Motion To Dismiss A Criminal, Judge Michael E. Barton
DAVID J. BEAUVAIS (SB#84275)
1904 Franklin Street, Suit 800
Oakland, CA 94612
THE SUPERIOR COURT
OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
IN AND FOR THE
COUNTY OF SANTA CRUZ
|
People of
California v. Clive Boustred
|
CASE No.
F17075 and F17078__
MOTION TO
DISMIS JUDGE MICHAEL E. BARTON PURSUANT TO CCP SECTIONS: 170.1
(a) (1); 170.1 (a) (3); 170.1 (a) (3) (B); 170.1 (a) (6) (A);
170.1 (a) (6) (B); 170.1 (a) (6) (C); 170.3 (a) (1); 170.3 (a)
(2); 170.3 (b) (2) (A); 170.3 (b) (2) (B); 170.3 (c) (2); 170.3
(c) (5) and 170.4 (d).
|
|
|
|
COMES
NOW THE PETITIONER Clive Boustred to exercise his right to the
peremptory challenge of the dishonorable, degenerate, depraved and
disgustingly disgraceful Judge Michael E. Barton, who has been assigned
in a clear and convincing conspiracy to hear the above entitled
malicious prosecution and SLAP suit designed to silence the crimes
committed by Micalel E. Barton himself and assigned by the equally
disgusting and guilty Robert B. Atack in his conspiracy with Barton,
Stevens, Joseph, Lee, Danner, Drottar, Symons, Tracy, Robins, MacDonald
and other co-conspirators in the assassination attempt and cover-up of
said assassination attempt of Mr. Clive Boustred which occurred on March
10, 2003 as Mr. Boustred who was and has always followed the law, was
returning home form the Santa Cruz ‘Superior’ Court house when these
filthy criminals conspired to murder Mr. Boustred.
These cases mark the
8th and 9th malicious prosecutions that have been
carried out, well, one can’t say under the ‘color of law’ since the law
does not provide such a colorful spectrum, to consider these
prosecutions as even remotely obtaining any color under the law status
would suggest an invisible color spectrum at law that goes beyond
anything we know of in the universe, these cases are simply and
basically flat out criminal acts committed out in the open by these
‘officials’.
One must ask what
sort of a judge would order a dad to not be allowed to communicate with
his little boys after the cops tried to murder the dad in front of his
little boys? Or what sort of a judge would order that a grandfather not
communicate with his grandchildren after the grandfather flew across
three continents to see his son and grandchildren after the cops tried
to murder his son in front of his grand children? Surely such an act
committed by any judge would class that judge as one of the filthiest
lowlife kidnapping criminals and scumbags of the lowest ilk ever fond in
the Court system. Such a man is Michel E. Barton. Lower level scum is
hardly found in any corner of the planet.
Certainly there is
far more integrity found behind bars than behind Michel E. Barton’s
bench. It is lowlife scumbags like Michael E. Barton who are
establishing such utter and complete disgust, disregard and contempt for
the judiciary in the United States of America. Respect for the law and
court is clearly far from Barton’s vocabulary and acts. King George
whom our Founder’s expelled from the continent was not as bad as Barton.
Let it be Judicially
Noticed that this band of filthy criminals have again kidnapped Mr.
Boustred’s children and literally stolen Mr. Boustred’s home while
demanding $200,000 in bail!
Please, if
expressive adjectives perhaps distort the reader of this document’s
reality, what meaning does one put on a speeding bullet? It is
imperative for the reader of this document to comprehend and understand
that there is no denial by the sheriffs, judges, DA or anyone that on
March 10, 2003, without any lawful reason or any remotely reasonable
right, Deputy Michael MacDonald the Shooting Instructor for the Santa
Cruz Sheriffs, from a point bland range of 5 to 7 feet shot at Mr.
Boustred with Mr. Boustred’s three and seven year old sons in the direct
line of fire. So please, consider that this pleading to kick a filthy
criminal from unfairly presiding over any hearing or trial of Mr.
Boustred is hardly unreasonable.
Let it also be
Judicially Noted that Clive Boustred has the highest respect for the Law
and Court and regularly quotes with the highest regard authorities and
honorable justices who laid the foundations of law in the land. Mr.
Boustred has patiently and politely come before other Santa Cruz
Superior Court Judges without objection. The band of criminals who are
prosecuting this SLAP case against Mr. Boustred have earned contempt.
