Urshankov

January 20th 2019 The Federal Task Force of San Andreas (under the Los Santos Field Office) is looking for 3 new prospective Agents to recruit and train to perform a variety of roles as requested by the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), these specialisations/agencies are as follows: ICE - Immigration and Customs Enforcement Enforce Federal Statutes in relation to Immigration and the Imports and Exports (including Motor Vehicles) to and from the United States. DEA - Drug Enforcement Administration Combat any Drug Smuggling, Trafficking and Distribution efforts both inside and outside of the United States. USMS - United States Marshal Service Apprehend Fugitives, execute Federal Arrest Warrants, operate the Witness Protection Program and manage Criminal Assets. All 3 prospective agents shall be working alongside the existing FTF Agents (mostly comprised of FBI and ATF) for the duration of their probationary period, gaining experience in Federal Law Enforcement, the US Code and eventually developing knowledge in their desired specialisations. These candidates shall not be able to go straight into their preferred agency and shall be expected to undergo rigorous training alongside regular knowledge tests. This shall be developed and expanded upon over time, so do not worry if you are not fully knowledgeable on the individual subjects at this moment in time. The minimum requirements are expected to be/have: At-least 21 Years of Age A United States Citizenship A Resident of the State of San Andreas Knowledgeable in Law Enforcement (Federal & State) (( A Good Admin History )) Anybody who meets these requirements and wishes to apply must send their cover letter and CV to the Special Agent in Charge of the Los Santos Field Office, and the Federal Task Force Headquarter for the State of San Andreas (( Both @Urshankov & @ThatGuy )). Those with any questions or queries regarding the application and recruitment process may also contact the aforementioned places in order to receive an answer (( Or for OOC questions, Discord me: Urshankov R. #5240 )) Best of luck to all applicants, DV, SAIC (FTF-LS-FO)

"Very well, I am willing to accept those conditions of Bail, if the Defence is, of course. Mr. Keeler may take to the stand" (( @Shanks @Unitts @Wright ))

ARMA - don't forget to thank me for my service too

"Does the Prosecution wish to set an amount for bail?" (( @Unitts @Wright ))

District 3 Special Election Office of The County Commissioner January 19th, 2019  Greetings Once Again, As stated in Yesterday's Publication, there is to be a Special Election taking place following the Resignation of Keira Mosley. If you wish to stand as a candidate, you must meet the following requirements: Must be at-least 21 years of age on the date of being sworn into Office. Must reside in the District they are running within. Must not have a felonious criminal record. The Candidates shall be announced on the 27th of January 2019, with the Election taking place on Monday the 28th until the end of Tuesday the 29th of January, with the winner being announced shortly after. To stand as a Candidate within this election, please send your Platform to the Office of the County Commissioner ((Forum PM @Urshankov & @ThatGuy)) for authorisation to be listed as an Official Candidate within the Press Release on the 27th and to have your name added to the ballot. Further information regarding the process of voting will be announced alongside the announcement which includes the candidates. Regards, James Bradford, County Commissioner

Consilium Populusque Order of the Aquila Keira Mosley - Continued dedicated political service to Los Santos County (( @Scooter ))

Keira Mosley Departure Office of The County Commissioner January 18th, 2018 Greetings Fellow Citizens, As some of you may have already heard, yesterday morning I received a note from Councilwoman Keira Mosley to inform me that she intended to resign from her Elected Office, being the Councillor of District 3, and this is something that I shall regretfully accept. As she mentioned here, we did not get along within our interactions, with some of our political views and opinions being vastly different, though, such competition brought out the best in the both of us, operating true to our personal beliefs with nothing but honor and integrity. In the words of one of our greatest Founding Fathers: "The Price of Freedom is Eternal Vigilance" ~ Thomas Jefferson ~ I do regret not beginning on better terms, though, hindsight is twenty-twenty and I would argue that the spirit of disagreements and compromise is a founding principle of our Nation. Within her note she mentioned George Washington's recognition of a term limitation, and I believe this humbleness is something that is lacked within modern politics, and Los Santos County should be grateful to have had someone of such stature. Keira Mosley had served this County for a number of years, and I do believe that it is appropriate that she is recognised for her contributions, and in doing so, I hereby award her the 'Consilium Populusque Order of the Aquila' - this County's highest civilian award - as I do believe she meets the citation near perfectly “in recognition of exceptional contribution to the advancement of County interests, outstanding leadership, professional competence, and significant accomplishment over a sustained period of time”. An image of this award which I am bestowing can be found bellow: Though, Democracy does not rest and tomorrow another publication shall be published announcing the dates and scheduling for the by-election which is to take place as a result of her departure. We would like to ask that the Citizens of this County leave their kind words of appreciation as a comment to this publication in recognition of her dedicated service. Dearest Regards, James Bradford, County Commissioner

"I see.. The motion shall be granted and Trooper Richards may take to the stand." (( @Zebulon @Swanker @JameZ @Maikeyy2 ))

