeatedly refused to allow PLAINTIFF Clive Boustred the right to access his own capital and refinance his home did conspire to inflict usurious interest rates against PLAINTIFFS, when said DEFENDANTS were specifically and directly advised repeatedly and on multiple occasions that Clive Boustred was being subject to usurious interest rates as a direct consequence of their refusal to follow the law and lawful court orders.

Multiple requests to Banking DEFENDANTS to reduce usurious interest rates were repeatedly denied.

Further evidence of the formation and ongoing conspiracy against Clive Boustred by parties listed is extensive and irrefutable and included in the attached Exhibit DVD.  The formation of the conspiracy occurred before the Santa Cruz Sheriffs setup ambush to murder Clive Boustred on March 10 2003. 

PLAINTIFF need only allege and believe said conspiracy exists in order to bring the matter to trial, the judgment and consideration of said evidence being the mater to be tried in a Trial by Jury only.  PLAINTIFFS not only allege and believe this to be the case, PLAINTIFFS incorporate evidence herein proving said conspiracy, see Exhibit Liberty For Life Dot.Bomb Conspiracy News DVD Chapter 1: which includes the recorded claim by DEFENDANT Anamaria Tichatschke (formerly Anamaria Boustred) that her lawyer Vicky Parry knew all the judges in the court and could effectively do anything just prior to the assassination attempt on Clive Boustred’s life;  Evidence includes the seven maliciously prosecuted cases filed against Clive Boustred by Santa Cruz authorities following the attempted murder, with such outrageous malicious prosecution as sentencing Clive Boustred to six months in jail for driving 27 miles per hour along his own private road and filing a felony charge against Clive Boustred for this non-crime; ordering Clive Boustred to not communicate with his children for three years; amongst a hoard of other outrageous false and malicious prosecutions against Clive Boustred which shocks the conscience.  Said evidence is incorporated in files on the DVD in the Liberty For Life v15\abuse folder and in the EXHIBITS DVD which are incorporated herein by reference as if part of the whole of this document.

Proof of the formation and operation of the conspiracy against Clive Boustred is well established and irrefutable in addition to multiple wrongful acts done pursuant to the conspiracy with extreme damage resulting which includes but is not limited to the extreme damage to Clive Boustred’s corporations InfoTelesys, Inc. Get IT Real, Inc. and other business ventures and corporations established by Clive Boustred including Liberty For Life Association, Life Yachts, CopperCards, Santa Cruz Cats, Le Essence and the literal kidnap of Clive Boustred’s children.

The corporate persons who are PLAINTIFFS in this suit have been prevented from conducting business as a consequence of the malicious prosecution of PLAINTIFF Clive Boustred, the founder, Chairman, CEO and key person of said corporate persons.

PLAINTIFFS also allege and believe that other SLAP suits field against Clive Boustred, including but not limited to Santa Cruz Superior Court CASE NO. FL 16028, filed by DEFENDANTS JOHN A. CHRISTERSON, DENNIS J. KEHOE, LEONARD DUECK, Twin Lakes Baptist Church, Inc. and MARK SPURLOCK are also a part of a conspiracy to maliciously prosecute PLAINTIFFS Clive Boustred, Liberty For Life Association and CopperCards and their efforts to eliminate corruption in government and to expose and eliminate the New World Order conspiracy.

As further evidence of the blatant and obvious conspiracy against PLAINTIFFS is the fact that both the State of California and the United States of America have repeatedly refused to allow PLAINTIFFS to bring any of the many serious charges and claims that PLAINTIFFS have backed up with substantial irrefutable evidence which included admissions of guilt by some of the DEFENDANTS, to trial.  However, the State of California has filed as many as seven false and frivolous cases against PLAINTIFF Clive Boustred an has repeatedly allowed their utterly unsubstantiated cases to be brought to trial where the State gave Clive Boustred such absurdly sham trials that said trials could be used as classroom examples of how utterly corrupt a trial can become when the government appoints criminals to the bench and office.  The Opening Briefs and Habeas Corpus’ filed in said cases are incorporated herein by reference and attached to the EVIDENCE DVD included with this case as part of the evidence of said conspiracy.

Additionally DEFENDANTS have displayed deliberate indifference to the rights of plaintiffs, and, based upon the principles set forth in Monell v. New York City Department of Social Services , 436 U.S. 658 (1978), are thereby liable for all injuries and damages sustained by plaintiff as set forth in this complaint.

Further evidence relating to said conspiracy is incorporated in each of the other Claims for Relief’s “VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS & ULTIMATE FACTS” section and incorporated herein by reference.

DAMAGES

As a proximate consequence of the willful and malicious actions of DEFENDANTS, PLAINTIFF’S have sustained extraordinary damage in a sum to be determined per proof, including severe and extreme emotional stress and anguish, parental alienation, lost time, lost business investments, lost business and prosperity, damaged reputation including both slander and libel, interference with the pursuit of happiness, loss of domestic tranquility, loss of general welfare, and the loss of basic liberties such as enjoying life with one’s own children!

Said damages include the sum certain amounts of $66,016,803,250.00 and $3,001,000.00 from the prior lawsuits filed by PLAINTIFFS in this court. PLAINTIFFS seek additional punitive damages in the sum certain amount of one point four trillion dollars against DEFENDANTS (The amount this criminal government has spent so far in invading and assaulting the Nation of Iraq).

Damages incurred by Plaintiffs as a direct or indirect consequence to the above mentioned and referenced actions by DEFENDANTS are also incorporated herein as listed in the “K DAMAGES” section of this Complaint.

AUTHORITIES

AUTHORITES in section “K. COMMON AUTHORITIES” are incorporated herein by reference in addition to the following AUTHORITIES:

The elements of a civil conspiracy are[3]:

• the formation and operation of the conspiracy

• the wrongful act or acts done pursuant the conspiracy, and

• the damage resulting.

The making of a conspiracy does not, by itself, vest the victim with a cause of action against the conspirators. Rather, the existence of a conspiracy may render additional parties liable for the wrong.[4]

Therefore, in order to state a cause of action against a conspirator based on the actions of another conspirator, the plaintiff must allege a cause of action based on those actions[5] and must allege (1) the formation and operation of the conspiracy,

(2) the wrongful acts done pursuant to the conspiracy, and

(3) the damage resulting from such acts.[6]

 “A conspirator is responsible for the acts of other conspirators who have left the conspiracy before he joined it, or joined after he left it; statutes of limitations tolled for previous acts when each new act is done” -  US v. GUEST, 86 S.Ct. 1170; US V.COMPAGNA, 146 F.2d 524.

Twelfth Claim For Relief              Intentional Negligence

PLAINTIFFS:

All PLAINTIFFS

DEFENDANTS: 

All DEFENDANTS

Jon Doe’s , 1 to n.

VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS & ULTIMATE FACTS

On multiple occasions, far to numerous to mention during almost every hearing, pleading or communiqué, in the above named Judicial District, the crime of INTENTIONAL NEGLIGENCE, in violation of Common Law and the Constitution of the United States of America, was committed by DEFENDANTS, who did willfully and unlawfully commit INTENTIONAL NEGLIGENCE, DEFENDANTS having knowledge that their actions were NEGLIGENT and would cause PLAINTIFFS damage.

Further evidence relating to said NEGLIGENCE is incorporated in each of the other Claims for Relief’s “VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS & ULTIMATE FACTS” section and Exhibits and incorporated herein by reference.

DAMAGES

As a proximate consequence of the willful and malicious actions of DEFENDANTS, PLAINTIFF’S have sustained extraordinary damage in a sum to be determined per proof, including severe and extreme emotional stress and anguish, parental alienation, lost time, lost business investments, lost business and prosperity, damaged reputation including both slander and libel, interference with the pursuit of happiness, loss of domestic tranquility, loss of general welfare, and the loss of basic liberties such as enjoying life with one’s own children!

Damages incurred by Plaintiffs as a direct or indirect consequence to the above mentioned and referenced actions by DEFENDANTS are also incorporated herein as listed in the “K DAMAGES” section of this Complaint.

AUTHORITIES

AUTHORITES in section “K. COMMON AUTHORITIES” are incorporated herein by reference in addition to the following AUTHORITIES:

Every person who, under color of any statute ordinance, regulation, custom, or by usage, of any State or Territory, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress. EVERY PERSON SHALL BE LIABLE IN AN ACTION AT LAW SUIT IN EQUITY N0 EXCLUSION FOR JUDGES BY ANY ACT OF CONGRESS UNITED STATES CODE, TITLE 42, SECTION 1985 (3) If two or more persons . . . conspire. . for the purpose of depriving. any person. . . of the equal protection of the laws . . . the party so injured or deprived may have an action for the recovery of damages . . . RECOVERY OF DAMAGES AGAINST ANY ONE OR MORE OF THE CONSPIRATORS N0 EXCLUSION FOR JUDGES BY ANY ACT OF CONGRESS UNITED STATES CODE, TITLE 42, SECTION 1986 Every person who, having knowledge that any of the wrongs . . . are about to be committed, and having power to prevent or aid in preventing the commission of the same, neglects or refuses so to do . . . shall be liable . . . EVERY PERSON SHALL BE LIABLE FOR ALL DAMAGES NO EXCLUSION FOR JUDGES BY ANY ACT OF CONGRESS UNITED STATES CODE, TITLE 42, SECTION 1988: - UNITED STATES CODE, TITLE 42, SECTION 1983

Thirteenth Claim For Relief   Liable / Defamation of Character

PLAINTIFFS:

All PLAINTIFFS

DEFENDANTS: 

IRWIN JOSEPH, Irwin Joseph

SAMUEL S. STEVENS, Samuel S. Stevens

MICHAEL E. BARTON, Michael E. Barton

ANAMARIA BOUSTRED/TICHATSCHKE, Anamaria Boustred/Tichatschke

STEFAN TICHATSCHKE, Stefan Tichatschke

VICKI J. PARRY, Vicki J. Parry

JOHN A. CHRISTERSON (CA State Bar 889096), John A. Christerson

DENNIS J. KEHOE (State Bar 34687), Dennis J. Kehoe

LEONARD DUECK (VP Twin Lakes Baptist Church, Inc.), Leonard Dueck

Twin Lakes Baptist Church, Inc.

MARK SPURLOCK, Mark Spurlock

JAMES WARE, James Ware

TRILLA E. BAHRKE, Trilla E. Bahrke

CHRISTOPHER M. CATTRAN, Christopher M. Cattran

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON, Phyllis J. Hamilton

COUNTY OF SANTA CRUZ, County of Santa Cruz

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, State of California

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, United States of America

BILL LOCKYER, Bill Lockyer (Former California State Attorney General)

PAUL T HAMMERNESS, Paul T Hammerness (Deputy Attorney General)

TROY B. OVERTON, Troy B. Overton (Deputy Attorney General)

JASON M. HEATH, Jason M. Heath (Assistant County Counsel, Santa Cruz)

DANA MCRAE, Dana McRae (County Counsel, Santa Cruz)

MARK TRACY, Mark Tracy (Former Sheriff)

MICHAEL MACDONALD, Michael Macdonald (Deputy Sheriff)

M POOL, M Pool (Deputy Sheriff)

HEMMINGWAY, Hemmingway (deceased)

AMY CHRISTY, Amy Christy

BROZOZOWSKI, Brozozowski

BOB LEE, Bob Lee (Santa Cruz District Attorney)

STEVE DROTTAR, Steve Drottar

ANGELA GLASS, Angela Glass

RAVEN HARRIS, Raven Harris,

Santa Cruz Board of Directors

Jon Doe’s , 1 to n.

VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS & ULTIMATE FACTS

On multiple occasions far to numerous to mention starting on March 10, 2003 during almost every hearing, pleading or communiqué, in the above named Judicial District, the crime of LIABLE and DEFAMATION, in violation of Common Law and the Constitution of the United States of America, was committed by DEFENDANTS, who did willfully and unlawfully commit LIABLE, DEFENDANTS having knowledge that their actions were LIBELOUS and would cause PLAINTIFFS damage.

Further evidence relating to said LIBEL is incorporated in each of the other Claims for Relief’s “VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS & ULTIMATE FACTS” section and Exhibits and incorporated herein by reference.

DAMAGES

As a proximate consequence of the willful and malicious actions of DEFENDANTS, PLAINTIFF’S have sustained extraordinary damage in a sum to be determined per proof, including severe and extreme emotional stress and anguish, parental alienation, lost time, lost business investments, lost business and prosperity, damaged reputation including both slander and libel, interference with the pursuit of happiness, loss of domestic tranquility, loss of general welfare, and the loss of basic liberties such as enjoying life with one’s own children!

Damages incurred by Plaintiffs as a direct or indirect consequence to the above mentioned and referenced actions by DEFENDANTS are also incorporated herein as listed in the “K DAMAGES” section of this Complaint.

AUTHORITIES

AUTHORITES in section “K. COMMON AUTHORITIES” are incorporated herein by reference in addition to the following AUTHORITIES:

Fourteenth Claim For Relief                         Slander

PLAINTIFFS:

All PLAINTIFFS

DEFENDANTS: 

IRWIN JOSEPH, Irwin Joseph

SAMUEL S. STEVENS, Samuel S. Stevens

MICHAEL E. BARTON, Michael E. Barton

ANAMARIA BOUSTRED/TICHATSCHKE, Anamaria Boustred/Tichatschke

STEFAN TICHATSCHKE, Stefan Tichatschke

VICKI J. PARRY, Vicki J. Parry

JOHN A. CHRISTERSON (CA State Bar 889096), John A. Christerson

DENNIS J. KEHOE (State Bar 34687), Dennis J. Kehoe

LEONARD DUECK (VP Twin Lakes Baptist Church, Inc.), Leonard Dueck

Twin Lakes Baptist Church, Inc.

MARK SPURLOCK, Mark Spurlock

JAMES WARE, James Ware

TRILLA E. BAHRKE, Trilla E. Bahrke

CHRISTOPHER M. CATTRAN, Christopher M. Cattran

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON, Phyllis J. Hamilton

COUNTY OF SANTA CRUZ, County of Santa Cruz

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, State of California

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, United States of America

BILL LOCKYER, Bill Lockyer (Former California State Attorney General)

PAUL T HAMMERNESS, Paul T Hammerness (Deputy Attorney General)

TROY B. OVERTON, Troy B. Overton (Deputy Attorney General)

JASON M. HEATH, Jason M. Heath (Assistant County Counsel, Santa Cruz)

DANA MCRAE, Dana McRae (County Counsel, Santa Cruz)

MARK TRACY, Mark Tracy (Former Sheriff)

MICHAEL MACDONALD, Michael Macdonald (Deputy Sheriff)

M POOL, M Pool (Deputy Sheriff)

HEMMINGWAY, Hemmingway (deceased)

AMY CHRISTY, Amy Christy

BROZOZOWSKI, Brozozowski

BOB LEE, Bob Lee (Santa Cruz District Attorney)

STEVE DROTTAR, Steve Drottar

ANGELA GLASS, Angela Glass

RAVEN HARRIS, Raven Harris,

Santa Cruz Board of Directors

Jon Doe’s , 1 to n.

VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS & ULTIMATE FACTS

On multiple occasions, far to numerous to mention during almost every hearing, pleading or communiqué, in the above named Judicial District, the crime of LIABLE, in violation of Common Law, was committed by DEFENDANTS, who did willfully and unlawfully commit LIABLE, DEFENDANTS having knowledge that their actions were LIBELOUS and would cause PLAINTIFFS damage.

Further evidence relating to said SLANDER is incorporated in each of the other Claims for Relief’s “VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS & ULTIMATE FACTS” section and Exhibits and incorporated herein by reference.

DAMAGES

As a proximate consequence of the willful and malicious actions of DEFENDANTS, PLAINTIFF’S have sustained extraordinary damage in a sum to be determined per proof, including severe and extreme emotional stress and anguish, parental alienation, lost time, lost business investments, lost business and prosperity, damaged reputation including both slander and libel, interference with the pursuit of happiness, loss of domestic tranquility, loss of general welfare, and the loss of basic liberties such as enjoying life with one’s own children!

Damages incurred by Plaintiffs as a direct or indirect consequence to the above mentioned and referenced actions by DEFENDANTS are also incorporated herein as listed in the “K DAMAGES” section of this Complaint.

AUTHORITIES

AUTHORITES in section “K. COMMON AUTHORITIES” are incorporated herein by reference.

Fifteenth Claim For Relief          Intentional/Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress, Fraud/Deceit, Wrongful Civil Proceedings / Abuse Of Process

PLAINTIFFS:

All PLAINTIFFS

DEFENDANTS: 

IRWIN JOSEPH, Irwin Joseph

SAMUEL S. STEVENS, Samuel S. Stevens

MICHAEL E. BARTON, Michael E. Barton

ANAMARIA BOUSTRED/TICHATSCHKE, Anamaria Boustred/Tichatschke

STEFAN TICHATSCHKE, Stefan Tichatschke

VICKI J. PARRY, Vicki J. Parry

JOHN A. CHRISTERSON (CA State Bar 889096), John A. Christerson

DENNIS J. KEHOE (State Bar 34687), Dennis J. Kehoe

LEONARD DUECK (VP Twin Lakes Baptist Church, Inc.), Leonard Dueck

Twin Lakes Baptist Church, Inc.

MARK SPURLOCK, Mark Spurlock

JAMES WARE, James Ware

TRILLA E. BAHRKE, Trilla E. Bahrke

CHRISTOPHER M. CATTRAN, Christopher M. Cattran

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON, Phyllis J. Hamilton

COUNTY OF SANTA CRUZ, County of Santa Cruz

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, State of California

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, United States of America

BILL LOCKYER, Bill Lockyer (Former California State Attorney General)

PAUL T HAMMERNESS, Paul T Hammerness (Deputy Attorney General)

TROY B. OVERTON, Troy B. Overton (Deputy Attorney General)

JASON M. HEATH, Jason M. Heath (Assistant County Counsel, Santa Cruz)

DANA MCRAE, Dana McRae (County Counsel, Santa Cruz)

MARK TRACY, Mark Tracy (Former Sheriff)

MICHAEL MACDONALD, Michael Macdonald (Deputy Sheriff)

M POOL, M Pool (Deputy Sheriff)

HEMMINGWAY, Hemmingway (deceased)

AMY CHRISTY, Amy Christy

BROZOZOWSKI, Brozozowski

BOB LEE, Bob Lee (Santa Cruz District Attorney)

STEVE DROTTAR, Steve Drottar

ANGELA GLASS, Angela Glass

RAVEN HARRIS, Raven Harris,

Santa Cruz Board of Directors

Jon Doe’s , 1 to n.

VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS & ULTIMATE FACTS

On or about February 20, 2003 and other dates, in the above named Judicial District, the crime of INTENTIONAL/NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS and or FRAUD/DECEIT and or WRONGFUL CIVIL PROCEEDINGS / ABUSE OF PROCESS, in violation of Common Law and the Constitution of The United States of America, was committed by DEFENDANT/S listed above, who did willfully and unlawfully commit said crimes.

On or about February 20, 2003, in violation of Rules 7-103 and 7-108 of the Rules of Professional Responsibility and Conduct of The State Bar of California and without any basis for an urgency and without giving proper notice in violation of section § 240 of California’s Family Code and also without any legal basis, DEFENDANT Vicki J. Parry called an unethical and unlawful ex parte hearing to “clarify” an order prohibiting Petitioner Clive Boustred’s former personal assistant and his wife’s lover, DEFENDANT Stefan Tichatschke, from contact with RCB and WFB.  Vicki J. Parry unlawfully secured a void Order unlawfully granting Stefan Tichatschke the right to have contact with Petitioner’s RCB and WFB.

On repeated occasions following sad abuse of process on February 20, 2002,  DEFENDANTS Samuel S. Stevens, Art Danner (Deceased), Michael E. Barton, Trilla E. Bahrke, William M. Kelsay, Irwin Joseph, Phyllis J. Hamilton, DEFENDANT, Michael Macdonald, Amy Christy, M Pool, Mark Tracy, Hemmingway (Deceased), Brozozowski, Griffin, Steven Drottar, Bob Lee, Bill Doyle, Christopher M. Cattran, Anamaria Boustred, Steffan Tichatschke, Genworth Financial, Gregor Guy Smith, Robert Frandeen, Paul Meltzer, Vicki J. Parry, Jason M. Heath, Raven Harris, Angela Glass, and Jon Doe’s 1 to n. Intentionally and/or Negligently Inflicted Emotional Distress and committed Fraud and engaged in Racketeering and Wrongful Civil Proceedings / Abuse Of Process against PLAINTIFFS.  Including the filing of as many as seven false cases against PLAINTIFF Clive Boustred, kidnapping RCB and WFB and holding them hostage from their father Clive Boustred who they repeatedly threw in jail on absurd charges.

DEFENDANTS' conduct as described herein was not only outrageous it was intentional and malicious, or at the least grossly negligent, exhibiting a reckless disregard for plaintiffs' rights and conspiring against plaintiffs, causing plaintiffs to suffer humiliation, mental anguish, financial burdens, excessive court hearings and need to answer false charges, stress and emotional and physical distress and plaintiffs were injured financially and in mind and body all to their damage in amounts according to proof.  DEFENDANTS owed a duty to plaintiffs not to cause the harm as herein alleged.  DEFENDANTS breached said duty.

The aforementioned acts of DEFENDANTS were willful, wanton, malicious and oppressive and justify the awarding of exemplary and punitive damages in amounts according to proof.

Further evidence relating to said crimes are incorporated in each of the other Claims for Relief’s “VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS & ULTIMATE FACTS” section and Exhibits and incorporated herein by reference.

DAMAGES

As a proximate consequence of the willful and malicious actions of DEFENDANTS, PLAINTIFF’S have sustained extraordinary damage in a sum to be determined per proof, including severe and extreme emotional stress and anguish, parental alienation, lost time, lost business investments, lost business and prosperity, damaged reputation including both slander and libel, interference with the pursuit of happiness, loss of domestic tranquility, loss of general welfare, and the loss of basic liberties such as enjoying life with one’s own children!

Damages incurred by Plaintiffs as a direct or indirect consequence to the above mentioned and referenced actions by DEFENDANTS are also incorporated herein as listed in the “K DAMAGES” section of this Complaint.

AUTHORITIES

AUTHORITES in section “K. COMMON AUTHORITIES” are incorporated herein by reference.:

Sixteenth Claim For Relief        Wrongful Civil Proceedings / Abuse Of Process

PLAINTIFFS:

Clive Boustred, RCB and WFB

DEFENDANTS: 

DENNIS J. KEHOE (State Bar 34687), Dennis J. Kehoe

Dennis Kehoe Law Corp.

JOHN A. CHRISTERSON (CA State Bar 889096), John A. Christerson

LEONARD DUECK (VP Twin Lakes Baptist Church, Inc.), Leonard Dueck

Twin Lakes Baptist Church, Inc.

MARK SPURLOCK, Mark Spurlock

Jon Doe’s , 1 to n.

VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS & ULTIMATE FACTS

On or about October 18, 2007 and October 31, 2007 (Halloween) and on other occasions, in the above named Judicial District, the crime of WRONGFUL CIVIL PROCEEDINGS / ABUSE OF PROCESS, in violation of Common Law and the Constitution of the United States of America and the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th, 13th, 14th Amendments thereto, was committed by DEFENDANT/S listed above, who did willfully and unlawfully commit said crimes and civil violations.

DEFENDANTS engaged in the blatantly wrongful institution of civil proceedings by filing an absurd case against Respondent Clive Boustred where DEFENDANTS sought to prohibit Clive Boustred from communicating with his own children RCB and WFB and where DEFENDANTS did prohibit Clive Boustred from attending or communicating with approximately four thousand members of the Church where Clive Boustred is a member.  DEFENDANTS actions were malicious and intentional, DEFENDANTS have also caused other significant damage to Clive Boustred, RCB and WFB, including SLANDER, LIBEL, GRAND THEFT AUTO, MALICIOUS PROSECTION, PARENTAL ALIANATION and KIDNAP, which is also alleged and charged herein.

DAMAGES

As a proximate consequence of the willful and malicious actions of DEFENDANTS, PLAINTIFF’S have sustained extraordinary damage in a sum to be determined per proof, including severe and extreme emotional stress and anguish, parental alienation, lost time, lost business investments, lost business and prosperity, damaged reputation including both slander and libel, interference with the pursuit of happiness, loss of domestic tranquility, loss of general welfare, and the loss of basic liberties such as enjoying life with one’s own children!

Damages incurred by Plaintiffs as a direct or indirect consequence to the above mentioned and referenced actions by DEFENDANTS are also incorporated herein as listed in the “K DAMAGES” section of this Complaint.

AUTHORITIES

AUTHORITES in section “K. COMMON AUTHORITIES” are incorporated herein by reference.

Seventeenth Claim For Relief                     Violation of U.S. Const. 1st Amendment Freedom of Speech

U.S. Constitution, Amendment II: “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.”

PLAINTIFFS:

Clive Boustred, RCB and WFB

DEFENDANTS: 

DENNIS J. KEHOE (State Bar 34687), Dennis J. Kehoe

Dennis Kehoe Law Corp.

JOHN A. CHRISTERSON (CA State Bar 889096), John A. Christerson

LEONARD DUECK (VP Twin Lakes Baptist Church, Inc.), Leonard Dueck

Twin Lakes Baptist Church, Inc.

MARK SPURLOCK, Mark Spurlock

Paula Simmons

County of Santa Cruz

State of California

Judge Paul R. Burdick

Jon Doe’s , 1 to n.

VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS & ULTIMATE FACTS

On or about October 18, 2007, John A. Christerson (CA State Bar 889096), Dennis J. Kehoe (State Bar 34687), Leonard Dueck (VP Twin Lakes Baptist Church, Inc.) filed a “CH-100 Request for Order to Stop Harassment” seeking the following: That “Clive Boustred is not allowed to contact or communicate with any students and/or families and/or employees of Twin Lakes Christian School or Twin Lakes Church by telephone, letter, electronic communication or otherwise.”.  Said lawsuit was filed in violation of Petitioner Clive Boustred, RCB and WFB’s First Amendment rights.  On October 18, 2007, Judge Paul R. Burdick issued an order restricting Petitioner Clive Boustred from communicating with four thousand members of the Church where Clive Boustred is a member or from entering the property of said Church.  Twin Lakes Baptist Church, Inc. filed to have the case heard on Halloween.  The Case was brought before the Honorable Judge Robert Atack.  The court found insufficient evidence to support the issuance of any restraining order and the order restraining Clive Boustred was dissolved.

In January of 2008 Paula Simmons instructed RCB that he may not exercise free speech and ordered RCB to not talk about the government and associated current events.  Paula Simmons not only violated RCB’s right to free speech, she set such a poor example for a child of learning age oppressing an eleven year old child is hardly admirable, especially when the adult is incompetent of answering the child’s legitimate and well constructed questions, facts and issues relating to current government.  These are issues, especially teaching children about the tremendous Constitution of the United States of America, that are totally inappropriate in a school setting.

DAMAGES

As a proximate consequence of the willful and malicious actions of DEFENDANTS, PLAINTIFF’S have sustained extraordinary damage in a sum to be determined per proof, including severe and extreme emotional stress and anguish, parental alienation, lost time, lost business investments, lost business and prosperity, damaged reputation including both slander and libel, interference with the pursuit of happiness, loss of domestic tranquility, loss of general welfare, and the loss of basic liberties such as enjoying life with one’s own children!

Damages incurred by Plaintiffs as a direct or indirect consequence to the above mentioned and referenced actions by DEFENDANTS are also incorporated herein as listed in the “K DAMAGES” section of this Complaint.

AUTHORITIES

AUTHORITES in section “K. COMMON AUTHORITIES” are incorporated herein by reference in addition to the following AUTHORITIES:

Eighteenth Claim For Relief  Violation of U.S. Const. 2nd Amendment [Right to Bear Arms]

PLAINTIFFS:

Clive Boustred

DEFENDANTS: 

MICHAEL E. BARTON, Michael E. Barton

SAMUEL S. STEVENS, Samuel S. Stevens

ANAMARIA TICHATSCHKE (Formerly BOUSTRED), Anamaria Tichatschke

VICKI J. PARRY, Vicki J. Parry

DENNIS J. KEHOE (State Bar 34687), Dennis J. Kehoe

Dennis Kehoe Law Corp.

JOHN A. CHRISTERSON (CA State Bar 889096), John A. Christerson

LEONARD DUECK (VP Twin Lakes Baptist Church, Inc.), Leonard Dueck

Twin Lakes Baptist Church, Inc.

MARK SPURLOCK, Mark Spurlock

COUNTY OF SANTA CRUZ, County of Santa Cruz

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, State of California

PAUL R. BURDICK, Paul R. Burdick

Jon Doe’s , 1 to n.

VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS & ULTIMATE FACTS

On March 11, 2003, DEFENDANTS Anamaria Tichatschke (Formerly Anamaria Boustred) and Jicki Parry filed a DV-100 Temporary Restraining Order and Notice of Hearing, said DV-100 violated PETITIONERS 2nd Amendment rights.  Judge Michael E. Barton issued said TRO violating PETITIONERS 2nd Amendment right.  Let the Jury Note: Michael E. Barton ignored the Order to Show Cause and Affidavit for Contempt and Notice of Motion And Motion, Verified Criminal Complaint, Contempt of Court filed by PETITIONER Clive Boustred the day before on March 10, 2003 and before Deputy Sheriff Michael Macdonald shot at PLAINTIFFS Clive Boustred, RCB and WFB.

In light of the assassination attempt by the Sheriffs on PLAINTIF Clive Boustred’s life and the fact that the Sheriffs literally shot at Mr. Boustred and his children, a violation of the 2nd Amendment in light of the outrageous violent criminal acts by the government at such a point in time is particularly serious.  The 2nd Amendment’s principle purpose is to allow citizens to defend themselves from out of control government.  For the government to attempt to murder a citizen then turn around and order that citizen to hand in their means of defense is a most outrageous and violent violation of the 2nd Amendment. 

