InfoTelesys Lawsuit: I. CLAIMS UPON WHICH RELIEF CAN BE GRANTED /
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS VIOLATED
Eighth Claim For Relief Aggravated Kidnap / Kidnap / Parental Alienation
PLAINTIFFS:
Clive Boustred, RCB, WFB with damage to All
Plaintiffs
DEFENDANTS:
IRWIN JOSEPH, Irwin Joseph
SAMUEL S. STEVENS, Samuel S. Stevens
MICHAEL E. BARTON, Michael E.
Barton
ANAMARIA BOUSTRED/TICHATSCHKE, Anamaria
Boustred/Tichatschke
MARK TRACY, Mark Tracy (Former Sheriff)
MICHAEL MACDONALD, Michael Macdonald (Deputy
Sheriff)
M POOL, M Pool (Deputy Sheriff)
HEMMINGWAY, Hemmingway (deceased)
AMY CHRISTY, Amy Christy
BROZOZOWSKI, Brozozowski
BOB LEE, Bob Lee (Santa Cruz District Attorney)
STEVE DROTTAR, Steve Drottar
STEFAN TICHATSCHKE, Stefan Tichatschke
VICKI J. PARRY, Vicki J. Parry
JOHN A. CHRISTERSON (CA State Bar 889096), John A.
Christerson
DENNIS J. KEHOE (State Bar 34687), Dennis J. Kehoe
LEONARD DUECK (VP Twin Lakes Baptist Church, Inc.),
Leonard Dueck
Twin Lakes Baptist Church, Inc.
MARK SPURLOCK, Mark Spurlock
JEREMY FOGEL, Jeremy Fogel,
JAMES WARE, James Ware
PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON, Phyllis J. Hamilton
COUNTY OF SANTA CRUZ, County of Santa Cruz
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, State of California
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, United States of America
Jon Doe’s, 1 to n.
VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS & ULTIMATE FACTS
Without any hearing or proper notice in an Ex Parte
emergency hearing on or about February 20, 2002 under the color of law
Judge Thomas Kelley apparently issued an order unlawfully modifying the
Stipulated Custody Order and Agreement covering the custody of PLAINTIFF
Clive Boustred’s children RCB and WFB, this void ex parte order
precipitated into the attempted murder of Clive Boustred on March 10,
2003.
Following the attempted murder of Clive Boustred on
March 10 , 2003, when Santa Cruz Sheriffs Shooting Instructor Michael
Macdonald without cause shot at Clive Boustred with WFB aged three also
in the direct line of fire and RCB aged seven only two feet off the line
of fire and the violent kidnap of RCB and WFB from their father Clive
Boustred the custodial parent, on multiple occasions up until present
time, in the above named Judicial District, commit the crime of
AGGRAVATED KIDNAP and or KIDNAP and or PARENTAL ALIENATION, in violation
of Constitutionally Guaranteed Rights, including PLAINTIFFS 1st,
5th, 9th and 14th Amendment Rights and
U.S.C. Section 1738A and 42 and 654, 663, the Parental Kidnapping
Prevention Act of 1980, CA PC § 278, 278.5, 280, §40 Aggravated
Kidnapping, § 44.1 Second degree kidnapping, § 45 Simple Kidnapping, §
46 False imprisonment, California Civil Code § 771, a felony and or
misdemeanor was committed by DEFENDANT/S listed above, who did willfully
and unlawfully under the color of law commit AGGRAVATED KIDNAP and or
KIDNAP and or PARENTAL ALIENATION in addition to INTERFERENCE WITH
FAMILY AND POLITICAL RELATIONS of PLAINTIFFS.
DAMAGES
As a proximate consequence of the willful and
malicious actions of DEFENDANTS, PLAINTIFF’S have sustained
extraordinary damage in a sum to be determined per proof, including
severe and extreme emotional stress and anguish, parental alienation,
lost time, lost business investments, 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 such as enjoying life with
one’s own children!
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.
