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

Jason Steele

Member
  • Content Count

    1,045
  • Donations

    $0.00 
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    9

Jason Steele last won the day on March 18

Jason Steele had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

335 Excellent

8 Followers

About Jason Steele

  • Rank
    Probably a staff member..

Recent Profile Visitors

1,307 profile views
  1. Jason Steele

    Jackson Black v. Jamison Richards

    Plaintiff submits the following Exhibit titled "Exhibit B" into evidence:
  2. Jason Steele

    Jackson Black v. Jamison Richards

    Plaintiff motions for summary judgement in light of the failure for defense to show up at scheduled time.
  3. Jason Steele

    Jackson Black v. Jamison Richards

    Your honor I have just been informed by my client that he is unable to make trial Tuesday or Thursday. Would we be able to reschedule to Wednesday or Friday?
  4. Jason Steele

    Jackson Black v. Jamison Richards

    Monday-Friday 5pm onward
  5. Jason Steele

    Jackson Black v. Jamison Richards

    IN RE TO SHOW CAUSE REGARDING STANDING TO FILE SUIT: No case has arisen that bars plaintiff from having standing to file suit in this court. Plaintiff is a citizen of Alaska as specified in the parties of this civil complaint to the Superior Court. The plaintiff enjoys the right to file suit under the Alaska Rules of the Court, Article 2, Section 3 Civil Jurisdiction. This section outlines that this court has jurisdiction over the controversy that is non-criminal in nature. No rule of the court exists barring a police officer from filing a claim.
  6. Jason Steele

    Jackson Black v. Jamison Richards

    Your honor, if needed we will fulfill this but instructions were unclear ever since a different judge was assigned to this case.
  7. Jason Steele

    Jackson Black v. Jamison Richards

    Your honor, The plaintiff requests for the denial of motion to dismiss because there has been no precedent case law, stare decisis, nor statute that bars a police officer from filing suit in a civil court presented in the motion to dismiss. We find this motion to be completely unfounded with no evidence or argument backing it up. The previous judge threw out this motion earlier due to nothing being presented in support of this claim. The only thing presented is "Federal Court Precedent", which amounts to actually nothing backing these statements up, just a broad claim that there exists somewhere some sort of thing blocking a police officer from filing a lawsuit.
  8. Jason Steele

    Jackson Black v. Jamison Richards

    o7, Plaintiff is looking to respond to show cause but will await instructions from the next judge assigned.
  9. Jason Steele

    State of Alaska v. Mister Fruity

    On the grounds of the third charge Accessory to Murder After the Fact: The defendant was an accessory to the murder of ABI Lieutenant Casper Kraakman as he bled out at the scene of the search warrant being executed on the property of Mister Fruity. The defendant provided information to the Reaper Family that his residence was being raided by the police and as seen in Exhibit C, multiple members of the Reaper Family swarm the trailer of Mister Fruity and fire upon police officers with rifles in an attempt to break the raid. Mister Fruity was well aware that providing this assistance to the suspects would result in the injury and potential death of law enforcement officers. There is no way that these individuals apart of the Reaper Family would be aware of the search warrant being executed unless the home owner would have preemptively notified these individuals what was going on, in order to avoid the capture of his items possessed illegally. Prosecution made appearance at the Meadow Wood Courthouse on 5/28/2021 @6PM EST and motioned for summary judgement in this case.
  10. Jason Steele

    State of Alaska v. Mister Fruity

    Apologies but prosecution won’t be able to make 5, but we can make 6. We will object to the introduction of a witness so close to the trial as well.
  11. Jason Steele

    State of Alaska v. Mister Fruity

    The prosecution doesn’t have any additional information other than the fact that these individuals would not have known unless the defendant communicated it.
  12. Jason Steele

    State of Alaska v. Mister Fruity

    Prosecution rebutts to the motion to dismiss the third charge as our argument is based on defendant's notice to members of the Reaper Family that showed up at his residence to attack police officers, which is the part of him providing assistance in the form of information.
  13. Jason Steele

    State of Alaska v. Mister Fruity

    All day Thursday and Friday
  14. Jason Steele

    Jackson Black v. Jamison Richards

    Plaintiff intends to submit a DSM-5 diagnosis once a qualified physician can be arranged with the KPRS.
  15. Jason Steele

    Jackson Black v. Jamison Richards

    IN RE TO SHOW CAUSE: Plaintiff recognizes that defendant has a right to first amendment protections but the speech that defendant exhibited in this incident that plaintiff has filed suit under is not protected under First Amendment guarantees. Specifically under two recognized exceptions by the Supreme Court to First Amendment rights are fighting words and obscenities, in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568 (1942) the Court ruled that "The First Amendment does not protect fighting words, which are those that inherently cause harm or are likely to result in an immediate disturbance." Additionally, the Court decided in Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 (1973) that "Speech that is obscene and thus lacking First Amendment protection must be without serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. It also must appeal to the prurient interest in the view of an average person according to community standards, and it must describe sexual conduct or excretory functions in an offensive way." It is without a doubt that plaintiff argues that the test established in Miller v. California that the speech exhibited by the defendant constitutes an appeal to the prurient interest of an average person, depicts and describes in an offensive manner sexual conduct, and taken as a whole lack any serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. Of course, the average person has the right to First Amendment protections but the speech that is exhibited in this case is intensely flagrant, wanton, and offensive to the point where it is not protected under aforementioned exceptions where the Supreme Court has decided fighting words and obscenities such as defendant referring to "take off your badge" and "suck my dick" fall under these pretenses. Plaintiff has continued to suffer emotional distress as a result of defendant's conduct toward him that day and this requires remedy by this court, as well as the public nuisance and threat to the community that defendant posed when this incident occurred.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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