Chloe_Diaz
-
Posts
152 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Chloe_Diaz
-
-
**Chloe files a memorandum with the Clerk of Court, she'd address it to the Supreme Court**
AS FILED WITHIN THE SUPERIOR COURT AND DISTRIBUTED TO THE SUPREME COURT FOR REVIEW PER PERSUASIVE AUTHORITY, WHERE AS THIS STATE HAS NOT RULED ON THE FOLLOWING.
Per Gavin v. Langlois of RI SC, the prosecutions notion that the original plea of Not Guilty should remain in effect does not conform to the citations thereof. As such, the defense will be submitting such case law in ongoing review by the supreme court, in which we will continue to diligently conclude that Mr. Gallegos is protected by Criminal Collateral Estoppel and Double Jeopardy, as he was already sentenced in other proceedings.
Upon a Writ of Habeas Corpus, a new indictment, and thus plea, is imminent, as held by Supreme Court of RI precedent in Gavin v. Langlois.
Furthermore, the entirety of this case mirrors that of Gavin v. Langlois, whereas the defendant was released by writ of Habeas Corpus as provided in the context below:
- Defendant, who was discharged from custody in habeas corpus proceeding following conviction and life sentence for murder, later pleaded nolo contendere to a lesser charge and was sentenced.
In which the the court held that further imprisonment to be unlawful:
- Held, that it was intent of legislature, in enacting pertinent statute, to provide that a discharge from custody under a writ of habeas corpus would ordinarily vitiate the process pursuant to which the detention was affected, and on later petition for writ of habeas corpus court declared imprisonment on original indictment following plea to lesser charge was unlawful
In effect of Mr. Gallegos' No Contest plea, and subsequent sentencing, further criminal litigation would violate the Criminal Collateral Estoppel doctrine whereas the addition charges stem from issues that have already passed judgement in a court of law. The introduction of new evidence is allowed, only if such evidence can be proven unavailable during the No Contest hearing. As such, there is no new evidence suggested, merely charges that are founded upon evidence that already existed. The State waived their right and authority to retry Mr. Gallegos by willfully not proposing such charges during the second arrest warrant of Jonathan Gallegos, as the simultaneous arrest and arraignment was ORDERED upon signature of a writ of Habeas Corpus for this very reason.
We ask the court to show like diligence in reviewing such precedent, as it encompasses the very intention of the U.S. Constitution, and the jurisprudence provided cites, and declares that of the law of the land.
**Attached is a brief of the R.I. case law as well as a legal study.**
Spoiler -
**Chloe files a memorandum with the Clerk of Court, she'd address it to the court**
Per Gavin v. Langlois of RI SC, the prosecutions notion that the original plea of Not Guilty should remain in effect does not conform to the citations thereof. As such, the defense will be submitting such case law in ongoing review by the supreme court, in which we will continue to dilligently conclude that Mr. Gallegos is protected by Criminal Collateral Estoppel and Double Jeapordy, as he was already sentenced in other proceedings.
Upon a Writ of Habeas Corpus, a new indictment, and thus plea, is imminent, as held by Supreme Court of RI precedent in Gavin v. Langlois.
Furthermore, the entirety of this case mirrors that of Gavin v. Langlois, where as the defendant was released by writ of Habeas Corpus as provided in the context below:
- Defendant, who was discharged from custody in habeas corpus proceeding following conviction and life sentence for murder, later pleaded nolo contendere to a lesser charge and was sentenced.
In which the the court held that further imprisonment to be unlawful:
- Held, that it was intent of legislature, in enacting pertinent statute, to provide that a discharge from custody under a writ of habeas corpus would ordinarily vitiate the process pursuant to which the detention was effected, and on later petition for writ of habeas corpus court declared imprisonment on original indictment following plea to lesser charge was unlawful
In effect of Mr. Gallegos' No Contest plea, and subsequent sentencing, further criminal litigation would violate the Criminal Collateral Estoppel doctrine where as the addition charges stem from issues that have already passed judgement in a court of law. The introduction of new evidence is allowed, only if such evidence can be proven unavailable during the No Contest hearing. As such, their is no new evidence suggested, merely charges that are founded upon evidence that already existed. The State waived their right and authority to retry Mr. Gallegos by willfully not proposing such charges during the second arrest warrant of Jonathan Gallegos.
We ask the court to show like diligence in reviewing such precedent, as it encompasses the very intention of the U.S. Consitution, and the jurisprudence provided cites, and declares that of the law of the land.