This action by the government should be viewed in light of the pattern of practice of the government and elements or the government’s active involvement in blowing up the World Trade Center on 9/11 then turning around and eliminating citizens rights to defend themselves and granting the government insane rights that go as far as to completely and treasonously pervert the construct of the Constitution and Common Law’s “innocent until proven guilty” to the Patriot Act’s “guilty without any right to prove innocence”.  Our government is attacking us then ordering us to hand in our means of defense and granting themselves the right to throw us in jail for whatever reason they invent without any right to the protection of law or any means of defending us from their police who are now armed to the teeth, a police force that looks more like an army than officers of the law. 

The extent of these violations by the government, have however extended to the extraordinary level of literally eliminating the 1878 Posse Comitatus Act.  Said Posse Comitatus Act formed the ingrained protection of citizens from the government and prohibited the government from using our military forces against us.  This Act defined and controlled governmental abuse since 1878 through all the World Wars and major wars since, however, this administration somehow believes it necessary to eliminate this fundamental protection of U.S. citizens and in early 2006 Congress passed bill H.R.5122 granting the President the right to commandeer Federal and State National Guard Troops for use against citizens.  In light of the Judicially Appointed President George W. Bush’s war crimes and direct family ties to Hitler[7], this bill entitled the “John Warner Defense Appropriation Act for Fiscal Year 2007” is particularly chilling.

On or about October 18, 2007, John A. Christerson (CA State Bar 889096), Dennis J. Kehoe (State Bar 34687), Leonard Dueck (VP Twin Lakes Baptist Church, Inc.) filed a “CH-100 Request for Order to Stop Harassment” seeking the following: That “Clive Boustred is not allowed to contact or communicate with any students and/or families and/or employees of Twin Lakes Christian School or Twin Lakes Church by telephone, letter, electronic communication or otherwise.”.  Said lawsuit was filed in violation of Petitioner Clive Boustred’s Second Amendment rights.  On October 18, 2007, Judge Paul R. Burdick issued an order violating Petitioner Clive Boustred’s 2nd Amendment Rights by ordering, without any cause what so ever the following:

“(7) No Guns or Other Firearms
You cannot own, possess, have, buy or try to buy, receive or try to receive, or in any other way get a gun or firearm.”

“(8) Turn in or Sell Guns or Firearms
You must:
. Sell to a licensed gun dealer or turn in to police any guns or firearms that you possess or control.  This must be don within 24 hours of being served with this order.
. File a receipt with the court within 48 hours of receiving this order that proves guns have been turned in or sold.  (You may use Form CH-145 for this)

“Warning and Notices to the Restrained Person in (2) [Clive Boustred] You Cannot Have Guns or Firearms
You cannot own, have, possess, buy or try to buy, receive or try to receive, or otherwise get a gun while this Order is in effect.  If you do, you can go to jail and pay a $1,000 fine.  You must sell to a licensed gun dealer or turn in to police any guns or firearms that you have or control in accordance with item (8) above.  The court will require you to prove that you did so.  If you do not obey this Order, you can be charged with a crime.”

AUTHORITIES

AUTHORITES in section “K. COMMON AUTHORITIES” are incorporated herein by reference in addition to the following AUTHORITIES:

“O sir, we should have fine times, indeed, if, to punish tyrants, it were only sufficient to assemble the people! Your arms, wherewith you could defend yourselves, are gone; and you have no longer an aristocratical, no longer a democratical spirit. Did you ever read of any revolution in a nation, brought about by the punishment of those in power, inflicted by those who had no power at all?” - Patrick Henry, speech in the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 5, 1778

2nd Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America: “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.” [PROPOSED: September 25th, 1789; ratified December 15th, 1791]

CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, 1849 ARTICLE I. Declaration of Rights. Sec. 12. The military shall be subordinate to the civil power. No standing army shall be kept up by this State in time of peace; and in time of war no appropriation for a standing army shall be for a longer time than two years.

See also http://www.libertyforlfie.com/military-war/2nd_amendment.htm and

http://www.libertyforlfie.com/military-war/anti_gun_lobby.htm

Nineteenth Claim For Relief  Conversion

PLAINTIFFS:

Clive Boustred

DEFENDANTS:

Santa Cruz Deputy Sheriff Griffin

Santa Cruz Sheriffs

Twin Lakes Baptist Church, Inc.

The County of Santa Cruz

The State of California

The Attorney General of The State of California,

John Does 1-n.

VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS & ULTIMATE FACTS

On or about September 9, 2003 Deputy Griffin, the County of Santa Cruz and State of California and John Does 1-n  committed CONVERSION by unlawfully taking Clive Boustred’s vehicle from the Twin Lakes Church’s parking lot and County and Sheriff employees did repeatedly refuse to return said vehicle and did unlawfully extort money in exchange for said vehicle from Clive Boustred.  Said DEFENDANTS did willfully and unlawfully commit said crimes in violation of Common Law and United States Constitution and the 4th, 5th, 8th, 9th and 14th Amendments.

DAMAGES

As a proximate consequence of the willful and malicious actions of DEFENDANTS, PLAINTIFF’S sustained damage in a sum to be determined per proof, including severe and extreme emotional stress and anguish, lost time, lost business and prosperity, damaged reputation including both slander and libel, interference with the pursuit of happiness, loss of domestic tranquility, loss of general welfare, and the loss of basic liberties and the fees and fines the Sheriffs and their agents demanded PLAINTIFF pay to recover his vehicle which the Sheriffs stole with the cooperation of Twin Lakes Baptist Church, Inc.

AUTHORITIES

AUTHORITES in section “K. COMMON AUTHORITIES” are incorporated herein by reference in addition to the following AUTHORITIES:

 

Twentieth Claim For Relief     Disparagement Of Business Reputation Or Property, Interference With Business Relations, Pure Economic Loss, Intentional Interference With Prospective Economic Advantage,

PLAINTIFFS:

All Plaintiffs

DEFENDANTS: 

All DEFENDANTS

Jon Doe’s , 1 to n.

VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS & ULTIMATE FACTS

On or about multiple dates between March 10, 2003 and present, in the above named Judicial District, the crime of DISPARAGEMENT OF BUSINESS REPUTATION OR PROPERTY, INTERFERENCE WITH BUSINESS RELATIONS, PURE ECONOMIC LOSS, INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE WITH PROSPECTIVE ECONOMIC ADVANTAGE, in violation of Common Law and the Constitution of United States of America and the 1st, 4th, 5th, 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th, 14th Amendments, was committed by DEFENDANT/S listed above, who did willfully and unlawfully commit said crime/action

DAMAGES

As a proximate consequence of the willful and malicious actions of DEFENDANTS, PLAINTIFF’S have sustained extraordinary damage in a sum to be determined per proof, including severe and extreme emotional stress and anguish, parental alienation, lost time, lost business investments, lost business and prosperity, damaged reputation including both slander and libel, interference with the pursuit of happiness, loss of domestic tranquility, loss of general welfare, and the loss of basic liberties such as enjoying life with one’s own children!

Damages incurred by Plaintiffs as a direct or indirect consequence to the above mentioned and referenced actions by DEFENDANTS are also incorporated herein as listed in the “K DAMAGES” section of this Complaint.

AUTHORITIES

AUTHORITES in section “K. COMMON AUTHORITIES” are incorporated herein by reference in addition to the following AUTHORITIES:

Twenty-first Claim For Relief                    Treason – James Ware

PLAINTIFFS:

All PLAINTIFFS

DEFENDANT: 

JAMES WARE, James Ware

VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS & ULTIMATE FACTS

On multiple occasions, including on or about March 19, 2007; April 9, 2007; April 25, 2007, May 7, 2007 and June 4, 2007, in the above named Judicial District, the crime of TREASON, in violation of 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1, a felony, was committed by JAMES WARE, who did willfully and unlawfully commit TREASON.  JAMES WARE having knowledge of the law and the fact that PLAINTIFFS in U.S. District Court San Jose case number C07 00391 had filed said case under the 11th Amendment in which said case was filed not only against JAMES WARE’s employer but also his colleagues and that said case was filed by citizens of another State across state borders against the State and thus in accordance with not only due process, but also in accordance with the 11th Amendment of the United States Constitution JAMES WARE had no Judicial power in said case and JAMES WARE thus exceeded subject matter jurisdiction by making rulings in a case in which Judicial power was clearly prohibited JAMES WARE acted under color of state or territorial law.

U.S. Constitution, Eleventh Amendment: “The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.”  

JAMES WARE did Breach his Duty and exceeded subject matter jurisdiction in violation of 18 U.S.C. Section 1.  “Whenever a judge acts where he/she does not have jurisdiction to act, the judge is engaged in an act or acts of treason.” U.S. v. Will, 449 U.S. 200, 216, 101 S.Ct. 471, 66 .Ed.2d 392, 406 (1980); Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. (6 Wheat) 264, 404, 5 L.Ed 257 (1821)

Let the JURY NOTE: JAMES WARE proceeded to not only assume jurisdiction when he had none, he went on to ignore extremely serious felonies committed against PLAINTIFFS including false arrest, assault, attempted murder, kidnap and JAMES WARE allowed the continued kidnap of RCB and WFB.  JAMES WARE’s actions were willful and malicious. 

Let the JURY also NOTE: In a case heard before PLAINTIFFS case on or about April 9, 2007 in which JAMES WARE had subject matter jurisdiction, JAMES WARE in that case claimed he had no subject matter jurisdiction

DAMAGES

As a proximate consequence of the willful and malicious actions of DEFENDANTS, PLAINTIFF’S have sustained extraordinary damage in a sum to be determined per proof, including severe and extreme emotional stress and anguish, parental alienation, lost time, lost business investments, lost business and prosperity, damaged reputation including both slander and libel, interference with the pursuit of happiness, loss of domestic tranquility, loss of general welfare, and the loss of basic liberties such as enjoying life with one’s own children!

Damages incurred by Plaintiffs as a direct or indirect consequence to the above mentioned and referenced actions by DEFENDANTS are also incorporated herein as listed in the “K DAMAGES” section of this Complaint.

AUTHORITIES

AUTHORITES in section “K. COMMON AUTHORITIES” are incorporated herein by reference in addition to the following AUTHORITIES:

Twenty-second Claim For Relief         Misprision Of Felony – James Ware

PLAINTIFFS:

All PLAINTIFFS

DEFENDANT: 

JAMES WARE, James Ware

VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS & ULTIMATE FACTS

On or about January 18, 2007; January 25, 2007; February 26, 2007; March 19, 2007; April 9, 2007, April 25, 2007; May 7, 2007 and June 4, 2007, in the above named Judicial District, the crime of MISPRISION OF FELONY, in violation of 18 U.S.C. SECTION 4, a felony, was committed by JAMES WARE, who did willfully and unlawfully commit MISPRISION OF FELONY, JAMES WARE having knowledge and evidence of the commission multiple felonies cognizable by a court of the United States committed against Plaintiffs, said JAMES WARE did conceal and did not make as soon as possible known the same to some judge of other person in civil or military authority under the United States, JAMES WARE did Breach his Duty and acted under color of state or territorial law.  Said multiple felonies committed against Plaintiffs being most grievous having been clearly stated and identified in pleading before JAMES WARE, said felonies including but not limited to false arrest, assault, attempted murder, kidnap and treason.

Substantial information having been placed before JAMES WARE showing said felonies having been committed by JAMES WARE in U.S. District Court San Jose case number C07 00391.

DAMAGES

As a proximate consequence of the willful and malicious actions of DEFENDANTS, PLAINTIFF’S have sustained extraordinary damage in a sum to be determined per proof, including severe and extreme emotional stress and anguish, parental alienation, lost time, lost business investments, lost business and prosperity, damaged reputation including both slander and libel, interference with the pursuit of happiness, loss of domestic tranquility, loss of general welfare, and the loss of basic liberties such as enjoying life with one’s own children!

Damages incurred by Plaintiffs as a direct or indirect consequence to the above mentioned and referenced actions by DEFENDANTS are also incorporated herein as listed in the “K DAMAGES” section of this Complaint.

AUTHORITIES

AUTHORITES in section “K. COMMON AUTHORITIES” are incorporated herein by reference in addition to the following AUTHORITIES:

Twenty-third Claim For Relief                Misprision Of Felony – Attorney General & Santa Cruz County Sheriffs, Counsel & Board

PLAINTIFFS:

All PLAINTIFFS

DEFENDANTS: 

BILL LOCKYER, Bill Lockyer (Former California State Attorney General)

PAUL T HAMMERNESS, Paul T Hammerness (Deputy Attorney General)

TROY B. OVERTON, Troy B. Overton (Deputy Attorney General)

SAMUEL S. STEVENS, Samuel S. Stevens

MICHAEL E. BARTON, Michael E. Barton

ART DANNER, Art Danner (Deceased)

ROBERT B. ATACK, Robert B. Atack

JON N. ANTON, Jon N. Anton

JASON M. HEATH, Jason M. Heath (Assistant County Counsel, Santa Cruz)

DANA MCRAE, Dana McRae (County Counsel, Santa Cruz)

MARK TRACY, Mark Tracy (Former Sheriff)

MICHAEL MACDONALD, Michael Macdonald (Deputy Sheriff)

M POOL, M Pool (Deputy Sheriff)

HEMMINGWAY, Hemmingway (deceased)

AMY CHRISTY, Amy Christy

BROZOZOWSKI, Brozozowski

BOB LEE, Bob Lee (Santa Cruz District Attorney)

STEVE DROTTAR, Steve Drottar

ANGELA GLASS, Angela Glass

RAVEN HARRIS, Raven Harris,

Santa Cruz Board of Directors DDDD

John Does 1 to n.

VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS & ULTIMATE FACTS

On multiple dates starting on or about March 10, 2003 to present, in the above named Judicial District, the crime of MISPRISION OF FELONY, in violation of 18 U.S.C. SECTION 4, a felony, was committed by DEFENDANTS, who did willfully and unlawfully commit MISPRISION OF FELONY, DEFENDANTS having knowledge and evidence of the commission multiple felonies cognizable by a court of the United States committed against Plaintiffs, said DEFENDANTS did conceal and did not make as soon as possible known the same to some judge of other person in civil or military authority under the United States, DEFENDANTS did Breach their Duty and acted under color of state or territorial law.  Said multiple felonies committed against Plaintiffs being most grievous having been clearly stated and identified in pleadings before DEFENDANTS, said felonies including but not limited to false arrest, assault, attempted murder, kidnap and treason.

Substantial information having been placed before DEFENDANTS showing said felonies having been committed by DEFENDANTS in multiple court cases.

DAMAGES

As a proximate consequence of the willful and malicious actions of DEFENDANTS, PLAINTIFF’S have sustained extraordinary damage in a sum to be determined per proof, including severe and extreme emotional stress and anguish, parental alienation, lost time, lost business investments, lost business and prosperity, damaged reputation including both slander and libel, interference with the pursuit of happiness, loss of domestic tranquility, loss of general welfare, and the loss of basic liberties such as enjoying life with one’s own children!

Damages incurred by Plaintiffs as a direct or indirect consequence to the above mentioned and referenced actions by DEFENDANTS are also incorporated herein as listed in the “K DAMAGES” section of this Complaint.

