Proof of Innocence
DEFENDANTS PROOF OF INNOCENCE
Santa Cruz Superior Court Case # F06858
"The People of The State of California" vs. Mr. Clive Frank Boustred
EVENT:
On March 10, 2003,
on his return from court where he filed a Temporary Retraining order and
Verified Criminal Complaint against his wife and her lover after they
resumed making false police calls for divorce positioning, Mr. Clive
Boustred and his children were followed down their private road then
shot at in front of their home by Deputy Michael McDonald.
At all times, Mr.
Boustred followed the law and acted in his children’s best interest. Mr.
Boustred was neither armed nor acting aggressively, to the contrary, Mr.
Boustred drove slowly and carefully. Mr. Boustred has no criminal
record and is an outstanding leader in the local and international
community – www.infotelesys.com.
After arriving at
home and seeing a sheriff off the side of the road and a patrol car
parked on his driveway, Mr. Boustred went to first put his children
safely in their family home. On July 9, 2002, when Mr. Boustred’s wife
made a previous false 911 call, Mr. Boustred’s son, Richard, aged six,
was so frightened by the sheriffs, that Mr. Boustred had to take him to
the emergency room to be treated for shock. As a result of this event
in 2002, or by something his mother had said, Richard was also having
nightmares that the police would come and take his father away.
While Mr. Boustred
and his children sat in their vehicle waiting for their garage door to
open, Deputy McDonald ran down into the Boustred’s driveway and shot
from a range of five to seven feet, directly at Mr. Boustred. William,
aged three, was also in the direct line of fire, Richard was only two
feet off the line of fire. Deputy McDonald’s first shot missed. Sgt.
Amy Christy stopped Dep. McDonald from taking a second shot at Mr.
Boustred and his children.
After the shooting,
Sgt. Christy alone spoke to Mr. Boustred for about a quarter of an hour
in Mr. Boustred’s garage. In his garage, Mr. Boustred showed Sgt.
Christy the TRO and Verified Criminal Complaint he had just filed and
explained the situation with his wife whom had resumed trying to employ
the sheriffs to better position herself for divorce by making false
police calls. Deputy Pool then spoke to Mr. Boustred for another
quarter of an hour on the same subject matter. While speaking to Dep.
Pool, Dep. Brozozowski entered Mr. Boustred’s garage and assaulted Mr.
Boustred by grabbing and cutting Mr. Boustred’s wrist with a handcuff
while drilling his knuckles into Mr. Boustred’s neck.
Mr. Boustred was
placed under false arrest and locked in a sheriff’s patrol car. From
the patrol car, Mr. Boustred witnessed Dep. McDonald chasing William
aged 3, around the garden. William wet his pants.
Mr. Boustred has
been denied any fair trial. All significant evidence proving Mr.
Boustred’s innocence was denied or struck from the record, while the
prosecution was allowed to submit hearsay and known lies while the jury
was tampered with to favor a false conviction. The trial was presided
over by a corrupt and biased judge without any subject matter
jurisdiction, a judge whom the California Judicial Nominations Committee
rated as Not Qualified. Despite having formally filed his Appeal, Mr.
Boustred was remanded into custody without any right to bail.
ALLEGED CHARGES:
Misdemeanor = [M]
Felony = [F]
Charge ?
VC § 2800.2(a) [F] Evasion
Charge ¨
PC § 245c [F] Assault With A Deadly Weapon (vehicle) - Found
Not Guilty
Charge ?
PC § 273 [M] Child Endangerment - Based on
?
Charge
¸
PC § 148(a)(1) [M] Resisting Arrest
PROSECUTORS EVIDENCE:
CHARGE
?
& ?:
Dep. Pool stated that he thought Mr. Boustred drove around 40 mph
- no evidence, no proof (Contradicts all evidence).
CHARGE
¨:
Dep. McDonald (gunman) and Sgt. Christy alleged that Mr. Boustred bumped
them with Mr. Boustred's vehicle, which according to the officers, was
moving at "slower than a walk" - Sgt. Christy later stated in the
Preliminary Examination that she might have run into the back of Mr.
Boustred's vehicle. Dep. McDonald made impossible claims: a long
conversation through a closed window with Mr. Boustred and transposing
himself 80 ft through a tree. - no injuries, no evidence, no proof.
CHARGE
¸:
Dep. Pool alleged Mr. Boustred resisted arrest by "freezing" and
"holding onto a wheel well". Dep. Brzozowski who assaulted Mr. Boustred
during the arrest by cutting Mr. Boustred's wrist with a handcuff and by
drilling his knuckles into the nape of Mr. Boustred's neck, never
testified. Discovery on Dep. Brzozowski or questioning of Dep.
Brzozowski was denied. - no evidence, no proof.
Prosecution claimed
the Sheriffs were undertaking a depravation of custody investigation.
