Proof of Innocence
DEFENDANTS PROOF OF INNOCENCE
Santa Cruz Superior Court Case # F06858
"The People of The State of California" vs. Mr. Clive Frank Boustred
EVENT:On March 10, 2003, on his return from court where he filed a Temporary Retraining order and Verified Criminal Complaint against his wife and her lover after they resumed making false police calls for divorce positioning, Mr. Clive Boustred and his children were followed down their private road then shot at in front of their home by Deputy Michael McDonald.
At all times, Mr. Boustred followed the law and acted in his children’s best interest. Mr. Boustred was neither armed nor acting aggressively, to the contrary, Mr. Boustred drove slowly and carefully. Mr. Boustred has no criminal record and is an outstanding leader in the local and international community – www.infotelesys.com.
After arriving at home and seeing a sheriff off the side of the road and a patrol car parked on his driveway, Mr. Boustred went to first put his children safely in their family home. On July 9, 2002, when Mr. Boustred’s wife made a previous false 911 call, Mr. Boustred’s son, Richard, aged six, was so frightened by the sheriffs, that Mr. Boustred had to take him to the emergency room to be treated for shock. As a result of this event in 2002, or by something his mother had said, Richard was also having nightmares that the police would come and take his father away.
While Mr. Boustred and his children sat in their vehicle waiting for their garage door to open, Deputy McDonald ran down into the Boustred’s driveway and shot from a range of five to seven feet, directly at Mr. Boustred. William, aged three, was also in the direct line of fire, Richard was only two feet off the line of fire. Deputy McDonald’s first shot missed. Sgt. Amy Christy stopped Dep. McDonald from taking a second shot at Mr. Boustred and his children.
After the shooting, Sgt. Christy alone spoke to Mr. Boustred for about a quarter of an hour in Mr. Boustred’s garage. In his garage, Mr. Boustred showed Sgt. Christy the TRO and Verified Criminal Complaint he had just filed and explained the situation with his wife whom had resumed trying to employ the sheriffs to better position herself for divorce by making false police calls. Deputy Pool then spoke to Mr. Boustred for another quarter of an hour on the same subject matter. While speaking to Dep. Pool, Dep. Brozozowski entered Mr. Boustred’s garage and assaulted Mr. Boustred by grabbing and cutting Mr. Boustred’s wrist with a handcuff while drilling his knuckles into Mr. Boustred’s neck.
Mr. Boustred was placed under false arrest and locked in a sheriff’s patrol car. From the patrol car, Mr. Boustred witnessed Dep. McDonald chasing William aged 3, around the garden. William wet his pants.
Mr. Boustred has been denied any fair trial. All significant evidence proving Mr. Boustred’s innocence was denied or struck from the record, while the prosecution was allowed to submit hearsay and known lies while the jury was tampered with to favor a false conviction. The trial was presided over by a corrupt and biased judge without any subject matter jurisdiction, a judge whom the California Judicial Nominations Committee rated as Not Qualified. Despite having formally filed his Appeal, Mr. Boustred was remanded into custody without any right to bail.
Misdemeanor = [M]
Felony = [F]
Charge ? VC § 2800.2(a) [F] Evasion
Charge PC § 245c [F] Assault With A Deadly Weapon (vehicle) - Found Not Guilty
Charge ? PC § 273 [M] Child Endangerment - Based on ?
Charge PC § 148(a)(1) [M] Resisting Arrest
CHARGE ? & ?:
Dep. Pool stated that he thought Mr. Boustred drove around 40 mph
- no evidence, no proof (Contradicts all evidence).
CHARGE : 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 : 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.
Prosecution claimed the Sheriffs were undertaking a depravation of custody investigation.
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.
RE Charges ? & ?:
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.
RE Charges ? & ?:
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.
RE Charges ? & ?:
Six independent 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 ? & ?.
PROOF 4. RE Charges ? & ?:
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 Charge ?, 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 respect.
RE Charges ? & ?:
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!
RE Charge ?:
All roads on which the alleged chase took place are private roads, the Vehicle Code does not apply - it is without jurisdiction.
RE Charges ?, ?, & :
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.
RE Charges ? & ?:
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 ?, 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 following him.
RE Charge ?, ? & :
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 ?, , ? & are thus baseless and without any merit, no proof and proof to the contrary.
Nine independent sound legal and logical proofs provide proof well beyond any reasonable doubt that Mr. Boustred is not guilty of Charge ?, VC § 2800.2(a) and Charge ?, PC § 273. Mr. Boustred was found not guilty of the ridiculous charge , PC § 245c Assault with a deadly weapon. It must me noted that Mr. Boustred was found not guilty of Charge despite a biased and corrupt Court and jury.
It is impossible for Charge , 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 ?, , ? and 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 ?, , ? or .
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. Is this the type of behavior Santa Cruz Sheriffs, District Attorney, Superior Court and California want to be noted for?