**Attached is a brief of the R.I. case law as well as a legal study.**
Spoiler -
Supreme Court of San Andreas
Writ of Certiorari
[Jonathan Gallegos] v. [State of San Andreas]
SC 004-22
In this Writ to the Supreme Court, Jonathan Gallegos alleges that an error in judgement has been undertaken by a ruling decreed in the Appellate Court of the State of San Andreas, State of San Andreas v. Jonathan Gallegos , in regard to a Criminal Division violation. And so, on 7/3/2022 it is henceforth requested that immediate judicial relief takes place in regard to the following issue(s):
Tick boxes as appropriate
[X] - Misinterpretation of Legal Principle
[X] - Contradiction of Legal Principle
[X] - Misinterpretation of State Law or Judicial Precedent
[X] - Contradiction of State Law or Judicial Precedent
[X] - Misinterpretation of Federal Law or Judicial Precedent
[X] - Contradiction of Federal Law or Judicial Precedent
[X] - Review of Unestablished Legal Principle or State Judicial Precedent
[X] - Other; Grave error in acknowledging the Superiors Court attempt to remand a person into custody for matters already resolved in criminal court. Failure to apply Criminal Collateral EstoppelIn support of the case for providing judicial relief to the charges, a detailed narrative of events shall be provided to the court in order to ascertain the reason(s) for why the lower court's ruling is being challenged and is requested to be reversed;
Upon exhausting an Appeal, and in denial of the Appellate court to hear such case, Mr. Gallegos beckons review of the Supreme court on the matters of Double Jeopardy. The motion to dismiss current proceedings were denied, and legal remedies have been exhausted. We ask the Supreme Court to end the chain of events that are subjecting a citizen of this state to continuious criminal litigation.
The question raised within this petition is: Should a citizen be subject to reoccurring criminal litigation on the same issue in which that citizen has already been subject to criminal judgement.
In addition to the record submitted into evidence, the facts of this review are as follows:
- Mr Gallegos was brought before the court after a writ of Hebeas Corpus granted his release for failure of the state to produce charges against him.
- Mr. Gallegos went through the judicial system, in which he consequently pled No Contest, serving his time in jail for the same issue/event raised in State of San Andreas v. Gallegos
- The state has attempted to circumvent Double Jeopardy by adding additional charges, 3 months ((weeks)) after Mr. Gallegos No Contest plea.
- The state has also included the original charge of Murder, in which Mr. Gallegos has already entertained within the Judicial Process, having pled and been sentenced.
The Appellate court failed to review the transcript, in which Mr. Gallegos is to be yet again remanded into custody, and denied bail with the charge of Murder being Itterated as the reasoning by Superior Court Judge Morgan Jones. Mr Gallegos, as mentioned, has already been subject to criminal judgement in hearing/trial, per his plea before the court on May 15, 2022.
In addition, we raise the matters of Criminal Collateral Estoppel to support our claims of Double Jeopardy. We believe the Appellate court failed to analyze the tests and standards unto which are established in precedent. In which, the issue at hand in San Andreas v. Gallegos were settled, and any allotment of additional criminal charges or allegations should be barred as a criminal judgement had been reached in place of Mr. Gallegos No Contest plea. This can be encompassed by Ashe v. Swenson.
In addition to Criminal Collateral Estoppel, Mr. Gallegos was never charged with the additional crimes within the original case. Exceptions to either doctrine of Double Jeopardy of Criminal Collateral Estoppel support the action of submitting new evidence, so long as it can be proven that such evidence was unable to be provided during the initiation of proceedings. However, it does not provide for the addition of new charges that were readily available during the court proceedings - The obvious difference between Evidence, and new charges being proposed must be acknowledged. They are not one in the same.
We also provide an email exchange between my office, and the Sheriffs Department Command staff, whereas they disclosed that they had disclosed that Mr. Gallegos had already served his time and their was no further need for prosecution. It was after this brash discussion between the two agencies, that the District Attorneys office then added additional charges, after the fact of Mr. Gallegos having carried out his sentence following criminal court proceedings and plea.
By allowing the State to continue the never-ending circle of adding charges into matters that have already been settled via criminal judgement with hearings/trial, the Court would be allowing a grave loophole unto which the state can apply charges trivially in individual cases, violating citizens' rights to a fair and speedy trial.
In support of this review, we compel the Supreme Court to make note that the District Attorneys office had substantial opportunities to examine and arraign Mr. Gallegos after he was released by Writ of Habeas Corpus. Instead, the District Attorney's office violated the writ, in which they re-arrested Mr. Gallegos stating he was released on a "Clerical error", in which they subsequently did not arraign him simultaneous to the arrest as ordered by Writ of Habeas Corpus.
Mr. Gallegos is free of confinement, in which he was released after serving his time for Second Degree Murder.
