Liberty For Life Association

     C Jefferson

Liberty For Life

CONTENTS

Support our advertisers

Hire STRATEGIZE.com

The World's Leading Strategic Consultancy

STRATEGIZE CONSULTANCY


The Earth Pan

LFL Founder Out Of Hiding With Extraordinary Solution to fix
Government:
Peopleisim.org

Peopleisim


The Construct of Live & Origin of Everything - Soulisim

Soulisim



MenuVert CLICK HERE TO SUPPORT
LibertyForLife on Patreon

NOW AVAILABLE
LibertyForLife Store


Make your New Years
Resolution a Revolution
Your Support
Is Greatly Appreciated

ADVERTISE HERE:

 

 

Government Kidnaps Children & Steals LFL Founders  Estate Home While Demanding $200,000

Following Irwin Joseph and the Santa Cruz Sheriffs, DA & Judges unlawfully evicting LFL Founder, Clive Boustred from his home and demanding Clive pay the Santa Cruz Sheriff $200,000, Clive was driven into bankruptcy. Following the normal bankruptcy proceedings, Clive first filed in San Jose's Bankruptcy Court and filed a motion to demand his home and children be returned to him.  After dismissing his motion the judge quickly dismissed himself for reasons of bias.  The question must be asked how this judge could rule on a case then dismiss himself for bias.  Pursuant to the law, the judge violated USC Title 18 section, but then as we have seen repeatedly through these cases, judges are above the law they do what the hell they want. To Judges in these courts they believe that they themselves are the law.  This fact is repeated so often in courts around the nation it is quite astonishing how these judges go home at night.  Clearly the US Police State is effective, just as Hitler's Gestapo was effective.

When you file bankruptcy, pursuant to the 'code' you receive an automatic stay on any foreclosure or sale of your assets.  That after all is the reason you file for bankruptcy in the first place.  However, not in Clive's case.  while Commissioner Irwin H. Joseph got the Santa Cruz Sheriffs to falsely arrest Clive and to hold Clive in jail without bringing Clive before any qualified judge, he quickly moved to get himself and Santa Cruz County dismissed from the case Clive was prosecuting against him and the County.  He then ordered that the Clerk of Santa Cruz Superior Court, Alex Cavo, could sign any documents for Clive.  That's right this failed real estate lawyer who is only a commissioner, a filthy criminal and not even a judge, just a pretend judge to whom parties have to allow him to even address their legal matters, issued an order that another man can sign Clive Boustred's legal documents. Have you ever heard of anything so utterly insane?  People repeatedly come back to Clive and say, no this cannot be happening, it is not possible, but it is happening, right here in the United States of America.  There is no law, there is no justice, just a bunch of filth criminals pretending to be acting according to the law.

First American Title, who was put on notice, by personal service, by email and by telephone, went and closed escrow on Clive's estate shown below.

Clive has filed the motion below in Bankruptcy Court to reverse the illegal sale - under bankruptcy law, the sale of Clive's home is clearly illegal.

Clive Boustred
In Propria Persona, Sui Juris
clive@coppercards.com

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

 

In re Bankruptcy of.

Clive Frank Boustred.

Additional Plaintiffs:

Dorothy Talbot, Richard Alexander Boustred.

          Plaintiffs,

Vs.

 

Irwin H. Joseph, Anamaria Boustred,
First American Title, Sally Lying, Daniel Oster. Wells Fargo Bank,

        Defendants.

     CASE NO.  6:09-bk-17587
    

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR SETTING ASIDE VOID ORDER TO SELL PLAINTIFFS HOMESTEAD AND RESTRAINING ORDERS AGAINST PLAINTIFFS HOMESTEAD AND CHILDREN AND FOR SETTING ASIDE ANY SALE AND TRANSFER OF PLAINTIFFS HOMESTEAD;

ORDER;

 

United States Bankruptcy Court - Central District of California

3420 Twelfth Street, Riverside, CA 92501-3819

DATE: June 1, 2009

COURT ROOM: 302

TIME: 1:30 pm

 

Clive Frank Boustred declares:

1.  I am the Plaintiff / Debtor in this action.

It is necessary that the hearing on the attached motion for APPLICATION FOR EX PARTE ORDER SHORTENING NOTICE TIME ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SETTING ASIDE VOID ORDER TO SELL PLAINTIFFS HOMESTEAD AND RESTRAINING ORDERS AGAINST PLAINTIFFS HOMESTEAD AND CHILDREN AND FOR SETTING ASIDE ANY SALE AND TRANSFER OF PLAINTIFFS  to take place, and the order issue, on 5 May 2009 for the following reasons:

·   I have been advised that my homestead has been unlawfully sold and escrow closed while my homestead is protected under bankruptcy.  Void and outrageous orders have been used to prevent me from communicating with my children or from coming within 100 yards of my homestead and office.  I have been denied justice in the Santa Cruz Court and Appellate system where outrageous crimes under the color of law have been committed by Santa Cruz Authorities against my children and I, including the sheriffs shooting instructor literally shooting at us.