DEFENDANTS EVIDENCE AND PROOF OF INNOCENCE:
Nothing rising to
the level of Probable Cause justified that the Sheriffs enter Mr.
Boustred's private property or follow Mr. Boustred: Clearly there was no
depravation of custody as clearly stated in the Custody Order, in the
possession of the Sheriffs, which stated that Mr. Boustred's wife only
had custody of the children between 3:00 pm and 6:00 pm. These
incidents all took place at around 2:30 pm, well before 3:00 pm.
Furthermore, the Sheriffs were aware of other false calls Mr. Boustred's
wife had made and the million-dollar life insurance policy Mr.
Boustred's wife had stolen.
PROOF 1.
RE Charges
?
& ?:
The Sheriffs NETCOM time stamped radio recording of the alleged chase
provides time and locations of Dep. Pool and an alleged ‘chase’ time of
3 or more minuets over a distance of 1.2 to 1.4 miles - proving Mr.
Boustred drove at a speed of around 24 mph and no possibility of Mr.
Boustred driving with a "Willful or wanton disregard for the safety of
persons or property" as required by Charge
?,
VC Sec 2800.2(a). The NETCOM report provides irrefutable
proof that Mr. Boustred is not guilty of Charge
?,
VC Sec 2800.2(a) Evasion and the dependent Charge
?
PC § 273 Child Endangerment.
PROOF 2.
RE Charges
?
& ?:
VC Sec 2800.2(a) requires and underlying charge - a reason to chase Mr.
Boustred in the first place. There is no underlying charge or any
element raising any sufficient Probable Cause to chase Mr. Boustred or
even for any investigation on Mr. Boustred's private property.
PROOF 3.
RE Charges
?
& ?:
Six independent eyewitnesses, two of whom submitted affidavits, stated
that Mr. Boustred was driving slowly. Dep. McDonald and Sgt. Christy
also stated that Mr. Boustred drove slowly. Consequentially, it is
impossible for Mr. Boustred to be guilty of Charge
?
& ?.
PROOF 4.
RE Charges
?
& ?:
Mr. Boustred had no reason to Evade. Mr. Boustred spent all morning in
the Santa Cruz Superior Court before any of the incidents of this Case.
Mr. Boustred was following the law filing a TRO and Verified Criminal
Complaint seeking the protection of the Court from his wife and her
lover (Mr. Boustred's former personal assistant), who had resumed making
false calls to the sheriffs to setup Mr. Boustred for divorce. Mr.
Boustred had absolutely no reason to Evade, the intent necessary for
Charge ?,
VC Sec 2800.2(a) is absent. To the contrary, Mr. Boustred was seeking
the help of the authorities and following the proper lawful procedure.
Mr. Boustred expected the sheriffs to act in a similar fashion to how
they acted on the first false 911 call that Mr. Boustred's wife made on
July 9, 2002; with courtesy, decency and respect.
PROOF 5.
RE Charges
?
& ?:
Mr. Boustred never drove an Evasionary rout. To evade, Mr. Boustred
would have continued along Hidden Valley Dr. to Ponza Ln. and out on
Rodeo Gulch Rd that leads to Santa Cruz or San Jose. Instead Mr.
Boustred was simply driving home to his house at the end of a cul-de-sac
on Suncrest Dr. with no way out except over a cliff!
PROOF 6.
RE Charge
?:
All roads on which the alleged chase took place are private roads, the
Vehicle Code does not apply - it is without jurisdiction.
PROOF 7.
RE Charges
?,
?,¨
& ¸:
The entire incident took place on private property. The Sheriffs failed
to obtain any warrant and had no probable cause to conduct an
investigation on private property. The Sheriffs also had evidence of
other false calls Mr. Boustred's wife had made - the reason she was
ordered out of the family home. Without a lawful warrant, and no
probable cause, the entire case is without any basis at law.
PROOF 8.
RE Charges
?
& ?:
VC Sec 2800.2(a) is dependent on VC § 2800.1, which mandates that the
officers’ vehicle have a reasonably visible lamp. The entire incident
took place on Mr. Boustred's private driveway, roads which are windy
with driveways and corners around which children, animals and vehicles
can emerge. One rarely watches a rear view mirror on your own
driveway. Furthermore, to drive safely on this road, a driver should
not take their eyes off the road and corners ahead. It is unreasonable
to expect Mr. Boustred to have seen any red lamp on a vehicle behind him
on his driveway. Therefore, VC § 2800.1 does not hold & consequentially
Charge ?,
VC § 2800.2(a) does not hold.
It must be noted
that as a consequence of Mr. Boustred's long-standing hearing problem
coupled with Mr. Boustred's loud stereo that was turned up fully, Mr.
Boustred would not have heard any siren. Dep. Pool testified in the
Preliminary Examination that he took around 20 seconds to look up Mr.
Boustred's vehicle's registration before following Mr. Boustred. In
trial, Dep. McDonald testified that he heard the sirens sound being
adjusted, suggesting that by the time Dep. Pool caught up with Mr.
