Eustace Horvat, Buck Sloan v. Los Santos County Sheriff's Department

[Suffering]

The Sheriff’s Department sent my client this letter then refused to contact them for compensation. 

[Iudex]

Your honor,

 

We are currently working on obtaining these documents to showcase. However, the letter presented does not absolve the party of their guilt in the matter. We will present the evidence below:

 

Exhibit A: Complaint submitted by Petitioners.

 

 

We need to look no further than what is stated in the complaint: "[...] It is important to add that SO's Horvat and Buck were PF only license owners and openly-carried their firearms inside the holsters on their duty belts." 

 

Your honor, even in the complaint the Petitioners showcase and admit their fault in the very issue they wish to claim relief from, thus we reinforce our motion to dismiss. 

 

@joxii@Suffering

 

 

[owen]

I understand your point, and I am fully aware that the party has admitted that they violated the policy. 

 

However… I need to make sure that the correct process was followed to ensure legal compliance.

 

This complaint was made on the 2nd of June 2024 and the plaintiff’s firearm was seized and their license was permanently revoked. 
 

At the time of the incident, was the city operating under the old strike violation system? That system being:

 

For a 3 strike offence (open carry violation) resulted in:

1. Suspension of license and confiscation of relevant firearms for 14 days

It’s really important we clarify this point, because I want us all to be on the same page here.

 

@Iudex @Suffering

[Levy, Bell & Weinstein]

Your honor we have recalculated the damages we wish to pursue as the extended length of the case has cost our client further lost earnings, as well as incurring more attorney working hours.
 

The new damages total is below:

 

~$650,000 in lost earnings

~$1,000,000 in attorney fees

 

Thank you

[Iudex]

Your honor, regardless of a point or strike system, the Petitioner admitted fault. We're just going in circles here. 

 

The stenographer transcribed the following:

 

"Firstly, the defendants retrieved their weapons from safe storage within their vehicle. [...]"

 

The PF Regulations state:

 

Quote

• Must not remove the firearm from its locked container when transporting the firearm to a property.

 

Furthermore, the criteria for revocation is:

 

Quote

• Any license holder who fails to abide by the relevant license usage regulations;

 

 

Also, again, the American Rule prohibits collection of attorney fees. We reiterate our motion to dismiss.

 

@joxii@Levy, Bell & Weinstein 

[owen]

Can my question be answered please? @Levy, Bell & Weinstein @Iudex

Edited June 30, 2024 by joxii

[Iudex]

We will contact City Government, your honor. @joxii @Levy, Bell & Weinstein

[owen]

6 minutes ago, Iudex said:

We will contact City Government, your honor. @joxii @Levy, Bell & Weinstein

Thank you. I just need clarification on when at the time of the license being revoked what the current cities policies were regarding firearm licenses.

 

And to clarify your comment, I fully understand that the plaintiff admitted fault but the penalty for the fault would have been different dependent on the time of the seizure.

 

I’ll permit 72 hours for the defence to consult with city government to gather the relevant information. We’ll reconvene then.
 

 

[Suffering]

52 minutes ago, Iudex said:

Your honor, regardless of a point or strike system, the Petitioner admitted fault. We're just going in circles here. 

 

 

 

We ain't arguing that our clients weren't at fault. We're arguing that they shoulda recieved a strike, not a disqualification.

 

 

52 minutes ago, Iudex said:

 

Also, again, the American Rule prohibits collection of attorney fees. We reiterate our motion to dismiss.

 

@joxii@Levy, Bell & Weinstein 

 

And I quote "2. List any damages sustained or fees accrued. Include billing rate for attorneys, expert witnesses, etc." 

 

Many states do not use the American Rule as a blanket rule. SA is one of these states.

 

You got two options missy. Offer us a settlement you can swallow, or drag this out and cost yourselves more. Cohen v. Los Santos Police Department set the precedent. Civilians recieve the punishment that applies when they broke the law, not as the law is currently.

 

18 minutes ago, joxii said:

Thank you. I just need clarification on when at the time of the license being revoked what the current cities policies were regarding firearm licenses.

 

And to clarify your comment, I fully understand that the plaintiff admitted fault but the penalty for the fault would have been different dependent on the time of the seizure.

 

I’ll permit 72 hours for the defence to consult with city government to gather the relevant information. We’ll reconvene then.
 

 

 

Thank you your honor. I will speak with my clients and recalculate their potential lost earnings for another 72 hour period.

 

 

 

Edited June 30, 2024 by Suffering

[Iudex]

Your honor, we have not received a response from the City Government despite our attempt to reach out. We assert that we are not responsible for the collection of law, but rather this responsibility falls upon the Petitioner as the burden of proof falls upon them. We wholeheartedly assert that the Department member had the right to revoke the license pursuant the policies enshrined currently and anything to argue against it falls against the Petitioner to achieve. 

 

Therefore, we urge the Court to levy the burden of proof upon the Petitioner, in this matter and we reinforce our motion to dismiss on the basis of the Petitioner failing to show any malice in the revocation of the PF thus far. We must remember who the burden falls upon in civil cases.

 

However, will additionally enter into evidence the statement that everyone signs prior to obtaining a PF. This has certain parts highlighted.

 

SECTION 3 - PF License Conditions and Restrictions

The licensee is responsible for all liability for, injury to, or death of any person, or damage to any property which may result through any act or omission of either the licensee or the agency that issued the license. In the event, any claim, suit, or action is brought against the agency that issued the license, its chief officer, or any of its employees, by reason of, or in connection with any such act or omission, the licensee shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the agency that issued the license, its chief officer or any of its employees from such claim, suit, or action.

