Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Blanco last won the day on November 30 2018

Blanco had the most liked content!

1 Follower

About Blanco

  • Rank
  • Birthday 04/13/1999

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

767 profile views
  1. "Your honor, Both parties have agreed to a plea deal where the accused will plea guilty to all three charges in exchange for a sentence of 3 years (( 3 days )) and a fine of $9,000." (( @Urshankov @Zebulon ))
  2. ** Gabriel Krakowski enters the courtroom, briefly looking at his watch as he approaches the defense desk. He lowers his briefcase onto the desk before acknowledging the judge with a nod ** "The defense is present, your honor."
  3. "Your Honor, As you can see the defense simply continues to resort back to personal insults rather than simply arguing the facts of the case. Not once has the defense addressed any counter-arguments brought up from his arguments, instead relying on slinging insults such as the bizarre allegation that the plaintiff is "googling these responses under their desk.." and changing the topic overall. The plaintiff however welcomes the defenses' motion for the judge to review the facts of the case as brought up this far, resting their case unless the defense has any other point to add." ** Gabriel Krakowski nods respectfully towards the judge once, then briefly giving a nod in the same fashion towards the defense, before sitting back down ** (( @EvilScotsman @Zebulon ))
  4. Heard u been out

    1. Antonia


      he just got in

  5. hello

    1. Antonia


      how u doing e-friend

    2. Blanco


      pretty good how about u e-friendo :3

    3. Antonia


      lol good nigga 😆



  6. "Your Honor, The Plaintiff would like to remind the defense that the Legislature is responsible for creating legislation, which is the power the SCOTUS was referencing. Also, the court should take note of the continued use of an unprofessional and uncivil tone by the defense." (( @EvilScotsman @Zebulon ))
  7. "Your Honor, The defense has done nothing but corroborate my claim that the SCOTUS decision considered the passing of legislation as the determination of public use. The quote he referenced simply reinforced the idea that the legislature has the power to pass legislation declaring public use of a property or a collection of properties, which I never contested in my response. That said, I would just like to point out that the defense has been nothing but unprofessional and rude throughout this entire trial. Resorting to personal insults in many of his responses, rather than arguing the facts of the case, behavior which should not be tolerated from the sitting district attorney." (( @EvilScotsman @Zebulon ))
  8. "Your Honor, If you look at the case supplied by the defense, "Berman v. Parker," you can see that the court ruling was contingent on the fact that legislation was passed prior to any eminent domain proceedings being conducted. The court decision listed the passing of the legislation as a means of showing public use. Thus the Berman v. Parker case is not comparable, seeming as there was no legislation passed nor any information given about the public use of the property prior to any eminent domain proceedings. If such proceedings were conducted prior to any action being taken against the plaintiff, we would concede that the public use section of Eminent Domain has been achieved but not the Just Compensation section. To reiterate, the Berman v. Parker decision used the passing of legislation prior to any proceedings as fulfilling the public use section of Eminent Domain, which was not done in this case." (( @EvilScotsman @Zebulon ))
  9. "Your Honor, I would just ask you direct your view to the evidence provided by the District Attorney in his counter-suit and fully read the statute as written in law. This is a civil court, not a criminal court, I am not trying to prosecute someone for breaching a law but rather providing a "nonfrivolous argument for extending, modifying, or reversing existing law..." as I have stated. The plaintiff is providing for the court to interpret the eminent domain doctrine as it is being used in this case, thus allowing for the court to decide whether the principle set forth, 'public use' and 'just compensation,' are being properly met. This is in no way a frivolous suit and the fact that the defense keeps repeating this claim and trying to dismiss this case shows ill intent on their behalf." (( @EvilScotsman @Zebulon ))
  10. "Your honor, The plaintiff would like to clarify that it is not asking for restitution of lost revenue, but rather a fair appraisal of the property. The plaintiff used a method recognized by the appraisal foundation, which is the organization responsible for setting standards in real estate valuation. If you would like further information into the approach you, the appraisal technique used was known as the "Income Capitalization Approach." This is a very common approach used to evaluate property that serves as a stream of revenue for a business and is very much valid for determining just compensation for the value of the property. That said, it is clear the defense is trying to dismiss a nationally recognized and standardized methodology for property appraisal in his previous statement, either out of ignorance or malice. The plaintiff has also already clarified their claim and provided more information as to why the suit was filed and what it hopes to accomplish in the previous statement, so it will not reiterate them here." (( @EvilScotsman @Zebulon ))
  11. ** Gabriel Krakowski rises from his seat, briefly acknowledging the presence of Seven Spade with a smile and a nod, before beginning to address the Judge ** "Your honor, The plaintiff would like to clarify that the suit was brought up because they believe the county has not properly met the criteria for Eminent Domain in this case. While the county has claimed the property will be used by the public, it has not provided any documentation, plans, council meetings, votes, or comprehensive studies which showcased how they made their decision to condemn the property of the plaintiff. Allowing the county to condemn property on a whim and without any information or studies as to the impact on the public would be detrimental to the county as a whole. It would basically nullify private property rights, making it where the county would be able to post a notice on your door claim: 'PUBLIC USE INCOMING,' and then low-ball an offer disguised as 'fair-market value.' The plaintiff believes the county should provide more than just a claim that the property is going to be used for the public, and instead already have a comprehensive plan in action with studies on the costs, materials, and public impact which the proposed improvement would have on the public before condemning the property. Condemning property without having any of