 


 

FACTUAL BACKGOUND:

·   On or about May 28, 2002 Petitioner caught his Personal Assistant, Stefan Tichatschke, in an affair with Petitioner’s wife, Anamaria Boustred.

·   On July 2 and 9, 2002 Petitioner’s wife made false CPS and 911 calls.

·   On July 12, 2002 Petitioner filed for divorce.  The Court ordered Anamaria out of the family home, split time with the children in two and ordered a Level 2 Custody Examination (Exhibit A)

·   On July 31, 2002, Petitioner was ordered to pay off Anamaria for her interest in the family home or to sell the home within 30 days (Exhibit A)

·   Following the Level 2 Custody Investigation and private mediation based on the recommendations of Melissa Berenge, Santa Cruz's Family Law Mediator / Investigator and Court Psychiatrist on August 13, 2002, Petitioner and Anamaria entered into a Stipulated Court Order and Agreement regarding the Custody of the Children and the payout of the home and Petitioner paid off Anamaria for the home by taking on more family debts than the home was worth (Exhibit A).  Anamaria made off with $180,000 cash she had quietly removed from the family accounts while having the affair with Petitioner’s Personal Assistant and the Family Landover and half of the household contents.

·   On reaching settlement, Anamaria’s lawyer Vicky Parry refused to settle and instead forced petitioner back into Court in September as soon as judge Samuel S. Stevens took the Family Court bench.  In 1997 Samuel S. Stevens had attempted unsuccessfully to steal Petitioners land and 130 large redwood trees (Santa Cruz Superior Court Case 133216 filed Aug 27 1997).  The children lived with Petitioner and petitioner paid for all the children’s costs in addition to some of Anamaria’s costs.  Petitioner had no income as he was running a startup.  S.S. Stevens ordered that Petitioner pay Anamaria $800 a month in child support in violation of dissomaster support calculation and regulations.

·   Following the SS Stevens setback, the couple reached a written agreement to settle, however Vicky Parry, Anamaria’s lawyer, refused to sign the settlement.

·   In January, February and March of 2003 Anamaria began violating the Court order by allowing the children to have contact with Stephan Tichatschke. The contact caused extreme stress in the children.  On February 20, 2003 Vick Parry and Anamaria called for an emergency hearing without properly noticing Petitioner to modify the Stipulated Court Psychiatrist recommended Court Order to grant Tichatschke access to the children.  Parry obtained a stamped, not signed void order modifying the order.

·   On Sunday March 9, 2003, Anamaria abandoned the couple’s three year old in the middle of a learner ski run.  When petitioner went to rescue his son, Tichatschke skied down and attempted to start a fight with Petitioner.  Petitioner removed his children and returned to Santa Cruz.

·   On Monday morning March 10, 2003 Petitioner filed a Verified Criminal Complaint against Anamaria and Tichatschke and a TRO to preventing further abuse of his children. Petitioner was told by the Court to pick up the TRO at 2:00 pm.  When Petitioner returned to the Court at 2:00 pm to pick up the TRO the Court advised Petitioner that it was not yet ready and to return at 4:00 pm to pick it up.  Petitioner returned to his home to come back to Court at 4:00pm.  On reaching his home Petitioner found sheriffs in his driveway and went to put his children in his home so that he could come out and show the sheriffs the TRO and Complaint he had just filed.  While Petitioner waited for his garaged door to open, Santa Cruz Sheriff Shooting Instructor Michael Macdonald ran down Petitioner’s driveway and up to Petitioner’s vehicle and without warning shot at Petitioner.  Petitioner’s three and seven year old children were also in the direct line of fire.  The bullet fortunately missed.  MacDonald was about to take a second shot when Sergeant Amy Christy stopped him from taking a second shot.  The Sheriffs ordered Petitioner into his garage and closed the door behind him. Petitioner showed the Sheriffs the TRO & Verified Criminal Complaint.  The Sheriffs then violently assaulted Petitioner, arrested him and falsely charged Petitioner with “Assault With a Deadly Weapon” PC § 245c; “Childe Endangerment” PC § 273; “Resisting Arrest” PC § 148(a)(1) and for “Driving feloniously down his private road at an alleged 40 mph with the intent to evade” VC § 2800.2(a).  The sheriffs filed a false pursuit report claiming they were ‘chasing’ Petitioner for “Feloniously and maliciously withholding custody” PC § 278.5, however, Petitioner was never charged for any PC § 278.5.

