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 Dr Phil Bad CVO
Lieutenant-Governor of San Andreas The Honourable Chief Justice Lawson Blake AO QC
Official Secretary to the Governor Flight Lieutenant Sir Robert Pump KCVO AO ADC
   
Secretary of Justice Mr. Alec Blair AM APM
Chief Justice of the Supreme Court
The Honourable Chief Justice Lawson Blake AO QC
   

Functions

Executive Functions
Honours and Awards Nomination Form

San Andreas Judicial System
Supreme Court of San Andreas | District Court of San Andreas
Court Proceedings | Legal Practitioners & Registrations

San Andreas Law Enforcement and Emergency Services
San Andreas Police Force | San Andreas Emergency Services

DOJ Licencing Office
Private Security Firm Licencing | Air Operator's Certificate Application | Flight Crew Licencing Office | Roadworthiness Exemption

  1.  Forums

    1. 2
      items
      • No content here yet
    2. 19
      items
      • No content here yet
    3. 12
      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

Activity Feed

  1. Yesterday
  2. NOTICE OF APPEARANCE IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF SAN ANDREAS BETWEEN DANIEL LANNISTER and PHOENIX SECURITY DATE OF DOCUMENT: 20th April 2021 FILED ON BEHALF OF: Phoenix Security PREPARED BY: Harvey Specter EMAIL: kota#6020 PHONE: 168032 I, Harvey Specter, here FILE an appearance for Phoenix Security, the abovenamed defendant. Signed, HARVEY SPECTER Member of the Bar Association, Attorney
  3. R v James [2021] SADC 9 [1] The District Court of San Andreas does not accept the writ of claim, or indictment. [2] The District Court does not do so, it does not set out or rely on any law in setting out it's claim/indictment. [3] The District Court does not so, also on the basis that the form used is not correctly filed out. Namely, the defendant's contact details are not provided, and other irrelevant parts of the form remain. [4] This Court is prepared to accept this matter for hearing, if the aforementioned problems are suitably addressed. CASE TITLE: R v James [2021] SADC 9 PRESIDING: Harold J. Holt PSM QC DIVISION: CRIMINAL DATE: 19/04/2021 VENUE: VIRTUAL SIGNATURE: Harold Julius Holt
  4. Daniel Lannister v Phoenix Security [2021] SADC 8 ATTN: PLAINTIFF & DEFENDANT [1] The District Court accepts your writ of claim against the defendant. [2] The defendant has seven days to file a notice of appearance or a defence with this Court (11:59 PM Monday the 26th of April 2021). If the respondent fails to file a notice of appearance or defence, the plaintiff's case may be heard without the defendant. Furthermore, the plaintiff may also request that judgment be entered in their favour by default and orders set out in the statement of claim be made. [3] The plaintiff and the defendant are to engage in discovery immediately and are to exchange all relevant documents relied upon, if any, for period in between now and the trial date. CASE TITLE: Daniel Lannister v Phoenix Security [2021] SADC 8 PRESIDING: Harold J. Holt PSM QC DIVISION: CIVIL DATE: 19/04/2021 VENUE: VIRTUAL SIGNATURE: Harold Julius Holt
  5. Last week
  6. Contact Details - Applicant/Plaintiff First Name: John Last Name: Lawston Mobile: 585211 Discord: alec#0069 Contact Details - Client (If this application is submitted by a registered legal practitioner or on behalf of an organisation) First Name: Billy Last Name: Valentine Mobile: 303576 Discord: billy#4444 ---------------------------------- For Original Jurisdiction Defendant Name: Arresting Officer - SAPF Defendant Organisation (If available): SAPF Respondent Discord (if known): xx#0000 ---------------------------------- Statement of Claims: 1] Mr Valentine was charged & fined as per his criminal history on the 16th of April, 2021 (16/04/21) 2] Total charges for this equaling 45 months & $220,000. 3]. The above charges exceed the maximum penalties able to be given by SAPF without involvement of the courts, thus breaking the Crimes Act 2018, Div 1, Section 1, A. 4] Due to this blatant disregard for the laws, we are seeking the following: Reimbursement for this fine - $220,000 Removal of these charges from my clients record. Damages in relation to my clients jail time, to the amount of $100,000 for economical damages (loss of wage & commission from sales). ---------------------------------- Witnesses: Billy Valentine Arresting Officer ---------------------------------- Evidence: Mr Valentines record which has listed a $220,000 fine. Crimes Act 2018, Div 1, Section 1, A. ---------------------------------- 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. YES 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. YES