these basic necessities done prior would just serve to kick someone out of their rightful private property so that the lot can sit vacant while the county arbitrates on what purpose the property would serve, how it would be developed, where they would get the funds, etc. The plaintiff believes the described process of adjudication between the council members about the future of the city, drafting plans, conducting appropriate studies, and taking democratic votes from council members serves as an essential part of the due process for eminent domain. Without this process there lies a slippery slope where one individual could decide to condemn property on a whim, without oversight, for political or personal gain. Thus, the plaintiff asks for a subpoena on all county meetings, including dates, times, and roll calls, regarding the proposed improvement for the 1258 Holy Cross St. Market, Los Santos property, as well as any studies or reports compiled by the county regarding the proposed benefit to the public from the acquisition of the property." ** Gabriel Krakowski clears his throat briefly, covering his mouth with a closed fist as he does so, then continuing his speech ** "That covers the plaintiff's complaints on the public use section of the eminent domain, and the due process which this affords those in the process. However, the plaintiff also believes that the county has failed to provide just compensation for the property. If the property were merely a residential lot, and the plaintiff was simply using it as a domicile, then the compensation provided would be just. It roughly covers the cost of the structure overall. Yet, as the county knows, the property is not a domicile but a place of business. The 1258 Holy Cross St. Market, Los Santos property is home to Dinoco Exotics vehicle showroom, providing clients an easy way to preview cars they wish to buy in a convenient and central location. The loss of this property would affect the overall sales of vehicles until an alternative location can be discovered, which will be exceedingly difficult due to the specialized construction required to make a property a vehicle showroom. Even then, the plaintiff would no longer have the convenient and central location which it previously had, further reducing the market impact of the new showroom, should they have to build it. This showroom has provided Dinoco Exotics with a profit of $711,156 since the 15th of August, 2018. If we break that down to a monthly profit, we get an amount of roughly $237,052 per month. This is the potential gross income of the property for a single month, from current figures. Conceding that money made tomorrow is worth less than today, we adjusted the amount to $232,548 according to the estimated inflation for the year of 2018 (1.9%). Using this figure we can determine the gross income of the property over the next six months would be: $1,395,288. Thus, the plaintiff believes the appropriate and just value of the property would be $1,395,288. That is all, your honor." (( @EvilScotsman @Zebulon ))
  12. ** Gabriel Krakowski enters the courtroom, proceeding to the plaintiff's desk and taking a seat. **
  13. SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS Civil Petition Court of San Andreas, District of Los Santos Dinoco LTD Versus Los Santos County Government Subpart 1. Accusation. In the matter of this civil petition, Dinoco Limited on the November 28th, 2018, accuses Los Santos County Government of: Misuse of the Eminent Domain Clause Failure to comply with Government Transparency ordinances Subpart 2. Demands. The plaintiff, Dinoco Limited demands the following: Immediate nullification of Eminent Domain proceedings against the plaintiff. Investigation into County Commissioner Nicholas Howard for a conflict of interest Reform of the county committee to allow for greater transparency and oversight by the public, as implied in previous legislation. Subpart 3. Narrative. On the 20th of November, 2018 the plaintiff was contacted by the County Government extending an open hand to them in the hopes of improving their relationship. In this message Commissioner Howard expressed his desire to "continue a strong relationship" with my plaintiff and to "...help Dinoco Ltd strive to achieve it's full ability within Los Santos." The Commissioners attitude changed, shortly after Dinoco Ltd published a press release in support of the policies of the opposing candidate and therefore the candidate himself. This press release caused a complete 180 degree turn by the Commissioner, which promptly decided to cut all ties with Dinoco Ltd, terminating the Red Rose Funeral Homes contract using the aforementioned press release as the reason for the termination. On the 22nd of November, 2018 the plaintiff received a notice from the District Attorney regarding eminent domain proceedings which would condemn the plaintiffs 1258 Holy Cross St. Market, Los Santos property. While the DA asserted that the property would be used for public purposes and would be "...beneficial to the population at large..." there has been no official publication regarding the public plans for the plaintiffs property, nor has there been any publicly recorded council meeting about these plans. The plaintiff believes that a comprehensive assessment into the land usage has not been properly carried out and no study as to how the acquisition of the plaintiffs land will provide a benefit to the public has been conducted. Without participation from the public at large through open meetings and published transcripts, there has been no input from the public meant to benefit from this condemnation. As such, it is believed that the current Eminent Domain process should be nullified as it seems like nothing more than a government land grab from a private entity which conducts extensive business ventures from it. The nature of the acquisition is also brought into question, as it appeared shortly after the plaintiff vowed to support the opposing candidate for office. Limitations and oversight are an important part of government, and when the public can't see what is happening it is unable to hold the elected officials accountable. The lack of information regarding the plans for public development or transfer of property show that there is a problem with the current levels of transparency and oversight. Subpart 4. Evidence. Exhibit 1. Exhibit 2. Exhibit 3. Subpart 6. Ancillary Information. Defendant Legal Representation: UNK Plaintiff Legal Representation: Gabriel Stefan Krakowski Contact Information: 369120 Presiding Judge: X Subpart 7. Declaration. I, Gabriel Stefan Krakowski, affirm that the foregoing is accurate and true to the best of my knowledge and belief. (( @Mogs @Zebulon @DylanW ))
  14. whats poppin in that peppermint ??⚪️ pussy ?? u little snowhoe ❄️???

  • Create New...

Important Information

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