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  

Recommended Posts


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 evidence

Contact Details - Applicant/Plaintiff
First Name: Bosco
Last Name: DiMeo
Mobile: 608557
Discord: Carkeys112#7424 

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

(Copy and paste the client contact details for any additional plaintiffs)

Defendant Name: San Andreas Police Force
Defendant Organisation (If available): SAPF

(Copy and paste the defendant contact details for additional defendants)

Statement of Claims:

[1] On the evening of the 17th of July, Mr Bosco DiMeo was charged with 1 count of Police Pursuit, 1 count of Robbery, 1 count of Firearms - Possession/Using/Carrying Prohibited and 1 count of Criminal accessory by members of the San Andreas Police Force.

[2] We claim that San Andreas Police Force officer Tye Lopez, Badge 280, had searched Mr DiMeo and did not advise him of the search, and removed an x1 AP Pistol from his person from the scene of the crime

[3] This officer then put the gun back on Mr DiMeo before his legal respective appeared. When Dr. Drakken questioning Officer 280 He denied any attempt of searching Mr DiMeo, also stating his Body Cam was turned off, stating he never had anything removed from him. However, with the attached Affidavit, a Paralegal who was there in the cells overheard a convocation take place between Mr DiMeo and Mr Lopez

[4] Mr Lopez, Badge Number 280 also refused Mr DiMeo water saying they are unable to remove weapons or anything off suspects due to this being only the CIB department, that he would be unable to have access to water.


Orders Sought

i) Because Mr DiMeo was not informed of the search we are seeking for all charges to be dropped, and time served as per Civil Rights Act s 10 Right to Liberty and Security of Person;

ii) Mr DiMeo legal fees to be paid by the Defendant;

iii) San Andreas Police Force, Badge 280 to be investigated by his respective Internal Affairs department;



[1] Jai Jackson, BADGE NUMBER: 679
[2] Troy Ramirez, BADGE NUMBER: 222

Affidavit; https://docs.google.com/document/d/1cSwPULwfYEX5pW1LtxRKvD6eKTYhwGSoDUVth-5QZAM/edit?usp=sharing

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.
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. Yes
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). Yes

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)


Dimeo v The Queen [2022] SADC 39

[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.

[5] Whilst presided over by a Supreme Court Justice, this case is being heard at a District Court level. 

CASE TITLE: Dimeo v The Queen [2022] SADC 39




Edited by Nukaa (Harold J. Holt)

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


Important Information

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