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
Sign in to follow this  
Sign in to follow this  
Vladimir.k12

Wilson V The Comissioner of Police

Recommended Posts

6Hg8kMs.png

 

Contact Details - Applicant/Plaintiff
First Name: Rudolph
Last Name: Guillani
Mobile: 795956
Discord: lynxaa#3213

Contact Details - Client 
First Name: Kane
Last Name: Wilson
Mobile: 541485
Discord: biggie#0418

For Original Jurisdiction
Defendant Name: Commissioner of Police
Defendant Organisation (If available): San Andreas Police Force
Respondent Discord (if known): 

 

Statement of Claims:
[1] Mr. Kane Wilson was unlawfully arrested by members of the SAPF namely Sgt Mitch Wick and Sgt Peter Sullivan on the 21st day of July 2021.

[2] He was summarily charged with 1c Murder and 1c Kidnapping.

[3] He served 130 months in jail for these unlawful charges.

[4] Mr. Wilson appealed the summary conviction to the District Court of San Andreas, where his conviction was overturned and he was found not guilty on all counts.

[5] Due to this miscarriage of justice, we are seeking the following remedies:

i) Mr. Wilson be paid a sum of $500,000 for the unlawful charges.


ii) Mr. Wilson receive a letter of apology from SGT Sullivan & SGT Wick, including in this letter will be steps they will take to ensure this sort of unlawful conduct on their behalf does not continue in the future.

Witness:

Kane Wilson

Evidence:
SADC 48 - Ruling from His Honour Judge H.J Holt: 

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)

Edited by Vladimir.k12

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 6Hg8kMs.png

Wilson v The Commissioner of the San Andreas Police Force [2021] SADC 55

[1] The District Court accepts the writ of claim filed against The Commissioner of the San Andreas Police Force.

[2] The Court will allow the defendant five days to file a response and a notice of appearance in this matter, effective from when they receive notice from the plaintiff about the filing of this matter. Failure to do so will result in the matter being heard without the defendant, and may result in a judgement being entered in the favour of the plaintiff by default.

[3] The Court orders the plaintiff to attempt to settle this matter before trial. The plaintiff must evidence their attempts to resolve this matter before a trial is to commence.

CASE TITLE: Wilson v The Commissioner of the San Andreas Police Force [2021] SADC 55

PRESIDING: His Honour Simon E. Richter PSM QC

DIVISION: CIVIL

DATE: 5/09/2021 VENUE: VIRTUAL

SIGNATURE: Simon Edward Richter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NOTICE OF MOTION

DEFAULT JUDGMENT FOR FAILURE TO MAKE APPEARANCE

 

 

COURT DETAILS: 

COURT - DISTRICT COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

DIVISION - Civil

PRESIDING - His Honour, Simon Richter QC PSM

TITLE OF PROCEEDINGS:

PLAINTIFF - Kane Wilson

DEFENDANT - Commissioner of Police

FILING DETAILS

PREPARED FOR: Kane Wilson

LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE: Rudolph Guillani

CONTACT (EMAIL/TELEPHONE): lynxaa#3213 - #795956

GROUNDS

[1] Your Honour, We are seeking that the court makes a default judgment in absence of the respondent as they have failed to appear before the court.

[2] Your Honour, It has been 7 days since the respondent was served with a notice to appear and as yet they have failed to make a submission.

We seek the following orders from the court:


i) Mr. Wilson be paid a sum of $500,000 for the unlawful charges.

ii) Mr. Wilson receive a letter of apology from SGT Sullivan & SGT Wick, including in this letter will be steps they will take to ensure this sort of unlawful conduct on their behalf does not continue in the future.

 

SIGNATURE:

Rudolp Guillani

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

COURT DETAILS: 

COURT - DISTRICT COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

DIVISION - Civil

PRESIDING - His Honour, Simon Richter QC PSM

TITLE OF PROCEEDINGS:

PLAINTIFF - Kane Wilson

DEFENDANT - Commissioner of Police

FILING DETAILS

PREPARED FOR: Kane Wilson

LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE: Rudolph Guillani

CONTACT (EMAIL/TELEPHONE): lynxaa#3213 - #795956

Submissions:

[1] Your Honour, In response to the SAPF's late submission, we seek that the court proceed in making a default judgment. The SAPF and namely now Commissioner Jay Black were well aware of the proceedings against them and yet failed to appear and make a submission for 7 days. I personally reached out to then-Superintendent Jay Black on the 7th day of September 2021, seeking to reach a settlement out of court, I was not even dignified with a response. While we accept there were significant changes within the SAPF, the Commissioner was well aware of the case being brought against them and failed to adequately use his resources and time to find legal counsel.

[2] The SAPF's inability to manage their resources should not be at the detriment of my client, Your Honor. Your acceptance of my client's statement of claim gave a clear deadline of 5 days to appoint counsel and make submissions, out of our own goodwill we provided them with 7 days before submitting a default judgment order and on multiple occasions informed the SAPF in #PD to Court about the pending matter. The SAPF has numerous Command level officers and an abundance of High Command level officers. The SAPF choosing to allow only the Commissioner to appoint legal counsel should be none other than the SAPFs own downfall as it is their inability to act which has halted the wheels of justice.


[3] Your Honour, if the court does not move to default judgement and entertains the idea of allowing the SAPF to make late submissions, this will unfairly penalize my client who is seeking finality in the matter, and will also unfairly prejudice my clients right to a speedy trial. The SAPF has a litany of senior officers at their disposal and for them not to be able to seek out legal counsel in 7 days shows a serious mismanagement issue within their organisation and is no fault of the plaintiff or the court.

[4] Your Honour, The SAPF has an extensive history of failing to meet the court's deadlines and failing to adhere to the court's orders. As such the movement to default judgement by the court will send a strong message to the SAPF that they are to adhere to the court's orders and deadlines or they will face the consequences.


 

SIGNATURE:

Rudolp Guillani

Edited by Vladimir.k12

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

6Hg8kMs.png

Wilson v The Commissioner of the San Andreas Police Force [2021] SADC 55

[1] The Court has considered the submissions of the plaintiff and the defendant and has come to a decision on the application to set aside default judgment.

[2] While the Court is not impressed with the conduct of the defendant, it is not surprised either. The San Andreas Police Force has a history of non-compliance and neglect of court matters, to which it either makes an excuse for its conduct or chooses to ignore the matter. Should this behaviour continue in the future, I cannot imagine the court will have any patience for it again. 

[3] In light of the submissions; however, the court finds that there is a matter to be tried and finality of this matter can only be achieved by setting aside default judgment.

[4] The Court makes the following orders:

  • that the application for default judgment is set aside; and
  • that the defendant reply to the proceedings by entering a defence and their evidence within 5 days from this order; and
  • that the parties attempt to settle this matter before a trial is to commence; and
  • that the defendant pay the plaintiff costs up until this point on an ordinary basis.

CASE TITLE: Wilson v The Commissioner of the San Andreas Police Force [2021] SADC 55

PRESIDING: His Honour Simon E. Richter PSM QC

DIVISION: CIVIL

DATE: 15/09/2021 VENUE: VIRTUAL

SIGNATURE: Simon Edward Richter

Edited by Simon Edward Richter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×

Important Information

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