TheEarthPLan.com

The Earth Plan:

LFL Founder Out Of Hiding With Extrodinary Solution to fix
Government
Peopleisim.org :

Peopleisim

The Construct of Live & Origin of Everything - Soulisim:

Soulisim

ADVERISE HERE:

 

Interrogation of A 7 Year Old

After attempting to murder Richard's father in front of him and keeping Richard who used to live with his father completely isolated from his father for a month, Santa Cruz Ass. DA Stephen Drottar and Investigator Mike Lindsey interrogate Richard with the blessing of his mother Anamaria Tichatschke. The interrogation took place without Richard's dad being present or even being notified of the interrogation.  They would keep Richard and his little brother William completely isolated from their dad for another two months.  Then they let Richard and William see their dad, Clive, for one hour every four weeks in a supervised environment.  After that wore thing Samuel S. Stevens unlawfully modified Clive's Stipulated Custody Agreement, rationing Clive to three weekends out of four with his sons.  From Monday to Friday every week, Clive cannot even communicate with his children.

LINDSEY: Were at the District Attorneys office present Deputy DA Steve Drotter Investigator Mike Lindsey, Richard Boustred and Anamaria Boustred.  And it’s 4:54 April 9th 2003

LINDSEY: So, were going to ask you about, do you remember that day Richard that the police were following your dad back to the house?

 

ANALYSIS: Note the immediate setup – Lindsey the interrogator sets off the interrogation by attempting to put words in Richards mouth, he asks Richard “do you remember that day the police were following your father”– The cops believe that if they can prove Clive knew the police car was behind him then they can prove Clive wad guilty of some sort of issue.  Clive was not aware the police were even following him up his private road until he got home.

Clive he was only aware of the police when he arrived home and found the sheriffs in his driveway. The fact of the matter is that even if Clive knew the cop was behind him, under the law, Clive had every right to first drive home and put his kids safely in their home.  Actually it was Clive who was following the law he was returning home from  the Court house where he filed the TRO to try and prevent his ex from resuming false police calls.

The bottom line is that the cops 1. had no right to be on Clive’s private property in the first place2. had no right to stop Clive3..had no right to chase Clive4. had no right to setup an ambush for Clive5. had no right to draw their weapons on Clive or his kids6. had no right to shoot at Clive or his kids.

Under the law, the Cops first had to wait 24 hours before they initiated any investigation as to whether the children had according to Anamaria been kidnapped, which was an impossibility according to Anamaria’s story in the first place because a father cannot kidnap his own children.  Clive who had filed the TRO was completely within the law.  Under the law the cops first had to obtain a warrant to enter and search Clive’s private property – they were breaking the law.  That is why we have these laws to force the cops to go to court where they would obviously have found out that Clive was following the law and had filed a TRO.  The cops knew Clive was returning home from the Court house.  The cops also knew that Anamraria was thrown out of the family home 8 months earlier for making a false 911 call to that very sheriffs office.  The cops also knew Ana had a stolen million dollar life insurance policy on Clive’s head.

But the law, as we all know, is not what the cops are interested in following in this case.  How the cops work is they file a whole lot of false charges against thief victim then get a jury to decide which box they can fit the victim into.  The cops desperately want in any way to try and find Clive guilty of something so that they can somehow justify shooting at Clive and his kids.  So here they are interrogating Richard one month after shooting at him and hid dad and after literally preventing Richard from even speaking to hid dad all that time.  The cops had literally kidnapped Richard from hid dad who Richard lived with.

So the interrogator is attempting to get Richard who is only seven years old, to go along with this pretext that the police were following his father.  This same pretext and setup by the interrogator occurs repeatedly throughout the interrogation of Richard.  The interrogators Lindsey and Drotter repeatedly try to put words in Richards mouth. 

RICHARD: It was like on March, but I don’t remember it very well.

DROTTER: You don’t remember the date?

LINDSEY: That’s ok, that’s ok.  Do you remember the events?  Do you remember what happened that day?

ANALYSIS: Now Richard is highly unlikely to remember the actual date or even month.  It appears that he has been primed here but forgot the actual date.  Drotter jumps in and interjects with “you don’t remember the date?”. Clearly Drotter was expecting Richard to have remembered the date.  Had Drotter told Anamaria to prime Richard for this interrogation, why else would Drotter react in such a way? 

In trial Drottar was caught out in an embarrassing situation when deputy Pool lied and claimed he never had any meetings with Drotter the Ass DA prosecuting the case before the trial, when obviously these meetings must have taken place between Pool and Drotter.  That’s like trying to claim a lawyer never talked to his client before trial.

