Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
News ticker
  • Staff Applications: OPEN
  • Bans issued on or after 01 Oct 19 may only be appealed if made in error
  • Bug reports are to be lodged in game via /bugreport
  • IC - Applications for Honours & Awards are open
New Standalone Support Portal Read more... ×
Sign in to follow this  
The search index is currently processing. Activity stream results may not be complete.

All Activity

This stream auto-updates     

  1. Last week
  2. OFFICIAL: SENSITIVE SAN ANDREAS POLICE FORCE SAPF SENIOR OFFICER APPLICATION Information 1. Please ensure the application is carefully filled in, including topic title. As an SAPF Command Level candidate you are expected to exercise due diligence over all matters within your charge, and even stricter than that of an SAPF High Command. 2. Plagiarism will be punished through demerits 3. You are not to submit an application if you have a pending investigation against you. Applicant Details Name: Rank: Unit: Discord: Applying For: CoP, DCoP, Supt, Insp Application 1. Have you read and understood the responsibilities and expectations of the SAPF Senior Officer role you are applying for? > Yes/No 2. Provide an example where you have led to an improvement within your unit > 3. Provide an example of where you have shown leadership skills on duty > 4. Provide an example of where you have shown leadership on an administrative level > 5. What makes you feel as though you currently meet the expectations of the role you are applying for? > 6. How will you ensure that your entire unit adheres to the Standard Operating Procedures and other policies as set by the Commissioners' Office? > 7. What makes you stand out from other applicants? > 8. What are some current issues within your unit? > 9. How do you propose addressing the above issues when you take on the role? > 10. What are your goals for the unit if you are accepted into the role? >
  3. Earlier
  4. Lifesaver v Secretary of Justice [2022] SASC 5 [1] The Supreme Court accepts the statement of claim for judicial review against a decision of the Secretary of Justice. [2] The Supreme Court directs the applicant to serve notice of the acceptance of these proceedings on the respondent. Effective from the date and time the respondent receives notice of these proceedings being accepted, the respondent will have five days to enter an appearance and file a defense to the statement of claim. Failure to do so within five days may result in the respondent being barred from leading a defense and may result in a judgment being entered in default for the plaintiff. [3] The Supreme Court will contact the parties to give directions as to the management of this matter. CASE TITLE: Lifesaver v Secretary of Justice [2022] SASC 5 PRESIDING: Justice Harold J. Holt AM PSM DIVISION: JUDICIAL REVIEW DATE: 15/11/2022 VENUE: VIRTUAL
  5. Contact Details - Solicitor First Name: Joel Last Name: Green Mobile: 2721946 Discord: Green#6543 Organisation Name: Legal Aid San Andreas Contact Details - Barrister First Name: Rudolph Last Name: Gulliani Mobile: 795956 Discord: lynxaa#3213 Organisation Name: Legal Aid San Andreas Contact Details - Client (If this application is submitted by a registered legal practitioner or on behalf of an organisation) First Name: Chris Last Name: Lifesaver Mobile: 744897 Discord: civilaization#9449 For Judicial Reviews (s17 Civil Rights Act) Defendant Name: Secretary of Justice Defendant Organisation: Department of Justice Respondent Discord: Revert#0001 Defendant 2 Name: Australian Federal Police Defendant 2 Organisation: N/A Respondent 2 Discord: N/A Acknowledgement: Failure to acknowledge the following will result in penalties 1. I acknowledge that under Section 9 of the Judicial Procedures Act 2019 that it is an offence to provide falsified statements or evidence and may result in a harsh penalty if convicted. (Y) 2. I acknowledge that under Division V of the Judicial Procedures Act 2019 that there will be a fee associated with the court proceedings of this case, per person in each party. (Y) 3. I authorise the Government of San Andreas to deduct any fees set out in point 2 above from my bank account automatically. (Attach evidence of consent from additional applicants to this case). (Y)
  6. Guillani, Taft, Goodman & Associates v Genesis Corporation (No. 2) [2022] SADC 35 [1] The Court accepts the applicant's application for enforcement proceedings against Genesis Corporation. The Court recognises that judgment has be enter against Genesis Corporation, at a quantum of $ 4.5 million. This is not a matter which is at issue in these proceedings, and it is not a matter this Court will allow to be an issue in these proceedings. [2] The Court directs the applicant to serve a notice of these proceedings, as well as it's orders on the respondent. [3] Effective from respondent's receipt of these proceedings, the Court orders the respondent comply with the judgment issued against it within 3 days. Failure to comply, without disclosing a reasonable excuse to this Court, may result in the respondent being held in Contempt of Court, as well as the exercise of this Court's powers under s 18 of the Judicial Procedures Act 2019 (SA) to enforce these orders. [4] Whilst presided over by a Supreme Court Justice, this case is being heard at a District Court level. CASE TITLE: Guillani, Taft, Goodman & Associates v Genesis Corporation (No. 2) [2022] SADC 35 PRESIDING: Harold J. Holt AM PSM DIVISION: CIVIL DATE: 14/11/2022 VENUE: VIRTUAL
