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

Moderators
  • Content Count

    53
  • Donations

    $0.00 
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Feedback

    N/A

Community Reputation

16 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 Contact Details - Client (If this application is submitted by a registered legal practitioner or on behalf of an organisation) First Name: Rudolph Last Name: Guillani Mobile: n/a Discord: as above. Defendant Name: Genesis Corporation, trading as Rogers Scrap Metal and Recycling. Defendant Contact (If available): Hugh Chenis Respondent Discord (if known): N/A Statement of Claims: [1] The Plaintiff, seeks an enforcement of the Court's orders, in SADC-32 (2022), where this most honourable court ordered that the respondent pay $4.5 million in damages ('The Debt'). To date the Respondent has failed to make any payments of this debt. [2] As such, we seek the court wield its power under s 18 Judicial Procedures Act 2019 (SA), and make either an order for the garnishing of the respondent's accounts or the forfeiture of their property to the plaintiff, in order to satisfy the debt. Witnesses: N/A Evidence: [3] See SADC-32 - 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)
  2. Please find attached, the Court's judgment for SADC-44. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rHUTZsfQXtadsYRGXinmelVgJifu9T9XjRdrPHtlvNY/edit?usp=sharing
  3. Please find attached, court order: SADC-44/002 Regarding the Crowns application for leave to amend. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Cr5Z9NZ5bqglHJtUP1fRecmPD6RDZYcYDk_yJHCtaI0/edit?usp=sharing
  4. Please find attached, court order: SADC-44/001 Regarding the Defence's application for leave to amend. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1KSwkNCFi6rMu8k1TdJUAlGGgrCWoh00X559QaOk-ciU/edit?usp=sharing
  5. Rebello v The King [2022] SADC 44 [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. CASE TITLE: Rebello v The King [2022] SADC 44 PRESIDING: Rudolph Guillani KC DIVISION: CRIMINAL APPELLATE DATE: 15/10/2022 VENUE: VIRTUAL
  6. R v Hussle & Anor [2022] SADC 42 [1] The District Court accepts the Crowns indictment against the defendant/s. [2] The defendant/s are 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 Crown by default. [3] The Court will contact the parties to give directions about how these proceedings will be conducted. [4] In the interests of the administration of Justice, both the matters of R v Brown and R v Hussle, will be combined into one matter being R v Hussle & Anor [2022] SADC 42 CASE TITLE: R v Hussle & Anor [2022] SADC 42 PRESIDING: R. Guillani QC DCJ DIVISION: CRIMINAL DATE: 09/10/2022 VENUE: VIRTUAL
  7. Contact Details - Applicant/Plaintiff First Name: Rudolph Last Name: Guillani Mobile: N/A Discord: lynxaa3213 Contact Details - Client (If this application is submitted by a registered legal practitioner or on behalf of an organisation) First Name: Johnny Last Name: Masvidal Mobile: N/A Discord: N/A Organisation Name (If applicable): Defendant Name: Australian Federal Police Defendant Organisation (If available): AFP Respondent Discord (if known): N/A Statement of Claims: [1] On the 7th day of August 2022, Mr. Masvidal was travelling in a motor car when he was pulled over by two uniformed officers of the Australian Federal Police. The officers then placed Mr. Masvidal in handcuffs, stating he was detained. The officers in question than proceeded to search Mr. Masvidal without explaining to him why in contravention of s 6(d) Law enforcement (Powers & Responsiblties) Act 2 018 (SA). Moreover, after this the officers in question than removed from Mr. Masvidals possession his desert eagle which he has a current firearms licence for declaring the weapon was 'illegal'; constituting the tort of trespass to goods. Furthermore, the officers in question than proceeded to spray Mr Masvidal with OC spray for simply asking for their badge numbers which they subsequently refused to give and sprayed Mr. Masvidal once again (this constitutes the tort of assault limb). [2] It is the applicants submission that the torts of trespass to goods and assault have been committed by the AFP officers in question on Mr. Masvidal: s 7(a)(1)(9) Civil Torts Act 2020 (SA). [3] The officers in question are believed to be AFP-17 and an unknown officer. [4] The applicants seeks the following remedies: i) Payment for $250,000 to Mr. Masvidal in non-economic losses. ii) The return of lawfully owned and possessed firearm. Witnesses: N/A Evidence: https://medal.tv/games/gta-v/clips/vEvgoK6u9f0i2/d13372GyIiKQ?invite=cr-MSxyMGYsNDE3MzQ2OCw 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. Senzatello et al v The Commissioner of The San Andreas Police Force [2022] SADC 36 [1] The District Court accepts the writ of appeal. [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: Senzatello et al v The Commissioner of the San Andreas Police Force [2022] SADC 36 PRESIDING: Judge Rudolph Guillani QC DIVISION: Civil DATE: 11/07/2022 VENUE: VIRTUAL
  9. Brah v The Queen [2022] SADC 35 [1] The District Court accepts the writ of appeal. [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: Brah v The Queen [2022] SADC 35 PRESIDING: Judge Rudolph Guillani QC DIVISION: Criminal DATE: 03/07/2022 VENUE: VIRTUAL