((It is to my understanding that, and that of our community, that a plea is an NPC court process unless mandated by statutory limits at the time of the arrest. If I, or anyone, was to be arrested, we provide our plea to an officer OOCly in which facilitates the natural consequence and appearances associated with that plea within a court of law. I've provided the following, as it was not brought up in the previous court.))
Spoiler
In support of the provided narrative, the following evidence shall be submitted into the court record;
Exhibit One, Two, And Three
Exhibit Two: SD EMAIL
SpoilerJune 30, 2022
Ms. Chloe Diaz, Attorney at Law
Chloe Diaz Law Group
Los Santos, SA 90002
STATE OF SAN ANDREAS V. JONATHAN GALLEGOS
Dear Ms. Chloe Diaz:
This letter is in regards to the current open case in the Criminal Division of the Superior Court of San Andreas against Mr. Jonathan Gallegos.
As the Chief of Staff of this Department, and the direct representative of the Sheriff, I feel it is of utmost importance to justice that you, as Mr. Gallegos' defense attorney, are made aware of the circumstances regarding his arrest and arraignment. The Los Santos County Sheriff's Department wishes to reaffirm that its role in this particular case is exclusive to enforcing the law and conducting arrests. It is not of direct relevance to the Department how this prosecution is handled. However, we feel it is crucial to advise you of the information contained in this letter so as to comply with all State and Federal laws, primarily Brady v. Maryland.
Mr. Gallegos was arrested on June 5th and pled not guilty. On June 11th, the District Attorney's Office advised that Mr. Gallegos had been released due to a clerical error and is to be re-arrested so that an arraignment can be filed. On June 15th, Mr. Gallegos was arrested once more based on an approved arrest warrant. This time, Mr. Gallegos pled no contest to his charges and served his time.
Nearly two weeks later, on June 28th, the Office of the District Attorney reopened the file and requested for additional information which was provided. On June 29th, the Office of the District Attorney made the determination to prosecute Mr. Gallegos for additional charges:District Attorney Office wrote:After reviewing the evidence further, the State will add Possession of a firearm by convicted felon and discharging a firearm in public. Keep me updated of the outcome of the search warrant, Detective. In the meantime charges are being arrainged.Furthermore, the Office of the District Attorney requested, on June 29th, that another arrest warrant be filed for Mr. Gallegos, claiming that he should not have been released and that he cannot amend his initial plea. Do note that, at this point, Mr. Gallegos had already pled no contest and served his time.
In my duty as a peace officer of the State and a Department executive, I notified the Office of the District Attorney on June 29th that Mr. Gallegos had already served his time and that this casefile/prosecution was no longer needed.
The Office of the District Attorney argued that Mr. Gallegos could not enter a new plea, despite a second arrest having been affected. In addition, they argued that Mr. Gallegos now had over thirty (30) criminal points and as such, prosecution was required in this case. However, Mr. Gallegos only reached the alleged thirty (30) criminal points because of the Office of the District Attorney's decision to apply additional charges after Mr. Gallegos had already served his time (Possession of a Firearm by a Convicted Felon, and Discharging a Firearm in Public). Furthermore, the Office of the District Attorney ordered that a third warrant be placed for the suspect to be arrested again and iterated that it is not up to the Department how a prosecution is handled.
It is not my role to intervene in the actions of the judicial branch of the State and this is not the spirit of this letter, however, I feel it is my duty as a peace officer to disclose this information to you as transparently as possible in the interests of justice.
Please let me know if you have any questions, comments, or concerns.
Sincerely,
JOSEPH E. CLINE, SHERIFF
KAITLYN DOYLE, CHIEF
CHIEF OF STAFF
cc: Joseph Cline, Sheriff
cc: Olivia Morales, Chief Justice
cc: Terenity Schwetz, District Attorney
cc: Legal Advisory Unit, Internal Affairs BureauIn conclusion of this petition. The petitioner affirms that all information submitted is accurate, and truthful given all the information and evidence available, and that this shall be the official petition submitted for the Supreme Court to consider proceedings.
(( @OliHaydes ))
-
Your honor, My client is not in jail. Nor has he been since he served his sentence. If you are to order the arrest of Mr. Gallegos, we ask that a copy, and its reasoning be distributed to the defense.
-
Your honor, is Mr. Gallegos to be remanded into custody based on your previous statement; and I quote:
Mister Gallegos is accused of second degree murder, Ms Diaz. He shall be remanded in custody
-
**Chloe collects the brief at the Clerks Desk - She would remove a pre-drafted Supreme Court petition, attaching some precedent - She'd ultimately file it with the Clerk**
-
**Chloe Diaz would submit a copy of a petition to the Clerk of court. It would obviously be distributed to the court, as well as the parties named**
-
**Chloe files a document in support of the petition - It would come directly from the evidence in the case defined in the Appeal. **
SpoilerJune 30, 2022
Ms. Chloe Diaz, Attorney at Law
Chloe Diaz Law Group
Los Santos, SA 90002
STATE OF SAN ANDREAS V. JONATHAN GALLEGOS
Dear Ms. Chloe Diaz:
This letter is in regards to the current open case in the Criminal Division of the Superior Court of San Andreas against Mr. Jonathan Gallegos.
