LFL Founders Writ of Habeas Corpus -

PETITION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS  See Also Habeas EVIDENCE

Clive F. Boustred

Santa Cruz County Prisoner Number: S-208969

Institutional Address:  Santa Cruz County

 

Superior Court of California

 

Clive Frank Boustred,
Petitioner.

Vs.

Santa Cruz County:  Irwn H. Joseph/ IRWN H. JOSEPH, Superior Court Commissioner; Samuel S. Stevens/SAMUEL S. STEVENS, Superior Court Judge; Robert Atack/ROBERT ATACK, Presiding Superior Court Judge; Steve Robbins/STEVE ROBBINS, Sheriff; Christie Swannac/CHRISTIE SWANNAC, Sheriff Sergeant; Sheriff; Fred Plageman/FRED PLAGEMAN, Sheriff Sergeant; Bob Lee/BOB LEE, District Attorney; Alex Calvo/ALEX CALVO, Superior Court Chief Executive Officer.
Defendants.

 

Case No._____________

 

PETITION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS;

AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE.

 

DECLARATION

Even if I had the two hundred thousand dollars bribe money the judges in Santa Cruz County want to dismiss the 7th, 8th and 9th maliciously prosecuted cases Santa Cruz County is prosecuting against me since their Sheriffs Shooting Instructor attempted to murder me in front of my children by shooting at me with a lethal weapon from a range of five to seven feet on March, 10, 2003, I would not pay them!

Even though Commissioner Irwin Joseph to whom I specifically precluded any general subject matter jurisdiction issued illegal orders to evict me from my home the very days he was attempting to have himself dismissed from the lawsuit I was prosecuting against himself, and even though he has issued orders that I not be allowed to enter or file any evidence in my case or even file a quitclaim on my homestead, and even though Irwin Joseph ordered that I not communicate with my children and I have been unlawfully evicted from my home and my children have been kidnapped from me and I have not been able to even communicate with by boys for more than six months, I cannot bring myself to pay a bribe to these criminals acting under the color of law in Santa Cruz County, even though they are now attempting to give me more sham trials where they are likely to lock me up for the rest of my life.

Not being able to even wish my sons happy Christmas or happy birthday hurts like hell.

I have moved from Santa Cruz and live and work in Lake Elsinore because I am clearly not safe in Santa Cruz as the authorities there clearly are nothing less than a bunch of filthy criminals.

My personal experience and the extensive San Jose Mercury News Tainted Trials Stolen Justice expert analysis by top legal authorities throughout the Nation has proven that the Appellate System is noting but a sham:

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/special_packages/stolenjustice

None of these facts are disputed and these facts are easily proven, except for perhaps the method the judges in Santa Cruz used to let me know that if I paid them $200,000 they would dismiss the false cases they are now mutinously prosecuting against me.  For their blackmail attempt, a woman going by the name Michele Soisson and claiming to be the niece of Judge Samuel S. Stevens, approached my friends and told them that for $200,000 any case before Stevens or Judge Robert Atack could be dismissed and that I should not sue her uncle Samuel S. Stevens because he was a ‘good guy’.  Both Judges Stevens and Atack are also defendants in my lawsuits against Santa Cruz County. They insist on presiding over the cases the county is maliciously prosecuting against me Santa Cruz Superior Court Case numbers F17075, F17078 & M45132.  My formal motions to dismiss and appeals to the Judicial Nominations Committee have been all been ignored (It should be Judicially Noted that despite the Judicial Nominations Committee rating Judge Art Danner, the Judge who sentenced me to jail for six months for driving at 27 mph down my private road before the Santa Cruz Sheriffs attempted to murder me, was TWICE rated as “Not Qualified” to be a judge.  The Judicial Nominations Committee ruling however made no difference to what happened in Santa Cruz County where a plaque outside the District Attorney’s office proudly proclaims Art Danner as ‘A Man Of Justice’).

Facts for all these other issues are irrefutable.  Many witnesses saw the Sheriffs Shooting Instructor attempt to blow my head off for no legal or remotely excusable reason with my three and seven year old sons also in the direct line of fire. The deputy (who has now been promoted to Sergeant) even admitted on the record to shooting at me and stated on the record that a Sergeant stopped him from taking a second shot. 

The Nationally renowned criminal and former District Attorney for Santa Cruz, the “Not Qualified” Judge Art Danner of the Santa Cruz Superior Court sentenced me to six months in jail for driving at 27mph down my private road before they tried to murder me and claimed that driving at 27 mph down a private road is a Felony – The 6th Appellate District Ignored the facts and law in my Appeal.  Although when federal court issued an order to show cause as to why driving at 27 mph down a private road is a crime and why I was being prosecuted, Santa Cruz County responded with a “Notice of No Interest” (Exhibit L).

Santa Cruz County and Superior Court has repeatedly refused to honor the Stipulated Custody Court Order that was issued as a result of a Level II custody investigation by their own court psychiatrist (Exhibit A). Since shooting at me, Santa Cruz County has for more than six years held my children hostage!

