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  

yxnLMWZ.png

STATE GOVERNMENT OF SAN ANDREAS

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Governor of San Andreas His Excellency The Honourable Mr Phil Bad CVO
Lieutenant-Governor of San Andreas The Honourable Chief Justice Lawson Blake AO
Official Secretary to the Governor Flight Lieutenant Sir Robert Pump KCVO AO ADC
   
Chief Justice of the Supreme Court
The Honourable Chief Justice Lawson Blake AO
Secretary of Justice Mr. Alec Blair AM APM
Director of Public Prosecutions His Honour Judge Simon Richter PSM QC
   

Functions

Honours and Awards Nomination Form Court Proceedings | Legal Practitioners & Registrations | Private Security Firm Licencing | Air Operator's Certificate Application | Flight Crew Licencing Office |
San Andreas Police Force | San Andreas Emergency Services

  1.  Forums

    1. 3
      items
      • No content here yet
    2. 36
      items
      • No content here yet
    3. 9
      items
      • No content here yet
    4. 6
      items
    5. SAPF Senior Officer Applications

      Application to the Government for appointment within the Command Level ranks

      1
      item
    6. SAES Senior Officer Applications

      Application to the Government for appointment within the Command Level ranks

      1
      item

Activity Feed

  1. Today
  2. Benny’s Original Motor Works v Jay [2021] SADC 41 [1] The District Court accepts the writ of claim filed against Noah Jay. [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: Benny’s Original Motor Works v Jay [2021] SADC 41 PRESIDING: His Honour Simon E. Richter PSM QC DIVISION: CIVIL DATE: 3/08/2021 VENUE: VIRTUAL SIGNATURE: Simon Edward Richter
  3. Yesterday
  4. Contact Details - Applicant/Plaintiff First Name: Saul Last Name: Goodman Mobile: 3188951 Discord: SphinX#6055 Organisation Name: Guillani, Taft, Goodman & Associates Contact Details - Client First Name: Dr. Drakken Last Name: N/A Mobile: 106674 Discord: Steev#2839 Organisation Name (If applicable): Benny's Customs For Original Jurisdiction Defendant Name: Noah Jay Defendant Organisation (If available): N/A Respondent Discord (if known): xx#0000 Statement of Claims: [1] On the 26th of June 2021 at 1am Noah Jay entered the property of Benny's Customs in his Holden HSV GTS plated 'FATVFGTS'. [2] Mr Jay then approached Benny's employee Justine Timberlake and asked for the aforementioned vehicle to be fully customised including max armour. [3] Mr Timberlake then informed Mr Jay that his request would be costly and suggested he should get the cheaper 20% armour option. [4] Mr Jay insisted so Mr Timberlake began applying the modifications. [5] After applying the requested modifications, Mr Timberlake invoiced Mr Jay to which Mr Jay responded 'I don't have enough money'. [6] Mr Timberlake then tried contacting management to settle the issue to no avail. [7] Mr Timberlake then informed Mr Jay that no management was available and requested he come back the following day to settle the outstanding invoice totalling to $1,335,120. To which Mr Jay agreed. [8] Mr Jay has since failed to return. [9] Dr Drakken then reported this problem to the SAPF and was told that MR Jay has since sold the vehicle. [10] Since then Dr. Drakken attempted to chase down Mr Jay via the SADC to which they have had no success. [11] Dr Drakken also has attempted to contact Mr Jay via GTG and Associates to settle this matter to which there has been no success. We seek the following remedies from the court: [1] Mr Jay settle the full invoice amounting to $1,335,120. [2] Mr Jay pay for Dr. Drakken's legal fees. [3] Mr Jay be charged with Deception & Forgery under Section 22 Subsection b of the Crimes Act 2018. Witnesses: Justine Timberlake Evidence: [1] https://docs.google.com/document/d/1UcuzhUZq1We8yQk4lICh9tloAfP9Bx20Mp9bMJeQWcA/edit [2] [3] 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)
  5. Last week
