1
2
3
Clive Boustred
Plaintiff’s, In Propria Persona Sui Juris
210 Suncrest Dr,
Soquel, CA 95073
Tel: (831) 476-4300
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
5
6
7
Clive Frank Boustred, et al.
PLAINTIFF’S,
No. C0500996 – (JF RS) Trial By Jury
8
v.
WRIT OF PRECIPAE
9
County of Santa Cruz, et al.
DEMAND JUGE OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT
10
DEFENDANTS.
COURT OBEY THE LAW OR BE HELD LIABLE
11
[CAL CONST ART I, § 24][PC § 1503, CRC RULE 227
& Related Federal Statutes].
12
13
DEMAND FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
14
15
Comes Now, Clive Frank Boustred, RCB, WFB, InfoTelesys, Inc. and Get IT Real, Inc.
16
“Plaintiff’s”, approaching this Court in good faith and supplicating this tribunal and Almighty God for
17
justice and the law in this matter and seeking palpable remedy at law in the first instance.
18
19
To the UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, to the Judge of the Court and
20
Presiding Justice and Associate Justices, GREETINGS:
21
Northern District
State of California
Affirmed.
In the matter of the application of
“Plaintiff’s” For a Writ of Precipae
On a Question of Law
22
23
24
TO: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
JUDGE
by ORDER of Writ of Precipae
25
DEMAND THAT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE OBEY THE LAW
Page 1 of 27
1
I
PLAINTIFF’S IN THIS MATTER DEMAND THE JUDGE OF THE
COURT OF THE ABOVE MENTIONED COURT ADHERE TO HIS
OR HER JOB DESCRIPTION AND THE LAW AS CONCISELY
DEFINED AT LAW OR BE HELD LIABLE AT LAW:
2
3
4
1.)
5
That your Plaintiff’s comes before this judicial powers
tribunal in good faith, with no bad faith to this tribunal.
6
2.)
Plaintiff’s names are: Clive Frank Boustred, RCB, WFB,
7
InfoTelesys, Inc. and Get IT Real, Inc.
8
3.)
9
Your Plaintiff’s in this matter “Plaintiff’s” are In Propria
Persona, Sui Juris and are not pro per or pro se1.
10
4.)
11
That “Plaintiff’s” are in fact, the real party of interest in
12
this matter in the above-entitled cause of action, and come
13
before this court in good faith, with no bad faith intended to
14
any party.
5.)
15
That it is a fact, that “Plaintiff’s” are not “ABA” or
16
California Bar Association trained attorney, and comes before
17
this tribunal as a laymen, for exigent consideration of
18
extraordinary critical matters including the attempted murder
19
of Plaintiff Clive Boustred and the kidnap of his sons
20
Plaintiff’s RCB and WFB, representing a class of individuals
21
who are, and have been and will be damaged by the acts and/or
22
omissions of the Defendants in this matter, and thereby, I
23
have a right and perfect right to seek expedient and fair
24
25
Any denial of my rights by your office is a denial of my counsel to access the
courts to be heard at law: “"...his right to be heard through his own counsel is
unqualified." Chandler v. Fretag, 348 U.S. 3.
DEMAND THAT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE OBEY THE LAW
1
Page 2 of 27
1
redress of grievances on an original question of law before
2
this tribunal.
3
4
5
6
6.)
WHEREAS; by right and perfect right; “Plaintiff’s” have the
right and perfect right to file motions, pleadings and other
documents into this tribunal and to present such evidence, law
and theories at law and to be afforded the opportunity to be
7
properly and fairly heard without any dissonance or stratagem
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
to prevent otherwise and that Judges are to obey the law and
due process and above all Judges in every way must be
impartial:
a) U.S.Cal. 1982. “Due process demands impartiality on the part of
those who function in judicial of quasi-judicial capacities.”
U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 5. Schweiker v. McClure, 102 S.Ct. 1665, 456
U.S. 188, 72 L.Ed.2d 1.
b) U.S. Cal 1952. “Due process of law is a summarized constitutional
guarantee of respect for those personal immunities which are so
rooted in the traditions and conscience of our people as to be
ranked as fundamental of are implicit in the concept of ordered
liberty.” U.S.C.A. Const. Amend. 14. Rochin v. People of Cal., 72
S.Ct. 205, 342 U.S. 165, 96 L.Ed. 183, 25 A.L.R.2d 1396.
c) U.S. Cal 1952. “Due process of law is a summarized constitutional
guarantee of respect for those personal immunities which are so
rooted in the traditions and conscience of our people as to be
ranked as fundamental of are implicit in the concept of ordered
liberty.” U.S.C.A. Const. Amend. 14. Rochin v. People of Cal., 72
S.Ct. 205, 342 U.S. 165, 96 L.Ed. 183, 25 A.L.R.2d 1396.
d) “Due process is not concerned with mere technical formalism, but
rather it is the substance that determines whether a litigant has
been deprived of it”. Vita-Pharmacals, Inc. v. Board of Pharmacy,
243 P.2d 890, 110 C.A.2d 826.
e) “Touchstone of due process is fundamental fairness.” U.S.C.A.Const.
Ammend. 14; West's Ann.Const. art. 1 Sec.Sec. 7(a). Salas v.
Cortez, 593 P.2d 226, 154 Cal.Rptr. 529, 24 C.3d 22, certiorari
denied 100 S.Ct. 209, 444 U.S. 900, 62 L.Ed.2d 136.
f) “Due process clause guarantees aggrieved party opportunity to
present case and have its merits fairly judged.” U.S.C.A.
Const.Amend. 14. Jackson Water Works, Inc. v. Public Utilities
Com'n of State of Cal., 793 F.2d 1090, certiorari denied 107 S.Ct.