When comparing the orders issued by Commissioner Irwin Joseph (the primary defendant in my lawsuit against the county) to the motions for hearings filed in attempts to have Irwin Joseph dismissed from the lawsuit I was prosecuting against him, it’s impossible to not realize that the Commissioner without any subject matter jurisdiction or legal basis orders my eviction from my homestead on the very same day he is trying to get himself dismissed from the case I am prosecuting against him (Exhibits D, E, F & G).

The new cases Santa Cruz County is now prosecuting against me are based on the eviction order (Santa Cruz Superior Court Cases F 17075, F 17078)

These facts are all irrefutable and easily proven, the evidence is provided in the exhibits.

 

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America and the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief, and that I have executed this Declaration in California

 

Date: March 19, 2009       __________________________________

Clive Boustred, In Propria Persona Sui Juris

 

ARGUMENT

Petitioner Clive Frank Boustred who now lives and works in Riverside County is subject to the jurisdiction of Riverside County, brings this Writ of Habeas Corpus and Order to Show Cause before the Court with good cause in an attempt to obtain rudimentary justice. 

Following the Santa Cruz Sheriffs without any reasonable, legal or good cause shooting at Petitioner (with Petitioner’s three and seven year old sons also in the direct line of fire) on March 10, 2003, Santa Cruz County has continuously maliciously and outrageously prosecuted Petitioner.  Petitioner seeks an impartial and fair Court.  By law, the Santa Cruz County and Court lost jurisdiction when their Sheriffs shot at Petitioner.

Petitioner seeks the dismissal of unlawful orders to evict petitioner from his homestead; to prevent petitioner form submitting evidence or filing records; and from communicating with or enjoying the custody of his children.  Petitioner also seeks the dismissal of the related malicious prosecution cases filed against Petitioner in regard to the illegal order evicting petitioner from his homestead.

The malicious prosecution of Petitioner by the Santa Cruz Authorities has reached the extreme of unlawfully evicting Petitioner from his homestead, burgling Petitioner’s homestead, and ordering Petitioner to not communicate with his children for no cause.

Petitioner’s son has turned 13 and he wishes to live with his father in Lake Elsinore.  Petitioner seeks the Riverside Superior Court’s intervention.

Santa Cruz Superior Court Commissioner Irwin H. Joseph issued an order to evict Petitioner from Petitioner’s homestead the very day Irwin Joseph sought to have himself dismissed from the lawsuit filed against Santa Cruz County for the assault of Petitioner and his children (EXHIBIT B: U.S. District Court Jan Jose case C08 00546 where IRWIN H. JOSEPH is a primary defendant; EXHIBIT D: Commissioner Irwin H. Joseph’s first attempt to issue an illegal order to evict Petitioner from his Homestead and office - Note the day the Commissioner orders the eviction is the very day the Commissioner is attempting to have himself dismissed from the lawsuit Petitioner filed against the Commissioner – EXHIBIT E: U.S. District Court Case C08 00546 where Joseph attempted to have himself dismissed from the case Defendant was prosecuting against him on May 23, 2008; EXHIBIT F: Commissioner Irwin H. Joseph’s second attempt to issue an order to evict Petitioner from his Homestead; EXHIBIT G: U.S. District Court Case C08 00546 and Joseph’s second attempted to have himself dismissed from the case while Petitioner was held under false arrest with bail set at $200,000 – Note the $200K bail is the same as the bribe money the Santa Cruz Superior Court Judges are apparently now seeking to have the cases dismissed).

None of the orders filed against Petitioner since March 10, 2003, following the assassination attempt of Petitioner by Santa Cruz Authorities are lawful.  9 false cases have been prosecuted against Petitioner in an attempt to bludgeon Petitioner into silence.

There appears to be no opportunity to obtain justice, the Sixth Appellate District to which Petitioner has plead, has been proven through extensive expert analysis in the San Jose Mercury News Tainted Trials Stolen Justice program to be completely corrupt.

http://www.mercurynews.com/taintedtrials

Petitioner is a good and honest man of the highest integrity who has made significant contributions to the Nation and economy through his many developments in Silicon Valley.  Petitioner has the highest respect for the law.  Following the Santa Cruz Sheriffs Shooting at Petitioner he has been blasted with a slew of outrageous and malicious prosecutions stemming from Santa Cruz County that shock the conscience. 

