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  

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. 100
      items
      • No content here yet
    3. 18
      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. Last week
  2. Shavershain & Chenis v The Queen [2022] SADC 34 [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: Simmons v The Queen [2022] SADC 28 PRESIDING: Harold J. Holt AM PSM DIVISION: CRIMINAL APPELLATE DATE: 30/05/2022 VENUE: VIRTUAL
  3. Belmon v Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police [2022] SADC 33 [1] The District Court accepts the plaintiff's statement of claim against the defendant. [2] The defendant is directed to file an appearance and a defence within five days, effective from receiving notice of these proceedings being accepted by the Court. Failure to provide a response or appearance will result in the proceedings being heard without the defendant and may result in a judgment in the favour of the plaintiff by default. [3] The Court will contact the parties to give directions about how these proceedings will be conducted. [4] Whilst presided over by a Supreme Court Justice, this case is being heard at a District Court level. CASE TITLE: Belmon v Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police [2022] SADC 32 PRESIDING: Harold J. Holt AM PSM DIVISION: CIVIL DATE: 27/06/2022 VENUE: VIRTUAL
  4. Earlier
  5. Contact Details - Applicant/Plaintiff First Name: Joel Last Name: Green Mobile: 2721946 Discord: ThomasG#1337 Organisation Name: GTG & Associates Contact Details - Applicant/Plaintiff - Co-Counsel First Name: Rudolph Last Name: Guillani Mobile: 795956 Discord: lynxaa#3213 Organisation Name: GTG & Associates Contact Details - Client (If this application is submitted by a registered legal practitioner or on behalf of an organisation) First Name: Raffaele Last Name: Belmon Mobile: 9847257 Discord: N/A Defendant Name: San Andreas Police Force Defendant Organisation (If available): SAPF Statement of Facts: [1] On the 16/06/2022, Mr Belmon was in a police pursuit with multiple police cars chasing him. He parked his car up on the docks and dived into the water to escape them. [2] Mr Belmon then fell unconscious in the water, where he was rescued by police officers. [3] While waiting for emergency services to arrive, two other officers in a car (later confirmed to be members of the Australian Federal Police) thought it necessary to push Mr Belmon’s car, causing it to fall off the docks and into the water, causing it to be permanently seized due to the nature of the damage sustained. [4] Mr Belmon then woke up with the help of the other officers and emergency service workers who informed Mr Belmon what had just happened to his car. Statement of Claims: [1] Your Honour, the plaintiff will have a 3 fold argument being that the Defendant has engaged in the tort of trespass to goods, that section 10 Civil Torts Act 2020 (SA) does not apply to the instant case. In the alternative, we would submit that if the Court does not find that the Defendant committed the tort of trespass then the Court is open to find that the tort of tresspass does apply. [2] Your Honour, it is the plaintiffs submission that the defendant has breached the tort of trespass to personal property pursuant to section 7(a)(9) Civil Torts Act 2020 (SA). [3] Your Honour, there is no statutory provision that establishes the elements of the tort of trespass to personal property (goods). As such, it is necessary to establish the elements through the common law the leading case in establishing the elements of trespass to goods is Penfolds Wines Pty Ltd v Elliott (1946) 74 CLR 204 (‘Penfolds’), in which the Court stated ‘A trespass to goods occurs when a defendant directly interferes with goods in the possession of the plaintiff without their consent or other legal justification’. As such to establish a trespass to good has occurred we must prove the following; i) The subject matter interfered with was a good (Chattel); ii) There was a sufficient act of interference; iii) The interference to plaintiff was direct upon the defendants act; iv) The goods were the Plaintiffs or he was in lawful possession of them giving him a right to sue, and; v) The defendant had the requisite state of mind. [4] We will address each of these elements in turn. The first element that the chattel interfered with was a good is easily proven the object interfered with in this case is tangible property, namely, a motor vehicle. As such this element would be proven. [5] The second element requires that there is a sufficient act of interference, the High Court in Penfolds described it as an action that is an ‘infringement’ on the plaintiffs possession. Your Honour, this element can be proven through a number of ways, one such way is dispossessing the plaintiff of the chattel can amount to an act of interference as seen in the matter of Wilson v Lombank Ltd [1963] 1 All ER 740, where the defendant took the a car under