Source: http://www.libertyforlife.com/abuse/2003_03_10_verified_criminal_complaint.htm
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 11:03:53+00:00

Document:
The Court has consistenly refused to hear or consider this first action before the Sheriffs shot at Clive and his children. From a legal due-process perspective, nothing can be adjudicated untill this complaint and the TRO Clive filed on the morning of March 10, 2003 before the Sheriffs shot at Clive and his children are heard. And clearly Santa Cruz County lost any authority to hear any cases after thier Sheriffs attempted to murder Clive infront of his chldren as this is an automatic disqualifier for bias, it's like allowing a murderer to be the judge in his own trial.
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on _________[date], at the hour of _________or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard in the courtroom of Department _________ of the above-entitled court, the defendant will move for an order DEMANDING THE FORMAL DISQUALIFICATION OF JUDGE SAMUEL STANDCLIFT STEVENS.
The motion will be made on the statutory grounds that to allow the already disqualified judge SAMUEL STANCLIFT STEVENS will prejudice this matter, and is in fact, prejudiced and biased, and it is factually impossible so as to deprive the plaintiff of the right to a fair and impartial trial and/or hearing as guaranteed and secured by the Constitution of California Article I, section 8 “due process of law” as well as by the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution which impinge on the presumption of innocence and redress of grievance for your petitioner and plaintiff to defend his substantive rights at law.
The motion will be based on this notice of motion, on the memorandum of points and authorities served and filed herewith, on the records on file in this action, and on such oral and documentary evidence as may be presented at the hearing on the motion.
Comes now, the damaged and aggrieved party Clive Boustred, who comes before Almighty God and the above mentioned judicial powers tribunal, who hereby invokes true law and thereby deposes and says and proffer’s the following truth and facts in this Verified Criminal Complaint for contempt of an ORDER OF THE COURT of the above mentioned Superior Court in the above-entitled cause of action FL 16028..
COMES NOW THE PETITIONER Clive Boustred TO EXERCISE HIS RIGHT TO THE CONTEMPT OF COURT against contemnors ANAMARIA BOUSTRED and STEFFEN TICHATSCHKE, who have in fact, been in direct insolence and arrogance to the ORDER OF THIS COURT.
1.) I am Clive Boustred, a white Christian male adult of the age of majority, who is not a fiction, nor a corporation. My status is as a free Christian male adult, sui juris, not embarrassed by the Fourteenth Amendment; a human being; a free man about the land with substantive authority; a California state Citizen, a taxpayer who has status before this judicial powers court, and was in the County Santa Cruz, in the State of California for all acts and/or omissions committed by said contemnors and thereby, comes before this courts lawful jurisdiction.
2.) I give up no rights, and reserve all of them. I am a free white Christian man living on the Land within Alameda County, in California, one of the United States of America; with express and explicit reservation of all Vested Natural, Inherent, Common Law, and Inalienable Rights, whether enumerated or not in the Constitution of the State of California of 1849; without admitting to any jurisdiction of the Constitution of the State of California of 1879; the Political Code, the Civil Code, the Code of Civil Procedure, the Penal Code of the State of California, each one though enacted in 1872 were never made a part of the Public Statutes of California, nor any amendments or additions of any type to any of the foregoing; without representation of any attorney-at- law, but with assistance of "counsel" by Right within the meaning of the Constitution of the State of California of 1849, Article I, Section 21.
3.) I am fact, the lawful father to my sons Richard Clive Boustred and William Frank Boustred.
4.) I am in propria personal, sui juris, reprinting myself as my own counsel. I give up no rights (especially the right to counsel) in doing so, and reserve same.
6.) Richard Clive Boustred, age 7, 03/07/96 is in fact, my son; and is an unemancipated minor coming under my lawful protection and care as I as his father am his natural guardian appointed under law, and said son was in the County of Santa Cruz, in the State of California for all acts and/or omissions in this matter, and thereby comes under this courts lawful jurisdiction.
7.) William Frank Boustred, age 3, 01/21/00 is in fact, my son; and is an unemancipated minor coming under my lawful protection and care as I as his father am his natural guardian appointed under law, and said son was in the County of Santa Cruz, in the State of California for all acts and/or omissions in this matter, and thereby comes under this courts lawful jurisdiction.
9.) Contemnor STEFFEN TICHATSCHKE, is a usurper, a man of disrepute, an adulterer who having unclean hands in this matter for all overt acts and/or omissions in this matter, who was in the County of Santa Cruz, was a resident therein, and thereby comes under this courts jurisdiction.