1334, 479 U.S. 1102, 94 L.E.2d 184.
g) “Under due process clause, every party is entitled to impartial
DEMAND THAT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE OBEY THE LAW
Page 3 of 27
1
2
3
tribunal.” Jackson Water Works, Inc. v. Public Utilities Com'n of
State of Cal., 793 F.2d 1090, certiorari denied 107 S.Ct. 1334, 479
U.S. 1102, 94 L.E.2d 184.
h) “Due process is denied where the procedure tends to shock the sense
of fair play.” U.S.C.A.Const.Amend. 5. Howard v. U.S., 375 F.2d
294, certiorari denied 87 S.Ct. 2129, 388 U.S. 915, 18 L.Ed.2d 1365.
4
SEE ALSO:
5
"Fundamental Rights do not hang by a tenuous thread of a
layman's knowledge of the niceties of law. It is sufficient
if it appears that he is attempting to assert his
Constitutional privilege. The plea, rather than the form in
which it is asserted . . ." (U.S. v. St Pierre, Supra, 128 F
2d) The courts have also made it very clear that "The claim
and exercise of a Constitutional Right cannot be converted
into a crime." (Miller v. U.S. 230 F 486 at 489) And, "If a
law has no other purpose than to chill assertion of
Constitutional Rights by penalizing those who choose to
exercise them, it is patently unconstitutional." (Shapiro v.
Thompson, 89 S.Ct. 1322, 394, U.S. 618, 22 LEd. 2d 600)
Furthermore, "An individual may not be punished for
exercising a protected constitutional Right." (U.S. v.
Goodwin, 102 S.Ct 2485, 457 U.S. 368, 73 L.Ed 2d 74, on
remand 687 F2d 44)
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
7.)
Plaintiff’s comes to this court in good faith and demand that
15
the courts Judge obey his own law and oath of office in which
16
to lawfully allow Plaintiff’s access to the courts and trial
17
by jury as a matter of right and substantive due process of
18
19
20
law.
a.)
Please be under judicial notice and place on the record
the following United States District Court General Order No.
21
40, Prohibition of Bias,:
22
23
24
25
The Court is committed to ensuring that all forms of bias
and prejudice are eliminated from the practice of law in
our district….
Duties and Procedures
(1) The practice of law before the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California must be
free from prejudice and bias in any form. Treatment
DEMAND THAT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE OBEY THE LAW
Page 4 of 27
1
free of bias must be accorded all other attorneys,
litigants, judicial officers, court room jurors or
support personnel. The duty to exercise nonbiased
behavior includes the responsibility to avoid comment
or behavior manifesting prejudice or bias toward
another. This duty is owed by all attorneys, judges,
judicial officers and court personnel in connection
with cases pending before the district court.
2
3
4
5
8.)
Let it be judicially noted that Judge Jeremy Fogel is in fact
6
with good cause a defendant in this case along with his
7
employer and many colleagues.
8
Plaintiffs are guaranteed a
fair and impartial decision maker under due process laws and
9
10
under the Seventh and Eleventh Amendments Plaintiffs are
11
guaranteed the right to have this matter tried by jury and
12
that there is no judicial power in this case.
7th Amendment: In Suits at common law, where the value in
controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial
by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury,
shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United
States, than according to the rules of the common law.
13
14
15
"The jury has the right to judge both the law and the
facts" - Samuel Chase, 1804, Supreme Court Justice and
signer of the Declaration of Independence.
16
17
11th Amendment: “The Judicial power of the United States
shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or
equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United
States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or
Subjects of any Foreign State.”
18
19
20
9.)
21
Please also judicially note and place on the record the fact
that you are hereby directly liable2, with no immunity3 claims
22
23
24
25
"Governmental immunity is not a defense under (42 U.S.C. 1983) making liable every
person who under color of state law deprives another person of his civil rights."
Westberry v. Fisher, 309 F.Supp. 95 (District Ct. - of Maine -1970)
3 "A judge is not immune from criminal sanctions under the civil rights act."
"State officials acting in their official capacities, even if in abuse of their
DEMAND THAT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE OBEY THE LAW
2
Page 5 of 27
1
or any defense at law, for sanctions to be filed by
2
Plaintiff’s if you act in bad faith in this matter and do not
3
immediately respect the law:
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
As defined by CRC Rule 227 and applicable Federal Statutes
Sanctions in Respect to Rules, Local Rules, and Court Orders
“The failure of any person to comply with these rules, local
rules, or order of the court, unless good cause is shown, or
failure to participate in good faith in an conference those
rules or an order of the court require, is an unlawful
interference with the proceedings of the court. The court
may order the person at fault to pay fees and to reimburse
or make payment to the county, may order an appropriate
change in the calendar status of the action, and for failure
to comply with local rules may impose sanctions authorized
under section 575.2 of the Code of Civil Procedure and under
section 68608(b) of the Government Code, in addition to any
other sanction permitted by law.”
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
II
IT IS A FACT AT LAW THAT YOUR PLAINTIFF’S ARE IN
PROPRIA PERSONA, THEIR OWN COUNSEL, AND CANNOT BE
HELD TO STRICT CONSTRUCTION OF THE LAW BY YOUR
OFFICE, AND THAT YOU AS AN OFFICER OF THE COURTS,
ACTING IN THE PUBLIC TRUST ARE IN FACT HELD TO
STRICT CONSTRUCTION OF THE LAW AND YOU MUST IN
ACCORDANCE WITH LAW GIVE PLAINTIFF’S BROAD AND
LIBERTAL CONSTRUCTION OF THE LAW IN THE “SPIRIT
OF THE LAW”
10.) "There are decisions in virtually every federal circuit that
generously proclaim that in propria persona “laymen”
Plaintiff’s should be construed liberally and that said
22
Plaintiff’s should be held to less stringent standards than
23
24
25
lawful authority, generally are held to act "under color" of law. This is because
such officials are "clothed with the authority" of state law, which gives them power
to perpetrate the very wrongs that Congress intended Section 1983 to prevent." Ex
Parte Virginia, 100 U.S. 339, 346-347 (1879)
DEMAND THAT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE OBEY THE LAW
Page 6 of 27
1
lawyers. “Plaintiff’s” are to receive broad and lenient
2
construction of the laws, not strict construction.