  10. AMMENDMENT TO ORIGINAL WRIT OF CLAIM COURT - District Court of San Andreas DIVISION - Civil PRESIDING - Holt J TITLE OF PROCEEDINGS: APPELLANT: Belmon RESPONDENT: Australian Federal Police FILING DETAILS PREPARED FOR: Belmon LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE: Rudolph Guillani QC [1] The following adds an additional cause of action to the plaintiffs writ claim. Tort of Conversion [1] Your Honour, the Plaintiff seeks to add the tort of conversion, the tort of conversion was described by the court in Penfolds as 'Conversion of goods occurs when a defendant intentionally deals with goods in a way that is inconsistent with or repugnant to the plaintiff’s possessory rights'. [2] Your Honour, in order to establish this tort we must prove the following; i ) The plaintiff has title to sue the defendant. ii) There was a sufficient act of interference. iii) the defendant had the requisite state of mind. iv) The subject matter interfered with is a good capable of being possessed. [3] Your Honour, we will address each element in turn, moving to the first element that the Plaintiff has title to sue. In order for this to be proven, the Plaintiff must either be in actual, constructive or have an immediate right to possession of the chattel. We submit that Mr. Belmon had constructive possession of the chattel as referenced above in our cause of action relating to trespass to goods. [4] However, In the alternative, your Honour, we submit that our client had the immediate right to posnsession. Generally, an immediate right of possession cannot occur in the future. However, Mr. Belmonds's car was due to be released from the impound lot on the 21st of June 2022, approximately five days after the seizure. We submit that the police interfered with Mr. Belmon's immediate right to possession of the vehicle when it was to be released from the impound lot by destroying his vehicle. Your Honour, just because Mr. Belmons's vehicle was to be seized does not displace his title to the chattel as the true owner. Therefore, he had a right to immediate possession of that chattel when it was to be released from the impound lot. As such, the police have interfered with his immediate right to posses his chattel.' [5] Your Honour, turning to the second element, for this element to be established, the Court in Penfolds said that 'The essence of conversion is a dealing with [goods] in a manner repugnant to the immediate right of possession of the person who has the property or special property in the [goods].' Your Honour, we submit that pushing the vehicle into the water and destroying it is most definitely dealing with the chattel in a way that is repugnant to the immediate right of possession of Mr. Belmon. Therefore, the second element is proven. [6] Your Honour, moving to the next element in Bunnings Group v CHEP Australia the Court described the state of mind required to commit the tort of conversion as the following 'The tort [of conversion] is one of strict liability and thus a mental element in knowing that a wrong is being committed is not required. Nevertheless, the intention is not irrelevant. The act or dealing in question must be intentional; further, the intention must be the exercise of such dominion as is repugnant to the rights of the owner.' Your Honour, we submit that the act of pushing the car into the ocean was an act that was repugnant to the rights of the owner as it was depriving him of access to the chattel and was destroying the chattel. [7] Your Honour, it is quite clear the vehicle in question is a chattel capable of being possessed; there is no dispute over this.
  11. NOTICE OF MOTION - ORDERS SOUGHT COURT - District Court of San Andreas DIVISION - Civil PRESIDING - Holt J TITLE OF PROCEEDINGS: APPELLANT: Guillani, Taft, Goodman & Associates RESPONDENT: Genesis Corporation FILING DETAILS PREPARED FOR: Guillani, Taft, Goodman & Associates LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE: Rudolph Guillani QC ORDERS SOUGHT [1] That the Court bar defendant from leading arguments or adducing evidence about an alleged prior verbal agreements and/or terms that seek to vary the terms of the written agreement. [2] Accordingly, the Court will have to strike out paragraphs 2 and 6 of the defendants written submissions. GROUNDS [1] Your Honour, the respondent seeks from this Court the orders set out above, on the basis that the common law parol evidence rule bars a party from adducing extrinsic evidence that seeks to add , vary, or contradict the terms of the contract contained in the document. In Codelfa Construction v State Rail Authority of NSW, the High Court said the following 'verbal evidence is not allowed to be given of what passed between the parties, either before the written document was made, or during the time that it was in a state of preparation, so as to add to or subtract from, or in any manner to vary or qualify the written contract.' [2] Your Honour, in Mercantile Bank of Sydney v Taylor, the court said that the rule provides that where a contract is reduced into writing and appears in the writing to be entire, it is presumed that the writing contains all the terms of it and evidence will not be admitted of any previous or contemporaneous agreement which would have the effect of adding to, subtracting from or varying it in any way [3] Your Honour, that is the issue with the present case the defendant is trying to lead arguments and suggest that there was a prior verbal agreement between the parties and the defendant is seeking by doing this to vary the terms of the written agreement this can be seen in paragraphs 2 and 6 of the Defendants response. [4] Your Honour, it is clear the parol evidence should be brought into affect as there is a written agreement that includes all the terms of the agreement and that has been sgined by parties as such the evidence the Defendant is trying to lead cannot be allowed. [4] Your Honour, the question is, if this alleged 'verbal agreement' was so essential than why was it no included in the final written agreement. The Defendant should not be allowed to attempt to vary the terms of the written agreement with this alleged prior verbal agreement.
  12. 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
  13. 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
  14. 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
  15. 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
×

Important Information

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