Liberty For Life Association

     C Jefferson

Liberty For Life


Support our advertisers


The World's Leading Strategic Consultancy


The Earth Pan

LFL Founder Out Of Hiding With Extraordinary Solution to fix


The Construct of Life & Origin of Everything - Soulisim


LibertyForLife on Patreon

LibertyForLife Store

Make your New Years
Resolution a Revolution
Your Support
Is Greatly Appreciated





Venue is appropriate in this court because the majority of the DEFENDANTS reside in this district, and a substantial amount of the acts and omissions giving rise to this lawsuit occurred in this district.

Venue is proper in the Northern District of California, San Jose Division pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391, in that the subject matter of this action arose in this district, furthermore petitioners CLIVE FRANK BOUSTRED, RCB, WFB, Santa Cruz Cats and CopperCards are subject to personal jurisdiction in this district and petitioners INFOTELESYS, INC. and GET IT REAL, INC., Nevada citizens, fall within the general U.S. District Court jurisdiction.

Intradistrict Assignment. 

This lawsuit should be assigned to the San Jose Division of this Court because a substantial part of the events or omissions which give rise to this lawsuit occurred in San Jose/Santa Clara and Santa Cruz Counties.


This court house has jurisdiction over this complaint because it arises under the laws of the United States.

This action arises under the Civil Rights Act of 1871 (42 U.S.C. § 1983, 1988, 1961, 1962, 1964) and Bivens v. Six Unknown Agents 403 U.S. 388 (1971) and 19 U.S.C. § 1961-68 and English Common Law and the First Amendment, Second Amendment, Fourth Amendment, Fifth Amendment, Sixth Amendment, Seventh Amendment, Eighth Amendment, Ninth Amendment, Tenth Amendment, Eleventh Amendment, the missing Thirteenth Amendment, Fourteenth Amendment and the alleged Sixteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America and Article 1 thereof.  Via Trial By Jury only this Court has jurisdiction of the federal claims under 28 U.S.C. Section 1331, 1332, 1343(3) 1343(4), 2201, and 2202.  Pursuant to the 11th Amendment there is no Judicial Power over this claim and the matter can only be decided and tried and any stage of the process by Trial by Jury.

Furthermore, Federal Court has jurisdiction over these matters pursuant to: 

(1)   National interstate commerce has been destroyed and severely impacted for a number of national and international corporations as a consequence of direct and blatant Constitutional violations by California Courts and authorities against Petitioner with a consequence of destroying the following National and International Corporations: InfoTelesys, Inc. (Nevada); Get IT Real, Inc. (Nevada). 

(2)   This matter involves national and international business contracts, in addition to Petitioner’s international marriage contract.

Californian Courts have given up jurisdiction over these matters:

(3)   Remedies have been exhausted in the California Courts. 

(4)   Californian courts up to the Californian Supreme Court repeatedly refuse to file motions or bring matters to trial, denying even the most rudimentary due process at law, even going as far as to sanction Petitioner Clive Boustred for simply seeking the most elementary rights under the law and due process.

(5)   The Santa Cruz Superior Court contractually gave up jurisdiction in this matter

As Petitioner’s are filing this suit against the State of California and Counties in the State of California, it is impossible to believe that these Petitioners, who have been severely impacted by unlawful Constitutional violations by Californian Courts, would receive fair treatment in California Courts, particularly since Petitioners are suing the Californian Courts for outrageous Constitutional violations against Petitioners.

It is in the interests of the Federal Courts and “We the People” of The United States of America to ensure that U.S. citizens and corporations receive fair treatment under the laws of the land and that State Courts conform to and do not violate the Constitution of the United States of America.


PETITIONERS do solemnly sincerely and truly declare and allege and believe that Judges employed by parties who are DEFENDANTS or directly related to DEFENDANTS have reason for and are biased against PETITIONER.

Pursuant to the Eleventh Amendment due to the fact that this suit is brought by Citizens of Nevada and Nevis (InfoTelesys, Inc. and Get IT Real, Inc.) against another State (California) and the United States of America, Judges have no power in this case an the case must be tried by jury where the jury determines both the law and fact.  Additionally Pursuant to Due Process Clauses of the Constitution due to the fact that this suit is brought against colleagues and the employer of judges of the U.S. District Court, jurisdiction does not extend toward Judges of the Court and pursuant to the dictates of due process, all matters both regarding fact and law may only be decided by Jury.

