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

Joseph Ibney

  • Content Count

  • Donations

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

69 Excellent

About Joseph Ibney

  • Rank
    Probably a staff member..

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Your honor, may the state be made aware of what question of law is being posed to the court?
  2. Joseph Ibney

    The People of the State of California v. Jesse Nova

    No objections, your honor
  3. Joseph Ibney

    The People of the State of California v. Jesse Nova

    Your honor, the Prosecution submits Exhibit I - Witness Statement of Matt Frost: "I was sitting at the Highway Police station doing paperwork when i hear a call on the radio asking for available units. The Officer asking for more units proceeds to inform us that we where initiated on Pink Panthers Aka. Russian Panthers. As i arrive on scene we had multiple officers down and as we begin to get into positions to incapacitate the suspects I take down a member of Pink Panter Aka. Russian Panthers who had shot and killed 2 officers that was hiding on the yellow brick building's rooftop. Jack Michaels got gunned down by a member of Pink Panthers Aka. Russian Panthers later identified as Garret Wade hiding on the giant silo. After a couple of minutes we end up taking down Garret and the situation gets called code 4. Sadly however multiple officers end up bleeding out on the rooftop of the yellow brick building where they put their lifes at risk to protect the citizens of Los Diablos. Nathan Stevens, Dom Carmine, Ryan Philler, Malik Rocket & Ethan Puddles where the people who laid down their lifes. Ace Narco, Jack Michaels, Adam Puckles & Me (Matt Frost) where the only officers that came out alive that day." Your honor, the Prosecution submits Exhibit J - Video evidence from Matt Frost: Exhibit J-1: Link Exhibit J-2: Link Additionally, your honor, after additional information has been brought forth, the prosecution motions for leave to amend the indictment. Charges require adjustment to better reflect the circumstances that day.
  4. Joseph Ibney

    The People of the State of California v. Jesse Nova

    Record of service: @Jesse Nova
  5. Link to Indictment: Link
  6. Joseph Ibney

    People of the State of California v. Andrew Lee

    Since the defendant plead guilty. Light sentencing. I suggest minimums.
  7. It was decided they are valid because Doug allowed tickets from Alaska. Additionally it makes no sense to get rid of the work when we haven't even moved over to a new addition. Also Cali Bar v. Harvey is a case in... well California so it stands regardless.
  8. Witness List: -Adam Puckles -Papa Pug There are additional witnesses that will require more investigation.
  9. Cases in Support of the Respondent: Roland DiCaprio v. United States Coast Guard Order to Show Cause in Re: Harvey Armstrong (2020) California Bar Association v. Harvey Specter (2021)
  10. Introduction: On October 1st, 2021, the Superior Court of California heard arguments in The People of the State of California v. Jimmy Hoffa. Presiding was Hon. Papa Pug, arguing for the prosecution and defense respectively were Joseph Ibney and Jack Chapman. During the hearing, Appellant continually ignored the instructions and orders of the presiding judge and even got into arguments post ruling regarding the efficacy of his decisions. After a verdict was handed down of guilty on all counts, the prosecution gave their recommendations for sentencing, and afterwards, the defense was permitted a opportunity to give a similar request as is standard under the rules of court. During this opportunity, Appellant argued that the ruling of guilt was not correct, as well as that the judges rulings were wrong. As a result, the presiding judge informed the Appellant that that conduct was not allowed. After further argument on the matter, Mr. Chapman left the court without permission in the middle of arguing for sentencing. Due to this egregious conduct, Appellant was ordered to show cause by the court why sanctions and strikes should not be issued, to which Appellant once again blamed the presiding judge, stating: As a result of his non-argument, Appellant was issued two strikes and a fine as well as a suspension consistent with the Superior courts previous holding in Roland DiCaprio v. United States Coast Guard. Appellant threatened the judge to either leave the case or risk appeal, to which we find ourselves present today. The Appellant is Highly Unlikely to Succeed on the Merits As is obvious from even a prima face reading of both appellants brief and the case itself, the Appellant has no case. Appellant's case arises out of issues for which this court has no reason to find compelling. Specifically, the Appellants arguments that: 1. Another judge should have overlooked the show cause order issued by Hon. Papa Pug at the time of its issuing; and 2. The punishments issued were irregular and unfair for the conduct presented; are not consistent with the standard practices of both this court, or the Superior Courts of the State of California. A judge is only liable to recuse themselves under the Rules of Profession Procedure and Conduct when their impartiality may be reasonably questioned for any of the following reasons: Bias or knowledge of fact pattern (213) Personal, romantic, platonic, or otherwise impacting relationship with any party (214) Personal, financial, or political interest (215) Previously made a public statement which would reasonably indicate a personal opinion relevant to the proceedings. In this case, there was no bias or knowledge of fact patterns, no personal relationship or interest, and the Hon. Papa Pug had not made a public statement on relevant issues to the proceedings prior or during trial. Appellant has alleged no such conduct other than rulings which he is not partial. On its face, there remains no reason for the Superior Court trial judge to recuse himself. Additionally, the punishments submitted were both fair and in line with the punishments handed out in Roland DiCaprio v. United States Coast Guard (2020) to Harvey Armstrong. In that case, counsel refused to comply with court orders to the detriment of his case, shifted blame, and in general behaved improperly. Counsel even additionally asked the presiding judge to recuse themselves for personal bias which was denied and upheld by this blessed court. In that case, Mr. Armstrong received one strike for his conduct, which I will remind the court did no result in leaving the hearing early and mid argument in favor of a lesser sentence for their client, as well as monetary sanctions of $300,000. Completely separate from these issues is the Appellants argument that them denying a court order to return to the Discord State does not constitute a violation of contempt of court, which it does prima face: §11.2.140 Contempt by Breach of a Court Order Intentionally or recklessly (i) breaches a court order (ii) of which the person has had reasonable or actual notice (iii). For these reasons, the petitions should be denied and the judgement upheld. Sincerly, Joseph Ibney District Attorney Los Diablos
  11. Joseph Ibney

    Adam Puckles | Payment request

    the amount is correct. 20k x number of charges in FPR up to five. He filed 20 charges (4 indictments x5 charges) so the amount is correct.
  12. I will be representing the State, your honor. There is no footage of the trial itself however there were several witnesses present for which I can gain witness statements. One such witness is the prosecutions witness Mr. Adam Puckles.
  13. Mr. Champan is not a risk to the community. I would however oppose a stay as appellant is unlikely to succeed on the merits.
  14. Joseph Ibney

    Jason Steele - LOA Request

    Approved. Have a good break Jason.
  15. Joseph Ibney

    People of the State of California v. Andrew Lee

    Thank you. Berry Lee consider this service.
  • Create New...

Important Information

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