As the Chief of Staff of this Department, and the direct representative of the Sheriff, I feel it is of utmost importance to justice that you, as Mr. Gallegos' defense attorney, are made aware of the circumstances regarding his arrest and arraignment. The Los Santos County Sheriff's Department wishes to reaffirm that its role in this particular case is exclusive to enforcing the law and conducting arrests. It is not of direct relevance to the Department how this prosecution is handled. However, we feel it is crucial to advise you of the information contained in this letter so as to comply with all State and Federal laws, primarily Brady v. Maryland.
Mr. Gallegos was arrested on June 5th and pled not guilty. On June 11th, the District Attorney's Office advised that Mr. Gallegos had been released due to a clerical error and is to be re-arrested so that an arraignment can be filed. On June 15th, Mr. Gallegos was arrested once more based on an approved arrest warrant. This time, Mr. Gallegos pled no contest to his charges and served his time.
Nearly two weeks later, on June 28th, the Office of the District Attorney reopened the file and requested for additional information which was provided. On June 29th, the Office of the District Attorney made the determination to prosecute Mr. Gallegos for additional charges:District Attorney Office wrote:After reviewing the evidence further, the State will add Possession of a firearm by convicted felon and discharging a firearm in public. Keep me updated of the outcome of the search warrant, Detective. In the meantime charges are being arrainged.Furthermore, the Office of the District Attorney requested, on June 29th, that another arrest warrant be filed for Mr. Gallegos, claiming that he should not have been released and that he cannot amend his initial plea. Do note that, at this point, Mr. Gallegos had already pled no contest and served his time.
In my duty as a peace officer of the State and a Department executive, I notified the Office of the District Attorney on June 29th that Mr. Gallegos had already served his time and that this casefile/prosecution was no longer needed.
The Office of the District Attorney argued that Mr. Gallegos could not enter a new plea, despite a second arrest having been affected. In addition, they argued that Mr. Gallegos now had over thirty (30) criminal points and as such, prosecution was required in this case. However, Mr. Gallegos only reached the alleged thirty (30) criminal points because of the Office of the District Attorney's decision to apply additional charges after Mr. Gallegos had already served his time (Possession of a Firearm by a Convicted Felon, and Discharging a Firearm in Public). Furthermore, the Office of the District Attorney ordered that a third warrant be placed for the suspect to be arrested again and iterated that it is not up to the Department how a prosecution is handled.
It is not my role to intervene in the actions of the judicial branch of the State and this is not the spirit of this letter, however, I feel it is my duty as a peace officer to disclose this information to you as transparently as possible in the interests of justice.
Please let me know if you have any questions, comments, or concerns.
Sincerely,
JOSEPH E. CLINE, SHERIFF
KAITLYN DOYLE, CHIEF
CHIEF OF STAFF
cc: Joseph Cline, Sheriff
cc: Olivia Morales, Chief Justice
cc: Terenity Schwetz, District Attorney
cc: Legal Advisory Unit, Internal Affairs Bureau -
Appellate Court of San Andreas
Petition for Review
Jonathan Gallegos v. State of San Andreas
In this Petition to the Appellate Court, Jonathan Gallegos alleges that an error in legislative or administrative action has been undertaken by Superior Court of San Andreas and is therefore requesting immediate judicial relief in regards to the following;
Tick boxes as appropriate
[X] - Violation of the United States Constitution
[X] - Violation of the Constitution of the State of San Andreas/Charter of the City of Los Santos
[X] - Contradiction of Existing State Law
[X] - Contradiction of Existing Federal Law
[X] - Other; 5th Amendment Violations - Jonathan Gallegos has already pled No Contest and served his time per statute 209 of the San Andreas Penal CodeIn support of the case for providing judicial relief to the above, a detailed narrative of events shall be provided to the court in order to ascertain the reason(s) for why the appellee’s action is being challenged and is requested to be reversed;
We ask the court to review the motion to dismiss San Andreas v. Jonathan Gallegos, as provided in record exhibit 1. The arraignment, and potential trial are of grave constitutional error, and the Defendant of these proceedings has exhausted all legal remedies in a quest to uphold his rights per the 5th Amendment. It is for that reasoning, that we ask the Appellate to review the application, and failure to acknowledge the 5th Amendment, and Double Jeopardy within this case. Mr. Gallegos has already plead No Contest to this crime, and served his sentence as proposed by the state. Mr. Gallegos has already settled these matters in a plea of no contest within San Andreas v. Jonathan Gallegos ((The NPC'd Plea)), and is yet again brought before the court on the same issue.
