CH-1100, Item 11 – Facts and Reasons.
Facts:
May 2002:
Clive catches wife, Anamaria in affair with his Personal Assistant
Stefan Tichatschke.
Jun 2002:
Couple attempts to save 19 year marriage
Jun 24, 2002: Couple
agree to separate amiably – Children to remain in Clive’s custody,
Anamaria to go and come as she pleases.
Jul 2, 2002:
False CPS call made by Anamaria
Jul 9, 2002:
False 911 call made by Anamaria
Jul 12, 2002:
Clive files divorce in Santa Cruz Superior Court; Anamaria ordered out
of home – custody split 50/50; home payoff order; Level II Custody
Examination order. EXHIBIT A
Jul/Aug 2002: Level
II Custody Examination – Melissa Berenge PHd Santa Cruz Superior Court
Family Law Psychiatrist / Mediator / Investigator.
Aug 13, 2002:
Stipulated Custody Agreement & Order EXHIBIT B
Aug 15, 2002:
Mediated financial agreement – Chip Rose. Home Valuation.
Sep 4, 2002: Void
child support order. Judge Samuel S. Stevens fails to obtain subject
matter jurisdiction and orders Clive to pay child support when Clive is
the custodial parent 6 out of 7 nights and paying for 95% of all child
support costs and when he has no income. EXHIBIT F
Oct 10 & 14, 2002:
Mediated financial agreement – Chip Rose. Written agreement with minor
adjustment by Mr. Rose who adds paragraph relating to Family Code §4050.
EXHIBIT B
Oct, 2002 to Today:
Anamaria’s attorney Vicky Parry refuses to settle or cooperate with
settlement while court sanctions Clive whenever he seeks justice.
Dec 15, 2002 to
Today: Anamaria violates Stipulated Custody Order (#18) and exposes
children to Tichatschke. She also takes children out of State in
violation of Custody Orders.
Feb 20, 2003:
Unethical Ex Parte Void Order issued without hearing for non emergency
purpose to modify Stipulated Custody Agreement and Order granting
Tichatschke access to children without any evaluation or agreement.
Tichatschke admitted to having serious problems with drugs and
pornography. Anamria, Parry & Court refuse to set aside void order.
Clive writes to Anamaria and Parry repeatedly
expressing concern for the children who suffer significantly from the
exposure to Tichatschke.
Sheriffs agree they are violating the order but do noting. EXHIBIT D
Feb 22, 2003:
Anamaria’s 3rd Attempt to have Clive falsely arrested.
Feb 24, 2003
Anamaria files to recuse the Honorable Judge Yonts without cause.
Feb 27, 2003 Case
is brought before Judge Samule S. Stevens who cannot obtain subject
matter jurisdiction over Clive Boustred. Stevens refused to hear
Motions filed to dismiss the void Feb 20/02 Exparte Order. When Clive
politely put an offer of proof regarding Stevens’s reason for bias,
Stevens orders the bailiff to throw Clive out of court and continued the
hearing without Clive present. EXHIBIT F.
Any order issued and
signed by Judge Samuel Stevens against Mr. Boustred is void because of
the following legal mandates: Stevens refused to step down in the 1997
Mosko v. Boustred case despite the fact that a mandatory CCP §170.6
Dismissal had been filed against him. Stevens actions in that case
amounted to nothing less than criminal behavior violating 18 U.S.C.
Section 1. “Whenever a judge acts where he/she does not have
jurisdiction to act, the judge is engaged in an act or acts of treason.”
U.S. v. Will, 449 U.S. 200, 216, 101 S.Ct. 471, 66 .Ed.2d 392, 406
(1980); Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. (6 Wheat) 264, 404, 5 L.Ed 257
(1821). Stevens had further reason to be biased against Mr. Boustred
when he was shamed for his behavior in the Mosko v. Boustred case.
Despite Stevens attempted to rig the case in favor of the Mosko’s it was
settled during the trial when the Mosko’s confessed that the case they
had brought against Mr. Boustred was quote: “baseless, false and
untrue.” See Page 2 of said settlement in said Santa Cruz Superior Court
Case # 133216. Stevens and his kids belonged to the same lawfirm as the
Mosko’s attorney. Stevens has/had also been lawfully dismissed
from other related cases involving Mr. Boustred. (MOTION TO DISQUALIFY
SAMUEL S. STEVENS, JUDGE [CCP § 170.6 - Santa Cruz Superior Court CASE
NO. M19946).
