Source: http://libertyforlife.com/abuse/proof_of_innocence.htm
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 14:22:11+00:00

Document:
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.
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.
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.
Charge ? PC § 273 [M] Child Endangerment - Based on ?
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.
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 ? & ?.
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.
Charges ?, , ? &  are thus baseless and without any merit, no proof and proof to the contrary.
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 .
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?

References: § 273
 § 2800
 § 2800
 § 2800
 § 2800
 § 273
 § 245
 § 148