the plaintiffs possession in circumstances very similar to the present case. In any event, the destruction of the chattel amounts to trespass to goods as seen in Davies v Bennison and Simon v Condran in both cases the unlawful destruction of the Plaintiffs chattel amounted to trespass to goods. [6] Your Honour, in order to establish the next element the plaintiff must prove that the Defendants action was consequential to the Plaintiffs loss. Your Honour, we would submit that the action of the defendant by pushing the car into the ocean was the cause of the plaintiffs loss and it was not merely consequential of the defendants act but rather the plaintiffs loss was a direct result of the Defendants act of pushing the car into the ocean. [7] Your Honour, turning to the next element, in order for the Plaintiff to have a right to sue they must be in possession of the goods either actual or constructive possession. Your Honour, in Strange Investments (WA) Pty Ltd v Coretrack Ltd it was held that constructive possession still gives a right to sue for trespass to goods. It is our submission that the Plaintiff was in constructive possession of the chattel as he still retained custody of the goods as the lawful owner of the property and still had an intent to possess the car. [8] In relation to the state of mind of the requisite state of mind of the defendant, we would submit that the Defendant intended to interfere with the Plaintiff’s chattels by forcibly pushing it into the ocean with the intention of depriving the Plaintiff of his chattels. [9] In relation to section 10 Civil Torts Act 2020 (SA), your Honour, we would submit that provision does not apply to this incident. We would submit, that the purpose of this provision is to not allow criminals to sue police for damages they accrue in the commission of an offence as where it states ‘the damage is for a loss of an instrument of crime or proceeds of crime, or a loss suffered as a result of the conduct of an illegal activity’ this indicates that criminals cannot claim for damages for losses they accrue in the commission of an offence such as their cars being disabled in a pursuit, the loss of stolen goods, an assault against their person during a lawful arrest If say hypothetically, the car was rammed by police during the pursuit and it ended up in the water then the Plaintiff would not be able to sue for damages. . However, we would submit this section does not cover the actions of the police in this instance as after the plaintiff has left his vehicle and been arrested the defendant has then gone and pushed the car into the water at this point the car was not being used in the commission of an offence as the Plaintiff was in custody. It would be an absurdity for the provision to be construed in such a way that would void police of any liability when they engage in such behaviour and we would submit that it would not be the intention of the framers for this provision to be construed in such a way. [10] Your Honour, the plaintiff will be seeking orders from the Court to protect the identities of the 2 witnesses as soon as the matter is taken up. Orders Sought: i) Mr Belmon be given a new car identical to the one he lost or be compensated for the full amount his car was worth. ii) Mr Belmon’s legal fees be paid for by the defendant. Witnesses: Witness A (Name withheld) Witness B (Name withheld) Evidence: N/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)
  6. 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: Hughe Last Name: Chenis Mobile: 2435069 Discord: Chillies#5322 Organisation Name (If applicable): Gencorp Contact Details - Applicant/Plaintiff First Name: Zyzz Last Name: Shavershain Mobile: 8881012 Discord: MagicP#3333 Contact Details - Lawyer First Name: Dr. Last Name: Drakken Mobile: 106674 Discord: Steev#2839 Organisation Name (If applicable): Horacio & Co Legal Services Contact Details - Co-Counsel First Name: Emrys Last Name: Barlowe Mobile: 1466084 Discord: Divinemadnes1#5111 (Copy and paste the client contact details for any additional plaintiffs) Defendant Name: The Queen Defendant Organisation (If available): San Andreas Police Force (Copy and paste the defendant contact details for additional defendants) Statement of Claims: On the 17th of June 2022, Mr. Hughe Chenis & Zyzz Shavershain were arrested by AFP for the charges of breaching the Gencorp Outlaw and sentenced to 360 months imprisonment and $2,000,000 in fines. Mr. Chenis was doing his usual thing, hanging with a friend Mr Shavershain, who wasn’t a member of Gencorp. Mr Shavershain retired from Gencorp on roughly the 9th of June 2022. Mr Shavershain left on good terms, due to other commitments, Mr. Shavershain wanted to turn a new leaf for his newfound love in the city, Mr Shavershain didn’t want to be a criminal any longer, while Mr Chenis and Mr Shavershain stayed good friends, Mr Shavershain was not a part of anything within the organisation of Gen Corp since the 9th of June 2022. AFP