Garras Up Posted June 23, 2020 Share Posted June 23, 2020 The boy Blondie out here doing big things. Link to comment
Legate Posted July 4, 2020 Author Share Posted July 4, 2020 10 hours ago, VisioningHail said: Your Honour, this case is a multi-faceted issue. There’s no simple way to conclude. Many accusations have been levied at my client…none of these have been of legal merit. My client was under no obligation to keep his Facebrowser published to the world. There was no court order saying as such. My client exercised his free speech by deciding what he wanted to have publish and what he didn’t, punishing him for that would violate his first amendment right. In this case, keeping his Facebrowser public would’ve looked bad to his employer, Charles Schwab. The case mostly revolves around if my client sold a gun to someone else. Without a shadow of a doubt, no. There’s been no physical evidence presented and no firsthand testimonies have been presented either. Miss Kowalski’s testimony holds no merit. Miss Kowalski was introduced as an expert witness unbeknownst to the defense. The Daubert standard is impossible to have been met by the detective. Her expertise was in CSI investigations (something entirely irrelevant to the case) and her experience as a qualified detective. To refresh the courts memory, there was no scientific methodology to her conclusions and no illustrative factors to bolster the reliability or to disprove her hypothesis, both of which must be met by the Daubert standard. To put it simply, miss Kowalski was wheeled on the stand by the prosecution as a mouthpiece for the case with no impunity, with little thought to whether what she was saying was an opinion or a fact. Her hunch or gut feeling is a blatant disregard of the law in this witch-hunt against my client. This was shown time and time again, regarding whether my client did sell a gun or whether my client took a picture of him wielding a gun in the state of San Andreas. Her testimony was made with a lack of foundation in the facts of the case, no photographic evidence or clue what the alleged address even looks like. **There’s a pause between his statement and concluding line, his tone switches from a argumentative tone to a softer tone.** Your Honour, my clients name has been dragged through the mud. The love of his life who is in the court today has been as torn by this as he has. My client holds down a steady high-income job, he has had no prior record and no pattern of criminal behaviour. He’s a model citizen, and the DA can’t bring anything more to the table than texts from a phone that isn’t his. **Terrence Fogel nods and slowly sits back down with a somber expression on his face.** Link to comment
Legate Posted July 14, 2020 Author Share Posted July 14, 2020 Superior Court of San Andreas Court Judgement After thorough review of the case People v. Ivan Ulloa, 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; Los Santos Police Department, on 24th of May, 2020 -- executed an arrest warrant that was applied by Police Detective Skyler Kowalski and approved by Justice Samantha Patton. The defendant, Mister Ivan Ulloa, plead no contest during the initial hearing, with an intent to appeal the charges on release. The warrant application listed the charge sought out by the Police to be F(C) 604. Unlicensed Sale of Firearms/Explosives, on 21/MAY/2020. Justice Samantha Patton, upon review of all relevant narrative and evidence provided by the applicant, approved the warrant, for F(C) 604. Unlicensed Sale of Firearms/Explosives, on 21/MAY/2020. Los Santos Police Department executed the warrant on 22/MAY/2020 and charged the defendant with; F(C) 604. Unlicensed Sale of Firearms/Explosives and F(C) 108. Tampering with Evidence. The defendant, through his counsel, notified their intent to challenge the charges brought against them in a court of law. The District Attorney's Office filed the criminal arraignment with the Superior Court of San Andreas, docketed under CF 159-20, The People v. Ivan Ulloa, on 28/MAY/2020. District Attorney Saeko Nishijima was for the People, and Mister Terrance Fogel was the counsel to the defendant. The Honorable James Livingston was the justice presiding over the case. On the matter of amending the charges before STAGE IV: Trial Phase I. During the preliminary hearings and before the defense had a chance to offer their rebuttal, the prosecution moved for a motion to amend the indictment to include MC 602 Carrying an Unlicensed Firearm. The Court sustained the motion. The question of law that the Court will be addressing today is whether adding charges is permissible after the trial has commenced. [...] The prosecution may amend charges up until the preliminary hearing. Once the trial has commenced, the prosecution may only add and amend charges on basis of new evidence that has only recently surfaced. [...] (People v. Okrua Ibu, 25/APR/2020, Superior Court of San Andreas, Justice Gregory Walker) This Court holds a somewhat of a similar opinion to the judgment published by Justice Gregory Walker. To fight the charges, the defendant must establish a game plan. To do so, the defendant and their counsel must