patty
-
Posts
562 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by patty
-
-
"Very well, thank you counsler. We will now hear oral argument from the respondant."
(( @BjornV @JonnyJamesD ))
-
** The Honorable James Talbert would listent intently to the oral argument, rapid-firing questions in the midst. **
20 hours ago, JonnyJamesD said:... appears to be a Brady violation as potential exculpatory evidence exists ...
"It's to my understanding, counsler, that such layperson witnesses were lost prior to collecting contact information. If this is the case, then would the prosuection still fall under the requirement set forth in Brady, which stiuplates that the prosuection violates the right of a defendant if they suppress evidence 'favorable to an accused' where the evidence is 'material either to guilt or to punishment'? In other words, did the prosecution still violate the defendat's rights if those witnesses were unknown in terms of name and other contact information? I understand that a single witness submitted a... electronic written statement in regards to the events of that night, but I am mostly referring to the other witnesses present at the scene of the crime."
20 hours ago, JonnyJamesD said:... the second impact is argued to have been inflicted by the true hit and run aggressor [...] supports the factual finding that the decedent was incapacitated and motionless on the road prior to the appellant’s involvement, likely already dead as ...
"It is to my understanding, counsler, that the medical examiner ruled that the second impact of a vehicle resulted in the death of the vicitim. Are you challenging the opinion of the medical examiner? And if so, could you elaborate on why? Furthermore, did the prosecution motion to call the signing medical examiner to the stand for examination?"
20 hours ago, JonnyJamesD said:... without adequate evidence suggesting the appellant had intended to flee following a collision ...
"Remind me, was the question of mens rea not being present raised during pre-trial, before the presiding judge sustained the motion for summary judgement? And, if so, did the prosecution provide a rebuttal? Was the appellant interviewed by law enforcement?"
20 hours ago, JonnyJamesD said:... crumbling skull rule ...
"Counsler, is the crumbling skull rule a common law legal docterine in the United States? If I recall, the 'crumbling skull rule' is an English common law docterine, while the 'eggshell skull rule' is an American common law docterine. Nonetheless, are either docterines applicable in this specific instance?"
(( @JonnyJamesD @BjornV ))
-
** The Honorable James Talbert slowly enters the department, slowly sitting down on his chair. As he enters, the highway patrol officer calls the division into session. All parties interested would be present within the courtroom. **
"Good morning, please be seated. Today, we have one matter—the State verses Asarian Biton—to hear. The appellant and respondant shall be given 15 minutes for oral arguments. We will now hear the oral arguments for the appellant."
(( @JonnyJamesD @BjornV ))
-
** The courtroom would be empty and vacant — the doors, probably unlocked by a newly hired highway patrol officer assigned to the court building's security detail. There's no honor present. **
(( @BjornV @JonnyJamesD ))
-
** Notice of acceptance would be delivered to all concerned parties. **
"This appeal shall be accepted and heard by this Court. Parties shall have until the 29th of October, 2021, to submit briefs. Interested parties may also submit amicus curiae, up until the 29th of October, 2021. Oral arguments shall begin on the 30th of October, 2021."
(( @JonnyJamesD @Gavelhead @Asarian_Biton @SCD ))
-
** Notification of reassignment to the Honorable James Talbert would be delivered to all parties. **
(( Apologies for the delayed response, everyone. @JonnyJamesD: is there any way for this to be reposted without the strikethough?
-
Appellate Court of San Andreas
Court Judgement
After thorough review of the case Naomi Linden v. Department of Fish and Wildlife, Steele, the Appellate Court has come to a verdict on the allegations and is thus ready to deliver a ruling in accordance with all applicable federal, state, and local law and/or ordinance to ensure fair and just enforcement of the law within the boundaries of the state. It is of the official opinion of the court that;
I
On August 15, 2021, appellant Naomi Linden was walking on a designated walking path within the Chumash State Park with her friend, when a coyote aggressively approached them. Linden, who was in possession of a shotgun and handgun, discharged her shotgun towards the coyote, killing it. Linden proceeded to call the San Andreas Department of Fish and Wildlife (SADFW) to have them “pick up the deceased animal” (Naomi Linden v. San Andreas Department of Fish and Wildlife, Katelyn Steele (2021)).
Approximately five to ten minutes after calling, Katelyn Steele, a sworn peace officer with SADFW and a “Senior Ranger,” arrived at the scene of the shooting. Upon her arrival, Steele proceeded to detain Linden pursuant to a law enforcement investigation as to whether Linden was in legal possession of the shotgun and handgun and proceeded to interview Linden for “twenty minutes” (Naomi Linden v. San Andreas Department of Fish and Wildlife, Katelyn Steele (2021)). When asked by Linden, Steele stated that the dispatch of the coyote “opened the matter to [the] investigation” by law enforcement (Naomi Linden v. San Andreas Department of Fish and Wildlife, Katelyn Steele (2021)).