had proceeded to do a Traffic Stop on a Local car being driven by Mr Chenis, AFP approached the 2 civilians and asked for their details and names. At which point they proceed to provide a fake name to AFP. AFP then said to both gentlemen they would be back in a moment. To where a Code-5 Stop was ordered and both Mr Chenis and Mr Shavershain were surrounded by multi police cars and 2 handers aimed at them. At NO POINT were either hostile and both complied with police. AFP had no reasonable grounds or Identify features for said individuals and using the local car, we suspect their voices had been used in the leadup to their arrest. Before the Traffic Stop was issued, they had already been on the side of the radio talking. CIB Officer DX-06 | Jamal Snow proceeded to fine both Mr Chenis and Mr Shavershain for Breaching of the Organisation Restriction Order, Section 1. Members of the Organisation are not permitted to gather with other members of the Organisation in groups of any numbers or size Mr Chenis told multiple officers that Mr Shavershain was no longer a member of Gencorp and that he had finished his time within the Organisation days before the outlaw was issued. Officers ignored this information and charged both individuals as per the “Out Law Order” for $2,000,000 and 6 Hours Imprisonment. We argue how Mr Chenis supposed to know about what information is displayed on someone’s profile on COPS where this information is private and confidential. CIB officers told Mr Chenis that it was his own fault and that it was his own job and responsibility to inform the SAPF when members are no longer a part of the organisation. After spending 6 hours imprisonment, Mr Chenis took off to MRPD, where he spoke to TAC officer Jeriko Jerrik to remove Mr Shavershain information from his profile, to which Mr Chenis has no idea what was even written or noted on Mr Shavershain profile. We seek the following remedies: The charges of Violation of Organisation Restriction Order be stricken from both Mr Chenis and Mr Shavershain records. Mr Chenis and Mr Shavershain to be compensated for time served and fines paid. Mr Chenis and Mr Shavershain legal fees to be paid for by the defendant. Witnesses: Mr Chenis Mr Shavershain Evidence: N/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. (Attach evidence of consent from additional applicants to this case). Yes
  7. Guillani, Taft, Goodman & Associates v Genesis Corporation [2022] SADC 32 [1] The District Court accepts the plaintiff's statement of claim against the defendant. [2] The defendant is directed to file an appearance and a defence within five days, effective from receiving notice of these proceedings being accepted by the Court. Failure to provide a response or appearance will result in the proceedings being heard without the defendant and may result in a judgment in the favour of the plaintiff by default. [3] The Court will contact the parties to give directions about how these proceedings will be conducted. [4] Whilst presided over by a Supreme Court Justice, this case is being heard at a District Court level. CASE TITLE: Guillani, Taft, Goodman & Associates v Genesis Corporation [2022] SADC 32 PRESIDING: Harold J. Holt AM PSM DIVISION: CIVIL DATE: 21/06/2022 VENUE: VIRTUAL
  8. Contact Details - Applicant/Plaintiff First Name: Rudolph Last Name: Guillani Mobile: n/a Discord: lynxaa3213 Defendant Name: Genesis Corporation Defendant Organisation (If available): Genesis Corporation Respondent Discord (if known): Chillies#5322 Statement of Claims: [1] Your Honour, GTG & Associates (The Plaintiff) engaged in a contract to provide legal services (Term II) to Genesis Corporation (The Defendant) on an ongoing basis. In return for providing this legal service, the Defendant agreed to pay the Plaintiff a sum of $1.5 million per month (Term VII). This agreement was reduced to writing (exhibit A); both parties signed the agreement on the 13th of January 2022. Thereby both parties are bound by the terms of the agreement as per L'Estrange v F Graucob Ltd [1934] 2 KB 394. [2] Both parties carried out their obligations as per the written agreement until the payment was due on the 13th of May 2022, when the Defendant failed to meet their contractual obligations. Mr. Goodman reached out to Mr. Chenis to come to an agreement to arrnage the payment. Mr. Chenis informed Mr. Goodman that they had a change of some of their managerial staff and would need an extension, Mr. Goodman agreed and gave them until the end of May to arrange the payment to which Mr. Chenis Agreed. [3] When the time came for the payment to be made at the end of May, Mr. Goodman once again reached out to the Defendant to ascertain when they would transfer the payment, to which the Defendant ignored him; Mr. Goodman reached out several more times to no avail. On the 05 of June 2022, Mr. Goodman emailed the Defendant informing him of the Plaintiff’s decision to terminate the contract from the 15th of June 2022. There was no