  7. Alberto, Alberto & Alberto v Los Santos Customs [2021] SADC 6 ATTN: PLAINTIFF & DEFENDANT [1] The Court rejects the defendant's motion to dismiss. [2] The Court does so on the basis that the plaintiff's case was not shown to have no prospect of success. [3] In the course of submissions the Court was made aware of the relevant evidence to be relied on by both parties. The Court was not satisfied that either the plaintiff or defendant had no case against the other. As such, the Court will allow the proceeding to go to trial. [4] The Court instructs the defendant to file a defence with the Court and both parties to engage in discovery before a date for trial is set. CASE TITLE: Alberto, Alberto & Alberto v Los Santos Customs [2021] SADC 6 PRESIDING: Simon E. Richter DIVISION: CIVIL DATE: 15/04/2021 VENUE: VIRTUAL SIGNATURE:   Simon Edward. Richter
  8. Contact Details - Applicant First Name: Vincenzo Last Name: Scaletta Mobile: 860308 Discord: Gabe#4365 Contact Details - Client First Name: Skyla Last Name: Kunoichi Mobile: 750637 Discord: Skylax For Original Jurisdiction Defendant Name: Commissioner of Police (Represented by Will Brown) Defendant Organisation (If available): San Andreas Police Force Respondent Discord: Dyno#0271 Statement of Claims: This civil litigation component will be apart of two concurrent cases. This will be contesting the unlawful imprisonment and fine of Skyla Kunoichi as she was charged on the basis that her brother was the one allegedly involved. In the paperwork the San Andreas Police Force filled out it states that Ms. Kunoichi was to not serve any time in jail and just sentenced to a $70,000 fine for a crime that we believe as a defense she was wrongly convicted of. The criminal appeal outcome is dependent on whether this court finds that the respondent in question did, or did not uphold the judicial procedures required to not cause a miscarriage of justice and prove that Ms. Kunoichi innocent of all charges due the prosecution not being able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Ms. Kunoichi was involved in the alleged crime. Witnesses: Skyla Kunoichi, Will Brown Evidence: A subpoena will be concurrently filed for MRPD CCTV Footage during the time Skyla Kunoichi was in custody, interview Footage of Skyla Kunoichi, and Bolingbrook Penitentiary Inmate Logs on 13/04/2021 between 12:00am AEST and 2:00am AEST. 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. Yes 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
  9. TOPIC TITLE - April James with Cocaine and prohibited weapons PLAINTIFF/DEFENDANT DETAILS - San Andreas Police Force Contact Details - Applicant/Plaintiff First Name: John Last Name: Green Mobile: 572933 Discord: ItsNapster#4845 Contact Details - Client (If this application is submitted by a registered legal practitioner or on behalf of an organisation) First Name: x Last Name: x Mobile: ###### Discord: xx#0000 Organisation Name (If applicable): (Copy and paste the client contact details for any additional plaintiffs) For Appeals from DOJ Tribunal Link to dismissed case: x Reason for rejection: Grounds for appeal: x Any additional evidence: x For Original Jurisdiction Defendant Name: April James Defendant Organisation (If available): Respondent Discord (if known): cascade#6599 Defendant 2 Name: x Defendant 2 Organisation (If available): Respondent 2 Discord (if known): xx#0000 (Copy and paste the defendant contact details for additional defendants) Statement of Claims: I witnessed Miss James handing a man narcotics in exchange for cash, she then ran through an ally way, we later stopped her and searched her, which revealed 13 individual bags of Cocaine, weighing roughly 2 grams each. Miss James also had 3 prohibited weapons those being; a Battle Axe, Brass Knuckles and a golden revolver with loose bullets. I also confiscated roughly $22,000 in cash from her. Witnesses: x 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. YES 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
  10. Department of Justice Business Pre-Approval - Application for an Initial Issue Air Operators Certificate (AOC) Authorised under section 6 of the Aviation Security Act 2018 A - Applicant Details Name: Ben Truman DOB: 16/10/1989 Phone #: 745474 Attach Criminal History Below: B - Company Information Company Name: QuackFM Link to Business Application: C - Aerial Work You need to complete this part if you propose to conduct one or more of the following activities: Aerial Advertising | Aerial Surveying | Air Ambulance Functions | Rappelling | Trade Operations | Aerial Photography | Dropping | Search & Rescue | Winching and Hoist | Aerial Spotting | Sling Load Operations | Aerial Stock Mustering | Surveillance Identify the Aerial Work functions you wish to conduct - Skydiving - Aerial Functions (in flight