InfoTelesys Lawsuit: C. VENUE; D. JURISDICTION; E. AFFIDAVIT OF BIAS
OR PREJUDICE; F. SUFFICIENCY OF CLAIM 34
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.
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.
ANALYSIS OF THE 11TH AMENDMENT:
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. |
