Part 3 - Proof of Clive's Innocence - Authorities go Silent
Amongst other significant evidence and proofs, Mr. Boustred submitted the following Proof of Innocence repeatedly to Santa Cruz Superior Court, California's 6th Appellate Court, California's Supreme Court and the 9th U.S. District Court.
While the authorities acted with lightning speed to falsely charge and punish Mr. Boustred, all the authorities refused to acknowledge any of these facts. When challenged with the proof of Mr. Boustred's innocence the authorities go silent. See also Clive's Writ of Habeas Corpus and Opening Brief which also document the sham trial and proof well beyond any reasonable doubt that it is impossible for Clive to be guilty of the charges.
ALLEGED CHARGES - Santa Cruz Superior Court Case F 06858:
Misdemeanor = [M] Felony = [F]
CHARGE (1) & (3): Dep.
Pool stated that he thought Mr. Boustred drove around 40 mph
CHARGE (2): Dep. McDonald (gunman) and Sgt. Christy alleged that Mr. Boustred bumped them with Mr. Boustred's vehicle, which according to the officers, was moving at "slower than a walk" - Sgt. Christy later stated in the Preliminary Examination that she might have run into the back of Mr. Boustred's vehicle. Dep. McDonald made impossible claims: a long conversation through a closed window with Mr. Boustred and transposing himself 80 ft through a tree. - no injuries, no evidence, no proof.
CHARGE (4): Dep. Pool alleged Mr. Boustred resisted arrest by "freezing" and "holding onto a wheel well". Dep. Brzozowski who assaulted Mr. Boustred during the arrest by cutting Mr. Boustred's wrist with a handcuff and by drilling his knuckles into the nape of Mr. Boustred's neck, never testified. Discovery on Dep. Brzozowski or questioning of Dep. Brzozowski was denied. - no evidence, no proof.
The Sheriffs said they
were undertaking a "child welfare check". Prosecution claimed the
Sheriffs were undertaking a "depravation of child custody
DEFENDANTS EVIDENCE AND PROOF OF INNOCENCE:
Nothing rising to the
level of Probable Cause justified that the Sheriffs enter Mr. Boustred's
private property or follow Mr. Boustred: Clearly there was no
depravation of custody as clearly stated in the Custody Order, in the
possession of the Sheriffs, which stated that Mr. Boustred's wife only
had custody of the children between 3:00 pm and 6:00 pm. These
incidents all took place at around 2:30 pm, well before 3:00 pm.
Furthermore, the Sheriffs were aware of other false calls Mr. Boustred's
wife had made and the million-dollar life insurance policy Mr.
Boustred's wife had stolen.
PROOF 1. RE Charges (1) & (3):
The Sheriffs NETCOM time
stamped radio recording of the alleged chase provides time and locations
of Dep. Pool and an alleged ‘chase’ time of 3 or more minuets over a
distance of 1.2 to 1.4 miles - proving Mr. Boustred drove at a speed of
around 24 mph and no possibility of Mr. Boustred driving with a "Willful
or wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property" as required
by Charge ?,
VC Sec 2800.2(a). The NETCOM report provides irrefutable
proof that Mr. Boustred is not guilty of Charge ?,
VC Sec 2800.2(a) Evasion and the dependent Charge ? PC § 273 Child Endangerment.
PROOF 2. RE Charges (1) & (3):
VC Sec 2800.2(a)
requires and underlying charge - a reason to chase Mr. Boustred in the
first place. There is no underlying charge or any element raising
any sufficient Probable Cause to chase Mr. Boustred or even for any
investigation on Mr. Boustred's private property.
PROOF 3. RE Charges (1) & (3):
eyewitnesses, two of whom submitted affidavits, stated that Mr. Boustred
was driving slowly. Dep. McDonald and Sgt. Christy also stated
that Mr. Boustred drove slowly. Consequentially, it is impossible
for Mr. Boustred to be guilty of Charge (1) & (3).
PROOF 4. RE Charges (1) & (3):
Mr. Boustred had no
reason to Evade. Mr. Boustred spent all morning in the Santa Cruz
Superior Court before any of the incidents of this Case. Mr.