AUTHORITIES

AUTHORITES in section “K. COMMON AUTHORITIES” are incorporated herein by reference in addition to the following AUTHORITIES:

Twenty-fourth Claim For Relief          Misprision Of Felony – Phyllis J. Hamilton

PLAINTIFFS:

All PLAINTIFFS

DEFENDANTS: 

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON, Phyllis J. Hamilton

VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS & ULTIMATE FACTS

On or about July 5, 2005, May 6, 2005, August 10, 2005, September 13, 2005 and December 5 , 2005 in the above named Judicial District, the crime of MISPRISION OF FELONY, in violation of 18 U.S.C. SECTION 4, a felony, was committed by PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON, who did willfully and unlawfully commit MISPRISION OF FELONY, PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON having knowledge and evidence of the commission multiple felonies cognizable by a court of the United States committed against Plaintiffs, said PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON did conceal and did not make as soon as possible known the same to some judge of other person in civil or military authority under the United States, PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON did Breach her Duty and acted under color of state or territorial law.  Said multiple felonies committed against Plaintiffs being most grievous having been clearly stated and identified in pleadings before PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON, said felonies including but not limited to attempted murder, kidnap and treason.

Substantial information having been placed before PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON showing said felonies having been committed by DEFENDANTS in U.S. District Court San Jose case number C0500995 - PJH.

DAMAGES

As a proximate consequence of the willful and malicious actions of DEFENDANTS, PLAINTIFF’S have sustained extraordinary damage in a sum to be determined per proof, including severe and extreme emotional stress and anguish, parental alienation, lost time, lost business investments, lost business and prosperity, damaged reputation including both slander and libel, interference with the pursuit of happiness, loss of domestic tranquility, loss of general welfare, and the loss of basic liberties such as enjoying life with one’s own children!

Damages incurred by Plaintiffs as a direct or indirect consequence to the above mentioned and referenced actions by DEFENDANTS are also incorporated herein as listed in the “K DAMAGES” section of this Complaint.

AUTHORITIES

AUTHORITES in section “K. COMMON AUTHORITIES” are incorporated herein by reference in addition to the following AUTHORITIES:

Twenty-fifth Claim For Relief                  Misprision Of Felony – Troy B. Overton

PLAINTIFFS:

All PLAINTIFFS

DEFENDANTS: 

TROY B OVERTON, Troy B Overton

VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS & ULTIMATE FACTS

On or about August 8, 2006 and on other dates in the above named Judicial District, the crime of MISPRISION OF FELONY, in violation of 18 U.S.C. SECTION 4, a felony, was committed by TROY B. OVERTON, who did willfully and unlawfully commit MISPRISION OF FELONY, TROY B. OVERTON having knowledge and evidence of the commission multiple felonies cognizable by a court of the United States committed against Plaintiffs, said TROY B. OVERTON did conceal and did not make as soon as possible known the same to some judge of other person in civil or military authority under the United States, TROY B. OVERTON did Breach her Duty and acted under color of state or territorial law.  Said multiple felonies committed against Plaintiffs being most grievous having been clearly stated and identified in pleadings before TROY B. OVERTON, said felonies including but not limited to attempted murder, kidnap and treason.

Substantial information having been placed before TROY B. OVERTON showing said felonies having been committed by DEFENDANTS in U.S. District Court San Jose case number C0500996.

DAMAGES

As a proximate consequence of the willful and malicious actions of DEFENDANTS, PLAINTIFF’S have sustained extraordinary damage in a sum to be determined per proof, including severe and extreme emotional stress and anguish, parental alienation, lost time, lost business investments, lost business and prosperity, damaged reputation including both slander and libel, interference with the pursuit of happiness, loss of domestic tranquility, loss of general welfare, and the loss of basic liberties such as enjoying life with one’s own children!

Damages incurred by Plaintiffs as a direct or indirect consequence to the above mentioned and referenced actions by DEFENDANTS are also incorporated herein as listed in the “K DAMAGES” section of this Complaint.

AUTHORITIES

AUTHORITES in section “K. COMMON AUTHORITIES” are incorporated herein by reference in addition to the following AUTHORITIES:

Twenty-sixth Claim For Relief                 Misprision Of Felony – M. M. Schroeder

PLAINTIFFS:

All PLAINTIFFS

DEFENDANTS: 

M. M. SCHROEDER, M. M. Schroeder

VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS & ULTIMATE FACTS

On of about February 8, 2007 in United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth District case number 06-89076 in the above named Judicial District, the crime of MISPRISION OF FELONY, in violation of 18 U.S.C. SECTION 4, a felony, was committed by M. M. SCHROEDER (Chief Judge), who did willfully and unlawfully commit MISPRISION OF FELONY, M. M. SCHROEDER having knowledge and evidence of the commission multiple felonies cognizable by a court of the United States committed against Plaintiffs, said M. M. SCHROEDER did conceal and did not make as soon as possible known the same to some judge of other person in civil or military authority under the United States, M. M. SCHROEDER did Breach her Duty and acted under color of state or territorial law.  Said multiple felonies committed against Plaintiffs being most grievous having been clearly stated and identified in pleadings before M. M. SCHROEDER, said felonies including but not limited to attempted murder, kidnap and treason.

Substantial information having been placed before M. M. SCHROEDER showing said felonies having been committed by DEFENDANTS in U.S. District Court San Jose case number C0500996.

DAMAGES

As a proximate consequence of the willful and malicious actions of DEFENDANTS, PLAINTIFF’S have sustained extraordinary damage in a sum to be determined per proof, including severe and extreme emotional stress and anguish, parental alienation, lost time, lost business investments, lost business and prosperity, damaged reputation including both slander and libel, interference with the pursuit of happiness, loss of domestic tranquility, loss of general welfare, and the loss of basic liberties such as enjoying life with one’s own children!

Damages incurred by Plaintiffs as a direct or indirect consequence to the above mentioned and referenced actions by DEFENDANTS are also incorporated herein as listed in the “K DAMAGES” section of this Complaint.

AUTHORITIES

AUTHORITES in section “K. COMMON AUTHORITIES” are incorporated herein by reference in addition to the following AUTHORITIES:

Twenty-seventh Claim For Relief      Misprision Of Felony – TRILLA E. BAHRKE

PLAINTIFFS:

All PLAINTIFFS

DEFENDANTS: 

TRILLA E. BAHRKE, Trilla E. Bahrke

CHRISTOPHER M. CATTRAN, Christopher M. Cattran

VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS & ULTIMATE FACTS

On multiple occasions including on or about September 3, 2003, September 3, 2003 and in the Judicial District of Placer County California, the crime of MISPRISION OF FELONY, in violation of 18 U.S.C. SECTION 4, a felony, was committed by TRILLA E. BAHRKE and CHRISTOPHER M. CATTRAN, who did willfully and unlawfully commit MISPRISION OF FELONY, TRILLA E. BAHRKE and CHRISTOPHER M. CATTRAN having knowledge and evidence of the commission multiple felonies cognizable by a court of the United States committed against Plaintiffs, said TRILLA E. BAHRKE and CHRISTOPHER M. CATTRAN did conceal and did not make as soon as possible known the same to some judge of other person in civil or military authority under the United States, TRILLA E. BAHRKE and CHRISTOPHER M. CATTRAN did Breach their Duty and acted under color of state or territorial law.  Said multiple felonies committed against Plaintiffs being most grievous having been clearly stated and identified in pleadings before TRILLA E. BAHRKE and CHRISTOPHER M. CATTRAN, said felonies including but not limited to attempted murder, kidnap and treason.

Substantial information having been placed before TRILLA E. BAHRKE and CHRISTOPHER M. CATTRAN showing said felonies having been committed by DEFENDANTS in SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF PLACER Case No. 72-002045

TRILLA E. BAHRKE and CHRISTOPHER M. CATTRAN not only intentionally ignored and concealed serious felonies that were committed against PETITIONERS, TRILLA E. BAHRKE  and CHRISTOPHER M. CATTRAN jointly actively engaged in maliciously prosecuting PETITIONERS under the color of law.

DAMAGES

As a proximate consequence of the willful and malicious actions of DEFENDANTS, PLAINTIFF’S have sustained extraordinary damage in a sum to be determined per proof, including severe and extreme emotional stress and anguish, parental alienation, lost time, lost business investments, lost business and prosperity, damaged reputation including both slander and libel, interference with the pursuit of happiness, loss of domestic tranquility, loss of general welfare, and the loss of basic liberties such as enjoying life with one’s own children!

Damages incurred by Plaintiffs as a direct or indirect consequence to the above mentioned and referenced actions by DEFENDANTS are also incorporated herein as listed in the “K DAMAGES” section of this Complaint.

AUTHORITIES

AUTHORITES in section “K. COMMON AUTHORITIES” are incorporated herein by reference in addition to the following AUTHORITIES:

Twenty-eighth Claim For Relief           Misprision Of Felony, Alienation of Parental, Kidnap – William Kelsay

PLAINTIFFS:

All PLAINTIFFS

DEFENDANTS: 

WILLIAM M. KELSAY, William M. Kelsay

VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS & ULTIMATE FACTS

HRG ON OSC RE REQUEST TO TAKE CHILDREN TO FAMILY REUNION FILED BY CLIVE BOUSTRED

04/14/2006

 

PETITIONERS REQUEST TO TAKE THE MINORS TO PENNSYLVANIA FOR A FAMILY REUNION IS DENIED.

 

On or about April 14, 2006, in the above named Judicial District, the crime of MISPRISION OF FELONY, in violation of 18 U.S.C. SECTION 4, a felony, was committed by WILLIAM M. KELSAY, who did willfully and unlawfully commit MISPRISION OF FELONY, WILLIAM M. KELSAY having knowledge and evidence of the commission multiple felonies cognizable by a court of the United States committed against Plaintiffs, said WILLIAM M. KELSAY did conceal and did not make as soon as possible known the same to some judge of other person in civil or military authority under the United States, WILLIAM M. KELSAY did Breach his Duty and acted under color of state or territorial law.  Said multiple felonies committed against Plaintiffs being most grievous having been clearly stated and identified in pleading before DEFENDANT, said felonies including but not limited to attempted murder, kidnap and treason.

Substantial information having been placed before DEFENDANT showing said felonies having been committed by DEFENDANTS in U.S. District Court San Jose case number C05 00996 JF RS.

DAMAGES

As a proximate consequence of the willful and malicious actions of DEFENDANTS, PLAINTIFF’S have sustained extraordinary damage in a sum to be determined per proof, including severe and extreme emotional stress and anguish, parental alienation, lost time, lost business investments, lost business and prosperity, damaged reputation including both slander and libel, interference with the pursuit of happiness, loss of domestic tranquility, loss of general welfare, and the loss of basic liberties such as enjoying life with one’s own children!

Damages incurred by Plaintiffs as a direct or indirect consequence to the above mentioned and referenced actions by DEFENDANTS are also incorporated herein as listed in the “K DAMAGES” section of this Complaint.

AUTHORITIES

AUTHORITES in section “K. COMMON AUTHORITIES” are incorporated herein by reference in addition to the following AUTHORITIES:

Twenty-ninth Claim For Relief              Misprision Of Felony – Jeff Almquist

PLAINTIFFS:

All PLAINTIFFS

DEFENDANTS: 

JEFF ALMQUIST, Jeff Almquist

VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS & ULTIMATE FACTS

On or about July 4, 2007, in Santa Cruz Superior Court PETITIONER Clive Boustred filed “MOTION TO OBTAIN COPIES OF GOVERNMENT EXHIBITS” for the purpose of prosecuting felonies committed against Clive Boustred, and “ORDERS TO SHOW CAUSE” and “MOTIONS TO DISMISS CASE.” in Santa Cruz Superior Court Case F 06858, in the above named Judicial District, the hearings were brought before Judge JEFF ALMQUIST who did under the color of law commit the crime of MISPRISION OF FELONY, in violation of 18 U.S.C. SECTION 4, a felony.  JEFF ALMQUIST, who did willfully and unlawfully under the color of law commit MISPRISION OF FELONY, JEFF ALMQUIST having knowledge and evidence of the commission multiple felonies cognizable by a court of the United States committed against Plaintiffs, said JEFF ALMQUIST did conceal and did not make as soon as possible known the same to some judge of other person in civil or military authority under the United States, JEFF ALMQUIST did Breach his Duty and acted under color of state or territorial law and did conceal said felonies.  JEFF ALMQUIST not only committed MISPRISON OF FELONY he actively refused to dismiss a clearly fraudulent and malicious case when clear and convincing evidence of said fraud was put before him.  Said multiple felonies committed against Plaintiffs being most grievous, including but not limited to attempted murder, kidnap and treason.  JEFF ALQUIST not only breached his duty un 18 U.S.C. Section 4, he refused to allow PLAINTIFF the right to obtain copies of government exhibits used in a sham trial against PLAINTIFF so that PLAINTIFF could prosecute the Deputy Sheriff who had attempted to murder PLAINTIFF Clive Boustred and who nearly murdered PLAINTIFFS RCB and WFB.

Substantial information having been placed before JEFF ALMQUIST showing said felonies having been committed by DEFENDANTS in Santa Cruz Superior Court Case F 06858.

DAMAGES

As a proximate consequence of the willful and malicious actions of DEFENDANTS, PLAINTIFF’S have sustained extraordinary damage in a sum to be determined per proof, including severe and extreme emotional stress and anguish, parental alienation, lost time, lost business investments, lost business and prosperity, damaged reputation including both slander and libel, interference with the pursuit of happiness, loss of domestic tranquility, loss of general welfare, and the loss of basic liberties such as enjoying life with one’s own children!

Damages incurred by Plaintiffs as a direct or indirect consequence to the above mentioned and referenced actions by DEFENDANTS are also incorporated herein as listed in the “K DAMAGES” section of this Complaint.

AUTHORITIES

AUTHORITES in section “K. COMMON AUTHORITIES” are incorporated herein by reference in addition to the following AUTHORITIES:

Thirtieth Claim For Relief          Burglary

PLAINTIFFS:

Clive Boustred

DEFENDANTS: 

Santa Cruz Sheriffs

ADT Alarm Company

John Does 1 to n.

VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS & ULTIMATE FACTS

On or about November 2003, in the above named Judicial District, the crime of BURGULARY, in violation of Common Law and the Constitution of the United States of America and the 4th, 5th and 14th Amendments there to and PC § 62, a felony, was committed by Sheriffs who did break into Clive Boustred’s home and unlawfully search Clive Boustred’s home without warrant, said DEFENDANTS did willfully and unlawfully under the color of law commit said crimes against PLAINTIFFS.  The picture opposite shows how the Sheriffs ripped up PLAINTIFFS attic when they burgled and illegally searched PLAINTIFFS home.

DAMAGES

As a proximate consequence of the willful and malicious actions of DEFENDANTS, PLAINTIFF’S have sustained extraordinary damage in a sum to be determined per proof, including severe and extreme emotional stress and anguish, parental alienation, lost time, lost business investments, lost business and prosperity, damaged reputation including both slander and libel, interference with the pursuit of happiness, loss of domestic tranquility, loss of general welfare, and the loss of basic liberties such as enjoying life with one’s own children!