·   Santa Cruz Authorities jumped to defend the County for liability of the Sheriff shooting at Petitioner and his Children.  Judge Michel E. Barton issued an order that Petitioner not communicate with his children and set bail at $150,000.  For an interest in Petitioner’s property at 210 Suncrest Dr. Soquel, Dorothy Talbot bailed out Petitioner from jail.

·   Santa Cruz authorities and their co-conspirators have filed another eight cases against Petitioner, repeatedly falsely arresting Petitioner and giving Petitioner outrageously sham trials where Petitioner was never allowed to submit any relevant evidence.  To this day the Santa Cruz Court still refuses to adjudicate or hear the Temporary Restraining Order and Verified Criminal Complaint Petitioner filed the morning before their Sheriffs shot at Petitioner and his children and Petitioner was never allowed to mention the TRO in any trial the County prosecuted against Petitioner.

·   On January 24, 2008 Petitioner filed United States District Case number C08 00546 against Santa Cruz County for multiple Civil Rights Violations and against Wells Fargo for Fraud.  Commissioner Irwin H. Joseph was listed as the primary Defendant in said case (Exhibit B)

·   On May 14, 2008 without subject matter jurisdiction or lawful authority Commissioner Irwin H. Joseph issued a void order to evict Petitioner from Petitioner’s homestead on the very day Irwin H. Joseph was attempting to have himself dismissed from the case Petitioner was prosecuting against him (Exhibit D & E).  Petitioner and Attorney Kate Wells called the Santa Cruz Sheriffs regarding the void order and the Sheriffs agreed the order was void and ignored it.

·   On August 27, 2008 again without subject matter jurisdiction or lawful authority Commissioner Irwin H. Joseph issued another void order to evict Petitioner from Petitioner’s homestead.  Petitioner was not served said order and was not present when the order was issued.  Petitioner and Attorney Kate Wells called the Santa Cruz Sheriffs regarding the void order.  The Sheriffs said they were not sure if the order was void or not and setup a meeting with Petitioner and Kate Wells for September 9, 2008.  On September 3, 2008, Petitioner send the Sheriffs an email proving well beyond any reasonable doubt that the commissioner’s order was not only void but that it was a criminal act on behalf of the commissioner (Exhibit H).

·   On September 6, 2008, before Petitioner had even been served the void eviction order and three days before the scheduled meeting Petitioner had with the Sheriffs, the Sheriffs arrested Petitioner when Petitioner went to pick up his children and charged Petitioner for violating the Commissioner’s order and for making an unknown threat on an unknown official.

·   Following arresting Petitioner, the Santa Cruz Sheriffs arrested Peter Photenhauer who was staying at Petitioner’s home and held him for eight hours while the Sheriffs broke into Petitioner’s home and also petitioners locked vehicle and searched petitioner’s home and vehicle without any search warrant or probable cause.  No charges were ever filed against Mr. Photenhauer who was released after the Sheriffs had burgled Petitioner’s home and handed the home over to Petitioner’s ex-wife Anamaria and Petitioner’s former Personal Assistant Tichatschke.

·   Santa Cruz District Attorney who is also a defendant in the case Petitioner was prosecuting against Santa Cruz filed two more false cases against petitioner alleging that Petitioner’s proof that Irwin H. Joseph’s order was void was some sort of a ‘threat’ and that petitioner was a felon for driving at 27 mph down his private road and the guns petitioner had purchased with permits were therefore further felonies.  Samuel S. Stevens set bail at $200,000.  While Petitioner was held in jail, without any hearing Commissioner Irwin Joseph issued more void orders that Petitioner not communicate with Petitioner’s children.

·   While Santa Cruz authorities held Petitioner in Jail, Commissioner Irwin H. Joseph motioned to have Petitioner’s United States District Case number C08 00546 against the County dismissed.