Boustred was following the law filing a TRO and Verified Criminal
Complaint seeking the protection of the Court from his wife and her
lover (Mr. Boustred's former personal assistant), who had resumed making
false calls to the sheriffs to setup Mr. Boustred for divorce. Mr.
Boustred had absolutely no reason to Evade, the intent necessary for
VC Sec 2800.2(a) is absent. To the contrary, Mr. Boustred was
seeking the help of the authorities and following the proper lawful
procedure. Mr. Boustred expected the sheriffs to act in a similar
fashion to how they acted on the first false 911 call that Mr.
Boustred's wife made on July 9, 2002; with courtesy, decency and
PROOF 5. RE Charges (1) & (3):
Mr. Boustred never drove
an Evasionary rout. To evade, Mr. Boustred would have continued
along Hidden Valley Dr. to Ponza Ln. and out on Rodeo Gulch Rd that
leads to Santa Cruz or San Jose. Instead Mr. Boustred was simply
driving home to his house at the end of a cul-de-sac on Suncrest Dr.
with no way out except over a cliff!
PROOF 6. RE Charge (1):
All roads on which the
alleged chase took place are private roads, the Vehicle Code does not
apply - it is without jurisdiction.
PROOF 7. RE Charges (1), (2), (3) & (4):
The entire incident took
place on private property. The Sheriffs failed to obtain any
warrant and had no probable cause to conduct an investigation on private
property. The Sheriffs also had evidence of other false calls Mr.
Boustred's wife had made - the reason she was ordered out of the family
home. Without a lawful warrant, and no probable cause, the entire
case is without any basis at law.
PROOF 8. RE Charges (1) & (3):
VC Sec 2800.2(a) is dependent on VC § 2800.1, which mandates that the officers’ vehicle have a reasonably visible lamp. The entire incident took place on Mr. Boustred's private driveway, roads which are windy with driveways and corners around which children, animals and vehicles can emerge. One rarely watches a rear view mirror on your own driveway. Furthermore, to drive safely on this road, a driver should not take their eyes off the road and corners ahead. It is unreasonable to expect Mr. Boustred to have seen any red lamp on a vehicle behind him on his driveway. Therefore, VC § 2800.1 does not hold & consequentially Charge (1), VC § 2800.2(a) does not hold.
It must be noted that as
a consequence of Mr. Boustred's long-standing hearing problem coupled
with Mr. Boustred's loud stereo that was turned up fully, Mr. Boustred
would not have heard any siren. Dep. Pool testified in the
Preliminary Examination that he took around 20 seconds to look up Mr.
Boustred's vehicle's registration before following Mr. Boustred.
In trial, Dep. McDonald testified that he heard the sirens sound being
adjusted, suggesting that by the time Dep. Pool caught up with Mr.
Boustred, he had already turned his siren down, giving further reason
and proof for Mr. Boustred to not have been aware that Dep. Pool was
PROOF 9. RE Charge (1), (3) & (4):
Dep. Pool was also caught out lying on the stand during trial when he denied having ever had any meetings with Ass. D.A. Stephen Drotter regarding this case. It must be noted that Dep. Pool was driving on an unfamiliar windy road chasing after someone with at least a 20 second lead, someone who drove the road many times a day. Dep. Pool would have little if any perspective as to what speed he traveled at. Furthermore, it must be noted that Dep. Pool never stated that Mr. Boustred drove with any "willful or wanton disregard to the safety of persons or property" as required by VC § 2800.2(a), all Dep. Pool testified was that he thought Mr. Boustred drove around 40 mph (Which is actually a common speed of many of the residents along this private road). The NETCOM recording provides irrefutable proof that Mr. Boustred drove around 24 mph - slow for the road.
Charges (1), (2),
(3) & (4) are thus baseless and without any merit, no proof and proof to
Nine independent sound legal and logical proofs provide proof well beyond any reasonable doubt that Mr. Boustred is not guilty of Charge (1), VC § 2800.2(a) and Charge (3), PC § 273. Mr. Boustred was found not guilty of the ridiculous charge (2), PC § 245c Assault with a deadly weapon. It must me noted that Mr. Boustred was found not guilty of Charge (2) despite a biased and corrupt Court and jury.