  7. Contact Details - Applicant/Plaintiff First Name: Rudolph Last Name: Guillani Mobile: n/a Discord: lynxaa3213 Contact Details - Client (If this application is submitted by a registered legal practitioner or on behalf of an organisation) First Name: Rudolph Last Name: Guillani Mobile: n/a Discord: as above. Defendant Name: Genesis Corporation, trading as Rogers Scrap Metal and Recycling. Defendant Contact (If available): Hugh Chenis Respondent Discord (if known): N/A Statement of Claims: [1] The Plaintiff, seeks an enforcement of the Court's orders, in SADC-32 (2022), where this most honourable court ordered that the respondent pay $4.5 million in damages ('The Debt'). To date the Respondent has failed to make any payments of this debt. [2] As such, we seek the court wield its power under s 18 Judicial Procedures Act 2019 (SA), and make either an order for the garnishing of the respondent's accounts or the forfeiture of their property to the plaintiff, in order to satisfy the debt. Witnesses: N/A Evidence: [3] See SADC-32 - Acknowledgement: Failure to acknowledge the following will result in penalties 1. I acknowledge that under section 22 of the Crimes Act 2018 and section 8 of the Judicial Procedures Act 2019 that it is an offence to provide falsified statements or evidence and may result in harsh penalty if convicted. (Y/N) 2. I acknowledge that under section 15 of the Judicial Procedures Act 2019 that there will be a fee associated with the court proceedings of this case, per person in each party. (Y/N) 3. I authorise the Government of San Andreas to deduct any fees set out in point 2 above from my bank account automatically. (Attach evidence of consent from additional applicants to this case). (Y/N)
  8. Department of Justice Business Pre-Approval - Application for a Private Security Company Licence Authorised under section 1 of the Private Security Act 2020 Dear applicant, This is a notification that the Government has received your application. The Pre-Approval will be subject to the content of your Business Application and the outcome of the vetting process by the Department of Commerce to determine your suitability to hold a Private Security Licence, as well as the associated Restricted Firearms Licence. Kind regards, Department of Justice
  9. Department of Justice Business Pre-Approval - Application for a Private Security Company Licence Authorised under section 1 of the Private Security Act 2020 Dear applicant, This is a notification that the Government has received your application. The Pre-Approval will be subject to the content of your Business Application and the outcome of the vetting process by the Department of Commerce to determine your suitability to hold a Private Security Licence, as well as the associated Restricted Firearms Licence. Kind regards, Department of Justice
  10. Department of Justice Business Pre-Approval - Application for a Private Security Company Licence Authorised under section 1 of the Private Security Act 2020 A - Applicant Details Name: JAYCEE DOB: 03/05/1991 Phone #: 7912900 Attach Criminal History Below: fines Class B Narcotics (Coke/Opium/MDMA) - Dealing Firearms - Possession/Using/Carrying Prohibited 10/10/22 $50000 N/A fines Taking/Using Vehicle without Consent Unlicensed/Invalid Licence + Impound/Seize Up to 3 10/25/22 $10000 N/A fines Class B Narcotics (Coke/Opium/MDMA) - Usage 11/04/22 $10000 N/A arrests Police Pursuit + Seize Up to 14 Class B Narcotics (Coke/Opium/MDMA) - Usage 09/27/22 $15000 20 arrests Class B Narcotics (Coke/Opium/MDMA) - Usage Police Pursuit + Seize Up to 14 10/10/22 $15000 20 arrests Robbery (Bank/Serious) 10/14/22 $40000 15 arrests Police Pursuit + Seize Up to 14 Kidnapping / Unlawful Imprisonment Robbery (Bank/Serious) 10/17/22 $40000 40 arrests Taking/Using Vehicle without Consent Police Pursuit + Seize Up to 14 10/25/22 $20000 20 arrests Police Pursuit + Seize Up to 14 Taking/Using Vehicle without Consent 11/01/22 $30000 25 arrests Taking/Using Vehicle without Consent Police Pursuit + Seize Up to 14 11/03/22 $25000 30 B - Company Information Company Name: Link to Business Application: List of intended activities: C - Class R Weapon Licence Is a Class R Weapon Licence required? Yes/No List of Class R weapons relevant to the intended business activities: (Delete the inapplicable) - Light body armour - Tactical