"It appears that Justice Ross had contradicted himself, noting any 'otherwise inhabited areas', which was a fact due to the location of Mr. Edwards' offences, something he declined that Downtown Los Santos had, which I see to be untrue. I shall note the defence's statement. Mr. Nikolaou had already been found guilty of Felony Street Competition and so his statement would not be self incriminating. What concerns me deeply is that I am unable to see any form of 'Planned, organised and otherwise premeditated' event taking place, and you have been unable to provide any further evidence of the defendant's intent, and so, I see that VC021 is more applicable, being defined as 'Spontaneous and non pre-meditated illegal street contests, such as races, drift events, etc.'. Without a statement or any form of solid evidence of intent being present, I am simply unable to deem it as such, and I would like ask the Prosecution, again, if such intent can be displayed as the burden of proof lays on you? I shall allow the Defence to interject following any confirmation or denial of fact." (( @Unitts @Wright ))

"Alright, I shall be passing judgement."

"Very well, following the non-compliance of the LSPD in gathering footage I find it hard to gather any evidence of forced entry by the defendant, and due to the lack of evident stolen goods, there is no sign that Mr. Reznikov had done so, and only 'could have' conducted the burglaries, though the possession charge may still be applicable. Does the Defence have anything they'd wish to add?" (( @JameZ @Wright ))

"Very well, that is fair and such a suggestion was a mere opportunity to provide further contextual evidence, though, this is not something that I can force upon anyone without neglecting my duties and oath. At this moment in time I do not see how the acts of the defendant put Mr. Nikolaou in any potential harm if he were 'overtaking' as described earlier, showing, if anything, wilful intent to avoid such a collision or danger. To the depth of my knowledge, 'acute' is defined as 'severe or intense', and I believe that for future judicial matters should be clearly displayed as somewhat subjective, as this is what the case of Mr. Edwards, Mr. Nikolaou, and of course, Mr. Walker has shown to be a critical issue. This overtaking may be suitable under the defence of necessity, an attempt to prevent a collision or any harm towards other road users - of which there was only one. If said 'potential victim' of the alleged 'danger' were putting themselves in that position of danger, then is it fair to claim that the Defendant was fully, or even partially responsible? I do not think so. I have taken some time to ponder the thought, and many states and other western nations. The States of Alabama, Maryland, North Carolina and Virginia have adopted a similar stance when it comes to a concept of the defence often described or referred to as 'contributory negligence'. Whilst this is a civil concept, it acts within a similar way to the defence 'mistake of fact', drawing from the doctrine that a person may not be liable if they could not form any reasonable intent to commit the crime - though, with the State Legislation, the amount of mens rea is not specifically highlighted, and so for the purposes of further decisions, we shall state that it does not require intent and can be done recklessly. Of course, Mr. Walker's driving could be considered 'dangerous' to a degree, factoring in the speed and conditions on the roadway, but as Justice Ross had summarised, it is not substantial enough to state that someone 'could have' put another in danger through his or her actions and must, in-fact, display that they did put another in danger. Following Mr. Nikolaou's plea of guilt to the Street Competition charge, I believe that it is near evident that he had put himself in 'acute danger' by supposedly agreeing or organising some form of race - though, these events are disputed in this case seeing as neither party is willing to make a statement on such. I must ask, does the Prosecution have any further evidence, judicial or legislative examples in which are contradictory to Justice Ross' statements so a precedent can be drawn from either of the case examples, preventing the necessity to appeal, as the most suitable precedent can be applied to this unique situation as several legal doctrines and principles are up for interpretation?" (( @Unitts @Wright ))

"And how does the Prosecution wish to respond?" (( @Wright @JameZ @Brodyaga ))

"Very well, this deal shall be accepted by the Courtroom, and shall be reflected suitably in the following judgement." (( @Blanco @Zebulon @RolePlayer10 ))

"In that circumstance, Mr. Nikolaou would have to appeal to have his conviction decided by another Justice, most likely Chief Justice Vanderbilt, as I had handled his prior case. Although, I shall be looking over Mr. Edwards' case to determine the factor in which Justice Ross made his decision, but it appeared to be the fact that Prosecution could not prove that an individual example of life could not be proven to be at risk, of which one is here, Mr. Nikolaou. However, we must now ask ourselves if Mr. Nikolaou's actions put himself in the dangerous circumstance, but I do not think that with the evidence currently at hand I would be able to make what could be considered a reasonable judgement and I do believe that it would be beneficial if either of the two parties were able explain the circumstances in greater detail. As noted within the case of Eglis Priede it is not constituted if one puts their own life at risk and dependent on the factors, it could be contributory, if, for example, one driver had utilised their breaks suddenly and without good cause, creating a collision - legally it is the fault of the breaking driver. I do not doubt that the speed and weather conditions are dangerous, but what we are focusing on is did Mr. Walker put Mr. Nikolaou at harm, or had Mr. Nikolaou contributed to his own harm, or infact caused the 'acute' amount of harm upon himself fully. In order to make a legally sound judgement I shall require a written statement or testimony from either of the individuals at the scene otherwise I do not feel that all the facts had been properly presented and then examined. This is a necessity if we follow the Federal Rules of Evidence as the State of San Andreas has not adapted its own standards in dealing with such a situation." (( @Wright @Unitts ))