·   The excessive bail drove Petitioner over the financial edge into bankruptcy.  Petitioner first filed for Bankruptcy on November 17, 2008 in the United States Bankruptcy Court Northern District, Case Number 08-56618.  Petitioner without money to hire a lawyer failed to file the correct information and the case was closed on March 5, 2009 for failure to file information;

·   On Feb 18 2009 Petitioner filed a second Bankruptcy case number 09-51032.  On discussing the case with the Trustee, Petitioner and the Trustee agreed that Petitioner should file the case in the Central District close to where Petitioner is living and working, the case was closed on April 28, 2009;

·   On April 16, 2009, Petitioner filed this Bankruptcy case in the United States Bankruptcy Court Central District Of California, case number 6:09-bk-17587.

·   On April 27, 2009 Petitioner learned that his home had apparently been sold and escrow closed on Sunday April 24, 2009 (Exhibit M).  

·   Despite being placed on notice on multiple dates (including 9/2/2008; 9/19/2008; 9/22/2008; 9/24/2008; 10/3/2008; 10/4/2008; 4/27/2009; 5/2/2009) regarding the facts herein relating to Petitioner’s home and Bankruptcy filing, Real Estate Agent Sally Lyng and Petitioner’s ex Anamaria Tichatschke proceeded to ignore the jurisdiction of the Bankruptcy Court or the fact that Petitioner owned his home and Anamaria had given up her interests in the home in 2002, and sold Petitioner home. 

·   On learning of the alleged sale, Petitioner immediately placed First American Title on notice regarding his ownership of his home and his bankruptcy filing.  First American Title has refused to respond to Petitioner’s Notice.

·   On May 2, 2009 Petitioner learned that Realtor Daniel Oster apparently claimed to have sold Petitioner’s home on January 8, 2009.  Petitioner placed Daniel Oster on notice regarding Petitioner’s Bankruptcy filing and the ownership issues on Petitioner’s home.  Daniel Oster refused to respond to Petitioner’s Notice.

 

BACKGROUND SUMMARY

·   The behavior of the Santa Cruz Authorities shocks the conscience and is a disgrace to everything the Nation and Court’s stand for.  San Jose Mercury News conducted an extensive study of the Appellate system available to Santa Cruz & Santa Clara County litigants.  In the study called “Tainted Trials Stolen Justice”, law professors across the nation evaluated over 700 cases and concluded that the Santa Cruz and Santa Clara Courts and Appellate system is corrupt and ineffective.  Petitioner has had no opportunity for justice in the Santa Cruz and associated Appellate system.

·   To put in perspective the nature of the Santa Cruz Court where Petitioner has been mistreated, following the Santa Cruz Sheriffs shooting without even remote probable cause at Petitioner and his children, the Sheriffs accused Petitioner of driving ‘feloniously’ down his private road at an alleged 40 mph with the intent to evade.  While 40 mph is not a crime, the evidence proved Petitioner drove a slow 27 mph when returning from the Santa Cruz Superior Court where Petitioner was following the law.  Former Santa Cruz District Attorney, Art Danner, who had to quickly resign when he was caught committing a number of crimes was appointed a Judge following his resignation.  Of around 678 Judicial nominations made by Governor Wilson, only two were rated as ‘Not Qualified’ by the Judicial Nominations Committee, Art Danner was one of the two, and was TWICE rated as Not Qualified.  Ignoring the Judicial Nominations Committee’s recommendations and authority, Santa Cruz Superior Court placed Art Danner on the bench where he conducted the most outrageous sham trial of Petitioner striking petitioner testimony from the record and refusing to allow any evidence proving Petitioner’s innocence to be put before the jury.  Danner sent Petitioner to jail for a six month sentence for driving at 27 mph down Petitioner’s private road, without any right to bail despite petitioner filing a formal appeal.  Not that an appeal in a proven corrupt system serves any purpose other than to document the court’s crime – the Opening Brief for said case is available online at http://www.libertyforlife.com/abuse/opening_brief_SC-Danner.htm.  

·   Petitioner obtained a Grand Jury Indictment of Irwin Joseph, however, now whenever Petitioner goes into Santa Cruz Family Law Court, the sheriffs now threaten to arrest Petitioner.