  6. Contact Details - Applicant/Plaintiff First Name: Rudolph Last Name: Guilliani Mobile: 795956 Discord: lynxaa#3213 Organisation Name (If applicable): Guillani, Taft, Goodman & Associates Contact Details - Co-Counsel First Name: William H Last Name: Taft Mobile: 3296472 Discord: ace#0103 Organisation Name (If applicable): Guillani, Taft, Goodman & Associates Contact Details - Client (If this application is submitted by a registered legal practitioner or on behalf of an organisation) First Name: Rick Last Name: Sanchez Mobile: 1783598 Discord: salvador#8424 For Original Jurisdiction Defendant Name: The Crown Defendant Organisation (If available): San Andreas Police Force Respondent Discord (if known): xx#0000 Statement of Claims: [1] On the 26th of July 2021, Mr. Rick Sanchez was arrested by police for damage to government property, police pursuit, unroadworthy vehicle, possession of 1g of weed, and murder. I was sentenced to 100months in the Boilingbroke correctional establishment. [2] During Mr. Sanchez's incarceration, a fellow inmate began assaulting corrections officers, corrections officers then began assaulting Mr. Sanchez and his 2 associates with beanbag rounds and batons. [3] Mr. Rick Sanchez felt his life was in danger and he was in duress when he used reasonable force to defend himself from the unprovoked assault on his person by the corrections staff. [4] During the scuffle, the 2 guards fell to the ground and the unknown inmate who originally started the altercation with corrections began gutter stomping the downed officers repeatedly until their bodies remained lifeless on the floor. [5] The unknown inmate who started the assault on the corrections staff was released from prison with one of Mr. Sanchez's associates it was a few minutes later that SAPF officers led by Senior Constable Patel stormed the prison and placed Mr. Sanchez under arrest charging him with 2x Murder and sentencing him to a further 100 months in Jail and some $300,000 in fines. [6] A miscarriage of justice took place when Mr. Rick Sanchez was summarily prosecuted for 2x Murder by Senior Constable Patel when Mr. Sanchez clearly did not commit the offence of Murder. Mr. Sanchez was also wrongfully charged for possession of 1g of weed this amount of weed falls within the legal amount you are allowed to carry under state law. We seek the following remedies from the court: [1] The charge of Possession of a Class C Narcotic be struck from Mr Sanchez's record and he is reimbursed for the monies he paid in fines. [2] The charges of Murder X2 be struck down from Mr. Sanchez's record and he is reimbursed for $300,000 in fines he paid for them. Witnesses: Taj Hopgood Tom Hawkins Evidence: Sworn Affidavit of Rick Sanchez: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1v_EtsC0d9ZKD5QFFqLku4svxN-RtY-OeIphcsmCct00/edit 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
  7. Earlier
  8. Garcia v The Queen [2021] SADC 38 [1] The Court accepts the appellant's writ of appeal against conviction. The Court will allow the respondent 5 days to enter an appearance and file a response in reply to this appeal, effective from when the respondent is served these proceedings. Failure to do so with result in the matter being heard without the respondent, and may result in judgement being entered in the favour of the appellant by default. [2] The Court also accepts and gives effect to the subpoenas sought under this appeal. [3] The Court will contact the parties to make suitable case management arrangements. CASE TITLE: Garcia v The Queen [2021] SADC 38 PRESIDING: Harold J. Holt PSM QC DIVISION: CRIMINAL APPELLATE DATE: 24/07/2021 VENUE: VIRTUAL SIGNATURE: Harold Julius Holt
  9. Oner v Commissioner of Police [2021] SADC 36 [1] The District Court of San Andreas acknowledges that the plaintiff and the defendant have settled this matter. [2] The District Court of San Andreas acknowledges that as a consequence of this settlement, the plaintiff seeks to discontinue these proceedings. [3] Accordingly, I order that these proceedings be dismissed. CASE TITLE: Oner v Commissioner of Police [2021] SADC 36 PRESIDING: His Honour Simon E. Richter PSM QC DIVISION: CIVIL DATE: 24/07/2021 VENUE: VIRTUAL SIGNATURE: Simon Edward Richter
  10. Your Honour, please see submission to have the case withdrawn on the basis of a private settle being achieved between the two parties. SIGNATURE William Howard Taft
  11. We first tried to make contact with the SAPF 5 days ago if you refer to my Co-counsel's attached evidence above. Regards Saul Goodman GTG and Associates
  12. Demanding a large sum of $800,000 to an officer who is not aware of the case is not in the SAPF's sight of settling the case, you have provided a bare minimum amount of time (14 Hours / Overnight) for the SAPF to consult with our legal team regarding this case and for us to contact you in return. In saying this, the SAPF are more than willing to settle this outside of court, however, will be in contact after we have consulted with our legal department. Kind Regards, Coco Hustle Commissioner of Police San Andreas Police Force
  13. Further evidence that we have attempted to settle outside of court.