3
receive the “spirit of the law” and not the strict
4
5
6
interpretation of law.
We are to
See, e.g., Price v. Johnson (1948) 334
U.S. 266, 292; Chase v. Crisp, (19th Cir. 1975) 523 F.2d 595,
597; Curtis v. Illinois (7th Cir. 1975) 512 F.2d 717, 721; Ham
7
v. North Carolina (4th Cir. 1973) 471 F2d 406, 407; Harriston
8
9
10
11
v. Alabama (5th Cir. 1972) 465 F.2d 675, 678 n5; Turrell v.
Perini (6th Cir. 1969) 414 F2d 1231, 1233; Montgomery v.
Briely (3rd Cir. 1969) 414 F2d 552; Pembrook v. Wilson, (9th
12
Cir. 1966) 370 F.2d 37, 40; Whittaker v. Overholster (DC Cir
13
1962) 299 F.2d 447, 448.
14
U.S. 519
15
See also Haines v. Kerner (1972) 404
11.) As “Plaintiff’s” are in fact, In Propria Persona, Sui Juris in
16
this matter, the following statements are included so as to
17
excuse any problems that might be in my inexperienced attempt
18
to address and access the courts. Being an In Propria Persona
19
20
21
litigant is not the prerogative as your Plaintiff’s and
Plaintiff’s has a fundamental constitutional due process right
to represent/defend himself his companies and his children.
22
Faretta v. State of California, 422 U.S. 806, 95 S.Ct. 2525,
23
45 L.Ed.2d (1975). It is also protected under the First
24
25
Amendment Free Speech Clause self counsel litigants' court
submissions are to be construed liberally and held to less
DEMAND THAT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE OBEY THE LAW
Page 7 of 27
1
stringent standards than submissions of lawyers. If the court
2
can reasonably read the submissions, it should do so despite
3
failure to cite proper legal authority, confusion of legal
4
5
6
theories, poor syntax and sentence construction, or litigant's
unfamiliarity with rule requirements. Boag v. MacDougall, 454
U.S. 364, 102 S.Ct. 700, 70 L.Ed.2d 551 (1982); Estelle v.
7
Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106, 97 S.Ct. 285, 50 L.Ed.2d 251
8
9
10
11
(1976)(quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46, 78 S.Ct.
99, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957)); Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 92
S.Ct. 594, 30 L.Ed.2d 652 (1972); McDowell v. Delaware State
12
Police, 88 F.3d 188, 189 (3rd Cir. 1996); United States v.
13
Day, 969 F.2d 39, 42 (3rd Cir. 1992)(holding pro se petition
14
cannot be held to same standard as pleadings drafted by
15
attorneys); Then v. I.N.S., 58 F.Supp.2d 422, 429 (D.N.J.
16
1999).
17
12.) Furthermore let it be judicially noticed that Plaintiffs are
18
in Propria Persona as a consequence of malicious prosecution
19
20
21
by Defendants who have driven Plaintiffs into financial ruin
and literally locked down Plaintiffs both physically and
financially.
See Complaint and Exhibits for proof,
22
incorporated herein by reference.
23
13.) “The courts provide in propria persona parties wide latitude
24
25
when construing their pleadings and papers. When interpreting
pro se papers, the Court should use common sense to determine
DEMAND THAT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE OBEY THE LAW
Page 8 of 27
1
what relief the party desires.” S.E.C. v. Elliott, 953 F.2d
2
1560, 1582 (11th Cir. 1992). See also, United States v.
3
Miller, 197 F.3d 644, 648 (3rd Cir. 1999)(Court has special
4
5
6
obligation to construe pro se litigants' pleadings liberally);
Poling v. K.Hovnanian Enterprises, 99 F.Supp.2d 502, 506-07
(D.N.J. 2000).
7
14.) “Pro se litigant's pleadings should not be held to the same
8
9
10
11
high standards of perfection as lawyers.”
Haines case involved a pro se complaint - as does the present
case - which requires a less stringent reading than one
12
drafted by a lawyer.”
13
Appeals (1972)
14
"Significantly, the
Puckett v. Cox United States Court of
15.) “Defendant has the right to submit in propria persona briefs
15
on appeal, even though they may be inartfully drawn but the
16
court can reasonably read and understand them.” See, Vega v.
17
Johnson, 149 F.3d 354 (5th Cir. 1998).
18
19
20
21
16.) “Courts will go to particular pains to protect in propria
persona litigants against consequences of technical errors if
injustice would otherwise result.” U.S. v. Sanchez, 88 F.3d
1243 (D.C.Cir. 1996).
22
17.) Let it be judicially noticed that judge Jeremy Fogel is now
23
attempting to claim that Plaintiffs have not submitted any
24
25
claim upon which relief can be granted when Plaintiffs have
taken world for word, excepting for parties, claims filed by
DEMAND THAT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE OBEY THE LAW
Page 9 of 27
1
other parties upon which relief has been granted in this very
2
court.
3
4
5
6
7
8
18.) WHEREAS, you must liberally construe all pleadings submitted
by your Plaintiff’s in this matter; and reasonably adminster
them in accordance with the above mandates at law.
“Constitutional provisions for the security of person and
property should be liberally construed. It is the duty of
the courts to be watchful of constitutional rights against
any stealthy encroachments thereon.” Boyd v. U.S., 116 U.S.
635.
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
III
WHEREAS; THE PLAINTIFF’S ARE NOT COMPELLED TO
HAVE PERFECT LEGAL PAPERWORK; NOR ARE THEY
COMPELLED TO BE FORCED TO USE THE JUDICIAL
COUNCIL FORMS; AND PLAINTIFFS HAVE MORE THAN MET
THE STANDARDS ENTITLING RELIEF.