Authorities
AUTHORITIES in
section “K. COMMON AUTHORITIES” are incorporated herein by reference in
addition to the following AUTHORITIES:
Parent Can Sue
For Interference With Parental Rights
Either parent can sue
for interference with parental rights:
STRODE V. GLEASON,
510 P.2d 250 (1973);
Federal Court Has
Jurisdiction on Divorce Claims
Federal Courts can
rule on federal claims (constitutional questions) involved in state
divorce cases and award money damages for federal torts or in diversity
of citizenship cases involving intentional infliction of emotional
distress by denial of parental rights, "visitation", as long as the
Federal Court is not asked to modify custodial status:
LLOYD V. LOEFFLER,
518 F.Supp 720 (custodial father won $95,000 against parental kidnapping
wife)
FENSLAGE V. DAWKINS,
629 F.2d 1107 ($130,000 damages for parental kidnapping)
KAJTAZI V. KAJTAZI,
488 F.Supp 15 (1976)
SPINDEL V.
SPINDEL, 283 F.Supp. 797 (1969)
HOWARD V. KUNEN, USDC
Mass CA No. 73-3813-G, 12/3/73 (unreported)
SCHWAB V. HUTSON,
USDC, S.Dist. MI, 11/70 (unreported)
LORBEER V. THOMPSON,
USDC Colorado (1981)
Custody May Be
Changed If Constitutional Rights Abridged
Custody can be
changed if visitation is denied.
Wife can be held in
contempt if visitation is denied.
ENTWISTLE V.
ENTWISTLE, 402 NYS 2d 213
Custody can be
changed if wife is "disrespectful" of "visitation" order:
MURASKIN V. MURASKIN
283 NW 2d 140 (N. Dakota 1979)
U.S.C. Section
1738A and 42 and 654, 663
The Parental
Kidnapping Prevention Act (28 U.S.C. Section 1738A and 42
U.S.C. Section 654,
663) is a federal statute enacted in 1980 to address kidnapping by
noncustodial parents and inconsistent child custody decisions made by
state courts. The law provides for penalties for kidnapping and requires
states to recognize and enforce the custody decisions of courts in other
states, rather than make a second, and possibly inconsistent, decision.
California Penal
Code Kidnap
278. Every person,
not having a right to custody, who maliciously takes, entices away,
keeps, withholds, or conceals any child with the intent to detain or
conceal that child from a lawful custodian 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 two, three, or
four years, a fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars ($10,000), or both
that fine and imprisonment.
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.
280. Every person
who willfully causes or permits the removal or concealment of any child
in violation of Section 8713, 8803, or 8910 of the Family Code shall be
punished as follows:
(a) By
imprisonment in a county jail for not more than one year if the child is
concealed within the county in which the adoption proceeding is pending
or in which the child has been placed for adoption, or is removed from
that county to a place within this state.
(b) By
imprisonment in the state prison, or by imprisonment in a county jail
for not more than one year, if the child is removed from that county to
a place outside of this state.
§ 44 Aggravated
Kidnapping
Aggravated kidnapping
is the doing of any of the following acts with the intent thereby to
force the victim, or some other person, to give up anything of apparent
or prospective value, or to grant any advantage or immunity, in order to
secure the release of the person under the offender’s actual or apparent
control:
(1) the
forcible seizing and carrying of any person from one place to another;
or
(2) the
enticing or persuading of any person to go from one place to another; or
(3) the
imprisoning or forcible secreting of any person.
A FELONY
§ 44.1 Second degree
kidnapping
A. Second
degree kidnapping is the doing of any of the acts listed in Subsection B
wherein the victim is:
(1) used as a
hostage or shield;
(2) used to
facilitate the commission of a felony or the flight after an attempt to
commit or the commission or a felony;
(4) imprisoned
or kidnapped for 72 or more hours, except as provided by RS 14:45 (A)
(4) or (5); or
(5) imprisoned
or kidnapped when the offender is armed with a dangerous weapon or leads
the victim to reasonably believe he is armed with a dangerous weapon.