·   All Petitioner’s furniture, valuables, his fathers paintings, his safes and filing cabnets and household contents are in Petitioner’s home which Petitioner has been unlawfully barred from coming within 100 yards of and which has been handed to Petitioner’s ex-wife and former Personal Assistant.

·   Petitioner’s former Personal Assistant, Stefan Tichatschke, is barred from any contact with Petitioner’s children by Stipulated Court Order (Exhibit A), regardless the Santa Cruz authorities handed Petitioner’s children to Stefan Tichatschke and ordered that Petitioner not communicate with Petitioner’s children. 

·   Petitioner had to use collateral in his home to back a bail bondsman to bail him out of the outrageous $200,000 bail of the 8th and 9th malicious cases filed against Petitioner by Santa Cruz County and their conspirators – Petitioner’s home has been sold for one and a half million below what it was valued at and more than a million below comparable sales, eliminating Petitioner’s collateral (Exhibit N).  By not setting aside the void order to sell Petitioner’s home Petitioner will be forced to borrow more money to secure bail, driving Petitioner further into bankruptcy.

·   Commissioner Irwin H. Joseph is to be removed from the Santa Cruz Court in July, Petitioner’s ex-wife is rushing to steal Petitioner’s home while she can depend on criminal acts by said Commissioner. Petitioner suspects Joseph has been paid a bribe by Petitioner’s ex-wife and her lawyer.

·   Petitioner has been shot at, repeatedly been thrown in jail on false charges and given sham trials, repeatedly unlawfully been ordered not to communicate with his children and unlawfully evicted from his homestead and office.  Everything has been unlawfully taken from Petitioner and he has have been driven into bankruptcy by authorities acting under the color of law in Santa Cruz County. It is impossible for Petitioner to obtain justice in the Santa Cruz Courts or appellate system.

 

FACTUAL AND REASONS AT LAW WHY PETITIONERS REQUESTED ORDER SHOULD ISSUE

·   Plaintiff’s homestead is protected under both Bankruptcy law and homestead laws;

·   Defendants attempted to sell and transfer title wile Petitioner’s homestead at 210 Suncrest Dr. Soquel, CA 95073 was protected in Bankruptcy proceedings.

·   Plaintiff paid off his ex-wife for his home pursuant to the Stipulated Court Order of July 12 and August 13 of 2002 (Exhibit A). Plaintiff’s ex-wife has no rights to Petitioner’s homestead.

·   Commissioner Irwin H. Joseph has no lawful authority or any subject matter jurisdiction to issue any order evicting Petitioner from his homestead or to grant anyone a right to sell Petitioner’s homestead, or to bar Petitioner from living in Petitioners home, or to bar Petitioner from communicating with Petitioner’s children or to modify Petitioner’s Stipulated Custody Order.

·         Petitioner never acceded to said commissioner’s jurisdiction over Petitioner’s divorce case and consistently objected to said commissioner’s attempts to assume subject matter jurisdiction;

·         Let it be judicially noticed that Commissioner Irwin H. Joseph is the primary defendant in the United Stated District Court case number C08 00546 Petitioner is prosecuting against Santa Cruz County.

·         Commissioner Irwin H. Joseph’s orders were issued without lawful authority with malicious intent that shocks the conscience.

·   Wells Fargo, a Defendant in U.S. District Court case C08 00546 Petitioner filed against Wells Fargo, failed to make any appearance in said case thereby giving up their position in regard to any rights to Petitioner’s homestead (Notice 13 Exhibit H).  Furthermore, Wells Fargo failed to respond to any formal RESPA requests Petitioner sent by registered mail to Wells Fargo.

·   Having loaned Petitioner the money to purchase Petitioner’s property, Richard Alexander Boustred holds the first deed on Petitioner’s property at 210 Suncrest Dr. Soquel, CA. (Exhibit O)

·   Having loaned Petitioner money to defend himself from malicious prosecution by Santa Cruz, Dorothy Talbot owns rights to Petitioner’s property at 210 Suncrest Dr. Soquel, CA (Exhibit P).

·   Petitioner is working in Riverside County on a project running engines on water.  Petitioner expects to earn sufficient funds to clear his bankruptcy under Chapter 13.  There is no lawful reason to take Petitioners homestead and children from Petitioner.

 

3.  I have notified counsel for all other parties and all unrepresented parties that this application would be presented at this time and place by sending said parties an email on 3-May-09 noticing said parties of this hearing and including this filing and exhibits, and by calling said parties by telephone and noticing them prior to 10 am on 4-May-09.