On or about July 17,
2009, looking like some psychopathic and insane moron with red boils all
over his forehead, the dishonorable and disgusting Judge Robert B. Atack
provided even more solid and resounding proof of the conspiracy that
exists in Santa Cruz Superior Court to shut down an innocent man whom
the Santa Cruz Sheriffs attempted to murder in front of the his
children, namely Mr. Clive Boustred. Robert B. Atack, a key defendant
in the IN UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF
CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION Case Number 08 00546 “Boustred verses Santa
Cruz” (which names Robert B. Atack, Samuel S. Stevens, Irwin H. Joseph,
Bob Lee and Michael E. Barton as defendants), after acting with complete
disregard to his office, the Court and the law, with complete bias,
handed these malicious SLAP cases against Mr. Boustred to his
co-conspirator and colleague in crime Michael E. Barton. What better
proof could one ask for to confirm the conspiracy?
Clearly these
criminals of the Santa Cruz ‘Superior’ Court lack the mental power to
perceive that their actions will only further incriminate themselves and
show them off to be what they are, a band of filthy criminals acting
under the color of law to cover up the assassination attempt and cover
up thereof of an innocent man and the kidnap of the mans children,
destruction of his businesses and theft of his home.
To illustrate the
sheer and utter moronic or imbecilic behavior of this cabal of criminals
in Santa Cruz who have conspired to destroy a man whose work promised to
save the Untied States and World from repeated depressions, wars and
genocide, one simply has to compare dates. Commissioner Irwin H. Joseph,
a failed real estate lawyer, desperate to be a judge, failed to obtain
any proper accession to his general jurisdiction over Mr. Boustred,
naturally found himself as the primary defendant in the ongoing lawsuit
Mr. Boustred was prosecuting against Santa Cruz County. Joseph issued a
blatantly and totally illegal order to evict Mr. Boustred from Mr.
Boustred’s home on the very same day Joseph filed to get himself
dismissed from the lawsuit Mr. Boustred was prosecuting against him,
Barton, Atack and Stevens. Further proof of this blatant conspiracy is
provided at
http://www.libertyforlife.com/abuse/commissioner_irwin_josephs_crimes.htm
incorporated herein by reference as one and part of this Declaration and
Motion as is all the information and pages linked from
http://www.libertyforlife.com/abuse/irwin_joseph.htm
These malicious SLAP
cases against Mr. Boustred reflect the same outrageous charges one of
Santa Cruz’s most outrageous criminal, Bob Lee, filed against Mr.
Boustred after the Santa Cruz Sheriffs shot at Mr. Boustred and his
children. Lee accused Mr. Boustred of “assault with a deadly weapon”
and “child endangerment. Now Lee, who’s Sheriffs clearly should not be
in the possession of any weapon, accuses Mr. Boustred a qualified
military instructor of owning guns Mr. Boustred purchased lawfully.
Lee’s entire case is based on a claim that driving safely at 27 mph down
a private road is a felony and that the sheriffs have the right to place
people under false arrest and break into their homes and vehicles
without search warrants.
This motion however
is not to fight these outrageous cases, this motion is to show beyond
any reasonable doubt that there is reason to believe that Michael E.
Barton is not able to give Mr. Boustred a fair hearing or trial. Judge
Michel Barton has repeatedly violated my rights under the law and acted
with significant bias against myself:
1. I have
produced and distributed a full length movie called the Dot.Bomb
Conspiracy (attached) in which I openly accuse Michael E. Barton of
being a filthy criminal who kidnapped my children. The DVD exposes the
extreme and outrageous criminal acts committed by Michael E. Barton
against my sons and I. Thousands of copies of the Dot.Bomb Conspiracy
have been distributed throughout Santa Cruz and also filed in Court. It
is impossible to believe that Barton is not aware of the DVD I have made
uncovering and publishing the extreme and outrageous criminal acts he
has committed against my sons and I.
2. Judge
Michael Barton has been disqualified from three directly related cases
stemming from an incident where a Santa Cruz Deputy Sheriff shot at my
children and I: Santa Cruz Superior Court Cases F 06858, FL-16028 and CV
145884.
3. I sent five
thousand Christmas cards to families in Santa Cruz publically accusing
Michael E. Barton of kidnapping my children and giving me sham trials
and hearings and for breaking the law.
4. I have sued
Barton before in Federal Court, successfully as Barton refused to make
any appearance in those cases wherein I was entitled to a summary
judgment against Barton. However, colleagues of Barton have attempted
to unlawfully dismiss said cases and have refused to follow the law. I
will be suing Barton again and am in the process of preparing a lawsuit
against the county, this time using a number of lawyers. Barton is a
key defendant in that pending lawsuit.