helmet - Combat pistol - Carbine rifle - Pump shotgun Mk2 Explain how each of the weapons declared above are relevant to your intended business activities: Due to the increasing threat and presence of gangs in the city the above are needed to create not only a strong presence but also fully commit to the safety of our clients. D - Declaration 1. I understand that by filing this application , it does not automatically guarantee an approval Y 2. I understand that it is an infringement under the Judicial Procedures Act 2019 to falsify my criminal history or any statements made in this application Y 3. I understand that the holder of this licence must be the business owner of the private security business. Therefore the new owner must apply for pre-approval as well should a transfer of ownership takes place. Y 4. I understand that there will be a monthly licence fee of $100,000 payable to the Department of Justice to retain the privileges of this licence. Y 5. In the event that a Class R weapon licence is issued to the company, I understand that there will be a monthly import fee of $100,000 payable to the Quokka Airways Ltd for its freight services to import and restock Class R weapons. Y
  11. Please find attached, the Court's judgment for SADC-44. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rHUTZsfQXtadsYRGXinmelVgJifu9T9XjRdrPHtlvNY/edit?usp=sharing
  12. Please find attached, court order: SADC-44/002 Regarding the Crowns application for leave to amend. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Cr5Z9NZ5bqglHJtUP1fRecmPD6RDZYcYDk_yJHCtaI0/edit?usp=sharing
  13. Please find attached, court order: SADC-44/001 Regarding the Defence's application for leave to amend. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1KSwkNCFi6rMu8k1TdJUAlGGgrCWoh00X559QaOk-ciU/edit?usp=sharing
  14. Proteinshake v The King [2022] SASC 4 [1] The Supreme Court accepts the statement of claim for judicial review/civil remedies against the King. [2] The Supreme Court directs the plaintiff to serve notice of the acceptance of these proceedings on the respondent. Effective from the date and time the respondent receives notice of these proceedings being accepted, the respondent will have five days to enter an appearance and file a defense to the statement of claim. Failure to do so within five days may result in the respondent being barred from leading a defense and may result in a judgment being entered in default for the plaintiff. [3] The Supreme Court will contact the parties to give directions as to the management of this matter. CASE TITLE: Proteinshake v The King [2022] SASC 4 PRESIDING: Justice Harold J. Holt AM PSM DIVISION: CIVIL DATE: 02/11/2022 VENUE: VIRTUAL
  15. Rebello v The King [2022] SADC 44 [1] The District Court accepts the appellant's writ of appeal against conviction. [2] As the appeal to summary conviction has been filed within five days of that conviction being recorded, these proceedings will be heard on a de novo basis, with the respondent bearing the burden of proof. [3] The respondent is directed to file an appearance and a response within five days, effective from receiving notice of these proceedings being accepted by the Court. Failure to provide a response or appearance will result in the proceedings being heard without the respondent and may result in a judgment in the favour of the appellant by default. [4] The Court will contact the parties to give directions about how these proceedings will be conducted. CASE TITLE: Rebello v The King [2022] SADC 44 PRESIDING: Rudolph Guillani KC DIVISION: CRIMINAL APPELLATE DATE: 15/10/2022 VENUE: VIRTUAL
  16. Contact Details - Applicant/Plaintiff First Name: Elijah Last Name: Holmes Mobile: 148037 Discord: UnknownBeast#0001 Contact Details - Client (If this application is submitted by a registered legal practitioner or on behalf of an organisation) First Name: Ahri Last Name: Rebello Mobile: 7922703 Discord: Alex~#0131 Defendant Name: The King Defendant Organisation (If available): The San Andreas Police Force Statement of Facts: [1] On the 14th of October 2022, Station Officer Ms Ahri Rebello was conducting her duties as a member of the San Andreas Emergency Services at Pillbox Hill Medical Centre. She was approached by a member of the Tactical Operations Unit with an assault rifle in hand and a Senior Constable with him. [2] This officer was attending a report from an individual who alleged an individual in the area had wielded an illegal weapon to whom the officer alleged was Ms Rebello. [3] During their discussion Ms Rebello wielded a melee weapon (in order to show the officer), which could only be characterised as an Energy Sword or a replica therein. The Tactical Operations Unit believed that this was the source of the call and stated (something akin to) that this was "totally illegal" and "that would do it". He then shoulders his weapon. [4] He additionally, alleged that it was a Prohibited Melee weapon