response from the Defendant on further attempts to mediate the issue. [4] Your Honour, it is clear that the elements of the formation of the contract have been formed as per section 4 of the Corporations, Contracts & Labour Act 2018. In any event, the parties have affirmed the contract due to performance. [5] Your Honour, the Plaintiff submits it had a right to terminate the contract and seek from the Defendant the monies owed to the Plaintiff as the Defendant had breached an essential term giving rise to termination and damages. Your Honour, in determining what an essential term is a leading authority on the matter is Luna Park (NSW) Ltd v Tramways Advertising Pty Ltd [1938] HCA 66, in which the Court affirms the use of the test of essentiality. The test of essentiality is would the innocent party have entered into the contract if strict compliance with the term in question was not complied with. Your Honour, we submit that the Plaintiff would not have entered into the contract unless strict compliance with the term (VII) in question was guaranteed; the payment to the Plaintiff for their services is quite obviously an essential term of the contract. As if it was not complied with why would the Plaintiff enter into the contract if they were not going to be remunerated for it. Your Honour, we would submit that pursuant to section 7 e Corporations, Contracts & Labour Act 2018, the Plaintiff has the right to terminate for breach. [6] Your Honour, if the Court finds that the aforementioned term was not essential (Term VII), the Plaintiff submits that the Plaintiff has a right to terminate the contract due to the Defendant repudiating the contract by conduct. Your Honour, it was established in Sunbird Plaza Pty Ltd v Maloney (1988) 166 CLR 245 that repudiation of a contract can be established by a party's conduct. Your Honour, we submit that by the Defendant refusing to respond to the Plaintiffs requests for payment of the agreed amount that the, Defendant has repudiated the contract by way of their conduct, giving rise to the Plaintiff the right to terminate the contract and seek damages. [7] Your honour, the Plaintiff seeks the following orders from the Court, i) The defendant pay the plaintiffs legal fee's. ii) The Defendant pay the amount owed to the Plaintiff an amount of $4,500,000. The Court has the authority to order this pursuant to section 9 Corporations, Contracts & Labour Act 2018. Witnesses: N/A Evidence: Contract - https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Ry6TLqFlXMJVdJlDhKl9fNTAhWKG6xt0/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
  9. Department of Justice Business Pre-Approval - Application for a Private Security Company Licence Authorised under section 1 of the Private Security Act 2020 A - Applicant Details Name: Trever Lane DOB: 01 Jan 2000 Phone #: 911 Attach Criminal History Below: x N/A B - Company Information Company Name: MIB Group Link to Business Application: Refer to Business License #66 122 156 Applying for which type(s) of Private Security activities: (Delete the inapplicable) a. Close personal protection service (Bodyguards) b. Crowd controlling c. Property protection (Armed/Unarmed) d. Cash-in-transit protection List of intended activities: - Armed transportation and security of assets - Protection services C - Class R Weapon Licence Is a Class R Weapon Licence required? Yes List of Class R weapons relevant to the intended business activities: (Delete the inapplicable) - Body armour - Tactical helmet - Glock - Baton - M4A1 - Pump shotgun Mk2 Explain how each of the weapons declared above are relevant to your intended business activities: - Body armour & Tactical Helmet: Both items are a necessity to ensure the safety of our employees when conducting their duties to the hostile nature of their job. - Glock: This weapon will serve as our small-arms self-defence weapon to be used under extreme circumstances. - Baton: The baton serves as a non-lethal approach to any intruders that compromise employees or assets in a less-lethal manner. - M4A1 & Pump Shotgun MK2: Both weapons will be used dependent on situation however are the long-arms of the business, it is used for self-defence against heavily armed attackers. D - Declaration 1. I understand that by filing this application , it does not automatically guarantee an approval 2. I understand that it is an infringement under the Judicial Procedures Act 2019 to falsify my criminal history or any statements made in this application 3. I understand that the holder of this licence must be the business owner of the private security business. Therefore the new owner must apply for pre-approval as well should a transfer of ownership takes place. 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. 5. In the event that a Class R weapon licence is issued to the company, I understand that there will be a monthly import fee of $100,000 payable to the Quokka Airways Ltd for its freight services to import and restock Class R weapons.
