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

Ace97

Members
  • Content Count

    8
  • Donations

    $0.00 
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Feedback

    N/A

Community Reputation

3 Neutral

About Ace97

  • Birthday December 16

Characters

  • FiveM Character 1
    Amir Ahmad
  • FiveM Character 2
    William Howard Taft

Social Media

  • Discord
    Ace#0103

Recent Profile Visitors

65 profile views
  1. Teamsters Union Gang Leader: Jimmy Hoffa - PH:8708036 - ID:117842 Gang Lead Discord: Ace#0103 Gang Members - Danny Avocado - PH: 9158809 - Fliqqs#0527 - ID:15095 @fliqqs - Jerry Miller - PH:963937 - vice#6977 - ID:10328 @vice - Scott Green - PH:8381256 - ThomasG#1337 - ID:118020 @Green77 Gang Colours/Uniform: Different Colour Jump suits with different blue collar decals on them like Bugstars or Garbage Inc. Gang Backstory: The International Brotherhood of Teamsters or Teamsters Union for short is an organisation first and foremost to protect blue-collar and professional workers in both the public and private sectors. We will not allow for the workers of these essential Industries to be treated as subhuman and the downtrodden of society. We will achieve this by any means necessary. The Teamsters Union will represent members in all industries of San Andreas such as but not limited to: - Waste Management Industry - Casino and Nightclub Industry - Construction Industry - Council Workers - Postal Delivery Planned Day to Day Operations: - “Paint Houses” - Brokering and enforcing illegal agreements - Picketing for better working rights - Bribery - Jury Tampering - Conspiracy - Wire Fraud - R.I.C.O - Extortion - Corruption of Public officials - Counterfeiting - Arson - Tax Fraud - Stock Manipulation Do you accept the following condition: In registering this gang, I understand that we are subjected to, and will accept the gang rules and that my gang permission can be revoked by staff for breaches of server and/or gang rules. Understood
  2. Your Honour, Rebuttal for FIrst Legal Argument “[1] The statement of our client is to be protected by that of the Civil Rights Act 2018, Section 7. Freedom of expression, specifically under sub-section B.” Effectively the defendant is stating that due to GTG and Associates being a registered business / corporation we are incapable of being defamed. The question of law in this matter is ‘are corporations within the state of San Andreas a legal person or entity.’ The burden of advancing these legal issues lay with the defendant. As they are the ones who have raised that our corporation does not fall under the protection that an individual is afforded under the Civil Rights Act 2018 in the state of San Andreas. We also shine light on the failure to raise why the Civil Rights Act 2018, Section 7, Freedom of Expression should outway an entities rights under Section 7 (C) 1 and 2 C. The right may be subject to lawful restrictions reasonably necessary- To respect the rights and reputation of other persons; or For the protection of national security, public order, public health or public morality. Rebuttal for Second Legal Argument [2] On the fundamental basis of a mailbox & reception system, if my client were to “delete his message” this would be the clear equivalent of removing a piece of paper from a physical location, as such, the plaintiff would only find a written notice that has been signed off under an anonymous individual, in which there is no means to trace the notice back to my client. No permissions were given to trace and track our client. This assertion is one of admissibility and challenging the overall effectiveness of the defamation as the message was deleted sometime after. No reasonable claim of inadmissibility was raised. No claim of privacy, no claim of privilege. We do raise the elements of Defamation which lend themselves from common law and they are: That something was published either orally or in writing; That an ordinary person would consider the material that was published to be defamatory; The person claiming defamation can be identified in the material that was published; and That there is no legal excuse for the publication of the defamatory material. Each and every point here as a basis in fact: 1. The submissions were made in writing in our public mailbox and orally in the courthouse 2. We raise that the ordinary person would see the comments as defamatory as they were personal attacks in the courthouse having nothing to do with a service rendered. As well as the comments in the public mailbox do not reference a certain matter and are therefore baseless as such an ordinary person would see them as defamatory. 3. We are the people claiming defamation, Saul Goodman was named and shamed inside the courthouse which was open to the public. We were also defamed in a public mailbox which clearly states our law firm displayed ‘poor professionalism and terrible legal service.’ 