Mar 9, 2003:
Anamaria & Tichatschke violate the Court Order when they dump Clive’s
son William aged three down in the middle of a learner ski run. When
Clive goes to rescue William Tichatschke tries to start a fight with
Clive. Clive leaves with boys and returns to Santa Cruz and files a TRO
and Verified Criminal Complaint against Anamaria & Tichatschke the next
day. Tichatschke who was violating the Stipulated Res Judicata stay
away order later files a false case against Clive.
Mar 10, 2003: Clive
filed the TRO against Anamaria to stop her making false 911 calls and
setups. Although properly filed, the Court still refuses to hear the
TRO Clive filed just before they shot at him. EXHIBIT E
Mar 10, 2003: On his
way home from filing the TRO, Clive finds a sheriff in his driveway and
goes to put his sons in his home so that he can come out and show the
Sheriffs the TRO he had just filed. While waiting for his garage door
to open a deputy runs down into his driveway and shoots at Clive from a
point blank range of five to seven feet. The deputy who was the Santa
Cruz Sheriffs Shooting Instructor, used a Less Lethal Weapon, which at
that range is deadly. The 911 tape reveals the following:
·
Clive’s ex, Anamaria had made a false 911 call where she again lied
claiming that Clive was a heavily armed former “Elite Forces Militant”
who was likely to harm her and his children and had assaulted her
“fiancé”.
·
The
Sheriffs knew Clive was returning home from the court house.
·
The
Sheriffs were aware that Anamaria had a stolen million dollar life
insurance policy on Clive because Clive had reported this to Sergeant
Jim Hart of Live Oak / Soquel Sheriffs’ Department - Case# 02-06194.
Mar 10, 2003: To
cover up the attempt on Clive’s life the Sheriffs filed their first
false case against Clive and place him under false arrest F 06858. The
Sheriffs had no right to be on Clive’s private property or road and they
had no lawful reason to chase Clive who was not even aware that he was
being chased. The Sheriffs lied when giving the reason they chased
Clive in the PURSUIT REPORT CHP 187A, Case Number 03-2349 - section 22.
ORIGINAL VIOLATION OBSERVED BY AGENCY INITIATING THE PURSUIT Section &
Code 278 SPC a. Felony. EXHIBIT F
Mar 11, 2003:
Anamaria files TRO against Clive to prevent Clive communicating with his
children. She lies in the TRO claiming “Petitioner was arrested and
charged with felony child endangerment after he ran his car, with both
kids in it, into a police car.” This like most of Anamaria’s statements
is yet another complete lie.
Mar 13, 2003:
Working to cover Santa Cruz’s liability and maliciously prosecute Clive,
Judge Michael E. Barton issued a 3 year order that Clive not communicate
with his children. Six more false cases were filed against Clive who
was given sham trials where all the evidence proving Clive’s innocence
was denied, Clive’s testimony was restricted to only issues that would
not defend Clive. When Clive made any testimony that revealed any
evidence that would defend him, the testimony was literally struck from
the record. The sheriffs and DA were allowed to submit known lies,
hearsay and double hearsay into the record. The juries were rigged.
Evidence of the extraordinary and outrageously sham trials is provided
in the two Opening Briefs and Habeas Corpus. Motions and hearings
following the Mar 10, 2003 assassination attempt on Clive Boustred were
repeatedly brought before a tight nit group of judges whom denied Clive
justice, refusing to address legal and factual issues brought before the
court and simply turning around and Sanctioning (Fining) Clive each time
he sought justice. EXHIBIT: Federal Court Case & Evidence: Exhibit
C-7 - Federal Court San Jose; Exhibit C-8 - Federal Court Habeas
April 9, 2003: One
month after kidnapping Richard Clive Boustred, aged seven, the Ass. DA.
Stephen Droter and Mike Linsey interrogate Richard without the
permission or knowledge of his dad. In the interrogation Richard is
asked leading questions in an attempt to trick Richard into false
testimony to used against his father. However, the disgraceful
interrogation only served to prove that the sheriffs literally ran up to
Richard’s dads car and shot at Clive without warning.
May 7, 2003: The
former class mate of Ass. DA Steven Drotter files another false case
against Clive in Placer county. Accusing Clive of battery on
Tichatschke. In the trial Clive is ordered to not addressing the Void
Feb 20 Order and proving that Tichatschke was in violation of the
Stipulated Custody Order #18. “Boyfriend: The children shall have no
contact with Steffan Tichatschke. Clive is not allowed to put any
government documents proving his innocence before the jury and is
ordered to not put the law in front of the jury he is specifically
precluded from making any arguments that proved his innocence. See
EXHIBIT C-3.