5. I publish
the www.libertyforlife.com website where I get around one million hits
per month. Multiple pages on the website directly refer to Michael E.
Barton who I call a filthy criminal and a “lowlife scumbags of the worst
ilk in our County” and refer to Barton’s acts as “heinous and evil”.
Approximately 30 different pages publically accuse Barton of being a
filthy criminal some of these include:
·
http://www.libertyforlife.com/abuse/irwin_joseph.htm:
“The Santa Cruz
Court’s criminal behavior shocks the conscience. They issue clearly
illegal emergency orders handing Clive’s children to Tichatschke who is
a self confessed drug addict, sex addict and was apparently linked to
child pornography, while Judges Stevens, Barton, Attack, and
Commissioner Joseph and the Sheriffs kidnap Clive’s children and order
that Clive not communicate in any way at all with his own children.
These criminals acting under the color of law are clearly lowlife
scumbags of the worst ilk in our County.”
“Perhaps we will
simply arrest Barton, Atack, Stevens, Joseph and Bob Lee after we form
Grand Juries to indict them”
“So many people have
been damaged by these criminals who wear black nighties in our court's
that it's time to call all of us together and to indict criminals like
Lee, Atack, Stevens, Barton and Joseph.”
“Michael E. Barton.
Barton is the man who kidnapped Clive’s children after the Sheriffs
attempted to murder Clive in front of his boys in 2003”
·
http://www.libertyforlife.com/abuse/mp_clive_3sc.html:
“However, the most
heinous and evil assault against Mr. Boustred was concocted by Santa
Cruz Superior Court Judge Michael E. Barton. Barton ordered that Mr.
Boustred not communicate with his sons Richard and William for three
years! Of all the terrible crimes committed against Mr. Boustred the
kidnap of his children by the state has been the most cruel and
devastating. The government took the children and handed them to the
very person who lied to setup the police ambush and murder attempt and
to Tichatschke who was barred by court order from contact with the
children.”
·
http://www.libertyforlife.com/abuse/story_of_lfl.htm:
accuses Barton of
being a “Criminal on the Bench” of kidnapping Mr. Boustred’s children –
the page shows the Christmas Card that was sent to 5,000 Santa Cruz
Residents also accusing Barton of being a criminal.
·
http://www.libertyforlife.com/abuse/2003_03_10tro.htm:
“Judge Michael E.
Barton rushed in to commit more outrageous acts against Clive and his
children after the sheriffs shot at Clive with Clive's children in the
direct line of fire. Barton immediately ordered that Clive not
communicate with his children.”
·
http://www.libertyforlife.com/tlc/index.htm:
“Judge Samuel S.
Stevens, Barton and Commissioner Irwin Joseph refused to set aside the
clearly unlawful court orders that amount to nothing less than blatant
and violent kidnap by State of Clive's children. Clive sued those
judges, however, they all claimed that they were above the law and not
accountable.”
·
http://www.libertyforlife.com/abuse/mp_clive_1sc.html:
“Judge Michael E.
Barton ordered that Clive not be allowed to communicate with Richard and
William, who lived with Clive, for three years! Despite all the facts
proving Clive's innocence being brought before Barton, Barton repeatedly
refused to remove the order that Clive not communicate with his
children. Barton even went as far as to deny Richard and Williams
grandfather from talking to his grandchildren! The Sheriffs and Court
handed the children to their mother, who made the false 911 call, and to
her lover, Steffan Tichatschke (Clive's former Personal Assistant). The
fact that a lawful Stipulated Order barred Tichatschke from contact with
Richard or William was of no importance to the Sheriffs, DA or Court.
In a letter to Anamaria, Tichatschke states regarding himself: “Through
frequent beatings I found that the best way to achieve things was by
being deceptive. I was rebellious and learned how to lie…. I fled into
Alcohol and Sex. I was literally addicted to sex and pornography. When I
came to the US marijuana was added to the mix. …… I learned that being
smart and selfish is a way to get through life pretty well and
conveniently”.
·
http://www.libertyforlife.com/tlc/tro-ch120-3.htm:
“This behavior is
particularly interesting as it parallels the criminal behavior of Judge
Michael E. Barton who literally kidnapped Clive's children so as to
silence Clive after the Santa Cruz Sheriffs assassination attempt of
Clive on March 10, 2003 failed.”
