Work File Pleading Re SLAP TRO Twin Lakes Church Filed Against Clive Boustred to silence his 1st Amendment Rights
This
Section Is Under Development.
Introduction
As a matter of course Superior Courts are issuing Temporary Restraining Orders Such as these. However, Respondent, as a public duty, wishes to raise and object to the very construct, effectiveness and legality of TRO’s. Respondent hopes that by raising these issues, courts will be equipped with arguments that help them to stand up for citizens rights instead of trampling on them.
Argument – The Current Construct and Practice of Issuing TRO’s
The construct of Law in the U.S. is that one is innocent until proven guilty. A TRO is in essence at law a “Verified Criminal Complaint”. However, generally, a TRO alleges that a crime might happen, not that a crime has happened. In essence, most TRO’s, are an attempt at “pre-crime prosecution”. The issuance of said TRO is punishment without proof by the Constitutionally mandated Grand Jury or Trial By Jury or Trial By Judge. Furthermore, it is pretty obvious that issuing a piece of paper telling a genuinely dangerous lawbreaker that they cannot do something would only incite such a person. TRO’s in essence thus amount to nothing but theatrics employed for ‘legal positioning’.
By issuing a TRO without the Constitutionally mandated due process including the essence of “innocent until proven guilty”, the Courts place themselves at the risk of becoming law breakers themselves. This is the purpose and domain of “Grand Juries” who can just as quickly issue an indictment which is in effect a lawful Temporary Restraining Order meeting all the legal constructs at law.
The 24 individuals necessary for a Grand Jury indictment limits the potential for biases or the effects of the whim or caprice of an individual decision maker. It also ensures that the matter brought before the court is of sufficient magnitude and importance to warrant the court’s attention.
By straying from the outstanding and extraordinarily well thought out constructs of law in the U.S., officers of the court and employees of the State and the Sate are placed in an unwarranted position of unreasonable liability. The Constitution with Common-Law works. There never was meant to be a “Code Based System” for this very reason.
By providing tools such as TRO’s, courts are pulled into squabbles that normally would over time diffuse by themselves. Instead because of the impact of these ‘void’ TRO’s the issues get exploded out or proportion and cause real damage. Under Common-Law, family matters are meant to be resolved by the family, there is far too much “he said, she said” in these types of cases for any court or officer of the law to put themselves between.
Interestingly in regard to this case, it is a Church who has filed the lawsuit. Respondent has been seeking for years now to simply sit down and speak to the administration at the church about what they and others are and have done, which amounts to extremely serious crimes committed against Clive and his children as exposed in the DVD. Respondent specifically never sued the Church because of 1Corintians 6:7 “1 Corinthians 6:7 “The very fact that you have lawsuits among you means you have been completely defeated already. Why not rather be wronged? Why not rather be cheated? [8] Instead, you yourselves cheat and do wrong, and you do this to your brothers.” This fact was even put in the letter Clive sent to the parents of his kids classmates.Argument – This TRO is Baseless
Respondent argues that Respondent is a physical threat to other real parties (which is not only baseless, it is ludicrous). The Petitioner, Leonard Dueck does not argue that Respondent is in any way a physical threat to himself. Petitioner in effect sought to restrain Respondent from contact or communicating with Respondent’s own children, friends and colleagues when none of these individuals, who are the real parties of interest, made any such plea.
In effect Petitioner is seeking to prevent Respondent from exercising his Constitutionally guaranteed right to the First Amendment. Petitioner is seeking this TRO so as to make Respondent look like the bad guy. In effect Petitioner is likely to no have gone to members of the church and shool and told them that Clive has been ordered to not come within 100 yards of the church and that they are now "safe from the threat", when in fact no such threat ever existed. The TRO has thus already been employed to libel and slander the good name of Respondent.
Petitioner does also make the argument that Respondent is a ‘financial threat’ to Petitioner’s corporation, Twin Lake Church, Inc. This most probably is true. However, it is a consequence of Petitioner’s employees actions and non-actions that this is potentially the case. For example, when people picket a business to object to malpractices of the management of the business, the picketers generally cause that business financial loss. Respondent has a legal right protected by the First Amendment to ‘picket’ Petitioner’s business. However, in that regard, Respondent has hardly picketed Petitioner’s business. Despite his First Amendment right to make such a request, Respondent never asked any parent to pull their children out of Twin Lakes Church School.
The Court has no lawful right to prevent Respondent from exposing the truth.
Violation of U.S.
Constitutionally Protected Rights
Courts throughout the U.S. are issuing Temporary Restraining Orders (TRO or CLETS-TRO) as though they are candy for kids. However, these TRO’s blatantly and outrageously violate the highest laws of our land and the very tenant of law in our Nation, that you are “innocent until proven guilty”. TRO’s ignore due process mandated by law. TRO’s are criminal actions undertaken by a court and government that is breaking the law. Regardless, you need to know how to deal with this criminal action against yourself and how best to keep yourself from being falsely arrested. The U.S. Constitution is the highest, the supreme law of the land. No State Constitution, Statute, Code or County Ordinance has authority over the U.S. Constitution (see California Code CCP § 22). TRO’s violate almost all your right under the Bill of Rights, including the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th and the 10th Amendment.
What is an Injunction? And what legal right does a court have to impose one under the Constitution and Common Law?
The construct of Common Law is that one cannot be prosecuted unless three elements are present in a criminal charge: The Act; Intent and Damage. There also must be a verified criminal complaint from a real party of interest, that means a real person and not the government in the form of the DA must put in writing a legitimate complaint under the penalty of perjury that has genuine probable cause. Once properly filed due process kicks into gear. The person is still innocent until proven guilty, the court still has no legal right to impose any punishment. This is where the Constitution provides the only course of control through either the jury or the judicial process. To obtain an emergency measure limiting or temporarily restraining a person there is the Grand Jury. No judge or government official presides over the Gran Jury, it is simply made up of 25 to 30 regular people (29 to 30 people if the County has more than 4 million residents). The Grand Jury can issue an Indictment which in effect is an Injunction to arrest a person or restrain someone before trial. For the Judicial authority, the accused must agree to forfeit their right to trial by jury.
Are the courts taking rights under the Universal Commercial Code? If that is the case, then the court must have the agreement of the person they are taking the rights from?
Unfair – Excludes
Respondent from defending himself by excluding him from contacting
people who have sought no such restraint and whom Respondent needs to
contact in order to defend himself.
Conspiracy
Un Christian
Trial By Jury
A TRO restrains a person and is thus a “criminal charge” supported only by a “verified criminal complaint” in the form of the filed TRO. Amendment Six of the U.S. Constitution guarantees the right to a Trial By Jury in all criminal matters. If the argument is that this case is not a criminal case, that it is a civil case, then Amendment Seven of the U.S. Constitution guarantees the right to Trial By Jury in all civil matters addressing more than $20 – Respondent has spent way more than $20 dollars on postage alone before even getting to any of the financial damages the Respondent has suffered as a consequence of Petitioner’s actions and non-actions. Which ever way you look at it, the Constitution guarantees Respondent, and Cross-Complainant a right to Trial By Jury.