10.) I do in fact, have clean hands in this matter, while respondent’s in this matter against me, have unclean hands by their acts of fraud and their plan to damage me for the purposes of profit and reward. As I have clean hands in this matter, my claims to my own child of which I am holder in due course, and have lawful title of my children, that I am the preferred party not only by my status, but as a matter of both law and equity: "By the civil law, the child of parents divorced is to be brought up by the innocent party, at the expense of the guilty party." Ridley's View, part 1, ch. 3, sect. 9, cites 8th Collation. Vide, generally, 1 Blackstone's Comm. 440.
11.) Note: all laws contained herein are only brought as they are declaratory of the common law and the public law of this California Union State in consonance with the Constitution of California (1849).
13.) The COUNTY OF SANTA CRUZ is a incorporated area within the STATE OF CALIFORNIA and is the landmass as defined under the Constitution of California 1849.
14.) The STATE OF CALIFORNIA is the incorporated landmass within the union of several States under the United States, and is the landmass whose boarders are defined therein under the Constitution of California 1849.
15.) Jurisdiction comes to the above mentioned judicial powers court as it is a fact, that the State of California is an inseparable part of the United States, and thereby, it is guaranteed a government Republican in Form under the Constitution for the United States (1787-1791), as enumerated under the Constitution of California Preamble and specified under Article VI, et seq. as well as Article III, Section 1.
16.) On or about March 9, 2003, at approximately 10:40AM, I did in fact, meet with contemnor’s ANNAMARIA BOUSTRED as well as her co-conspirator STEFFAN TICHATSKE, and a resultant planned altercation ensued against me instituted against me through willful inadvertency, force, surprise, and stratagem by the willful conspired acts and/or omissions of said respondents in this matter.
19.) It is a fact, that ANAMARIA BOUSTRED, had knowledge of this court order and did agree to same.
20.) It is a fact, that ANAMARIA BOUSTRED had knowledge of the facts in this matter.
Item 9. “Derogatory Remarks: Parents shall not make nor permit others to make derogatory remarks regarding the other parent or the other parents friends and loved ones to the child nor within the hearing range of the child.
Item 10. “Fighting: Parents shall not argue with, threaten, or insult one another nor allow others to argue with, threaten, or insult the other parent in the child’s presence.
Item 18. “Boyfriend: “The children shall have no contact with Steffan Tichatske.
22.) It is a fact, that I did not precipitate nor fulminate this altercation noted in item 16 above.
23.) It is a fact, that contemnor ANAMARIA BOUSTRED in direct conspiracy with, and overt collusion with said contemnor STEFFAN TICHATSKE did wilfully and overtly plan this altercation in collusion with myself as noted in item number 16 above.
24.) It is also a fact, that contemnor ANAMARIA BOUSTRED has in fact, made innumerable false charges and/or allegations against me, in direct violation of law, and in bad faith to both me and the above-mentioned tribunal. She is not satisfied with the court findings and court orders which have issued in this matter, and seeks to overturn them by force, fraud, stratagem and surreptitious design.
25.) It is a fact, that this is a continued modus operandi of said respondent contemnor ANAMARIA BOUSTRED.
26.) It is also a fact, that on or about March 9, 2003, at the Homewood Ski Resort, that said contemnor ANAMARIA BOUSTRED and myself did have a civil meeting between myself and our children at a planned ski-outing at Homewood, in the County of Placer, State of California.
a.) It is a fact, that no derogatory nor vituperative act and/or omission occurred nor was instigated by my person.
b.) It is a fact, that everything went smoothly between myself and respondent ANAMARIA BOUSTRED and was civil and polite during our planned meeting there.
c.) It is a fact, that everything went as planned UNTIL contemnor STEFFAN TICHATSKE did in fact, ski down before my wife and children, within plain view to both me and my children—and did in fact, insolently, with a planned intent to violate both good sense, reasonableness, good morals and justice—did violate said Court Order so established and agreed upon and did place my children in direct jeopardy of bad faith actions and/or acts and/or omissions, with no palpable regards to morals or decency.
29.) It is a fact, that was in direct contempt of said court order so established by this court.
32.) Said contemnor STEFFAN TICHATSKE was in my personal space, and I gave clear indication I was uncomfortable—but at that instant—upon no fault of my own; an altercation did ensue of which I did not retreat, and when it was over—did not pursue him, but rather simply left for the safety of my children.