primarily rely on the initial indictment filed with the Courts to understand the prosecution's plan of attack. That said, however, the prosecuting authority must file their indictment within seventy-two hours of arrest. Time allotted for the prosecuting authorities' investigation thus becomes very limited. And while the law enforcement agency that carried out the investigation may have believed the evidence provided and the charges pressed for the arrest may be sufficient -- the prosecution may not agree. With three fundamental issues at odds, this creates an unusual predicament. The right to a speedy trial for the defendant, the need for further investigation by the prosecution, and the surprise factor that may prejudice the defendant by amending the charges; are the issues that this Court must address. And to do so, this Court looks into the following questions; 1. Does the defendant suffer prejudice by amending the charges brought against them before STAVE IV: Trial Phase 1? The defendant does not suffer prejudice if the prosecution amends the charges before STAGE IV: Trial Phase 1. To be more specific, the defendant shall not have offered their rebuttal to the prosecutions' preliminary hearing statements. This is because the defendant is yet to establish their defense before the court. 2. Does the defendant suffer prejudice by amending the charges during or after STAGE IV: Trial Phase I? The defendant may suffer prejudice by amending the charges at that point. As the defendant already offered their rebuttal against the prosecution during the Preliminary Hearings, change in criminal charges are ought to have some effect. The Courts then, for question 2, must look into the following questions. a. Is the amendment due to a mistake in the initial filing? b. Is there a piece of new evidence surfaced due to the continued investigation? If the attempt to amend the charges is due to a mistake in the initial filing, the Court should overrule the motion. If, however, the motion is due to discovering a piece of new evidence, the Court then shall consider whether the additional charge would pass the Preliminary Hearing stage test of probable cause. If so, the Court could consider sustaining the motion. On the matter of the issues found by this court with the indictment filed. This Court understands that the Superior Court of San Andreas has no established rules for the exhibits attached to the indictments filed. Nonetheless, the way the exhibits were attached to the indictment overcomplicated the proceedings. Among other reasons, this resulted in the trial taking longer than it usually takes. While this Court can not issue a binding opinion for the Superior Court of San Andreas, its decisions bind itself. Thus, this Court shall no longer accept exhibits in future trials that include duplicate material and shall require the filing party to; i) Separate all evidence into different exhibits, even if they come from an attached Police Report or any other investigative document, ii) Ensure no evidence is duplicate as-is, and iii) If two exhibits include similar evidence, require the filing party to explain the reason of such fact. This Court now must first look into the charge of F(C) 108. Tampering with Evidence. The prosecution alleges that the defendant scrubbed his profile on FaceBrowser, a social media site, to destroy the still images of the defendant holding what the prosecution alleges to be illegal firearms. The prosecution further alleges that this act was done following the execution of a search warrant in the defendant's property, where the defendant was aware of the investigation against him. The defendant alleges that Mister Ivan Ulloa has a right to express himself, and closing his FaceBrowser account is a form of his First Amendment exercise of free speech. The defendant further alleges that Mister Ivan Ulloa did not know about the investigation and that there was no communication from the investigators to Mister Ulloa about the on-going investigation regarding his FaceBrowser profile. Additionally, the defendant alleges that the FaceBrowser account was deleted before any searches, and there were no warrants produced to access Mister Ulloa's FaceBrowser account. The prosecution must satisfy two aspects of the tampering charge for the conviction. The act must not only be knowing, willful or intentional - but it must also alter, modify, manufacture, plant, place, destroy, damage, conceal or move what will need to be used as evidence. While the defendant argues that Mister Ulloa was exercising his right to free speech when he deleted his account, the images that were being used by the police were destroyed when the account was terminated. Further, during cross-examination - Detective Kowalski stated under oath that the account was deleted after a Search Warrant was executed into one of the defendant's properties. Upon completion of the lawful search, a copy of the Search Warrant was left at the premises, taped to the front door. The defendant knew or should have known that there was an active on-going investigation. Regardless of the motives, the act of terminating his FaceBrowser account was not only