Jump to content

Jack Fire

Management
  • Content Count

    467
  • Donations

    $0.00 
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    9

Jack Fire last won the day on May 28

Jack Fire had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

105 Excellent

About Jack Fire

  • Rank
    Unlocking the Community
  • Birthday July 31

Recent Profile Visitors

1,636 profile views
  1. Jack Fire

    Josh Cole - Player Report

    @Matt Frost Please respond with your defence to the allegations. i find the length of the video suitable to establish a rule break.
  2. Jack Fire

    Cant start a major when you have more people than cops

    I think be definition, even if something is civ sided, if one side has significantly more numbers than the other they should still be able to win....
  3. Jack Fire

    Insomina Comp

    Denied. 14.3 - Police can only respond with 2 more people then the amount of robbers declare. If 4 or less robbers are declared, police may respond with 6 officers. 14.3.1 - EXAMPLES: 2 Robbers = 6 Cops. PS: Kamdan City Includes any suburb which has the name Kamdan in it, therefor including Kamdan South. On a final note. Rule breaks should be addressed via a player report and not a compensation request. Clearly police were within the rules here (You counted 6)
  4. Jack Fire

    Doug Jumper- Player Report

    @Doug Jumper You have been issued 5 points for RDM. Points have been reduced due to join fault. You have been issued a discretionary ban for your number of points to represent the seriousness of the offence you have committed.
  5. Court Registry - Late Submission of Evidence All evidence was submitted without objection of opposing counsel. <03:41:23> "348486458348": https://streamable.com/2agx8 <03:41:48> "348486458348": https://streamable.com/yt9nh <03:46:42> "348486458348": https://docs.google.com/document/d/1jsLdOjFpyMOPl4T9sRdFoDUJOMdmTAvk7VaHOW0flyk/edit?usp=sharing <03:472> "348486458348": https://docs.google.com/document/d/1FHVB-zowUwcnuyNg03eQImfveDhcx5kHgt62BzDTRrg/edit?usp=sharing <04:00:15> "223233300223": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A7_xufwoveo&feature=youtu.be <04:06:18> "223233300223": https://drive.google.com/file/d/1LSQRqrbkbyKte592Jd_3h_TFqPTR2pO8/view?usp=sharing <04:11:24> "223233300223": https://drive.google.com/file/d/1aJpx1cNROzBa0rYkIhd6uqARYy9GWYUY/view?usp=sharing
  6. Form 5A - Judgement in Trial by Judge Alone Registry use Only IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF KAMDAN Kamdan REGISTRY BETWEEN: Jason STEELE Plaintiff and KAMDAN STATE POLICE Defendant DOCKET NUMBER: 2000/1 JUDGEMENT DATE GIVEN: 29 September 2019 INITIATING PROCESS: Writ of summons as attached above. APPEARANCES: Jason Steele appearing as self represented. Josh Cole for the Kamdan State Police. Take Note: THE JUDGEMENT OF THE COURT IS: Neither party objected to the introduction of the new evidence. This evidence is now in possession of the court registry. A brief overview of the facts are as follows: On the 28th of September at 4:39 PM BST Sgt. McMullen and Snr Trp. G. Ward attempted a traffic stop on a Yellow Mercedes in Kamdan City (Traffic violation stop). Whilst in the stop, multiple civilians appeared in the area. Move on orders were given to multiple civilians. After the initial move on orders were given, a black sedan pulled around the corner, the plaintiff then exited the vehicle in the middle of the road. The driver of the mustang then went to park on the kerb infront of the officers. The plaintiff stood still for a few seconds then stated to the officers conducting the traffic stop 'I would like to report a crime'. He did this whilst on the road. He was then asked to move away, at which point he crossed to road to the opposite footpath. The driver of the black sedan then also then stated he would like to report a crime. At this point, the no more facts are available about the driver of the vehicle. Sgt. McMullin then approaches the plaintiff, standing on the opposite footpath and begins to ask him to leave. He tells him he must leave atleast 6 times. He did not provide any legal consequences of failure to leave. After failing to adhere to the directions Mr. McMullin raises his taser at the plaintiff and detains him with threatened use of force. The plaintiff is subsequently arrested. Evidence was provided at the stand that the plaintiff did not make any 911 report, nor attend the local police department to report the crime before approaching police. No evidence was provided as to subsequent conduct of the driver as to whether a report was made. The plaintiff alleges his friend has the victim of a hit and run up the road (from the direction which the officers had come) and felt it was more appropriate to make contact with the officers only a few blocks away. No substantiated evidence was provided to the court as to the KSP investigating this hit and run. The plaintiff had provided limited information to the police on the crime he was reporting but he did provide at one point that his plan was