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... ×

Vladimir.k12

Trial Moderators
  • Content Count

    39
  • Donations

    $0.00 
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Feedback

    N/A

Community Reputation

15 Positive

About Vladimir.k12

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. 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
  2. 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
  3. 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
  4. The Eternals v The Commissioner of the San Andreas Police Force & Anor [2022] SADC 22 [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: The Eternals v The Commissioner of the San Andreas Police Force & Anor [2022] SADC 22 PRESIDING: Judge Rudolph Guillani QC DIVISION: Civil DATE: 03/05/2022 VENUE: VIRTUAL
  5. Oxy v CMG Motors [2022] SADC 16 [1] The District Court accepts the writ of claim against the respondents. [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: Mkaay v CMG Motors [2022] SADC 16 PRESIDING: Judge Rudolph Guillani QC DIVISION: Civil DATE: 19/04/2022 VENUE: VIRTUAL
  6. Mkaay v The Commissioner of the San Andreas Emergency Service & Anor [2022] SADC 15 [1] The District Court accepts the writ of claim against the respondents. [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: Mkaay v The Commissioner of the San Andreas Emergency Service & Anor [2022] SADC 15 PRESIDING: Judge Rudolph Guillani QC DIVISION: Civil DATE: 18/04/2022 VENUE: VIRTUAL Edited March 24 by Vladimir.k12
  7. Brooks v The Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police [2022] SADC 12 [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: Brooks v The Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police [2022] SADC 12 PRESIDING: Judge Rudolph Guillani QC DIVISION: Civil DATE: 28/03/2022 VENUE: VIRTUAL
  8. Farrel v R [2022] SADC 11 [1] The District Court accepts the writ of appeal against conviction [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: Farrel v R [2022] SADC 11 PRESIDING: Judge Rudolph Guillani QC DIVISION: Criminal DATE: 24/03/2022 VENUE: VIRTUAL
  9. Motion for Interlocutory Injunction Chenis V The San Andreas Debt Collectors [2022] SADC 10 19 March 2022 COURT DETAILS: COURT - DISTRICT COURT OF SAN ANDREAS DIVISION - CIVIL PRESIDING - Holt DCJ TITLE OF PROCEEDINGS: APPELLANT - Chenis RESPONDENT - San Andreas Debt Collectors FILING DETAILS PREPARED FOR: Chenis LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE: Rudolph Guillani QC CONTACT (EMAIL/TELEPHONE): lynxaa#3213- 795956 GROUNDS AND ORDERS: [1] Your Honour, We the plaintiff in this matter, seek the following interlocutory injunction be ordered: i) A prohibitive injunction against the respondent, in the way of an order ensuring that the agents of the San Andreas Debt Collectors (respondent) do not continue to unlawfully track phones while the matter is before the court. ii) We are seeking that this injunction stays in place until such a time as the matter has been heard and a judgment has been given, or the matter is settled out of court. [2] Regarding the order sought, we submit that you grant this prohibitive injunction as the respondent will continue to engage in this criminality as the criminality is widespread within the respondent's organisation and even encouraged. If the respondent continues to do so, he will cause irreparable damage to the plaintiff, and the number of plaintiffs will no doubt continue to grow; we believe the damage will be in excess of what the court can order to be paid in damages under the Civil Torts Act 2020 (SA). [3] We are seeking this prohibitive injunction in order to preserve the status quo of the parties until the matter is heard, and as such, no further damage can be brought to the plaintiff by the respondent. [4] Your Honour, in respect to our grounds, to seek such an order, we submit that there is a serious question to be tried, and as such, we have grounds to seek this prohibitive injunction against the respondent. [5] Y our Honour, in respect to the court's power to issue such an order, we submit that it is widely accepted by nearly every court in every jurisdiction in the land that the court has the authority to issue such an order. Signed, Rudolph Guillani QC
  10. Contact Details - Applicant/Plaintiff First Name: Rudolph Last Name: Guillani Mobile: 795956 Discord: lynxaa#3213 Contact Details - Client (If this application is submitted by a registered legal practitioner or on behalf of an organisation) First Name: Hugh Last Name: Chenis Mobile: 2435069 Discord: chillies#5322 Organisation Name (If applicable): N/A Defendant Name: San Andreas Debt Collectors Defendant Organisation (If available): San Andreas Debt Collectors Respondent Discord (if known): N/A Statement of Claims: 1) Your Honour, this class action is brought against the San Andreas Debt Collectors (The Respondent) for violating the civil rights of the Hugh Chenis (Representative Plaintiff) and the co-plaintiffs by unlawfully phone tracking their mobile phones in direct contravention of state law. 2) Your Honour, it is alleged that on numerous occasions, the respondent has attempted to track the Plaintiff's phones in contravention of s 3 (b) (3) Judicial Procedures Act 2019 (SA), and as a result of this, they have violated the right to privacy contained within the Civil Rights Act, specifically s 3 (a) (1) Civil Rights Act (2018) (SA), which states: 3 Privacy and Reputation Everyone has the right- Not to have his or her privacy, family, home or correspondence interfered with unlawfully or arbitrarily; and Not to have his or her reputation unlawfully attacked. 