33.) It is a fact, my children were two yards away—right in front of my youngest boy William.
34.) This did put me in direct ridicule in front of my own sons---and I was in fact, under threat, and felt great fear and apprehension.
35.) It is a fact, that my wife did in fact, go off to call what appeared to be a set up—officials from the resort Homewood who were waiting there.
36.) It is a fact, that we were on the KIDS SLOPE—and the chances of all five (5) officials from Homewood being there—is an impossibility.
37.) Within moments, there was five (5) Homewood officials there, who did attempt to prevent me from leavingagainst the better interests of my children.
39.) Both contemnors had knowledge of the law as well as the facts of this matter, and knew that they were taunting me by fighting words and placing me under threat, ridicule in front of my own sons would force me to illicit a response in defense of my self in front of my own children.
40.) I WANT IT JUDICIALLY NOTED AND PLACED ON THE RECORD, THAT IF CONTEMNOR STEPHEN TICHATSKE DID NOT ARRIVE AS THEY PLANNED, THEN; NONE OF THIS WOULD HAVE FACTUALLY OCCURRED.
41.) I also want it judicially noted and placed on the record, that this alleged and I believe planned act and/or omission by her, is in fact, the fourth (4th) time contemnor ANAMARIA BOUSTRED has attempted to have me arrested, or charged by police and/or other authorities by filing false and/or malicious complaints.
42.) On or about Saturday, February 22, 2002, when exchanging the children at K-Mart in Capitola, my son Richard complained to me earlier that she was going to take him on the ferry with contemnor Tichatschke. When I asked her if she was going to take the boys in front of Tichatschke she first refused to answer anything, then she said she had a right, in direct insolence and disregard to said court order refusing same under Item 18. prohibitions noted above. She then attempted to forcibly remove my son Richard from my car, and he withdrew frightened that she would in fact, remove him from the car—and I went and collected my son William from her car and put him in my car and drove home where I did in fact, write a report. I did call her as I was writing, and found she was at the Capitola Police Department, talking to OFFICER BRIAN DODD, Summit Community Deputy, (831-454-2440). I spoke to Deputy Dodd and discussed the issues, Deputy Dodd handed the phone to my wife, I heard her start shouting at me on the phone, she cut me off while she was still shouting at me. It appeared that she was purposefully giving Deputy Dodd a ‘show’ of the nature I had seen before were she expressed all her emotions while telling lies. I tried to call Deputy Dodd’s back, but I was unable to connect with him. I left a request for him to call me back. I did not receive a call back from Deputy Dodd. I want it judicially noted and on the record, that I have never gone to the any Police and asked them to “arrest” her. It is clear by the fact, that contemnor respondent ANAMARIE BOUSTRED has had an ongoing hidden agenda, to attempt to have me arrested.
43.) I want it judicially noted and on the record, that contemnors have engaged in an overt enterprise in an continuing pattern in placing forwards false allegations against me in a scheme to gain control over my property, as well as my children; and they are engaged in a transfer of wealth scheme in which to provide her with financial remunerations she is not entitled to by the concise rule of law.
44.) It is a fact, that on or about July 9th, 2002, (the next night) that my son Richard, due to the direct acts and/or omission of said contemnor respondent ANAMARIE BOUSTRED in attempting to call 911 to frame me for arrest, my son suffered so much stress during that event, that I had to factually take him to Emergency Room with a severe ear ache and other stress induced complications.
a.) On or about November 2002, I did in fact, allow my wife at her request to have an “extra night” with the children, which I did grant and allow, in exchange for me picking up my sons early on Fridays which was agreeable to all, and great benefit to her.
b.) In addition, to any request she has made to change dates on the weekends—I have cooperated with her completely.
c.) I want it judicially noted and on the record, that the weekend in question, was in fact, of this category where at contemnor ANAMARIA BOUSTRED request, I did allow her to take care of my son’s on Thursday night, so that she could see my son Richard on Friday morning so she could see him on his birthday.
d.) For these good faith, and gracious acts extended by me, I was met with planned treason in an overt conspiracy to set me up for the issue now at hand.
That on or about March 9, 2003, contemnors ANAMARIA BOUSTRED and STEFFAN TICHATSKE did knowingly, and willfully, with overt malice, violate a known valid court order in direct violation of the law.