to report a hit and run. The plaintiff was then placed under arrest. The identities of the arresting officer was Sgt. McMullin (P14) with Goatz Ward present and assisting (P203). This said, conflicting evidence was present as to which officer was the arresting officer. The reason for arrest was probable cause for a charge of loitering. Sgt. McMullin does not appear on the arrest report. The plaintiff was denied a request to see a supervisor by Sgt. McMullin, whom by rank of Sgt. is considered a supervisor. After the plaintiff provided he was pleading not guilty, he was informed he would be sentenced to 5 months imprisonment, the maximum for loitering. He had also been told he was going to jail previously to this. Upon asking about bail, the plaintiff was informed by Mr. Ward that no bail was to be afforded due to the lack of guidance in SOPs. While no formal request was made, it was well implied from the conversation. The charge is a misdemeanor, with the minimum sentence being a $1,000 fine and the maximum being 5 minutes imprisonment or a $2,500 fine. S 10 of the Sentencing Rules and Procedures act provides automatic release on bail with a security of $20,000 for all misdemeanor offenses. The plaintiff was then convicted by default by the KSP for loitering. Little objections to evidence were raised in the trial, and there were little conflicts on the state of facts. The first question is on whether the elements of loitering can be made out by the KSP. The Kamdan Sentencing Rules and Procedures Act provides that an offender may be convicted by default, by law enforcement, of one offense. It further provides such a conviction may be appealed on factual correctness and severity of imprisonment. Finally it provides that police believe they have a case beyond substantial doubt, the criminal standard of proof in Kamdan. Arguments were not presented by the KSP on what the elements of loitering were, they merely addressed common practice and not the law. In first addressing if the standard of proof is objective or subjective. Officers will be personally liable if they convict a person by default where they do not personally believe there is a case beyond substantial doubt. When a conviction by default is appealed (or challenged in a civil case), the plaintiff has the burden to show, on the balance of probabilities, that there was no case beyond substantial doubt. They do not have to address the belief of the officer, only show the belief was incorrect. In doing so they hold the law enforcement agency liable for damages, not the individual officer. (unless other circumstances exist) This leaves to the fact, the plaintiff must show the KSP did not have the required proof to convict by default beyond substantial doubt. I note this was not argued by either party, it seemed to be accepted (or forgotten) and as such precedent from this individual finding is not binding. The first limb of the charge if loitering is 'Remaining in any one public place without an apparent purpose'. Two alternatives appeared to be raised to this. They come down to if a standard of reasonable conduct applies to the 'apparent purpose'. If the conduct was unreasonable, then the purpose should be considered false. I find it unnecessary to decide on this point as the plaintiff would make out their case even if a standard of reasonableness applied. While standing in the center of the road would be unreasonable, the plaintiff moved off the road when requested. He then remained on the opposite side of the road, out of the way of the officers, waiting to report the crime. This was reasonable, there was an apparent purpose, given by the statement of the plaintiff, 'I want to report a crime'. The fact the driver of the car also said this does not damage the plaintiff's case as they likely came from the same place, both seeing the crime. The fact they did not call 911 is also not very damaging to the plaintiff's case as evidence was presented that it was just around the corner. There was no evidence provided that the officers actually investigated the supposed scene of the crime to ascertain if the apparent purpose was legitimate. The word 'apparent' implies that the plaintiff need not prove the purpose was real, however if evidence is raised to show it was false, and the purpose was proven false beyond substantial doubt, the 'apparent purpose' would be rebutted and the plaintiff would be liable. This did not happen here. The second limb of loitering is 'being given a lawful order to disperse by a law enforcement officer'. This refers to an order given by a law enforcement officer which he has been given specific authority by law to do. The presence of the loitering crime implies a power to issue a move on order where a person is 'Remaining in any one public place without an apparent purpose'. This is the power relied upon by the officer (although no legal arguments were made on the matter). The police have many further abilities to make lawful orders, but these are not infinite. They must be recognized by statute or