PLAINTIFFS declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California and the United States of America that the information above and herein is true and correct to the best of our knowledge.


_________________________________ Date:__________________

Clive Boustred 


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.” – Said power resides with the independent Jury.


What are the two powers through which the courts rule?

·         Judicial power

·         Jury power

And note that Judicial power is questionable, however, Jury power may not be reexamined (7th Amendment).  Also do not be deceived, the Jury has the power to judge both the law and the fact

A classic example of the jury process in which there is absolutely zero judicial involvement from administrative, adjudicative or any decision making power what so ever is the Gran Jury process.  There is no judge in a Grand Jury, the jury is made up of "we the people" and decides both fact and law.  Grand Juries make up a critical component of the legal framework mandated by the Constitution as dictated in the Fifth 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".

The very construct of the Constitution, the essence of the formation of the United States of America, is founded on the principle of eliminating tyrannical government; the construct that the government can not do what they want; the principle that all stand equal before the law and that all parties to suits are entitled to impartial decision makers; etc. Consequentially, the establishment of the 11th Amendment is based upon the principle that the judiciary, which consists of a group of individuals whom are employed by the State, naturally has no authority to preside over a case brought against their employer, the State.

Suits brought against the State can thus naturally only be adjudicated by Jury where the decision maker in the trial or in any matter leading up to the trial is no party to the suit and where the Jury in accordance with the construct of Trial By Jury, decides both the law and the fact. "The jury has the right to judge both the law and the facts" - Samuel Chase, 1804, Supreme Court Justice and signer of the Declaration of Independence.

In a Trial By Jury the judiciary has no function. The judiciary has no power to dismiss a case or weigh the merits of a case that is brought before the court for a trial by jury.  Those are functions absolutely and completely reserved for the jury. Clearly the judiciary has no authority to make any decisions in a Trial by Jury, otherwise, it is no longer a Trial By Jury, it becomes a Trial by Judge.  If, for example, a judge orders that certain evidence be not presented to a jury, then that judge holds the power to influence the outcome of the trial and it is a trial by judge and not by jury.

One of the key reasons the courts are so utterly corrupt in the United States is because judges rush in and takes control of trials by jury, thereby exceeding their jurisdiction and according to the law, those judges commit treason.  That is they pervert the very construct of law and order and governance in the nation.  Judges so readily commit treason in our courts because they know the appeal process offered to those the commit treason against is made up of appellate courts consisting entirely of judges employed by the State.

In other words, judges have completely destroyed the Trial By Jury process within U.S. courts, committing high treason of the very worst kind.  Rampant abuse of process and the destruction of the constitutionally mandated law and order within the nation have resulted.  The Judiciary and Executive Office have now become so completely out of control that they themselves now make law, ignoring Article 1, Section. 8 of the Constitution which dictates that "The Congress shall have Power.... To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such district".  The tricameral construct of government in the United States explicitly limits lawmaking power to Congress.  The Executive and Judicial branch of government is explicitly prohibited from making law.  (Note that Common Law dictates that if a law cannot be understood/interpreted by the common man, then it is not law.  I.e. there is no judicial construct to interpreting law - if the common person cannot understand the law then it must be sent back to Congress as void, forcing Congress to rewrite the law so that the common man can understand it.  Note also that the "Code" is not law, it is code, like a "code of ethics" see LAW and Understanding Law in the U.S.)

Clearly the judiciary has no decision making authority in suits brought against their colleagues.

Commentary regarding Supreme Court Analysis of the 11th Amendment: Many courts including the Supreme Court have made a number of contradictory and clearly blatantly void rulings in regard to the 11th Amendment. Astonishingly, the courts have read into the 11th not only concepts that are absolutely not there, but concepts that scream in the opposite direction to the construct of the Constitution. In particular, the concept of "sovereign immunity of government" and the elimination of accountability of the State.

Great error has crept into many judicial decisions in regard to the idea of Sovereign immunity, which is not mentioned once in any way or in any part of the Constitution. Such a concept flies in the opposite direction of the principles and purposes upon which the government of the U.S. was established. There is absolutely no principle of Sovereign immunity under the Constitution, which goes to great lengths to ensure equality and responsibility under the law and is the exact opposite of any suggestion of a sovereign class or of any immunity. To the contrary, government entities and employees, if anyone, are to be held to a higher standard when it comes to responsibility under the law, they are utterly accountable – this after all was the purpose of establishing the U.S. and the underlying construct of the Constitution.