Sep 9, 2003: On
the eve of the 6 month anniversary of shooting at Clive, and the day
before Clive filed his complaint so as to avoid the 6 month deadline, DA
Bob Lee filed the third false case against Clive, Santa Cruz Superior
Court CASE NO. M19946. Let it be judicially noted that this was the
false case filed as a consequence of Twin Lake’s Church’s making a false
call to have Clive arrested when Clive was lawfully and peacefully
taking part in his sons activities at school during recess. This
case was dismissed before going to trial for lack of any probable cause
or any reason or evidence for filing it in the first place. The
Sheriffs literally stole Clive’s vehicle off the Church’s parking lot
when they could not find him to falsely arrest him. Having already had
one attempt on his life by the sheriffs, Clive feared for his life. He
was arrested and held without bail for this case in Marin where he was
charged for driving without a license despite the fact that he had a
license. Stevens then unlawfully modified the Stipulated Custody
Agreement and Order.
Comment
Clive has been
maliciously and outrageously prosecuted for more than four years. He
has been shot at and thrown in jail under absurd charges; had his
children literally kidnapped from him and had his businesses and career
wiped out. Clive is a good man who was building something that had the
potential of preventing starvation around the world through education
systems. He has never done anyone any wrong.
As an offer of proof of
how utterly corrupt the Californian Courts are, articles from the San
Jose Mercury News “Tainted Trials Stolen Justice” are included in
EXHIBIT G. However the Opening Briefs and transcripts to Clive’s
hearings and trials provide ample proof of the extraordinary and
outrageous criminal behavior of Judges, DA’s and Sheriffs in this
State. With the Courts closed to justice, Clive has resorted to the
Court of Public Opinion, which can never be closed, to expose the
outrageous crimes going on in our Nation.
How refreshing it would
be to find a Judge who actually obeyed the law and metered out justice
instead of crimes against the innocent. I suppose it is not that
astonishing to see a church doing what they are doing, the following
verses come to mind: Mathew 15:7-9; Mathew 22:18; Mathew 23:23-39; Acts
23:3
One
must ask what sort of church tries to stop a dad from communicating with
his kids? Or files for hearings on Halloween? Or says that a dad cannot
take part in his kids life at school. And fights to give to a lying
adulterer what she does not deserve?
RESPONSE:
Respondent will attempt as simply as possibly to address the real issues
and the underlying cause of this insane TRO and remedies to the problem.
The
cause of this suit is obviously not because Clive is any physical threat
to anyone. There never has been any evidence of any such absurd
allegation other than lies made by an ex-wife who was caught in an
affair with Clive’s Personal Assistant. To the contrary, the DVD and
all the evidence prove that Clive and his children are the ones being
violently assaulted.
Firstly, there is no legal basis to prevent Respondent from
communicating with anyone who happens to be a member of Twin Lakes
Church which includes many of Respondent’s best friends. This right is
protected by the 1st Amendment.
Secondly, there is no evidence or legal reason to prevent Respondent
from taking an active part in his children’s education. Respondent has
never been disruptive at the school or church. It has been the actions
of the sheriffs, the staff and Respondent’s ex-wife that caused the
claimed disruptions, if there were any.
Thirdly, the order restricting Respondent from taking a part in his
children’s life at school is not only void, it is immoral. The TRO
claims the Stevens Orders are valid, they are void. Proof of the fact
that the Stevens Orders are Void is included above in the Exhibits and
the Motion to dismiss the root void order the February 20, 2002 Exparte
order. Respondent Motions to have the custody orders issued by Samuel
S. Stevens dismissed wit prejudice.
It
appears the main underlying reason for the filing of this TRO by Twin
Lakes Baptist Church, Inc. is that the corporation fears they will
suffer economic failure: “Twin lakes is concerned that parents may
take their children out of Twin Lakes Christian school altogether and,
thereby causing economic failure on their part.”
A
very simple solution, which Respondent’s children desire, is that they
be handed to their dad and removed from the school. Respondent has
issued and had served on Respondent’s ex-wife a subpoena to bring the
children to the hearing on Wednesday 31, October at 8:30 am so as to
allow the children to express their desire in person.
Another solution that one would expect from a Church school would be to
setup a meeting with parents to show that Respondent is in no way any
threat to them or their children. However, it appears that the Church
is more concerned with what the parents may learn about the Church’s
culpability in crimes committed against Respondent and his children.
The DVD Respondent produced is in no way threatening it simply documents
the wrongdoings that have been done against Respondent and his children
and does not include the many things the Church has done against
Respondent and his children that are flat out wrong. It is only because
of 1 Corinthians 6:7 that Respondent never sued the Church for their
behavior. Ironically, the Church who is at fault now sues Respondent.