as it doesn't come under the permitted melee weapons (referencing s37 of the Crimes Act). [5] He states (something akin to) the he would have to "take it off you", while drawing his firearm, to which point an firefighter retorts by stating "I wouldn't, if you take it ... it's a special thing", the TOU member comments further that "I don't care, it's an illegal melee... so I will have to take it away". [6] Ms Rebello then jumps back and walks approximately five metres to which point he states "are you running away", Ms Rebello retorts by stating "Nah bro" - they had not moved more than approximately 5-6 metres from the initial confrontation occurred. [7] The TOU member then draws his taser, and states "M'am don't run... don't run m'am" - to which she did, Ms Rebello had moved back to the original scene (once again a short distance which is not more than 5-6 metres). The TOU member is then tased by the aforementioned firefighter whilst another officer chimes in by stating "... it's an illegal". [8] Ms Rebello corrects the officers by stating "it's not illegal, I got this given to me by AFP", she then steps back and the TOU officer once again attempts to tase her. The TOU member then stated she would be arrested and then cuffed her. Statement of Claims: [9] Ms Rebello was charged with: a) Police Pursuit (s15 Crimes Act 2018 (SA)) b) Possession of a prohibited melee weapon (s43(b) Crimes Act 2018 (SA)) Both charges will be address individually [10] A police pursuit is when: "Any person who fails to pull over during a traffic stop, or leaves a traffic stop if the stop is still lawfully ongoing, causing a police pursuit (foot or otherwise) will render the offender liable to a fine of $25,000 and 30 minutes imprisonment and licence revoked. Vehicles used in the commission of the crime may be seized as per Road Safety Act." s15(b) Crimes Act 2018 (SA). [11] During this interaction at no point did Ms Rebello flee, attempt to flee, or evade detention. She moved in an area no more than 5 metres from the scene and when given directions by the TOU Member she followed them, (for example, when she was told to "...stop running..." she in fact stopped running). At no point was Ms Rebello informed that she was detained or did anything against the direction of the member of TOU. The alleged Police Pursuit could not have been ongoing for more than 50 seconds and in that period she was tased, twice. Videographic footage of this 'pursuit and interaction' clearly shows this. [12] Thus, in no way could Ms Rebello actions be characterised as a police pursuit, nor evading police custody thereby failing s43 of the Crimes Act rendering such charge illegal. [13] Addressing the charge of Possession of a Prohibited Melee weapon, two articles of ‘evidence were seized’ a) A energy sword b) A butterfly knife labelled as ‘Scalpel’ [14] Addressing the energy sword or article that has a similar appearance to such an article, is not a prohibited weapon as per s37(c) of the Crimes Act 2018. [15] The butterfly knife, ordinarily, would be classified as a prohibited weapon, however, as Ms Rebello is a member of the San Andreas Emergency Services, who hold a Restricted Firearms Licence. [16] “A restricted firearms licence (in this section ‘licence’) is issued in the form of a blanket approval to registered organisations as designated by the Secretary of Justice. Any existing individual licences will be honoured. This licence is not transferable.” However, “The Department of Justice may, before the issuing of a licence, impose conditions by specifying them in the approval. Any variation of conditions on the licence may be imposed via written notice to the holder of the licence after the initial issue.” s39 (a & c) Crimes Act 2018 (SA). [17] Your Honour, as Ms Rebello was a member of the San Andreas Emergency Services she was covered under their Restricted Weapons Licence. Given that no written records exist as to conditions imposed of the SAES’s Class R Licence that the Director, Deputy Director nor Ms Rebello is aware of it could be inferred that such record, does not exist. [18] Additionally, both the Director and Deputy Director (authorised delegates of the SoJ), knew and permitted Ms Rebello’s carriage of such items and used it frequently in her duties as a member of the San Andreas Emergency Services. [19] Thus, no reasonable person could conclude that this act was illegal as both no records exist and Ms Rebello was duly authorised by a delegate of the Secretary of Justice. [20] The actions partook by the individuals involved can only be characterised as egregious and unlawful as no reasonable person could characterise Ms Rebello’s actions as a police pursuit and the ‘weapons’ that Ms Rebello were not restricted by the SoJ in way of a written instruction and they were approved by an authorised delegate of the SoJ. Sought Remedies: [1] Both charges to be overturned and stricken from Ms Rebello's criminal record [2] Compensation for Fines Paid and Time Served [3] Appropriate Disciplinary Actions as determined by this court, against the Officers involved for their complete and utter disregard for the Crimes Act [4] The defendant's costs to be paid by the Crown Witnesses: Joe Willis Alex Rebello Evidence: CCTV Footage Showing the Incident (retrieved from the Director of the SAES): s39 Crimes Act 2018 (SA) (15/10/2022) r Acknowledgement: Failure to acknowledge the following will result in penalties 1. I acknowledge that under section 22 of the Crimes Act 2018 and section 8 of the Judicial Procedures Act 2019 that it is an offence to provide falsified statements or evidence and may result in harsh penalty if convicted. (Y) 2. I acknowledge that under section 15 of the Judicial Procedures Act 2019 that there will be a fee associated with the court proceedings of this case, per person in each party. (Y) 3. I authorise the Government of San Andreas to deduct any fees set out in point 2 above from my bank account automatically. (Attach evidence of consent from additional applicants to this case). (Y)
  17. R v Hussle & Anor [2022] SADC 42 [1] The District Court accepts the Crowns indictment against the defendant/s. [2] The defendant/s are directed to file an appearance and a defence within five days, effective from receiving notice of these proceedings being accepted by the Court. Failure to provide a response or appearance will result in the proceedings being heard without the defendant and may result in a judgment in the favour of the Crown by default. [3] The Court will contact the parties to give directions about how these proceedings will be conducted. [4] In the interests of the administration of Justice, both the matters of R v Brown and R v Hussle, will be combined into one matter being R v Hussle & Anor [2022] SADC 42 CASE TITLE: R v Hussle & Anor [2022] SADC 42 PRESIDING: R. Guillani QC DCJ DIVISION: CRIMINAL DATE: 09/10/2022 VENUE: VIRTUAL
  18. TOPIC TITLE - Ensure the topic title is appropriately filed PLAINTIFF/DEFENDANT DETAILS - If either the plaintiff or defendant involves an organisation (i.e if the application is made on behalf of, or against an organisation, put the organisation name in) All images should be uploaded to imgur.com or another image hosting website, then copy and paste the actual image directly under the evidence Contact Details - Counsel Assisting the DPP First Name: Rosco Last Name: Rodger Mobile: 686944 Discord: Pixel#3005 For Original Jurisdiction Defendant Name: Two-Chain Hussle Defendant Organisation (If available): N/A Respondent Discord (if known): HavinASwirl#245 Defendant 2 Name: Tyron Brown Defendant 2 Organisation (If available): N/A Respondent 2 Discord (if known): dOM_#6216 Statement of Claims: [1] On Sat, 2 Oct 2022 at approximately 1440PM AEDT HWY-24 Nathan Musk was kidnapped by a pair of individuals who were demanding their Horatio Derpson be released from police custody. The hostage takers made contact with two police negotiators, Bill Dipperty and Jamal Snow, via radio. [2] Two-Chain Hussle and Tyron Brown spoke to negotiators and eventually executed the officer. The officer was located approximately 30 seconds after he was killed. The officer was killed by several medium GSWs to his head. [3] POLAIR noticed an unregistered Dune Buggy leaving the site of the murder, the vehicle was being stolen by two naked males approximately 100 metres from the site of the deceased officer. This vehicle was stopped and the individuals inside were searched along with the vehicle [4] The search found the following evidence: Two-Chain Hussle: 1x Desert Eagle, Several .50 Cal magazines, One empty.50 Cal magazine Tyron Brown: Nothing of note Stolen vehicle: HWY-24 Nathan Musk’s Badge [5] Two-Chain Hussle tested positive on a GSR test conducted 5 minutes after his detainment [6] A forensic ballistics test also matched Hussle's firearm to the one that was used to kill Musk. [7] Both individuals were extensively questioned separately. Both suspects recounted the series of events approximately 4 times. On each occasion, their stories changed and did not match one another. [8] The Crown seeks to further submit that all other articles of evidence portray further coincidence evidence, which is to say, given the unlikelihood of each of these events occurring independently it further establishes that there is no other reasonable explanation other than the accused are guilty. [9] Thus, there is no doubt as to whether Mr Hussle and Brown committed the offence. Clearly, it is beyond mere coincidence that the individual is anyone other than Mr Lock and the actions clearly constitute murder. [10] Within CGL v DPP [2010] VSCA 26, the Court proposed a four-prong test to determine the admissibility of coincidence evidence: Assess the degree of improbability raised by the facts. As whether the similarities in the events themselves and/or the circumstances behind those events