That on or about March 9, 2003, contemnors ANAMARIA BOUSTRED and STEFFAN TICHATSKE did with full knowledge, conspire and collude to commit the acts and/or omissions at the Homewood Ski Resort which did lead to acts and/or omissions of assault and battery against me, and that they did plan this and that it did culminate in the direct damage to me and my person, by overt design in an ongoing enterprise to disenfranchise me, and as a transfer of wealth scheme in collusion to have me arrested in violation of my substantive rights or due process of law, without any protections thereto.
Said contemnors along with their attorney, did jointly conspire and have done same in the past as proffered in the evidence so submitted upon the record to commit the overt acts and/or omissions in an ongoing enterprise established between them for the purposes for profit and reward, in order to divest me of my substantive rights during a time of divorce and/or separation from my wife contemnor ANAMARIE BOUSTRED.
On or about March 9, 2003, contemnors ANAMARIE BOUSTRED, in joint collusion and conspiracy with contemnor STEFFAN TICHATSKE, did make an unlawful attempt to commit violent injury upon me at Homewood Ski Resort in the County of Placerville, State of California.
On or about March 9, 2003, contemnors ANAMARIE BOUSTRED, in joint collusion and conspiracy with contemnor STEFFAN TICHATSKE, did commit the unlawful action of an offensive touching against my person, at the Homewood Ski Resort, in the County of Placerville, in the State of California.
That for the ongoing time period of July 12, 2002 to the present, said contemnor defendants in direct overt collusion did in fact, obstruct and frustrate any attempts of me obtaining any fairness, justice or protection of my substantive rights and rights to due process of law filed and lawfully served upon all parties in this matter and did in fact wilfully with malice and aforethought; disenfranchise me, and aid defendant in her overt and ongoing acts of Parental Alienation of my own children from me, and place both me and my children in continued jeopardy by using the SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA CRUZ, for a purpose that was never intended at law, without cause a direct violation of Constitution of California, Article I, Section 1 AND an overt violation of the concise rule of law and any decency or caring towards me or my sons, and a direct violation of my rights, and the rights of THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA.
"A democratic society, in which respect for the dignity of all men is central, naturally guards against the misuse of the law enforcement process. Zeal in tracking down crime is not in itself an assurance of soberness of judgment. Disinterestedness in law enforcement does not alone prevent disregard of cherished liberties. Experience has therefore counseled that safeguards must be provided against the dangers of the overzealous as well as the despotic. The awful instruments of the cannot be entrusted to a single functionary. The complicated process of criminal Justice is therefore divided into different parts, responsibility for which is separately vested in the various participants upon whom the relies for its vindication." McNabb v. United States, 318 U.S. 332, 343 (1943).
52.) Title 18 USC ' 1510. Obstruction of criminal investigation.
On or about March 9, 2003, contemnors did in fact, falsely charge me with as to yet to be disclosed acts and/or omissions of which I am not, nor ever had been guilty, and of which they did in fact, had an ongoing enterprise to commit, in direct violation of the concise rule of law.
53.) COUNT 7: PERJURY—California Penal Code § 118, § 126—Imprisonment in the State Prison for Four Years.
That on or about March 9, 2003, said contemnors did conspire to by force and stratagem, effect an altercation between me and contemnor STEFFAN TICHATSKE, after which, they had schemed to have Homewood employees and officials to be present to “manage” and conveniently “witness” said altercation which contemnor defendants did conspire to instigate in direct violation of established court order. That after they did so, that they did knowing that any allegations against me were false, they did file unknown charges against me with full knowledge that said acts and/or omissions were caused by them, and were under and by their design.
54.) That said contemnor defendants knew and had substantial knowledge of the facts of this matter and knew they were committing egregious damages and offenses against me and my children.
55.) It is a fact, that said contemnors on the dates mentioned, for each act and/or omission presented; did have a mens rea, a guilty mind, and as I have clearly shown, did fully intend and plan to commit the above mentioned acts and/or omissions in direct violation of the law.
56.) It is a fact, that said contemnors on the dates mentioned, for each act and/or omission presented; did in fact, commit an actus reus, and did do the acts aforementioned in direct arrogance to the concise rule of law.
57.) It is a fact, that said contemnors on the dates mentioned, for each act and/or omission presented; did in fact commit the corpus delecti, and did harm me, and damage both me and my children, in direct violation of the law for their own reasons for profit and reward as well as other remunerations and/or scams and/or schemes.
58.) I have a substantive right under the Constitution of California, Article I, Section 8, for substantive due process of law.