Damages incurred by Plaintiffs as a direct or indirect consequence to the above mentioned and referenced actions by DEFENDANTS are also incorporated herein as listed in the “K DAMAGES” section of this Complaint.

AUTHORITIES

AUTHORITES in section “K. COMMON AUTHORITIES” are incorporated herein by reference in addition to the following AUTHORITIES:

§ 62 Simple Burglary

Simple burglary is the unauthorized entering of any dwelling, vehicle, watercraft, or other structure, movable or immovable, with the intent to commit a felony or any theft therein, other than as set forth in section 60.

Thirty-first Claim For Relief                        Armed Robbery

PLAINTIFFS:

Clive Boustred, RCB and WFB

DEFENDANTS: 

MICHAEL MACDONALD, Michael Macdonald,

AMY CHRISTY, Amy Christy,

BROZOZOWSKI, Brozozowski

VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS & ULTIMATE FACTS

On or about March 10, 2003, in the above named Judicial District, the crime of ARMED ROBBERY, in violation of Common Law and the Constitution of the United States of America and the 4th, 5th and 14th Amendments there to and PC § 64, a felony, was committed by above listed DEFENDANTS, who did willfully and unlawfully under the color of law commit said crimes against PLAINTIFFS and did rob RCB and WFB from Clive Boustred.

DAMAGES

As a proximate consequence of the willful and malicious actions of DEFENDANTS, PLAINTIFF’S have sustained extraordinary damage in a sum to be determined per proof, including severe and extreme emotional stress and anguish, parental alienation, lost time, lost business investments, lost business and prosperity, damaged reputation including both slander and libel, interference with the pursuit of happiness, loss of domestic tranquility, loss of general welfare, and the loss of basic liberties such as enjoying life with one’s own children!

Damages incurred by Plaintiffs as a direct or indirect consequence to the above mentioned and referenced actions by DEFENDANTS are also incorporated herein as listed in the “K DAMAGES” section of this Complaint.

AUTHORITIES

AUTHORITES in section “K. COMMON AUTHORITIES” are incorporated herein by reference in addition to the following AUTHORITIES:

§ 64 Armed robbery

A.         Armed robbery is the taking of anything of value belonging to another from the person of another or that is in the immediate control of another, by using force or intimidation, while armed with a dangerous weapon.

B.         Whoever commits…

*FELONY

Thirty-second Claim For Relief             Extortion

PLAINTIFFS:

ALL PLAINTIFFS

DEFENDANTS: 

MICHAEL E. BARTON, Michael E. Barton

MARK TRACY, Mark Tracy (Former Sheriff)

STEVE DROTTAR, Steve Drottar

AMY CHRISTY, Amy Christy

SAMUEL S. STEVENS, Samuel S. Stevens

ART DANNER, Art Danner (deceased)

ANAMARIA BOUSTRED/TICHATSCHKE, Anamaria Boustred/Tichatschke

STEFAN TICHATSCHKE, Stefan Tichatschke

VICKI J. PARRY, Vicki J. Parry

COUNTY OF SANTA CRUZ, County of Santa Cruz

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, State of California

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, United States of America

MICHAEL MACDONALD, Michael Macdonald (Deputy Sheriff)

M POOL, M Pool (Deputy Sheriff)

HEMMINGWAY, Hemmingway (deceased)

BROZOZOWSKI, Brozozowski

BOB LEE, Bob Lee (Santa Cruz District Attorney)

IRWIN JOSEPH, Irwin Joseph

TRILLA E. BAHRKE, Trilla E. Bahrke

Jon Doe’s , 1 to n.

VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS & ULTIMATE FACTS

On or about March 10, 2003, March 12, 2003, March 13, 2003 and on multiple dates up to present, in the above named Judicial District, the crime of EXTORTION, in violation of Common Law and the Constitution of the United States of America and the 4th, 5th and 14th Amendments there to and PC § 66, a felony, was committed by above listed DEFENDANTS, who did willfully and unlawfully under the color of law commit said crimes against PLAINTIFFS in order to extort silence and immunity from damages by threatening Clive Boustred with false arrest, kidnap and hostage taking of Clive Boustred’s children RCB and WFB, with violence by placing Clive Boustred amongst the most violent criminals while holding Clive Boustred under false arrest amongst other outrageous crimes.

DAMAGES

As a proximate consequence of the willful and malicious actions of DEFENDANTS, PLAINTIFF’S have sustained extraordinary damage in a sum to be determined per proof, including severe and extreme emotional stress and anguish, parental alienation, lost time, lost business investments, lost business and prosperity, damaged reputation including both slander and libel, interference with the pursuit of happiness, loss of domestic tranquility, loss of general welfare, and the loss of basic liberties such as enjoying life with one’s own children!

Damages incurred by Plaintiffs as a direct or indirect consequence to the above mentioned and referenced actions by DEFENDANTS are also incorporated herein as listed in the “K DAMAGES” section of this Complaint.

AUTHORITIES

AUTHORITES in section “K. COMMON AUTHORITIES” are incorporated herein by reference in addition to the following AUTHORITIES:

§ 66 Extortion

Extortion is the communication of threats to another with the intention thereby to obtain anything of value or any acquittance, advantage, or immunity of any description. The following kinds of threats shall be sufficient to constitute extortion:

(1)        A threat to do any unlawful injury to the person or property of the individual threatened or of any member or of any person held dear to him;

(2)        A threat to accuse the individual threatened or any member of this family or any other person held dear to him of any crime;

(3)        A threat to expose or impute any deformity or disgrace to the individual threatened or to any member of his family or to any other person held dear to him;

(4)        A threat to expose any secret affecting the individual threatened or any member of his family or any other person held dear to him;

(5)        A threat to do any other harm

Thirty-third Claim For Relief                    Public Nuisance

PLAINTIFFS:

All Plaintiffs

DEFENDANTS: 

All DEFENDANTS

Jon Doe’s , 1 to n.

VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS & ULTIMATE FACTS

On or about March 10, 2003 and repeatedly up to the present time, in the above named Judicial District, the crime of PRIVATE AND PUBLIC NUISANCE, in violation of Common Law and the Constitution of the United States of America and the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th, 13th, 14th Amendments thereto, was committed by DEFENDANT/S listed above, who did willfully and unlawfully commit said crimes and civil violations.

A suit for nuisance may be supported by any of the three DEFENDANTS mental states: (1) intentional interference with PLAINTIFFS rights; (2) negligence; or (3) abnormally dangerous activity or other conduct giving rise to strict liability.

From a Public Nuisance perspective, the harm caused to the public at large is both the threat of violence from Sheriffs.  DEFENDANTS actions in bringing outrageous lawsuits against Clive Boustred imposes a general and significant public nuisance and threat at large, imposed on each and every individual who simply lives within California.  The actions by DEFENDANTS are legal terrorist threats against any person who simply gets divorced or lives in California, DEFENDANTS behavior is baseless and immoral and not only terrorizes the public at large but kills any persons desire to get married.  The crime committed by DEFENDANTS amongst other crimes is Malicious Prosecution.

From a Private Nuisance perspective, DEFENDANTS imposed an unreasonable interference with Clive Boustred, RCB and WCB on their land.  By illegally entering and shooting at PLAINTIFFS which is abnormally dangerous, the DEFENDANTS forced the destruction of business Clive Boustred ran and the complete elimination of PLAINTIFS right to Justice, ensuring domestic conflict, eliminating PLSINTIFFS common defence, and demoting PLAINTIFFS general Welfare, and the Blessings of Liberty and eliminating PLAINTIFFS Posterity.  DEFENDANTS represent everything the Constitution was established to eliminate, DEFENDANTS are the essence and epitome of a PUBLIC and PRIVATE NUISANCE

It is alleged that DEFENDANTS actions were intentional as they previously engaged in abnormally violent activity and they imposed a highly likely abnormally dangerous situation.  The violence caused by DEFENDANTS not only destroyed the basic right to enjoy basic liberty on ones’ own land, the DEFENDANTS have made Clive Boustred, and the public at large fearful of enjoying their lives free of violent and intrusive government intervention.

DAMAGES

As a proximate consequence of the willful and malicious actions of DEFENDANTS, PLAINTIFF’S have sustained extraordinary damage in a sum to be determined per proof, including severe and extreme emotional stress and anguish, parental alienation, lost time, lost business and prosperity, damaged reputation including both slander and libel, interference with the pursuit of happiness, loss of domestic tranquility, loss of general welfare, and the loss of basic liberties such as enjoying life with one’s own children!

Damages incurred by Plaintiffs as a direct or indirect consequence to the above mentioned and referenced actions by DEFENDANTS are also incorporated herein as listed in the “K DAMAGES” section of this Complaint.

AUTHORITIES

AUTHORITES in section “K. COMMON AUTHORITIES” are incorporated herein by reference in addition to the following AUTHORITIES:

Thirty-fourth Claim For Relief              Racketeering

PLAINTIFFS:

All Plaintiffs

DEFENDANTS: 

All DEFENDANTS

Jon Doe’s , 1 to n.

VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS & ULTIMATE FACTS

On or about March 10, 2003 and to present DEFENDANTS engaged in racketeering in the divorce and prisons industry by acting under the color of law so as to cause conflict that creates revenue for said DEFENDANTS, said behavior of Sheriffs, Judges, DA’s, Lawyers, and other State employees and private parties reflects an overall pattern and practice that is willful and unlawful and malicious and intended to generate personal gain for DEFENDANTS.  The RACKETEERING in the legal industry and prison industrial complex is illustrated by the raw statistics which show that the U.S. has more people in jail, prison and on probation than any other nation in the entire world, and is illustrated by this case and many other cases where government employees acted with wanton disregard to the law and with criminal intent under the color of law.

DAMAGES

As a proximate consequence of the willful and malicious actions of DEFENDANTS, PLAINTIFF’S have sustained extraordinary damage in a sum to be determined per proof, including severe and extreme emotional stress and anguish, parental alienation, lost time, lost business and prosperity, damaged reputation including both slander and libel, interference with the pursuit of happiness, loss of domestic tranquility, loss of general welfare, and the loss of basic liberties such as enjoying life with one’s own children!

Damages incurred by Plaintiffs as a direct or indirect consequence to the above mentioned and referenced actions by DEFENDANTS are also incorporated herein as listed in the “K DAMAGES” section of this Complaint.

AUTHORITIES

AUTHORITES in section “K. COMMON AUTHORITIES” are incorporated herein by reference in addition to the following AUTHORITIES:

 

Thirty-fifth Claim For Relief                       Mixed  War

PLAINTIFFS:

All Plaintiffs

DEFENDANTS: 

All DEFENDANTS

Jon Doe’s , 1 to n.

VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS & ULTIMATE FACTS

Affidavit of Information: DEFENDANTS literally shot at Plaintiffs Clive Boustred, RCB, WFB on March 10, 2003, then violently assault Plaintiff Clive Boustred and falsely imprison him repeatedly since March 10, 2003, depriving him of any liberty.  On March 10, 2003, DEFENDANTS did unlawfully commit kidnap of RCB and WFB from Clive Boustred and did unlawfully hand his children to a man, Stefan Tichatschke, who was bared from any contact with RCB and WFB.  On March 12, 2003 DEFENDANTS did unlawfully without any cause what so ever order Clive Boustred to not communicate with his own children for three years and prevented RCB and WFB from having any contact with their grandfather and uncle and with total and absolute criminal intent on behalf of the sheriffs, District Attorneys and Judges who committed kidnap and have held RCB and WFB hostage to this date.  On or about September 9, 2003, the government committed assault on a minor by outrageously interrogating RCB aged seven in an attempt to make RCB falsely testify against his father, repeatedly attempting to put words in RCB’s mouth while they held RCB and his three year old brother hostage after attempting to murder their dad in front of the boys.  On multiple occasions since March 10, 2003, the government unlawfully gave Clive Boustred absurdly sham hearings and trials filing as many as seven absurdly false and malicious cases against Mr. Boustred and rigged the juries in said trials and unlawfully allowed State witnesses to submit known lies, hearsay and double hearsay in the record, while unlawfully striking Clive Boustred’s testimony proving his innocence and unlawfully refused to allow Clive Boustred to submit any evidence or arguments proving his innocence before the jury, while also unlawfully refusing to allow Clive Boustred to put the law before the jury.  The government has repeatedly unlawfully falsely arrest and falsely imprisoned Mr. Boustred without any legal or probable cause and did unlawfully repeatedly denied Mr. Boustred any right to bail what so ever.  On October 17, 2007, in violation of his 1st Amendment rights, the government unlawfully ordered Clive Boustred to not communicate with four thousand fellow members of the church Clive Boustred is a member of!, all while unlawfully repeatedly ordering Clive Boustred to have no arms.   The government has destroyed Mr. Boustred’s companies and career, outrageously slandered and libeled his good name and kidnapped his children while agents of the private institution who control our government, media and military industrial complex, turned around and charged Mr. Boustred usurious interest rates on money Mr. Boustred had to borrow in order to survive the government assault.  Plaintiffs solemnly declare that DEFENDANTS make Mixed War against Plaintiffs.

Petitions Ignored

Both the United States District Courts and the California Superior and Supreme Courts have outright refused to provide plaintiffs with the most elementary due process and have blatantly and repeatedly refused to allow plaintiffs to address grievances and bring these more than sufficiently stated claims to trial.

Santa Cruz Superior Court has repeatedly flat out refused to allow plaintiffs to bring any matter and properly framed claim to trial, when they have allowed themselves in purely criminal behavior to bring Plaintiffs to trial on completely unsubstantiated matters upon which there is absolutely no claim upon which relief could be granted.  And in these outrageously and blatantly sham trials the California State Courts have proceeded to deny Plaintiffs any right what so ever to put forward evidence disproving the States claims, and then the State has gone on and sentenced Plaintiff Clive Boustred to jail sentences for claims/charges that are not even any crime!  For example the Santa Cruz Superior Court Judge and Nationally renowned criminal who was rated as “Not Qualified” by the Judicial Nominations Committee, the former Judge Art Danner and Santa Cruz County sentenced Plaintiff Clive Boustred to six months in jail without any right to bail or any right to file an appeal or a Writ of Habeas Corpus for the charge of Plaintiff Clive Boustred driving at 27 miles down his private road even when the allegation brought against Mr. Boustred by the State Sheriffs Deputy was only an alleged 40 mph!

Plaintiff asks the court why every neighbor of his who drives at 40 mph and above down their private road is not also being sentenced to 6 months in jail?  Obviously form these cases, it is necessary for the Sheriffs to first attempt to murder you before you can be sentenced to such a crime!

The audacity and sheer criminal behavior of Sheriffs, District Attorneys judges and incompetent Commissioners in these cases is beyond belief.

Consider That The Declaration of Independence Requires Only Minor Modifications To Apply To The Current Government – While significantly more problems can be added:

In every stage of these oppressions we have petitioned for redress in the most humble terms; our repeated petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A government, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

We hold these truths to be self-evident: That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness

The history of the present Federal Government of the United States of America and the State Government of California is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these plaintiffs. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world.