music, entertainment) - Transport from Airport to airport within the city In a new line, justify grounds for approval for each of the aerial work functions requested - Providing the option to Skydive to pre-planned location with parachutes - Offering music entertainment for aerial functions for up to 9 passengers (via Luxor jet) - Allowing for pickup and drop off at any of the cities major airports (Grapeseed, Sandy or Los Santos Airport) D - Regular Public Transport (RPT) You must complete this part if you intend to carry passengers or cargo for hire or reward to and from fixed terminals over specific routes and on a fixed schedule Ports - List all the domestic and international ports from which you plan to operate, including the frequency and routes Los Santos Airport to Sandy airfield | Daily Los Santos Airport to Grapeseed airfield | Daily Sandy Airfield to Los Santos Airfield | Daily Sandy Airfield to Grapeseed airfield | Daily Grapeseed Airfield to Los Santos Airfield | Daily Grapeseed Airfield to Sandy Airfield | Daily E - Fleet Charter: You must complete this part if you intend to carry passengers or cargo for hire or reward on NON-fixed scheduled flights, and/or from and to any place other than fixed terminals. List all aircraft that will be operated by the operator: - Buckingham | Aeroplane | Luxor F - Maintenance Does your organisation have a contract with an approved aircraft maintenance company? No Contract, done via appointment If so, state the company and its contact number below: Quokka G - Organisation Structure and Personnel Chief Executive Officer / Managing Director First Name: Ben Last Name: Truman Link to Pilot Licence (If Available): Recreational, Private and Commercial Airplane and Helicopter license Chief Pilot First Name: Ben Last Name: Truman Licence Issued On: (Unsure, quite some time) H - Additional Authorisations Dangerous Goods Operations Do you propose to carry and/or consign dangerous goods? No Types of goods to be carried: Parachutes Other Authorisations Are you requesting for other authorisations not outlined in this application form? No If so, describe the authorisation you are requesting, providing the relevant legislative reference/s: N/A I - Declarations 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 AOC must be the business owner of the aviation business. Therefore the new owner must apply for an AOC as well should a transfer of ownership takes place. 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.
  11. Lambo v Commissioner of the San Andreas Police Force [2021] SADC 7 ATTN: PLAINTIFF & DEFENDANT [1] The Court rejects the plaintiff's application for default judgement. [2] The Court does so on the basis it is not in the interests of justice to accept the default judgement. [3] The Court was in the course of submissions made aware of the the fact that the defendant had not been properly served the originating process of these proceedings. Whether the defendant had actual notice or not, it would be contrary to the principles of natural justice, and the right to a fair trial to permit matters to be decided by default if plaintiffs were permitted to do so where there is no guarantee as to whether the defendant is aware of the proceedings or not. [4] Furthermore, the Court will allow the defence to file a defence and reply by the 17th of April 5 PM. Failure to do so may result in the matter being decided by default, and without the defendant. CASE TITLE: Steve Lambo v Commissioner of the San Andreas Police Force [2021] SADC 7 PRESIDING: Harold J. Holt DIVISION: CIVIL DATE: 12/04/2021 VENUE: VIRTUAL SIGNATURE:   Harold Julius. Holt
  12. Lambo v Commissioner of the San Andreas Police Force [2021] SADC 7 ATTN: PLAINTIFF & DEFENDANT [1] The Court nullifies the subpoena served on the San Andreas Emergency Service (SAES). [2] The Court does so on the basis it finds it oppressive. [3] The Court was so convinced of its oppressiveness by submissions by the SAES that compliance with the subpoena would be unduly onerous, given the sheer number of documents that would have to be looked at to ascertain the documents sought. Furthermore, compliance with the subpoena would involve turning over documentation which was of doctor-patient privilege nature, privilege that this Court has no basis to believe has been waived. Moreover, the Court was also satisfied that ambit of the subpoenas schedule's criteria do not specify with sufficient particularity as to allow the SAES to both locate and provide the documents sought. CASE TITLE: Steve Lambo v Commissioner of the San Andreas Police Force [2021] SADC 7 PRESIDING: Harold J. Holt DIVISION: CIVIL DATE: 12/04/2021 VENUE: VIRTUAL SIGNATURE:  Harold Julius. Holt