19.) All that is required to bring a case to trial in Federal Court
is a showing that the pleader is entitled to relief:
Under
16
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), the sufficiency of
17
the complaint is tested with regard to the applicable standard
18
in FRCP 8(a), which requires that a pleading setting forth a
19
claim for relief contain a short and plain statement of the
20
claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.
21
Plaintiffs complaint is more than sufficient.
22
23
24
20.) “A complaint which does not recount all relevant facts or
recite the law should not necessarily be dismissed.” La Salvia
v. United Dairymen, 804 F.2d 1113, 1116 (9th Cir. 1986)
25
DEMAND THAT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE OBEY THE LAW
Page 10 of 27
1
21.) If a plaintiff colorably states facts which, if proven, would
2
entitle her to relief, a motion to dismiss for failure to
3
state a claim should not be granted. Dairies v. Kraft Foods,
4
5
6
232 F.3d 979, 994 (9th Cir. 2000)
22.) “In light of the fact that FRCP 8(a)(2) merely requires a
short and plain statement of the claim, rather than specific
7
facts detailing every allegation, mere vagueness or lack of
8
9
10
11
detail is not a ground for a motion to dismiss.” Conley v.
Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 (1957).
23.) “FRCP 12(b)(6) does not countenance dismissals based merely on
12
a judge's disbelief of a complaint's factual allegations,”
13
Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (1989), nor is the failure
14
to plead facts showing the plaintiff's theory of liability
15
grounds for dismissal since the defendant can serve
16
interrogatories requiring the plaintiff to particularize the
17
theory of liability.
18
must assume that the plaintiff's allegations are true,
19
20
21
In answering this question, the Court
including all facts alleged on information and belief, and
must draw all reasonable inferences in the plaintiff's favor.
Smith v. Jackson, 84 F.3d 1213, 1217 (9th Cir. 1996) Usher v.
22
City of Los Angeles, 828 F.2d 556, 561 (9th Cir. 1987). Even
23
if the face of the pleadings suggests that the chance of
24
25
recovery is remote, the Court must allow the plaintiff to
DEMAND THAT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE OBEY THE LAW
Page 11 of 27
1
develop the case at this stage of the proceedings. United
2
States v. City of Redwood, 640 F.2d 963, 966 (9th Cir. 1981)
3
24.) The question presented by a motion to dismiss is not whether
4
5
6
the plaintiff will prevail in the action, but whether the
plaintiff is entitled to offer evidence in support of the
claim. Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974).
7
25.) Please note California Rules of Court, albeit generally
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
respected by Federal Court state:
CRC Rule 201
(n)(2) "For good cause, a court may also accept for filing a
Plaintiff’s that does not comply with this rule. A petition
[for Habeas Corpus] submitted by an attorney need not be on
the Judicial Council Form.
(3) A Plaintiff’s filing that is not on the Judicial Council form
shall contain the pertinent information specified in that
form, including the information regarding other Plaintiff’s,
motions, or applications with respect to the conviction,
commitment, or issue in any court."
15
26.) Case cites also support your Plaintiff’s position at law:
16
17
18
19
"A court has discretion to accept papers which are not in
the form prescribed by the rules. Morgan v. Ransom, (App.2d
Dist 1979) 157 Cal.Rptr. 212, 95 Cal.App.3d 664
27.) As Plaintiff’s receive liberal construction of the laws, it is
20
clear that you have discretion and wide latitude with broad
21
and liberal construction of the laws to accept any pleading or
22
document Plaintiff’s so submit into the above mentioned
23
tribunal that may or may not have gross errors:
24
25
"Attorney's could not be sanctioned for submitting brief
with one and one-half line spacing, rather than double
spacing required by court; general rule authorized line and
one-half spacing, and special rule claimed to be basis for
sanction only made double-spacing ‘preferable.’" Tiffany v.
DEMAND THAT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE OBEY THE LAW
Page 12 of 27
1
State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co. (App.2
Cal.Rptr.2d 264, 14 Cal.App.4th 1763
Dist.
1993)
19
2
3
28.) PLEASE NOTE:
4
“Judge of the Court had no implied power to reject filing of
complaint that complied with state requirements, though complaint
did not include Certificate of Assignment required by local
rule.” Carlson v. State of California Dept of Fish and Game
(App.2 Dist. 1998) 80 Cal.Rptr.2d 601, 68 Cal.App.4th 1268
5
6
7
29.) Whereas your MINISTERIAL DUTY4 is well defined by these
8
presents:
9
“Local Superior Court may not condition the filing of a complaint
on local rule requirements; instead, so long as a complaint
complies with state requirements, the clerk has a ministerial
duty to file.” Carlson v. State of California Dept of Fish and
Fame (App.2 Dist 1998) 80 Cal.Rptr.2d 601, 68 Cal.App.4th 1268,
review denied. Naturally the same applies to all courts in U.S.
10
11
12
13
IV
YOU ARE HEREBY AUTHORIZED TO HELP THE PLAINTIFF’S
IN ANY WAY IN AMELIORATING AS EFFICIENTLY AS
POSSIBLE ANY PROBLEM THAT THE PAPERWORK AND/OR
FILINGS AND/OR DOCUMENTS AND/OR PLEADINGS MAY HAVE
AS YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO ALLOW AMENDMENT TO SAID
DOCUMENTS IN ACCORDANCE WITH YOUR MINISTERIAL
DISCRETION AS WELL AS THE DUTY TO PROTECT
PLAINTIFF’S’S RIGHTS5 AS OUR PUBLIC SERVANT6
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
"The Constitution of the United States is a law for rulers and people, equally in
war and peace, and covers with the shield of its protection all classes of men, at
all times, and under all circumstances. No doctrine involving more pernicious
consequences was ever invented by the wit of man than that any of its provisions can
be suspended during any of the great exigencies of government. Such a doctrine leads
directly to anarchy or despotism." Caldwell v. Parker (1866), 252 U. S. 376
(U.S.S.Ct.)