6. On March 10,
2003, Judge Barton ignored the Temporary Restraining Orders I filed in
court seeking protection from my wife and her adulterer’s continued
setup attempts where my wife and her adulterer were calling the sheriff
on me by making false accusations in order to aid her divorce position.
Later that day, as a direct result of my wife’s false allegations, a
deputy sheriff shot at my children and I. The only reason my boys and I
are alive today is because the deputy missed when he shot at us.
7. Judge Barton
denied my right to a Temporary Restraining Order when I in fact I needed
such an order and instead Judge Barton issued a TRO to the very persons
perpetrating false accusations against me that caused the sheriffs to
terrorize my boys and I and to even shoot at my boys and I.
8. Judge Barton
also ignored the most basic form of appeal, the Habeas Corpus I filed
while I was falsely incarcerated on or about March 11, 2003, where I was
seeking protection from malicious sheriffs and District Attorneys office
who filed false charges against me to cover up the malpractice of
shooting at my children and I.
9. On March 12,
2003, without malicious and criminal intent to cause serious emotional
harm and parental alienation, without any good cause, Judge Barton
ordered that I not communicate with my children for three years! Barton
issued said CLETS order without lawful authority or any lawful reason.
The intent of Barton was to damage me and silence me so that Barton’s
employer and colleagues would not be held liable for criminal acts they
committed against me.
10. On April 23,
2003, when I brought an ex parte hearing before the court to remove
Judge Barton’s order barring me from communicating with my children, the
judge presiding over that case, Judge Stevens, was away on an emergency
so the hearing was brought in front of Judge Barton. Judge Barton
refused to act in the interests of my boys and denied that Richard 7,
and William 3, be allowed to communicate with their father and be
returned to their home despite significant evidence being submitted to
the court proving that I am a loving and protective father and that the
allegations made against me were false.
11. Also without
any legal basis, Judge Barton even refused to let my father, who flew
out here from South Africa, see his grand children.
12. Judge Barton
allowed or arranged for Deputy Brozozowski, who was one of the deputies
who assaulted me in my garage on March 10, 2003 after the Santa Cruz
Sheriffs attempted to murder me by shooting at me, to be in court during
hearings. I was denied any right to file Pitches Motions against
Brozozowski.
13. When I asked
Barton on what basis he made the decision to prevent me from seeing my
boys, Barton responded by stating that he was not qualified to rule on
the matter and that it needed to go before Judge Stevens a Judge who in
1997 attempted to steal my land and trees on my property 17445 Bear
Creek Road, Boulder Creek CA.
14. When I sought
another ex parte hearing on Friday 25th April 2003 before Judge Stevens,
based on Barton’s own recommendations, and Judge Stevens was again
unavailable, I was returned to Judge Barton who again denied my legal
rights and ordered that I pay my wife $500 in sanctions for calling
another ex parte hearing even though Judge Barton himself had advised me
to this degree.
15. Barton has
committed perjury on a number of occasions in my cases. He submitted a
declaration under oath claiming that he has not been dismissed from my
cases when he had been. Barton denied any knowledge of the Temporary
Restraining Order I filed the morning before the Santa Cruz Sheriffs
attempted to murder me in front of my children despite being repeatedly
made aware of the TRO by myself in court and by pleadings filed in his
court. There is no reasonable way Barton could not have been aware of
these issues, his so-called lack of knowledge is either fraudulent or
Judge Barton has such a short term memory that he is certainly not fit
to preside over any case.
16. After I
successfully filed a recusal of Judge Samuel S. Stevens in case Santa
Cruz Superior Court CASE NO. M19946, Judge Barton assigned the case to
himself. Judge Barton denied my right to hearing of my Motions To
Dismiss that Case. When the false charges laid against me in Case M
19946 were dropped at a pretrial hearing, Judge Barton refused me any
costs associated with that case, amongst many other costs, my costs for
example included over $2,000 I had to pay to recover my vehicle after
the Santa Cruz Sheriffs illegally impounded it off my church’s private
parking lot.
17. Judge Michael
Barton has repeatedly violated my rights under the law and acted with
significant bias against myself.
I have substantial
evidence showing that a conspiracy exists between Judges Barton, Steven,
Atack, Simons, former Danner and Commissioner Joseph in addition to
members of the Sheriffs department, District Attorneys office, Planning
Department and Board of Supervisors. This band of criminals has
actively engaged in swindling people out of their money, property and
possessions in Santa Cruz. They are subject to a number of lawsuits in
this regard. When one of them is caught red-handed committing crimes
such as Art Danner, Sheriff Mark Tracy, Irwin Joseph or Samuel Steven,
they quietly resign without any consequence.