 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE:

Petitioner respectfully Orders to Show Cause as to the legal reasons and laws to which he is being punished and prosecuted in the Santa Cruz Superior Court in relation to:

  1. What is the authority and law under which Petitioner has been ordered to not communicate with his children and from which his children have been taken from him? (September 11, 2008 No Communication with Children Order - Exhibit I)
  2. What is the authority and law under which Petitioner has been evicted from his homestead? (Santa Cruz Superior Court Case FL 16028 – May 14, 2008 Eviction Order Exhibit - D; August 27, 2008 Eviction Order - Exhibit F; September 11, 2008 No Evidence Order - Exhibit J)
  3. What is the authority and law under which Petitioner’s homestead is being sold? (Santa Cruz Superior Court Case FL 16028 August 27, 2008 Eviction Order - Exhibit F)
  4. What is the authority and law under which Petitioner is being prevented from recording in the Santa Cruz Recorders Office a Quit-Claim on Petitioners homestead to pay Petitioner’s primary creditors? (Santa Cruz Superior Court Case FL 16028 September 11, 2008 No Evidence Order - Exhibit J)
  5. Under what authority and law has the Stipulated Court Order which is a Final Judgment regarding the custody of Petitioner’s children and the payout of Petitioner’s ex-wife for Petitioner’s home, been set aside and/or ignored? (Santa Cruz superior Court Case FL 16028 order dates August 13, 2002 Exhibit A – Petitioner paid out his ex-wife for his home more than six years ago)
  6. Under what lawful authority is Petitioner being forced into a court of equity and denied any right to trial by jury or even a right to conclude his divorce case? (Santa Cruz Superior Court Case FL 16028 filed July 12, 2002 – see 1789 Judiciary Act Section 16: “And be it further enacted, That suits in equity shall not be sustained in either of the courts of the United States, in any case where plain, adequate and complete remedy may be had at law.”)
  7. Where or what is the proof of any of the so-called crimes Petitioner committed?  (Please provide evidence of the MENS REA - willful intent, ACTUS REUS - act or crime, CORPUS DELICTI - body of the crime, the actual damage in Santa Cruz Superior Court Cases: F 06858, F 17075, F 17078 and M45132; and Placer County Superior Court Case # 72-002045)
  8. Where is the Grand Jury Indictment or Presentment for any of the so-called crimes Petitioner committed? (Santa Cruz Superior Court Cases: F 06858, F 17075, F 17078 and M45132;  Placer County Superior Court Case # 72-002045)
  9. Is driving safely at 27 mph down a private road a crime? And if driving at 27mph on a private road is not a crime, how is it that Petitioner was found guilty of committing a Felony when Petitioner never committed any crime? (Santa Cruz Superior Court Case F 06858)
  10. Is it a felony to own guns lawfully purchased with a permit?  Why is Petitioner being prosecuted for guns Petitioner purchased lawfully with permits?  (Santa Cruz Superior Court Case F 17078)
  11. Why was Petitioner alone picked out amongst six passengers and arrested and charged for drunk in public when Petitioner was neither drunk nor in public?  (Santa Cruz Superior Court Case M45132)
  12. Under what authority and law has Petitioner been forced to pay the Santa Cruz Sheriff $200,000 + $150,000 in bail?  (Santa Cruz Superior Court Cases: F 06858, F 17075, F 17078)
  13. Under what authority and law are IRWIN H. JOSEPH/Irwin H. Joseph, SAMUEL S. STEVENS/Samuel S. Stevens and ROBERT B. ATACK/Robert B. Atack presiding over Santa Cruz Superior Court Cases where Petitioner is a party when Petitioner has and is actively suing these men? (Irwin H. Joseph, Samuel S. Stevens and Robert Atack are defendants in the San Jose / Northern California Division of United States District Court Cases C05 000996 21 and C08 00546).
  14. What lawful authority does IRWIN H. JOSEPH/Irwin H. Joseph and SAMUEL S. STEVENS/Samuel S. Stevens have to issue orders against Petitioner and why should their orders not be set aside? (Orders issued in Santa Cruz Superior Court Case F 16028; Irwin H. Joseph, Samuel S. Stevens and Robert Atack are defendants in the San Jose / Northern California Division of United States District Court Cases C05 000996 21 and C08 00546).

Should no lawful and just answer be given to any of the Orders To Show Cause, the Court agrees to grant Petitioner’s Plea.

 

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America and the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief, and that I have executed this Declaration in California

 

Date: March 19, 2009       __________________________________

Clive Boustred, In Propria Persona Sui Juris

 

PLEA

WHEREFORE, petitioner prays that the Court grant petitioner relief to which he may be entitled in this proceeding. In particular petitioner respectfully requests the following:

1.      Petitioner’s children be returned to Petitioner in conformance with the Stipulated Custody Agreement Entered on August 13, 2002. 

2.      Petitioner’s homestead and his private property be returned to him.

3.      All orders issued by Santa Cruz Superior Court Judge SAMUEL S. STEVENS, and Commissioner IRWIN H. JOSEPH against Petitioner be dismissed with prejudice;

4.      All the false convictions against Petitioners be dismissed and expunged from the record;

5.      Petitioners be granted a fair judge and jury to expediently try and conclude Petitioners divorce in accordance with the law;

6.      That Santa Cruz Authorities be restrained from harassing and maliciously prosecuting Petitioner and his children;

7.      That Petitioner is granted financial and legal relief & Santa Cruz County be sanctioned.

 

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America and the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief, and that I have executed this Declaration in California

 

Date: March 19, 2009       __________________________________

Clive Boustred, In Propria Persona Sui Juris

 See Habeas EVIDENCE

 

C-Live, Love Oppose Evil. Novus Ordo Seclorum.