Investigator Lindsey, cuts Drottar short, one can detect a slight irritation in Lindsey’s voice.

Richards answer is exactly what they don’t want to hear note how Lindsey shuts that down.

RICHARD: Yea, um, like one of the polices like shot one of my dad’s cars like

LINDSEY: He did.

ANALYSIS: This is not the answer the sheriffs were looking for.  Lindsey immediately cuts Richard off before Richard has finished telling what really happened.

Lindsey then goes on with in his desperate effort to put a story in Richard’s mouth.  Note in the next question how Lindsey tries to pick up on Richard’s lingo in an attempt to inject his desired answer.

LINDSEY: Do you remember like before we got to the house, do you remember a police car behind your dad’s car?

RICHARD: -- no answer –

LINDSEY: Could you..

ANALYSIS: We must note Lindsey asks Richard the question “like before we got to the house”, with the emphasis on, a friendly you know “like” “we” got to the house. Lindsey was not in the car.  There is a pause with no answer from Richard so Lindsey pushes the question further…

LINDSEY: Could you hear the siren when you were in your dad’s car?

RICHARD: Yea

DROTTER: Was it loud or was it quiet?

RICHARD: Kind of loud and quiet.

DROTTER: What did it sound like can you remember?

RICHARD: Um, no.

DROTTER: no!

ANALYSIS: Richard who is seven is being interrogated by these adults who are trying to get him to confirm what they are putting in his head.  Already the interrogation is completely out of line even disregarding the fact they are interrogating a boy they kidnapped from his father.  Lindsey manages by going back and forth to eventually put a yes in Richard’s mouth that he heard the siren.  However, Drotter desperately eager to find anything he can jumps in and reveals that Richard’s answer is certainly not a yes when questioning Richard as to what the siren sounded like, which for a kid should be pretty easy.  The interrogators are of blown that line so Lindsey picks up a new line with shiny lights and again putting the pretext of the answer in the question that a police car was behind Richard in the first place.

LINDSEY: Could you see the lights from the police car were they shiny when you looked back?

RICHARD: Yea

ANALYSIS: Again Lindsey is putting a blatant and obvious pretext by planting a response, he asks Richard.  “Could you see the lights from the police car were they shiny when you looked back?”  Richard had never said he looked back while Lindsey is literally telling Richard that the police car was there in the first place.  Just as in the initial pretext of Lindsey and Drottars interrogation, they start with the pretext of attempting to place the answer in Richard’s head when Lindsay tells Richard “that day Richard that the police were following your dad back to the house?”.  Like the previous response where they forced a yes from Richard by firstly telling Richard the police were following him then asking him if he police were following him.  Richard again responds yes to Lindsey’s question to shiny lights after literally saying the police car was there in the first place.  Of course kids will say police car lights are shiny.

It’s quite disgusting when you realize what Lindsey, Drotter and Anamaria were doing to the little guy.

LINDSEY: Do you ever hear what your dad was, was saying when a police car was behind your dad?  Do you remember anything that he said?

RICHARD: … um… [long pause followed by Richard exhaling]  I don’t …. Ugh..

LINDSEY: Does he, does he talk to you guys at any point?

RICHARD: um

LINDSEY: Does he say anything to you guys?

RICHARD: no

ANALYSIS: Note how Lindsey is asking a question then following it up with another question which the answer should be an obvious yes.  Again Lindsey is literally telling Richard here that a police car was behind him.

LINDSEY: Was uh, was he looking back, or did he, did you notice was he looking in the rear view mirror of the car?  You know that little mav, that um, that.

RICHARD: Yea

LINDSEY: Did you notice if he was looking in the rear view mirror of the car

RICHARD: No.

LINDSEY: No.

LINDSEY: Ok, after you got at the house did uh people shout anything at your dad or at the car do you remember anything like that?

RICHARD: Um, well the guy, my dad was shouting at one of the polices

LINDSEY: What was he saying?

RICHARD: Um, I don’t know [Richard giggles nervously]

DROTTER: Did you notice if the windows of he car were open or not?

RICHARD: Um,… no.

DROTTER: No you don’t know? Or no they weren’t?

RICHARD: I don’t know

DROTTER: You don’t know, Well that’s ok.

LINDSEY: Could you hear the people outside the car?

RICHARD: Um, yea.

LINDSEY: Do you um, if you not remember it’s very, that you’re. Do you remember what they were saying to your dad?

RICHARD: No

LINDSEY: Ok, that, that’s fine. That’s good.

ANALYSIS:  Richard is again answering the opposite of what the interrogators want to hear so they ask the question in another way.  Even in questioning adults, this sort of behavior is not allowed in court.