We raise issues of impartiality, whereas there is no explanation as to the Superior Courts denial of motions to dismiss the aforementioned case in light of the defendant already having been convicted and serving his time. It is for that reason; we ask the appellate court to review the initial hearings in which Mr. Gallegos had already pled and served time ((This hearing was the NPC'd hearing)) and weigh them to the current attempt to try Mr. Gallegos yet again for the same crime.
The motions and responses from State v. Jonathan Gallegos are as follows:
SpoilerMOTION TO DISMISS CHARGE
Spoiler"Therefore, we Motion to Dismiss the Second-Degree Murder Charge - Per the filed arraignment, the state has failed to provide ANY evidence of murder, whereas the arraignment fails to provide ANY prima facie evidence and must be dismissed. The defense will object to any amendments as this case has already been unlawfully delayed, in jeopardy of our client's 6th amendment rights"
"
"We raise double jeopardy defenses and will be seeking not only an administrative investigation into the state actors, but also a criminal investigation for malicious prosecution. These grave violations of law are intentional at the very root. "
Regardless of if an error was made by the state, they may not circumvent the defendants' rights to be free of double jeopardy. "
As a note of the aforementioned, the error raised by the state was in fact the failure to produce a case against Mr. Gallegos. In that respect, Mr. Gallegos was initially held for 6 days with no proposed evidence, and ultimately, an arraigned case. Mr. Gallegos cannot be held liable against the 5th Amendment, nor can his 6th Amendment Rights be violated due to the lack of diligence. This can be encompassed by the jurisprudence set forth in U.S. v. Tigano, whereas no procedural delay shall circumvent the established rights of a citizen.
MOTION FOR LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION
Spoiler"Your honor, my client does not reach the requirement for bail. He is by declaration of the 5th amendment, a free man who is being held unlawfully on events he already served time for. Not to mention he has had an active Writ of Heabeas Corpus as an introduction to this fiasco. If his immediate release is to be denied, then we formally raise a motion for Lack of personal Jurisdiction of this court over Mr. Gallegos. "
-
Response from judge:
Spoiler
Mister Gallegos is accused of second degree murder, Ms Diaz. He shall be remanded in custody, none of this funny business.
**Morgan Jones rolls his eyes and looks over to the Prosecutor.
We provide the following timeline in support of our request for review.
- Mr. Gallegos was arrested on June 5th and charged with Second Degree Murder.
- On June 10th, Mr. Gallegos was released upon a writ of Habeas Corpus, as the State failed to bring forward the evidence and allegations before the court.
-
In the ensuing hours after the Court Ordered release of Mr. Gallegos, the District Attorney's office provided a false/deceptive statement (Exhibit 2) to the Los Santos Sheriff's Department, in which they made the following statement:
-
Spoiler
-
-
The order gave clear and concise instructions that the District Attorney's Office was to file the arrest warrant, and arraignment Simultaneously, in which they failed to honor, per court order. The Court Order is attached via Exhibit 3 below:
-
Spoiler
-
-
Outside of the legalities of Mr. Gallegos unlawful arrest - which was enacted in defiance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus; Mr. Gallegos pled No Contest and was subsequently sentenced to 15 days, per the 209 of the San Andreas Penal Code, In which he served his time in its entirety for the charge now brought forward in San Andreas v. Jonathan Gallegos
- Per Federal Rule 11 - And the lack of arraignment warranting Habeas Corpus (Being held without allegations being brought forward against the defendant) - Mr. Gallegos' second arrest is determined to be of new Merit, as no merit was provided in the initial arrest. In addition, there is no rules barring a criminal defendant from consecutively changing his from Not Guilty, to No Contest. Mr. Gallegos never had a trial, and any lack of diligence on behalf of the state does not nullify the fact that he was already held and convicted of the crimes within the current arraignment.
- Mr. Gallegos is now being arraigned in State of San Andreas v. Jonathan Gallegos, against State and Federal rights that protect him from being twice held in jeopardy of life or limb.
- Mr. Gallegos' Counsel has raised the aforementioned merits of the case in motions, in which the Superior Court has refused to acknowledge, facilitating a grave error in subjecting Mr. Gallegos to yet a second jeopardy of life and limb.
- Mr. Gallegos has exhausted all legal remedies available, and we see fit to have the determinations made by the Superior Court reviewed by the Apellate Court. It is in the best interest of the State, as well as Mr. Gallegos, to make judgement on the contradictions of law imposed by the denial of motions to dismiss charges that have already been rectified.