  10. Contact Details - Applicant/Plaintiff First Name: Joel Last Name: Green Mobile: 2721946 Discord: ThomasG#1337 Organisation Name: GTG & Associates Contact Details - Client (If this application is submitted by a registered legal practitioner or on behalf of an organisation) First Name: Joey Last Name: Goobler Mobile: 111041 Discord: N/A Defendant Name: San Andreas Police Force Defendant Organisation: SAPF Statement of Claims: [1] On the 11th of June 2022, Mr Goobler was at Mirror Park going along his usual route home on his bike. Mr Goobler was startled at the amount of police and went to investigate. [2] Mr Goobler was informed to move along by a General Duties Police Officer, later identified as C-01, in a condescending tone, to which Mr Goobler jumped back over the barriers and jumped onto his bike [3] Mr Goobler then kicked the police officer, unhappy with the treatment he received, to which the officer (C-01) fired his service weapon at Mr Goobler with the intention of "Taking his back tire on his bike". [4] Mr Goobler did not pose a "reasonably foreseeable life-threatening danger to the officer or those around the officer." as is outlined in the Law Enforcement (Powers & Responsibilities) Act 2018 s15(a), meaning the officer didn't have grounds to exercise his lethal force. [5] Your Honour, we argue that Mr Goobler did not pose a threat to the officers life, therefore the officer committed the Tort of Assault as per the Civil Torts Act 2020 s 7(a)(1) by firing at Mr Goobler. [6] We are seeking the following remedies: i) The SAPF pay for Mr Goobler's legal fees. ii) Sum of $350,000 in compensation be paid to Mr Goobler for the emotional and physical damage suffered. Witnesses: N/A Evidence: N/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)
  11. Contact Details - Applicant/Plaintiff First Name: Joel Last Name: Green Mobile: 2721946 Discord: ThomasG#1337 Organisation Name: GTG & Associates Contact Details - Client First Name: Xaviar Last Name: King Mobile: 1720718 Discord: N/A Organisation Name: Genesis Corp Contact Details - Client First Name: Tyler Last Name: Norris Mobile: 6442703 Discord: N/A Organisation Name: Genesis Corp Defendant Name: The Queen Defendant Organisation: Australian Federal Police Statement of Claims: [1] On the 8th and 9th of May, my clients (Mr King and Mr Norris) were sentenced and unlawfully imprisoned in Bolingbrook for 999999 months. [2] This matter was taken to court as referenced in [2022] SADC 24, where the courts ruled in favour of my clients. [3] In leu of the torts committed against my clients, the tort of unlawful imprisonment as per the Civil Torts Act 2020 s 7(a)(6), and due to the length of time that my clients were unlawfully imprisoned for, we will be seeking the maximum damages for the non-economic loss. [4] We are seeking the following remedies from the court: My client, Xaviar King, seeks damages amounting to $500,000. My other client, Tyler Norris, also seeks the same damages, amounting to $500,000. My client's legal fees be paid for by the defendant. Witnesses: N/A Evidence: N/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)
  12. Davis V The Queen [2022] SADC 31 [1] The District Court accepts the writ filed against the Commissioner of the San Andreas Police Force [2] The Court will allow the defendant five days to file a response or 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 judgment being entered in the favour of the plaintiff by default. [3] The Court will contact that parties to give directions about how these proceedings will be conducted. CASE TITLE: Davis V The Queen [2022] SADC 31 PRESIDING: Judge William Howard Taft DIVISION: Criminal DATE: 08/06/2022 VENUE: VIRTUAL
  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/Plaintiff First Name: Emrys Last Name: Barlowe Mobile: 1466084 Discord: Divinemadnes1#5111 Supervising Contact Details - Co-Counsel First Name: Joel Last Name: Green Mobile: 2721946 Discord: ThomasG#1337 Organization: GTG & Associates Contact Details - Client (If this application is submitted by a registered legal practitioner or on behalf of an organization) First Name: Daequan Last Name: Davis Mobile: 7676335 Discord: thedonutstate#7143 Organization Name (If applicable): Defendant Name: The Queen Defendant Organization (If available): San Andreas Police Force Statement of Claims: [1] On the 1st of June 2022, Mr. Daequan Davis was arrested by two officers for the charges of two counts of Murder and sentenced to 200 months imprisonment and $170,000 in fines. [2] Mr. Davis aimed and discharged two shots at the, then stationary, back tires of the vehicle before officers fired back in retaliation and entered into a Police pursuit that ended in the arrest of Mr. Davis. [3] At no point in time did Mr. Davis aimed the weapon at the officers involved nor was there any attempt to cause grievous bodily harm. Under the Crimes Act 2018 s18(a), it states that “A person who intentionally causes the death of another