 

 


 

AUTHORITEIS

It is proper that Federal Court and especially Bankruptcy Court intervene in this matter:

    TITLE 11, CHAPTER 3, SUBCHAPTER IV, Sec. 362 provides an Automatic stay to foreclosure proceedings.  a) Except as provided in subsection (b) of this section, a petition filed under section 301, 302, or 303 of this title, or an application filed under section 5(a)(3) of the Securities Investor Protection Act of 1970, operates as a stay, applicable to all entities

'A void judgment [or Order/Article/Amendment] is, in legal effect, no judgment. By it no rights are divested. From it no rights can be obtained. Being worthless in itself, all proceedings founded upon it are equally worthless. It neither binds nor bars any one.' [Citation.]" ( Bennett v. Wilson (1898) 122 Cal. 509, 513-514 [55 P. 390].) (Ibid)

"If the order is void, it may be attacked at any time in any proceeding," Evans v Corporate Services, 207 Ill.App.3d 297, 565 N.E.2d 724 (2nd Dist. 1990)

"a void judgment, order or decree may be attacked at any time or in any court, either directly or collaterally" Oak Park Nat. Bank v Peoples Gas Light & Coke Col, 46 Ill.App.2d 385, 197 N.E.2d 73, 77 (1st Dist. 1964)

"that judgment is void and may be attacked at any time in the same or any other court, by the parties or by any other person who is affected thereby.". It is also clear and well established law that a void order can be challenged in any court at any time.”  People v Wade, 116 Ill.2d 1, 506 N.E.2d 954 (1987)

“It is only where criminal trials in state courts are conducted in such a manner as amounts to a disregard of the fundamental fairness essential to the very concept of justice that due process is offended and federally court interference is warranted.”  Chavez v. Dickson, 280 F.2d 727, certiorari denied 81 S.Ct. 379, 364 U.S. 934, 5 L.Ed.2d 366, rehearing denied 81 S.Ct.1092, 366 U.S. 922, 6 L.Ed.2d 244.

"A void judgment may be attacked at any time, either directly or collaterally." In re Marriage of Macino, 236 Ill.App.3d 886 (2nd Dist. 1992)

"if the order is void, it may be attacked at any time in any proceeding," Evans v Corporate Services, 207 Ill.App.3d 297, 565 N.E.2d 724 (2nd Dist. 1990)

"a void judgment, order or decree may be attacked at any time or in any court, either directly or collaterally" - The law is well-settled that a void order or judgment is void even before reversal.  Vallely v Northern Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 254 U.S. 348, 41 S.Ct. 116 (1920)

"Courts are constituted by authority and they cannot go beyond that power delegated to them.  If they act beyond that authority, and certainly in contravention of it, their judgments and orders are regarded as nullities. They are not voidable, but simply void, and this even prior to reversal." Old Wayne Mut. I. Assoc. v McDonough, 204 U.S. 8, 27 S.Ct. 236 (1907); Williamson v Berry, 8 How. 495, 540, 12 L.Ed. 1170, 1189 (1850); Rose v Himely, 4 Cranch 241, 269, 2 L.Ed. 608, 617 (1808).

a court "cannot confer jurisdiction where none existed and cannot make a void proceeding valid." People ex rel. Gowdy v Baltimore & Ohio R.R. Co., 385 Ill. 86, 92, 52 N.E.2d 255 (1943). 

“It is clear and well established law that a void order can be challenged in any court.”  Old Wayne Mut. L. Assoc. v McDonough, 204 U.S. 8, 27 S.Ct. 236 (1907)

 

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 May 3, 2009 at Riverside County California.

 

                                    _______________________________________

Clive Frank Boustred,

Petitioner In Propria Persona, Sui Juris`


 

Clive Boustred

In Propria Persona, Sui Juris

19301 Jasmine Court.

Lake Elsinore, CA 92530

clive@coppercards.com (951) 229-9790

 

 

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

 

 

In re.

Clive Frank Boustred,

          Plaintiff,

Vs.

 

Defendants,
Irwin H. Joseph, Anamaria Boustred,
Wells Fargo Bank, First American Title, Sally Lying, Daniel Oster.