B. for the
purposes of this section, Kidnapping is:
(1) the
forcible seizing and carrying or any person from one place to another;
or
(2) the
enticing or persuading of any person to go from one place to another; or
(3) the
imprisoning or forcible secreting of any person
A FELONY
§ 45 Simple
Kidnapping
A. Simple
kidnapping is:
(1) the
intentional and forcible seizing and carrying of any person from one
place to another without his consent.
(2) The
intentional taking, enticing or decoying away, for an unlawful purpose,
of any child not his own and under the age of fourteen years, without
the consent of his parent or the person charged with its custody.
(3) The
intentional taking, enticing or decoying away, without the consent of
the proper authority, or any person who has been lawfully committed to
an orphan, insane, feeble-minded or other similar institution.
(4) The
intentional taking, enticing or decoying away and removing from the
state, by any parent of his or her child, from the custody of any person
to whom custody has been awarded by any court of competent jurisdiction
of any state, without the consent of the legal custodian, with intent to
defeat the jurisdiction of the said court over the custody of the child.
(5) the taking,
enticing or decoying away and removing from the state, by any person,
other than the parent, of a child temporarily placed in his custody by
any court of competent jurisdiction in the state, with the intention to
defeat the jurisdiction of said court over the custody of the child. A
FELONY
§ 46 False
imprisonment
False imprisonment is
the intentional confinement or detention of another, without his consent
and without proper legal authority. A MISDEMEANOR
Federal Court Has
Jurisdiction Over Custody Matters
Federal judges can
set aside or overturn state courts to preserve constitutional rights:
MITCHUM V. FOSTER,
407 US 225 (1972)
Title 28 US Code sec.
2284.
Federal Courts can
rule on federal claims (constitutional questions) involved in state
divorce cases and award money damages for federal torts or in diversity
of citizenship cases involving intentional infliction of emotional
distress by denial of parental rights, "visitation", as long as the
Federal Court is not asked to modify custodial status:
LLOYD V. LOEFFLER,
518 F.Supp 720 (custodial father won $95,000 against parental kidnapping
wife)
FENSLAGE V. DAWKINS,
629 F.2d 1107 ($130,000 damages for parental kidnapping)
KAJTAZI V. KAJTAZI,
488 F.Supp 15 (1976)
SPINDEL V.
SPINDEL, 283 F.Supp. 797 (1969)
HOWARD V. KUNEN, USDC
Mass CA No. 73-3813-G, 12/3/73 (unreported)
SCHWAB V. HUTSON,
USDC, S.Dist. MI, 11/70 (unreported)
LORBEER V. THOMPSON,
USDC Colorado (1981)
Right of parents to
the care, custody and to nurture their children is of such character
that it cannot be denied without violating those fundamental principals
of liberty and justice which lie at the base of all our civil and
political institutions, AND SUCH RIGHT IS A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT PROTECTED
BY THIS AMENDMENT AND AMENDMENTS 5, 9, and 14:
DOE V. IRWIN, 441 f.
SUPP. 1247, U.S. DISTRICT COURT OF MICHIGAN (1977)
Parents have
fundamental constitutionally protected interest in continuity of legal
bond with their children:
MATTER OF DELANEY,
617 P.2d 886, Oklahoma (1980)
The United States
Supreme Court noted that a parent's right to "the companionship, care,
custody and management of his or her children" is an interest "far more
precious" than any property right:
MAV V. ANDERSON, 345
U.S. 528, 533; 73 S.Ct. 840, 843 (1952)
"No bond is more
precious and none should be more zealously protected by the law as the
bond between parent and child.":
CARSEN V. ELROD, 411
F.Supp. 645, 649 (U.S. District Court Eastern Dist. Virginia 1976)
"A parent's right to
the preservation of his relationship with his child derives from the
fact that the parent's achievement of a rich and rewarding life is
likely to depend significantly on his ability to participate in the
rearing of his children. A child's corresponding right to protection
from interference in the relationship deprives form the psychic
importance to him of being raised by a loving, responsible, reliable
adult." - FRANZ V. UNITED STATES, 707 F.2d 582, 595-599 (U.S. Ct. App.
