|
|
InfoTelesys Lawsuit: I. CLAIMS UPON WHICH RELIEF CAN BE GRANTED /
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS VIOLATED
Nineteenth Claim For
Relief Conversion / Grand Theft Auto / Trespass
PLAINTIFFS:
Clive Boustred
DEFENDANTS:
Santa
Cruz Deputy Sheriff Griffin, GRIFFIN
PAULA
SIMMONS, Paula Simmons
MARK
TRACY, Mark Tracy
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, PAULA SIMMONS, Twin Lakes
Baptist Church, Inc. and John Does 1-n committed CONVERSION / GRAND
THEFT AUTO / TRESPASS by unlawfully stealing Clive Boustred’s vehicle
from the Twin Lakes Church’s parking lot and Santa Cruz County and
Sheriff employees did repeatedly refuse to return said stolen 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 and Twin Lakes Baptist Church, Inc. stole.
AUTHORITIES
AUTHORITIES in section “K. COMMON AUTHORITIES” are
incorporated herein by reference in addition to the following
AUTHORITIES:
“The victim of an unlawful search and seizure can
recover any property illegally seized by a civil action for its return “
- Ligda v Edmonds (1971, 1st Dist) 16 CA3d 715, 94 Cal Rptr 234 (replevin
or claim and delivery); Franklin v Municipal Court for San Francisco
Judicial Dist. (1972, 1st Dist) 26 CA3d 884, 103 Cal Rptr 354
(conversion). In addition, the owner of seized property can bring a
suit for damages for its detention, as well as damages for any trespass
involved - Ryan v Crist (1914) 23 CA 744, 139 P 436; People v
Gershenhorn 91964, 2d Dist) 225 CA2d 122, 37 Cal Rptr 176 (suspended by
statute on other grounds as stated in People v Laiwa, 34 C3d 711, 195
Cal Rptr 503, 669 P2d 1278). And recovery can be had for mental
suffering resulting from the invasion of privacy. Individuals
participating in unreasonable searches and seizures are subject to civil
liability under the federal statutes pertaining to civil rights.
Practice References: 14 Cal Practice, Action For Damages: 14 Cal
Practice, Action For Damages For Wrongful Search and Seizure §§
238:1-238:14. |
