Jump to content

JameZ

Members
  • Content Count

    1,540
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by JameZ

  1. JameZ

    Government Perms

    Need full government perms (can be confirmed by @Urshankov), and additionally full moderation powers in this subforum: https://forums.owlgaming.net/forum/214-los-santos-county-government/
  2. JameZ

    [STATE] The People v. Abram Reznikov

    (( @Urshankov - How shall we proceed from here? The most crucial piece of evidence is unavailable. ))
  3. JameZ

    Spotify Wrapped 2018

  4. JameZ

    [STATE] The People v. Abram Reznikov

    (( @Wright - Are you able to grab us a new link for the 911 call recording since that pastebin is private? ))
  5. JameZ

    [STATE] The People v. Abram Reznikov

    "Your Honor, The prosecution is forgetting an important element here which is that the burden of proof relies on them. There is yet to be presented any evidence which suggests the search was indeed lawful, and with the LSPD refusing to comply with the subpoena, it only shows an attempt to cover-up on events that had occurred during the situation." (( @Urshankov @Wright ))
  6. JameZ

    [STATE] The People v. Abram Reznikov

    "Your Honor, The proposed allegations brought against Mr. Reznikov are far from what the reality is. The involved officers wrote a very subpar narrative with no details whatsoever, which to furthermore prove their negligence did not comply with the prosecution's request to provide footage of the incident which is fital for this case. Due to this, we can't establish whether the officers had probable cause to search the vehicle, neither do we have any bodycam footage (which should exist) supporting the narrative given. Furthermore, my client was arrested based on items being found in his possession, with no effort whatsoever from the police to compare fingerprints or to collect substantial evidence that would prove his guilt, not to mention alone the search could have been performed illegally." (( @Urshankov @Wright @Brodyaga - I'm very sorry for the late response, I was extremely busy IRL. ))
  7. JameZ