D.C. Circuit 1983)
Loss of First
Amendment Freedoms, for even minimal periods of time, unquestionably
constitutes irreparable injury. Though First Amendment rights are not
absolute, they may be curtailed only by interests of vital importance,
the burden of proving which rests on their government. - ELROD V. BURNS,
96 S Ct 2673; 427 US 347, (1976).
Parent's right to
custody of child is a right encompassed within protection of this
amendment which may not be interfered with under guise of protecting
public interest by legislative action which is arbitrary or without
reasonable relation to some purpose within competency of state to
effect. - REYNOLD V. BABY FOLD, INC., 369 NE 2d 858; 68 Ill 2d 419,
appeal dismissed 98 S Ct 1598, 435 US 963, IL, (1977).
The United States
Supreme Court noted that a parent's right to "the companionship, care,
custody and management of his or her children" is an interest "far more
precious" than any property right. - MAY V. ANDERSON, 345 US 528, 533;
73 S Ct 840, 843, (1952).
A parent's right to
care and companionship of his or her children are so fundamental, as to
be guaranteed protection under the First, Ninth, and Fourteenth
Amendments of the United States Constitution. - IN RE: J.S. AND C., 324
A 2d 90; supra 129 NJ Super, at 489.
Parent's rights have
been recognized as being "essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness
by free man." - MEYER V. NEBRASKA, 262 or 426 US 390 ; 43 S Ct 625,
(1923).
No bond is more
precious and none should be more zealously protected by the law as the
bond between parent and child." - CARSON V. ELROD, 411 F Supp 645, 649;
DC E.D. VA (1976).
State Judges, as well as federal, have the responsibility to respect and
protect persons from violations of federal constitutional rights. -
GROSS V. STATE OF ILLINOIS, 312 F 2d 257; (1963).
Custody is a
Constitutionally Secured Right – Enabling Federal Jurisdiction
The Court stressed,
"the parent-child relationship is an important interest that undeniably
warrants deference and, absent a powerful countervailing interest,
protection." A parent's interest in the companionship, care, custody and
management of his or her children rises to a constitutionally secured
right, given the centrality of family life as the focus for personal
meaning and responsibility.
A child has an equal
right to be raised by the father, and must be awarded to the father if
he is the better parent, or mother is not interested:
STANLEY V. ILLINOIS,
405 US 645, 651; 92 S Ct 1208, (1972).
A parent's right to
the custody of his or her children is an element of "liberty" guaranteed
by the Fifth Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of
the United States:
MATTER OF GENTRY, 369
N.W.2d. 889, Mich. Appellate Div. (1983)
The rights of parents
to the care, custody and nurture of their children is of such character
that it cannot be denied without violating those fundamental principles
of liberty and justice which lie at the base of all our civil and
political institutions, and such right is a fundamental right protected
by this amendment (First) and Amendments 5, 9, and 14. - DOE V. IRWIN,
441 F Supp 1247; U.S. D.C. of Michigan, (1985).
Ex Parte Hearings
on Custody Orders Unconstitutional
Ex Parte conferences,
hearings or Orders denying parental rights or personal liberties are
unconstitutional, cannot be enforced, can be set aside in federal court,
and can be the basis of suits for money damages.
RANKIN V. HOWARD, 633
F.2d 844 (1980);
GEISINGER V. VOSE,
352 F.Supp. 104 (1972).
If Mother has
Boyfriend Custody Awarded To Father
If custodial mother
has boyfriend living with her, state can change custody to father.
JARRETT V. JARRETT,
101 S.Ct. 329
Father has Right
to Custody
Custody can be
awarded to father of girls of "tender years" if mother commits perjury,
and is otherwise immoral.
BEABER V. BEABER, 322
NE 2d 910.