Immunity is mentioned only twice in the Constitution:

Article IV, Section. 2. "The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States." thus implying absolute equality of all citizens whether or not they work for the State or not. And in Section 1 of the 14th Amendment: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."  which further enforces the construct of equality.

There is categorically and absolutely zero implication or statement within the 11th Amendment that says or implies that a State cannot be sued or has 'sovereign immunity', it simply is not there. All the 11th says is that judges have no power (Judicial power).  What other decision making power remains? Naturally the other cornerstone of the judicial system: Jury power.

There are two ways to decide a case in a Court: Either by Jury or by Judge. The very construct of Trial by Jury was given to our nation so that the very construct of Judicial corruption could be overcome. The very reason we give the Jury the power to decide both the law and the fact is because we know, as the founding fathers knew, that the government and in particular the judiciary, would become corrupt. And how they have!

Take a look at what "Judicial Power" has attempted to infer as to their absurd interpretation of the 11th Amendment:

- the judiciary goes as absurdly far as to suggest that a State cannot be sued, which is a classic example of the Judiciary attempting to make law because no where does the 11th Amendment or any part of the Constitution say or infer such;

- the Judiciary has even tried to make new law saying that “they the government” is Sovereign, that “they the government” can Lord it over “we the people” as “Kings and Queens” who have been put on the throne by God Himself (thereby taking on the very persona of King George who was thrown out by the American Revolution);

- And that they the government, like the King and Queen, can do no wrong because, after all, God put them on the nations throne, and God can do no wrong.  This is the origins of sovereign immunity under English Common Law which is subordinate to and overruled by our Constitution.

The Judiciary's interpretation of the 11th is utterly and categorically and pathetically absurd! The U.S.A. was founded so as to bring accountability to government, there is no king or queen in the U.S., and all stand equal before the law.

As for the Kings and Queens of England’s idea that because the Bible states that God puts authorities on the throne (Romans 13:1 “for there is no authority except that which God has established”), that this some how grants the King or Queen sovereign immunity, it too, is also utterly absurd and illogical. Since such a foolish analysis ignores the fact that und such construct, it implies that God also put people like Hitler or Bush on the ‘throne’. Clearly, such a positioning is not one to be respected, but rather that perhaps God’s reasoning for such, is more likely to chastise us to stand up against such tyrants, to speak out for the common man, and to stand up for justice and to hold tyrannical rulers accountable.

The very behavior of Judicial power within the U.S. illustrates the exact purpose of the 11th which is to eliminate Judicial power in suits where judges are parties to the suit. In any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State.  The Judiciary is employed by the entity against which the suit is brought and therefore obviously has no authority to preside over such a suit as they have good reason for inherent bias.

The interesting elements regarding this very case, is that the case is about extreme governmental abuse and exactly the protections guaranteed by the Constitution and that embedded in the 11th Amendment.  Without any cause the government literally shot at Clive and his children, falsely arrested and threw Clive in jail, kidnapped his children, then maliciously and outrageously prosecuted Clive to cover up.  The government went as far as to order Clive to not communicate with his children and then handed the children to a man who is ordered to have no contact with Clive’s children, a man who in his own words admits to having serious problems with drugs, sex and pornography.   You don’t get much worse criminal activity.  You can’t get much lower integrity or worse abuse.  The judicial abuses employed in the cover-up in this situation are astounding and rampant, shocking the conscience, and are now deeply embedded in this very case. 

What is even more astonishing is that Judge Jeremy Fogel who was initially assigned as the judge to the first Federal suit filed by the Plaintiffs, and who became a defendant in that case because of blatant violations at law against Plaintiffs, himself wrote an article entitled 'Justice denied is a national problem’ for the San Jose Mercury’s series on “Tainted Trial, Stolen Justice”.  In the article Mr. Fogel states: “Vigorous enforcement of ethical standards for prosecutors, defense attorneys and judges is essential” he goes on to state “Integrity and professional competence are minimum requirements for all of us who do the public's work”.  Good advice, however, Mr. Fogel himself acted on the opposite side of his own advice and critique.

There are 2 means to trial: 1 by judge (Judicial power) and 2 by jury (Jury power).  Recognize that facts determined by Judicial power can be questioned, however, facts determined by Jury power may not be re-examined (7t Amendment – “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.”).