5 "This Government…has certainly some power to protect its own Citizens in their own
country. Allegiance and protection are reciprocal rights." Congressional Globe,
39th Congress, 1st Session, at page 1757 (1866).
6 "In the united States, Sovereignty resides in the people who act through the
organs established by the Constitution." Chrisholm v. Georgia, 4 Dall 419, 471;
McCulloch v. Maryland, Wheat 316, 404, 405; Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 11 U.S. 356, 370:
"...the congress cannot invoke the sovereign power of the people to override their
will as thus declared." Perry v. U.S. 294 U.S. 330, 353 (1935)
DEMAND THAT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE OBEY THE LAW
4
Page 13 of 27
1
30.) At all points and processes during this proceeding you are
2
allowed to give Plaintiff’s remedy in the most efficient and
3
reasonable manner:
4
5
6
7
8
9
"Government immunity violates the common law maxim that
everyone shall have remedy for an injury done to his person
or property."
Fireman's Ins. Co. of Newark, N.J. v.
Washburn County, 2 Wish.2d 214, 85 N.W.2d 840 (1957)
"Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved,
there can be no rule making or legislation which would
abrogate them." Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 491.
31.) If you have a local court rule or practice, policy and/or
10
procedure which has denied such litigants any obstruction to
11
filing documents or access to the above mentioned court, you
12
are to abrogate them in accordance with law, as if you do not,
13
you will be held in severe jeopardy, strict construction and
14
violation of the law:
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
"If the legislature clearly misinterprets a constitutional
provision, the frequent repetition of the wrong will not
create a right." Amos v. Mosley, 74 Fla. 555; 77 So. 619.
"It is the peculiar value of a written constitution that it
places in unchanging form limitations upon the legislation
and thus gives a permanence and stability to popular
government which otherwise would be lacking." Muller v.
Oregon, 208 U.S. 412.
"The courts cannot rightly prefer, of the possible meanings
of the words of the constitution, that which will defeat
rather than effectuate the constitutional purpose." United
States v. Classic, 313 U.S. 299.
22
23
24
25
"The constitution is an instrument from the people and a
construction thereof should effectuate their purpose from
the words employed in the document; and the courts may not
color it by the addition of words or the ingrafting of their
views as to how it should be written." Ervin v. Collins,
Fla. 85 S. 852; 59 ALR 706.
DEMAND THAT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE OBEY THE LAW
Page 14 of 27
1
"The basic purpose of a written constitution has a twofold
aspect, first the securing to the people of certain
unchangeable rights and remedies, and second, the
curtailment of unrestricted governmental activity within
certain defined fields." DuPont v. DuPont, Sup. 32 Ded. Ch.
413; 85 A 2d 724.
2
3
4
32.) You are not to obstruct nor diminish any right, remedy or
5
privilege that “Plaintiff’s” have7:
6
9TH Amendment to the United States Constitution: “The
enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall
not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by
the people.”
7
8
9
"The State cannot diminish rights of the people." Hurtado
v. California, 110 U.S. 516
10
"The State and its municipalities are prohibited from
violating substantive rights." Owen v. City (1980) 445 U.S.
622
11
12
14
". . . Thus the law was judicially construed to mean no
power was delegated to the legislature to invade the great
natural Rights of the individual." (MAINE'S, The Revival of
Natural Law Concepts, pp. 112-113)
15
33.) As the real party in interest are in fact, you are not to
13
16
discriminate against Plaintiff’s in any way shape or form8:
17
"While a state has broad powers when it comes to making
classifications, it may not draw a line which constitutes
and invidious discrimination against a particular class."
(Levy v. Louisiana, 88 S.Ct. 1509, 391 U.S. 68)
18
19
"If a judge, sheriff or any other officer of a State court
should take part in enforcing any state law making
distinctions among the Citizens of the States on account of
race or color, he shall be deemed guilty and punished with
20
21
22
23
24
25
"To bereave a man of life, or by violence to confiscate his estate (Rights)
without accusation or (fair) trial, would be so gross and notorious an act of
despotism, and must at once convey the alarm of tyranny throughout the whole
Kingdom" (Blackstone’s Commentaries Book 1, Chapter 1 P. 135)
8 “As long as defendant who abridges a Plaintiff’s constitutional rights acts
pursuant to a statute or local law which empowers him to commit the wrongful act, an
action under this subchapter (1983) is established.” Laverne v. Corning, DC NY
1970, 316 F.Supp. 629. (Civil rights)
DEMAND THAT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE OBEY THE LAW
7
Page 15 of 27
1
fine and imprisonment under this Bill."
Globe, 39th Congress 1st Session, 475-476 )
(Congressional
2
34.) Plaintiff’s are in fact, enforcing their CONSTITUTIONAL
3
RIGHTS, you are to give special consideration to this matter,
4
and in no way shape or form deny access or ability to defend,
5
6
access or representation or impede any redress of grievances
7
thereto:
“There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one
because of his exercise of constitutional rights.”
Sherar
v. Cullen, 481
F. 946
8
9
10
“Constitutional rights may not be denied simply because of
hostility to their assertion and exercise:
Vindication of
conceded constitutional rights cannot be made dependent upon
any theory that it is less expensive to deny them than to
afford them.” Watson v. Memphis, 375 U.S. 526.
11
12
13
35.) Any silence in this matter will be an overt act of fraud
14
against your Plaintiff’s in this matter:
15
"Failure to answer is silence. Silence can only be equated
with fraud where there is legal and moral duty to speak, or
when inquiry left unanswered would be intentionally
misleading. US v Tweel (1977) 550 F 2d 297.
16
17
36.) That for any question of law to be determined in this matter,
18
19
the determination is to side with your Plaintiff’s in this
20
matter.