Justice is denied, domestic conflict is ensured, common defence eliminated, the general Welfare demoted, and the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity is eliminated.

They have refused to assent to laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

They have passed laws of no immediate and pressing importance, laws which completely oppose the most elementary constructs of justice and laws that are designed to violently oppress in obtuse remission of the existing laws of the Constitution of the United States of America and English Common Law.

They have passed laws that have neither been ratified nor met even the most rudimentary construct of fairness, such as the Federal Reserve Banking Act where the people’s money is handed at no cost save mere printing cost if the money is printed and not simply entered into a ledger and they have handed the peoples money to foreigners.

They have become agents of foreign bankers enslaving the people to servitude and not only constant debt but also to malicious and false imprisonment and war.

A pattern of practice of hiring individuals entirely unfit for office and even individuals who knowingly engaged in criminal acts and repeated lies of such low base character that they would not be fit to even teach in any public school, however said individuals are promoted to the highest ranking officers in the various branches of government, both the judicial, executive and legislative branches.

Having outright adopted communistic and socialistic form of government in blatant treason the U.S. Constitution.

They have refused to pass other laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of representation in the legislature, a right inestimable to them, and formidable to tyrants only.

They have completely rigged the vote count machines and when voting system.

When their rigged vote is not to their liking they ignore the popular vote and get the judges they appointed to the supreme court to appoint them to political office.

They have refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be fraudulently elected; whereby the legislative powers, incapable of annihilation, have returned to the people at large for their exercise; the people remaining, in the mean time, exposed to all the dangers of invasions from without and convulsions within.

They have dissolved representative courts and Grand Juries repeatedly, for opposing, with manly firmness, their invasions on the rights of the people.

They have almost completely abandoned the Grand Jury process.

They have obstructed the administration of justice, by refusing his assent to laws for establishing jury powers.

They have made judges dependent on their will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

They have erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.

They have invented massive new agencies to oppress the people of not only this nation but the world in general.

They have kept among us, in times of peace, massive standing armies, without the consent of our legislatures or people.

They have invaded other nations and oppressed and murdered millions of people all around the world.

They have affected to render the military independent of, and superior to, the civil power.

They have sought to and have employed the military to oppress citizens.

They have build massive jails and prison complexes and filled them mostly with citizens who are guilty of no crime under the true law.

They have invented codes so as to fine and imprison people outside of the law of the land.

They have abandoned the Common Law construct of innocent until proven guilty and replaced it with guilty without any right to prove innocence.

They have combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our Constitution and unacknowledged by our laws, giving their assent to their acts of pretended legislation:

·         For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us;

·         For protecting them, by a mock trial, from punishment for any murders which they should commit on the inhabitants of these states;

·         For cutting off our trade with all parts of the world;

·         For imposing taxes on us without our consent;

·         For depriving us, in many cases, of the benefits of trial by jury;

·         For transporting us beyond seas, to be tried for pretended offenses;

·         For abolishing the free system of English laws in a neighboring province, establishing therein an arbitrary government, and enlarging its boundaries, so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these colonies;

·         For taking away our charters, abolishing our most valuable laws, and altering fundamentally the forms of our governments;

·         For suspending our own legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

They have abdicated government here, by declaring us out of their protection and waging war against us.

They have plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts dumping hazardous waste in the ocean, and destroyed the lives of our people.

They are at this time transporting large armies of foreign mercenaries to complete the works of death, desolation, and tyranny already begun with circumstances of cruelty and perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the head of a civilized nation.

They have constrained our fellow-citizens, taken captive on the high seas, to bear arms against their country, to become the executioners of their friends and brethren, or to fall themselves by their hands.

They have excited domestic insurrection among us, and has endeavored to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers the merciless terrorists, whose known rule of warfare is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes, and conditions.

In every stage of these oppressions we have petitioned for redress in the most humble terms; our repeated petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A government, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have we been wanting in our attentions to our American brethren. We have warned them, from time to time, of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity; and we have conjured them, by the ties of our common kindred, to disavow these usurpations which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too, have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity which denounces our separation, and hold them as we hold the rest of mankind, enemies in war, in peace friends.

We, therefore, the representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the name and by the authority of the good people of these States solemnly publish and declare, That these United States are, and of right ought to be, FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES; that they are absolved from all allegiance to the Federal Government and Federal Reserve Bank and that all political connection between them and the Federal Government and Federal Reserve Bank, and ought to be, totally dissolved; and that, as free and independent states, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and do all other acts and things which independent states may of right do. And for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor.

 

DAMAGES

As a proximate consequence of the willful and malicious actions of DEFENDANTS, PLAINTIFF’S have sustained extraordinary damage in a sum to be determined per proof, including severe and extreme emotional stress and anguish, parental alienation, lost time, lost business and prosperity, damaged reputation including both slander and libel, interference with the pursuit of happiness, loss of domestic tranquility, loss of general welfare, and the loss of basic liberties such as enjoying life with one’s own children!

Damages incurred by Plaintiffs as a direct or indirect consequence to the above mentioned and referenced actions by DEFENDANTS are also incorporated herein as listed in the “K DAMAGES” section of this Complaint.

AUTHORITIES

AUTHORITES in section “K. COMMON AUTHORITIES” are incorporated herein by reference in addition to the following AUTHORITIES:

Thirty-sixth Claim For Relief                     Fraud - Banking

PLAINTIFFS:

Clive Boustred

DEFENDANTS: 

Chase Card Services of Wilmington Delaware

Federal Reserve Bank

Jon Doe’s , 1 to n.

VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS & ULTIMATE FACTS

On multiple dates including and before December 15, 29 and 30 of 2007, in the above named Judicial District, the crime of FRAUD, in violation of the Constitution of The United States of America Article 1 and 9th Amendment, was committed by DEFENDANT/S listed above, who did willfully and unlawfully commit FRAUD against PLAINTIFF by loaning PLAINTIFF illegal Tender that was created fraudulently out of nothing by co-conspirators the Federal Reserve Bank who’s owners are part of a grand New World Order conspiracy.  Said crimes have caused inflated and unrealistic prices on goods, services, and assets in the United States, replacing the real value of said goods, services and assets with imaginary figures that effectively transfer ownership of said goods, services and assets to the conspirators who own the Federal Reserve Bank.

Said Federal Reserve Bank Notes failing to meet Constitutionally mandated legal Tender having been fraudulently sold and loaned to PLAINTIFFS under the claim that they were Legal Tender, when in fact said Note originated from a grand conspiracy initiated by Mayer Amschel Bauer of Frankfurt, Germany, who changed his name to Mayer Amschel Rothschild and who formalized said conspiracy when Adam Whitehouse who was retained by Rothschild to revitalize Zionism completed said conspiracy plan on May 1, 1776.  In November, 1910, agents of the conspirators met on Jekyll Island, Georgia to formalize the enactment of said conspiracy in the final form of the Federal Reserve Bank Act which was fraudulently passed during Christmas recess in 1913.

Said conspiracy literally handed exclusive money making rights to the privately held Federal Reserve Bank, granting the owners of that bank the so-called right to create out of thin air as many dollars as they want.  This ability to make money out of thin air, gave the conspirators the ability to purchase anything they wanted, including all the major media channels, the military industrial complex, many major corporations in addition to buying off many of our government officials.

The Tender DEFENDNTS listed above loaned to PLAINTIFFS is in fact ‘fiat currency’, that is the Federal Reserve Bank is not obligated to give in exchange to the holder of a note gold, silver, or any specific tangible property.  In other words the Note and Tender DEFENDANTS loaned PLAINTIFFS, is based on and backed by nothing.  The Tender loaned by DEFENDANTS was invented and created out of thin air to defraud PLAINTIFFS of real property.  Said fraud having created artificially inflated prices on real property which in turn forced PLAINTIFFS to borrow said illegal Tender in order to be able to afford what normally would have cost a fraction of the price PLAINTIFFS were forced to pay as a consequence of the conspirator’s fraud.  Said conspirators have thus defrauded PLAINTIFFS through deceptively implying that their Notes were legal Tender, claiming on their Notes “THIS NOTE IS LEGAL TENDER FOR ALL DEBTS, PUBLIC AND PRIVATE” and baring the signature and seal of the Treasurer of the United States and Secretary of the Treasury of the United States Government, “The United States of America” and images of past Presidents of the United States of America with most ironically “We the People” on certain Notes. 

In fact DEFENDANTS have loaned PLAININTIFF nothing other than Tender invented from stale air, Tender that is factually worthless other than through continued deception.  DEFENDANTS having forced PLAINTIFFS to purchase fraudulent Federal Reserve Notes in order to pay DEFENDANTS, thus forcing PLAINTIFFS to exchange real services and real goods to purchase said fraudulent and factually worthless Notes of illegal Tender.

Let the JURY NOTE: The images of Past Presidents on said Federal Reserve Bank Notes are Presidents who adamantly and vehemently opposed any private ownership of National Banks such as the Federal Reserve Bank Act and persons whom evidence supports that said bankers agents attempted to or did assassinate (except an agent of the Rothschild’s Hamilton who was not a President).

DAMAGES

As a proximate consequence of the willful and malicious actions of DEFENDANTS, PLAINTIFF’S have sustained extraordinary damage in a sum to be determined per proof, including severe and extreme emotional stress and anguish, parental alienation, lost time, lost business investments, lost business and prosperity, damaged reputation including both slander and libel, interference with the pursuit of happiness, loss of domestic tranquility, loss of general welfare, and the loss of basic liberties such as enjoying life with one’s own children!

Damages incurred by Plaintiffs as a direct or indirect consequence to the above mentioned and referenced actions by DEFENDANTS are also incorporated herein as listed in the “K DAMAGES” section of this Complaint.

AUTHORITIES

AUTHORITES in section “K. COMMON AUTHORITIES” are incorporated herein by reference in addition to the following AUTHORITIES:

“The Congress shall have the Power.....To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof,” – Constitution of the United States of America, Article 1, section 8.  Congress has no authority to delegate this responsibility to third parties such as the Federal Reserve Bank.

“No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.
No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws; and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of Congress.”  - Constitution of the United States of America, Article 1, Section. 10.   Only gold and silver Coin are permissible as Tender in Payment of Debts.

“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” Constitution of the United States of America, Amendment IX

" I sincerely believe the banking institutions having the issuing power of money are more dangerous to liberty than standing armies" - Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson

"If the American people ever allow the banks to control the issuance of their currency.. the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property, until their children wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.” - Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson

"[A Private National Bank is] condemned by the silence of the constitution" - James Madison

"The bank, is trying to kill me, but I will kill it!" "You are a den of vipers and thieves.  I intend to rout you out, and by the eternal God I will rout you out." - President Andrew Jackson

“I sincerely believe the banking institutions having the issuing power of money, are more dangerous to liberty than standing armies.” - President Andrew Jackson

“Paper is poverty… it is only the ghost of money, and not money itself.” - President Andrew Jackson

“If the American people ever allow the banks to control the issuance of their currency… the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property, until their children wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.” - President Andrew Jackson

"The bold effort the present bank had made to control the government are but premonitions of the fate that await the American people should they be deluded into a perpetuation of this institution or the establishment of another like it." - President Andrew Jackson

Congressional Bills to establish a new national bank were twice vetoed by President Tyler in 1841.

President James A. Garfield was inaugurated in 1881, he said "Whoever controls the volume of money in any country is absolute master of all industry and commerce".  On July 2, 1881 Garfield was shot, he dies on September 19.

In exchange for financial support for his presidential campaign, Woodrow Wilson's agreed that if elected, he would sign the Federal Reserve Act.  In December 1913, while many members of Congress were home for Christmas, the Federal Reserve Act was rammed through Congress and signed by President Wilson. Regarding his actions Wilson later admitted. "I have unwittingly ruined my country".

PRESIDENT WOODROW WILSON: "A great industrial Nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the Nation and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated Governments in the world - no longer a Government of free opinion no longer a Government by conviction and vote of the majority, but a Government by the opinion and duress of small groups of dominant men". (Just before he died, Wilson is reported to have stated to friends that he had been "deceived" and that "I have betrayed my Country".

On June 4, 1963, President Kennedy signed a Presidential decree, Executive Order 11110.  This order virtually stripped the Federal Reserve Bank of its power to loan money to the United States Government at interest.  President Kennedy declared the privately owned Federal Reserve Bank would soon be out of business.  This order gave the Treasury Department the authority to issue silver certificates against any silver in the treasury.  This executive order still stands today. In less than five months after signing that executive order President Kennedy was assassinated on November 22, 1963.

Nine American Presidents have been the targets of assassination:- Andrew Jackson in 1835 (opposed a private national bank), Abraham Lincoln in 1865 (opposed a private national bank), James Garfield in 1881  (opposed a private national bank), William McKinley in 1901, Harry S. Truman in 1950, John F. Kennedy in 1963 (opposed a private national bank), Richard Nixon in 1974, Gerald Ford twice in 1975, and Ronald Reagan in 1981 (opposed a private national bank)

"Mr. Chairman, we have in this Country one of the most corrupt institutions the world has ever known. I refer to the Federal Reserve Board and the Federal Reserve Banks, hereinafter called the Fed. The Fed has cheated the Government of these United States and the people of the United States out of enough money to pay the Nation's debt. The depredations and iniquities of the Fed has cost enough money to pay the National debt several times over. .... This evil institution has impoverished and ruined the people of these United States, has bankrupted itself, and has practically bankrupted our Government. It has done this through the defects of the law under which it operates, through the maladministration of that law by the Fed and through the corrupt practices of the moneyed vultures who control it. " - Congressman McFadden on the Federal Reserve Corporation Remarks in Congress, 1934  Floor of the House of Representatives by the Honorable Louis T. McFadden of Pennsylvania. Mr. McFadden served as Chairman of the Banking and Currency Committee for more than 10 years.  There were two assassination attempts against McFadden.

"It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning" – Industrialist Henry Ford

"Why did we give a monopoly of creating money out of thin air to a private corporation?  The result is exactly the same as if someone was picking your pocket every year, because that is exactly what they [the Federal Reserve Bank] are doing." Franklin Sunders, Author, Tax Honesty.

"Whether money is metal, paper or digital, is not the issue, the issue is interest.  The function of currency is to provide a trading mechanism for the barter of real assets and services.  There can be no interest charged for the mere provision of a mechanism to barter.  A service fee, yes, but interest, absolutely not." - Clive Boustred, Founder, Chairman & CEO InfoTelesys & Chairman of Liberty For Life Association- InfoTelesys was building a next generation Internet that would incorporate interest free currency accessible anywhere in the world through the satellite network the company was building. The InfoTelesys team consisted of numerous extraordinarily qualified individuals including many top banking technology and satellite experts.  While working for Sun Microsystems, Clive provided the systems architecture for one of the worlds largest banking systems and consulted to many of the top banks around the world.