59.) I have a substantive right to file this VERIFIED CRIMINAL COMPLAINT against contemnors, and the District Attorney as well as the above-mentioned judicial powers court is in fact, obligated to provide me with redress of grievances.
Sanders v. United States 373 U.S. 1; 83 S.Ct.1068 (1963) ensuring the constitutional right to a fair and thorough hearing of petitioner's claims, due to the adversarial nature of the proceeding.
"The fundamental requisite of due process of law is the opportunity to be heard." Grannis v. Ordean, 234 U.S. 385, 394 (1914). The hearing must be "at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner." Armstrong v. Manzo, 380 U.S. 545, 552 (1965).
In almost every setting where important decisions turn on questions of fact, due process requires an opportunity to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses. E. g., ICC v. Louisville & N. R. Co., 227 U.S. 88, 93-94 (1913); Willner v. Committee on Character & Fitness, 373 U.S. 96, 103-104 (1963).
A proceeding for the examination before a magistrate of a person on a charge of *** a felony must be commenced by written complaint under oath subscribed by the complainant and filed with the magistrate. Such complaint may be verified on information and belief. When the complaint is used as a pleading to which the defendant pleads guilty under Section 859(a) of this code, the complaint shall contain the same allegations, including the charge of prior conviction or convictions and, wherever applicable, shall be construed and shall have substantially the same effected as provided in this code for indictments and informations.
1.) For a public offense committed or attempted in his presence.
2.) When the person arrested has committed a felony.
3.) When a felony has been in fact committed and he has reasonable cause for believing the person arrested to have committed it.
63.) Contemnor ANAMARIA BOUSTRED, did in fact, commit fraud upon me in continually violating, ignoring and being insolent to a known court order.
Breach of contract action alleging spouse did not comply with the terms of a family law judgment and alleging spouse committed fraud in family court proceedings belongs in family court that issued original judgment and not in civil court.
Defense [was] deemed a natural, inalienable right at common law. ... If the conduct is justified, it simply cannot be the basis of ... any .. crime.
People v. McManus, 67 N.Y.2d 541, 496 N.E.2d 202, 505 N.Y.S.2d 43 (1986).
Fighting words doctrine. The First Amendment doctrine that holds that certain utterances are not constitutionally protected as free speech if they are inherently likely to provoke a violent response from the audience. N.A.A.C.P. v. Clairborne Hardware Co., Miss., 458 U.S. 886, 102 S.Ct. 3409, 73 L.Ed.2d 1215 (1982). Words which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace, having direct tendency to cause acts of violence by the persons to whom, individually, remark is addressed. The test is what persons of common intelligence would understand to be words likely to cause an average addressee to fight. City of Seattle v. Camby, 104 Wash.2d 49, 701 P.2d 499, 500.
The "freedom of speech" protected by the Constitution is not absolute at all times and under all circumstances and there are well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which does not raise any constitutional problem, including the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or "fighting words" which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568, 62 S.Ct. 766, 86 L.Ed. 1031.
Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, the Supreme Court upheld for the first and only time a conviction for fighting words and made that doctrine a rare exception to the First Amendment's protection of free speech. Walter Chaplinsky, a member of the Jehovah's Witnesses, called a city marshal a "damned Fascist" and "a God damned racketeer." He was convicted of violating a New Hampshire law that declared, "No person shall address any offensive, derisive or annoying word to any other person who is lawfully in any street or other public place." In affirming the state court, the Supreme Court announced that the First Amendment does not protect "insulting or 'fighting' words—those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace."
67.) This VERIFIED CRIMINAL COMPLAINT is true and proper and is a true bill, and is actionable under the concise rule of law.
69.) Contemnor’s, along with their surrogate court systems, are engaged in collusion in a continuing pattern of “making a fraudulent record” in which to overcome contemnor’s unclean hands, and acts of contempt of court.
United States v. Russell (1973) 411 U.S. 423, 431-436, 36 L.Ed. 2d 366, 93 S.Ct. 1637 the Supreme Court noted: "Conduct of Law Enforcement agents is so outrageous that due process principles would absolutely bar the government from invoking the judicial process to obtain a conviction" "California cases have treated this defense as viable." (People v. Thoi (1989 4th Dist) 213 Cal.App. 3d 689, 696, 261 Cal.Rptr. 789.
70.) It is a fact, that contemnor ANAMARIA BOUSTRED, has unclean hands in this matter, and thereby, cannot make a valid claim against me, in violation of an already established court order, and in light of her past actions and overt immoralities.