With good cause, I
know that Judge Michael Barton is prejudiced against my interests the
DVD’s, papers, public speeches and articles I have written regarding
Barton call this criminal for what he is, I am convinced that I will not
have a fair and impartial hearing and trial before said Judge. It is
utterly impossible to believe that a reasonable person could believe
that Judge Michael Barton would give me a fair trial.
I respectfully
request that an unbiased qualified judge be assigned to this case.
I declare under
penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America and
the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct to the
best of my knowledge and belief, and that I have executed this
Declaration on July 19, 2009 at Santa Cruz California.
Dated: July 19,
2004
_________________________________
Clive Boustred, Sui Juris
VERIFICATION
County of Santa
Cruz ]
] ss.
State of
California ]
I, Clive Boustred,
being the undersigned, declare under penalty of perjury as follows:
That the afore-going
Document(s), Affidavit(s), Declaration(s), and/or Materials, Id.,
including referenced and/or attached documents, and/or duplicates of
such documents are exacting copies of the originals in my/or my
counsel’s (specifically not American Bar Association, or professional
“Attorney’s”) possession. That I have read the foregoing document(s)
and attachments, and know and understand their contents, and having
personal knowledge, know them to be true. As to those matters submitted
therein upon information and/or belief, as to those matters, I also
believe them true.
Executed this 19th day of
July Two-Thousand-Nine.
SEAL:
_____________________________
Clive
Boustred – AT LAW
In Propria
Persona, Sui Juris
SUBSCRIPTION
Subscribed this 19th
day of July Two-Thousand-Nine, under exigent circumstances.
SEAL:
_____________________________
Clive
Boustred – AT LAW
In Propria
Persona, Sui Juris
MEMORANDUM OF
POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
“The Legislature
supports and affirms the constitutional right of every person to
communicate on any subject. This section is intended to preserve the
right of every accused person to a fair trial, the right of the people
to due process of law, and the integrity of judicial proceedings.”
–from CCP 132.5
I.
A PEREMPTORY
CHALLENGE IS PROPER PURSUANT TO CCP §170
170.3. (a) (1)
Whenever a judge determines himself or herself to be disqualified, the
judge shall notify the presiding judge of the court of his or her
recusal and shall not further participate in the proceeding, except as
provided in Section 170.4, unless his or her disqualification is waived
by the parties as provided in subdivision (b).
(2) If the
judge disqualifying himself or herself is the only judge or the
presiding judge of the court, the notification shall be sent to the
person having authority to assign another judge to replace the
disqualified judge.
(b) (1) A judge
who determines himself or herself to be disqualified after disclosing
the basis for his or her disqualification on the record may ask the
parties and their attorneys whether they wish to waive the
disqualification, except where the basis for disqualification is as
provided in paragraph (2).
A waiver of
disqualification shall recite the basis for the disqualification, and is
effective only when signed by all parties and their attorneys and filed
in the record.
(2) There
shall be no waiver of disqualification where the basis therefor is
either of the following:
(A) The judge
has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party.
(B) The judge
served as an attorney in the matter in controversy, or the judge has
been a material witness concerning it.
(3) The judge
shall not seek to induce a waiver and shall avoid any effort to discover
which lawyers or parties favored or opposed a waiver of
disqualification.
(4) In the event
that grounds for disqualification are first learned of or arise after
the judge has made one or more rulings in a proceeding but before the
judge has completed judicial action in a proceeding, the judge shall,
unless the disqualification be waived, disqualify himself or herself,
but in the absence of good cause the rulings he or she has made up to
that time shall not be set aside by the judge who replaces the
disqualified judge.
(c) (1) If a
judge who should disqualify himself or herself refuses or fails to do
so, any party may file with the clerk a written verified statement
objecting to the hearing or trial before the judge and setting forth the
facts constituting the grounds for disqualification of the judge. The
statement shall be presented at the earliest practicable opportunity
after discovery of the facts constituting the ground for
disqualification. Copies of the statement shall be served on each party
or his or her attorney who has appeared and shall be personally served
on the judge alleged to be disqualified, or on his or her clerk,
provided that the judge is present in the courthouse or in chambers.
(2) Without
conceding his or her disqualification, a judge whose impartiality has
been challenged by the filing of a written statement may request any
other judge agreed upon by the parties to sit and act in his or her
place.