"Our misunderstanding is the belief that money is a real asset, to the extent where we have allowed this deception to become reality.  Money, cash, currency is only a tool, a Note that represents real assets or services in a transaction.  The ability to manufacture money, whether the note is printed on metal, paper or digitally is something that must be in the free domain.  Just as corporations are free to offer notes representing the ownership or stock of a corporation.  If we give any person or entity the exclusive right to control the representation or production of notes representing assets and services, we give that person complete control of everything, unless we specifically dictate that the note may bear no interest and the valuation of assets and services remain free and dynamic.  Our lack of understanding of money has resulted in centuries of servitude and the last hundred years of violent wars." – Clive Boustred, Chairman InfoTelesys, Inc.

"We shall have World Government, whether or not we like it.  The only question is whether World Government will be achieved by conquest or consent." - Paul Warburg, Council on Foreign Relations and Architect of the Federal Reserve System: Feb 17, 1950 in an address to the U.S. Senate.

"Who controls money controls the word”. – Henry Kissinger Counsel on Foreign Relations

"Let me issue and control a nation's money, and I care not who writes its laws" - Meyer Amchel Rothschild

Thirty-seventh Claim For Relief          Usury Banking

PLAINTIFFS:

Clive Boustred

DEFENDANTS: 

Chase Card Services of Wilmington Delaware

Jon Doe’s , 1 to n.

VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS & ULTIMATE FACTS

On multiple dates including and before December 15, 29 and 30 of 2007, in the above named Judicial District, the crime of USURY, in violation of Common Law, was committed by DEFENDANT/S listed above, who did willfully and unlawfully commit USURY against PLAINTIFF charging PLAINTIFF as much as 30% interest.

See VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS & ULTIMATE FACTS in the Thirty Sixth Claim For Relief “Fraud Banking” incorporated herein by reference.

DAMAGES

As a proximate consequence of the willful and malicious actions of DEFENDANTS, PLAINTIFF’S have sustained extraordinary damage in a sum to be determined per proof, including severe and extreme emotional stress and anguish, parental alienation, lost time, lost business investments, lost business and prosperity, damaged reputation including both slander and libel, interference with the pursuit of happiness, loss of domestic tranquility, loss of general welfare, and the loss of basic liberties such as enjoying life with one’s own children!

Damages incurred by Plaintiffs as a direct or indirect consequence to the above mentioned and referenced actions by DEFENDANTS are also incorporated herein as listed in the “K DAMAGES” section of this Complaint.

AUTHORITIES

AUTHORITES in section “K. COMMON AUTHORITIES” are incorporated herein by reference in addition to the following AUTHORITIES:

See AUTHRITIES in the Thirty Sixth Claim For Relief “Fraud Banking” incorporated herein by reference.

Thirty-eighth Claim For Relief               Treason - Banking

PLAINTIFFS:

Clive Boustred

DEFENDANTS: 

Chase Card Services of Wilmington Delaware

Federal Reserve Bank

Jon Doe’s , 1 to n.

VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS & ULTIMATE FACTS

On multiple dates including and before December 15, 29 and 30 of 2007, in the above named Judicial District, the crime of TREASON, in violation of the Constitution of The United States of America Article 1 and 9th Amendment, Section, was committed by DEFENDANT/S listed above, who did willfully and unlawfully commit TREASON against PLAINTIFF by loaning PLAINTIFF illegal Tender that was created fraudulently out of nothing by co-conspirators the Federal Reserve Bank.

See VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS & ULTIMATE FACTS in the Thirty Sixth Claim For Relief “Fraud Banking” incorporated herein by reference.

DAMAGES

As a proximate consequence of the willful and malicious actions of DEFENDANTS, PLAINTIFF’S have sustained extraordinary damage in a sum to be determined per proof, including severe and extreme emotional stress and anguish, parental alienation, lost time, lost business investments, lost business and prosperity, damaged reputation including both slander and libel, interference with the pursuit of happiness, loss of domestic tranquility, loss of general welfare, and the loss of basic liberties such as enjoying life with one’s own children!

Damages incurred by Plaintiffs as a direct or indirect consequence to the above mentioned and referenced actions by DEFENDANTS are also incorporated herein as listed in the “K DAMAGES” section of this Complaint.

AUTHORITIES

AUTHORITES in section “K. COMMON AUTHORITIES” are incorporated herein by reference in addition to the following AUTHORITIES:

See AUTHRITIES in the Thirty Sixth Claim For Relief “Fraud Banking” incorporated herein by reference.

Title 18 U.S.C. § 2. Principals. (a) Whoever commits an offense against the United States or aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures its commission, is punishable as a principal. (b) Whoever willfully causes an act to be done which if directly performed by him or another would be an offense against the United States, is punishable as a principal.

Thirty-ninth Claim For Relief                   Violation of U.S. Const. 7th Amendment [Trial by jury, Common law]

7th Amendment: 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.

PLAINTIFFS:

All Plaintiffs

DEFENDANTS: 

IRWIN JOSEPH, Irwin Joseph

JEREMY FOGEL, Jeremy Fogel,

JAMES WARE, James Ware

SAMUEL S. STEVENS, Samuel S. Stevens

MICHAEL E. BARTON, Michael E. Barton

ART DANNER, Art Danner (deceased)

TRILLA E. BAHRKE, Trilla E. Bahrke

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON, Phyllis J. Hamilton

COUNTY OF SANTA CRUZ, County of Santa Cruz

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, State of California

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, United States of America

Jon Doe’s , 1 to n.

VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS & ULTIMATE FACTS

Starting from March 10, 2003 to present, in the above named Judicial District, DEFENDANTS listed above repeatedly violated PETITINOERS 7th Amendment Right to a Trial By Jury, DEFENDANTS listed above, who did willfully and unlawfully under the color of law commit said crime / action.  Of the two cases the government took to trial, FL 06858 and CT 72-002045, both trials were such extraordinarily and outrageous shams that they failed to be Trials By Jury, but were instead trials by a judge and commissioner respectively where said judge and commissioner acted criminally and prevented all the substantial evidence proving Clive Boustred’s innocence from getting before the jury and where they specifically prevented and even struck Clive Boustred’s testimony and any important argument in his defense that proved his innocence.  The Courts have flat out refused to give PETITIONERS any Trial By Jury which is Petitioners right under the 7th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America.

See Santa Cruz Superior Court Case FL 16028, F 06858, and CV 148542, Placer County Superior Court case Ct 72-002045 and UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION Case Numbers C 05-00996 and C07 00391.

DAMAGES

As a proximate consequence of the willful and malicious actions of DEFENDANTS, PLAINTIFF’S have sustained extraordinary damage in a sum to be determined per proof, including severe and extreme emotional stress and anguish, parental alienation, lost time, lost business investments, lost business and prosperity, damaged reputation including both slander and libel, interference with the pursuit of happiness, loss of domestic tranquility, loss of general welfare, and the loss of basic liberties such as enjoying life with one’s own children!

Damages incurred by Plaintiffs as a direct or indirect consequence to the above mentioned and referenced actions by DEFENDANTS are also incorporated herein as listed in the “K DAMAGES” section of this Complaint.

AUTHORITIES

AUTHORITES in section “K. COMMON AUTHORITIES” are incorporated herein by reference in addition to the following AUTHORITIES:

Fortieth Claim For Relief              Violation of U.S. Const. Article III  Judicial Department Responsibility

PLAINTIFFS:

All Plaintiffs

DEFENDANTS: 

All DEFENDANTS who are members of the Judiciary

Jon Doe’s , 1 to n.

VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS & ULTIMATE FACTS

U.S. Constitution, Article III, Section 1: The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

Section 2… The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury;

DEFENDANT Art Danner, rated as Not Qualified by the California Judicial Nominations Committee was in blatant violation of the U.S. Constitution, Article III, Section 1, allowed to preside as a judge in the Santa Cruz Superior Court.  Art Danners criminal past was and is well published and know and specifically made know by Plaintiff to DEFENDANTS.  DEFENDANTS failed to act in accordance with the law and caused extraordinary violations against Plaintiffs.

DEFENDANT JAMES WARE is nationally renowned for the lies he told which raised him to a position where he was appointed as a judge. Also known as “Lying Judge Ware”, JAMES WARE is categorically not qualified to be a judge, however, he is allowed to preside over some of the most significant and serious cases filed in the court.  JAMES WARE not only presided without subject matter jurisdiction over PLAINTIFFS cases, he does so over every case that his brought before him.  PLAINTIFFS witnessed JAMES WARE dismissing a Depleted Uranium case that was brought before him where the court had the opportunity of literally preventing a continued nuclear holocaust and the most heinous deaths of not only many civilians but what will be millions of our own soldiers.  Far more than a million U.S. troops are disabled largely from the use of Depleted Uranium.

DEFENDANTS Art Danner (Deceased) Trilla E. Bahrke both failed to give Plaintiff Clive Boustred a Trial by Jury and instead corrupted the process so that the trial was not by jury but by a corrupted mix of trial by judge and jury where the jury was not allowed to make decisions at law or in regard to evidence in accordance with the Constructional guarantee.

DEFENDANT IRWIN JOSEPH is not even a judge, however he insists on presiding over PLAINTIFFS cases when PLAINTIFF has specifically denied such and demanded a qualified judge.  PLAINTIFF narrowly allowed in writing JOSEPH to hand PLAINTIFF back his passport that the Court had illegally taken, however, JOSEPH and other judges claim that this narrow defined simple function authorizes the unqualified and criminally intended IRWIN JOSEPH to preside over PLAINTIFFS cases.

DEFENDANTS JEREMY FOGEL, JAMES WARE, IRWIN JOSEPH, SAMUEL S. STEVENS, MICHAEL E. BARTON all flat out refused to allow PLAINTIFFS any trial what so ever.

All above listed DEFENDANTS are sitting in bad behavior due to multiple treasonous and outrageous violations of the construct of the Constitution committed by said DEFENDANTS as listed herein and in the rest of this claim dictate that these criminals be immediately removed from the bench and office.

DAMAGES

As a proximate consequence of the willful and malicious actions of DEFENDANTS, PLAINTIFF’S have sustained extraordinary damage in a sum to be determined per proof, including severe and extreme emotional stress and anguish, parental alienation, lost time, lost business investments, lost business and prosperity, damaged reputation including both slander and libel, interference with the pursuit of happiness, loss of domestic tranquility, loss of general welfare, and the loss of basic liberties such as enjoying life with one’s own children!

Damages incurred by Plaintiffs as a direct or indirect consequence to the above mentioned and referenced actions by DEFENDANTS are also incorporated herein as listed in the “K DAMAGES” section of this Complaint.

AUTHORITIES

AUTHORITES in section “K. COMMON AUTHORITIES” are incorporated herein by reference in addition to the following AUTHORITIES:

Forty-first Claim For Relief    Violation of U.S. Const. 8th  Amendment: excessive fines, cruel & unusual punishment

8th Amendment: Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

PLAINTIFFS:

Clive Boustred

DEFENDANTS: 

IRWIN JOSEPH, Irwin Joseph

JEREMY FOGEL, Jeremy Fogel,

JAMES WARE, James Ware

SAMUEL S. STEVENS, Samuel S. Stevens

MICHAEL E. BARTON, Michael E. Barton

ART DANNER, Art Danner (deceased)

TRILLA E. BAHRKE, Trilla E. Bahrke

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON, Phyllis J. Hamilton

COUNTY OF SANTA CRUZ, County of Santa Cruz

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, State of California

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, United States of America

Jon Doe’s , 1 to n.

VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS & ULTIMATE FACTS

On or about March 12, 2003 and on multiple occasions up to present, in the above named Judicial District, the above listed DEFENDANTS violated PETITIONERS rights under the 8th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America by inflicting cruel and unusual punishment and excessive fines on Clive Boustred.  In Santa Cruz Superior Court Case FL 16028, F 06858, and CV 148542, Placer County Superior Court case Ct 72-002045 and Marin County Superior Court DEFENDANTS listed above repeatedly denied Plaintiffs protection under the 8th Amendment and demanded excessive bail and fines and imposed cruel and unusual punishment on Plaintiffs.

On or about March 10, 2003 in Santa Cruz Superior Court Case F 06858 DEFENDANT Michael E. Barton, Art Danner and John Does 1-n set excessive bail at fifteen times the legal schedule of the alleged charges when there was absolutely no evidence supporting the alleged charges and when there was substantial evidence proving the alleged charges were false.

On or about March 12, 2003, DEFENDANT Michael E. Barton inflicted cruel and unusual punishment on Plaintiffs Clive Boustred, RCB and WFB by ordering that Clive Boustred not communicate with his sons RCB and WFB for three years, this punishment was totally without merit or based on any probable cause or facts that even remotely related to ordering that Clive Boustred not communicate with his sons and was inflicted with malice as cruel and unusual punishment violating Plaintiffs 8th Amendment Rights.

On repeated occasions since March 12, 2003 DEFENDANTS listed above inflicted outrageous and cruel punishment on Plaintiffs Clive Frank Boustred, RCB and WFB by denying plaintiffs the right to live together, to enjoy each others company, to communicate, to have the common interactions between father and child, said actions were malicious and cruel and unusual punishment inflicted upon Plaintiffs.

DEFENDANTS Art Danner (Deceased) and John Does 1-n inflicted cruel and unusual punishment on Plaintiffs by sentencing Clive Frank Boustred to six months imprisonment for the non crime of driving at 27 mph down his private road without any right to bail despite a formal appeal having been filed and despite no final judgment after Art Danner gave Clive Boustred a sham trial and where Clive Boustred was falsely found guilty of three of the four false charges.

In Placer County Case Number Ct 72-002045, DEFENDANT Trilla E. Bahrke and John Does 1-n gave Clive Boustred a sham trial then had Clive Boustred arrested without any right to bail and held for twenty one days before issuing a cruel and unusual sentence for twenty one days for the afore mentioned SLAP suit.  This sentence was after the Santa Cruz Sheriffs, including but not limited to Deputy Griffin, stole Clive Boustred’s vehicle off his church’s parking lot and after the Santa Cruz District Attorney filed four new false charges against Clive Boustred in Santa Cruz Superior Court Case number M19946 on the six month eve of the Santa Cruz Sheriffs assassination attempt against Clive Boustred.

Plaintiff Clive Boustred was subject to strip searches in jail and forced to allow Sheriffs to look up his anus.  Such behavior on behalf of the sheriffs is demeaning, cruel and unusual and flat out sick and perverted.

Plaintiff Clive Boustred was subject to unhealthy and filthy conditions in the Santa Cruz Jail which was ridiculously overcrowded and diseased including rampant Staff infections amongst inmates which went completely ignored by the sheriffs.

DEFENDANT IRWIN JOESEPH and SAMUEL S. STEVENS and MICHAEL E. BATON have repeatedly unlawfully fined and punished Clive Boustred for not legal reason what so ever, said DEFENDANTS acted criminally with malice under the color of law.

Plaintiffs have not listed herein all the 8th Amendment violations DEFENDANTS made against Plaintiffs as Plaintiffs remain under the duress and cruel and unusual punishment that the DEFENDANTS have intentionally inflicted against Plaintiffs as Plaintiffs are overburdened from simply responding to the paperwork that has been thrust on Plaintiffs, let alone dealing with the emotional, financial and physical burdens.