The doctrine [of unclean hands] promotes justice by making a [petitioner] answer for his own misconduct in the action. It prevents "a wrongdoer from enjoying the fruits of his transgression." [Petitioner] must come into court with clean hands, and keep them clean, or he will be denied relief, regardless of the merits of his claim. Kendall-Jackson Winery, Ltd. v. Superior Court (E. & J. Gallo Winery) (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 970.
72.) It is a fact, that contemnor and her surrogate court systems, along with other state actors and/or agents and/or agencies, have shown a propensity to have a clear conflict of interest and are not disinterested parties in submitting any complaint and/or warrant against me, as the proofs so submitted by exhibit here along with sworn affidavit succinctly prove respondent’s unclean hands and a continued “agenda” to grind an axe against me. Thereby, contemnors, by their clearly proven hidden agenda to keep pushing this private civil matter, into another venue in which to denigrate my position as the main natural guardian of my children as per court order established under FL 16028 STIPULATION RE: TEMPROARY CUSTODY AND VISITATION AND ORDER THEREON, thereby, it is a fact, that I cannot be under “legal commitment” or under any warrant, until this matter is heard in accordance with the substantive proofs and injunctive relief so prayed for.
More to the present point, a prosecutor may have a conflict if institutional arrangements link the prosecutor too closely to a private party, for example a victim, who in turn has a personal interest in the defendant's prosecution and conviction. As Judge Friendly put it in Wright v. United States, (supra) , 732 F.2d at page 1056, a prosecutor "is not disinterested if he has, or is under the influence of others who have, an axe to grind against the defendant." (Italics added.) The tie that binds the prosecutor to an interested person may be compelling though it derives from the prosecutor's institutional objectives or obligations. Thus, in Young v. U.S. ex rel . Vuitton et Fils S. A. (1987) 481 U.S. 787 [95 L. Ed. 2d 740, 107 S. Ct. 2124], the high court, pursuant to its supervisory authority, forbade a private law firm from prosecuting a contempt proceeding on behalf of the Government, because the firm, as a matter of legal ethics, bore the "obligation of undivided loyalty" to its private client, Vuitton, which in turn had a private pecuniary interest in the prosecution. ( Id. at p. 805 [95 L. Ed. 2d at p. 757].) A public prosecutor must not be in a position of "attempting at once to serve two masters," the People at large and a private person or entity with its own particular interests in the prosecution. ( Ganger v. Peyton (4th Cir. 1967) 379 F.2d 709, 714.) *fn8 Private influence, exercised through control over the prosecutor's personal or institutional concerns, is a conflict of interest, under section 1424, if it creates a reasonable possibility the prosecutor may not act in an evenhanded manner.
In Greer we suggested that "if the trial court determines that a district attorney's participation in the filing of a criminal complaint or the preliminary hearing on that complaint created a potential for bias or the appearance of a conflict of interest, it may conclude that the defendant was not 'legally committed' within the meaning of Penal Code section 995, and the information should be set aside." (Greer, (supra) , 19 Cal. 3d at p. 263, fn. 5.) We expressly reserve the question whether availability of a remedy under section 995 was affected by the addition of section 1424 and thus express no opinion here regarding what standard would govern motions brought under section 995.
73.) It is a fact, that my children are suffering, due to her capricious acts, surreptitious designs and stratagems, which calls into question the competency of contemnor ANAMARIA BOUSTRED ability to mother and nurture my children.
"The simple fact of being a mother does not, by itself, indicate a willingness or capacity to render a quality of care different than that which a father can provide," the court said. State ex rel. Watts v. Watts, 350 N.Y.S. 2d 285.
"Since the right to recover possession of real property was a right ascertained and protected at Common Law. The 7th Amendment of the Constitution entitles either party to demand a jury Trial in an action to recover possession of real property in the S.C. for the Dist. of Col. under 16-1501 of D.C. code."
77.) I want it judicially noted and placed on the record, that “IF” the above-mentioned County of Santa Cruz courts would uphold the concise rule of law, and their own court orders, and would not conspire with, and allow such a frivolous avenue to access the courts for any conspired conflagration in their design and or artifice for attentions and claims against me continually instituted by said respondents, with full knowledge that said courts would act in their special interests as their surrogate lawyer and/or court---and if same court would uphold the integrity of their own court orders and hold said vexatious respondents to the concise rule of law and agreements and/or contracts and/or stipulations and/or their own court orders; then these continued, sustained acts of barratry would not continuously occur against me, and no further suits, complaints, nor filings would be instituted by said respondents, whom have a sustained, palpable and continued record in filing such false and/or fraudulent allegations against your petitioner in this matter.