  14. Your Honour, Please see attached the attempts made to request command level from the San Andreas Police Force to settle this claim out of court. Evidence 1: Email sent to SAPF reception Evidence 2: Email sent to PD-Lawyer Evidence 3: I William Howard Taft stood at MRPD for what felt like close to an hour hoping that I would stumble across a command level officer as well as sending an 000 call requesting one to mrpd and to no avial. Two officers attempted to help me and can attest to my attempts Auxilary Sergeant Bill Murry and General Duties Officer Hugo Frost SIGNATURE WILLIAM HOWARD TAFT
  15. Oner v Commissioner of Police [2021] SADC 36 [1] The District Court accepts the writ of claim filed against the Commissioner of Police. [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: Oner v Commissioner of Police [2021] SADC 36 PRESIDING: His Honour Simon E. Richter PSM QC DIVISION: CIVIL DATE: 23/07/2021 VENUE: VIRTUAL SIGNATURE: Simon Edward Richter
  16. Contact Details - Applicant/Plaintiff First Name: Saul Last Name: Goodman Mobile: 3188951 Discord: SphinX#6055 Contact Details - Co-Counsel First Name: William Howard Last Name: Taft Mobile: 3296472 Discord: ace#0103 Organisation Name: Guillani, Taft, Goodman & Associates Contact Details - Client First Name: Ashton Last Name: Oner Mobile: 669970 Discord: Shak#4032 For Original Jurisdiction Defendant Name: San Andreas Police Force Defendant Organisation (If available): SAPF Respondent Discord (if known): N/A Statement of Claims: In regards to the criminal case per [2021] SADC 31, our client was given full acquittal. We are seeking: [1] SAPF to pay for all legal fees. [2] SAPF to pay monetary compensation to our client. Witnesses: N/A Evidence: 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)
  17. 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: William Howard Last Name: Taft Mobile: 3296472 Discord: Ace#0103 Organisation Name: Guillani, Taft, Goodman & Associates Contact Details - Co-Counsel First Name: Rudolph Last Name: Guillani Mobile: 795956 Discord: lynxaa#3213 Organisation Name: Guillani, Taft, Goodman & Associates Contact Details - Client First Name: Michael Last Name: Garcia Mobile: 3890055 Discord: JumbusRigby#0001 For Original Jurisdiction Defendant Name: San Andreas Police Force Defendant Organisation (If available): SAPF Respondent Discord (if known): xx#0000 Statement of Claims: [1] Mr Garcia formerly known as Luther Smith was charged with 1x count of murder on the 19th of July 2021. [2] Mr Garcia was attacked with a knife by an unknown assailant. [3] Mr Garcia fearing for his life and safety drew his legally sourced 12 gauge shotgun to which he was fully licensed to carry and utilize and screamed at the individual quite clearly to put the knife down. [4] Mr Garcia of sound mind and body saw no other alterative given the circumstances of the incident to use the shotgun readily available to him to put down the attacker. Self defence as per s 29 Crimes Act 2018 (SA) is a complete defence. [5] Inspector Farewell charged mr Garcia with 1 count of murder without taking account the circumstances which would amount to a full acquittal under self defense. [6] Inspector Farewell failed to investigate the scene, and arbitrarily arrested my client without checking the body which would have clearly shown a knife being wielded. We seek the following remedies due to the flagrant disregard Inspector Farewell has exhibited towards Mr. Garcia's rights namely and fundamentally most important the right to life. [1] All fines and charges added to Mr. Garcia's criminal record be immediately struck down and fines reimbursed. [3] SAPF/AFP pay for all of Mr. Garcia's legal Fee's Evidence: Michael Garcia affidavit: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1A3utVRN7ialjhySj1GTujwEH01eg1ewNygoc7chIxFU/edit?usp=sharing Subpoena to the SAPF: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ITTBl72E1cy2uqjdX-lM30gEAPJ8KuFWbtXfoxCpBE0/edit 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
  18. Hernandez v San Andreas Debt Collections [2021] SADC 35 [1] The District Court of San Andreas acknowledges that the plaintiff and the defendant have settled this matter. [2] The District Court of San Andreas acknowledges that as a consequence of this settlement, the plaintiff seeks to discontinue these proceedings. [3] Accordingly, I order that these proceedings be dismissed. CASE TITLE: Hernandez v San Andreas Debt Collections [2021] SADC 35 PRESIDING: Simon E. Richter QC DIVISION: CIVIL DATE: 21/07/2021 VENUE: VIRTUAL SIGNATURE: Simon Edward Richter
