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.