Soyuz Posted December 31, 2023 Share Posted December 31, 2023 (edited) > Contact for a Free Consultation Now! < HASSLER & KATZ, P.C., managed by Karl Hassler, Esq., and Joseph Katz, Esq., is a multi-specialty law office with an extensive history, priding ourselves first and foremost on being relentless in our pursuit of justice: your justice. Our Attorneys: JOSEPH R. KATZ Managing Partner KARL HASSLER Partner MARGUERITE DUAN Associate PENELOPE WALSH Associate ALAN TREHARNE Associate Our Track Record: ☞ L.S. Police Prot. League v. San. Aviation Admin. — Favorable Verdict A police pilot was accused by the San Andreas Aviation Administration of flying recklessly. Without a chance for the pilot to defend himself, the Administration suspended his license after he invoked his right against coming to a compelled criminal interrogation. The court held that the pilot's Fifth Amendment rights were violated when he was requested to participate in an investigation under threat of legal consequence for non-cooperation. The court also agreed with us that due process was denied to the pilot when the Administration concluded that the pilot committed a criminal offense without proper judicial process. The Administration's powers were clarified. ☞ Barroso v. Vinewood Casino — $319,000 Verdict Barroso was attacked by a security guard on the premises of VInewood Casino for making a comment. The security guard was unlicensed and was not qualified to work in this capacity. We sued for Assault, Battery, and Negligent Hiring. A default judgment was awarded in our favor for $319,000. PORTER v. CIRILLO — Police Brutality Suit Against Five Deputies — $1,755,000 Verdict Porter was beaten senselessly by Deputy Steven Cirillo, who used a nitestick and did not desist even after Porter unconscious. The other deputies, Guerra, Medina, Carballar, and Teller, stood by and watched. We sued for a myriad of reasons, including claiming that the other deputies failed to intervene. The Court found liability for all the defendants and awarded $1,755,000 to Porter. LOCKLEAR v. CARDENAS — First Amendment Violation — $160,000 Verdict Locklear was assaulted by a deputy sheriff and had his phone knocked out of his hand while recording a police incident. We alleged that the deputy committed, among other allegations, a First Amendment Violation. The Court found the defendant in default for willfully refusing to appear and awarded $160,000 to Locklear. FARACE v. AKIYAMA — Defamatory Statement Against Business Owner — In Progress PROVACCI v. SAN ANDREAS — Unlawful Use of Force Against CCW Holder — In Progress Our Criminal Division Track Record: ☞ W.N. — Favorable Plea Deal W.N. was charged with Possession of Burglary Tools, Petty Theft, and Driving Without a Valid License, with a maximum sentence of 3 days imprisonment and a $2,500 fine. The Court immediately accepted our motion to dismiss Possession of Burglary Tools and Petty Theft due to a lack of probable cause. W.N. accepted a plea deal to the sole remaining charge of Driving Without a Valid License and did not go to jail. ☞ R.S. — Charges Dismissed R.S. was charged with Assault, Resisting Arrest, and Battery, with a maximum sentence of 6 days imprisonment. On direct examination during the preliminary hearing, our objections exposed the arresting officer's speculative and potentially dishonest answers, which resulted in his testimony being entirely impeached and R.S. having all charges dismissed. ☞ W.N. — Favorable Plea Deal W.N. was charged with two felonies: Grand Theft Auto and Possession of a Firearm by Convicted Felon, with a maximum sentence of 10 days imprisonment. A successful negotiation between the prosecution and our attorney led to both felonies being reduced to misdemeanors and W.N. walking away with no jail time. ☞ R.N. — Charges Dismissed R.N. was charged with felony Vehicular Endangerment with a prior clean record, with a maximum sentence of 5 days imprisonment and a $10,000 fine. Our attorney argued that Vehicular Endangerment was unconstitutionally vague as applied to R.N. The court agreed, and dismissed the charge. ☞ C.W. — Favorable Plea Deal C.W. was charged with Reckless Driving with a prior clean record, with a maximum sentence of 1 day imprisonment, a $10,000 fine, a 7 day license suspension, and a 4 day vehicle impound. We negotiated a favorable plea deal down to two infractions: Speeding and Failure to Yield, instead of a jailable misdemeanor. ☞ C.A. — Charges Dismissed C.A. was charged with Misuse of an Emergency Hotline and Assault and Battery on a Government Worker, with a maximum sentence of 7 days imprisonment and a $5,000 fine. Following a pre-trial hearing, the prosecution dismissed the charges after the evidence revealed that C..A did not commit the crimes alleged. ☞ Y.W. — Charges Dismissed Y.W. was charged with Reckless Driving, with a maximum sentence of 1 day imprisonment and a $2,500 fine. Y.W. followed a police car that was chasing after a driver that had earlier crashed into her. Following the preliminary hearing, we argued that following a police car with its lights and sirens activated cannot be reckless as the lights and sirens deliver sufficient notice to nearby drivers that a car is being driven with haste, thus dispelling the crucial element of "lack of care and caution" that the prosecution relied on. The court agreed and dismissed the charges. ☞ M.Z. — Favorable Plea Deal M.Z. was charged with Reckless Driving and Vehicular Endangerment, with a maximum sentence of 9 days imprisonment and a $20,000 fine. We negotiated a plea deal with the prosecution to dismiss all charges in exchange for a month probation and a temporary suspension of M.Z.'s driving license. A month later, M.Z. has no charges and is safely driving once again. ☞ B.R. — Charges Dismissed B.R. was charged with SHAFT Code Violation, with a maximum sentence of 1 day