  19. Trudy v The Queen [2021] SADC 34 [1] The Court conducted a habeus corpus hearing on 18th of July 2021 at Rockford Hills Courthouse. During that hearing, the Crown elected not to make submissions to the defence or Mr. Trudy's detention. Accordingly, the Court was in no other position but to accede to the submissions put to it by the appellant. As those submissions were that Mr. Trudy's present detention was unlawful, Court was in no position but to find that Mr. Trudy had been unlawfully detained. [2] Notwithstanding the lack of submissions, the Court does emphasis that in relation to detention and custody, persons can only be incarcerated if, and only if, they be remanded until trial of undecided charges, or they are serving a prison term for decided charges. The Court's understanding in this matter was that Mr. Trudy had been incarcerated, without either being properly remanded in custody, or without serving term for a charge he was convicted of. To imprison someone without the legal authority that comes from conviction and sentencing, or remand pending trial amounts to unlawful imprisonment. Whilst submissions were not made to the refutation of claims of unlawful imprisonment, there was a strong prima facie case that Mr. Trudy was at the time imprisonment without conviction or remand pending trial. [3] As a consequence, the Court made the following order: That Mr. Trudy be immediately released from what was then his present custody. CASE TITLE: Trudy v The Queen [2021] SADC 34 PRESIDING: Harold J. Holt PSM QC DIVISION: CRIMINAL APPELLATE DATE: 19/07/2021 VENUE: VIRTUAL SIGNATURE: Harold Julius Holt
  20. Shaw v The Commissioner of the San Andreas Police Force [2021] SADC 33 [1] The Court held a hearing yesterday evening to resolve the plaintiff's application for default judgement. The application was made out successfully. [2] Accordingly, the Court enters into a judgement in the favour of the applicant by default. In so doing, the Court finds by default that the plaintiff's vehicle was unlawfully seized, amounting to trespass to the plaintiff's personal property per s 7(9) Civil Torts Act 2019. [3] Although unnecessary to the specific circumstances of default judgement, given the invariable confusion that surrounds the seizure powers contained within the Road Safety Act 2018, the Court will briefly set down what it considers better view when it comes to constructing the seizure power. [4] Under the Act, there are a number of specific provisions that empower police to seize vehicles in the circumstances set out by those specific provisions. Most of the seizure powers are contained within s 11 of the Act, however there as some enumerated elsewhere, for example within s 8. How these powers relate to each other, if at all, was at the heart of the legal claim advanced by the plaintiff. The essential claim advanced by the plaintiff was that when it came to seizures made pursuant to s 8 'Roadworthiness' was that it was the vehicle itself that had to be repeatedly unroadworthy for seizure to be lawful. In other words, only if the same vehicle was found to be unroadworthy more than once would police be at authority to seize it. [5] Another view the Court is cognizant of is that s 8 is bound by s 11(d), which is to say that whether or not the vehicle is same one as the one before is irrelevant. In other words, the other view is that so long as the vehicle is operated by the same person, whether or not it is a separate vehicle, police are still at power to seize the vehicle. Whilst this is a persuasive view in respect of vehicles seized pursuant to s 11's terms, the Court is not so convinced that this blindness to whether or the vehicle is the same one as before applies elsewhere. Section 11 makes it abundantly clear that the key concern of those looking to seize vehicles pursuant to that section is whether or not a person repeatedly commits offences, whereas Section 8 concerns itself specifically with the vehicle itself, as clear in the use of vehicle instead of person as the operative noun. In this way, it would seem absurd, in the face of the specific and clear words the legislature used in s 8 to preoccupy itself with vehicles, to apply other provisions that relate to a totally different conception of the seizure power. [6] As such, it is this Court's opinion that the better view is that s 8 and s 11 be read in such a way that s 11(d) not apply to the operation of s 8. [7] Having set that out, the Court makes the following orders. The defendant pay damages totaling $ 100,000 to Mr. Shaw for trespass to his personal property. The defendant pay the plaintiff's costs on an ordinary basis. CASE TITLE: Shaw v The Commissioner of the San Andreas Police Force [2021] SADC 33 PRESIDING: Harold J. Holt PSM QC DIVISION: CIVIL DATE: 19/07/2021 VENUE: VIRTUAL SIGNATURE: Harold Julius Holt