    [LSFL] Election Address

    Name: P99 Comment: Your retarded ass is everywhere, isn't it?
  8. SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS Civil Petition Court of San Andreas, District of Los Santos Janis Naudasvirs Versus Los Santos Police Department Subpart 1. Accusation. In the matter of this civil petition, Janis Naudasvirs on the October 21st, 2018, accuses the Los Santos Police Department of: Public Endangerment. Violation of Rights (6th Amendment - Speedy Trial Clause) Subpart 2. Demands. The plaintiff, Janis Naudasvirs demands the following: A public apology from the Los Santos Police Department. $5,000 USD in compensation for restriction of civil liberties, freedoms and the resulting legal fees, in addition to the life endangerment. Immediate release. Subpart 3. Narrative. On the 17th of October 2018, my client was taken to the San Andreas Detention Center, where he was detained and held under a felony and misdemeanour charge, upon his detention, my client requested to contest his charges in a courtroom as soon as possible, however my client was neglected and left for an indefinite period of time without any way to contest his charges. During the way to the facility, my client according to his statement claims that the transporting officer was neglecting his own & public safety through unsafe and reckless operation of the transporting cruiser. As can be clearly seen in Exhibit 1, my client claims that the officer was operating the vehicle at unnecessary high speeds without emergency sirens, which is unjustifiable in the first place as transporting a detainee to a facility is not cause for an emergency response. Mr. Naudasvirs was held in the Los Santos Police Department's custody for over 72 hours now, thus violating the Speedy Trial Clause of the 6th Amendment. As a result of such, my client had his liberties & freedom restricted. Subpart 4. Evidence Exhibit 1. - Janis Naudasvirs Statement: Subpart 5. Ancillary Information. Defendant Legal Representation: X Plaintiff Legal Representation: Iveanna Lawrence Contact Information: Presiding Judge: X Subpart 7. Declaration. I, Iveanna Lawrence, affirm that the foregoing is accurate and true to the best of my knowledge and belief. (( @ThatGuy @bartman @Zebulon @Urshankov @Shanks @Syncer ))
  9. "Your honor, What has been presented to us in this case is a poorly constructed case with a ton of missing facts, and upon a very poor investigation of the situation, and contradictions between the supplied statement, testimony and diagram of skid marks. With no collection of a detailed report of vehicles' damages, lengths between objects & skids, positions of debris and finally the measured ending positions of each vehicle, the defense finds it impossible that the party in fault can be determined here as one does not simply assume a situation without learning the full facts of it. Furthermore, while Ms. Tackson's criminal record may be relevant to her driving behaviour, it simply does not make her guilty of the alleged crime, nor does it prove in any manner that she was the one recklessly operating during the MVA. The defense also finds it impossible to properly investigate the situation when the prosecution provided ZERO facts about the other vehicle in question, and provided zero evidence about it throughout the entire course of this petition. The defense additionally would like to remind the court that the prosecution failed to provide any evidence regarding Ms. Tackson's vehicle being unregistered, as according to her she registered the vehicle after have been pulled by Trooper Monroe that day." (( @Urshankov @Zebulon @Cryotich ))
  10. "The defense has finished it's cross-examination." (( @Urshankov ))
  11. "Your honor, the diagram shows the vehicle coming from the opposing side of the road off the road, then steering into the the opposing lane and then into the middle, it is surely relevant your honor whether the vehicle was even capable of doing this or not." (( @Urshankov @Zebulon ))
  12. "Your honor, is the prosecution going to keep interrupting the defense when it does not understand the direction of the questioning? Or do they think this just applies to them? Furthermore, not all vehicles can drive on sand as the prosecution claims, that's just a very poor way of wording it, and the suspension has a great factor in terms of the vehicle's ability to drive on different terrains, hence why roads were invented in the world. If all vehicles could drive on sand, why would there be off-road vehicles and vehicles designed simply for the purpose of driving off-road?" (( @Urshankov ))
  13. "And is your vehicle capable of driving on the sand with it's current height?" (( @Cryotich @Zebulon ))
  14. "Miss Tackson, does your vehicle have the stock factory suspension system?" (( @Cryotich @Zebulon ))
  15. "Indeed, your honor. Miss Tackson, is your vehicle capable of driving off-road, based on your own experience?" (( @Cryotich @Zebulon @Urshankov ))
  16. "So, your honor. The only possible conclusion that may be understood here is that the trooper lied when he created the diagram, for the sake of incriminating Ms. Tackson. The diagram shows the vehicle coming from the left side of the road, and in his original narrative he mentions that the skidmarks came from the right side of the road, heavily braking into the left side and then into the middle. This is obviously a very poorly planned attempt by the prosecution yet again to put Ms. Tackson in guilt in any form they can." (( @Urshankov ))
  17. "Your honor..- The original narrative supplied in the filing of this case, written by Trooper Duncan Monroe contradicts the testimony of Trooper Sessler, and also contradicts the contextual diagram supplied earlier, is this not being noticed by the court? The trooper mentioned what he saw initially upon arrival on scene, which are the real skidmarks contrary to what has been supplied by Trooper Sessler and the diagram, ignoring this would seem like a biased move towards the prosecution." (( @Urshankov ))
  18. SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS Criminal Appeal Petition Court of San Andreas, District of Los Santos Egils Priede Subpart 1. Personal Information. Date: 03/11/2018. Full Name: Egils Priede. Contact Information: N/A. Plaintiff Legal Representation: Iveanna Lawrence. Subpart 2. Appeal. The plaintiff, Egils Priede appeals the following: Felony Reckless Evading. (TF001) Under the pretense of: ☑ - The court has made an error. ☑ - The verdict does not support the weight of the evidence. Subpart 3. Narrative. On the 11th of November, 2018. Egils Priede was convicted in court of Grand Theft Auto (GF015) and Felony Reckless Evading (TF001), where no evidence was present of Priede endangering/causing harm to anyone's life or property. The judge accepted a motion for a summary judgement based on the current evidence at that time, who misinterpreted the legal definition of the charge being appealed (TF001), which by that definition set a precedent that allows prosecutors to charge people with the aforementioned charge if they endanger their own life. Additionally, no evidence in the case was presented that proves Priede edangering anyone's life, neither any witnesses that can support the allegations given. Subpart 4. Evidence. Exhibit 1. The State v. Egils Priede Exhibit 2. Definition of Felony Reckless Evading (TF001) per the SA Penal Code. Subpart 7. Declaration. I, Iveanna Lawrence, affirm that the foregoing is accurate and true to the best of my knowledge and belief. (( @ThatGuy @bartman @EvilScotsman ))
  19. "The plaintiff has nothing more to add, your honor." (( @ThatGuy ))
  20. "Your honor, What you have previously mentioned in your answer to the motions provided, which I'll recite: "causing threat to life" should not apply to the perpetrator. It's quite obvious that is not the intent of the statute." With this being said, the original ruling would allow prosecution in the future to charge individuals with Felony Reckless Evading if they endanger their own lives, which could basically apply to minor speeding during elusion." (( @ThatGuy ))
  21. "Your honor, Is the prosecution telling us that the original narrative supplied in their own filing of this case, written and sworn by the arresting trooper, is unreasonable evidence? Is this a joke or what? The prosecution is yet again providing baseless arguments citing unreasonableness and interruptions rather than providing a counter-argument." (( @Urshankov @Zebulon))
  22. "Your honor, The radar information present was the original speed of the motorcycle when apprehended by police officers as affirmed in their narrative. There is no evidence nor any sworn statements that mention anything about Mr. Priede's driving behavior when the MVA occurred. And just to reiterate, the loophole that has been mentioned was merely the misinterpretation of the crime definition in the penal code by Justice Nolan, which I'm afraid will create an easy path for a precedent to be set based on a wrong definition of the alleged crime." (( @ThatGuy ))
  23. "Your honor, It appears like the prosecution has no intentions to take this seriously, and they're mocking the defense instead of coming with arguments. The quoted part from the narrative tells us the real path of the tire skids, witnessed by the arresting trooper who arrived on scene shortly after the MVA. The quoted part states that the vehicle was driving on the right side of the road, which is the CORRECT side, which braked heavily and as a natural reaction, the car lost control and steered to the left and ended up in the middle. How does this exactly suggest murder? Is the prosecution willing to come up with more unfunny jokes for their next counter-argument?" (( @Urshankov ))
  24. "Your honor, in addition to the provided argument for the motion to suppression, the defense would like the court to pay attention to Exhibit 1, where the trooper says and I quote: "It is unknown what speed both parties were going but skid marks show a four wheel vehicle braking heavily swerving from rightside of the road onto the leftside before coming to a halt in the middle of the road.". Which only proves that the prosecution knew from the beginning the truth about what occurred, yet they have decided to maliciously prosecute Ms. Tackson, and the trooper lied during the testimony to incriminate Ms. Tackson. Which is why the defense would like to additionally motion to impeach Trooper Sessler's testimony on grounds of incredibilty." (( @Urshankov @Zebulon ))
×

Important Information

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