- In closing, the superior court lacks personal jurisdiction over Mr. Gallegos, as provisions of the 5th amendment bar the reenactment of the criminal allegations brought forth against him.
**Adds a citation to the Record**
US Supreme Court; Evans v. Michigan: Whereas The Court held that the trial court's acquittal factually resolved whether Evans was guilty or not; therefore, it would be unfair to prosecute him again for the same crime.
In comparison, The second arrest produced a No Contest plea on behalf of Mr. Gallegos, in which resolved the states intent to hold Mr. Gallegos liable for his crimes. He was subsequently sentenced and carried out his sentence faithfully as to the ruling made within the second arrest hearing. No statutory requirements existed to compel the defendant through a mandated court hearing. ((NPC'd hearing)) - Therefore, it would be in violation of Double Jeopardy rights, and be unfair to prosecute Mr. Gallegos, yet again, as such matters have already been resolved per incarceration.
In support of the provided narrative, the following evidence shall be submitted into the court record;
Exhibit One:
Exhibit Two:
In conclusion of this petition. The plaintiff affirms that all information submitted is accurate, and truthful given all the information and evidence available, and that this shall be the official petition submitted for the Appellate Court to commence proceedings.
(( @OliHaydes @nelsondx))
-
Response from judge:
-
Your honor. Frankly. I will not respond to that directly. The order was clear. The arraignment and Warrant were to be filed simultaneously. The fact is it wasn't. The Habeas corpus was on the tenth, the alleged misconduct was on the 10th, hours after it was filed. A court order is a court order. Regardless, the court ordered him released, and gave terms, and the DA violated them. I would like the prosecution to stop referring me to colleague as well, your honor.. I have no affiliation or professional comparison to them... What so ever.
He was released and then taken back into custody illegally. However he served his time as a result. DA wishes to ignore all of this, as if it means nothing.. And charge him yet again.
I suppose I will add her to the Brady list proposal that is soon to follow as well.
**Chloe wafts her hand, exiting the court to entertain her recess**
-
Your honor, that is null and void, as no judgement has been made. We have valid reasoning to retract, and their is zero reasoning not to acknowledge the waiver of plea deal. Infact, with what we have proposed, and all of the motions in their entirety, their is valid reason to believe such a plea is in need of review of the court, per Federal Rule 11.
As counsel for this plaintiff, we object, and we will continue to object.
-
Plea is not agreed upon. Your honor - We still request the remainder of our time to consult with the Appellate court on a motion to quash/review the emails, and purgatory statements that lead to the re-arrest of my client outside of a Habeas Corpus order.
With all do respect, we believe your previous order to be of grave consequence to the constitutional rights of Mr. Gallegos. We would simultaneously motion to quash the motion to dismiss, founded on the following reasoning:
- The court ordered the release of Jonathan Gallegos, per Write of Habeas Corpus. This order can be located by the court, in which it will order the District Attorney to file the arraignment and arrest warrant SIMULTANEOUSLY. This order is by design, and is naturally applied to keep from further 6th Amendment violations, and his precendetal right to a probable cause hearing.
-
The very same day - The District Attorney personally sent the following email, in which has to be a factually false statement. We remind the court of the following, which encompasses the act of the District Attorney. As a note, we know that his "clerical error" was false, as we've provided the order already.
- Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978), the United States Supreme Court held that: “Where the defendant makes a substantial preliminary showing that a false statement knowingly and intentionally, or with reckless disregard for the truth, was included by the affiant in the warrant affidavit, and if the allegedly false statement is necessary to the finding of probable cause, the Fourth Amendment, as incorporated in the Fourteenth Amendment, requires that a hearing be held at the defendant's request.”
- Upon re-arrest, such a Writ of Habeas Corpus would have effectively nullified the previous arrest, deeming it unconsitutional. The District Attorney claims that the plaintiff cannot change his claim, but in fact, upon his re-arrest, his previous encounter was void, as the District Attorney failed to meet the probable cause requirement.
- You cannot cling to a plea made in violation of the precedent of Habeas Corpus.. And moreso, the client is well within Federal rules to change his plea from Not Guilty to No Contest - Per Rule 11 and its sections. - The only change of plea that typically requires a court hearing, or rebuttle slash acknowledgement in person is when an individual downgrades their plea from Guilty or Nolo Contendere to that of not Guilty.
- Regardless of the aforementioned, the client has already served his time, per plea, and no such further action shall be brought against him for the same charges. That would be a violation of my clients 5th Amendment rights.