are such that it is improbable that the events occurred coincidentally. If it is improbable that they would have been coincidental, assess whether the evidence is relevant. Ask would the evidence of those events and circumstances tend to prove that the accused: (a) did the charged act, or (b) had a particular state of mind, Was doing that act or having that state of mind is either a fact in issue or is relevant to a fact in the issue? If the evidence is relevant, ask does the evidence have significant probative value, either by itself or having regard to other evidence adduced. If the evidence is improbable, is relevant and has significant probative value, ask does the probative value of the evidence substantially outweigh any prejudicial effect it may have on the accused. [11] Thus, we must analyse the test proposed in CGL v DPP, as to whether or not such evidence is admissible. Each aspect will be tested individually. It is evident that for an individual who is not Two-Chain Hussle and Tyrone Brown it would be highly improbable that they would be able to conduct all described in [1]. Only one individual had access to the weapon in question on the day. Furthermore, the individuals additionally were in a very low-traffic area where it is improbable that an individual is to be, let alone at a time shortly after the murder of the officer. Additionally, the coincident between the individual being GSR positive and having a weapon of similar calibre Furthermore, the charge is more than improbable that these independent events would occur independently through the coincidence evidence as is aforementioned there is no doubt as to whether the depicted act is murder. Given that the admission of the evidence proves Mr Hussle committed the offence, the probative value is evidently high. By admitting such evidence no prejudicial outcome is observed as it is a fair inference drawn as this being a mere coincidence is so utterly untenable. [13] The Crown seeks the prosecution of Mr Hustle and Mr Brown for the offences of murder (s18 of the Crimes Act) and unlawful imprisonment (s20 of the Crimes Act) or for their role in the aforementioned offence (aiding and abetting s23 Crimes Act). Witnesses: Detective Chief Superintendent Isaiah Huxley Detective Banjo Greyback Senior Detective Jamal Snow Sergeant Bill Dipperly Evidence: Stolen Vehicle/Dune Buggy Sighting Description Evidence Article 1 - Location of Stolen Vehicle/Downed Officer https://www.google.com/url?q=https://i.imgur.com/PjWYY6z.png&sa=D&source=docs&ust=1665293147151611&usg=AOvVaw17va96xpFKO-Ah6Nib0Y4M Article 2 - COPS Search Confirming the Buggy was a Local Vehicle https://imgur.com/HH17iDA Article 3 - HWY-24 Nathan Musk’s Injuries https://imgur.com/XBRL4tr Article 4 - HWY-24’s Badge in the Stolen Buggy’s Glovebox https://imgur.com/hX6Kp5M Ballistics/GSR - Physical Evidence Article 5 - Two-Chain Hussle’s Positive GSR Test https://imgur.com/D18GNcz Article 6 - Ballistics Test Results (Two-Chain Hussle’s Weapon and Bullets that killed Musk) https://medal.tv/games/gta-v/clips/D7sLmnR2RxL5a/d1337YPpwis5?invite=cr-MSxxbFMsNjA3MTExMTYs Acknowledgement: Failure to acknowledge the following will result in penalties 1. I acknowledge that under section 22 of the Crimes Act 2018 and section 8 of the Judicial Procedures Act 2019 that it is an offence to provide falsified statements or evidence and may result in harsh penalty if convicted. (Y) 2. I acknowledge that under section 15 of the Judicial Procedures Act 2019 that there will be a fee associated with the court proceedings of this case, per person in each party. (Y) 3. I authorise the Government of San Andreas to deduct any fees set out in point 2 above from my bank account automatically. (Attach evidence of consent from additional applicants to this case). (Y)
  19. Department of Justice Business Pre-Approval - Application for a Private Security Company Licence Authorised under section 1 of the Private Security Act 2020 Name: Jason Middleton DOB: 05-07-1990 Phone #: 8321884 Attach Criminal History Below: x N/A B - Company Information Company Name: Viper Security Link to Business Application: N/a but that is the next step, I have 13 employed in my company as of this date. Applying for which type(s) of Private Security activities: (Delete the inapplicable) a. Personal protection service (Personal Bodyguards) b. Crowd controlling c. Property protection (Armed/Unarmed) d. Cash transit protection e. Protection of EMS f. Security for a wide Varity of public and private events List of intended activities: - Armed or Unarmed Escorts - Protection services - Crowd Controlling for events - Protection For Business's to Import/Export Goods and help control people hanging/lurking around business's causing problems. C - Class R Weapon License Is a Class R Weapon License required? Yes List of Class R weapons relevant to the intended business activities: (Delete the inapplicable) - Body armor - Tactical helmet - Glock - Baton - M4A1 - Pump shotgun Mk2 - Beanbag Shotgun - Pepper Spray Bullet Gun Explain how each of the weapons declared above are relevant to your intended business activities: - Body armor & Tactical Helmet: Both Body Armor and Tac Helmet is crucial and important for us to complete our jobs. I want my employee's as safe as possible and return to their families everyday. - Glock: The Glock will be the standard issue live small arms pistol that will be used by my employee's to protect themselves if found fired upon, and save clients lives. - Baton: The baton will be used as a deterrent and to help control crowds and trouble makers that impose hostile behavior or become un-cooperative. - M4A1 & Pump Shotgun MK2: The M4A1 and Pump Shotgun will be used as defense during money escorts or high profile contracts, though some situations might need it aswell this will be decided by HCMD upon the job. - Beanbag Shotgun: The Beanbag Shotgun will be used during highly crowded events and will only be used to stop someone from causing harm towards guards or people at events. - Pepper spray Bullet Gun: Unsure if these are available but these will be used during highly crowded events and will be used to prevent life threatening injuries to guests of events or guards by hostile person/people. D - Declaration 1. I understand that by filing this application , it does not automatically guarantee an approval 2. I understand that it is an infringement under the Judicial Procedures Act 2019 to falsify my criminal history or any statements made in this application 3. I understand that the holder of this license must be the business owner of the private security business. Therefore the new owner must apply for pre-approval as well should a transfer of ownership takes place. 4. I understand that there will be a monthly license fee of $100,000 payable to the Department of Justice to retain the privileges of this licence. 5. In the event that a Class R weapon license is issued to the company, I understand that there will be a monthly import fee of $100,000 payable to the Quokka Airways Ltd for its freight services to import and restock Class R weapons.
  20. Contact Details - Applicant/Plaintiff First Name: Rudolph Last Name: Guillani Mobile: N/A Discord: lynxaa3213 Contact Details - Client (If this application is submitted by a registered legal practitioner or on behalf of an organisation) First Name: Johnny Last Name: Masvidal Mobile: N/A Discord: N/A Organisation Name (If applicable): Defendant Name: Australian Federal Police Defendant Organisation (If available): AFP Respondent Discord (if known): N/A Statement of Claims: [1] On the 7th day of August 2022, Mr. Masvidal was travelling in a motor car when he was pulled over by two uniformed officers of the Australian Federal Police. The officers then placed Mr. Masvidal in handcuffs, stating he was detained. The officers in question than proceeded to search Mr. Masvidal without explaining to him why in contravention of s 6(d) Law enforcement (Powers & Responsiblties) Act 2 018 (SA). Moreover, after this the officers in question than removed from Mr. Masvidals possession his desert eagle which he has a current firearms licence for declaring the weapon was 'illegal'; constituting the tort of trespass to goods. Furthermore, the officers in question than proceeded to spray Mr Masvidal with OC spray for simply asking for their badge numbers which they subsequently refused to give and sprayed Mr. Masvidal once again (this constitutes the tort of assault limb). [2] It is the applicants submission that the torts of trespass to goods and assault have been committed by the AFP officers in question on Mr. Masvidal: s 7(a)(1)(9) Civil Torts Act 2020 (SA). [3] The officers in question are believed to be AFP-17 and an unknown officer. [4] The applicants seeks the following remedies: i) Payment for $250,000 to Mr. Masvidal in non-economic losses. ii) The return of lawfully owned and possessed firearm. Witnesses: N/A Evidence: https://medal.tv/games/gta-v/clips/vEvgoK6u9f0i2/d13372GyIiKQ?invite=cr-MSxyMGYsNDE3MzQ2OCw Acknowledgement: Failure to acknowledge the following will result in penalties 1. I acknowledge that under section 22 of the Crimes Act 2018 and section 8 of the Judicial Procedures Act 2019 that it is an offence to provide falsified statements or evidence and may result in harsh penalty if convicted. (Y/N) 2. I acknowledge that under section 15 of the Judicial Procedures Act 2019 that there will be a fee associated with the court proceedings of this case, per person in each party. (Y/N) 3. I authorise the Government of San Andreas to deduct any fees set out in point 2 above from my bank account automatically. (Attach evidence of consent from additional applicants to this case). (Y/N)