Judges Criminally
Liable For Willful Depravation of Custody Rights or any Constitutional
Violation
Fathers' Rights Case
Law Title 42 USC 1983 is for (federal) civil rights violations. "Judges
may be punished criminally for willful deprivation of rights on the
strength of Title 18 U.S.A. 241 and 242."
"Judges may be
punished criminally for willful deprivation of rights on the strength of
Title 18 U.S.A. 241 and 242."
[The fact that There
are federal rules\laws regarding suing including judges for violations
of constitutional rights is proof enough that it occurs.]: - IMBLER V.
PACHTMAN, 424 U.S. 409; 96 S.Ct. 984 (1976)
"When a judge acts
intentionally and knowingly to deprive a person of his constitutional
rights, he exercises no discretion or individual judgement; he acts no
longer as a judge, but as a "minister" of his own prejudice.": PIERSON
V. RAY, 386 U.S. 547 at 567 (1967)
"Referring both to
the objective and subjective elements, we have held that qualified
immunity (Ed. Note: or "good faith") would be defeated if an official
"knew or reasonably should have known that the action he took within his
sphere of official responsibility would violate the constitutional
rights of the [plaintiff], or if he took the action with the malicious
intention to cause a deprivation of constitutional rights or other
injury. . ." - HARLOW V. FITZGERALD, 102 S.Ct. 2727 at 2737, 457 U.S.
800 (1982)
Every person who,
under color of any statute ordinance, regulation, custom, or by usage,
of any State or Territory, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any
citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction
thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities
secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party
injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding
for redress. EVERY PERSON SHALL BE LIABLE IN AN ACTION AT LAW SUIT IN
EQUITY N0 EXCLUSION FOR JUDGES BY ANY ACT OF CONGRESS UNITED STATES
CODE, TITLE 42, SECTION 1985 (3) If two or more persons . . . conspire.
. for the purpose of depriving. any person. . . of the equal protection
of the laws . . . the party so injured or deprived may have an action
for the recovery of damages . . . RECOVERY OF DAMAGES AGAINST ANY ONE OR
MORE OF THE CONSPIRATORS N0 EXCLUSION FOR JUDGES BY ANY ACT OF CONGRESS
UNITED STATES CODE, TITLE 42, SECTION 1986 Every person who, having
knowledge that any of the wrongs . . . are about to be committed, and
having power to prevent or aid in preventing the commission of the same,
neglects or refuses so to do . . . shall be liable . . . EVERY PERSON
SHALL BE LIABLE FOR ALL DAMAGES NO EXCLUSION FOR JUDGES BY ANY ACT OF
CONGRESS UNITED STATES CODE, TITLE 42, SECTION 1988: - UNITED STATES
CODE, TITLE 42, SECTION 1983
"We should, of
course, not protect a member of the judiciary "who is in fact guilty of
using his power to vent his spleen upon others, or for any other
personal motive not connected with the public good." - GREGOIRE V.
BIDDLE, 177 F.2d 579, 581.
"Government immunity
violates the common law maxim that everyone shall have remedy for an
injury done to his person or property." - FIREMAN'S INS/ CO. OF NEWARK,
N.J. V. WASHBURN COUNTY, 2 Wis.2d 214, 85 N.W.2d 840 (1957)
Immunity fosters
neglect and breeds irresponsibility, while liability promotes care and
caution, which caution and care is owed by the government to its
people." - RABON V. ROWEN MEMORIAL HOSP., INC, 269 NSI. 13, 152 S.E.2d
485, 493 (`1967)
"Actions by state
officers and employees, even if unauthorized or in excess of authority
can be actions under 'color of law'." - STRINGER V. DILGER, 313 F.2d
536 (U.S. Ct. App 10th Circ. - 1963
"A judge is not
immune from criminal sanctions under the civil rights act." "State
officials acting in their official capacities, even if in abuse of their
lawful authority , generally are held to act "under color" of law. This
is because such officials are “clothed with the authority" of state law,
which gives them power to perpetrate the very wrongs that Congress
intended Section 1983 to prevent. “- EX PARTE VIRGINIA, 100 U.S. 339,
346-347 (1879)