 

     CASE NO.  6:09-bk-17587
    

ORDER

 

 

Good cause appearing,

IT IS ORDERED that:

1.  The motion of Clive Frank Boustred for an ORDER SETTING ASIDE VOID ORDER TO SELL PLAINTIFFS HOMESTEAD AND RESTRAINING ORDERS AGAINST PLAINTIFFS HOMESTEAD AND CHILDREN AND FOR SETTING ASIDE ANY SALE AND TRANSFER OF PLAINTIFFS HOMESTEAD is granted.

2. Sanctions of ____________________________ are to be paid on submission of this order by Santa Cruz County to Plaintiff.

3. Sanctions of ____________________________ are to be paid on submission of this order by Sally Lying to Plaintiff.

4. Sanctions of ____________________________ are to be paid on submission of this order by Vicky Parry to Plaintiff.

5. Sanctions of ____________________________ are to be paid on submission of this order by Anamaria Tichatchke to Plaintiff.

6. Sanctions of ____________________________ are to be paid on submission of this order by Wells Fargo to Plaintiff.

7. Sanctions of ____________________________ are to be paid on submission of this order by First American Title to Plaintiff.

 

 

Date: _ _ _ _ _ _    _________________________________  

                                Judge


 

Clive Boustred

In Propria Persona, Sui Juris

19301 Jasmine Court.

Lake Elsinore, CA 92530

clive@coppercards.com (951) 229-9790

 

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

In re.

Clive Frank Boustred, Dorothy Talbot, Richard Alexander Boustred.

          Plaintiffs,

Vs.

Irwin H. Joseph, Anamaria Boustred,

Wells Fargo Bank, First American Title, Sally Lying, Daniel Oster.

Defendants,

No. 6:09-bk-17587

 

PROOF OF SERVICE

State of California, Riverside County,

1.                I served the “APPLICATION FOR EX PARTE ORDER SHORTENING NOTICE TIME ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SETTING ASIDE VOID ORDER TO SELL PLAINTIFFS HOMESTEAD AND RESTRAINING ORDERS AGAINST PLAINTIFFS HOMESTEAD AND CHILDREN AND FOR SETTING ASIDE ANY SALE AND TRANSFER OF PLAINTIFFS HOMESTEAD; NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR SETTING ASIDE VOID ORDER TO SELL PLAINTIFFS HOMESTEAD AND RESTRAINING ORDERS AGAINST PLAINTIFFS HOMESTEAD AND CHILDREN AND FOR SETTING ASIDE ANY SALE AND TRANSFER OF PLAINTIFFS HOMESTEAD; ORDER SHORTENING TIME; ORDER;” by emailing a true digital copy addressed to each person whose name and address is shown below said proof of service and routing:

(1) Date of mailing: May 3, 2009

(2) Place of Mailing: Riverside, CA

(3) Routing Information On Email:

 

2.                I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.

Signature:_______________________________________Date:___________________

 

Persons Served 

1.  Name of person served: Anamaria Tichatschke 831.419.4891 anamaria@soqueltech.com
3320 Fairway Dr. Soquel, CA, 95073-2724

2.  Name of person served: Irwin Joseph 831.786.7200 Irwin.joseph@co.santa-cruz.ca.us
1 Second Street, Watsonville, CA 95076

3.  Name of person served: Sally Lyng 831.419.5236 sally@sallylyng.com
2170 41st Avenue, Capitola, CA 95010

4.  Name of person served: Vicki J. Parry 831.429.9723 equixt@surfnetusa.com
100 Doyle St Ste G, Santa Cruz, CA 95062-2123 

5.  Name of person served: Daniel Oster 831.227.5700 daniel.oster@ziprealty.com
2000 Powell Street Suite 300, Emeryville, CA 94608-1838

6.  Name of person served: General Wells Fargo Counsel James Strother (415) 975-7819 james.strother@wellsfargo.com; otsukady@wellsfargo.com

633 Folsom Street, 7th Floor,  MAC A0149-070 , San Francisco, CA 94107

Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, P.O. Box 10335 , Des Moines, IA 50306-0335

7.  Name of person served: Dorothy Talbot 408.863.3002 dtalbot@interorealestate.com
12900 Saratoga Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070

8.  Name of person served: Richard A. Boustred 408.863.3002 boustred@telkomsa.net
12900 Saratoga Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070
  

9. Name of person served: First American Title 831.464.6444 tguest@firstam.com;  pkennedy@firstam.com; bredl@firstam.com; jlcornell@firstam.com; redl@firstam.com; cJohnson@firstam.com
4450 Capitola Rd # 103, Capitola, CA 95010