We point to the exhibit and order for comparison. This falsehood /MUST/ be recognized, as well as my clients No Contest plea, and time served. Regardless of error, on who ever the District Attorney chooses to blame, the constitution makes no mince of word when it says that an individual must not be held twice for the same act.
SpoilerWe request 24 hours to submit our case to the Supreme Court via writ, should this court fail to acknowledge these grave occurences.
-
Your honor.. It appears the District Attorney's Office has declared the wrong individual on this plea agreement..
**Points to Jeziah Knox textualized near the top**
-
The defense willfully accepts the arrangement.
**Chloe gives Morgan Jones a gleeful smile before overlooking the document provided by the DAO. She'd slip it in her bag as a conclusion, sliding it over her shoulder as she anticipates pacing out of the court.**
-
I would actually like to motion to compel the state on the follow;
**Chloe grabs a cheat sheet from her leather document case**
- Produce Physical evidence, and/or statement, as to why the weapon within the victims hand, as seen on CCTV, was not mentioned or admitted into evidence. Such evidence is potentially exculpatory in terms of levying a murder charge, in comparison to voluntary manslaughter attributed to potential threats, as we will discuss during trial. It is essential that the state include such evidence, and in hindsight, provide the full narrative of the events that occured, not just what makes my client appear guilty.
- Clarification on the events that transpired at the TTCF yard before and after the events provided in the arraignment document, specifically, the ongoing riot where multiple people were supposedly stabbed. The defense feels the nature of the environment is critical to these charges, and as such, critical to our defense.
- Clarification on the following statement: "The killing was captured on the dayroom cameras, however no response had been rendered at the time." - Whereas the defense finds it essential to understand "however no response had been rendered at the time"?
- We also request the full copy of the CCTV, as we find the lack of detail on the CO's behalf suspicious, and raise the question of truthfulness. The CCTV would establish when the officers entered the community area, and if they actually had witnessed what they have alleged, personally. If the officers are to claim they witnessed the incident remotely, then we will be asking for CCTV to support their review from monitors elsewhere within the facility. Having spoken to multiple clients, I am led to believe Exhibit four is in line with a motion to strike, however we will wait to impeach said witnesses.
((Logs for the fourth request will do))
-
-
**Chloe Diaz would gesture towards Jason as he is escorted into court. She'd focus on the judge. **
The defendant is present your honor. We are ready to proceed to pretrial motions.
-
**Chloe Diaz would be present upon initiation of the proceedings.**
-
**Chloe Would file her typical pre-trial motions**
Motion for Dismissal - Failure to state a claim in which relief can be granted
At ultimate, the question (Do you hate the color white) and statement (People say Transport on Demand is bad customer service) is supported by fact/truth, and thus defamation/libel cannot be pursued. In order to be held liable for defamation, the defendant would have needed to make a knowingly false statement within their publication. However, the defendant made a knowingly TRUE statement within their publication, and asked a question about color, in which has already been ruled that they have no claims to. In hindsight, they have no claims to the name Transport on Demand, as they do not own the proprietary rights to such "name", and nor would they be able to easily able to obtain such name with common words summarized as a brand. Transport is common, on is common, and Demand is common.
- Comparative Advertisement is lawful, under 16 CFR 14.15
- There is no state law regulating the use of competitors in advertisement, and as mentioned above, it is encouraged rather than being deceptive - Per 16 CFR.
- The claimant has no recognizable trademark on such name or brand and cannot claim such compilation of common words as exclusive brand property.
- Yilmaz Taxi Cab's advertisement does not state "Transport on Demand is Bad Customer Service" - Whereas it states a "People say Transport on Demand is bad Customer Service" (Typos removed) - This fact is proven as an objective matter of truth. In fact, complaints were made against all taxicab services - Per texts received from the advertisement in Exhibit 3 . We have provided Exhibit 4 as the supporting evidence.
- Chloe Diaz PLLC is within their full right, per the aforementioned Federal Law, to use social avenues to obtain un-bias feedback on any company, using the names of brands in their entirety - As such actions, and use of name, does not constitute defamation - and do not even began to include any defamatory remarks.
- In the totality of the claims, the claimant has failed to prove that the statements in question were false (Pertaining to Yilmaz)
Exhibit 4
Spoiler
SpoilerPer 16 C.F.R § 14.15(b)-(c),
§ 14.15 In regard to comparative advertising.(a) Introduction. The Commission's staff has conducted an investigation of industry trade associations and the advertising media regarding their comparative advertising policies. In the course of this investigation, numerous industry codes, statements of policy, interpretations and standards were examined. Many of the industry codes and standards contain language that could be interpreted as discouraging the use of comparative advertising. This Policy Statement enunciates the Commission's position that industry self-regulation should not restrain the use by advertisers of truthful comparative advertising.