"The language and
purpose of the civil rights acts, are inconsistent with the application
of common law notions of official immunity. . . “- JACOBSEN V. HENNE,
335 F.2d 129, 133 (U.S. Ct. App. 2nd Circ. - 1966) Also see" ANDERSON V.
NOSSER, 428 F.2d 183 (U.S. Ct. App. 5th Circ. - 1971)
"Governmental
immunity is not a defense under (42 USC 1983) making liable every person
who under color of state law deprives another person of his civil
rights." - WESTBERRY V. FISHER, 309 F.Supp. 95 (District Ct.- of Maine -
1970 "
Judicial immunity is
no defense to a judge acting in the clear absence of jurisdiction." -
BRADLEY V. FISHER, U.S. 13 Wall. 335 (1871)
As long as a
DEFENDANT who abridges a plaintiff's constitutional rights acts pursuant
to a statute of local law which empowers him to commit the wrongful act,
an action under the Federal Civil Rights statute is established. 42
U.S.C.A. 1981 et seq. - LAVERNE V. CORNING, 316 F.Supp. 629
"The Supreme Court
initially discussed judicial immunity in Randall v. Brigham, 74 U.S. (7
Wall.) 523, 19 L.Ed. 285 (1869). In Randall, the Court wrote that judges
of superior or general jurisdiction courts were not liable to civil
actions for their judicial acts, even when such acts, where the acts, in
excess of jurisdiction, are done maliciously or corruptly." [Editor's
Note: In more recent cases: Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 (1978) and
Dennis v. Sparks, 449 U.S. 24 it was found that judges were really not
acting in a malicious and corrupt manner and the proofs also showed
that. Congress by its words and meaning enacted the Civil Rights Act of
1871 and that meaning included judges to be held responsible to an
injured plaintiff for the deprivation of Constitutional Rights. Any
judge made case finding to the contrary is hereby challenged as
unconstitutional and unlawful. No Court has ever challenged the
Constitutionality of the Civil Rights Act of 1871, and therefore said
Congressionally enacted legislation stands as law. The only way to
change an act of Congress is by an act of Congress. No judge can change
it and any such findings and changes are not to be upheld in Federal
Courts as lawful. No changes in the wording have ever been made to Title
42 U.S.C.A. 1981, 1983, 1985, 1986 and 1988 and therefore these
Congressionally enacted laws are enforceable in the Federal Courts. The
only change made to Title 42 U.S.C.A. 1983 took place in 1979. At this
time the words "or the District of Columbia" were inserted following
"Territory". If any judges or persons representing judges had wanted to
make a change this would have been an opportune time to do so. No action
was ever taken to change the wording of the law and it remains as such
today.] - RANDALL V. BRIGHAM, 74 U.S. (7 Wall.) 523, 19 L.Ed. 285
(1869).
"I agree with the
substantive standard announced by the Court today, imposing liability
when a public-official DEFENDANT "knew or should have known" of the
constitutionally violative effect of his actions. This standard would
not allow the official who actually knows that he was violating the law
to escape liability for his actions, even if he could not "reasonably
have been expected" to know what he actually did know. Thus the clever
and unusually well-informed violator of constitutional rights will not
evade just punishment for his crimes. I, also agree that this standard
applies "across the board," to all "government officials performing
discretionary functions." - Harlow at 2739, Justice Brennan, Justice
Marshall, and Justice Blackmum concurring. In Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S.