  13. 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 First Name: Mick Last Name: Hale Mobile: 212033 Discord: TheNameMitch#8290 Contact Details - Client / Plaintiff First Name: Daniel Last Name: Lannister Mobile: 372103 Discord: Gabe#4365 Organisation Name (If applicable): For Original Jurisdiction Defendant Name: Bella Bond Defendant Organisation (If available): Phoenix Security Respondent Discord (if known): Aliyah#9101 Statement of Claims: On 09/04/21, Mr Daniel Lannister was assaulted and falsely detained by Bella from Phoenix Security, being falsely imprisoned and a while being dragged out to the street while still detained. As per the Private Security Act the following excerpts will come into play in this case. 4 Crowd Controlling / Property & Cash-in-Transit Protection Private security employees providing crowd control, property and cash-in-transit protection services have the rights to conduct the following within one block of their contracted premises: Screening entry and exit into and from premises; Monitoring and controlling behaviour in premises; Removing any person from premises; Checking a person is permitted to enter (ID Card), have paid to enter or have received an invitation; and Patrolling and brandishing weapons. 6 Search and Detainment Notwithstanding other laws and regulations, private security employees contracted to crowd control or to guard a property may search an individual within their contracted premises. Private security employees are not permitted to stop and search an emergency services officer in the course of their official duty. Private security employees contracted to crowd control, guarding a property or bounty hunting are permitted to detain a person if the other person is committing or has just committed a criminal offence. In the case of bounty hunters, the other person is a wanted individual. The private security employee who detains another person must, as soon as practicable after the detainment, arrange for the other person and any property found on the other person, to be delivered into the custody of a police officer. Nowhere in the above duties does it allow Phoenix to detain people while on the duties of cash in transit. So in detaining my client Bella abused her powers and overstepped her bounds by detaining my client who is authorised to be where he was. Witnesses: Joey Martin Evidence: Permission was obtained from PAC management for some of the footage that occurred when Daniel Lannister did not have his phone out https://www.twitch.tv/videos/984593273 Compensation: as this was seen as an abuse of powers provided to the member of Phoenix, we would like an independent review of the Phoenix officers actions and appropriate actions taken. Compensation for being physically removed from the building. 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 a 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)
  14. DEFENCE COURT DETAILS: COURT - DISTRICT COURT OF SAN ANDREAS DIVISION - CIVIL TRIAL PRESIDING - Harold J. Holt J TITLE OF PROCEEDINGS: PLAINTIFF - Lambo DEFENDANT - Commissioner of the San Andreas Police Force FILING DETAILS PREPARED FOR: Commissioner of the San Andreas Police Force; SAPF LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE: Simon E. Richter QC CONTACT (EMAIL/TELEPHONE): Jimmy#0251 - #417861 DEFENCE In response to the allegations made in the statement of claim, the Defendant submits: [1] The plaintiff was dismissed fairly and in accordance with the law of San Andreas. [2] The allegations made by the defendant in the notice of termination and the Internal Investigation Report are substantially true. [3] The investigation conducted by the SAPF was not flawed, and the plaintiff has provided no evidence to suggest that the body cam footage used in the plaintiff’s dismissal is "false". [4] The defendant reserves the right to dismiss the plaintiff for any reason whatsoever under the law. [5] The plaintiff was dismissed in response to a finding of serious misconduct (Corporations, Contracts & Labour Act 2018 (SA), s 11(c)). The plaintiff was informed of the reason for their termination through the letter of termination and the evidence of the misconduct was attached to the letter of termination (Corporations, Contracts & Labour Act 2018 (SA), s 11(c)). [6] While the plaintiff was dismissed in response to a finding of serious misconduct, the plaintiff was also effectively given 7 days notice of their termination through the letter of termination sent to them, allowing them to respond to the termination notice (Corporations, Contracts & Labour Act 2018 (SA), s 11(a)). [7] The plaintiff has not submitted an argument as to why the defendant has encroached on their right to a fair trial under section 11(a) of the Civil Rights Act 2018 (SA). SIGNATURE Simon Edward Richter QC