person, regardless of whether the act was attempted or has been committed.” Mr. Davis never aimed his weapon, nor fired his weapon in the directions of the officers in question. Mr. Davis fired his weapon at the back tires of said police vehicle in an attempt to disable the vehicle before fleeing. [4] Your Honour, we believe that a significant miscarriage of justice has occurred. Our client was incorrectly charged for crimes that he did not commit and given the maximum penalty for said crimes. The officers in question failed in their duties as police officers and instead gave charges that they deemed fit to our client without regard for the law. [5] We seek the following remedies: i) The two charges of Murder be stricken from Mr. Davis’ record. ii) Mr. Davis’ legal fees to be paid for by the defendant. iii) Mr. Davis to be compensated for time served and fines paid. Witnesses: x Evidence: x 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
  14. Contact Details - Lawyer First Name: Saul James Last Name: Goodman Mobile: 3188951 Discord: SphinX#6055 Contact Details - Client First Name: Susan Last Name: West Mobile: 3628497 Discord: tara#7440 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Defendant Name: Respondent First Name: John Last Name: Tucker Defendant Organisation : Los Santos Customs Respondent Discord : Aresden#0001 Statement of Claims: [1] On the 22/05/2022, my client Susan West, was fired from Los Santos Customs (henceforth known as LSC) without notice, due to a disagreement between herself and an LSC manager named Birdie Rae Lost. [2] As stated in the Corporations, Contracts & Labour Act 2018 s11 (a). Employees may be terminated if sufficient notice of 5 days is given, or a redundancy payment given in lieu of notice. [3] During the entirety of Ms West's employment at LSC, she had not been warned previously for failing to follow lawful directions set out by LSC management. [4] LSC have grossly overstepped their authority and fired Ms West without notice and without redundancy payment in lieu of notice r pay found in s11 (b) of the Corporations, Contracts & Labour Act 2018. [5] The plaintiff is seeking damages as set out in Corporations, Contracts & Labour Act 2018 s11 (a). Witnesses: Ms Susan West 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) 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)
  15. Bokassa v The Warden of the San Andreas Correctional Service [2022] SADC 29 [1] The District Court accepts the writ of claim against the respondent. [2] The Court will allow the defendant five days to file a response or 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 judgment being entered in the favour of the plaintiff by default. [3] The Court will contact both parties to give directions about how these proceedings will be conducted. CASE TITLE: Bokassa v Warden of the San Andreas Correctional Service [2022] SADC 29 PRESIDING: Judge Rudolph Guillani QC DIVISION: Civil DATE: 01/06/2022 VENUE: VIRTUAL
  16. Contact Details - Plaintiff First Name: Lieutenant General Jean-Bedel Last Name: Bokassa Mobile: 453622 Discord: SphinX#6055 Contact Details - Barrister First Name: Harold Last Name: Holt Mobile: 762969 Discord: Nukaa#5788 Defendant Name: Warden of the San Andreas Correctional Service Defendant Organisation San Andreas Correctional Service Statement of Claims: Alleged facts: [1] On the 17th of May 2022, the plaintiff was serving a term of imprisonment in Boilingbroke Penitentiary. At roughly 9:30 PM, whilst seeking medical care in the infirmary for unrelated reasons to this matter, the plaintiff was struck multiple times by another inmate, who informed the plaintiff whilst he was being stuck that 'the prison guard told me to do this'. After being struck multiple times, plaintiff retreated from the infirmary to the main cell block seeking assistance, while being chased by this other inmate. Upon arriving the main cell block, the other inmate caught up and proceeded to continue to strike the plaintiff. This occurred in view of prison guards, who remained stationary as the plaintiff was repeatedly struck by the inmate. After knocking the plaintiff to the ground, prison guards finally approached the inmate and the plaintiff. The prison guards informed the inmate who struck the plaintiff that he would placed in a cell. Upon hearing this, the inmate protested this decision, claiming it to be unfair on the basis that he had been instructed by that very guard to do what had done. The prison guard conceded that had instructed him to do it, but nevertheless was going to place him in cell. Claim: [2] By failing to intervene to protect the plaintiff whilst being beaten by another inmate, and or by instructing this inmate to strike the plaintiff, we submit that the San Andreas Correctional Service, vicariously via one of their employees, a prison guard, committed the Tort of Negligence per Div IV of the Civil Torts Act 2019 (SA). [2] In submitting this, the plaintiff relies