547, Mr. Justice Douglas, dissenting
"Judges are not
immune for their no judicial activities, i.e., activities which are
ministerial or administrative in nature." - SANTIAGO V. CITY OF
PHILADELPHIA, 435 F.Supp. 136
"It is not a judicial
function for judge to commit intentional tort, even though tort occurs
in courthouse." - YATES V. VILLAGE OF HOFFMAN ESTATES, ILLINOIS, 209
F.Supp. 757
"There was no
judicial immunity to civil actions for equitable relief under Civil
Rights Act of 1871. 42 U.S.C.A. 1983 Shore v. Howard. 414 F.Supp. 379
"There is no judicial immunity from criminal liability". Id. "Repeated
pattern of failing to advise litigants of their constitutional and
statutory rights is serious judicial misconduct." - MATTER OF PEEVES,
480 N.Y.S. 2d 463.
"When a judge knows
that he lacks jurisdiction or acts in face of clearly valid statutes or
case law expressly depriving him of jurisdiction, judicial immunity is
lost." - RANKIN V. HOWARD, 633 F.2d 844.
"There is no judicial
immunity from criminal liability." - SHORE V. HOWARD, 414 F.Supp. 379
"State judges, as
well as federal, have the responsibility to respect and protect persons
from violations of federal constitutional rights." - GOSS V. STATE OF
ILLINOIS, 312 F2d. 1279 (U.S.Ct.App. - Illinois - 1963)
"Conduct of trial
judge must be measured by standard of fairness and impartiality." -
GREENER V. GREEN, 460 F.2d 1279 (U.S.Ct. App. - Pa. - 1972)
Judges must maintain
a high standard of judicial performance with particular emphasis upon
conducting litigation with scrupulous fairness and impartiality. 28 USCA
§ 2411; - PFIZER V. LORD, 456 F 2d 532; cert denied 92 S Ct 2411; US Ct
App MN, (1972).
"A judge knows that
he lacks jurisdiction, or acts in the face of clearly valid statutes or
case law expressly depriving him of jurisdiction, judicial immunity is
lost." Id. "Law requires not only impartial tribunal, but that tribunal
appears to be impartial." 28 U.S.C.A. 455.- IN RE TIP-PAHANDS
ENTERPRISES, INC., 27 B.R. 780 (U.S. Bankruptcy Ct.)
Municipality and
Sate may be Sued
A parent may bring a
suit against a municipality which failed to provide protection against
an ex-spouse, under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983. The parent may recover
damages for her son's death and her own injuries, where the police force
assured her of protection from a violent ex-spouse:
RAUCCI V. TOWN OF
ROTTERDAM, No. 89-7693, U.S. Dist. Ct. --N.Y., April 27, 1990
Police Officers
No Immunity
Police officer loses
qualified immunity to claim that facially neutral policy has been
executed in a discriminatory manner in a domestic violence situation if
that police officer knows that the policy has a discriminatory impact:
HANSEN V. CITY OF )
LEGAL DEPT., 864 F.2d 1026, 3rd Cir. (1988)
Attorney’s Can Be
Sued
Attorney can be sued
for malpractice under consumer protection laws.
DEBAKEY V. STAGG, 605
SW 2d 631 (1980)
The Court Has a
Duty To Ensure Constitutional Rights
It is the duty of the
courts to be watchful for CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS of the citizen, against
any stealthy encroachments thereon." -BOYD V. U.S., 116 US 616, 635,
(1885)
“In short, the
federal courts could step in where the state courts were unable or
unwilling to protect federal rights." - ALLEN v. McCURRY, 449 U.S. 90
(1980)
Evil Orders Are
Unconstitutional
Laws and court
procedures that are "fair on their faces" but administered "with an evil
eye or a heavy hand" was discriminatory and violates the Equal
Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
YICK WO V. HOPKINS,
118 S.Ct. 356 (1886)
Justice Delayed
is Justice Denied
Justice delayed is
justice denied.
MAGNA CHARTA, Art.40,
June 15, 1215.
Void Orders
Judge's dismissal for
no cause is reversible.
FOMAN V. DAVIS, 371
US 178 (1962)
Non-Lawyers
Entitled To Court
Non-lawyers can
assist or represent litigants in court.