(3) Within 10
days after the filing or service, whichever is later, the judge may file
a consent to disqualification in which case the judge shall notify the
presiding judge or the person authorized to appoint a replacement of his
or her recusal as provided in subdivision (a), or the judge may file a
written verified answer admitting or denying any or all of the
allegations contained in the party's statement and setting forth any
additional facts material or relevant to the question of
disqualification. The clerk shall forthwith transmit a copy of the
judge's answer to each party or his or her attorney who has appeared in
the action.
(4) A judge who
fails to file a consent or answer within the time allowed shall be
deemed to have consented to his or her disqualification and the clerk
shall notify the presiding judge or person authorized to appoint a
replacement of the recusal as provided in subdivision (a).
(5) No judge
who refuses to recuse himself or herself shall pass upon his or her own
disqualification or upon the sufficiency in law, fact, or otherwise, of
the statement of disqualification filed by a party. In every such case,
the question of disqualification shall be heard and determined by
another judge agreed upon by all the parties who have appeared or, in
the event they are unable to agree within five days of notification of
the judge's answer, by a judge selected by the chairperson of the
Judicial Council, or if the chairperson is unable to act, the vice
chairperson. The clerk shall notify the executive officer of the
Judicial Council of the need for a selection. The selection shall be
made as expeditiously as possible.
No challenge
pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section 170.3 or Section 170.6 may be
made against the judge selected to decide the question of
disqualification.
(6) The judge
deciding the question of disqualification may decide the question on the
basis of the statement of disqualification and answer and such written
arguments as the judge requests, or the judge may set the matter for
hearing as promptly as practicable. If a hearing is ordered, the judge
shall permit the parties and the judge alleged to be disqualified to
argue the question of disqualification and shall for good cause shown
hear evidence on any disputed issue of fact. If the judge deciding the
question of disqualification determines that the judge is disqualified,
the judge hearing the question shall notify the presiding judge or the
person having authority to appoint a replacement of the disqualified
judge as provided in subdivision (a) of Section 170.3.
(d) The
determination of the question of the disqualification of a judge is not
an appealable order and may be reviewed only by a writ of mandate from
the appropriate court of appeal sought within 10 days of notice to the
parties of the decision and only by the parties to the proceeding.
170.4. (d) Except
as provided in this section, a disqualified judge shall have no power
to act in any proceeding after his or her disqualification or after
the filing of a statement of disqualification until the question of his
or her disqualification has been determined.
CASES BEFORE HONEST
JUDGES:
a)
D.C.Cal.
1980. In order to satisfy fair hearing requirement of due process
clause, a tribunal, whether administrative or judicial, must be
impartial; adjudicator may neither have pecuniary interest in outcome
nor have been target of personal abuse or criticism from party before
him. U.S.C.A.Const Amend. 14. McClure v. Harris, 503 - 8A Cal
D 2d-387
b)
“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.
c)
D.D.Cal
1975. At heart of any due process hearing is requirement of an
impartial decision maker. U.S.C.A.Const.Amend 5. Ponce v
Housing Authority of Tulare County, 389 F.Supp. 635. - 8A Cal D 2d-386
d)
U.S.Cal.
1982. “Due process demands impartiality on the part of those who
function in judicial or 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.
e)
“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.
f)
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. - 8A Cal D 2d-385
g)
Cal.Ap.
1982. Fundamental fairness, i.e. due process, includes right to present
legal and factual issues in deliberate and orderly manner.
U.S.C.A.Const.Amend. 14. White v. Division of Medical Quality, Bd. of
Medical Quality Assur., 180 Cal.Rptr. 516, 128 C.A.3d 699. - 8A Cal D
2d-387
h)
Cal.App.
1962. Due process requires fair trial before impartial tribunal, and
such trial requires that person or body who decides cases must known,
consider, and appraise evidence. Le Strange v. City of Berkley, 26
Cal.Rptr. 550, 210 C.A.2d 313. - 8A Cal D 2d-387
i)
C.A.Cal
1983. Central meaning of procedural due process is that parties whose
rights are to be affected are entitled to be heard at a meaningful
time and in a meaningful manner. U.S.C.A. Const.Amends. 5, 14.
Orloff v. Cleland, 708 F.2d 372. - 8A Cal D 2d-387
j)
D.D.Cal
1984. Opportunity to be heard guaranteed by due process is
opportunity which must be granted at meaningful time and in meaningful
manner. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 14. Aminoil, Inc. v. U.S. E.P.A. 599
F.Supp. 69. - 8A Cal D 2d-387
k)
“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.
l)
“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.