on Pollockmen v Warden of San Andreas Correctional Service & Commissioner of San Andreas Police Force [2022] SADC 5 in asserting that the prison guards owed the plaintiff a duty of care to protect him from harm. In that case, it was not disputed and was well acknowledged by the Court that prison guards owe inmates a duty of care. We would submit that protecting prisoners from harm from inmates and from others is well within the scope of that duty, and that by instructing the inmate to strike the plaintiff, and or by standing by and not intervening when the plaintiff was being struck, they breached that duty of care. [3] We would also submit that i) the risk was clearly foreseeable, given the prisoner guards were literally observing what was occurring before their very eyes ii) that the risk was not insignificant, give againit was being observed as it happened, and it was clearly of serious personal injury to the plaintiff iii) and that a reasonable person in the circumstances would have protected the plaintiff. Accordingly, it is our submission that s 11(a) is not a bar to this action for Negligence under the Civil Torts Act 2019 (SA). [4] We would also submit that, but for the actions of the defendant, the accused would not have sustained the harm he did. If the facts are to be accepted, it is quite clear that the inmate would not have harmed the plaintiff and caused the injury he sustained, had he not been instructed by the defendant. Alternatively, had the defendant intervened when he observed the plaintiff being struck, he could have prevented further harm that the plaintiff otherwise sustained. In this respect, we submit that the defendant was negligent, and caused the harm the defendant sustained, establishing causation. [5] We would also submit that due to the actions of the defendant, the plaintiff sustained considerable loss in the form of his physical injuries, mental trauma, pain and suffering, as well as loss of amenity and enjoyment of life. [6] We claim damages at a quantum of $ 500,000. The first $ 200,000 of damages are claimed on basis that injuries sustained caused the plaintiff significant pain and suffering, and considerable loss of amenity. The plaintiff suffers from mental trauma as a consequence of the vicious attack, and such an amount is reasonable and proportionate to the plaintiff's continuing suffering. We would submit that this in line with the amounts assessed in previous matters, where high non-economic loss under the heads of pain and suffering and loss of amenity attracted an award of $ 200,000 per Pollockmen v Warden of San Andreas Correctional Service & Commissioner of San Andreas Police Force [2022] SADC 5. Accordingly, given the considerable physical injury sustained by the plaintiff and mental trauma, we would submit that there is high non-economic loss, and ought to attract a similar award of $ 200,000. [7] The remaining $ 300,000 are sought on an aggravated and or exemplary basis. Whilst I note in Lannister v Phoenix Security [2021] SADC 8, His Honour then District Court Judge Simon E. Richter concluded that the purpose of damages, generally speaking is compensatory, and that damages for punitive purposes are generally not in the scope of any award. Whilst we recognise that main role of damages is to restore the party to the position they would have occupied had the loss not occurred, we also rely on the authority of Pollockmen v Warden of San Andreas Correctional Service & Commissioner of San Andreas Police Force [2022] SADC 5, a more recent case where the Court found that aggravated or punitive damages could be awarded in addition to ordinary damages, although only in limited cases where the 'conduct that makes up the Tort committed is more reprehensible than ordinarily observed by similar proceedings, and such damages is necessary to do justice to the parties' at [40]. We would submit this case is one such case. [8] We would submit that by abandoning the performance of one of the most basic responsibilities of a prison guard, and or by instructing a prisoner to engage in abusive conduct a prison guard is principally there to stop, the conduct of the defendant is nothing short of reprehensible. We submit that such conduct warrants the Court's strongest repudiation and denunciation, and accordingly, nothing short of a full award for non-economic loss is warranted. We would submit that this is a matter in the class of the most extreme case, and ought to attract a proportionately strong award in damages. [9] The plaintiff also seeks to invoke the Court's disciplinary jurisdiction under s 14 of the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2019 (SA), specifically ss 14(c)(2),(3),(4). We would submit that in the event the Court finds that a Tort has been committed, that the Court ought to take serious disciplinary action against the officer responsible (we have yet to identify him, and further details will be provided once a response to one of the subpoenas