common law. The defense did not raise any such power. The lawfulness of the order requires legal authority to give the order, not just the fact they are a law enforcement officer. Currently no further legislative guidance explains the definition of a lawful order and its requirements. I would hope the legislature makes this more clear in the future. In addition, no arguments were made on the matter. As such I will consider that there are no formal requirements for the order in this case, however this is by no means binding, I say this only as no arguments were presented. As addressed above, there was an apparent purpose to the plaintiff's presence and as such the the authority to give a lawful order disappears. The court will not accept that the plaintiff was required to obey an unlawful order (an order given without proper lawful reason) and then dispute it later in court. The court will not make it a crime to disobey an order given by a law enforcement officer where the order is not lawfully enforceable or is unreasonable. For this reason the plaintiff makes out the case that he was wrongly convicted by default. This said, I will further move on to the other elements of the claim. Bail was refused for this crime, which is a misdemeanor. The Sentencing Rules and Procedures Act clearly provides bail must be available when requested for a misdemeanor. The lack of guidance in the Police SOPs on the matter does not prevent the KSP from being liable from a civil tort of false imprisonment when they fail to obey the law. It will however, often defeat a criminal claim against the individual arresting officer. Bail is not required to be set by a judge. Supervisors (Sgt.'s) can issue bail for offenses and all officers can issue bail where it is an automatic release offense. Here legislation has clearly not been applied correctly and as such the KSP is liable for damages. Finally on severity of sentence. This is a factor which may be appealed, and hence a factor which may be sued upon for damages in civil court. The plaintiff was given the maximum severity punishment for loitering. If the plaintiff can rebut this on the balance of probabilities, they are entitled to damages. The KSP raise the fact the plaintiff was uncooperative to orders given to him and places that as the only reason for justifying a maximum sentence. The plaintiff provides that he was a non-violent offender, a fact that was not rebutted. The plaintiff also provides that as the two officers were patrol they must charge for the minimum. This said, Sgt. McMullin was a supervisor and as such may charge up to the maximum where appropriate. The court will accept Sgt. McMullin approved punishment although notes to the KSP that unprofessional document keeping may hinder there case in the future and may also result in fines issued by the Attorney General's Department to individual officers. (or given by the court if available) The court does not accept the plaintiff being uncooperative can be an aggravating factor which justifies the maximum punishment being given. This is because being uncooperative with law enforcement is an element of the crime. Thus to make it an aggravating factor would constitute double jeopardy, being punished twice for the same actions. After his arrest, the plaintiff was reasonable cooperative, not attempting to run or do anything stupid. This cannot justify the maximum sentence given. In fact the plaintiff was a non-violent offender and should have been issued a low end scale offense. For this reason the sentence was manifestly incorrect and too severe, as such the plaintiff can sue for damages. These three issues were the only real issues raised by either counsel. In way of damages, the following were claimed: Lost property due to seizure ($19,500 claimed) - $20,000 were ordered due to other unlisted items. No objection was raised in trial as to the legality of the firearm held by the plaintiff. Emotional Trauma ($80,500 claimed) - $0 Ordered. As the defense provided, there was no evidence of such trauma. False Imprisonment (No Money listed but still claimed) Deprivation of Civil Liberties - A $10,000 Pecuniary damages order 5 Months Imprisonment at a $70,000 Low wage for a Lawyer - $30,000 in damages For the reasons outlined above I find defendant liable for damages for the tort of false imprisonment. I would also find the defendant liable for damages under the language of the Sentencing Rules and Procedures Act through statutory appeal of conviction by default. I order the Kamdan State Police to pay the plaintiff, Mr. Jason Steele (or the court to be forwarded to Mr. Steele) a sum of $60,000 before the beginning of the 4th of October 2019. (AEST) As no motions were raised as to costs, both parties shall bear the fees of this court, being $10,000 each for the sum of $20,000 for the courts resources with disposing with the case. DATE AUTHENTICATED 30/09/2019 Signed, Jack Fire Jack Fire Chief Justice of the Supreme Court [ @Lewis Craven @Josh Cole™ @Jason Steele @Kain McCloud ]
  7. Jack Fire