U.S.Cal. 1982. Due
process demands impartiality on the part of those who function in
judicial or 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.
C.A.9 (Cal.) 1986.
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.
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.
C.A.Cal 1967. 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.
8A Cal D
2d-386
D.D.Cal
1975. At
heart of any due process hearing is requirement of an impartial decision
maker. U.S.C.A.Const.Amend 5. Ponce v Housing Authority of Tulare
County, 389 F.Supp. 635.
D.C.Cal. 1971.
Procedural due process must obtain whenever individual is subject to
"grievous loss" at hands of state or its instrumentalities. 42 U.S.C.A.
Sec. 1983; U.S.C.A.Const.Amend. 14. Clutchette v. Procunier, 328
F.Supp. 767, modified, cause remanded 497 F.2d 809, modified 510 F.2d
613, certiorari granted Enomoto v. Clutchette, 95 S.Ct. 2414, 421 U.S.
101, 44 L.Ed.2d 810, vacated, on remand 536 F.2d 305, on remand 471
F.Supp 1113.
Rudimentary
principles of due process require presence of counsel when rights of
individual are seriously threatened by governmental action.
U.S.C.A.Const.Amends. 6, 14. Clutchette v. Procunier, 328 F.Supp. 767,
modified, cause remanded 497 F.2d 809, modified 510 F.2d 613, certiorari
granted Enomoto v. Clutchette, 95 S.Ct. 2414, 421 U.S. 101, 44 L.Ed.2d
810, vacated, on remand 536 F.2d 305, on remand 471 F.Supp 1113.
8A Cal D 2d-387
Cal.Ap. 1982.
Fundamental fairness, i.e. due process, includes right to present legal
and factual issues in deliberate and orderly manner.
U.S.C.A.Const.Amend. 14. White v. Division of Medical Quality, Bd. of
Medical Quality Assur., 180 Cal.Rptr. 516, 128 C.A.3d 699.
8A Cal D 2d-387
Cal.App. 1974.
Procedural due process requires that the property of a deprivation of
substantial right to be resolved in a manner consisted with essential
fairness. Ursino v. Superior Court, In and For City and County of San
Francisco, 114 Cal.Rptr. 404, 39 C.A.3d 611.
Cal.App. 1966. The
essentials of due process are regular and orderly procedure in court of
competent jurisdiction, notice t defendant, opportunity for defendant to
be heard, and fair hearing. State Acting By and Through Dept. of
Water Resources v. Natomas Co., 49 Cal.Rptr 64, 239 C.A.2d 547.
Cal.App. 1962. Due
process requires fair trial before impartial tribunal, and such trial
requires that person or body who decides cases must known, consider, and
appraise evidence. Le Strange v. City of Berkley, 26 Cal.Rptr. 550, 210
C.A.2d 313.
Cal.App. 1859.
There are two essentials to due process in a judicial proceeding: (1)
that the court have jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter
of the action, and (2) that the parties have reasonable notice and an
opportunity for hearing. West's Ann.Const.art. 1, Sec.Sec. 2, 13.
Datta v. Staab, 343 P.2d 977, 173 C.A.2d 613.
Law Rev 1977.
Standards of judicial review. 50 So.Cal.L.R. 689.
251.6 Notice and
hearing.
C.A.9 (Cal) 1985.
If individual bringing procedural due process challenge demonstrates
likelihood of irreparable harm, resulting from lack of predeprivation
hearing, it is unlikely that government will be able to demonstrate any
public interest that will overcome individual's interest, and some
additional form of predeprivation process will probably be require; in
absence of such showing, however, courts must balance governmental
interests in retaining existing process against private interest that
will effect and probability of erroneous deprivation associated with
that process. U.S.C.A. Const.Amends. 5, 14. Jolly v. U.S. 764 F.2d
642.
C.A.Cal 1983.
Central meaning of procedural due process is that parties whose rights
are to be affected are entitled to be heard at a meaningful time and in
a meaningful manner. U.S.C.A. Const.Amends. 5, 14. Orloff v. Cleland,
708 F.2d 372.
C.A.Cal 1985.
Fundamental requirements of due process is the opportunity to be heard
at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner in terms of the
threatened conduct, U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 5. Sieffa Club v. Watt, 608
F.Supp. 305.
D.D.Cal 1984.