intentional, but it also destroyed evidence that would be used as evidence against him. This Court thus finds Mister Ivan Ulloa guilty of F(C) 108. Tampering with Evidence. This Court must next look into the charge of M(C) 602. Carrying an Unlicensed Firearm. The prosecution alleges that the terminated FaceBrowser account of the defendant showed a number of images with the defendant holding a firearm without the proper licenses. The prosecution further alleges that the defendant never held a license to purchase a pistol, no serial number was ever attached to the defendant's record, and the image is not believed to be edited. The defendant alleges that the prosecution has failed to authenticate the images for the court. The defendant further alleges that the Detective testifying did not use any scientific methodology to prove the images were real, unedited, and taken in the State of San Andreas. While the Court notes the point made by the defendant on Detective Kowalski possibly lacking credentials to offer expert testimony on the authenticity of the picture, it must also note that the State has no proper system that records an individual's expertise in their field. Additionally, there are no laws or regulations in place to stop an individual claiming expertise in a field by simply claiming so. Furthermore, until the doubt is cast upon the law enforcement officers' statement on relevance and reliability, the Court sees no problems with accepting it. With the testimony offered by Detective Kowalski, the conversation recorded in Exhibit 1, and the defendant's tampering conviction, this Court finds Mister Ivan Ulloa guilty of M(C) 602. Carrying an Unlicensed Firearm. This Court must finally look into the charge of F(C) 604. Unlicensed Sale of Firearms/Explosives. The prosecution alleges that the defendant conversed with a third party to sell firearms without the necessary licenses and qualifications. The prosecution offered into evidence several still images of alleged communication between the defendant and a third party. The prosecution further alleges that the defendant attempted to use some codeword during the text conversations; referring to SMGs as GMS and M9/M1911s as M99s. The prosecution further alleges that the conversation included ammunition, and it is clear that the defendant was attempting to sell a firearm illegally. The defendant alleges that the prosecution can not prove it was Mister Ivan Ulloa that wrote the messages. The defendant further alleged that the phone was lost or stolen, and adds that the prosecution can not prove a sale has happened. The Court does not accept the defendant's claim that the phone was lost or stolen. The Court made a clear judgment on this issue, on 02/JUN/2020 when it rendered its decision on a number of objections raised by the counsel for the defendant for the exhibits provided by the prosecution. The Court must remind both parties that when this Court renders its decision, it is not up for further debate. And while this Court will not consider any action against Mister Fogel, he must ensure that his statements follow the judgments issued prior. While this Court believes that what the prosecution alleges may be true, evidence and testimony provided do not amount to evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. Thus, the defendant is found not guilty of F(C) 604. Unlicensed Sale of Firearms/Explosives. 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; F(C) 108. Tampering with Evidence. M(C) 602. Carrying an Unlicensed Firearm. That the defendant is not guilty of; F(C) 604. Unlicensed Sale of Firearms/Explosives and that a punishment of time served in state penal confinement and a fine of $10.000 shall be issued. It is henceforth ordered by Justice James Livingston, and shall be carried out without delay. The court is now dismissed. Link to comment
Vindus Posted July 15, 2020 Share Posted July 15, 2020 10 hours ago, Captain said: Superior Court of San Andreas Court Judgement After thorough review of the case People v. Ivan Ulloa, 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; Los Santos Police Department, on 24th of May, 2020 -- executed an arrest warrant that was applied by Police Detective Skyler Kowalski and approved by Justice Samantha Patton. The defendant, Mister Ivan Ulloa, plead no contest during the initial hearing, with an intent to appeal the charges on release. The warrant application listed the charge sought out by the Police to be F(C) 604. Unlicensed Sale of Firearms/Explosives, on 21/MAY/2020. Justice Samantha Patton, upon review of all relevant narrative and evidence provided by the applicant, approved the warrant, for F(C) 604. Unlicensed Sale of Firearms/Explosives, on 21/MAY/2020. Los Santos Police Department executed the warrant on 22/MAY/2020 and charged the defendant with; F(C) 604. Unlicensed Sale of Firearms/Explosives and F(C) 108. Tampering with Evidence. The defendant, through his counsel, notified their intent to challenge the charges brought against them in a court of law. The District Attorney's Office filed the criminal arraignment with the Superior Court of San Andreas, docketed under CF 159-20, The People