  15. Earlier
  16. APPLICATION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT - RESPONSE COURT DETAILS: COURT - DISTRICT COURT OF SAN ANDREAS DIVISION - CIVIL TRIAL PRESIDING - Harold J. Holt J TITLE OF PROCEEDINGS: PLAINTIFF - Lambo DEFENDANT - Commissioner of Police FILING DETAILS PREPARED FOR: Commissioner of Police; SAPF LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE: Simon E. Richter CONTACT (EMAIL/TELEPHONE): Jimmy#0251 - #417861 REPLY TO APPLICATION [1] Your Honour, we ask that you set aside this application for default judgment and allow the defendant to file a defence as the complaint was never served on the defendant by the Court. [2] The defendant submits that a defence will be filed by 17 April 2021 5:00 PM. [3] For these reasons, we submit that the Court ought to set aside the application for default judgment. SIGNATURE Simon Edward. Richter QC
  17. Alberto, Alberto & Alberto v Los Santos Customs [2021] SADC 6 ATTN: PLAINTIFF & DEFENDANT [1] The District Court will hear the motion to dismiss filed by the defendant. [2] This hearing will be conducted at the Rockford Hills Courthouse on 17 April 2021 at a time to be set by the Court. Parties will be notified of this time before the day of the hearing. CASE TITLE: Alberto, Alberto & Alberto v Los Santos Customs [2021] SADC 6 PRESIDING: Simon E. Richter QC DIVISION: CIVIL DATE: 12/04/2021 VENUE: VIRTUAL SIGNATURE:  Simon Edward. Richter
  18. Lambo v Commissioner of the San Andreas Police Force [2021] SADC 7 ATTN: PLAINTIFF & DEFENDANT [1] The District Court accepts your application for default judgement. [2] The District Court will allow the defendant in this matter up to the 15th of April 11:59 PM to reply to this application. [3] Failure to reply to this application may result in it being heard without the defendant, and may result in it being decided automatically in the applicants favour. CASE TITLE: Steve Lambo v Commissioner of the San Andreas Police Force [2021] SADC 7 PRESIDING: Harold J. Holt DIVISION: CIVIL DATE: 02/04/2021 VENUE: VIRTUAL SIGNATURE:  Harold Julius. Holt
  19. ATTN: Honorable Harold Holt 1] As of the time of this letter, I have not received the items requested from SAES or SAPF. 2] Given the non-compliance of the subpoenas, I motion that the case be settled with default judgement in favor of the Plaintiff Mr Lambo. SIGNED: John Lawston | Lawyer, Bar Association.
  20. Hello, Mick Hale and I, are representing the defendant, Los Santos Customs in this matter. We would like to file a motion to dismiss, due to lack of evidence. Please see below for the motion: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1DCe2LQszJtHvf8ct95CYB959KEK1kpm_ahCuKbcO678/ Kindest Regards, Cormac O'Leary Paralegal
  21. Alberto, Alberto & Alberto v Los Santos Customs [2021] SADC 6 ATTN: PLAINTIFF & DEFENDANT [1] The District Court accepts your writ of claim against the defendant. [2] The defendant has seven days to file a notice of appearance or a defence with this Court. If the respondent fails to file a notice of appearance or defence, the plaintiff may request that judgment be entered in their favour by default and orders set out in the statement of claim be made. [3] Parties to the proceeding will engage in a discovery period of 10 days (ending 14/04/2021) to disclose all of the evidence that they will rely on in the proceeding. [4] The Court notes that if the plaintiff wishes to call the final witness on their list, they must properly identify that witness. CASE TITLE: Alberto, Alberto & Alberto v Los Santos Customs [2021] SADC 6 PRESIDING: Simon E. Richter QC DIVISION: CIVIL DATE: 05/04/2021 VENUE: VIRTUAL SIGNATURE:  Simon Edward. Richter
  22. Lambo v Commissioner of the San Andreas Police Force [2021] SADC 7 ATTN: PLAINTIFF & DEFENDANT [1] The District Court accepts your writ of claim against the defendant. [2] The District Court will allow the defendant in this matter a week to file a defense and appearance on this thread, that being by 11:59 PM AEST 9th of April 2021. Failure to do could result in the matter being decided without the defendant, and in default against the defendant's favour. [3] In addition, the District Court accepts the subpoenas filed with this Court. The plaintiff must serve said subpoenas on the defendant, as well as all other parties subject to said subpoenas. [4] Furthermore, the parties are ordered to engage in discovery, turning over all evidence requested or set to be relied upon in the proceedings. This discovery is continue till the 12th of April 2021. CASE TITLE: Steve Lambo v Commissioner of the San Andreas Police Force [2021] SADC 5 PRESIDING: Harold J. Holt DIVISION: CIVIL DATE: 02/04/2021 VENUE: VIRTUAL SIGNATURE:  Harold Julius. Holt