  21. Contact Details - Applicant/Plaintiff First Name: Michael Last Name: Davora Mobile: 864181 Discord: Skitz_Pharaoh#7563 Contact Details - Client (If this application is submitted by a registered legal practitioner or on behalf of an organisation) First Name: Meabh Last Name: OSullivan Mobile: 8787550 Discord: TinkyWinky#0787 Organisation Name (If applicable): Horacio & Co Legal Services Contact Details - Client (If this application is submitted by a registered legal practitioner or on behalf of an organisation) First Name: Dr Last Name: Drakken Mobile: 106674 Discord: Steev#2839 Organisation Name (If applicable): Horacio & Co Legal Services Defendant Name: San Andreas Police Force Defendant Organisation (If available): SAPF Respondent Discord (if known): N/A Statement of Claims: [1] On the 15th of August, Mr Michael Davora was Fined with x2 Class B Narcotics - Usage, x1 Class A Narcotics - Usage, and was sent to prison for 60 months by Officer Jethro Jerrik [2] Mr Davora was standing around Los Santos Tuners when confronted by Officer Jethro Jerrik and four other officers. Mr Davora was detained without being cautioned to match the description of a suspect who had the same hat and that he was in the area of the call. [3] Mr Davora removed his mask when asked why he wore the face concealment and showed the officers his ID. After being asked why he was there, Dr Davora stated that he was hanging out in the area after he got his car repaired by a worker from Los Santos Tuners. [4] During the conversation between Mr Davora and the Officer, Mr Davora was a complainant during the whole questioning and gave information when asked by Officer Jethro Jerrik. During the questioning, Officer Jethro Jerrik had unprofessional verbal and body language toward Mr Davora. [5] When Mr Davora asked if he was under arrest, Officer Jethro Jerrik stated “yes” in response, not vocalising the reason for his arrest, not meeting reasonable grounds, not meeting his 10 points of prosecution or cautioning Mr Davora. Mr Davora then requested a lawyer, to which Officer Jethro Jerrik responded with ”yeah, easy”, acknowledging Mr Davora’s request for Legal Representation right before dragging Mr Vavora to the car. [6] Officer Jethro Jerrik failed to follow the procedure of the power to detain and arrest, as well as the law. Having shown Prejudice Conduct towards Mr Davora, already convicting him guilty, arresting him with no evidence. Officer Jethro Jerrik also failed to request a lawyer through #1800-Lawyers. [7] Officer Jethro Jerrik breached Civil Rights Act 2018 Div I section 10, sub-section e. By refusing legal representation for Mr Davora. [8] Once they were down in the cells of MRPD, Mr Davora requested a lawyer again, to which they waited 10 minutes for one, when one was never requested. Mr Davora requested Officer Jethro Jerrik’s Badge number. Instead, Mr Davora received a callsign. [9] Officer Jethro Jerrik searched Mr Davora, finding illegal substances in his possession. [10] Officer Jethro Jerrik charged Mr Davora with a $40000 fine and 60 months imprisonment, which was 25 months over the legal amount Officer Badge 286 was able to give. Orders Sought: Mr Davora’s legal fees are paid by the defendant Mr Davora be reimbursed for the fines paid and time served Mr Davora be compensated $400,000 for the breach of his civil rights San Andreas Police Force, Mr Jethro Jerrik Badge 286 to be investigated by his respective Internal Affairs Department for breach of civil rights and Preducjial conduct Witnesses: x Evidence: Reference - #1800 Lawyers Email - No communication or request on Mr Davora’s behalf was made on the 15th of August 2022. Acknowledgement: Failure to acknowledge the following will result in penalties 1. I acknowledge that under section 22 of the Crimes Act 2018 and section 8 of the Judicial Procedures Act 2019 that it is an offence to provide falsified statements or evidence and may result in harsh penalty if convicted. (Y/N) 2. I acknowledge that under section 15 of the Judicial Procedures Act 2019 that there will be a fee associated with the court proceedings of this case, per person in each party. (Y/N) 3. I authorise the Government of San Andreas to deduct any fees set out in point 2 above from my bank account automatically. (Attach evidence of consent from additional applicants to this case). (Y/N)
  22. Freeman v Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police [2022] SADC 40 [1] The District Court orders this matter be dismissed. [2] The District Court does so, on the basis that a deceased person does not have standing to bring legal proceedings in the State of San Andreas under section 2A of the Judicial Procedures Act 2019 (SA). [3] Whilst presided over by a Supreme Court Justice, this case is being heard at a District Court level. CASE TITLE: Freeman v Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police [2022] SADC 40 PRESIDING: Harold J. Holt AM PSM DIVISION: CRIMINAL APPELLATE DATE: 10/08/2022 VENUE: VIRTUAL
  1. Load more activity
×

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Guidelines.