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... ×

Nukaa (Harold J. Holt)

Members
  • Content Count

    113
  • Donations

    $0.00 
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Feedback

    N/A

Community Reputation

23 Good

About Nukaa (Harold J. Holt)

Quiz Mod

Characters

  • FiveM Character 1
    Harold Holt
  • FiveM Character 2
    Rick Deckard
  • FiveM Character 3
    Gustavo Fring

Social Media

  • Discord
    Nukaa#5788

Recent Profile Visitors

790 profile views
  1. Freeman v Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police [2022] SADC 40 [1] The District Court orders this matter be dismissed. [2] The District Court does so, on the basis that a deceased person does not have standing to bring legal proceedings in the State of San Andreas under section 2A of the Judicial Procedures Act 2019 (SA). [3] Whilst presided over by a Supreme Court Justice, this case is being heard at a District Court level. CASE TITLE: Freeman v Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police [2022] SADC 40 PRESIDING: Harold J. Holt AM PSM DIVISION: CRIMINAL APPELLATE DATE: 10/08/2022 VENUE: VIRTUAL
  2. Dimeo v The Queen [2022] SADC 39 [1] The District Court accepts the appellant's writ of appeal against conviction. [2] As the appeal to summary conviction has been filed within five days of that conviction being recorded, these proceedings will be heard on a de novo basis, with the respondent bearing the burden of proof. [3] The respondent is directed to file an appearance and a response within five days, effective from receiving notice of these proceedings being accepted by the Court. Failure to provide a response or appearance will result in the proceedings being heard without the respondent and may result in a judgment in the favour of the appellant by default. [4] The Court will contact the parties to give directions about how these proceedings will be conducted. [5] Whilst presided over by a Supreme Court Justice, this case is being heard at a District Court level. CASE TITLE: Dimeo v The Queen [2022] SADC 39 PRESIDING: Harold J. Holt AM PSM DIVISION: CRIMINAL APPELLATE DATE: 27/07/2022 VENUE: VIRTUAL
  3. Lannister v The Queen [2022] SADC 38 [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: Lannister v The Queen [2022] SADC 38 PRESIDING: Harold J. Holt AM PSM DIVISION: CRIMINAL APPELLATE DATE: 27/07/2022 VENUE: VIRTUAL
  4. 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
  5. 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
  6. 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
  7. 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)
  8. 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
  9. Proteinshake v The Queen [2022] SASC 2 [1] In view of the Crown's notice that they will not contest these proceedings, I hereby find in the favour of the appellant by default in respect of his appeal. [2] Accordingly, I make the following orders: ORDER That the appellant's convictions for Firearms - Brandish/Open Carry, Robbery, Police Pursuit, Kidnapping / Unlawful Imprisonment, and Police Pursuit recorded on the 31st of March be quashed, and in their place, have a verdict of not guilty recorded. That Crown pay the appellant's costs on an ordinary basis. That the appellant be compensated for time served at a rate of $ 1000 per month served, and any fines paid in relation to the convictions now quashed. ($ 245,000) CASE TITLE: Proteinshake v The Queen [2022] SASC 2 PRESIDING: Justice Harold J. Holt AM PSM DIVISION: CRIMINAL DATE: 10/04/2022 VENUE: VIRTUAL
  10. Proteinshake v The Queen [2022] SASC 2 [1] In view of the District Court's unavailability to hear this matter, pursuant to s 5(a) of the State Constitution Act 2018, I hereby exercise the functions of the District Court in hearing appeals from summary convictions under s 7(b) of the Judicial Procedures Act 2019. As this appeal has been filed within 5 days of the conviction, the appeal will be heard on a de novo basis, with the respondent bearing the burden of proof. [2] The Supreme Court accepts the writ of appeal, and directs that the respondent to file a defense and enter an appearance within five days, effective from the date and time the respondent receives notice as to the acceptance of these proceedings. As these proceedings will be conducted on a de novo basis, meaning it will be heard afresh according to the standard procedures of criminal trial, henceforth, the appellant will be known as the accused, and the respondent the Crown or the prosecution. [4] The Supreme Court will contact the parties to give directions as to the management of this matter. CASE TITLE: Proteinshake v The Queen [2022] SASC 2 PRESIDING: Justice Harold J. Holt AM PSM DIVISION: CRIMINAL DATE: 04/04/2022 VENUE: VIRTUAL