LINDSEY: And then uh, do you remember when your dad drove through the gates what happened, can you tell me what you saw when your dad drove through the gate?

RICHARD: Uh, two of the polices followed him.

LINDSEY: Ok, and then what happened?

RICHARD: And then they guy like shooted the gun.

LINDSEY: Ok, did, does he say anything before he shot the uh, …. Or fired the uh, less than lethal?

RICHARD: Um, no.

LINDSEY: Ok.

ANALYSIS: Richard gives an accurate account of what happened, two cops rand down after us and the one cop ran up to us and shot at us.  The cop, Deputy Michael MacDonald was clearly attempting to assassinate me.  The interrogators are hoping that Richard says that the cop gave a warning before shooting which he did not.  What is also interesting is Lindsey’s pause as he tries to think of a word to describe the Rambo like gun the cop used, which he calls a less than lethal which is not what the gun is called.  The cops call it a less lethal not a less than lethal.  The gun is absolutely lethal and categorically lethal at five to seven feet.  Any gun if you shoot someone in the foot is not lethal.  The Rambo like gun MacDonald used is absolutely deadly from a point blank range of five to seven feet.  In his position as the Santa Cruz Sheriffs shooting instructor MacDonald would be fully aware that the gun is deadly at the point blank range from which he fired.

LINDSEY: And then what happened?

RICHARD: And then one of the polices like talked to the uh, say, one of the polices in the garage.

LINDSEY: Uh hu

RICHARD: And

LINDSEY: What were they doing?

RICHARD: My dad was showed them the court orders, and I forget the rest.

LINDSEY: Um ok.

ANALYSIS: What is astonishing here is Richard gave Steven Drotter the Ass. DA an accurate account of what happened, he specifically mentions the court orders.  Richard gives full evidence that his dad could not be guilty despite the best efforts of the interrogators efforts to put the opposite words in Richards mouth.  Despite the clear evidence that Clive is innocent, Drotter and the rest of the Santa Cruz Sheriffs, District Attorneys and Judges continue to maliciously prosecute Clive.

LINDSEY: Then you left and uh, you went with the uh?

RICHARD: Uh, no i cant remember.

LINDSEY: You still did?

RICHRD: Um, no I showed one of the polices my [indistinguishable]

DROTTER: Are you uh, did you play with the police officers a little bit and show them some stuff?

RICHRD: Yea I played with they guy with soccer.  And I finally got a Lego when I got back.

DROTTER: You were playing soccer with the police officer you were beating him at soccer? Oh wow!

LINDSEY: Good for you

DROTTER: Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, you must be a pretty good soccer player.

ANALYSIS: Pathetic.  These are adults.  Richard is a kid who was shot at and kidnapped from his dad by the cops.  What more can we say other than to mention Richard’s mother rewarding Richard after he was shot at and kidnapped by going out and buying Lego toys.  What sort of celebration is that?

LINDSEY: Is there anything else about, that there, that isn’t, that the, that the you really want to tell us?..[long pause]..

RICHARD: no

LINDSEY: Ok

ANALYSIS: Well that’s it.  But Drotter won’t give up fishing.  The questions have been asked and answered, multiple times.  Drotter in blatant violation of protocol now asks the questions yet again to try to trick Richard to giving the answer Drotter was trying to put in his mouth, but did Richard give Drottere the answer he was looking for?

DROTTER: Richard what did it make you feel like when uh, did anything happen to you was it exciting was it scary was it anything when this was going on

RICHARD: Um, I don’t know

DROTTER: You don’t know, ha.  Did you look back and see the police car when the sirens were going?

RICHARD: Uh yea?

DROTTER: Did you watch the police car when it was behind you?

RICHARD: I just watched it a little bit.

DROTTER: Where were you sitting in the car

RICHARD: In the back

DROTTER: In the back seat.

RICHARD: In the back seat, right behind my dad.

ANALYSIS: Note Drotter never asked Richard where he was when he watched the police car.  Clearly Richard said that he saw the cops when he got to the gate.  That was pretty obvious and that is what Richard had already said.   Drotters next line of questioning is rather interesting, particularly considering the criminal and deceptive nature of Steven Drotter himself.

 

DROTTER: Now Richard these are kind of funny questions we didn’t ask you any of these questions but do you know the difference between the truth and a lie?

RICHARD: Yea

DROTTER: You do. Really! How do you know that?

RICHARD: Um b, Bedcause the truth is telling a good thing and a lie is telling a bad thing.

DROTTER: Ok well, I wll, lets check lets look at this piece of paper.  And if I was to tell you this piece of paper is black would I be telling the truth or would I be telling a lie?

RICHARD: A lie.

DROTTER: Well why is that?