  23. 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 - Paralegal/Applicant First Name: Thomas Last Name: Lambo Jr Mobile: 947320 Discord: LiZi606#3359 Contact Details - Lawyer/Applicant First Name: John Last Name: Lawston Mobile: 585211 Discord: Alec#0069 Contact Details - Client First Name: Josh Last Name: Alberto Mobile: 574691 Discord: Spyney#3060 Organisation Name (If applicable): N/A Contact Details - Client First Name: Garrett Last Name: Alberto Mobile: 569995 Discord: Ace#7191 Organisation Name (If applicable): N/A Contact Details - Client First Name: Scott Last Name: Alberto Mobile: 681973 Discord: GREGLESS#7829 Organisation Name (If applicable): N/A For Original Jurisdiction Defendant Name: CEO of Los Santos Customs (Julian Russel) Defendant Organisation (If available): Los Santos Customs Respondent Discord (if known): Angelo#1111 Statement of Claims: -Mr Josh, Garrett and Scott Alberto was dismissed from their employment with in the Los Santos Custom due to the breach of the LSC employee contract. (Serving Blacklisted customers) -Vehicle that Mr Josh Alberto was modding before the removal belongs to Garrett Alberto, Not a member of the banned party from LSC. -Mr Scott Alberto, Who was not involved with the situation, claims that he was purely removed due to being related to Mr Josh Alberto and Mr Garrett Alberto. -Mr Scott Alberto’s Statement: On my flight into the city and I was presented with my options of what airport to fly into and when presented with those options, I was made aware that i wasn’t employed at LSC as I didn’t have my LSC Employee Card. So once I landed, I went into the shop and saw moe so I asked him what’s up why don’t I have my LSC Employee Card and he asked if I was apart of the Alberto family and if I was that I should go and talk to my brothers about it. That was the last time contact has been made between myself and anyone from the business -Mr Josh, Garrett and Scott Alberto will like to seek for the following outcome: Compensation for work lost, defamation of character. Investigation of Los Santos Customs Management team’s conducts. Witnesses: Josh Alberto Garrett Alberto Scott Alberto Sam Alberto Unknown Los Santos Customs Management member Evidence: Ownership of the vehicle Mr Josh Alberto was modding comes back to Garrett Alberto https://imgur.com/9cQdHEb Employment was not formally terminated. No notice was provided and there wasn’t any legal document for the dismissal, only verbalised effective immediately, which is contrary to Corporations, Contracts & Labour Act, DIV III, Sect, 11 a 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. Contact Details - Applicant/Plaintiff First Name: John Last Name: Lawston Mobile: 585211 Discord: Alec#0069 Contact Details - Client (If this application is submitted by a registered legal practitioner or on behalf of an organisation) First Name: Steve Last Name: Lambo Mobile: 116589 Discord: LiZi606#3359 Organisation Name (If applicable): For Original Jurisdiction Defendant Name: Commissioner Of Police / Professional Standards Office Defendant Organisation (If available): San Andreas Police Force Respondent Discord (if known): N/A Statement of Claims: 1] Mr Steve Lambo was involved in an incident where a suspect was ultimately pronounced dead by San Andreas Emergency Services. 2] It's alleged that Mr Lambo has been in breach SAPF SOP, section 2.8 and has used inappropriate force. During the internal investigation they have also advised that Mr Lambo breached State Law Div III, 17. (Manslaughter). 3] Steve Lambo was dismissed from the SAPF due to the above alleged breaches. This was done on the grounds of false body cam footage and a flawed investigation. We believe to be a breach of Civil Rights Act Div I, Sect 11 A. Damages: We are seeking Mr Lambo's employment to be reinstated to his rank at the time of dismissal - Constable. Damages for Economical Loss - Compensation for lost income, which has been approximated & averaged at $1,120,000. ($5000 per shift, average shift being 4 hours = $40,000 x 28 days) Witnesses: Steve Lambo PC-05 Will Brown. Unknown Recruit. EMS who attended scene. Evidence: Mr Lambo has not been charged with Manslaughter. Mr Lambo's Internal Investigation Report. - http://bit.ly/LamboPSO Use of force being justified as per Law Enforcement powers Responsibilities Act, Division III, Section 14 A. Subpoena directed at SAES - https://docs.google.com/document/d/1f2hf2R1SWKItnjNL9VMyKLFHm99EDxF4G-O_K1mR818/edit?usp=sharing Subpoena directed at SAPF - https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WOtMXkE_pzxHF8ACKdj4WIJ5W4SvLO4L-H0ALqR-rJk/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. Yes 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. Yes.