4. There is no legal excuse under the eyes of the law to openly defame a company or its employees. I remind the court that the defendant has not provided legal arguments as to why what is very clearly a not so anonymous account by Daniel Lannister should not be admissible or why the overall defamation which was deleted sometime after was not effective in its defamation as it was clearly seen and reacted to by 4 different people in the GTG mailbox and over 10 different people heard the comments made by Daniel Lannister in the courthouse on the 6th of August. Rebuttal for Third Legal Argument. [3] Under the Civil Rights Act 2018, Section 3, sub-section a, 2) it is clearly stated “Everyone has the right- Not to have his or her reputation unlawfully attacked.” This clearly outlines that Section 3 protects individual people, and does not cover businesses. The plaintiff is not an individual, but a registered business within the state of San Andreas. Once again the defendants have failed to provide submissions or precedent as to WHY a corporation or registered business can be defamed. The principles to which the protection of Defamation were created is to protect against arbitrary comments made which will actively harm the reputation of an individual. Therefore the Defendant is indirectly stating due to the fact that we are a registered business or corporation it is entirely legal and just to defame a corporation as one sees fit as no protection under the law is afforded to them. This is a ludicrous statement that goes against everything the law stands for Your Honour. We would also submit that Your Honour ought to have regard to the incompleteness of the provision, in that it does not set out specific elements or criteria for the cause of action of defamation. Your Honour, we would submit that the law's silence in setting out the elements of defamation beyond merely referencing the cause of action in general terms (unlawfully attack the reputation of a person) would suggest that the law contemplates that it’s elements exist elsewhere in the general law. We would submit that if Your Honour was to entertain that the elements of defamation went beyond the reference in the provision, that His Honour find persuasive the elements recognised almost universally in analogous common law jurisdictions. We would submit that in analogous jurisdictions, corporations of a small size, or partnerships have been recognised as having standing to advance an action of defamation where they have been defamed. Rebuttal for Arguments as to Evidence: No evidence was provided by the defendant as to ‘the first piece of evidence’ Your Honour the second and third pieces of evidence refer to inadmissible evidence No reasonable claim of inadmissibility was raised. No claim of privacy, no claim of privilege. Inadmissibility was raised for the fourth piece of evidence on the claim to privacy. The right to privacy in this circumstance was given no basis in law or precedent. We are not required under law to read the police caution to an individual before using a conversation which was actively engaged in by Daniel Lannister in open court. William Howard Taft | Name Partner GTG & Associates
  3. Your Honour, please see submission to have the case withdrawn on the basis of a private settle being achieved between the two parties. SIGNATURE William Howard Taft
  4. Your Honour, Please see attached the attempts made to request command level from the San Andreas Police Force to settle this claim out of court. Evidence 1: Email sent to SAPF reception Evidence 2: Email sent to PD-Lawyer Evidence 3: I William Howard Taft stood at MRPD for what felt like close to an hour hoping that I would stumble across a command level officer as well as sending an 000 call requesting one to mrpd and to no avial. Two officers attempted to help me and can attest to my attempts Auxilary Sergeant Bill Murry and General Duties Officer Hugo Frost SIGNATURE WILLIAM HOWARD TAFT
  5. 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: William Howard Last Name: Taft Mobile: 3296472 Discord: Ace#0103 Organisation Name: Guillani, Taft, Goodman & Associates Contact Details - Co-Counsel First Name: Rudolph Last Name: Guillani Mobile: 795956 Discord: lynxaa#3213 Organisation Name: Guillani, Taft, Goodman & Associates Contact Details - Client First Name: Michael Last Name: Garcia Mobile: 3890055 Discord: JumbusRigby#0001 For Original Jurisdiction Defendant Name: San Andreas Police Force Defendant Organisation (If available): SAPF Respondent Discord (if known): xx#0000 Statement of Claims: [1] Mr Garcia formerly known as Luther Smith was charged with 1x count of murder on the 19th of July 2021. [2] Mr Garcia was attacked with a knife by an unknown assailant. [3] Mr Garcia fearing for his life and safety drew his legally sourced 12 gauge shotgun to which he was fully licensed to carry and utilize and screamed at the individual quite clearly to put the knife down. [4] Mr Garcia of sound mind and body saw no other alterative given the circumstances of the incident to use the shotgun readily available to him to put down the attacker. Self defence as per s 29 Crimes Act 2018 (SA) is a complete defence. [5] Inspector Farewell charged mr Garcia with 1 count of murder without taking account the circumstances which would amount to a full acquittal under self defense. [6] Inspector Farewell failed to investigate the scene, and arbitrarily arrested my client without checking the body which would have clearly shown a knife being wielded. We seek the following remedies due to the flagrant disregard Inspector Farewell has exhibited towards Mr. Garcia's rights namely and fundamentally most important the right to life. [1] All fines and charges added to Mr. Garcia's criminal record be immediately struck down and fines reimbursed. [3] SAPF/AFP pay for all of Mr. Garcia's legal Fee's Evidence: Michael Garcia affidavit: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1A3utVRN7ialjhySj1GTujwEH01eg1ewNygoc7chIxFU/edit?usp=sharing Subpoena to the SAPF: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ITTBl72E1cy2uqjdX-lM30gEAPJ8KuFWbtXfoxCpBE0/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
×

Important Information

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