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

Jamison Richards

Member
  • Content Count

    33
  • Donations

    $0.00 
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

2 Neutral

About Jamison Richards

  • Rank
    Newbie

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Jamison Richards

    Jackson Black v. Jamison Richards

    Mon - Thurs after 5
  2. Jamison Richards

    Jackson Black v. Jamison Richards

    Your Honor, @Marcus Goldstein The Plaintiff still had yet to follow the last judges show cause order of. “ The plaintiff needs to essentially demonstrate where in the law that allows them to sue the defendant in a civil trial, in this superior court, for the offenses included in this civil complaint.“ The Defense requests this be fulfilled.
  3. Jamison Richards

    Jackson Black v. Jamison Richards

    Your Honor, @Jayden Shaw The defense motions to dismiss all complaints. As seen in the video you can see that the Plaintiff is wearing a Black Jacket with the words “ Detective”. As stated in the above complaint it identifies the plaintiff as an Investigator with the Alaska State Troopers in particular apart of their ABI. Which is a Law-Enforcement Entity within the State governed by the Alaskan State Government. Also seen in the video the Defendant Jamison Richards wearing a brown suit and black government cap. At the time of the said incident the Defendant was employed by the Alaska Public Defenders Office an entity governed by the Alaskan State Government. The defense argues the following points: (1) Both Defendant And Plaintiff were or are currently employed by the Alaskan State Government. Both officials covered under Federal Law and Supreme Court Rulings as Officials covered under Qualified Immunity. In Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1982), the Supreme Court held that government officials are entitled to qualified immunity. Specifically, qualified immunity protects a government official from lawsuits alleging that the official violated a plaintiffs rights, only allowing suits where officials violated a “clearly established” statutory or constitutional right. When determining whether or not a right was “clearly established,” courts consider whether a hypothetical reasonable official would have known that the defendants conduct violated the plaintiff’s rights. The Defense argues that there is not clearly established statutory or constitutional rights that violated the alleged in the above complaint. The defense also asserts that the Defendant would not have reasonably known the actions alleged would have violated the plaintiffs rights as the First Amendment covers Free Speech. So before the Plaintiffs can sue a Public Official they must prove stated in Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1982) that the Defendant “ Violated clearly established statutory or constitutional rights.” (2) Police officers cannot sue citizens which is Federal Court Precedent. As well as the logical, if Police officers are covered under Qualified Immunity allowing legal protections from civil suits from the public they should not be granted the same to sue the Public. Qualified Immunity is setup to protect officers from suits while preforming their duties of serving the public. So in turn they cannot sue someone for an action that occurred whilst being on duty as they unfairly have protection to protect them from the same.
  4. Jamison Richards

    Jamison Richards V. Aiden Sparker

    Dropped due to another lawsuit ty for you time.
  5. Jamison Richards

    Jackson Black v. Jamison Richards

    I do not have attorney other than myself. I request a 48hr continuance to speak with the Plaintiff attorney aswell as find legal counsel.
  6. Jamison Richards

    Jamison Richards V. Aiden Sparker

    Your Honor, @Marcus Goldstein All Subpoena's provided are needed for evidence and discovey purpose of this ongoing case. All person subpoenaed play a vital role to the foundation of this case. Jason Steele- Is the vice-president of the bar as well as a serving Judge on the Tribunal during my bar case. He serves as an important witness to the actions of Aiden Sparker on the dates of 5/13/21 Brady Warhorse- Is a Judge with the state of Alaska. Judge Warhorse serves as a key witness to the actions and events on the dates of 4/14/21. The date in questions of said claims made against me by Aiden Sparker to the Bar. Jack Jefferson- President of the Bar Association and responsible person for all bar complaints/case. Testimony from this witness will detail the events of Aiden Sparker on the date of complaint.
  7. Jamison Richards

    Jamison Richards V. Aiden Sparker

    Preliminary Injunction in Richards V. Sparker
  8. Jamison Richards

    Jamison Richards V. Aiden Sparker

    @Loxxon Shepherd Under Subpoena Guidelines of taking a Deposition I have Duly notified the following individuals of my intent to depose them for the purposes of discovery, for use at a hearing, or both of the foregoing, or for such other purposes as permitted under the applicable rules @Jason Steele @Jack Jefferson @Brady Warhorse & @Joseph Ibney
  9. Jamison Richards

    Jamison Richards V. Aiden Sparker

    Brady Warhorse Subpoena Jason Steele Subpoena
  10. Jamison Richards

    Jamison Richards V. Aiden Sparker

    Complaint
  11. Jamison Richards

    J.Richards-Clemncy Application

    Application
  12. Jamison Richards

    Payment Request

    @Tao Brightwater fixed
  13. Jamison Richards

    State of Alaska v. Mister Fruity

    @Mister FruityFor some reason I cannot find you in the discord nor is it allowing me to message you via the website. Please contact me asap with the best way of contact and possible times for meetings.
  14. Jamison Richards

    State of Alaska v. Mister Fruity

    Your Honor, Jamison Richards for the Defense.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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