  25. DEFENCE AND COUNTERCLAIM COURT DETAILS: COURT - DISTRICT COURT OF SAN ANDREAS DIVISION - CIVIL TRIAL PRESIDING - Simon E. Richter J TITLE OF PROCEEDINGS: PLAINTIFF - Phil Goode & Les Taylor DEFENDANT - Commissioner of Police FILING DETAILS PREPARED FOR: Commissioner of Police; SAPF LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE: Harold J. Holt CONTACT (EMAIL/TELEPHONE): Nukaa#5788 - #762969 DEFENCE AND PLEADINGS [1] In relation to the allegation of not meeting reasonable grounds pursuant to the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilites) Act 2019 (henceforth referred to as LEPRA) s 5, the defense denies the allegation. The defence submits that reasonable grounds were met, either by way of meeting the factors, or by personally witnessing the crime. [2] In respect of the allegation discrimination pursuant to the Civil Rights Act 2018 s 1, the defense denies the allegation. The defence submits that the plaintiffs were not discriminated against, and in any event that there is no right to be free of discrimination under the Act in the manner asserted. [3] In respect of the allegation of in respect of criminal conduct under s 3 of the Crimes and Corruption Act 2018, the defense makes no pleading as the Court has already ruled it not justiciable in this hearing. [4] In respect of the allegation of failing to meet ten points of prosecution pursuant to s 10 LEPRA, the defense denies the allegation. The defense submits that all factors were met, either by way of personally witnessing a crime, or by way of factors. [5] In respect of the allegation of failing to assist the plaintiff in obtaining legal representation pursuant to s 10 of the Civil Rights Act 2018 and LEPRA, the defence denies the allegation. The defense contends that it discharged its duties of assistance to extent required under the relevant Acts. [6] In respect of the allegation of violating the plaintiff's right to a fair trial pursuant to s 11 of the Civil Rights Act 2018 and or breaching s 10A of LEPRA, the defense admits the allegation. [7] In respect of allegations pertaining to the unlawful searching of the plaintiffs per s 6 of LEPRA, the defense denies the allegation. The defence submits that reasonable grounds were met, either by way of meeting the factors, or by personally witnessing the crime. [8] In respect of allegations relating to taking into account the reasonable requests and pleadings made by a suspect and lawyer, per s 10 of LEPRA, the defense denies the allegation. [9] In respect of the of the allegation pertaining to a breach of s 14 LEPRA, the defense denies the allegation. [10] In respect of the allegation made in respect of breaching the plaintiffs rights under s 10 of the Civil Rights Act 2018, the defense denies the allegation. COUNTER CLAIM [11] The defendant wishes to pursue the plaintiff, a Mr Les Taylor, for Assault pursuant to s 7(1) of the Civil Torts Act 2019. [12] The defense submits in respect of this claim, that the plaintiff, Mr Les Taylor unlawfully struck the one of the defendants, a one Mr. Bradford, and or vicarious the SAPF, multiple times in the cells of Mission Row Police Station. [13] The defendant seeks damages in respect of the Assault is relation to non-economic loss. In this respect, the defense seeks $ 100 000. SIGNATURE Harold Julius Holt
  26. NOTICE OF MOTION: APPLICATION FOR SUMMARY DISMISSAL COURT DETAILS: COURT - DISTRICT COURT OF SAN ANDREAS DIVISION - APPELLATE PRESIDING - Simon E. Richter J TITLE OF PROCEEDINGS: APPELLANT - Phil Goode & Les Taylor RESPONDENT - The Queen FILING DETAILS PREPARED FOR: Commissioner of Police; SAPF LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE: Harold J. Holt CONTACT (EMAIL/TELEPHONE): Nukaa#5788 - #762969 GROUNDS AND ORDERS SOUGHT: [1] Your Honour, the respondent in this matter seeks that you order: That the originating process of these proceedings be struck out; and or That the appellant be prohibited from leading submissions in respect of matters he did not set out in is statement of claim; and or That the appellant pay the respondent's costs. [2] In respect of the first order, we submit that Your Honour ought to strike out these proceedings on the basis that it