    Civil Case Filings

    Form 5B - Judgement in Trial by Jury Registry use Only IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF KAMDAN [NAME OF CITY] REGISTRY BETWEEN: [Plaintiff’s Full Name] Plaintiff v. [Defendant’s Full Name] Defendant DOCKET NUMBER: JUDGEMENT DATE GIVEN: [date of filing for application or appeal] INITIATING PROCESS: [state the case in which this order originates from] APPEARANCES: [NAME OF COUNSEL FOR THE PLAINTIFF] for the [APPLICANT PLAINTIFF]. [NAME OF COUNSEL FOR THE DEFENDANT] for the [DEFENDANT]. Take Note: THE INSTRUCTIONS TO THE JURY WERE AS FOLLOWS: 1. THE JUDGEMENT OF THE JURY IS: 1. THE JUDGEMENT OF THE COURT IS: 1. DATE AUTHENTICATED [date] Signed, Signature Name of District Court Judge District Court Judge
  8. Jack Fire

    Civil Case Filings

    Form 5A - Judgement in Trial by Judge Alone Registry use Only IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF KAMDAN [NAME OF CITY] REGISTRY BETWEEN: [Plaintiff’s Full Name] Plaintiff v. [Defendant’s Full Name] Defendant DOCKET NUMBER: JUDGEMENT DATE GIVEN: [date of filing for application or appeal] INITIATING PROCESS: [state the case in which this order originates from] APPEARANCES: [NAME OF COUNSEL FOR THE PLAINTIFF] for the [APPLICANT PLAINTIFF]. [NAME OF COUNSEL FOR THE DEFENDANT] for the [DEFENDANT]. Take Note: THE JUDGEMENT OF THE COURT IS: 1. DATE AUTHENTICATED [date] Signed, Signature Name of District Court Judge District Court Judge
  9. Jack Fire

    Civil Case Filings

    Form 4 - Court Order Registry use Only IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF KAMDAN [NAME OF CITY] REGISTRY BETWEEN: [Plaintiff’s Full Name] Plaintiff v. [Defendant’s Full Name] Defendant DOCKET NUMBER: ORDER DATE GIVEN: [date of filing for application or appeal] INITIATING PROCESS: [state the case in which this order originates from] APPEARANCES: [NAME OF COUNSEL FOR THE PLAINTIFF] for the [APPLICANT PLAINTIFF]. [NAME OF COUNSEL FOR THE DEFENDANT] for the [DEFENDANT]. TAKE NOTICE: THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. DATE AUTHENTICATED [date] Signed, Signature Name of District Court Judge District Court Judge
  10. Jack Fire

    Civil Case Filings

    Form 3 - Writ of Summons Registry use Only IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF KAMDAN [NAME OF CITY] REGISTRY BETWEEN: [Plaintiff’s Full Name] Plaintiff v. [Defendant’s Full Name] Defendant DOCKET NUMBER: SUMMONS TO: [identify which party] Let all parties concerned attend before a Justice at [location of Courthouse] on [date] at [time] on the hearing of an application by [party making application] for [set out the orders being sought]. Filed [date] Signed, Signature Name of District Court Judge District Court Judge
  11. Jack Fire