As a further note in exposing the corruption of our courts:  No new law is made through judicial rulings. The use of “Judicial Precedence” or “Case Law” by our Courts is totally misplaced.  Only the Legislature has any authority to make law.  The judiciary has absolutely no authority or power to make law.  The underlying Common-Law construct is that no law is law unless the common person can understand it – this is Common-Law (which is not a Code based system).  Thus, there is no function for the ‘interpretation of the law’.  If a law is ambiguous or difficult to understand, then under Common-Law, it is therefore not law. 

The one and only function of the judiciary in the area of confusion as to interpretation of a law, is that if a law is not clearly definable and understood by the common man, then the judiciary’s only function is to send the law back to the Legislature to make it clear so that the common person can understand it.  In trials by jury, the judiciary has no function, as is the case in Grand Juries. 

All that is required to bring a matter to trial by jury is a claim on information OR belief by a plaintiff that a wrong has been committed by DEFENDANTS to which relief might be entitled.  This is a very low bar which has more than been met by Plaintiffs in this case. 

This matter must proceed to Trial by Jury.  A judge not only has no authority to try matters of fact or law in this case due to the Trial by Jury demand, but also due to the protection from Judicial power as clearly established by the 11th Amendment.


"By the plain terms of section 1983, two - and only two - allegations are required in order to state a cause of action under that statute. First, the plaintiff must allege that some person has deprived him of a federal right. Second, he must allege that the person who has deprived him of that right acted under color of state or territorial law." - Gomez v. Toledo, 446 U.S. 635 (1980)

All that is required to bring a case to trial in Federal Court is a showing that the pleader is entitled to relief:  Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), the sufficiency of the complaint is tested with regard to the applicable standard in FRCP 8(a), which requires that a pleading setting forth a claim for relief contain a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief. A complaint which does not recount all relevant facts or recite the law should not necessarily be dismissed. La Salvia v. United Dairymen, 804 F.2d 1113, 1116 (9th Cir. 1986)

In light of the fact that FRCP 8(a)(2) merely requires a short and plain statement of the claim, rather than specific facts detailing every allegation, mere vagueness or lack of detail is not a ground for a motion to dismiss. Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 (1957). FRCP 12(b)(6) does not countenance dismissals based merely on a judge's disbelief of a complaint's factual allegations, Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (1989), nor is the failure to plead facts showing the plaintiff's theory of liability grounds for dismissal since the defendant can serve interrogatories requiring the plaintiff to particularize the theory of liability.  In answering this question, the Court must assume that the plaintiff's allegations are true, including all facts alleged on information and belief, and must draw all reasonable inferences in the plaintiff's favor. Smith v. Jackson, 84 F.3d 1213, 1217 (9th Cir. 1996) Usher v. City of Los Angeles, 828 F.2d 556, 561 (9th Cir. 1987). Even if the face of the pleadings suggests that the chance of recovery is remote, the Court must allow the plaintiff to develop the case at this stage of the proceedings. United States v. City of Redwood, 640 F.2d 963, 966 (9th Cir. 1981)

The question presented by a motion to dismiss is not whether the plaintiff will prevail in the action, but whether the plaintiff is entitled to offer evidence in support of the claim. Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974). If a plaintiff colorably states facts which, if proven, would entitle her to relief, a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim should not be granted. Dairies v. Kraft Foods, 232 F.3d 979, 994 (9th Cir. 2000)

Over four and a half years of malicious prosecution including seven SLAP cases initiated by DEFENDANTS, all which were either initiated by an attempted murder or by anticompetitive and or other crimes committed by DEFENDANTS, gives rise to literally hundreds of claims upon which relief can be granted in this case.  For each Defendant Plaintiffs have shown that there is a least one claim upon which relief can be granted.


Statutes of limitations do not apply in this case due to the fact that DEFENDANTS conspired to maliciously prosecute PLAINTIFFS for the express purpose of covering up crimes committed by DEFENDANTS.  DEFENDANTS have consistently and repeatedly denied PLAINTIFFS due process, eliminating any Statute of Limitation.  DEFENDANTS acted under the color of law and committed fraud thereby eliminating any statutes of limitation in this case.  Statutes of Limitation only start ticking once PLAINTIFFS have been afforded their right to a trial by jury.