It is impossible for Charge (4), PC § 148(a)(1), Resisting Arrest, to have any basis, as there was no reason to arrest Mr. Boustred. Furthermore, "freezing" and "holding onto a wheel well" is hardly resisting arrest, especially considering that Dep. Brzozowski was violently assaulting Mr. Boustred at the time!
The sheriffs and D.A. invented two felonies and two misdemeanors, Charges (1), (2), (3) & (4) to falsely accuse Mr. Boustred so that they could somehow justify and cover-up shooting at Mr. Boustred and his children. Prosecution provided no proof whatsoever regarding any of the false Charges (1), (2), (3) or (4).
More than Excessive Force, in fact Deadly Force, was used against Mr. Boustred and his children, without any probable cause or any remotely justifiable excuse.
On the six-month anniversary of the deputy shooting at Mr. Boustred and his children, Ass. D.A. Stephen Drotter filed four additional false charges against Mr. Boustred for which Mr. Boustred was also arrested and imprisoned. Those 4 false charges were dropped just before trial. In that incident, the sheriffs unlawfully impounded Mr. Boustred's vehicle off Mr. Boustred's Church's property, and the gunman, Dep. McDonald, attempted to have Mr. Boustred’s bail revoked or increased to a quarter of a million dollars.
Mr. Boustred has been driven into bankruptcy and his companies have been destroyed along with the next generation Internet and exceptionally promising advanced education system he was building. Literally millions of children have been deprived of what could have lifted their lives out of poverty. - see http://www.infotelesys.com
Earthwire, a company that produced the "Heroes" and "Waves of Rain" songs specifically created to recognize fire fighters and police, has also failed as a result of the assault on Mr. Boustred. Mr. Boustred was the Chairman of Earthwire, and responsible for marketing these songs. This reflects the type of person Mr. Boustred is, someone who was going out of his way to support the police. It is disturbing to think that the very people Mr. Boustred would have risked his life for, nearly took Mr. Boustred’s life, then set him up and destroyed his life to cover up their malpractice.
Mr. Boustred was ordered to not communicate with his children for three years. One month after Mr. Boustred’s children were taken from him, Richard was put through a leading interrogation by the Santa Cruz Ass. D.A., at one point in the interrogation, Richard says that he forgot what to say. The boys who lived with Mr. Boustred, were taken from him and given to Mr. Boustred’s wife and her lover, the very people who caused the problem in the first place and to a man who admits to having serious problems with drugs, sex and pornography, and to a woman who has repeatedly threatened suicide, even in front of the children, and who on occasions shakes and regularly looses her temper with the boys. A woman who's adultery, lies and consistent false police calls initiated this problem.
At such a young age, Richard and William have been most maliciously assaulted, violently taken from their home and their father and handed to a man they despise.
While Mr. Boustred has been punished viciously for crimes he never committed, his wife and her lover have been rewarded for the terrible crimes they committed and the police act without consequence.
Despite irrefutably proving his innocence, Mr. Boustred and his children continue to be assaulted by Santa Cruz Authorities.
Clive's Writ of Habeas Corpus and Opening Brief have been ignored at all levels of Californian courts and the 9th District Federal Court. The Courts refuse to follow the law or consider the irrefutable facts. Whenever Clive seeks justice in the Superior Court they now simply fine him while at the same time locking up Clive's assets in a never-ending "No-Fault Divorce".
Having been driven into financial ruin, Clive is unable to afford competent legal counsel. The question remains however, if any lawyer is prepared to go up against the establishment. The State of California appointed legal counsel to represent Clive in his appeal, that attorney, Jennifer Manix, refused to meet with Clive and filed an appeal that ignores all the critical objections in Clive's sham trial. The Apeal she filed seeks to either only reduce the charges to lesser bogus charges or to put Clive back into a new trial. She refused to file or address any of the issued in the Opening Brief Clive prepared. After challenging the director of The 6th District Appellate Program regarding the inadequacy of the Appeal they filed, they dropped Clive as their client.