discloses no reasonable course of action. [3] In respect of this Court's power to summarily dismiss proceedings, I would submit that in any doubt as to whether this Court has the power to do so, it has been recognised by virtually every Court in the land, including the eminent and authoritative NSW Supreme Court that every Court has the 'inherent' power to strike out and dismiss any proceedings where they amount to an abuse of process (see Brimson v Rocla Concrete Pipes [1982] 2 NSWLR 937). We would also submit that a failure to disclose a reasonable course of action is recognised as an abuse of process (see General Steel Industries Inc v Commissioner for Railways (NSW) (1964) 112 CLR 12). [4] The respondent would submit that in respect of this inherent power, this Court exercise it to strike out these proceedings. Your Honour, the statement of claim not only discloses no reasonable course of action, it discloses no action at all. Your Honour, the originating process is so utterly baron of what one might expect to be a claim as to an appeal that the only fact that the respondent knows is that it wishes to submit an appeal in respect of vaguely a 'conviction'. It does not know what convictions it wishes to appeal, or on what basis it seeks their appeal. In the eminent words of the late Chief Justice Barwick of the High Court of Australia in General Steel Industries Inc v Commissioner for Railways (NSW) (1964) 112 CLR 125, a Court must strike out proceedings where they case being put is 'so obviously untenable that it cannot possibly succeed' and that it is 'manifestly groundless'. Your Honour, if an appeal case which not only fails to disclose that what it wishes to appeal, or the grounds up which it seeks to appeal doesn't amount to being 'manifestly groundless' or being 'obviously untenable' in such a way as that it 'cannot possible succeed' I don't know what its. In this way, I would ask Your Honour to strike out these proceedings. [5] In relation to the second order being sought, in the event the first order is not found appropriate, The respondent would also like to draw your attention to the desirability of trial without surprise. Indeed their Honours of the Federal Court of Australia in H 1976 Nominees Pty Ltd v Galli (1979) 30 ALR 18 recognised that the one of primary purposes of a statement of claim and other pleadings is to sufficiently acquaint the other party of the case it has to be met. The respondent also submits that the ordinary course of action in equivalent jurisdictions is prohibit the party who does not specify with sufficient particularity what their case is from being able to lead submissions about matters or claims outside that claimed in the originating process. Indeed, as the originating process does not set out what it wishes to appeal, or the grounds on which it relies, the respondent would submit that the Court may as well strike out the proceedings, as confined the appellant to the originating process would amount to confining the appellant to proceedings with no disclosed case to lead submissions towards. [6] The respondent also submits that, in anticipation of the appellant's submissions which are likely to go towards the fact that the grounds are withheld due to the existence of another case, we would submit that the fact that the outcome of another case is required to set out grounds does not preclude the appellant from setting out at the very least the matters which it is seeking to appeal, and the general nature of the basis sought. SIGNATURE Harold Julius Holt
  27. NOTICE OF APPEARANCE COURT DETAILS: COURT - DISTRICT COURT OF SAN ANDREAS DIVISION - APPELLATE PRESIDING - Simon E. Richter J TITLE OF PROCEEDINGS: APPELLANT - Phil Goode & Les Taylor RESPONDENT - The Queen FILING DETAILS PREPARED FOR: Commissioner of Police; SAPF LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE: Harold J. Holt CONTACT (EMAIL/TELEPHONE): Nukaa#5788 - #762969 APPEARANCE The respondent gives notice of appearance. SIGNATURE Harold Julius Holt
  28. Attached is the affidavit relied on https://docs.google.com/document/d/1pOgI96tcxq-8KdAqa38qubLWfO2gxC1pA6lr89GqH48/edit?usp=sharing.
  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.