JOHNSON V. AVERY, 89
S.Ct. 747
Members of group who
are competent no lawyers can assist other members of group achieve the
goals of the group in court without being charged with "unauthorized
practice of law"
BROTHERHOOD OF
RAILWAY TRAINMEN V. VIRGINIA , 377 US 1;
NAACP V. BUTTON, 371
US 415 (1962);
SIERRA CLUB V.
NORTON, 92 S.Ct. 1561;
UNITED MINE WORKERS
V. GIBBS, 383 US 715;
FARETTA V.
CALIFORNIA, 422 US 806.
Pro Se To Be
Considered Without Technicality
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)
PLAINTIFFS:
All PLAINTIFFS
DEFENDANTS:
JEREMY FOGEL, Jeremy Fogel,
Jon
Doe’s, 1 to n.
VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS & ULTIMATE FACTS
On multiple occasions, including on or about
September 9, 2005, January 27, 2006, March 3, 2006, July 12, 2006, July
21, 2006, October 3, 2006, September 12, 2006 and September 13, 2006, in
the above named Judicial District, the crime of TREASON, in violation of
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1, a felony, was committed by JEREMY FOGEL, who did
willfully and unlawfully commit TREASON. JEREMY FOGEL having knowledge
of the law and the fact that PLAINTIFFS in U.S. District Court San Jose
case number C07 00391 had filed said case under the 11th
Amendment in which said case was filed not only against JEREMY FOGEL’s
employer but also his colleagues and that said case was filed by
citizens of another State across state borders against the State and
thus in accordance with not only due process, but also in accordance
with the 11th Amendment of the United States Constitution
JEREMY FOGEL had no Judicial power in said case and JEREMY FOGEL thus
exceeded subject matter jurisdiction by making rulings in a case in
which Judicial power was clearly prohibited JEREMY FOGEL acted under
color of state and or territorial law.
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.”
JEREMY FOGEL did Breach his Duty and exceeded
subject matter jurisdiction in violation of 18 U.S.C. Section 1.
“Whenever a judge acts where he/she does not have jurisdiction to act,
the judge is engaged in an act or acts of treason.” U.S. v. Will, 449
U.S. 200, 216, 101 S.Ct. 471, 66 .Ed.2d 392, 406 (1980); Cohens v.
Virginia, 19 U.S. (6 Wheat) 264, 404, 5 L.Ed 257 (1821)
Let the JURY NOTE: JEREMY FOGEL proceeded to not
only assume jurisdiction when he had none, he went on to ignore
extremely serious felonies committed against PLAINTIFFS including false
arrest, assault, attempted murder, kidnap and JEREMY FOGEL allowed the
continued kidnap of RCB and WFB. As a DEFENDANT in the afore mentioned
Federal case, JEREMY FOGEL, exceeded subject matter jurisdiction and
dismissed the case against himself and his co-conspirators and even
dismissed the case against DEFENDANTS who had made no appearance what so
ever. JEREMY FOGEL’s actions were willful and malicious.
DAMAGES
As a proximate consequence of the willful and
malicious actions of DEFENDANTS, PLAINTIFF’S have sustained
extraordinary damage in a sum to be determined per proof, including
severe and extreme emotional stress and anguish, parental alienation,
lost time, lost business investments, 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 such as enjoying life with
one’s own children!
As a consequence of the willful and malicious
actions of JEREMY FOGEL/Jeremy Fogel, PLAINTIFF’S have sustained
extraordinary damage in a sum certain amount of $66,016,803,250.00.
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.
AUTHORITIES
AUTHORITIES in section “K. COMMON AUTHORITIES” are
incorporated herein by reference in addition to the following
AUTHORITIES:
18 U.S.C. Section 1 “Whenever a judge acts where
he/she does not have jurisdiction to act, the judge is engaged in an act
or acts of treason.” U.S. v. Will, 449 U.S. 200, 216, 101 S.Ct. 471, 66
.Ed.2d 392, 406 (1980); Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. (6 Wheat) 264, 404,
5 L.Ed 257 (1821) |