v. Ivan Ulloa, on 28/MAY/2020. District Attorney Saeko Nishijima was for the People, and Mister Terrance Fogel was the counsel to the defendant. The Honorable James Livingston was the justice presiding over the case. On the matter of amending the charges before STAGE IV: Trial Phase I. During the preliminary hearings and before the defense had a chance to offer their rebuttal, the prosecution moved for a motion to amend the indictment to include MC 602 Carrying an Unlicensed Firearm. The Court sustained the motion. The question of law that the Court will be addressing today is whether adding charges is permissible after the trial has commenced. [...] The prosecution may amend charges up until the preliminary hearing. Once the trial has commenced, the prosecution may only add and amend charges on basis of new evidence that has only recently surfaced. [...] (People v. Okrua Ibu, 25/APR/2020, Superior Court of San Andreas, Justice Gregory Walker) This Court holds a somewhat of a similar opinion to the judgment published by Justice Gregory Walker. To fight the charges, the defendant must establish a game plan. To do so, the defendant and their counsel must primarily rely on the initial indictment filed with the Courts to understand the prosecution's plan of attack. That said, however, the prosecuting authority must file their indictment within seventy-two hours of arrest. Time allotted for the prosecuting authorities' investigation thus becomes very limited. And while the law enforcement agency that carried out the investigation may have believed the evidence provided and the charges pressed for the arrest may be sufficient -- the prosecution may not agree. With three fundamental issues at odds, this creates an unusual predicament. The right to a speedy trial for the defendant, the need for further investigation by the prosecution, and the surprise factor that may prejudice the defendant by amending the charges; are the issues that this Court must address. And to do so, this Court looks into the following questions; 1. Does the defendant suffer prejudice by amending the charges brought against them before STAVE IV: Trial Phase 1? The defendant does not suffer prejudice if the prosecution amends the charges before STAGE IV: Trial Phase 1. To be more specific, the defendant shall not have offered their rebuttal to the prosecutions' preliminary hearing statements. This is because the defendant is yet to establish their defense before the court. 2. Does the defendant suffer prejudice by amending the charges during or after STAGE IV: Trial Phase I? The defendant may suffer prejudice by amending the charges at that point. As the defendant already offered their rebuttal against the prosecution during the Preliminary Hearings, change in criminal charges are ought to have some effect. The Courts then, for question 2, must look into the following questions. a. Is the amendment due to a mistake in the initial filing? b. Is there a piece of new evidence surfaced due to the continued investigation? If the attempt to amend the charges is due to a mistake in the initial filing, the Court should overrule the motion. If, however, the motion is due to discovering a piece of new evidence, the Court then shall consider whether the additional charge would pass the Preliminary Hearing stage test of probable cause. If so, the Court could consider sustaining the motion. On the matter of the issues found by this court with the indictment filed. This Court understands that the Superior Court of San Andreas has no established rules for the exhibits attached to the indictments filed. Nonetheless, the way the exhibits were attached to the indictment overcomplicated the proceedings. Among other reasons, this resulted in the trial taking longer than it usually takes. While this Court can not issue a binding opinion for the Superior Court of San Andreas, its decisions bind itself. Thus, this Court shall no longer accept exhibits in future trials that include duplicate material and shall require the filing party to; i) Separate all evidence into different exhibits, even if they come from an attached Police Report or any other investigative document, ii) Ensure no evidence is duplicate as-is, and iii) If two exhibits include similar evidence, require the filing party to explain the reason of such fact. This Court now must first look into the charge of F(C) 108. Tampering with Evidence. The prosecution alleges that the defendant scrubbed his profile on FaceBrowser, a social media site, to destroy the still images of the defendant holding what the prosecution alleges to be illegal firearms. The prosecution further alleges that this act was done following the execution of a search warrant in the defendant's property, where the defendant was aware of the investigation against him. The defendant alleges that Mister Ivan Ulloa has a right to express himself, and closing his FaceBrowser account is a form of his First Amendment exercise of free speech. The defendant further alleges that Mister Ivan Ulloa did not know about the investigation and that there was no communication from the investigators to Mister Ulloa about the on-going investigation