21
As laymen, you are our public servants and a
subordinate power under our form of governance.9
22
In all
questions of law, your determination is to agree and
23
countenance my understanding of the law:
24
25
Reference: Constitution of California 1849: Article I, Section 12: “The military
shall be subordinate to the civil power.”
DEMAND THAT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE OBEY THE LAW
9
Page 16 of 27
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Upon indeterminate questions of law, the law is to side with
the citizen, and not with the government.
Byars v. U.S.,
273 U.S. 28.
SEE ALSO:
The great men who formed it did not undertake to solve a
question that in its own nature is insoluble.
Between
equals it made neither superior, but trusted to the mutual
forbearance of both parties. A larger confidence was placed
in an enlightened public opinion as the final umpire.
The
people parcelled out the rights of sovereignty between the
states and the United States**, and they have a natural
right to determine what was given to one party and what to
the other. ... It is a maxim consecrated in public law as
well as common sense and the necessity of the case, that a
sovereign is answerable for his acts only to his God and to
his own conscience.
[Bouvier's Law Dictionary, 14th Edition, 1870]
[defining "United States of America"]
[emphasis added]
SEE ALSO:
While the codes declare the law of the state...they do not
declare all of it.
The constitutional provisions also
constitute
the
law
of
the
state,"
and
the
equity
jurisdiction given to superior courts empowers the courts to
grant injections pendete lite protective of the status quo
in litigation. The power is not curtailed by the specific
terms of $ 525 and CC $$ 3274, 3421. Pasadena v. Superior
Court (1910) 157 C 781, 109 P 620
Statutes must be construed in a reasonable and common sense
manner consistent with their apparent purpose and the
legislative intent underlying them--one practical, rather
than technical, and one promoting a wise policy rather than
mischief or absurdity.
Herbert Hawkins Realtors, Inc. v.
Milheiser (1983, 4th Dist) 140 Cal. Appl.
3d 334, 189
Cal.Rptr. 450
DEMAND judge recognize pleadings submitted by Plaintiffs
37.) Said judge of Court having refused to recognize multiple
24
claims upon which relief can be granted in this case –
25
Plaintiffs literally copied word for word excepting for the
names of Defendants claims upon which relief can be granted
DEMAND THAT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE OBEY THE LAW
Page 17 of 27
1
that this court has already recognized in other cases, however
2
said Judge refuses some how to recognize such properly
3
constructed claims that have already been accepted as claims
4
upon which relief can be granted.
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
V
WHEREAS; ALL DEFENDANTS HAVE BEEN PROPERLY SERVED
AND NOT ONE OF THE DEFENDANTS HAVE APPEARED OR
SUBMITTED ANY RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS CHARGES;
ONLY
HEARSAY
BY
THIRD
PARTIES
CHALLENGING
IRRELEVANT TECHNICALITIES HAS BEEN SUBMITTED
AGAINST PLAINTIFFS CLAIMS; THAT AS A MATTER OF
LAW PLAINTIFFS ARE ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT
FOR ALL RELIEF PLAINTIFFS DEMANDED.
38.) Whereas all defendants have been properly served in compliance
with the law – see PROOFS OF SERVICE filed on or about
14
September 9, 2005 and note:
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
a) “One may serve a summons on a political subdivision of the
state by delivering a copy of the summons and of the complaint
to the clerk, secretary, president, presiding officer, or
other head of its governing body.” CODE CIV. PROC. §
416.50(a). see also GOV. CODE §§ 955.6(a), 955.8(a).
b) “Due process does not require service of the summons and
complaint upon the defendant personally; it requires merely
that the plaintiff employ a method of service reasonably
likely to provide notice.” Greene v. Lindsey, 456 U.S. 444,
449–50 (1982); M. Lowenstein & Sons, Inc. v. Superior Court,
80 Cal. App. 3d 762, 768, 145 Cal. Rptr. 814, 817 (1978),
disapproved on other grounds, Johnson & Johnson v. Superior
Court, 38 Cal. 3d 243, 254–55, 695 P.2d 1058, 1065 n.7, 211
Cal. Rptr. 517, 524 n.7 (1985).
c) “In lieu of personal delivery of the summons on a corporation,
association, or public entity, one may serve the summons by
leaving a copy of the summons and of the complaint during
usual office hours in the recipient’s office with the person
who is apparently in charge and by afterwards mailing a copy
of the summons and complaint (by first-class mail, postage
DEMAND THAT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE OBEY THE LAW
Page 18 of 27
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
prepaid) to the person to be served at the place where the
copies of the summons and complaint were left.” CODE CIV.
PROC. § 415.20(a). See generally ROBERT I. WEIL & IRA A.
BROWN, JR., CALIFORNIA PRACTICE GUIDE: CIVIL PROCEDURE BEFORE
TRIAL ¶¶ 4:82–:91 (1999); 3 B.E. WITKIN, CALIFORNIA PROCEDURE,
Actions §§ 926–929 (4th ed. 1997).
d) Service of the summons is deemed complete on the tenth day
after the mailing. CODE CIV. PROC. § 415.20(a). See also
Ludka v. Athana Corp., 25 Cal. App. 3d 316, 321, 101 Cal.
Rptr. 615, 618 (1972). See also Khourie, Crew & Jaeger v.
Sabek, 220 Cal. App. 3d 1009, 1013, 269 Cal. Rptr. 687, 689
(1990)
e) “One may also serve the summons in a similar manner by leaving
a copy of the summons and of the complaint at the person’s
“dwelling house, usual place of abode, usual place of
business, or usual mailing address other than a United States
Postal Service post office box,” Ellard v. Conway, 94 Cal.
