Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Zebulon

V. Koltsov & K. Petrov v. Moretta/Carrington

Recommended Posts

"This courthouse is not the place for petty squabbles, and nor shall I let it remain home to such.

 

The Plaintiff had stated within the respective Writs of Habeas Corpus that were filed that the only description available of the suspected vehicle is that it was a "black SUV" with no further descriptors, with the stop occurring many miles away from the scene of the tragic incident itself.

 

There are millions of vehicles across these United States which match the exact same description - is each and every one a subject to this specified 'reasonable suspicion', or only those with occupants? It seems that there were many flaws in the method in which the search was conducted. Multiple people within a vehicle that matches a vague description - something that cannot be considered "specific and articulable facts", something which was not presented during the initial Writs. No probable cause was present in searching the vehicle and so the firearms collected were deemed inadmissible in court, alongside the Injunction being filed

 

Now, this leaves several other questions, such as, 'were every vehicle matching the vague description searched under said probable cause - occupied or not - and if not, then why is this the circumstance?'. The District Attorney's Office was unable to provide a reasonable explanation for this question, are as to why the Plaintiffs in particular were searched, and so it was deemed that the acts of the Defendants were in violation of the Constitution, and under the Sovereign Immunity Act, the Officers themselves are held personally liable.

 

What you are asking me to do is go against the sacred oath which I made to uphold this nation's fine Constitution - something I am both unwilling and unable to do.

 

The Plaintiff may continue with a deterministic breakdown of the damages."

 

(( @Zebulon @rentation ))

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

* Nick Reagan would stand up shaking his head, proceeding to nod to Vincent Bishop before leaving the courtroom. *

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Your Honor,

 

The Plaintiff's desk motions for Vova Koltsov to take the stand in order to clarify for the courts, the damages he has incurred as the result of the Defendant's unlawful actions."

 

(( @Urshankov @rentation ))

Edited by Zebulon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Good day Mister Koltsov, you've been asked before this court for two reasons; first, to indicate the loss of income you sustained while being wrongly imprisoned, and also to make a statement on emotional and other damages, to be taken into consideration in judgement.

 

To start, Mister Koltsov, can you please indicate to the court your current employment or any business operations you may collect income from?"

 

(( @rentation @FAILCAKEZ ))

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"I own a business in East Los Santos, called Vova's Kiosk, and also I have a taxi company under Vostok Corporation. These combined I make my living."

 

(( @Zebulon ))

Edited by FAILCAKEZ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×

Important Information

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