Padreuita v. Lake Worth 367 So.2d 739 (Fla. 1979) conviction obtained by fraud or perjury or other corrupt means is basis for malicious prosecution.
“(ii) Filing a False Crime Report" Filing a crime report as a complaining witness or crime victim is analogous to filing an affidavit or oath in support of an arrest warrant, see Kalina, 522 U.S. at 129-31, 118 S. Ct. 502; Morley, 175 F. 3d at 760.
Mooney v. Holohan 294 U.S. 103; 55 S.Ct. 340 (1935) cannot contrive a conviction by the obfuscation of relevant facts.
Napue v. Illinois 360 U.S. at 269 evidence of a trait, habit or pattern of the witness similar to the facts at bar is relevant and therefore admissible and cannot be withheld by the prosecution or concealed from the jury.
83.) It is a fact, that contemnor Steffan T has been formally barred from my son’s school by the Administrative Pastor Mark Spurlock because of his continued acts and/or omissions and immorality, of which Twin Lakes Church School, located at 2701 Cabrillo College Drive, Aptos, California, County of Santa Cruz refuses to have any part of.
84.) It is also a fact, that my sons, are flourishing in our home located at 210 Suncrest Drive, Soquel, California, County of Santa Cruz. They have a good and wholesome and proper home, guidance and moral upbringing, and are not in any danger nor will suffer any harm in any way from me.
85.) It is a fact, as proffered throughout the evidence so submitted under subscription and verification of the truth, that contemnor ANAMARIA BOUSTRED’s, continued designs artifice and stratagem, are placing my children under palpable fear and danger, and such subterfuge and fulminations are not healthy nor conducive to my children’s safety, security or growth. These continued abuses, are a criminal intrusion into the sanctity of our home, and a direct and exigent danger to same. My son’s stability is the palpable issue here—and under the clean hands doctrine, the weight of crimes and bad faith acts and/or omissions in this matter by respondents is clearly demonstrated by the substantive record so submitted into evidence of which this court is compelled to act on our behalf in defense of our rights.
86.) It is also a fact, and I want this court to judicially note and place on the record the fact, that if this court denies said respondents access to its court to continue said designs and subterfuge and stratagems—then; upon closure of the above courts forum to hear said respondents incessant vexatious claims, no further litigation will issue in this matter upon abrogation of this courts open recourse to respondents, and thereby, upon this fact, litigation will all but be eradicated in this matter, which has to be recognized by this court during a time of this states grave fiscal crisis.
88.) That an immediate INJUNCTION issue against said respondent’s against any and all claim or criminal filing against me until this VERIFIED CRIMINAL COMPLAINT is lawfully heard before a jury of my peers by trial by jury.
91.) That this VERIFIED CRIMINAL COMPLAINT issue, and be palpably acted upon in a timely manner under the concise rule of law.
93.) This court remit or provide to me any further justice and/or relief that it deems just and/or proper in this matter.
1. I am the Petitioner in the above-entitled matter.
2. I am in fact, in propria personal sui juris.
3. I represent that the facts and truths expressed in my Memorandum of Points and Authorities are true and correct and sincerely held as they are in fact the truth of this matter.
4. That I have personal knowledge of the facts in this matter, that I have read the contents of this document in the above entitled cause of action, and know and understand them to be true.
5. On or about 10:40 am I arrived at Homewood Ski Resort, County of Placerville in the State of California. I met my wife who was alone at the time just below the learning/kids ski slope, there were no un-pleasantries at the meeting and I prepared Richard with his snowboard and helped him get going. My wife and I discussed the day that she would look after the boys and that I would go snowboarding, and that at around 2:30 I would come and get Richard to take him up the mountain to ski the beginner slopes. My wife and William then started walking up the beginner ski slope where Richard was snowboarding.
