Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
Sign in to follow this  

All Activity

This stream auto-updates     

  1. Today
  2. Jarid Asham

    The People of the State of California v. Astrid Hawking

    Case Pending Hello, Case Number: SU75 Docket Number: 09-25-21CC-1 Judge Being Assigned: Barry Bravo @Barry Bravo Processed by Court Clerk HR - 09/25/2021 Kind Regards, Harvey Asham @Robert Lewis Harvey Asham - Court Clerk
  3. Papa Pug

    People of the State of California v. Jimmy Hoffa

    24hours will be granted for the defense plea.
  4. Jason Steele

    Prosecutor Application

    Accepted and hired.
  5. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF LAW Los Diablos County District Attorney’s Office Personal Information: Name: Age: Steam64ID: Country of Residence & Time zone: Discord ID: Character Questions: Do you currently possess a BAR license?: Y/N Have you been convicted in the last week of any felonies?: Y/N Please list any previous experience as a prosecutor below, or any other relevant experience: Why do you want to join the Prosecutors office?: (50 word minimum) Personal Questions: Are you fluent in English?: Is this the first time you are applying to the DA's office?: Why should you be accepted into the Prosecutors office?: (50 word minimum) Do you affirm that to the best of your knowledge the information above is correct?: Y/N
  6. Aiden, ADN 🔥

    The People of the State of California v. Joe Pemm

    As the defendant is apparently unreachable, the Prosecution would like to motion for summary judgment.
  7. Hoenrik Wang

    Hoenrik Wang - Payment request

    Your Name: Hoenrik Wang Your Position/Rank: LEO Money Recipient: Me Agency/Department/Company filing on behalf of: LDSO Amount requested: 75k Reason for withdraw: Reward for capturing Jake Maisy Do you confirm you are authorised on behalf of the agency or department you are filing for to request such funds: yes Do you understand that misuse of funds is a criminal offense and you will be prosecuted if found doing so: yes Once submitted, the Commissioner of Revenue will review this request.
  8. he has been sent to jail
  9. Matt Pad

    The People of The State of California v Richard Baer

    Your Honour, The time my client was read his rights and given a rights card is a key part of the admissibility of evidence. If my client was never properly read his rights then the prosecution cannot use his own words against him. "Anything you say can and will be used against you in court of law" as the rights are said. You yourself said "provided" which means there is a chance he was never properly read his rights at all. As you said "The peoples claim of confession, allegedly, happens after your client was read his rights." I have know you to be a judge that acts in the scope of law and facts never on the basis of alleges and unproven facts. This statement alone backs my point that he never understood his rights. Now, in the eyes of the judge it wasn't a certain fact that he was read his rights correctly at all. 4 & 5 are key notes of my defense of my client, they quote my clients right and to have them disregarded as irrelevant begs some serious concern so I urge you to look again. The evidence is not relevant as it only show my client was on bail for alleged crimes that we are now looking at. What does bail bring to the value of this case your honour as I am confused and see no value to added to case because of a bail post. In adition I ask the removal of all witnesses bar the arresting officer & the officer who who apparently read my client their rights. At the current moment, the amount of witnesses given who can give record of events are overwhelming to say the least, for us to go over all the witnesses who would be describing the exact same events and the events seen in Exhibit A, would be a massive waste of time and has been interpreted by the defence as a tactic employed to slow the defence. I would like to invoke Rule 708. Exclusion of Witnesses. At the request of a party the court may order witnesses excluded so that they cannot hear the testimony of other witnesses, and it may make the order on its own motion. I invoke this rule as their is concern that the multiple witnesses may just copy each other as the statements are given which would be, of course un fair and prejudicial towards my client. Should get my scheduel tomorrow so will post my availability around then.
  10. Loxxon Husky

    The People of The State of California v John Bricks

    Your Honor, I am confused as to why the public defenders are needed if the Defendant failed to respond/appear to a court preceding within the amount of time it was requested of them. The Prosecution would like to motion for summary Judgement & Arrest Warrant of Mr John Bricks while also adding in a additional charge of §11.2.210 Violation of Bail Conditions As Per Bail Policy Section 5 & 4 What are valid bail conditions When the court case has been dated & the individual appears in court, the individual is then to be given 100% of the original payment that was given to the bail. If the defendant does not show up for court, the money is split, 50% to the Government and 50% to the arresting officer. Upon Bail Bail Violations If an individual violates their bail conditions, they may be arrested for up to 50 months and they lose any money sum that they put forward as a bail security. 50% to the Government, 25% to the Original Arresting Officer, and 25% to the arresting officer who catches someone violating their bail conditions.
  11. Jack Chapman

    People of the State of California v. Jimmy Hoffa

    @Papa Pug Just to clear this up I will be the chief council for the defence as appointed by Altin, @harrison kings will be joining as co-council. We will be discussing with our client and be back in touch shortly.
  12. Altin Berg