  21. Hernandez v San Andreas Debt Collections [2021] SADC 35 [1] The District Court accepts the writ of claim filed against San Andreas Debt Collections. [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 approves and gives effect to the subpoena directed at the San Andreas Debt Collections. The documents sought must be turned over to the Court by a date to be determined by the plaintiff. CASE TITLE: Hernandez v San Andreas Debt Collections [2021] SADC 35 PRESIDING: Simon E. Richter QC DIVISION: CIVIL DATE: 18/07/2021 VENUE: VIRTUAL SIGNATURE: Simon Edward Richter
  22. Shaw v The Commissioner of the San Andreas Police Force [2021] SADC 33 [1] The District Court accepts the plaintiff's application for a hearing for default judgement for failure to file an appearance/defence. [2] The Court will contact the plaintiff to work out an amenable time to set down the matter for hearing. CASE TITLE: Shaw v The Commissioner of the San Andreas Police Force [2021] SADC 33 PRESIDING: Harold J. Holt PSM QC DIVISION: CIVIL DATE: 18/07/2021 VENUE: VIRTUAL SIGNATURE: Harold Julius Holt
  23. Contact Details - Applicant/Plaintiff First Name: Patrick T Last Name: Green Mobile: 2721946 Discord: ThomasG#1337 Contact Details - Client (If this application is submitted by a registered legal practitioner or on behalf of an organisation) First Name: Alejandro Last Name: Hernandez Mobile: 5701028 Discord: Ren tho#6354 Contact Details - Senior Counsel/Supervising Counsel First Name: Rudolph Last Name: Guillani Mobile: 795956 Discord: lynxaa#3213 Organisation Name: Guillani, Taft, Goodman & Associates Contact Details - Senior Counsel First Name: William H Last Name: Taft Mobile: 3296472 Discord: ace#0103 Organisation Name: Guillani, Taft, Goodman & Associates For Original Jurisdiction Defendant Name: Chief Executive Officer Defendant Organisation (If available): San Andreas Debt Collectors Respondent Discord (if known): Statement of Claims: [1] On 11 JUL 2021 Mr. Alejandro Hernandez was travelling in his private motorcar a Glendale (Light blue in colour) along Clinton Ave. He was approached by heavily armed and armoured members of the SADC who held him at gunpoint demanding he exit his vehicle as he was wanted. He protested his innocence and was assaulted and unlawfully detained when the SADC officers forced him into handcuffs and ferried him off to MRPD against his will and his protests of his innocence. [2] Mr Alejandro Hernandez told the officers multiple times they had the wrong person. He pleaded with them to check the date of birth, to check his phone number or even check the registration of the vehicle they refused to instead telling him to I quote "shut up". [3] Mr Alejanadro Hernandez was taken to MRPD against his will dumped there and given off to a police officer Incremental Senior Constable Jackson Tarkov [HWY-18]. After Mr. Hernandez pleaded his case to ISC Tarkov he decided to take him to his Glendale to check the plate. ISC Tarkov spoke to the SADC officers via radio to which they said they had tracked the vehicle via camera footage. ISC Tarkov also noted that the SADC officers had uploaded Mr. Alejandro Hernandez's mugshot to the profile of the wanted man they were looking for who had the name, Alejandro Hernández (note the accent above the A) this further confused the situation. [4] As ISC Tarkov believed the SADC officers had detained the wrong man after conducting the correct checks to confirm Mr. Hernandez's identity he released him from custody and apologised. [5] The SADC officers acted recklessly and negligently and with wanton disregard for Mr. Hernadez's rights and the law when they unlawfully detained him. They did not conduct the necessary due diligence to ascertain that they had the correct person knowing they had 3 people with similar names the officers should of checked the Dates of birth, Phone numbers and vehicle registrations of the suspects to make sure they had the right person. Due to the officer's negligence in unlawfully detaining Mr. Hernandez for over 40 minutes this has caused significant mental trauma to Mr. Hernandez and left him deeply scarred and distrustful of them and it was a clear breach of Mr Hernandez's civil rights under the Civil Rights Act 2018, Div. I, Section 10 and also the Civil Torts Act 2020, Div. II, Section 7, Sub Section A & (6) and it constitutes a criminal offence under the Crimes Act 2018, Div. III, Section 20, Subsection A. [6] Mr. Hernandez is not satisfied that the