[LSNN] Ex Deputy loses in court against LSSD; case dismissed without prejudice

[Zweihander]

 

Ex Deputy loses in court against LSSD; case dismissed without prejudice

 

BY HANNAH PRESCOTT

 

 

Los Santos, SA - On 15th June 2021, Valentina L, with the help of her legal representative Qwantez H, filed a petition to the Superior Court of San Andreas against the Los Santos County Sheriff's Department, for the following accusations: Harassment, unlawful termination of an employment contract, loss of income, severe emotional distress, sexual harassment, corruption of public duty, corruption of public office and defamation. Furthermore, the plaintiff requested financial compensation for alleged damages; $2,500 for loss of income, $15,500 for severe emotional distress and $132,000 for unlawful termination of an employment contract. 

 

(Source: Court documents)

 

Valentina L. also alleged that an LSSD employee (rank and name redacted due to privacy law) slandered her. "He slandered my name, because I wanted to talk to a supervisor regarding a breach in policy", was one of Valentina L's statements in court. 

 

"My suspension is unjust and I feel I was sexually harassed by by him. I told him to step back, which he refused to. Then he pressed against me", continued Valetina L, alleging sexual harassment. 

 

"Their claim of sexual battery is nothing but false. The deputy never committed battery of any sort, and especially not for sexual arousal, gratification or abuse, as the penal code states", said LSSD's attorney in the courtroom.

 

"Your Honor, the reason that Valentina L. was terminated from the Los Santos County Sheriff's Department was not as a result of any interaction she had with the Deputy. Miss Valentina L. was discharged from the Los Santos County Sheriff's Department due to an inmate; while being in her custody, managed to escape from the Twin Towers Correctional Facility. Thus endangering the public by allowing an inmate to run loose. Prior to this, a Sergeant with the Los Santos County Sheriff's Department had filed a conduct report against her, to which she left a suspect unattended in the Twin Towers Correctional Facility's holding area for over 5 hours, without said suspect being processed or formally charged. Her overall conduct in the Department has made her violate multiple internal policies within the Department; all of which she agreed to follow upon her employment into the Department. On top of this; she had, a little over a month earlier, been involved in a situation resulting in a false arrest, Damian M. v. Los Santos Sheriff's Department and this, coupled with her letting an inmate go, had the Department determine that her employment was no longer in the best interest of both the Department, or the public she is meant to serve", said LSSD's legal representative, Attorney Audrey W.

 

Qwanted H. alleged a possible evidence tampering, to which Audrey W. replied with the following statement: "Your honor. I ask that you make the opposing counsel stop the slandering by implying that the Department takes part in evidence tampering. His implication of such should be far from acceptable, as there are no basis for such claim."

 

"After thorough review of the case Valentina L. v. Los Santos County Sheriff's Department, 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 Plaintiff is alleging wrongful dismissal based upon a narrative presented in the civil petition which is unrelated to the termination of the Plaintiff's employment by the Defendant. The last letter from the Defendant's Internal Affairs Bureau to the Plaintiff as admitted into Exhibit A clearly articulates that the given reason for the termination of employment is unrelated to the events in the civil petition narrative.

 

It is evident that the Plaintiff is confused and mistaken in their understanding of why the Plaintiff's employment was terminated by the Defendant. As the Plaintiff has misunderstood the event which lead to the termination of the Plaintiff's employment by the Defendant, the Plaintiff is unlikely to succeed in this civil petition against the Defendant. The Defendant (and the Plaintiff's Exhibit A) clearly articulates the transpired event which lead to the termination of the Plaintiff's employment with the Defendant, including articulating the specific event which lead to the termination of employment.

 

Furthermore, the Plaintiff has referenced incorrect sections of the San Andreas Constitution, Section 104 does not relate to wrongful termination.

SECTION 104 § 104. The people have the right of access to information concerning the conduct of the people's business, and, therefore, the meetings of public bodies and the writings of public officials and agencies shall be open to public scrutiny.

 

Inside the narrative is also multiple allegations unrelated to the termination. It is the opinion of the court that the allegations by the Plaintiff against the Defendant should be separated and addressed separately. The allegations of sexual harassment, corruption of public duty, corruption of public office and defamation are in the Court's opinion unrelated to the termination of the Plaintiff's employment by the Defendant and should be heard unrelated. The Plaintiff has failed to show relevance of the allegations to the termination of the Plaintiff's Employment by the Defendant.

 

The Court's opinion is that the Plaintiff needs to re-file the civil petition with the Superior Courts of San Andreas, taking into account the aforementioned information as presented in this Court opinion. The case will be dismissed without prejudice, allowing the Plaintiff to refile at any time when the Plaintiff is prepared to do so.

 

And thus in support of the narrative, it is the finding of the court that in the case matter at hand, the court rules;

Case dismissed without prejudice.
 
It is henceforth ordered by Judge Tim Jones and shall be carried out without delay. The court is now dismissed", was Judge Tim Jones' decision, after which the audience began walking out of the courtroom. 

 

 

 

Comments are enabled

 

Username:

Comment:

Edited July 11, 2021 by Biscuit
Title changed per request from LSNN

[PeopleKind]

Username: cheesecakefactory

Comment: is LSNN really that bad at finding valid news that they resort to simply copy pasting court transcripts for articles? like... come on now

[Mitch]

User: John

Comment: 90% of this "article" is copy pasted court transcripts lol 

[Scorch]

Username: AlyTate

Comment: Interesting to see that LSNN are still on the SD payroll. Sidwell always did did have his nose shoved firmly up the Sheriff's ass.

[Calvano]

Username: ExtremePrizeGiveaway

Comment: You are the MILLIONTH VIEWER! CLICKK !!HERE!! to claim your FREE PRIZE!!!! CONGARATULETIONS!!! (( If you roleplay clicking this link, you see a page that simply says 404 Not Found and your device downloads a virus. In a few days time, your device is locked with an image claiming that the FBI has seized your device due to you viewing illicit illegal materials on the internet and you must purchase $5,000 in Apple Giftcards to rectify the situation. You must /banktransfer $5000 to Harvey Caruso in order to save your device. ))