Opportunity to be heard guaranteed by due process is opportunity which
must be granted at meaningful time and in meaningful manner. U.S.C.A.
Const.Amend. 14. Aminoil, Inc. v. U.S. E.P.A. 599 F.Supp. 69.
D.C.Cal. 1980. In
order to satisfy fair hearing requirement of due process clause, a
tribunal, whether administrative or judicial, must be impartial;
adjudicator may neither have pecuniary interest in outcome nor have been
target of personal abuse or criticism from party before him.
U.S.C.A.Const Amend. 14. McClure v. Harris, 503
D.C.Cal. 1970. The
due process right to predetermination hearing, with right to confront
and question witnesses, is the constitutional norm and not the exception
when government action seriously injures an individual and the crucial
decision is based upon facts alleged by a third party. Crow v.
California Dept. of Human Resources, 325 F.Supp. 1314, certiorari denied
92 S.Ct. 2495, 408 U.S. 924, 33 L.Ed.2d 335, revised 490 F.2d 580,
vacated 95 S.Ct. 1110, 420 U.S. 917, 43 L.Ed.2d 388.
Cal. 1985.
Fundamental fairness includes both right to adequate notice and right to
defend against charged violations. Harry Carian Sales v. Agricultural
Labor Relations Bd. (United Farm Workers of America, AFL-CIO), 703 P.2d
27, 216 Cal.Rptr. 688, 39 C.3d 209.
Cal. 1982.
Rudiments of fair play include notice, opportunity to respond, and a
hearing. West's Ann.Const.Art. 1, Sec. 7; U.S.C.A.Const.Amend, 14. In
re Marriage of Flaherty, 646 P.2d 179, 183 Cal.Rptr. 508, 31 C.3d 637.
Cal. 1979. Where
prior notice of potentially adverse decision is constitutionally
required, such notice must, at minimum, be reasonably calculated to
afford affected persons realistic opportunity to protect their
interests. U.S.C.A.Const.Amend 14. Horn v. Ventura County, 596 P.2d
1134, 156 Cal.Rptr. 718, 24 C.3d 605.
Cal. 1975.
Fundamental requisite of due process is the meaningful opportunity to be
heard and to explain one's actions. People v. Coleman, 533 P.2d 1024,
120 Cal.Rptr. 384, 13 C.3d 867.
Cal. 1968. Since
right to hearing is one of rudiments of fair play assured by Fourteenth
Amendment, there can be no compromise on footing of convenience or
expediency when that minimal requirement has been neglected or ignored.
U.S.C.A.Const.Amend. 14. Endler v. Schutzbank, 436, P.2d 297, 65
Cal.Rptr. 297, 68 C.2d 162.
Cal.App.2Dist.
1989. Due process requires notice and opportunity for a hearing before
an impartial tribunal. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 14; West's Ann.Cal.
Const.Art. 1, Sec. 7, 15. Bennett v. Bodily, 259 Cal.Rptr. 199, 211
C.A.3d 133, review denied.
DAVID J. BEAUVAIS
(SB#84275)
1904 Franklin
Street, Suit 800
Oakland,
CA 94612
|
SUPERIOR
COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SANTA CRUZ |
|
|
People of
California v. Clive Boustred
|
PROOF OF
SERVICE
|
CASE NO:
F17075 and F17078 |
State of California,
County of Santa Cruz,
1. I am over
the age of eighteen and not a party to the above-entitled action, my
business address is_______________________________________________
2. I served
the “MOTION TO DISMIS JUDGE MICHAEL E. BARTON PURSUANT TO CCP SECTIONS:
170.1 (a) (1); 170.1 (a) (3); 170.1 (a) (3) (B); 170.1 (a) (6) (A);
170.1 (a) (6) (B); 170.1 (a) (6) (C); 170.3 (a) (1); 170.3 (a) (2);
170.3 (b) (2) (A); 170.3 (b) (2) (B); 170.3 (c) (2); 170.3 (c) (5) and
170.4 (d).” by enclosing a true copy in a sealed envelope addressed to
each person whose name and address is shown below and depositing the
envelope in the United States mail with the postage fully prepaid.
(1) Date of Service:
______________
(2) Place of
Service: Santa Cruz, CA
3. I declare
under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that
the foregoing is true and correct.
Date: July 20, 2009
________________________________
4. (a) Name
of person served: Judge Michael E. Barton
(b) Address: 710
Ocean Street, Santa Cruz , CA 95060
|