Linden began to record the interaction on her cellphone. Linden proceeded to ask repeatedly why she was detained, to be told that the incident was under law enforcement investigation. Linden proceeded to ask for the reasoning for her detainment “no less than five times in twenty minutes, and did not receive a justifiable answer for most of the encounter” (Naomi Linden v. San Andreas Department of Fish and Wildlife, Katelyn Steele (2021)). Upon request from Linden, Chenglei Liang, a sergeant with the SADFW, arrived at the incident and “took control of the situation” (Naomi Linden v. San Andreas Department of Fish and Wildlife, Katelyn Steele (2021)). Steele and Liang proceeded to question Linden before releasing Linden and leaving the incident once Linden asserted her right to remain silent. Linden was not informed of her Miranda rights at any point during this investigation.
A civil petition was filed in Los Santos County Superior Court (LSSC), with Linden as the petitioner, represented by Millicent Monroe, Jordan Yong, George Graham, and Henry Tsai, and with the SADFW as the respondent, represented by Victor Hawkins. The appellee is a sworn peace officer as administered by San Andreas Penal Code Section 811. In initial filing to the LSSC, the appellant’s representatives motioned to waive the appellee’s qualified immunity as the appellee “acted neglectfully and disregarded local and federal law” (SASI § 301(i)). The petition was docketed and assigned to Jacqueline Keating, a judge. Keating proceeded to dismiss the case with prejudice due to there not being “enough to let this case proceed to trial,” and that she found that it was “frivolous to sue law enforcement for unlawful detainment in a case, where such detainment was fully justified” (Naomi Linden v. San Andreas Department of Fish and Wildlife, Katelyn Steele (2021)).
II
Appellant requested for the Court to answer three questions, specifically (Naomi Linden v. San Andreas Department of Fish and Wildlife, Katelyn Steele (2021)):- Does the Hunting & Animal Protection Act of 2021 grant the Department of Fish and Wildlife the right to investigate any death of a "protected' (Category 1 or 2) animal?
- Would a reasonable person call Fish & Wildlife on themselves if they were poaching, is a investigatory detainment lawful?
- Do people have to report the deaths of Category 1 or 2 animals to Fish & Wildlife?
- If the Department of Fish and Wildlife values investigating the deaths of these animals so much, why do they not keep records of any kind?
This Court has considered the four questions and is declining to answer. This Court must review fact when it comes to determining whether the Los Santos Superior Court erred in its dismissal of the civil petition. The Los Santos Superior Court dismissed the case due to “enough to let this case proceed to trial” (Naomi Linden v. San Andreas Department of Fish and Wildlife, Katelyn Steele (2021)) prior to hearing testimony from either party. The Los Santos Superior Court, furthermore, failed to hear any disposition from involved parties; instead, the Superior Court jumped to a conclusion prematurely.
This Court orders the remanding back to the Los Santos Superior Court to be tried under a new judge.
And thus in support of the narrative, it is the finding of the court that in the case matter at hand, the court rules;
That the lower courts decision shall be remanded for reasons of;
- The presiding judge failed to take all evidence into consideration, and failed to let examination happen, and prematurely judged on incomplete fact.
It is henceforth ordered by Associate Justice James Talbert, and shall be carried out without delay. The court is now dismissed.
-
2
-
"The Court will not be accepting any more briefs and will take the brief submitted by the Appellant into consideration."
-
** Notification of judge reassignment would be given to all concerned parties. **
(( @SCD @SPANK BANK ))
-
"The San Andreas 2nd District Appellate Court has decided to approve this petition for appeal. The petitioner and respondant will have 72 hours to submit briefs to the Court. Furthermore, we will also be accepting amicus briefs alongside the petitioner and respondant's briefs."
-
"Mhm, I will take the motion into consideration. We will recess for one day."
** James Talbert slams his gavel before leaving the room. Participants would later learn that the trial is postponed pending judge reassignment. **
(( @Brett Love @brap47 ))
-
"Very well, please refile with the corrected clerical errors as soon as possible. I will take your deportation motion into consideration. What is the defendant's current standing regarding citizenship and legally being in the United States?"
(( @Brett Love ))
-
** James Talbert slowly enters the room. He'd take his seat, quickly reading over the documents in front. **
"Miss Leering, I see you requestd deportation 'from the State of San Andreas.' Do you mean from the country?"
(( @Brett Love @brap47 ))
-
** James Talbert slowly enters the courtroom. **
"Bail is denied. The defendant shall be remanded to the custody of the Sheriff for the duration of this trial. We will reconvene when the defendant is arraigned."
** James Talbert slams his gavel before leaving the room. **
(( @Brett Love - tag the defendant, please. ))
-
"Very well, I hereby find you guilty of all charges accused, and I sentence you to time served."