2) Your Honour, As you are more than aware, the power to conduct a phone track is found at s 3 (b) (3) Judicial Procedures Act 2019 (SA), where it clearly states: Warrants for Phone Tracking: May be approved if a court judge is satisfied that an indictable (jailable) offence has been committed and the applicant has, after exhausting all possible methods of apprehension, failed to apprehend the suspect in an effort to arrest and charge them for the offences specified in the warrant. 3) Your Honour, it is clear from the reading of the JPA, that members of the SADC have no lawful authority to Phone Track citizens of the state as they have not; sought a warrant to track the individuals in accordance with the JPA. Nor is there any provision in the Private Securities Act that empowers the respondent to track citizens' phones without a warrant. Therefore, their actions in tracking individuals' phones without a warrant are unlawful. 4) Your Honour, 3 Current and former members of the San Andreas Debt Collectors have come forward and declared that there is widespread phone tracking; in fact, there is a provision within their Standard Operating Procedures (The SOPs) that instructs agents to do it and seek compensation. Furthermore, there is a document they fill out to seek the compensation for the suspects they track; as such, there is a document with every person's name on it who they have tracked. 4) Your Honour, in addition to this, if this is proven true, the respondent will be in contravention of s (7) (a) (3) Civil Torts Act (2020) (SA) and as such will be liable to pay damages to every Plaintiff, they have unlawfully tracked. 5) Your Honour, we will be running an opt-out scheme for this class actions as identified parties will be contacted and be able to opt-out from the class action. 5) Your Honour, we seek the following remedies: i) $125,000 in damages for each plaintiff. ii) Respondent pays the Plaintiff's legal fees. iii) A court order that the respondent is to cease unlawfully tracking phones. iv) A court order that censures the respondent and its senior leadership over this gross and widespread criminality. Witnesses: Oliver Lemon Witness A (Name Withheld current serving SADC agent) Witness B (Name withheld current serving SADC agent) Hugh Chenis Evidence: Witness testimony of: i) Oliver Lemon ii) Witness A iii) Witness B 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 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. Richards v The Commissioner of the San Andreas Police Force [2022] SADC 4 [1] Please see the court's full ruling: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1wJrHDJ1YGK7-sQ8YD73d0YsuVXxGFGUtar5WYlEIqe0/edit?usp=sharing. [2] The Court lifts the Internal affairs orders placed on probationary Constable Jackson Richards and orders his internal affairs record pertaining to this matter be expunged. [3] The Court orders that the Respondent pay the costs of the Plaintiffs on an ordinary basis. CASE TITLE: Richards v The Commissioner of the San Andreas Police Force [2022] SADC 4 PRESIDING: Rudolph Guillani QC DIVISION: CIVIL DATE: 16/1/2022 VENUE: Los Santos Court House
  12. Richards v The Commissioner of the San Andreas Police Force [2022] SADC 4 [1] The District Court accepts the writ of claim filed against The Commissioner of the San Andreas Police Force. [2] The Court will allow the defendant five days to file a response 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: Richards v The Commissioner of the San Andreas Police Force [2022] SADC 5 PRESIDING: Judge Rudolph Guillani QC DIVISION: CIVIL DATE: 11/01/2022 VENUE: VIRTUAL
  13. The Crown has notified the Court that it does not wish to contest these proceedings. As appeals in this context are effectively a rehearing of the matter, with the Crown bearing the burden of proof, the Crown's decision not to 'contest' the appeal is in effect a withdrawal of prosecution. Accordingly, I cannot be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt of any of the convictions made out. I, therefore, make the following orders: ORDERS 1. The convictions recorded on 10/01/22 date be quashed, with a verdict of not guilty entered in its place. 2. Mr Taouk be compensated for time at a rate of $1,000 per month served in addition to fines payed 3. Mr Taouk legal fees be paid CASE TITLE: Taouk v The Queen [2022] SADC 02 PRESIDING:Judge Rudolph Guillani DIVISION: CRIMINAL APPELLATE DATE: 12/01/2022 VENUE: VIRTUAL
  14. Taouk v The Queen [2022] SADC 2 [1] The District Court accepts the writ of appeal filed against 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: Taouk v The Queen [2022] SADC 2 PRESIDING: Judge Rudolph Guillani QC DIVISION: CRIMINAL DATE: 11/01/2022 VENUE: VIRTUAL
  15. Brooks v The Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police; The San Andreas Correctional Service [2021] SADC 76 [1] The District Court accepts the writ of claim filed against the Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police and the San Andreas Correctional Services. [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: Brooks v The Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police; The San Andreas Correctional Service [2021] SADC 76 PRESIDING: Rudolph Guillani DIVISION: CIVIL DATE: 04/12/2021 VENUE: VIRTUAL
×

Important Information

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