App. 4th 540, 546, 114 Cal. Rptr. 2d 399, 402–03 (2001). “Or
in the presence of a competent member of the household” Bein
v. Brechtel-Jochim Group, Inc., 6 Cal. App. 4th 1387, 1393, 8
Cal. Rptr. 2d 351, 354 (1992) (the guard at a gated community
is considered a “competent member of the household” if he
controls access to the residence); cf. CODE CIV. PROC. §
415.21. “Or a person apparently in charge of his office,
place of business, or usual mailing address, at least 18 years
old, who must be informed of the contents of the documents,
and by afterwards mailing a copy of the summons and complaint
(by first-class mail, postage prepaid) to the person to be
served at the place where the summons and complaint were left.
Service of the summons is deemed complete on the tenth day
after the mailing. CODE CIV. PROC. § 415.20(b).
f) One may serve a summons by mail by mailing a copy of the
summons and of the complaint by firstclass mail or airmail,
postage prepaid) to the person to be served, together with two
copies of the notice and acknowledgment and a return envelope,
postage prepaid, addressed to the sender. CODE CIV. PROC. §
415.30(a). A post office box is a sufficient address for
service by mail. Transamerica Title Ins. Co. v. Hendrix, 34
Cal. App. 4th 740, 745, 40 Cal. Rptr. 2d 614, 617 (1995). See
generally ROBERT I. WEIL & IRA A. BROWN, JR., CALIFORNIA
PRACTICE GUIDE: CIVIL PROCEDURE BEFORE TRIAL ¶¶ 4:92–:105.3,
:134–:139 (1999); 3 B.E. WITKIN, CALIFORNIA PROCEDURE, Actions
§§ 930–935 (4th ed. 1997).
g) “One may serve a defendant located in a state other than
California by any of the methods authorized for service within
California or by a method prescribed by the law of the place
where the defendant is served.” CODE CIV. PROC. § 413.10(b).
DEMAND THAT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE OBEY THE LAW
Page 19 of 27
1
2
3
4
See generally ROBERT I. WEIL & IRA A. BROWN, JR., CALIFORNIA
PRACTICE GUIDE: CIVIL PROCEDURE BEFORE TRIAL ¶¶ 4:133, :146
(1999); 3 B.E. WITKIN, CALIFORNIA PROCEDURE, Actions § 921
(4th ed. 1997).
39.) Please also judicially Note that both the California and
5
United States Attorney Generals have responded to this case
6
and are thus fully aware of the case and cannot in the
7
slightest instance deny service:
8
“One serves a summons in an action against the state by
serving the attorney general.” GOV. CODE § 955.4(a). See
generally ROBERT I. WEIL & IRA A. BROWN, JR., CALIFORNIA
PRACTICE GUIDE: CIVIL PROCEDURE BEFORE TRIAL ¶¶ 4:69–:71
(1999).
9
10
11
12
13
14
40.) Please also NOTE:
“One who helps a defendant avoid service of a summons is
subject to liability for contempt of court.” CODE CIV. PROC. §
1209(a)(8); cf. In re Holmes, 145 Cal. App. 3d 934, 942, 193
Cal. Rptr. 790, 795 (1983) (assistance in evasion of service
of subpoena punishable as contempt).
15
41.) Whereas the great majority of Defendants are in fact officers
16
17
18
19
of the law and are without any excuse as to not know the law
and to not be fully cognizant that summary judgment must now
issue as they themselves did not make an appearance or respond
20
to the complaint and that all Defendants have been properly
21
and repeatedly served this suit.
22
required of Defendants within twenty days of service, whereas
23
Defendants have had more than a year to respond and have still
24
not responded despite these defendants total awareness and
25
multiple services of this suit.
And that said response was
And where nothing but hearsay
DEMAND THAT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE OBEY THE LAW
Page 20 of 27
1
has been submitted by parties purportedly representing
2
defendants, however no real party of interest has responded or
3
made any appearance.
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
To which Judgment by default must issue:
U.S. Dist Court Document - AO 440 (Rev 10/93)
Summons in a Civil Action:
You are hereby summoned and required to serve upon Plaintiff’s
attorney and answer to the complaint which is herewith served
upon you, within 20 days after service of this summons upon
you, exclusive of the day of service. If you fail to do so,
judgment by default will be taken against you for the relief
demanded in the complaint.
SEE ALSO CODE CIV. PROC. § 415.20
42.) Facts, Evidence and Complaint filed in proceedings in
particular the Amendment and Exhibits filed on or about
September 7, 2006 are included herein by reference with this
14
Writ.
15
43.) Plaintiffs representing outstanding members of our society
16
17
18
19
have as a consequence of the criminal acts committed by
Defendants been prevented from continuing to develop and
deploy advanced new next-generation education and internet
20
which will bring substantial advantage to citizens of the
21
United States and California.
22
sought is not only mandatory under the law but is also just
23
and good for our nation.