  11. Chenis v San Andreas Debt Collectors [2022] SADC 10 [1] The Court accepts the appellant's writ of claim against the defendant. [2] The Court orders that the defendant in this matter be provided five days, effective from when they are given notice of these proceedings, to file an appearance/defence to these proceedings. Failure to do so will result in the matter being heard without respondent, and may result in a decision 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: Chenis v San Andreas Debt Collector [2022] SADC 9 PRESIDING: Harold J. Holt PSM QC DIVISION: CIVIL DATE: 19/03/2022 VENUE: VIRTUAL
  12. NOTICE OF MOTION - APPLICATION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS, EXTEND DEADLINE TO FILE RESPONSE COURT - SUPREME COURT OF SAN ANDREAS DIVISION - APPELLATE PRESIDING - Phil Harsh J & Simon Richter J TITLE OF PROCEEDINGS: APPELLANT: Commissioner of the San Andreas Police Force RESPONDENT: Jackson Richards FILING DETAILS PREPARED FOR: Jackson Richards LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE: Harold J. Holt AM PSM QC CONTACT (EMAIL/TELEPHONE): Nukaa#5788 - #762969 ORDERS SOUGHT [1] That this matter not proceed to appeal until the appellant satisfies the Leave to Appeal criteria set out in s 7(a) of the Judicial Procedures Act 2019 (SA). [2] That the respondent be lifted of it's obligation to file a defense/response until such time that Leave to Appeal is determined in the appellant's favour. [3] That Leave to Appeal be decided by way of a hearing, and not on the papers. GROUNDS [1] Your Honours, the respondent seeks from this Court the orders set out above, on the basis that the appellant's has not yet obtained leave from the court, as is required for an appeal to be heard. [2] Your Honours, s 7(a) of the Judicial Procedures Act 2019 (SA) clearly states that in order for an appeal to go to hearing, that is to say, for this honourable court to hear the appeal, the appellant must first have obtained leave of the court to do so. It is the respondents' current understanding that leave has not been sought from, nor granted by this Court. It seems the appellant has hastily approached this Court for intervention under the erroneous assumption that he enjoys appeal as of right to the decisions of the District Court. [3] Furthermore, if the writ of appeal filed is to be construed as also an application for leave, the respondent submits that the appellant has not clearly set out grounds as to why leave ought to be granted. In order for leave to be granted, the appellant must reasonably satisfy this Court that a) plausibility of an error or irregularity b) that as a result of the error or irregularity, there has been a substantial miscarriage of justice. Whilst part of the arguments that make up appellants writ of appeal, which I anticipate was drafted under the assumption set out above, could be taken as to inform this Court (and the respondent) as to their case for an error or irregularity being plausible, no where in the appellant's writ is there any assertion as to how those purported errors have resulted in a substantial miscarriage of justice. [4] Given the appellant's writ remains baron of this basic yet crucial information, this Court cannot expect the respondent to file a response against an appeal which does not completely set out it's case. It is a cardinal principle of English common law that there be no trial by surprise. We would submit that in view of that, that it would be improper and unjust to require the respondent to file a response against an incomplete claim. [5] Lastly, we would submit that the respondent would prefer to any decision relating to special leave be heard by way of hearing, in accordance with the principles of open justice.
  13. NOTICE OF APPEARANCE COURT DETAILS: COURT - SUPREME COURT OF SAN ANDREAS DIVISION - APPELLATE PRESIDING - Phil Harsh J & Simon Richter J TITLE OF PROCEEDINGS: APPELLANT: Commissioner of the San Andreas Police Force RESPONDENT: Jackson Richards FILING DETAILS PREPARED FOR: Jackson Richards LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE: Harold J. Holt AM PSM QC CONTACT (EMAIL/TELEPHONE): Nukaa#5788 - #762969 APPEARANCE The respondent gives notice of appearance. SIGNATURE Harold Julius Holt
  14. Pollockmen v Commissioner of San Andreas Police Force & Warden of San Andreas Correctional Service [2022] SADC 5 [1] The District Court accepts the writ of claim against the defendants. [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: Pollockmen v Commissioner of San Andreas Police Force & Warden of San Andreas Correctional Service [2022] SADC 5 PRESIDING: Harold J. Holt AM PSM QC DIVISION: CIVIL DATE: 16/01/2022 VENUE: VIRTUAL
×

Important Information

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