As my wife reached half way up the slope, Tichatschke in what appeared to be a planned meeting skied down and kissed her in front of my boys. He then started taking pictures of my boys. I rode the ski lift up and traversed across to Tichatschke and asked him to please leave. He refused I informed him that there was a clear court order baring him from contact with my boys. He sneered at me and refused to leave, pushing his face towards mine in a clear challenge and without any regard to William who was sitting about two paces away. A scuffle ensued and Anamaria then ran off. The attendant of the kids lift approached us and asked us to stop, I agreed with him and picked up William and removed him from the scene. Richard was already at the bottom of the hill. I put both of them in my car to remove them from the situation. Within moments five Homewood officials were there insisting that I do not leave. In told them that my wife had previously tried to have me arrested and that the stress it caused my son ended him up in the emergency room. I told the Homewood official that I was going to act in the children’s interest and I left. Another Homewood employee closed the parking lot gate on me as I was leaving, I had to get out and open the gate and I left. Once away from the commotion, I stopped and took care of my boys who were naturally shaken from the situation. Both boys expresses extreme distain for Tichatschke. I then took my boys to Burger King in Tahoe for lunch and drove home stopping a number of times along the way to take care of the boys.
On arriving at home I took care of the boys and after tucking them in bet I worked through the night preparing a contempt filing as I must protect these poor little chaps.
6. That I do believe I was set up, and this whole escapade on the date aforementioned in this matter, was done for altruistic purposes to give her the upper hand in a custody and property issue where she is in fact, the guilty party with unclean hands.
7. That I also believe that her attorney, Vicki Parry, has counseled said contemnor respondent(s) to create and fulminate events which will give her client the ability to file continued suits and/or actions against me to harass both me and my sons’ in which to create havoc in our lives.
8. That it is a fact, that contemnor ANAMARIA BOUSTRED did have an adulterous affair with contemnor Steffen Tichatschke on or about January or February 2002 and continuing on that point onwards, to the direct damage of me and my sons, as well as my family.
9. That said ANAMARIA BOUSTRED as well as contemnor STEFFAN TICHATSKE were in fact, under legal obligation to me.
10. That said contemnors were in fact they were under factual contract and obligation to me not to lie and to live in accordance to the concise rule of law, under the moral precepts and obligations as so stated within the Holy Bible with complete integrity.
11. It is a fact, that said contemnors do now cohabit together at 3320 Fairway Drive, Soquel, CA 95073 to the great humiliation and shame of my sons, and our family.
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 tenth day of March, in the Year of Our Lord and Savior Jesus the Christ Two-Thousand-Three.
Subscribed this 10th day of March, under exigent circumstances, before Almighty God, in the Year of Our Lord and Savior, Jesus the Christ, Two-Thousand-Three.
paid certified envelope, sealed by my hand at _______________________.
Further, I declare under penalty of perjury knowing the laws thereof within the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct and that these documents were served by me personally as stated above and/or mailed and sealed as stated above within the California Republic.
 The Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Santa Cruz shall be concurrent with and equivalent to the Santa Cruz County court in Term as created in the Constitution for the state of California 1849 at Article VI, section I with its full Judicial Powers, not the inferior Legislative powers courts of the United States Amendment Fourteen due process.
 “The rights of advocacy and to petition the government for redress of grievances are protected by the First Amendment.” NAACP v. Button, 37 U.S. 415, 429; Edwards v. South Carolina, 372 U.S. 229, 235.
 See published California Civil Code, § 22.2.
 All Public statutes of California must prevail over any code which it contravenes or is inconsistent with. See text of the original Political Code at Sections 4479, and 4494.
 “Feme sole or Feme-sole. A single woman; one who has never been married, who has been judicially separated from her husband, or whose marriage has been dissolved by divorce from, or by the death of, the husband. A married woman who, in matters of property, is independent of her husband, is a feme sole as to such property, and may deal with it as if she were unmarried.” Taylor v. Meads, 34 L.J. Ch. 207 (1865).
 SEE: TITLE 28 , PART V, CHAPTER 115, Sec. 1738B.
 The Statute makes no such distinction (California Penal Code §§ 806, 813). Naturally, if the complaint justifies a warrant and preliminary hearing, and a subsequent binding over for trial, one skilled in the art should draw all indictments and informations. This would be the district attorney. Calif.Gov.Code § 26502.
"It is only when a complaint with supporting affidavit is filed can the municipal court be required to assume jurisdiction."
 The Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Santa Cruz shall be concurrent with and equivalent to the County of Alameda court in Term as created in the Constitution for the state of California 1849 at Article Vi, section I with its full Judicial Powers, not the inferior Legislative powers courts of the United States Amendment Fourteen due process.

References: v. 
 § 118
 § 126
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 22
 v. 
 § 26502