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... ×

Green77

Trial Moderators
  • Content Count

    15
  • Donations

    $0.00 
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Feedback

    N/A

Community Reputation

8 Neutral

About Green77

  • Birthday 02/13/2001

Characters

  • FiveM Character 1
    Dengar Green
  • FiveM Character 2
    Wally Green
  • FiveM Character 3
    Joel Green

Social Media

  • Discord
    ThomasG#1337
  • Steam ID
    https://steamcommunity.com/id/greenpat7/

Recent Profile Visitors

295 profile views
  1. 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)
  2. 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)
  3. 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)
  4. Contact Details - Applicant/Plaintiff First Name: Joel Last Name: Green Mobile: 2721946 Discord: ThomasG#1337 Organization: GTG & Associates Supervising Contact Details - Applicant/Plaintiff First Name: Lionel Last Name: Hutz Mobile: 979647 Discord: Fliqqs#0527 Organization: GTG & Associates Supervising Contact Details - Applicant/Plaintiff First Name: Saul James Last Name: Goodman Mobile: 3188951 Discord: Sphinx#6055 Organization: GTG & Associates Contact Details - Client First Name: Stez Last Name: Cruise Mobile: 4964362 Discord: V O S S i#3005 Defendant Name: The Queen Defendant Organisation (If available): San Andreas Police Force Respondent Discord (if known): N/A Statement of Claims: [1] On the 14th of May 2022, Mr Cruise was detained on Los Santos Customs property by police. [2] The officer, Jordan Jenkins, then escorted Mr Cruise back to Mission Row Police Department where he placed him under arrest. He showed Mr Cruise his badge, which displayed his name, Jordan Jenkins, before continuing on with processing. He then sentenced him for 300 minutes in prison and $110,000 in fines for the alleged offences of 3c Murder (Vehicle), 3c Kidnapping and 1c Firearms - Possession/Using/Carrying Prohibited. [3] Your Honour, we believe there is a substantial miscarriage of justice as not only was our client not privy of the charges till just before his sentence, he also wasn't able to argue the charges with the officer that accused him of them. Not only this, the officer couldn't prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr Cruise committed these offenses, and that he was processed based on a note on his cops profile dating back to march. [4] We are seeking the following remedies from the court: My client be compensated for time served and fines paid. The SAPF pay for my clients legal fees. The Charges be stricken from Mr Cruise's criminal record. 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)
  5. Contact Details - Applicant/Plaintiff First Name: Joel Last Name: Green Mobile: 2721946 Discord: ThomasG#1337 Organisation: GTG & Associates Contact Details - Client First Name: Peter Last Name: Michael Mobile: 9989912 Discord: Draggo#0001 Defendant Name: San Andreas Police Force Defendant Organisation: SAPF Statement of Claims: [1] On the 6th of May 2022, Mr Peter Michael was approached by a GD car on Benny's property that was getting a repair. They approached him and asked him to remove his Class R vest that he was wearing at the time, to which Mr Peter Michael gladly complied with. [2] Mr Peter Michael then accidentally jumped up onto their car, to which he was met with the occupants of the vehicle calling him a "Monkey", committing the tort of harassment as per the Civil Torts Act 2020 s 7(a)(2). They also threatened Mr Peter Michael's life stating that they would run him over if he didn't get off their vehicle, when he was already off it, which is unprofessional and unbecoming of an officer of the SAPF. The last thing a civilian expects is to have their life threatened by a law enforcement officer, whose duty is to protect them. [3] The officers then started driving off, to which an occupant of the police vehicle fired their tazer at Mr Peter Michael, committing the tort of assault as per the Civil Torts Act 2020 s 7(a)(1), leaving him defenceless on the ground and in a state of shock. [4] We seek the following remedies: i) Sum of $200,000 in compensation be paid to Mr Michaels for the emotional and physical damage suffered. ii) The SAPF pay for Mr Michael's legal fees. iii) The respective officers get investigated for their misconduct by their respective departments. Witnesses: Jordan Jones Jeff Belweather Peter Michael 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. OOC (Out of Character) Information Steam Username: Green Account ID: 118020 Discord#9999: ThomasG#1337 IC (In Character) Information Personal Details Full Name: Garry Green Contact Number: 8381256 Occupation: Unemployed Employment History: PDM (Trial Sales Associate) How long have you lived in San Andreas?: Coming up to 4 months. Do you consent for a police background check? (Y/N) Y IMPORTANT Complete Section A for C-Suite Executive positions (CEO, COO & CFO) Complete Section B for Business License (New Businesses) SECTION B (Business License (New Businesses)) Reason for registration: Our business' goal is to provide a new radio station within the city for everyone to enjoy. We are aware that Quack FM exists but believe that we can provide a different selection of music than them and be a direct competitor. When a business becomes complacent they tend to become comfortable and not branch out and discover new opportunities. The creation of our business will not only benefit us being able to express our love and enjoyment of music but also force our competitors to be more active and thus providing more experiences for music in the city. Business plan: The plan for Triple Duck FM (Triple D FM for short) is to rival the monopoly held by Quack FM inside the city while also bringing a unique perspective to the music industry in the city. Our business would work like how Quack FM works in regards to being a radio station that offers other businesses advertising opportunities on our radio station but with some other small changes. Our music will focus on closely following the vice city radio station (Triple J) while adding our own twist in regards to putting important city announcements and business advertisements in our stations. Our radio music will change weekly and will have fresh playlists ready to be enjoyed by many people within the city. We will hire employees that can prove themselves in regards to picking music that will be enjoyed by the masses and will also try to feature new and up and coming artists within the city if they ever want exposure. We will offer the following list of services within the city: - Advertising - Important City Announcements - Featuring up and coming artists within the city, whether that be people good at mixing or singing. If approved, we would immediately set out to create months worth of playlists in advance and begin designing logos and advertisements for our business to ensure smooth operation. Proposed organisation structure: The structure of our business will be as follows: - CEO - Director - Deputy Director - Senior Broadcaster - Broadcaster - Mixer - Trial Mixer As for uniforms, as our company is more about our voices and music over public appearance we will not be enforcing a dress code. However, when meeting with clients about advertising opportunities, we require our staff to dress appropriately in formal attire that will be addressed in a dress code standard if approved. Proposed location: As of right now, we will operate our businesses externally and will have no need for a location to be based. However, in the future we would ask for an office space to legitimise our business. Future business needs: Government logistic support requests should the business reach the ‘Incorporated’ stage. 1. We would need one of the existing radio stations in the city to be transferred to our ownership, we believe that the best station to take over would be "Blue Ark". 2. Our business would require the same systems as Quack FM to upload our music to the station. Confirmation: I understand that I will need to roleplay my business and prove the potential in my registration in order for my business to ever be taken into consideration for incorporation. Y I acknowledge that the Government's receival of this registration does not automatically grant me a business to run. Y I acknowledge that falsifying details in this application may render a permanent blacklisting from future registrations. Y I acknowledge that this is a multi-step process in order to start a business, and I am currently on step 1. Y I acknowledge that the incorporation cost of my business may be expensive if I am ever considered. Y I acknowledge that I will be subjected to the Corporations, Contracts and Labour Act and corporate provisions of the Crime and Corruption Act upon registration of my business, and I will comply with such laws. Y I will not nudge, bump or message a Government Official to enquire on the status of this application. Y If my proposed business is part of the Aviation or Private Security industry, I will supply my Air Operator's Certificate or Private Security Business pre-approval within 14 days of this application. Otherwise, my application will be rejected unless DoJ grants an exemption. Y
×

Important Information

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