    The People of the State of California v. Joe Pemm

    I have attempted to get in contact with Mr. Pemm. My attempts were however unsuccessful
  13. harrison kings

    People of the State of California v. Jimmy Hoffa

    i will be his lawyer.
  14. Papa Pug

    People of the State of California v. Jimmy Hoffa

    @Tao Brightwater @Brady Warhorse
  15. Tom Najail

    The People of the State of California v. Joe Pemm

    @Altin Berg Have you managed to confer with your client?
  16. Tom Najail

    The People of The State of California v Richard Baer

    Your concerns are noted, counsellor. 1. The time your client was read his rights is irrelevant, provided that it was prior to interrogation. The assertion that your client didn't understand his rights needs to be founded with some form of evidence to suggest that this is the case as currently, the court finds probable cause to believe that he did understand them. 2. The People's claim of a confession happens, allegedly, after your client was read his rights. 3, 4 & 5. Irrelevant at this stage. We are merely discussing the admissibility of the evidence. 6. The evidence is relevant. Unless the defence can expand on why the evidence leads to confusion, your motion is overruled. Thank you, do you have an idea when you will have your availability?
  17. Not saying I can not hear it as law says this court will approve/disapprove CAF orders. Just submitt in in a complaint that can be responded to in the format above, as mentioned . I will grant time for a response and then a ruling will be made. You cant just say hand over a list of assets. If approved the court will coordinate with the state and determine what assets are to be siezed/auctioned and have to proceeds paid returned to the court to then be awarded accordingly.
  18. Yesterday
  19. Matt Pad

    The People of The State of California v Richard Baer

    Your Honour, I have multiple issues with the case being presented to me. I would like to address them and have these concerned duly noted as these issues me violate my client's right to a fair trial. 1. I would like to argue the issue of Exhibit A. Within the video it is clear that my client has not been read his rights until 2 minutes into the video if not a little more. My client was not in full understanding of his rights at this time, this was made clear by a deputy telling him that he is going to give my client a rights card. Without proof of the deputy giving my client a rights card, my client's right against self incrimination is still in effect. 2. Anything said within the video up to the alleged part of my client understanding his rights in full cannot be used against him due to my clients right to self incrimination and that selection being inadmissible in court. 3. My client has a god given right to defend himself from harm and that right is extended to his property, as stated within the Constitution of The United States. 4. Use of force in these matters to defend ones self and their property is not applicable, it is only a police standard operating procedure to match force with criminals. Not a matter of civilians to match force. 5. If the police knew that a possible crime was committed, and did nothing to secure the possible suspect, them they have failed within their duties and failed their oath to protect and serve. 6. I would like to have Exhibit A & B as they do not add any value to this case, A only leads to confusion and may mis lead the judge and the other adds no value to the case at all. I Invoke Rule 504: Exclusion of Relevant Evidence on Grounds of Prejudice, Confusion or Waste of Time. As of now i do not know my scheduel for the next week so i do not know my availability but i will get back to you on that ASAP
  20. Papa Pug

    People of the State of California v. Jimmy Hoffa

    @Altin Berg @Matt Frost Please assign Lawyer for Mr. Hoffa
  21. Tom Najail

    The People of the State of California v. Joe Pemm

    In the event that the defendant pleads or is found guilty, the court can order the payment of debt to the People. If the order is not complied with the defendant can be found in contempt and a CAF order can be applied for with leave of the Supreme Court. The court recognises @Altin Berg as counsel for the defence. Please enter a plea within 24 hours.
  22. Tom Najail

    DOR/ pro hac vice

    Denied. Pro hac vice requests are usually only issued in very limited circumstances and for a specific occasions. However, feel free to attempt the bar exam at any time.
  23. Jimmy Hoffa

    People of the State of California v. Jimmy Hoffa

    I'd like an attorney.
  24. Tom Najail

    The People of The State of California v Richard Baer

    Unless the defence can offer any evidence to the contrary, the court finds that there is enough evidence to support the State's assertion that Mr. Baer was read his rights in accordance with Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). I am available on Tuesday, Friday and Saturday from 16:00 to 21:00 EST.
  25. Joseph Ibney

    People of the State of California v. Jimmy Hoffa

    Your honor, the Prosecution submits the following as Exhibit H
  26. Last week
  27. Tom Najail

    The People of The State of California v John Bricks

    The court recognises the People's motion and enter §11.2.300 Failure to Appear as Count 11, however, the court disposes of the charge §11.2.140 Contempt by Breach of a Court Order as no order has been entered by the court. In the absence of a plea from the defence, the court will enter a plea of not guilty to counts 1 through 11 on his behalf and require the service of the public defender. @Altin Berg @Matt Pad if you would be so kind, please appoint a public defender at your earliest convenience.
  1. Load more activity
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By viewing ANZUSGaming's website you agree to our Terms of Use