InfoTelesys Lawsuit: I. CLAIMS UPON WHICH RELIEF CAN BE GRANTED /
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS VIOLATED
Forty Fifth Claim For
Relief Fraud by Santa Cruz Sheriffs & DA
PLAINTIFFS:
All
PLAINTIFFS
DEFENDANTS:
MICHAEL MACDONALD, Michael Macdonald,
AMY CHRISTY, Amy Christy,
M POOL, M Pool,
HEMMINGWAY, Hemmingway (deceased)
BOB LEE, Bob Lee (Santa Cruz District Attorney)
STEVE DROTTAR, Steve Drottar
Jon Doe’s, 1 to n.
VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS & ULTIMATE FACTS
On or about March 10, 2003, the above listed
DEFENDANTS committed Fraud when partaking in the assassination attempt
on Clive Boustred, said defendants fraudulently and criminally made
false and fraudulent accusations against Clive Boustred following the
failed assassination attempt against Clive Boustred on March 10, 2003.
Said fraudulent claims included but were not limited to fraudulently
accusing Clive Boustred of committing multiple felonies including the
fraudulent claim in the PURSUIT REPORT CHP 187A (New 1-03) OPI 051,
Number – Other Agency Use Only: 03-2349, wherein said report claimed in
section 22. “ORIGINAL VIOLATION OBSERVED BY AGENCY INITIATING THE
PURSUIT” was a Felony pursuant to Section & Code: 278.5 P.C. Said
PURSUIT REPORT was made the fraudulent claim that the reason the
Sheriffs pursued Clive Boustred was that he had committed a Felony PC
278.5 PC (see EXHIBITS 3/SC06858/Persuit Report - and original reason
for pursuit PC 278.jpg)
To put in perspective hour utterly outrageous and
criminal in nature and intent the fraud committed by the Santa Cruz
Sheriffs in falsely accusing Clive Boustred of a PC 278.5 which states
“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”, just before the sheriffs literally attempted to blow Clive
Boustred’s head off in front of his children, it must be noted by the
JURY that Clive Boustred was following the law and had properly filed a
Temporary Restraining Order in the Santa Cruz Superior Court just before
these criminals acting under the color of the law setup an ambush to
assassinate Clive Boustred in front of his children. Mr. Boustred had
full legal custody of his children and was acting in the best interest
of the children, especially following Anamaria Tichatschke abandoning
WFB aged three at the time, in the middle of a learner ski run the day
before and Steffan Tichatschke’s attempt on that occasion to assault
Clive Boustred when Steffan Tichatschke in violation of the Stipulated
Court order governing the custody of the children came into contact with
the children for the express purpose of assaulting Mr. Boustred.
The JURY must note that the Sheriffs who filed this
blatantly fraudulent allegation that Mr. Boustred had committed a Felony
PC 278.5 were fully aware that Mr. Boustred had lawfully filed a TRO and
was not in any violation of custody orders. These same sheriffs who
filed the report were made fully aware that Stefan Tichatschke and
Anamaria Tichatschke had committed serious child endangerment the day
before when they abandoned WFB in the middle of a learner ski run.
These sheriffs fraud was committed with malicious
intent to defraud the truth and to falsely accuse an innocent man and to
cover up their failed assassination attempt on Mr. Boustred’s life. The
Sheriffs were in complete violation of the law and completely failed to
obtain the necessary warrants to enter Mr. Boustred’s private property.
And said Sheriffs had absolutely no legal right or reason to peruse
Clive Boustred.
DAMAGE
Damage to PLAINTIFFS
stemming from reliance on said misrepresentation placed in said
fraudulent PURSUIT REPORT the above listed DEFENDANT/S intentionally
concealed facts and failed to disclose facts including the fact that
Clive Boustred never violated any laws. The above listed DEFENDANT/S
had a fiduciary duty to disclose said facts and DEFENDANT/S had a
fiduciary duty to not lie or make a false and fraudulent PURSUIT REPORT
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, including all the resulting damages such as
kidnap, and destruction of PLAINTIFFS’ businesses.
AUTHORITIES
AUTHORITIES in section “K. COMMON AUTHORITIES” are
incorporated herein by reference in addition to the following
AUTHORITIES:
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. |