Superior Court of San Andreas
Court Judgement
After thorough review of the case CF 453-21, State of San Andreas v. Isaac Mitchell, the Superior Court has come to a verdict on the allegations and is thus ready to deliver a ruling in accordance with all applicable federal, state, and local law and/or ordinance to ensure fair and just enforcement of the law within the boundaries of the state. It is of the official opinion of the court that;
The defendant requested to enter a plea of guilty. The defendant waived their right to counsel, right to a trial, to confront their witnesses and cross-examine them, and to subpoena them, and their right against self-incrimination. The Court accepts the plea of guilty.
And thus in support of the narrative, it is the finding of the court that in the case matter at hand, the court rules;
That the defendant is guilty of;
- FC 305. Grand Theft Auto; and
- MC 307. Possession of Burglary Tools.
and that a punishment of, time served in state penal confinement.
The court also will be approving the stated recommendations on conditional release that the District Attorney's Office has requested.
It is henceforth ordered by Judge James Talbert, and shall be carried out without delay. The court is now dismissed.
(( @Cocaine Capital @Talia ))
-
"I hereby find you guilty on all accused charges, and I sentence you to life in penal confinement without the possibility of parole. The defendant will now be remanded to the custody of the state."
Superior Court of San Andreas
Court Judgement
After thorough review of the case CF 456-21, State of San Andreas v. Joshua Johnson, the Superior Court has come to a verdict on the allegations and is thus ready to deliver a ruling in accordance with all applicable federal, state, and local law and/or ordinance to ensure fair and just enforcement of the law within the boundaries of the state. It is of the official opinion of the court that;
The defendant has motion the Court to proceed pro se and subsequently waived their right to trial; to confront and cross-examine witnesses; to subpoena such witnesses; and the right against self-incrimination, and entered a plea of guilty.
And thus in support of the narrative, it is the finding of the court that in the case matter at hand, the court rules;
That the defendant is guilty of;
- FC 119. Evading a Peace Officer;
- FA 208. First Degree Murder;
- FC 603. Possession Of A Prohibited Firearm or Explosive Device;
- FB 605. Brandishing a Firearm;
- FA 606. Discharging a Firearm in Public; and
- FC 608. Possession of a Firearm by Convicted Felon.
and that a punishment of, life in state penal confinement and a fine of $5,000 shall be issued.
The court also will be approving the stated recommendations on conditional release that the District Attorney's Office has requested.
It is henceforth ordered by Judge James Talbert, and shall be carried out without delay. The court is now dismissed.
-
"Very well, young man. Before you enter your guilty plea, I must warn you that pleading guilty also means that you've waived your right to a trial, to confront your witnesses and cross-examine them, and to subpoena them, and your right against self-incrimination. Do you understand? I advise you consult with a lawyer if you don't."
(( @Cocaine Capital @Talia ))
-
-
"If you are found guilty, you would be sentence to two months and a day incaracterated, not taking into account time served... which, yes, would be applied in this case."
(( @Cocaine Capital @Talia ))
-
"Good evening to yourself, Mr. Mitchell. Before I begin, let me advise you of your constitutional rights: you have the right to remain silent, and anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to an attorney, and if you cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided for you.
You are facing a charge of 305, Grand Theft Auto, a class C felony, and 307, Possession of Burglary Tools, a class C misdemeanor. If you are found guilty, you face a total of two months and a day, notwithstanding time served, incarcerated, in addition to four felony points... do you have legal representation, Mr. Mitchell? You are entitled to legal representation from the county, free of charge, if you are unable to afford a private attorney."
(( @Cocaine Capital @Talia ))
-
"Mr. Johnson, before you enter a plea, please let me inform you of your constitutional rights: you have the right to remain silent, and anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to an attorney, and if you cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided for you.
Now that we have that out of the way, I must warn you of the consequence of waiving your right to counsel and pleading guilty. By doing so, you are waving your right to a trial; to confront and cross-examine witnesses; to subpoena witnesses; and your right against self-incrimination. You also forefit your chance of appeal. I strongly advise you to reconsider your request to represent yourself pro se and let an educated and licensed attorney assist you. With this in mind, do you still wish to waive your right to counsel and to enter a plea of guilty?"
** James Talbert slowly leans forward, waiting in anticipation. **
-
** James Talbert slowly strolls into the courtroom, seating himself down. **
"Good morning, all. May the defendant please be produced?"
(( @Cocaine Capital @Talia ))
-
-
** James Talbert slowly leans back in his chair, intermittently peering down at his documents before him. James appears to be annoyed. **
(( @patty @SCD @SPANK BANK - tag your attorney if you haven't, please. ))
Game loads in 4K however, in a small windowless box.
in Archive
Posted
It's a RageMP thing: not a server or game issue. George (RageMP's developer) either hasn't added 4k support, or it's broken and he hasn't fixed it yet. The only workaround is to do what you've been doing (changing the refresh rate), or changing the screen type to fullscreen back to borderless.
I've had this issue for months, since I got my new laptop with a 2560x1440 display; the fact that it just started to happen to you is bad luck, lol. Also, I've not noticed it since I've downscaled my display to 1920x1080 for other reasons; if you're that desperate and don't care about 4k, then that may be an option.