Clive Boustred
Plaintiff’s, In Propria Persona Sui Juris
210 Suncrest Dr,
Soquel, CA 95073
Tel: (831) 476-4300
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTNORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Clive Frank Boustred, et al. PLAINTIFF’S,v.
County of Santa Cruz, et al.
DEFENDANTS. / No. C0500996 – (JF RS) Trial By Jury
WRIT OF PRECIPAE
DEMAND JUGE OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT OBEY THE LAW OR BE HELD LIABLE [CAL CONST ART I, § 24][PC § 1503, CRC RULE 227 & Related Federal Statutes].
DEMAND FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Comes Now, Clive Frank Boustred, RCB, WFB, InfoTelesys, Inc. and Get IT Real, Inc. “Plaintiff’s”, approaching this Court in good faith and supplicating this tribunal and Almighty God for justice and the law in this matter and seeking palpable remedy at law in the first instance.
To the UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, to the Judge of the Court and Presiding Justice and Associate Justices, GREETINGS:
State of California / Affirmed.
In the matter of the application of “Plaintiff’s” For a Writ of Precipae
TO: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE / On a Question of Law
by ORDER of Writ of Precipae
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:
1.) That your Plaintiff’s comes before this judicial powers tribunal in good faith, with no bad faith to this tribunal.
2.) Plaintiff’s names are: Clive Frank Boustred, RCB, WFB, InfoTelesys, Inc. and Get IT Real, Inc.
3.) Your Plaintiff’s in this matter “Plaintiff’s” are In Propria Persona, Sui Juris and are not pro per or pro se[1].
4.) That “Plaintiff’s” are in fact, the real party of interest in this matter in the above-entitled cause of action, and come before this court in good faith, with no bad faith intended to any party.
5.) That it is a fact, that “Plaintiff’s” are not “ABA” or California Bar Association trained attorney, and comes before this tribunal as a laymen, for exigent consideration of extraordinary critical matters including the attempted murder of Plaintiff Clive Boustred and the kidnap of his sons Plaintiff’s RCB and WFB, representing a class of individuals who are, and have been and will be damaged by the acts and/or omissions of the Defendants in this matter, and thereby, I have a right and perfect right to seek expedient and fair redress of grievances on an original question of law before this tribunal.
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 properly and fairly heard without any dissonance or stratagem 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 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.
SEE ALSO:
"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)
7.) Plaintiff’s comes to this court in good faith and demand that the courts Judge obey his own law and oath of office in which to lawfully allow Plaintiff’s access to the courts and trial by jury as a matter of right and substantive due process of law.
a.) Please be under judicial notice and place on the record the following United States District Court General Order No. 40, Prohibition of Bias,:
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 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.
8.) Let it be judicially noted that Judge Jeremy Fogel is in fact with good cause a defendant in this case along with his employer and many colleagues. Plaintiffs are guaranteed a fair and impartial decision maker under due process laws and under the Seventh and Eleventh Amendments Plaintiffs are guaranteed the right to have this matter tried by jury and 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.
"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.
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.”
9.) Please also judicially note and place on the record the fact that you are hereby directly liable[2], with no immunity[3] claims or any defense at law, for sanctions to be filed by Plaintiff’s if you act in bad faith in this matter and do not immediately respect the law:
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.”
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 Plaintiff’s should be held to less stringent standards than lawyers. “Plaintiff’s” are to receive broad and lenient construction of the laws, not strict construction. We are to receive the “spirit of the law” and not the strict interpretation of law. 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 v. North Carolina (4th Cir. 1973) 471 F2d 406, 407; Harriston 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 Cir. 1966) 370 F.2d 37, 40; Whittaker v. Overholster (DC Cir 1962) 299 F.2d 447, 448. See also Haines v. Kerner (1972) 404 U.S. 519
11.) As “Plaintiff’s” are in fact, In Propria Persona, Sui Juris in this matter, the following statements are included so as to excuse any problems that might be in my inexperienced attempt to address and access the courts. Being an In Propria Persona 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. Faretta v. State of California, 422 U.S. 806, 95 S.Ct. 2525, 45 L.Ed.2d (1975). It is also protected under the First Amendment Free Speech Clause self counsel litigants' court submissions are to be construed liberally and held to less stringent standards than submissions of lawyers. If the court can reasonably read the submissions, it should do so despite failure to cite proper legal authority, confusion of legal 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. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106, 97 S.Ct. 285, 50 L.Ed.2d 251 (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 Police, 88 F.3d 188, 189 (3rd Cir. 1996); United States v. Day, 969 F.2d 39, 42 (3rd Cir. 1992)(holding pro se petition cannot be held to same standard as pleadings drafted by attorneys); Then v. I.N.S., 58 F.Supp.2d 422, 429 (D.N.J. 1999).
12.) Furthermore let it be judicially noticed that Plaintiffs are in Propria Persona as a consequence of malicious prosecution by Defendants who have driven Plaintiffs into financial ruin and literally locked down Plaintiffs both physically and financially. See Complaint and Exhibits for proof, incorporated herein by reference.
13.) “The courts provide in propria persona parties wide latitude when construing their pleadings and papers. When interpreting pro se papers, the Court should use common sense to determine what relief the party desires.” S.E.C. v. Elliott, 953 F.2d 1560, 1582 (11th Cir. 1992). See also, United States v. Miller, 197 F.3d 644, 648 (3rd Cir. 1999)(Court has special obligation to construe pro se litigants' pleadings liberally); Poling v. K.Hovnanian Enterprises, 99 F.Supp.2d 502, 506-07 (D.N.J. 2000).
14.) “Pro se litigant's pleadings should not be held to the same high standards of perfection as lawyers.” "Significantly, the Haines case involved a pro se complaint - as does the present case - which requires a less stringent reading than one drafted by a lawyer.” Puckett v. Cox United States Court of Appeals (1972)
15.) “Defendant has the right to submit in propria persona briefs on appeal, even though they may be inartfully drawn but the court can reasonably read and understand them.” See, Vega v. Johnson, 149 F.3d 354 (5th Cir. 1998).