SADC's Operational management conducted a fair and independent investigation into the unlawful conduct of their operatives and he is extremely concerned that they have escaped any punishment or reprimand. We cannot have the SADC operating as a quasi-military-style secret police force having carte blanche to whisk people away from their private motor cars in the dead of the night, shake them down for money and then dump them on the door steps of MRPD without conducting the proper checks and balances to make sure they have the right individuals. As such we seek the following remedies through the Civil Court system: [1] Mr. Hernandez be given a payment of $400,000 from the SADC in line with the Civil Torts Act 2020, Div. III, Section 9. [2] An official apology letter from the SADC officer's and their Operational Managment team [3] The matter be referred to the DPP for possible prosecution of the SADC officer's for kidnapping/unlawful imprisonment and assault. [4] SADC cover all of Mr. Alejandro Hernandez's legal fee's. Witnesses: HWY-18 Incremental Senior Constable Jackson Tarkov Evidence: HWY-18 Incremental Senior Constable Jackson Tarkov's Affidavit: https://docs.google.com/document/d/16ecxl4K2zlu2hN_F9SMp2PGlH-ceVZPU3I89pieyLH0/edit Mr. Alejandro Hernandez's Affidavit: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1IpH444xWwB4sw4qLqipoKsChxjpfBQxWn7nNIsiWHhU/edit Photo of Mr. Alejandro Hernández COPS profile (the man SADC were looking for): https://ibb.co/Qmz45QK Photo of the note on Alejandro Hernández's COPS profile stating SADC uploaded the wrong mugshot: https://ibb.co/SdRWZMz Photo of Mr. Alejandro Hernandez's COPS profile (our client): https://ibb.co/j8STD9q SADC Subpoena: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1OqsmpNH_eB6LdN_auPtzQ4tOH_hCwGAPpG1tuMqK6ds/edit 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
  24. NOTICE OF MOTION DEFAULT JUDGEMENT FOR FAILURE TO MAKE AN APPEARANCE COURT DETAILS Court: San Andreas District Court Case: Shaw v The Commissioner of the San Andreas Police Force Case Number: SADC 33 PERSON/ORGANISATION AFFECT BY ORDERS SOUGHT The Commissioner of the San Andreas Police Force [Defendant] HEARING DETAILS This motion is to be dealt with in the absence of the parties. ORDERS SOUGHT 1. Judgement for the plaintiff against the defendant (The Commissioner of the San Andreas Police Force), totalling $100,000 2. The defendant to pay the plaintiff's costs. 3. The San Andreas Police Force to clarify to all officers that seizure for the first offence on a vehicle is illegal. AFFIDAVIT NAME Elijah Holmes Address N/A Occupation Lawyer & Chief Flight Instructor Date 17th of July 2021 I say on oath: 1. I am the plaintiff. 2. The statement of claim was served to the defendant via direct correspondence through the appropriate chain of command on the 12th of July. 3. The defendant has not responded to or contacted the plaintiff regarding this proceeding. 4. Hence, the defendant has not settled or attempted to settle with the plaintiff. Sworn by the deponent Elijah Holmes
  25. Trudy v The Queen [2021] SADC 34 [1] The District Court accepts your application for a writ of habeus corpus. [2] In the face of clear and convincing evidence that Mr. Trudy's detention may be unlawful, and or may be obstructive to his right to legal counsel, the District Court makes the following interlocutory injunctive orders per Civil Rights Act 2019 s 19; Civil Torts Act s 9(c): That Mr. Charlie Trudy is to be immediately released from the Federal Penitentiary. He is to transferred to Bolingbroke Penitentiary, and must be presented to Court at a time amenable to the parties to ascertain the lawfulness of Mr. Trudy's detention. That the Australian Federal Police, San Andreas Police Force and or other concerned persons do nothing to obstruct or in any way limit Mr. Trudy's enjoyment of his right to a legal representative. CASE TITLE: Trudy v The Queen [2021] SADC 34 PRESIDING: Harold J. Holt PSM QC DIVISION: CRIMINAL APPELLATE DATE: 15/07/2021 VENUE: VIRTUAL SIGNATURE: Harold Julius Holt