regarding his FaceBrowser profile. Additionally, the defendant alleges that the FaceBrowser account was deleted before any searches, and there were no warrants produced to access Mister Ulloa's FaceBrowser account. The prosecution must satisfy two aspects of the tampering charge for the conviction. The act must not only be knowing, willful or intentional - but it must also alter, modify, manufacture, plant, place, destroy, damage, conceal or move what will need to be used as evidence. While the defendant argues that Mister Ulloa was exercising his right to free speech when he deleted his account, the images that were being used by the police were destroyed when the account was terminated. Further, during cross-examination - Detective Kowalski stated under oath that the account was deleted after a Search Warrant was executed into one of the defendant's properties. Upon completion of the lawful search, a copy of the Search Warrant was left at the premises, taped to the front door. The defendant knew or should have known that there was an active on-going investigation. Regardless of the motives, the act of terminating his FaceBrowser account was not only intentional, but it also destroyed evidence that would be used as evidence against him. This Court thus finds Mister Ivan Ulloa guilty of F(C) 108. Tampering with Evidence. This Court must next look into the charge of M(C) 602. Carrying an Unlicensed Firearm. The prosecution alleges that the terminated FaceBrowser account of the defendant showed a number of images with the defendant holding a firearm without the proper licenses. The prosecution further alleges that the defendant never held a license to purchase a pistol, no serial number was ever attached to the defendant's record, and the image is not believed to be edited. The defendant alleges that the prosecution has failed to authenticate the images for the court. The defendant further alleges that the Detective testifying did not use any scientific methodology to prove the images were real, unedited, and taken in the State of San Andreas. While the Court notes the point made by the defendant on Detective Kowalski possibly lacking credentials to offer expert testimony on the authenticity of the picture, it must also note that the State has no proper system that records an individual's expertise in their field. Additionally, there are no laws or regulations in place to stop an individual claiming expertise in a field by simply claiming so. Furthermore, until the doubt is cast upon the law enforcement officers' statement on relevance and reliability, the Court sees no problems with accepting it. With the testimony offered by Detective Kowalski, the conversation recorded in Exhibit 1, and the defendant's tampering conviction, this Court finds Mister Ivan Ulloa guilty of M(C) 602. Carrying an Unlicensed Firearm. This Court must finally look into the charge of F(C) 604. Unlicensed Sale of Firearms/Explosives. The prosecution alleges that the defendant conversed with a third party to sell firearms without the necessary licenses and qualifications. The prosecution offered into evidence several still images of alleged communication between the defendant and a third party. The prosecution further alleges that the defendant attempted to use some codeword during the text conversations; referring to SMGs as GMS and M9/M1911s as M99s. The prosecution further alleges that the conversation included ammunition, and it is clear that the defendant was attempting to sell a firearm illegally. The defendant alleges that the prosecution can not prove it was Mister Ivan Ulloa that wrote the messages. The defendant further alleged that the phone was lost or stolen, and adds that the prosecution can not prove a sale has happened. The Court does not accept the defendant's claim that the phone was lost or stolen. The Court made a clear judgment on this issue, on 02/JUN/2020 when it rendered its decision on a number of objections raised by the counsel for the defendant for the exhibits provided by the prosecution. The Court must remind both parties that when this Court renders its decision, it is not up for further debate. And while this Court will not consider any action against Mister Fogel, he must ensure that his statements follow the judgments issued prior. While this Court believes that what the prosecution alleges may be true, evidence and testimony provided do not amount to evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. Thus, the defendant is found not guilty of F(C) 604. Unlicensed Sale of Firearms/Explosives. 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; F(C) 108. Tampering with Evidence. M(C) 602. Carrying an Unlicensed Firearm. That the defendant is not guilty of; F(C) 604. Unlicensed Sale of Firearms/Explosives and that a punishment of time served in state penal confinement and a fine of $10.000 shall be issued. It is henceforth ordered by Justice James Livingston, and shall be carried out without delay. The court is now dismissed. its not like instagram is filled with people waving guns around. I guess the court's gun expert should work with real law enforcement. Link to comment
Recommended Posts