If
the Church suffers economic failure as a consequence of the wrongs they
have done, surely it is their own fault? Can one silence the truth?
What is intriguing regarding the economic issues the Church raises, is
that Respondent was in the process of building an advanced education
system for Afghanistan, while representatives of the largest education
facility in China had approached Respondent to do the same for them in
China. Had the Church acted as Christians and stood up for the most
basic rights of Respondent and his children, they would have
automatically received the benefits of what Respondent was developing in
education systems which also would not have been wiped out. See http://www.infotelesys.com/getited/afghanistan/presentation/index.htm
Partly as a consequence of the Church’s action and inaction,
Respondent’s projects and career have been wiped out. Is this what the
Church does not want it’s members to find out? Would you not be
concerned for your children if you learned the Sheriffs were shooting at
kids, and that the church knew about it and did nothing other than to
further assault the kids and their dad? Why punish the victims,
Richard, William and Clive?
Is
it irrational to make a movie about being shot at in front of your kids
and being ordered to not talk to your kids for three years and about
being maliciously prosecuted as a consequence?
Is it irrational to appeal to other parents for help?
ANAMARIA’S DIVOCE
STRATEGY
Is
it irrational to publish and broadcast facts regarding crimes that have
been committed against you? Perhaps it is, because of retaliation by
those committing the crimes! Is this TRO filed by Twin Lakes
retaliation?
When
the courts refuse to allow you to finalize your divorce for more than
five years, tying down your finances and holding your children hostage,
preventing you from getting on with life, is it irrational to turn to
the court of public opinion?
By
filing this TRO is not the Church more likely to suffer economic loss
than by doing the right thing, which is to allow Clive to partake in his
kids lives and by holding the person ultimately responsible for this
situation, Clive’s ex Anamaria Boustred, accountable?
The
underlying cause to all these problems certainly appears to be
Respondent’s ex, Anamaria & Tichatschke’s lies. This is a pattern and
practice which started in July of 2002, when Anamaria initiated her
first false CPS and 911 calls for which she was ordered out of the
family home as illustrated on the divorce strategy card which she
admitted she had obtained locally: Opposite: It also concurs with the
letters Tichatschke wrote to Anamaria saying that it is better to lie
than tell the truth.
If this Church was interested in financial
elements, would it not have been wise to utilize Clive’s knowledge in
this area? Surely Clive would have applied the technology he was
building first at his kids school? (As Clive had already offered before
the government assault).
There is categorically
no evidence or any rational reason to ever believe or even suggest that
Clive is some sort of physical threat to anyone. If the Church really
wants to eliminate any concern on behalf of the parents, why not call a
meeting with the allegedly concerned parents and Clive so that the issue
can be flushed out and eliminated. (As Clive has repeatedly requested
and which the Church has repeatedly refused). Is this not what Churches
are supposed to do in their normal course of duty? Or is the Church
trying to hide something? In which case would not the alleged financial
loss incurred by the Church be their fault?
The void custody orders
must be set aside. It is only a matter of time until they are at which
point the entire pack of cards will come tumbling down. Sooner, the
better.
Respondent still does not understand on what legal
basis there is to order any of the following:
1.
That
Respondent’s Stipulated Res Judicats Custody Agreement and Order be
modified for non emergency purposes by an exparty motion where there was
no hearing.
2.
That
Respondent be ordered to not communicate with his children for three
years based on the allegation by sheriffs that he drove 40 mph down his
private road before they shot at him and is kids when irrefutable
evidence proves Respondent drove a slow 27 mph.
3.
That
any custody order could be modified on such irrelevant non issues.
4.
That
Respondent’s Stipulated Res Judicats Custody Agreement and can be
modified by a judge who previously committed crimes against Respondent
and never had any subject matter jurisdiction.
5.
That
Respondent was thrown in jail without any right to bail for a six month
sentence for allegedly driving 40 mph down his private road when
irrefutable evidence shows he drove 27 mph and when 40 mph is a common
speed in the first place.
6.
That
Respondent be charged with a felony for the above.
7.
That
Respondent be ordered to not communicate with any church members
8.
That
Respondent can be ordered to not visit his children at their own school
9.
That
Respondent’s children be taken from him and handed to someone who made
the false police calls that got the sheriffs to shoot at him and his
kids
10.
That
noting ever happens when Respondent’s ex breaks court orders.
11.
That
Respondent can be arrested and held without bail for not breaking court
orders he was falsely accused of breaking.
12.
That
Respondent’s children be taken from him and handed to someone who is
barred from contact whit Respondent’s children. |