    Civil Case Filings

    Form 2C Defendant's Submissions IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF KAMDAN [NAME OF CITY] REGISTRY BETWEEN: [Plaintiff’s Full Name] Plaintiff v. [Defendant's Full Name] Defendant DEFENDANT’S SUBMISSIONS Part I [Statement of the issue or issues found in regard to the Plaintiff's: a) nature of claim and relief sought; or b) statement of claim; or c) Narrative of the relevant facts found.] Part II [A statement of argument in answer to the questions or argument raised by the plaintiff in regard to the grievance the defendant is accused of.] Part III INDEX OF EXHIBITS EXHIBIT NO: [eg. “AB1”] [brief description of exhibit] [eg. “AB2”] [brief description of exhibit] [eg. “AB3”] [brief description of exhibit] [eg. “AB4”] [brief description of exhibit] Filed [date] Signed, Signature Name of Defendant / Defendant’s Solicitor Defendant / Defendant’s Solicitor
  12. Jack Fire

    Civil Case Filings

    Form 2B Notice of Submission IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF KAMDAN [NAME OF CITY] REGISTRY BETWEEN: [Plaintiff’s Full Name] Plaintiff and [Defendant’s Full Name] Defendant NOTICE OF SUBMISSION The defendant submits to any order the Court may make in this matter save as to costs. Filed [date] Signed, Signature Name of Party / Party’s Solicitor Party / Party’s Solicitor
  13. Jack Fire

    Civil Case Filings

    Form 2A Notice of Appearance IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF KAMDAN [NAME OF CITY] REGISTRY BETWEEN: [Plaintiff’s Full Name] Plaintiff and [Defendant’s Full Name] Defendant NOTICE OF APPEARANCE The [defendant] chooses to appear and contest. APPEARANCES: For the Defendant: 1. Name of Representative Position Kamdan City, Kamdan 2. Name of Representative Position Kamdan City, Kamdan Filed [date] Signed, Signature Name of Party / Party’s Solicitor Party / Party’s Solicitor
  14. Jack Fire

    Civil Case Filings

    Form 1C Plaintiff's Submissions IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF KAMDAN [NAME OF CITY] REGISTRY BETWEEN: [Plaintiff's Full Name] Plaintiff v. [Defendant's Full Name] Defendant PLAINTIFF’S SUBMISSIONS Part I [Narrative of the relevant facts found.] Part II [Questions or arguments raised by the plaintiff in regard to the grievance in which the defendant is accused of.] Part III [Set out the precise form of orders sought by the plaintiff.] Part IV INDEX OF EXHIBITS EXHIBIT NO: [eg. “AB1”] [brief description of exhibit] [eg. “AB2”] [brief description of exhibit] [eg. “AB3”] [brief description of exhibit] [eg. “AB4”] [brief description of exhibit] Filed [date] Signed, Signature Name of Plaintiff / Plaintiff’s Solicitor Plaintiff / Plaintiff’s Solicitor
  15. Jack Fire

    Civil Case Filings

    Form 1A Statement of Claim IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF KAMDAN [NAME OF CITY] REGISTRY BETWEEN: [Plaintiff’s Full Name] Plaintiff and [Defendant’s Full Name] Defendant WRIT OF SUMMONS TO THE DEFENDANT: [DEFENDANT’S FULL NAME] TAKE NOTICE that this proceeding has been brought against you by the plaintiff for the claim set out IN THIS WRIT. IF YOU INTEND TO DEFEND the proceeding, you must file a notice of appearance. IF YOU ARE WILLING TO SUBMIT to any order that the Court may make, save as to costs, you may file a notice of submission. THE TIME FOR FILING AN APPEARANCE IS AS FOLLOWS: (a) where you are served with the application - 14 days from the date of service; THE NATURE OF CLAIM MADE AND THE RELIEF THE PLAINTIFF SEEKS ARE AS FOLLOWS: 1. Or, (choose one): STATEMENT OF CLAIM: 1. [set out statement of claim] APPEARANCES: For the Plaintiff: 1. Name of Representative Position Kamdan City, Kamdan 2. Name of Representative Position Kamdan City, Kamdan Filed [date] Signed, Signature Name of Plaintiff / Plaintiff’s Solicitor Plaintiff / Plaintiff’s Solicitor
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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