(b) Policy Statement. The Federal Trade Commission has determined that it would be of benefit to advertisers, advertising agencies, broadcasters, and self-regulation entities to restate its current policy concerning comparative advertising. 1 Commission policy in the area of comparative advertising encourages the naming of, or reference to competitiors, but requires clarity, and, if necessary, disclosure to avoid deception of the consumer. Additionally, the use of truthful comparative advertising should not be restrained by broadcasters or self-regulation entities.
1 For purposes of this Policy Statement, comparative advertising is defined as advertising that compares alternative brands on objectively measurable attributes or price, and identifies the alternative brand by name, illustration or other distinctive information.
(c) The Commission has supported the use of brand comparisions where the bases of comparision are clearly identified. Comparative advertising, when truthful and nondeceptive, is a source of important information to consumers and assists them in making rational purchase decisions. Comparative advertising encourages product improvement and innovation, and can lead to lower prices in the marketplace. For these reasons, the Commission will continue to scrutinize carefully restraints upon its use.
(1) Disparagement. Some industry codes which prohibit practices such as “disparagement,” “disparagement of competitors,” “improper disparagement,” “unfairly attaching,” “discrediting,” may operate as a restriction on comparative advertising. The Commission has previously held that disparaging advertising is permissible so long as it is truthful and not deceptive. In Carter Products, Inc., 60 F.T.C. 782, modified, 323 F.2d 523 (5th Cir. 1963), the Commission narrowed an order recommended by the hearing examiner which would have prohibited respondents from disparaging competing products through the use of false or misleading pictures, depictions, or demonstrations, “or otherwise” disparaging such products. In explaining why it eliminated “or otherwise” from the final order, the Commission observed that the phrase would have prevented:
respondents from making truthful and non-deceptive statements that a product has certain desirable properties or qualities which a competing product or products do not possess. Such a comparison may have the effect of disparaging the competing product, but we know of no rule of law which prevents a seller from honestly informing the public of the advantages of its products as opposed to those of competing products. 60 F.T.C. at 796.
Industry codes which restrain comparative advertising in this manner are subject to challenge by the Federal Trade Commission.(2) Substantiation. On occasion, a higher standard of substantiation by advertisers using comparative advertising has been required by self-regulation entities. The Commission evaluates comparative advertising in the same manner as it evaluates all other advertising techniques. The ultimate question is whether or not the advertising has a tendency or capacity to be false or deceptive. This is a factual issue to be determined on a case-by-case basis. However, industry codes and interpretations that impose a higher standard of substantiation for comparative claims than for unilateral claims are inappropriate and should be revised.
-
I'll be looking at my legal options pertaining to the recusal. - But the court can do as they wish, obviously.
Is my recess granted?
-
So you are basically ignoring the court order, and my clients rights to those HC protections, based on the states issue with staff?
I'm motioning for recusal for impartiality. Your partiality, and competence is of legal question for the defense.
It is only proper that the court grant a 24 hour recess while we further file such motions in a higher court.
-
Mr. Gallegos was arrested a day after his Habeas Corpus was approved. This arraignment was NOT filed /simultaneously/. Their is no mincing words. You were ordered to file them simultaneously because you lack timely filings and violated 6th amendment rights of Mr. GALLEGOS.
And you keep insinuating that my client can't change his plea outside of court. Yet my client was only in court one time previous to this hearing. And that Is when he plead no contest and served his time as a result of a trial.
LEST we not forget, you told the Sheriffs department his first release was a clerical error.... Is a court order a clerical error to you?
-
I expect a full ruling on those motions, /YOUR/ honor... per rule 2.3 of the guarantees of this court, I am entitled to such in /FULL/ detail. If one cannot be provided, I will be motioning for recusal for impartiality.
I'd also like to provide a copy of the court order, which apparently this court is ignoring in defiance of my clients 5th amendment rights.
I'll present it as notice.
**Chloe reaches into her bag taking the court order signed by Judge Patton. Shed present it to the baliff.**
SpoilerAnd so it has. Jonathan Gallegos is to be released from custody at once. If charges wish to be brought against him for this incident, the District Attorney must communicate with this Court and develop a warrant and arraignment to be drafted simeltanously and reviewed by the court before execution."
-
**Chloe reveals a marvelous smile as she looks towards the Judge. Thus far, she'd expect the same incompetence she received earlier. She brandishes her arrogance like a badge of honor as she shifts her blank stare towards the judge.**
[CF 145-22] State of San Andreas v. Jason Carmichael
in Archive
Posted
**Chloe nods towards Jason, then the prosecution - She grabs her things, placing them inside of her leather bag before sliding the strap over her shoulder. She would await the judges ruling.**