DAMAGES

As a proximate consequence of the willful and malicious actions of DEFENDANTS, PLAINTIFF’S have sustained extraordinary damage in a sum to be determined per proof, including severe and extreme emotional stress and anguish, parental alienation, lost time, lost business and prosperity, damaged reputation including both slander and libel, interference with the pursuit of happiness, loss of domestic tranquility, loss of general welfare, and the loss of basic liberties such as enjoying life with one’s own children!

Damages incurred by Plaintiffs as a direct or indirect consequence to the above mentioned and referenced actions by DEFENDANTS are also incorporated herein as listed in the “K DAMAGES” section of this Complaint.

AUTHORITIES

AUTHORITES in section “K. COMMON AUTHORITIES” are incorporated herein by reference in addition to the following AUTHORITIES:

 

Forty-second Claim For Relief                 Violation of U.S. Const. 5th Amendment [Criminal proceedings, deprivation of life, liberty and happiness]

5th Amendment: 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.

PLAINTIFFS:

Clive Boustred, RCB and WFB.

DEFENDANTS: 

IRWIN JOSEPH, Irwin Joseph

JEREMY FOGEL, Jeremy Fogel,

JAMES WARE, James Ware

SAMUEL S. STEVENS, Samuel S. Stevens

MICHAEL E. BARTON, Michael E. Barton

ART DANNER, Art Danner (deceased)

TRILLA E. BAHRKE, Trilla E. Bahrke

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON, Phyllis J. Hamilton

MARK TRACY, Mark Tracy (Former Sheriff)

MICHAEL MACDONALD, Michael Macdonald (Deputy Sheriff)

M POOL, M Pool (Deputy Sheriff)

HEMMINGWAY, Hemmingway (deceased)

AMY CHRISTY, Amy Christy

BROZOZOWSKI, Brozozowski

BOB LEE, Bob Lee (Santa Cruz District Attorney)

STEVE DROTTAR, Steve Drottar

TRILLA E. BAHRKE, Trilla E. Bahrke

CHRISTOPHER M. CATTRAN, Christopher M. Cattran

COUNTY OF SANTA CRUZ, County of Santa Cruz

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, State of California

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, United States of America

Jon Doe’s , 1 to n.

VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS & ULTIMATE FACTS

Without any indictment of a Grand Jury DEFENDANTS Michael Macdonald, Amy Christy, M Pool, Mark Tracy, Hemmingway (Deceased), Brozozowski, Griffin, Samuel S. Stevens , Art Danner (Deceased), Michael E. Barton, Trilla E. Bahrke, Steven Drottar, Bob Lee, Bill Doyle, Christopher M. Cattran, County of Santa Cruz, County of Marin, County of Placer, County of Marin, Attorney General of The State of California, Attorney General of The United States of America, The State and Government and associated entities of The State of California, The State and Government and associated entities of The United States of America and Jon Doe’s 1 to n held Plaintiff Clive Frank Boustred to answer for multiple infamous crimes, without probable cause or any evidence and said DEFENDANTS deprived Plaintiffs of liberty, property, without due process of law.

On or about March 10, 2003 and repeatedly up till present time, in the above named Judicial District, the above listed DEFENDANTS repeatedly denied Clive Boustred, RCB and WFB their constitutional rights under the 5th Amendment to liberty and or property, said DEFENDANTS did so without due process of law under the color of law and did willfully and unlawfully and maliciously commit said crime.

On information and belief the above listed DEFENDANTS repeatedly on multiple occasions between 2002 and present denied Plaintiffs the most rudimentary due process rights violating Plaintiffs 5th Amendment rights in Criminal and civil proceedings and depriving Plaintiffs of liberty and happiness.

Further evidence relating to said violations of PETITINOERS Constitutional rights is incorporated in each of the other Claims for Relief’s “VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS & ULTIMATE FACTS” section and Exhibits and incorporated herein by reference.

DAMAGES

As a proximate consequence of the willful and malicious actions of DEFENDANTS, PLAINTIFFS have sustained extraordinary damage in a sum to be determined per proof, including severe and extreme emotional stress and anguish, parental alienation, lost time, lost business investments, lost business and prosperity, damaged reputation including both slander and libel, interference with the pursuit of happiness, loss of domestic tranquility, loss of general welfare, and the loss of basic liberties such as enjoying life with one’s own children!

Damages incurred by Plaintiffs as a direct or indirect consequence to the above mentioned and referenced actions by DEFENDANTS are also incorporated herein as listed in the “K DAMAGES” section of this Complaint.

AUTHORITIES

AUTHORITES in section “K. COMMON AUTHORITIES” are incorporated herein by reference in addition to the following AUTHORITIES:

Forty-third Claim For Relief                        Malicious Prosecution

PLAINTIFFS:

Clive Boustred, RCB and WFB.

DEFENDANTS: 

IRWIN JOSEPH, Irwin Joseph

JEREMY FOGEL, Jeremy Fogel,

JAMES WARE, James Ware

SAMUEL S. STEVENS, Samuel S. Stevens

MICHAEL E. BARTON, Michael E. Barton

ART DANNER, Art Danner (deceased)

TRILLA E. BAHRKE, Trilla E. Bahrke

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON, Phyllis J. Hamilton

MARK TRACY, Mark Tracy (Former Sheriff)

MICHAEL MACDONALD, Michael Macdonald (Deputy Sheriff)

M POOL, M Pool (Deputy Sheriff)

HEMMINGWAY, Hemmingway (deceased)

AMY CHRISTY, Amy Christy

BROZOZOWSKI, Brozozowski

BOB LEE, Bob Lee (Santa Cruz District Attorney)

STEVE DROTTAR, Steve Drottar

TRILLA E. BAHRKE, Trilla E. Bahrke

CHRISTOPHER M. CATTRAN, Christopher M. Cattran

COUNTY OF SANTA CRUZ, County of Santa Cruz

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, State of California

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, United States of America

Jon Doe’s , 1 to n.

VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS & ULTIMATE FACTS

On or about March 10, 2003 and repeatedly up till present time, in the above named Judicial District, the above listed DEFENDANTS repeatedly denied Clive Boustred, RCB and WFB their constitutional rights under the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th, 11th and 14th Amendments, DEFENDANTS committed said crimes willfully under the color of law with the intent to maliciously harm PLAINTIFFS.  DEFENDANTS filed as many as seven false and malicious criminal cases against PLAINTIFFS.

In response to the attempted murder of Mr. Boustred by the Sheriffs, the government set about maliciously and outrageously prosecuting Mr. Boustred.  In a blatant and outrageous conspiracy.  As many as seven false and fraudulent cases were filed against Mr. Boustred.  Sheriffs, District Attorneys and Judges ganged up and violently assaulted and prosecuted Mr. Boustred and his children.

After the sheriffs attempted to murder Mr. Boustred, Santa Cruz District Attorney Bob Lee and his Ass. Stephen Drottar along with the sheriffs and judges in Santa Cruz immediately filed two false felonies and two false misdemeanors against Mr. Boustred for “Assault With a Deadly Weapon”, and “Driving Feloniously along his private road at an alleged 40mph” when evidence proved Mr. Boustred drove slowly at 27mph.  The Sheriffs filed an absurdly false police report amongst other things making a completely fraudulent charge that Mr. Boustred had committed a Felony 278.5 PC kidnap, and giving this as the reason the Sheriffs had to ‘chase’ Mr. Boustred – the Sheriffs were in the possession of Mr. Boustred’s Stipulated Custody Order which showed that Mr. Boustred had legal custody of his children, despite the fact that Mr. Boustred was following the law when he filed a TRO against his ex for endangering WFB on the learner ski run.  The misdemeanors they filed against Mr. Boustred after they shot at him and his children were “Child Endangerment” and “Resisting Arrest” as Mr. Boustred “froze” when Deputy Sheriff Brozozowiski cut Mr. Boustred’s wrist with a handcuff while drilling the knuckle of his fist into the nape of Mr. Boustred’s neck.  The Sheriffs and Judge Michael E. Barton kidnapped Mr. Boustred’s children WFB and RCB, with Barton ordering that Mr. Boustred not communicate with his own sons for three years.  The Sheriffs handed WFB and RCB to Anamaria and her boyfriend Stefen Tichatschke, despite a lawful court order barred Tichatschke from having any contact with WFB and RCB.  Barton even prevented WFB and RCB’s father and uncle form communicating with their grand father and uncle.

One month after holding WFB and RCB completely isolated from their dad, Ass. DA Steven Drottar and Investigator Michael Linsey with the cooperation of Anamaria and without letting Mr. Boustred know, interrogated RCB, aged seven, in an outrageous and criminal attempt to put words in RCB’s mouth so as to use RCB as a false witness against his father.

This is merely an abbreviated version of some of the crimes the government committed against Mr. Boustred, his children and companies. It ignores all the detail regarding the other three false arrests where the government held Mr. Boustred without any right to bail and the utterly and the absurdly sham hearings and trials they gave Mr. Boustred.

 

In order to cover up the extreme malpractice of the attempted murder of Petitioner, Authorities in Santa Cruz County and the State of California embarked on an ongoing malicious prosecution of Petitioner Clive Boustred, some examples of this assault against Mr. Boustred are:

·         2 false felonies & 8 false misdemeanors have been filed against Petitioner in 6 separate cases.

·         3 times Petitioner has been falsely arrested & imprisoned for a total of 5 months, twice without any right to bail & once with bail set at 15 times the legal schedule.

·         Petitioners Motions, Habeas Corpus and Appeals have been ignored and denied at all levels of Californian Courts without any hearing or showing of good cause. In jail the Santa Cruz Sheriffs even refused to let Petitioner file any Habeas Corpus.

·         Without any basis at law or hearing in the interests of the children, Petitioner was ordered to not communicate with his children RCB aged seven and WFB aged three for three years.  Petitioners children continue to be unlawfully held from Petitioner.

·         Petitioner was given a sham trials where the jury was palpably tampered with and where Petitioner was not allowed to put either the facts or law before the jury: any and all evidence in favor of Petitioner was thrown out - including such forms of evidence as the sheriff’s own recordings and reports which irrefutably proved Petitioner’s innocence; in the trial, prosecution’s witnesses were allowed to submit known lies and hearsay into the record while Petitioner’s factual testimony was literally struck from the record and Petitioner was ordered to not testify to the truth nor to put forward any defense theory favorable to Petitioner; Petitioner was also prevented from bringing his witnesses before the jury.  Petitioner was fraudulently found guilty under the color of law.

·         Santa Cruz Superior Court insisted on allowing biased judges to preside Petitioners divorce case (SC Sup. Ct. FL 16028) and has moved the case off calendar, effectively locking up petitioner remaining assets and holding Petitioner hostage. 

·         Californias courts refuse to file Petitioners pleas & motions, they even refuses to allow petitioner to depose opposing parties or authorize Petitioners subpoenas, provide trial transcripts or even allow Petitioner to photocopy his proceedings.  Although most of Petitioners Motions for hearing and Orders to Show Cause are ignored, when a hearing is given, Californian courts they simply sanction Petitioner.

·         Six months after shooting at Petitioner, after unlawfully impounding Petitioners vehicle off his churchs parking lot, Santa Cruz Sheriffs literally ran around Petitioners Church and Petitioners childrens school with mug shot lineups to identify the criminal Clive’ with new false charges, destroying petitioners relationship with his church.  That false case (M19946) was at least dismissed. 

·         Santa Cruz Sheriffs have even unlawfully entered and searched Petitioners home.

·         Petitioner has had to borrow money to hire six lawyers who were unfortunately neither prepared nor able to stand up to the criminal nature of the Californian courts.  Petitioner can no longer afford attorneys & has struggled to put forward this pleading.

·         As a consequence of this malicious prosecution, Petitioner has been driven into bankruptcy & effectively eliminated along with his corporations & means to support.  This case only provides a partial listing of all the malicious prosecution PLAINTIFFS have suffered.  As a consequence of the MALICIOUS PROSECUTION, PLAINTIFFS are naturally not able to properly prosecute the DEFENDANTS.

Further evidence relating to said MALICIOUS PROSECUTION is incorporated in each of the other Claims for Relief’s “VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS & ULTIMATE FACTS” section and Exhibits and incorporated herein by reference.

DAMAGES

As a proximate consequence of the willful and malicious actions of DEFENDANTS, PLAINTIFF’S have sustained extraordinary damage in a sum to be determined per proof, including severe and extreme emotional stress and anguish, parental alienation, lost time, lost business and prosperity, damaged reputation including both slander and libel, interference with the pursuit of happiness, loss of domestic tranquility, loss of general welfare, and the loss of basic liberties such as enjoying life with one’s own children!

Damages incurred by Plaintiffs as a direct or indirect consequence to the above mentioned and referenced actions by DEFENDANTS are also incorporated herein as listed in the “K DAMAGES” section of this Complaint.

AUTHORITIES

AUTHORITES in section “K. COMMON AUTHORITIES” are incorporated herein by reference in addition to the following AUTHORITIES:

 


 

[1] "Secrets of the Federal Reserve" By Eustace Mullins available at http://www.apfn.org/apfn/reserve.htm

[2] See The Illuminati and the Council on Foreign Relations http://www.libertyforlife.com/illuminati_and_council_on_foreigh_relations.htm,

[3] Mosier v. Souther n Cal. Physicians Ins. Exch., 63 Cal. App.  4th 1022, 1048, 74 Cal. Rptr. 2d 550, 567 (1998).

[4] Okun v. Superior Court, 29 Cal. 3d 442, 454, 175 Cal. Rptr. 157, 164, cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1099 (1981). See generally ROBERT I. WEIL & IRA A. BROWN, JR., CALIFORNIA PRACTICE GUIDE: CIVIL PROCEDURE BEFORE TRIAL ¶¶ 6:92.10–:11 (1999).

[5] Manor Inv. Co. v. F.W. Woolwor th, Inc., 159 Cal. App. 3d 586, 595, 206 Cal. Rptr. 37, 42–43 (1984), disapproved on other grounds, Applied Equip. Corp. v. Litton Saudi Arabia Ltd., 7 Cal. 4th 503, 521 n.10, 869 P.2d 454, 464 n.10, 28 Cal. Rptr. 2d 475, 485 n.10 (1994).

[6] Schick v. Bach, 193 Cal. App. 3d 1321, 1327–28, 238 Cal. Rptr. 902, 906 (1987).

[7] Bush’s Direct Relationships to Hitler http://www.libertyforlfie.com/constitution/politicians/bushes.htm

See also the proposed U.S. Gestapo or “'United States Secret Service Uniformed Division” or USA PATRIOT IMPROVEMENT AND REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2005 http://www.libertyforlfie.com/jail-police/hello_gestapo.htm

See also the extensive evidence proving the extraordinary and extensive construction of Concentration Camps across the U.S. http://www.libertyforlfie.com/jail-police/us_concentration_camps.htm

See also a Former Inspector for Joint Chiefs of Staff report on U.S. SS Death Camp Plans http://www.libertyforlfie.com/jail-police/us_ss_plans_red_blue.htm

Cap these terrifying facts regarding Nazi Concentration Camps all across the U.S. with Bush’s utter contempt and disregard for the law: http://www.libertyforlfie.com/constitution/politicians/bush_above_the_law.htm

 


C 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.