JameZ

"Your Honor, Mister Garcia attended the notice of action and he has forfeited his rights for his attorney, we see no need for the extra hassle the prosecution is attempting to create. We urge that we resume the court procedures as Mr. Spade is only trying to cost us time here instead of attempting to counter valid points made by the defense to this ridiculous case he's presenting us." (( @ThatGuy @Ramsis ))

"Your Honor, The prosecution rises a ridiculous case to us today with a heinous amount of charges which have very poor evidence. To begin with, the arresting Trooper, Bruce Richards initially stopped the vehicle for no reason. The prosecution uses the term "reasonable suspicion of more heinous crimes" to describe the reason for this stop, however did the Trooper really have any reasonable suspicion given the circumstances of that event? The answer is no, your honor. The prosecution focuses their opening statement on my client's past and the details that went into the arrest, and gives us minimum information about the original stop. Furthermore, your honor. There is very minimum evidence that proves that my client eluded the police when Trooper Richards gave chase initially to him as per his words, otherwise footage of this bit is asked to be provided. With this being said, the defense would like your honor to review these specific bits mentioned earlier, as it could lead us to fruit of the poisonous tree. Now, if we were to look into the dashcam footage of the stop given in Exhibit 2, we can see gunfight occurring at one point where everyone proceeds to take cover. My client made a run for his life so he doesn't get caught in the crossfire, which is why he proceeded to hand himself over to the Los Santos Police Department shortly afterwards. If his intention was to run, why would he hand himself in within a very short time of the incident? The prosecution also gives us no substantial evidence as to how my client aided and abetted to attempted first degree murder, there are no calls or messages provided in the exhibits that can indicate my client commanded or induced this heinous crime. Additionally, the prosecution provides us with no reasonable argument as to why my client deserves a life sentence, opposed to the standard ten years sentence for this charge" (( @Zebulon @Urshankov @Maikeyy2 ))

Nope, not how it currently works. The way it currently works is based on the user's activity and not the business itself, I've re-confirmed this with Chaos a while back. So you can basically hoard a business for a year if you're simply active in-game without the need to use your business.

Rule Discussion [/hr[ Subject: Interior Inactivity I want to...: Revise. Elaboration: The recently revamped interior inactivity rule allows players to have administrator forcesell interiors whose owners avoid the inactivity scanner by logging on and using the interior. While this has been beneficial in a manner, it hasn't been really beneficial for businesses. I am personally one of those individuals who seeked around for a decent interior such as a bar/nightclub in-order to try and promote some roleplay since we all know how inactive bars & clubs are on the server. However, there's a very huge issue which is the fact that players, whether they're personally active or not simply hoard those interiors; disallowing other players from using these interiors to create social roleplay. With this being said, what I am trying to suggest is the implementation of a new section; exclusively for those interiors which are either bars or clubs, the rule would basically say that these two very types may not be hoarded for a period longer than 30 days. This meaning, the business has to be actually ran in a way or another for use other than the owner. This would force the aforementioned business owners to actually either create some roleplay or to allow another player to use the business to create roleplay. Please note that the rule I'm suggesting is exclusively for player-player interaction businesses and not your general shops.

** Iveanna Lawrence scratches her head as she looks at the prosecution, looking over at Logan momentarily before focusing her gaze back at the judge as Steven Spade finishes his statement. ** "Mr. Garcia is right here, your honor. If Mr. Spade can't see him then we can probably have him stand up so he can see him." "Anyhow, your honor. The defense would like to initially start by saying that the prosecution provided no actus reus to the street competition charge which is deemed required in the San Andreas Penal Code. Not to mention how the provided evidence doesn't even provide us with a mans rea for that charge, following the precedents in Eglis Priede v. The People and The State v. Huw Edwards. therefore the defense asks that this charge is dropped. Furthermore, your honor. The defense would like to motion to suppress the statement provided in Exhibit 3 as it does not provide us with any information whatsoever that is relevant to the case. The statement uses the phrases "two cars" and "these idiots", which do not really link up with the provided case." (( @ThatGuy @Zebulon @Ramsis ))

(( @ThatGuy @Zebulon ))

"None, your honor." (( @Urshankov ))

Have you tried to run Multi Theft Auto as an administrator? If so, visit this article to learn how to enable driver signing: https://www.technipages.com/enable-disable-device-driver-signing

Name: L. Bid: Starting.

"Your Honor, The defense would like to add the fact that the 911 call in question had not specified any information regarding the alleged break-in attempt rather than the fact that noise was heard. Police did not have any probable cause to search Mr. Reznikov and under this pretense, his 4th Amendment was violated. Any evidence that has been collected falls under the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine. With the Los Santos Police Department refusing to give us footage of the incident, there is no way we can even support the statement given by Office Weber, it is very evident that police had no probable cause at the time of the search, and therefore any evidence that was collected should not be admissible in this court." (( @Urshankov @Brodyaga - I'm very sorry for the late reply, just noticed this wasn't replied to. ))

"Defense is present, your honor. The defense additionally pleads not guilty to all charges." (( @ThatGuy ))

(( Still haven't received any reply from him, you may proceed with this if you'd like as right now it only appears he's gone inactive. ))

"The defense pleads not guilty, your honor." (( @ThatGuy ))

@Resident

(( @Zebulon ))