RICHARD: Cause b, the paper is white.

DROTTER: Yea it’s really white, ok.  Well ok, that’s pretty good.  That’s pretty good that you know that Richard.[muffled talking inaudible]

DROTTER: Do you remember how many police cars, uh, were at your house when you guys drove up to your driveway?

RICHARD: I would say about six or five.

DROTTER: Six or five when you drove up there.  Do you know where they were parked?

RICHARD: Um, like at the side of the gate.

ANALYSIS: Drotter’s gets some clearly inaccurate information from Richard.  When asked how many police cars were at the gate when he arrived home, Richard said five or six when there were only two – however, Richard may have been thinking about afterwards when they took him away.  Never the less Drotter keeps on interrogating Richard, who for a seven year old kid has been subject to this interrogation for some time already.  For an adult the ridiculous quality and confusion in Drotters interrogation it would be confusing.  Richard for the most part however is able to answer Drotter.

DROTTER: Did you see.  How many police officers did you, did you see outside of the car if you remember?

RICHARD: Um, I don’t remember.

DROTTER: You don’t remember.  Did you see any police officers with guns in their hands?

RICHARD: Well one.

DROTTER: And when was it, when did you, when was that?

RICHARD: Um.

DROTTER: Let me, let me rephrase that.  Was that before your father drove through the gate or after your father drove through the gate?

RICHARD:  Before it, my dad drove through the gate.

DROTTER: Do you remember if it was a man, a male police officer or if it was a women police officer that had the gun out?

DROTTER: Do you remember if it was.  Could you hear if it was saying anything that man?

RICHARD: Um no.

DROTTER: Could you tell if he was saying anything?  Do you know what I mean?  Could you, was he, could you hear his see his mouth moving or anything like he was saying anything?

RICHARD: Uu [no]

DROTTER: You couldn’t see.  No. Ok.

ANALYSIS: Drotter concludes Richards answer that the cop with a gun outside the gate never said anything as Richard saying that Richard could not see.   The cop was on Richards side of the car where Richard would see him, and Richard confirmed that he saw him.  Richard said the cop never said anything.  The Cope never said anything.  Drotter tries to put on the record the opposite of what was stated.Lindsey then steps in to two punch double interrogate this seven year old little boy who is holding up incredibly to the interrogation and who is answering everything the opposite of what these cops want to hear. 

LINDSAY: The person that you first saw with the gun out, was that the same person that fired the shot later on or was it a different person?

RICHARD: It was the person who shot the, fired like the over my dad’s.

LINDSEY: humph

DROTTER: Is there anything else you can remember besides beating a police officer at soccer? Um,  [pause].. I was beating him allot.

DROTTER: Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, he

LINDSEY: Ok that would be the end of the interview at five o four.

 

ANALYSIS: Richard who has not spoken to his dad since they shot at him could not possibly have been primed by his dad, however, Richard is telling Drotter the Ass. DA exactly what happened. 

Richard actually confirms everything that happened that day.  We drove home and were not aware of the cop behind us.  When asked if anyone shouted anything at us, Richard recalled his dad Clive shouting at the cop to stop shooting.  The cops literally rushed down to assassinate Clive and Richard confirmed this along with other independent witnesses.

Drotter is assigned the duty of representing the People, that’s “we the people”, that’s us.  He is charged with prosecuting criminals.  Richard an innocent little boy is revealing the truth of what happened.  That he arrived home and the cop ran up his car and shot at his dad.  In light of this information Drotter, whom “we the people pay”, by law had to immediately drop the charges against Clive and prosecute the cops for attempting to murder Clive.  However, that is not what Drotter did, instead he goes on with District Attorney Bob Lee to file even more false cases against Clive and even went as far as persuading his former classmate who was also a Ass. DA, to also file false charges against Clive and to also maliciously prosecute Clive. This interrogation tried to take a little boy who the cops had shot at and then kidnapped from his dad and tried to put words in the boy’s mouth to falsely incriminate the boys dad.

They kept Richard hostage for another two months, completely isolated from his dad.  We don’t know what else they did to the boys during that time.  This recording which was made many months before, was only given to Clive just before the sham trial they gave Clive so that Clive never had any opportunity to analyze the interrogation before the trial.

ANALYSIS.  For their behavior and actions in firstly initiating an interview of a child who they had literally kidnapped knowingly from the boys father after shooting at the boy and his father and isolating the boy from his father for an entire month then conducting an interrogation of the boy without the father knowing, and also for their behavior in how they conducted the interrogation by literally placing answers in their questions to the boy, we believe that Mike Lindsey and Steve Drottar should be immediately dismissed and banned from ever practicing law or ever working for the police.