Awarding Plaintiffs the relief
24
25
DEMAND THAT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE OBEY THE LAW
Page 21 of 27
1
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
2
44.) That your Plaintiff’s in this matter “Plaintiff’s”, approach
3
4
5
6
this judicial powers court in order to obtain substantive
justice in this matter:
45.) Thad said Judge and Court recognize claims upon which relief
can be granted in the ‘spirit of the law’ submitted by
7
Plaintiffs that this court; and,
8
9
10
11
46.) That said Judge of the Court in this matter immediately cease
and desist refusing to adhere to the law; and,
47.) That said Judge of the Court stop mandating Plaintiff’s In
12
Propria Persona Sui Jurys comply with the strictest and
13
absurd letter of the law and/or code; and,
most
14
48.) That said Judge of the Court stop using practice, policies and
15
procedures to prohibit Plaintiff’s from lawfully accessing the
16
above mentioned court and seeking redress of grievances on an
17
important question of law; and to stop holding Plaintiff’s up
18
to the same high standards and higher standards than lawyers;
19
20
21
and,
49.) That any and all motions, pleadings, documents, exhibits,
writs and other items be admitted into this court immediately
22
in the first instance (in the spirit of the law); and,
23
h) That any refusal to accept motions and pleadings by said “Judge
24
25
of the Court” be backed by substantive law in writing submitted
to Plaintiff’s with signed signature, in direct alignment and
DEMAND THAT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE OBEY THE LAW
Page 22 of 27
1
which is in consonance with the Constitution of The United Stated
2
of America; and,
3
4
5
6
i) That if this court JUDGE does defy any part of this Writ of
Precipae that said Judge of the Court does in fact give up all
claims to immunity and any remedy at law for any claim or action
at law Plaintiff’s bring against that person; and,
7
j) That in fact, an immediate CONTEMPT OF COURT shall issue against
8
9
10
11
12
13
said JUDGE OF THE COURT so denying Plaintiff’s palpable access to
the above mentioned tribunal and law, in the above mentioned case
number demanding SANCTIONS against said UNITED STATES DISTRICT
COURT Judge of the Court; and,
k) I also demand that your Plaintiff’s’s WRIT OF PRECIPAE be
14
immediately accepted AND IMMEDIATELY ENTERED INTO THE COURT
15
RECORD IN THIS MATTER for good faith determination of its merits;
16
and,
17
18
19
20
21
l) That ALL OTHER further pleadings, evidence and/or exhibits and/or
documentation be accepted instead of Court JUDGE DENIALS AND
REFUSALS which are not mandatory and are a hardship upon
Plaintiff’s; and,
m) If ANYTHING IS REFUSED IN THE FUTURE IT IS TO BE brought Before a
22
Trial By Jury; formal notice is hereby demanded that said JUDGE
23
give substantial written reasons to Plaintiff’s showing factual
24
25
findings of fact and conclusions of law allowing this denial to
DEMAND THAT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE OBEY THE LAW
Page 23 of 27
1
Plaintiff’s Constitutional right to have this matter fully tried
2
by jury.
3
4
5
6
n) That this Writ of Praecipe be entered into the Record; and,
o) That this Writ of Praecipe be entered into the JUDGE of the
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT’s PERMANENT PERSONNEL FILE; and,
p) That Summary Judgment issue in favor of Plaintiffs against
7
Defendants for the relief Plaintiffs sought.
8
9
10
q) That this court remit to your Plaintiff’s any other remedy at law
that this court deems fair or just in this matter.
11
12
DATED:
SEAL:
13
14
15
September 11, 2006
__________________________________
Clive Frank Boustred
Plaintiff’s In Propria Persona, Sui
Juris
210 Suncrest Dr.
Santa Cruz, CA 95073
(831) 476-4300
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
DEMAND THAT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE OBEY THE LAW
Page 24 of 27
1
AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF
DEMAND THE JUDGE OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT
COURT OBEY THE LAW AND RECOGNIZE PLAINTIFF’S
PLEADINGS, DEMAND THAT UNITED STATES DISTRICT
COURT JUDGE NOT ADJUDICATE MATTERS BROUGHT TO THE
COURT FOR TRIAL BY JURY OR BE LIABLE [U.S. CONST
AMEND 7 & 9, CAL CONST ART I, § 24][PC § 1503, CRC
RULE 227]
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Comes now your Plaintiff’s the and greatly aggrieved party in this
matter “Plaintiff’s” who knowing the laws and Penalties of Perjury
within the United States and the State of California, hereby deposes
and says:
a.)
9
b.)
10
11
c.)
12
13
14
d.)
15
16
17
18
19
20
e.)
21
That Plaintiff’s have read and know the contents to the
above entitled document, and know them to be true.
That if Plaintiff’s are so commanded to give the truth of
the contents so stated hereby, Plaintiff’s will stand on
their word where their yay means yay and their nay means
nay and give testimony to the truth thereto.
That of the items submitted that Plaintiff’s has personal
knowledge of the events subscribed herein, and as to
those items Plaintiff’s submit upon information and/or
belief as to those items Plaintiff’s also believe them to
be true.
That Plaintiff’s have in fact, had prior trouble filing
simple legal items and documents at law and making
elementary and basic pleadings for basic Constitutionsl
rights, into the courts of the State of California and
United States, for no good cause shown have been
unlawfully frustrated by said State of California and
United States “Court Judges” who have frustrated our legal
paperwork and pleadings using alleged “discretion” and
holding laymen litigants to the high standards of a lawyer
and STRICT CONTRUCTION OF THE LAW and even in complete
insolence and disobedience to the law, which is illegal,
unfair and unjust.
Plaintiff’s hereby throw themselves upon the states and
submit this document into the evidence thereby.
22
23
24
25
DATED:
SEAL:
September 11, 2006
__________________________________
Clive Frank Boustred
Plaintiff’s In Propria Persona, Sui Juris
210 Suncrest Dr.
Santa Cruz, CA 95073
(831) 476-4300
DEMAND THAT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE OBEY THE LAW
Page 25 of 27
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
DEMAND THAT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE OBEY THE LAW
Page 26 of 27
1
VERIFICATION
2
I the undersigned party am the Plaintiff’s in this action.
3
foregoing complaint and it is true to our respective knowledge, except as to those
4
matters stated on information or belief, and as to those matters, I believe them to
5
I have read the
be true.
6
The undersigned declares under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United
7
8
9
10
States of America and the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct
to the best of his knowledge and belief, and that this Declaration was executed
under exigent circumstances on September 11, 2006 at Santa Cruz California.
Dated: September 11, 2006
11
_________________________________________________
Clive Frank Boustred
12
13
14
SUBSCRIPTION
Subscribed this September 11, 2006, under exigent circumstances, before Almighty
God, in the Year of Our Lord and Savior, Jesus the Christ, Two-Thousand-Six.
SEAL:
15
PLAINTIFF’S
_____________________________
Clive Boustred – AT LAW
Plaintiff’s In Propria Persona, Sui Juris
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
DEMAND THAT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE OBEY THE LAW
Page 27 of 27