Boustred, he had already turned his siren down, giving further reason
and proof for Mr. Boustred to not have been aware that Dep. Pool was
following him.
PROOF 9.
RE Charge
?,
?
& ¸:
Dep. Pool was also caught out lying on the stand during trial when he
denied having ever had any meetings with Ass. D.A. Stephen Drotter
regarding this case. It must be noted that Dep. Pool was driving on an
unfamiliar windy road chasing after someone with at least a 20 second
lead, someone who drove the road many times a day. Dep. Pool would have
little if any perspective as to what speed he traveled at. Furthermore,
it must be noted that Dep. Pool never stated that Mr. Boustred drove
with any "willful or wanton disregard to the safety of persons or
property" as required by VC § 2800.2(a), all Dep. Pool testified was
that he thought Mr. Boustred drove around 40 mph (Which is actually a
common speed of many of the residents along this private road). The
NETCOM recording provides irrefutable proof that Mr. Boustred drove
around 24 mph - slow for the road.
Charges
?,
¨,
?
& ¸
are thus baseless and without any merit, no proof and proof to the
contrary.
CONCLUSION:
Nine independent
sound legal and logical proofs provide proof well beyond any reasonable
doubt that Mr. Boustred is not guilty of Charge
?,
VC § 2800.2(a) and Charge
?,
PC § 273. Mr. Boustred was found not guilty of the ridiculous charge
¨,
PC § 245c Assault with a deadly weapon. It must me noted that Mr.
Boustred was found not guilty of Charge
¨
despite a biased and corrupt Court and jury.
It is impossible for
Charge ¸,
PC § 148(a)(1), Resisting Arrest, to have any basis, as there was no
reason to arrest Mr. Boustred. Furthermore, "freezing" and "holding
onto a wheel well" is hardly resisting arrest, especially considering
that Dep. Brzozowski was violently assaulting Mr. Boustred at the time!
The sheriffs and
D.A. invented two felonies and two misdemeanors, Charges
?,
¨,
?
and ¸
to falsely accuse Mr. Boustred so that they could somehow justify and
cover-up shooting at Mr. Boustred and his children. Prosecution
provided no proof whatsoever regarding any of the false Charges
?,
¨,
?
or ¸.
More than Excessive
Force, in fact Deadly Force, was used against Mr. Boustred and his
children, without any probable cause or any remotely justifiable excuse.
On the six-month
anniversary of the deputy shooting at Mr. Boustred and his children,
Ass. D.A. Stephen Drotter filed four additional false charges against
Mr. Boustred for which Mr. Boustred was also arrested and imprisoned.
Those 4 false charges were dropped just before trial. In that incident,
the sheriffs unlawfully impounded Mr. Boustred's vehicle off Mr.
Boustred's Church's property, and the gunman, Dep. McDonald, attempted
to have Mr. Boustred’s bail revoked or increased to a quarter of a
million dollars.
Mr. Boustred has
been driven into bankruptcy and his companies have been destroyed along
with the next generation Internet and exceptionally promising advanced
education system he was building. Literally millions of children have
been deprived of what could have lifted their lives out of poverty. -
see http://www.infotelesys.com
Earthwire, a company
that produced the "Heroes" and "Waves of Rain" songs specifically
created to recognize fire fighters and police, has also failed as a
result of the assault on Mr. Boustred. Mr. Boustred was the Chairman of
Earthwire, and responsible for marketing these songs. This reflects the
type of person Mr. Boustred is, someone who was going out of his way to
support the police. It is disturbing to think that the very people Mr.
Boustred would have risked his life for, nearly took Mr. Boustred’s
life, then set him up and destroyed his life to cover up their
malpractice.
Mr. Boustred was
ordered to not communicate with his children for three years. One month
after Mr. Boustred’s children were taken from him, Richard was put
through a leading interrogation by the Santa Cruz Ass. D.A., at one
point in the interrogation, Richard says that he forgot what to say.
The boys who lived with Mr. Boustred, were taken from him and given to
Mr. Boustred’s wife and her lover, the very people who caused the
problem in the first place and to a man who admits to having serious
problems with drugs, sex and pornography, and to a woman who has
repeatedly threatened suicide, even in front of the children, and who on
occasions shakes and regularly looses her temper with the boys. A woman
who's adultery, lies and consistent false police calls initiated this
problem.
At such a young age,
Richard and William have been most maliciously assaulted, violently
taken from their home and their father and handed to a man they despise.
While Mr. Boustred
has been punished viciously for crimes he never committed, his wife and
her lover have been rewarded for the terrible crimes they committed and
the police act without consequence.
Despite irrefutably
proving his innocence, Mr. Boustred and his children continue to be
assaulted by Santa Cruz Authorities. Is this the type of behavior Santa
Cruz Sheriffs, District Attorney, Superior Court and California want to
be noted for?
|
