Jump to content

Wright

MTA Head Administrator
  • Content Count

    5,554
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    67

Wright last won the day on March 4

Wright had the most liked content!

About Wright

  • Rank
    Legendary Member
  • Birthday 11/11/1990

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

10,292 profile views
  1. *Erik Olsson enters the court room and stands beside David Whitefield.*
  2. "The prosecution would like to reiterate case law on this matter where a toy gun is considered a dangerous weapon, citing United States v. Medved, United States v. Cannon, United States v. Martinez-Jimenez, and United States v. Perry: "The reason provided by the courts prior is that "[a] robber who carries a toy gun during the commission of a bank robbery creates some of the same risks as those created by one who carries an unloaded or inoperable genuine gun. First, the robber subjects victims to greater apprehension. Second, the robber requires law enforcement agencies to formulate a more deliberate, and less efficient, response in light of the need to counter the apparent direct and immediate threat to human life. Third, the robber creates a likelihood that the reasonable response of police and guards will include the use of deadly force. The increased chance of an armed response creates a greater risk to the physical security of victims, bystanders, and even the perpetrators. Therefore, the greater harm that a robber creates by deciding to carry a toy gun is similar to the harm that he creates by deciding to carry an unloaded gun.'" Even if this argument is to be dismissed, the defense has provided no proof of this being a toy gun, nor have they provided the alleged toy gun to the courts. It is therefore obvious a real gun was used, especially after one of Mr. Gibson's associates opened fire on police and the other threw his weapon into the bush when evading police. The defense is lying by omission to try and prove a point which will not work here. Additionally, our witness has outlined to us the facts of the case: he believed it to be a real weapon, there was no indication of it being fake (orange tip, etc) and they invoked fear into the gas station attendants." "Thank you, your Honor." (( @ThatGuy @JameZ ))
  3. Just don't defend yourself when the next Night of the Broken Taco occurs.
  4. SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS Civil Petition Court of San Andreas, District of Los Santos Zinvor Razmik Versus Bureau of Traffic Services Subpart 1. Accusation. In the matter of this civil petition, Zinvor Razmik on the April 14th, 2019, accuses Bureau of Traffic Services of: Unlawful impounding of vehicle Embezzlement Theft Subpart 2. Demands. The plaintiff, Zinvor Razmik demands the following: Return of the vehicle Lawyers fees ($500 per hour) Those responsible be punished An investigation be held by the CPQL Payment for loss of work due to missing vehicle and court time Subpart 3. Narrative. My client, Zinvor Razmik, had his 2016 Mercedes Benz C450 AMG illegally impounded after It was parked on St. Lawrence Boulevard, facing north with two wheels on the curb, and without being in conflict of any other Parking Code regulation. My client received a note that it was impounded by the Bureau of Traffic Services, however they are failing to turn it over to him and are requesting $139,000 in funds which we believe to be embezzlement as there is no law whereas the Bureau of Traffic Services can become a lawful owner of the vehicle and request to sell it back to him, and additionally, theft, because they are withhold his vehicle illegally for money. Subpart 4. Evidence. Exhibit 1. Zinvor Razmik's statement via e-mail to Thomas Mengele Subpart 6. Ancillary Information. Defendant Legal Representation: Thomas Mengele Plaintiff Legal Representation: Contact Information: 666345 Presiding Judge: X Subpart 7. Declaration. I, Thomas Mengele, affirm that the foregoing is accurate and true to the best of my knowledge and belief. (( @Urshankov @Zebulon @bartman @ThatGuy @EvilScotsman @Shanks @JameZ ))
  5. SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS Traffic Appeal Petition Court of San Andreas, District of Los Santos Anatol Pinchevski Subpart 1. Information. Full Name: Anatol Pinchevski Contact Information: - Plaintiff Legal Representation: Erik Olsson Date of Submission: 04/13/2019 Location Of Incident: Idlewood Weather Of Incident: Unknown Date of Incident: 04/13/2019 & 03/23/2019 Vehicle Model: - Vehicle VIN: - Vehicle Plate: - Parties Involved: LSPD, Plaintiff Were You Driving?: - Subpart 2. Appeal. The plaintiff, Anatol Pinchevski appeals the following: Citation issued to vehicle(s) Subpart 3. Narrative. My client, Anatol Pinchevski, had his vehicle impounded unbeknownst to him with a citation. My client was never informed of this citation and the vehicle was not retrieved in a timely manner. My client was stopped later and fined again for not paying the citation despite not being aware of it. Subpart 4. Evidence. Exhibit 1. Citation Subpart 7. Declaration. I, Anatol Pinchevski, affirm that the foregoing is accurate and true to the best of my knowledge and belief. (( @Zebulon @Sacred ))
  6. SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS Civil Petition Court of San Andreas, District of Los Santos Edvar Audkelsson Versus Los Santos Police Department Subpart 1. Accusation. In the matter of this civil petition, Edvar Audkelsson on the April 2th, 2019, accuses the Los Santos Police Department of: Unlawful Imprisonment. Illegal search, violation of 4th amendment Subpart 2. Demands. The plaintiff, Edvar Audkelsson demands the following: Immediate release from custody. Immediate presentation of all relevant documents & probable cause of Edvar Audkelsson's unlawful detainment. Compensation in lost wages and damages Subpart 3. Narrative. Edvar Audkelsson contacted Olsson & Associates via letter outlining his unlawful detainment. Attached is the narrative: Subpart 4. Ancillary Information. Defendant Legal Representation: X Plaintiff Legal Representation: Erik Olsson Contact Information: Presiding Judge: X Subpart 7. Declaration. I, Erik Olsson, affirm that the foregoing is accurate and true to the best of my knowledge and belief. (( @ThatGuy @Urshankov @Zebulon @Shanks @EvilScotsman @bartman @Salsa ))
  7. "Defense is present, your Honor. My client pleads not guilty to the following charges: SF004 - First Degree Attempted murder x2, WF005 - Assault with a Firearm, and WF009 - Possession of Illegal Firearms/Weapons. We are open to making a plea deal as well." (( @Zebulon @Unitts ))
  8. "Thank you." "We have no further witnesses to call, your Honor." (( @ThatGuy ))
  9. "And did you fear for your life when the weapons were pointed at you?" "Was any mention made of them being fake?" "Did you fear an violent reaction from them?" (( @Notorious ))
  10. "Was there anything to distinguish them as toy guns?" "Did you believe them to be real guns?" (( @Notorious ))
  11. "And what did the firearms look like to you? Can you describe them at all?" (( @Notorious ))
  12. "Were the men who ran into the gas station wielding weapons at the time?" (( @Notorious ))
  13. "Can you tell us what happened from your perspective?" (( @Notorious ))
  14. "Yes, we call the gas station attendant as a witness your Honor." (( @Notorious ))
  15. "Yes, your Honor." (( @Urshankov ))
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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