See extensive AUTHORITIES firmly establishing there are no Statutes of Limitation in this case in the “K. COMMON AUTHORITIES” section,


11th 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.”  A judge has no power to dismiss InfoTelesys, Inc. and Get IT Real, Inc. from this suit.  In fact in accordance with the 11th Amendment there is no judicial power in this suit.  Any order by a judge in this case is void and of no force and effect.  Jeremy Fogel was clearly and blatantly in excess of jurisdiction when he attempted to dismiss these parties from an earlier suit and he violated Plaintiffs 11th Amendment rights.  This matter must proceed immediately to Trial By Jury.

See extensive AUTHORITIES firmly establishing there are no Judicial Power in this case in the “K. COMMON AUTHORITIES” section. In addition to the extensive argument relating to this topic in section “E. AFFIDAVIT OF BIAS OR PREJUDICE”.


“Pro Se (Without a Lawyer, representing self) pleadings are to be considered without technicality; pro se litigant’s 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)

There are decisions in virtually every federal circuits that generously proclaim that pro per petitions should be construed liberally and that pro per petitioners should be held to less stringent standards than lawyers.  See, e.g., Price v. Johnston (1948) 334 U.S. 266, 292; Chase v. Crips (10th Cir. 1975) 523 F.2d 595, 597; Curtis v. Illinois (7th Cir. 1975) 512 F2d 717; Ham v. North Carolina (4th Cir. 1973) 471 F.2d 406, 407; Hairston v. Alabama (5th Cir. 1972) 465 F.2d 675, 678 n5; Turrell v. Perini (6th Cir. 1969) 414 F.2d 1231, 1233; Montgomery v. Brierly (3rd Cir. 1969) 414 F.2d 552; Pembrook v. Wilson, (9th Cir. 1966) 370 F.2d 37, 40; Whittaker v. Overholster (D.C. Cir. 1962) 299 F.2d 447, 448.  See also Haines v. Kerner (1972) 404 U.S. 519.

This right is also protected under the First Amendment Free Speech Clause.  And within those rights, the pro se litigant's court submissions are to be construed liberally and held to less stringent standards than submissions of lawyers.  If the court can reasonably read the submissions, it should do so despite failure to cite proper legal authority, confusion of legal theories, poor syntax and sentence construction, or litigant's unfamiliarity with rule requirements.  Boag v. MacDougall, 454 U.S. 364, 102 S.Ct. 700, 70 L.Ed.2d 551 (1982); Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106, 97 S.Ct. 285, 50 L.Ed.2d 251 (1976) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46, 78 S.Ct. 99, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957)); Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 92 S.Ct. 594, 30 L.Ed.2d 652 (1972);  McDowell v. Delaware State Police, 88 F.3d 188, 189 (3rd Cir. 1996); United States v. Day, 969 F.2d 39, 42 (3rd Cir. 1992)(holding pro se petition cannot be held to same standard as pleadings drafted by attorneys); Then v. I.N.S., 58 F.Supp.2d 422, 429 (D.N.J. 1999).

The courts provide pro se parties wide latitude when construing their pleadings and papers.  When interpreting pro se papers, the Court should use common sense to determine what relief the party desires.  S.E.C. v. Elliott, 953 F.2d 1560, 1582 (11th Cir. 1992).  See also, United States v. Miller, 197 F.3d 644, 648 (3rd Cir. 1999) (Court has special obligation to construe pro se litigants' pleadings liberally); Poling v. K.Hovnanian Enterprises, 99 F.Supp.2d 502, 506-07 (D.N.J. 2000).  Defendant has the right to submit pro se briefs on appeal, even though they may be in artfully drawn but the court can reasonably read and understand them. See, Vega v. Johnson, 149 F.3d 354 (5th Cir. 1998).  Courts will go to particular pains to protect pro se litigants against consequences of technical errors if injustice would otherwise result.  U.S. v. Sanchez, 88 F.3d 1243 (D.C.Cir. 1996).

See also extensive AUTHORITIES firmly establishing Pro Se, In Propria Persona and Sui Juris equal rights to due process in this case in the “K. COMMON AUTHORITIES” section.

If you appreciate the extraordinary effort put into please
click here to support us on Patreon

Wearing the brand is more than a fashion statement, it’s not only cool and sexy, you’re supporting a revolution for truth and liberty. Wear it with pride.

Make your New Years Resolution a Revolution.

The Earth Plan's Peopleisim  is THE Solution to the Worlds Problems do IT!