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

Jack Chapman

Senior Developer
  • Content Count

    616
  • Donations

    $0.00 
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Jack Chapman last won the day on March 9

Jack Chapman had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

65 Excellent

About Jack Chapman

  • Rank
    Probably a staff member..

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Jack Chapman

    Prison Poster Competition

    So the winners are in and the posters are in on the last update. The winners are as follows: @Paul Phantom - x1 Poster @Mike Getreel - x3 Posters @Elliot B - x2 Sexy Posters @Richard baer - x1 Poster @Fredrick Armstrong - x1 Poster @Lee Bread - x2 Posters @William Cobblestone - x1 Poster @Astrid Hawking - x4 Posters @Tyler Davis - x1 Poster @Dave Coleman - x1 Scary Poster @Boble Nick - x1 Poster @Seska - x1 Modern Art @Bobby Hill - x1 Poster @Scotty Lee - x1 ACU case @Isaak Red - x 1 Why, just why? @Bert Schitts - x1 Poster Please contact me in-game or Discord when you're available to sort out receiving the trading card prizes!
  2. @Tom Najail assuming @Jason Steele is happy with that, I am ok for that day and time. My co-council will be off island so it will be just me from the defence.
  3. @Tom Najail with the above in mind I'd like to bring back my motion for the charges to be re-reviewed.
  4. I can't do today, plus I'm still seeking SMT clarification on the application of real state laws. I'm not sure if I'll be available tomorrow but I'll find out ASAP and let you know @Jason Steele @Tom Najail
  5. Sorry for having wasted the courts time however I’m going to be dropping the appeal at this time, I haven’t got the free time to deal with this properly.
  6. Your Honour @Tom Najail are you attempting to refer to island code or the formal state of California real laws? As I'd hope you are aware, only federal law and case law apply not the real laws from the state.
  7. Your Honour @Tom Najail, Having now re-reviewed the updated document, I'd like to make you aware of some serious concerns I have regarding the charges listed against our clients. I hereby submit exhibit A for the defence: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Oerdwnf7x1lHrL0or2VoRe3GBfBWZ_QF_vyeFJ_XaOU/edit?usp=sharing This spreadsheet I put together takes the dates of each alleged transaction within the prosecution's "evidence" along with the charges listed on their document and works out the number of days between these alleged transactions taking place, and the date this case was filed (06/10/21). Key disclaimer: The dates are formatted for EU/UK version not the backwards US version so keep that in mind when viewing. For each client's charges, I've marked in red where they would still fall in the statue of limitations, and in green for where they are outside of the statue of limitations for that criminal code. For ease I've also included a count at the bottom of each list for the number out of the limits vs those within the limits. I'd also like to raise the concern there are some charges listed that I could not see in the states evidence anywhere, I've marked these in orange. With all of this in mind, I would request that the state are ordered to drop the charges that fall outside of the statue of limitations provided, and that they are required to provide some clarification on how they would intend to evidence the other missing alleged transactions. @Jason Steele
  8. @Edward, I intend to present my brief and reply as soon as possible, however I would like to point out as per your above quote, I was informed of the deadline to reply with representation not to the brief, and as such I don't feel the 32 hours to reply to the respondent is adequate or fair based on your previous requests. I would normally be able to reply within that timeline stated, however at the moment I am very busy with work as an island architect given the upcoming substantial infrastructure upgrade this weekend. As such I would ask that I am granted 72 hours from the time of this post to provide my reply.
  9. Your Honour @Tom Najail, Before we discuss evidence I'd like to request that the prosecution are actually compelled to correct their filing. They've reused and modified the document from their original case but left in multiple bits that no longer apply such as some of the counts listed.
  10. If I can also add in, intent or not, that is the inevitable outcome. The "split" cases will only result in the prosecution having to co-ordinate between each other on the outcome of each case, and as a defence we don't have the luxury of a larger team, potentially putting out clients right to a fair trial with efficient representation at risk. I'd also add in that the outcome of one case could directly result in a change of strategy for the second case, and as such risks unfairly disadvantaging one or more client as a direct result.
  11. Your Honour @Tom Najail, That is correct, myself and @Aiden, ADN are for the defence. At this time I would motion to merge both the trials together. The cases have no valid reason to be seperated from a court perspective, it only serves to double the resources wasted on this case. We will end up defending our clients on in principle the same case over two seperate sessions, double up the work required from our side, your side and the Prosecution to debate the evidence and any relevant motions at least twice.
  12. Your Honour @Tom Najail, I am in agreement with holding an attorney-only preliminary hearing with regards to the evidence at hand.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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