imprisonment. B.R. faced losing his right to own a firearm for good. B.R. was accused of transporting his firearm improperly in his vehicle. During the preliminary hearing, it became clear that the officers did not know where the firearm was actually found during the search of the vehicle: either in his trunk or in his glovebox. We argued that even if it was found in his trunk, or his glovebox, it would have still been in compliance with the SHAFT Act's requirement of being transported in a "closed container". The prosecution and the court agreed and B.R. had his charges dismissed. ☞ J.M. — Charges Dismissed J.M. was a Corrections Officer that was charged with Neglect of Public Duty, Possession of a Prohibited Firearm, and Possession Of A Controlled Substance, with a maximum sentence of 7 days imprisonment and a fine of $3,750. Throughout the course of the pre-trial hearings, it became very clear that both the arrest and search warrants that the prosecution relied on were deficient. Joseph Katz thoroughly pointed out these deficiencies to the Court and the Court agreed, suppressing all evidence and dismissing all charges. ☞ J.T. — Charges Dismissed J.T. was charged for driving on a suspended license and unlawfully possessing a firearm and ammunition after being stopped by a police officer. The alleged reason for the stop was speeding and running an intersection. However, at the preliminary hearing, Joseph Katz quickly revealed that the police officer had no objective basis to perform the stop and based her decision off of a "hunch", which is forbidden by the Constitution. Immediately after, the prosecution gave up on the case and the Court dismissed the charges. ☞ J.K. — Charges Dismissed J.K. was charged by arrest warrant when he was spotted by a police officer allegedly communicating with gang members. Following the arrest, he was allegedly found with an illegal firearm and ammunition. J.K. risked forever being labeled a parole violator and faced significant jail time and fines. Joseph Katz recognized that the only evidence in the arrest warrant accusing J.K. of a crime was that he was seen speaking to a group of black people—with no elaboration on why the police thought these black people were supposedly gang members. Joseph Katz moved to quash the racist arrest warrant and suppress all the evidence allegedly obtained from the illegal arrest. The Court agreed with the motions and dismissed all charges. Our Clients: Japanese-American Association Los Santos Police Protective League The Diamond Casino & Resort ... and more! Never Settle For Less! Call Now! 360-09-682 Testimonials: Represented by HASSLER & KATZ, P.C.? Leave a review below! (( As a private website, trollish and bad reviews are removed by the website administrator, so please take that into account! )) Edited February 3 by Soyuz 19 Link to comment
g1201 Posted May 19, 2024 Share Posted May 19, 2024 (edited) User: JKR Review: ⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️ Note: Cannot recommend enough. Katz is a skilled attorney and was professional throughout the entire time he represented me in my cases involving the LSPPL. Edited May 19, 2024 by g1201 2 Link to comment
westwrld Posted May 19, 2024 Share Posted May 19, 2024 User: goldwoods Review: ⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️ Note: Joseph is a top notch criminal defense attorney that helped me tremendously and got the job done, definitely will be using his services again if necessary. 1 Link to comment
trupecs Posted May 19, 2024 Share Posted May 19, 2024 User: Krazy Review: ⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️ Note: One of the best, if not THE best lawyer in town, top class professionalism throughout the entire fight in court. 1 Link to comment
Petros Posted May 19, 2024 Share Posted May 19, 2024 User: raydawg Review: ⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️ Note: won't write lot but he helped me to stay outta bars, best one ever 1 Link to comment
dia Posted May 23, 2024 Share Posted May 23, 2024 (edited) User: adip37 Review: ⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️ Note: This is the lawyer you should go to for all your needs. Swift and fair services. Edited May 23, 2024 by dia 1 Link to comment
Degu Posted May 25, 2024 Share Posted May 25, 2024 User: Montyman Review: ⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️ Note: When I was unfairly fined by SanFire for having decorative ashtrays in an era-themed restaurant, Joe had my back. When the superior court sided with SanFire he fought his way all the way up the chain to the Supreme Court and got the fine overturned. Katz isn't just a lawyer, he's a lawyer that cares about his clients and understands the law intimately. Thanks Joe. 1 Link to comment
Scylla Posted July 2, 2024 Share Posted July 2, 2024 User: apatel Review: ⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️ Note: Katz Law Group provided me with a top class service. Joseph went above and beyond to ensure everything went smoothly. He put my mind at ease and was very knowledgeable. I got a good result in court and am very happy with his service. I would not hesitate to use Katz Law Group in the future. If I could give more than 5 stars I would. Thanks again. 1 Link to comment
george? Posted July 2, 2024 Share Posted July 2, 2024 User: Syl Review: ⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️ Note: Best lawyer in the State. 2 Link to comment
Jacksquare Posted July 15, 2024 Share Posted July 15, 2024 User: Oppressedcitizen Review: ⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️ Note: I called Joseph Katz when my rights were being oppressed by the tyrannical wardens of SADCR. He dismantled their arguments in the courtroom and fought tirelessly for my rights. Thanks to his exceptional work, I'm now home free. 1 Link to comment
Recommended Posts