below is provided) in that the conduct amounts to a serious breach of the plaintiff's civil rights, that is to say their right to liberty and bodily integrity per s 10 Civil Rights Act 2019, the commission of Tort of a very egregious kind, and ultimately, conduct which is generally unbecoming of a prison guard. We would seek that the officer(s) in question be dismissed, and or demoted as punishment for their conduct. Summary: [10] The plaintiff accuses that defendant of having committed negligence. [11] The plaintiff seeks damages at quantum of $ 500,000. [12] The plaintiff seeks from the Court orders and directions of a disciplinary kind against the correctional officers responsible for commission of the Tort. Specifically, the dismissal or demotion of those officers. [13] The plaintiff seeks costs. Witnesses: 1) Lieutenant General Jean-Bedel Bokassa 2) Professor Winston Wong (evidence of loss and injuries) Subpoenas: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1_4rqvxHx2DRPFPGWS_4FGpDunlImgIO-NIzuSAyG68M/edit?usp=sharing Evidence: 1) CCTV Footage of the facts. 2) Any of the documents provided in the above subpoena. 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. Simmons v The Queen [2022] SADC 28 [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: Simmons v The Queen [2022] SADC 28 PRESIDING: Harold J. Holt AM PSM DIVISION: CRIMINAL APPELLATE DATE: 30/05/2022 VENUE: VIRTUAL
  18. TOPIC TITLE - Ensure the topic title is appropriately filed PLAINTIFF/DEFENDANT DETAILS - If either the plaintiff or defendant involves an organisation (i.e if the application is made on behalf of, or against an organisation, put the organisation name in) All images should be uploaded to imgur.com or another image hosting website, then copy and paste the actual image directly under evidence Contact Details - Applicant First Name: Emrys Last Name: Barlowe Mobile: 1466084 Discord: Divinemadnes1#5111 Organization: Supervising Contact Details - Co-Counsel First Name: Joel Last Name: Green Mobile: 2721946 Discord: ThomasG#1337 Organization: GTG & Associates Contact Details - Client First Name: Benny Last Name: Night Mobile: 763519 Discord: NightOwl#9178 Defendant Name: SACS Defendant Organization: San Andreas Correctional Services Statement of Claims: [1] On the 27th of May 2022, Benny Night, was unlawfully dismissed from the San Andreas Correctional Services . [2] A member of corrections grabbed Mr. Night while he was on his lunch break and unlawfully detained and dragged Mr. Night to warden's office, committing the tort of unlawful imprisonment as per the Civil Torts Act 2020 s 7(a)(6). The guards then unlawfully searched Mr. Night without his consent, committing the tort of assault as per the Civil Torts Act 2020 s 7(a)(1), stripping him of all belongings and equipment that he uses to conduct his duties as a correctional officer. [3] Mr. Night was then informed that he was being instantly dismissed from the San Andreas Correctional Services for “Pay Check Farming” and that SACS had received multiple complaints of this over the course of Mr. Night’s employment, which lasted 48 hours from when he was hired. Mr. Night was never given his redundancy pay in leu of the 5 days notice as stated in the Corporations, Contracts & Labour Act 2018 s11(a), nor was he given a reason nor evidence of the misconduct committed in the form of a termination notice, as set out in the Corporations, Contracts & Labour Act 2018 s11(c), making Mr. Night’s dismissal unlawful. [4] Mr. Night is still yet to receive any formal dismissal letter and reason from the SACS. We seek the following remedies: i) Mr. Nights reinstatement into SACS. ii) Mr. Night’s legal fees to be paid for by the defendant. iii) Mr. Night to be paid his 5 days notice salary. iv) Mr. Night be paid the sum of $300,000 for the civil torts committed against him by the other guards, causing Mr Night to not only suffer embarrassment, but also irreparable emotional damage. Witnesses: N/A Evidence: N/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 offense 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 authorize the Government of San Andreas to deduct any fees set out in point 2 above from my bank account automatically. (Attach evidence of consent from additional applicants to this case). (Y)
  19. Michael v The Commissioner of the San Andreas Police Force [2022] SADC 27 [1] The District Court accepts the writ of claim against the respondent. [2] The Court will allow the defendant five days to file a response or 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 judgment being entered in the favour of the plaintiff by default. [3] The Court will contact both parties to give directions about how these proceedings will be conducted. CASE TITLE: Michael v The Commissioner of the San Andreas Police Force [2022] SADC 27 PRESIDING: Judge Rudolph Guillani QC DIVISION: Civil DATE: 25/05/2022 VENUE: VIRTUAL
  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.