  26. REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF Trudy v The Queen 15th of July 2021 The plaintiff seeks the following preliminary injunctive relief: [1] The plaintiff seeks for Mr Trudy to be transferred to the general wing of Bolingbroke Penitentiary. [2] Mr Trudy does not pose an elevated risk to the general prison population. [3] As stated above, for Mr Trudy to receive any communications from his legal counsel, his legal counsel must arrange a meeting through the Australian Federal Police. [4] This places undue and unreasonable strain upon Mr Trudy's right to legal counsel and creates irreparable harm for Mr Trudy through this deprivation of his rights. [5] This allows for further communication with counsel through the use of SACS administered payphones. [6] The plaintiff merely seeks this injunction to assist with the proceedings and as it may cause serious damages to due process as coordinating Mr Trudy, his legal counsel and AFP to all be available at the same time is unreasonable. [7] Strained communication with legal counsel may result in damages to Mr Trudy's and hence, the plaintiff's case. [8] Transferrence to the General Population wing would allow for smoother communication as permitted by SACS personnel while undergoing the proceedings. [9] As Mr Trudy is not a high-risk individual and transferring to Bolingbroke Penitentiary General Population ultimately benefits this court and justice (as Mr Trudy can advise his counsel more frequently and provide appropriate information necessary for this case thereby, assisting the course of justice), therefore, the plaintiff seeks injunctive relief.
  27. 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: Charlie Last Name: Trudy Mobile: 701995 Discord: Scoob#6181 Organisation Name (If applicable): For Original Jurisdiction Defendant Name: Commissioner of the San Andreas Police Force Defendant Organisation (If available): San Andreas Police Force Respondent Discord (if known): N/A Defendant 2 Name: Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police Defendant 2 Organisation (If available): Australian Federal Police Respondent 2 Discord (if known): N/A Defendant 3 Name: Mr Alec Blair Defendant 3 Organisation (If available): Department of Justice Respondent 3 Discord (if known): N/A Statement of Claims: [1] On the 10th of July, Mr Charlie Trudy was arrested by the Secretary of Justice, as well as officers of the SAPF/AFP. [2] While in police custody he was refused his right to legal representation and was strip-searched without being provided sufficient reason as to why this was occurring. [3] Mr Trudy was sent to the Federal Wing to serve Life, without being formally charged with any crimes. [4] This is unlawful imprisonment as he has not been formally charged. [5] Mr Trudy was given a phone to contact legal representation, then AFP Officer Gibbs, arrived removed the phone (which he was provided by a previous AFP officer), and said that his legal counsel must contact AFP in order to contact Mr Trudy. Mr Trudy seeks the following: The Defendant to pay Monetary Compensation, release from Bolingbroke Penitentiary, and the defendant to pay all legal fees. Witnesses: N/A Evidence: Mr Trudy's file in the Cops Database. 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)
  28. Oner v The Queen [2021] SADC 31 [1] The Court has received notice from the respondent, the Crown, that they wish to plead no contest. [2] As such, the District Court is in no position other than to accede to the appeal set out by the appellant. [3] Furthermore, this case has raised serious concerns as to the conduct of Australian Federal Police Officer Station Sergeant Dick Tate. However as this was not litigated in Court, the Court will refer the matter to the DPP for consideration and prosecution. If the matter is not investigated and dealt with properly, the Court reserves it's disciplinary powers set out under the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2018 (SA) for exercise in such a case. [4] Accordingly the Court makes the following orders: Mr. Oner's conviction for Taking and Using Without Consent on the 29th of June 2021 be quashed. Mr. Oner be paid compensation totaling $ 50,000 for time served and fines paid. Mr. Oner's legal fees be paid on an ordinary basis by the respondent (at a 50% basis). CASE TITLE: Oner v The Queen [2021] SADC 31 PRESIDING: Harold J. Holt PSM QC DIVISION: Criminal Appellate DATE: 12/07/2021 VENUE: VIRTUAL SIGNATURE: Harold Julius Holt
  29. Shaw v The Commissioner of the San Andreas Police Force [2021] SADC 33 [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 will contact the parties about a suitable date to resolve the matter, as well as how this case is to be managed. CASE TITLE: Shaw v The Commissioner of the San Andreas Police Force [2021] SADC 33 PRESIDING: Harold J. Holt PSM QC DIVISION: CIVIL DATE: 09/07/2021 VENUE: VIRTUAL SIGNATURE: Harold Julius Holt
  1. View Full Stream

  • Upcoming Events

    No upcoming events found
  • Recently Browsing

    No registered users viewing this page.

×

Important Information

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