The licensee authorizes the issuing agency to investigate, as they deem necessary, the licensee's record and character to ascertain any and all information which may concern his/her qualifications and justification to be issued a license to purchase a firearm and release said agency of any and all liability arising out of such investigation.

 

• Violate any of the license usage or prohibition criteria guidelines
• Consume any alcoholic beverage.
• Be in a place having the primary purpose of dispensing alcoholic beverages for on-site consumption.
• Be under the influence of any medication or drug, whether prescribed or not.
• Carry a firearm in public without a proper permit (CCW).

Pursuant to U.S. Government Code — Title 49, Chapter 26, Section 1472(1) and Federal Aviation Regulation 121.583, a license to purchase a firearm does not authorize a person to carry a firearm or any dangerous weapon aboard commercial airlines. Such a violation can result in arrest by law enforcement.

Any violation of these restrictions or conditions may invalidate the PF license and may void any further use of the license until reinstated by the licensing authority. Any arrest for a felony or serious misdemeanor, including driving under the influence of alcohol and/or drugs, is cause for invalidating the license.

SECTION 4 - Agreement to Restrictions and to Hold Harmless
 

I hereby accept and assume all responsibility and liability for, injury to, or death of any person, or damage to any property which may result through any act or omission of either the licensee or the agency that issued the license. In the event any claim, suit, or action is brought against the agency that issued the license, its chief officer or any of its employees, by reason of, or in connection with any such act or omission, the licensee shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the agency that issued the license, its chief officer or any of its employees from such claim, suit, or action.

I understand that the acceptance of my application by the licensing authority does not guarantee the issuance of a license and that fees and costs are not refundable if denied. I further understand that if my application is approved and I am issued a license to purchase a firearm, that the license is subject to restrictions placed upon it and that misuse of the license will cause an automatic revocation and possible arrest and that the license may also be suspended or revoked at the discretion of the licensing authority at any time. I am aware that any use of a firearm may bring criminal action or civil liability against me.

I have read, understand, and agree to the PF license liability clauses, conditions, and restrictions stated in this Application and Agreement to Restrictions and to Hold Harmless.

 

@Levy@joxii

Edited July 2, 2024 by Iudex

[Suffering]

Your honor, once again the defence is trying to pull the wool over your eyes. They've just tried to show you the current regulations as administered by the LSPD, not the ones issued by the City which were in place when my clients applied for, and lost, their licenses.

 

38 minutes ago, Iudex said:

Therefore, we urge the Court to levy the burden of proof upon the Petitioner

 

If you say so. Below we have attached the regulations in place at the time my clients lost their licenses. Your honor I'm sure you'll be familiar with these regulations from the Cohen v. Los Santos Police Department case.

 

 

 

Quote

 

 

 

As the holder of a license to Purchase a Firearm, you must abide by the following regulations at all times. 

 

• When transporting a firearm in a vehicle, the firearm must be securely locked in a container that can only be unlocked by biometrics, physical key, or combination locking mechanisms. Penalty: 1 strike
• A firearm may not be openly carried, except where outlined by statute or city ordnance. Penalty: 1 strike
• A firearm must be hidden from view at all times whilst in public, i.e. not inside a private house. Penalty: 1 strike
• A firearm may not be conceal carried without a CCW license. Penalty: 3 strikes
• (( You must not use firearms bought from Ammu-Nation in shootouts against police. Penalty: 4 strikes ))
• A firearm must not be discharged in a public place, except where there is an immediate and unavoidable threat to life. Penalty: 4 strikes
  • Hunting grounds are not considered "public places" in the context of this regulation.
• You must not sell or transfer firearms or ammunition without a valid Federal Firearms License. Penalty: 4 strikes
• You must not allow another person to handle your firearm or ammunition without a valid Federal Firearms License. Penalty: 4 strikes
• You must not remove, or attempt to remove, serial numbers from firearms. Penalty: 4 strikes
• (( You may not sell or give away guns or ammo, even if you owned the guns before you got the license. Penalty: Server Ban ))

 

All regulation violations shall be reported to the Los Santos Government Licensing Bureau.

 

Strike penalties:

1. No criminal penalty
2. No criminal penalty
3. Suspension of license and confiscation of relevant firearms for 14 days
4. Permanent revocation of license and confiscation of all firearms, plus applicable criminal charges:
   • 302. Illegally Discharging a Firearm
   • 316. Possession of an Unlicensed Firearm
   • 319. Manufacture of a Destructive Device or Prohibited Weapon
   • 320. Illegal Sale, Lease, or Transfer of a Firearm
   • 322. CCW License Violation
   • 323. Failure to Report a Stolen Firearm
   • 324. Illegal Distribution of Ammunition

 

Edited July 2, 2024 by Suffering

[Iudex]

(Juliette Naviaux presents the document.)

Spoiler

 

 

Your honor, not sure what wool they are speaking of. This is the agreement they signed and it was in effect since 2023. It's on the City Government's portal. Your honor, it is one thing to display the strike system's functions, but it is another to showcase what the revocation reasons can be. We wholeheartedly assert we are correct and have even displayed evidence that supports it may be revoked. A strike system does not necessarily constitute what the revocation system is.

 

We have shown what the revocation system is through the agreement the Petitioners signed and the statement from the Licensing Division.

 

@joxii@Levy

[Suffering]

((That link is from the RageMP section, not SA:MP. The samp guidelines have been moved to LSPD. The pre-lspd guidelines are posted above))

[Iudex]

(( The forums are hidden, then. Can @DadoJ confirm then if it is the same? ))

[owen]

(( We'll wait for Dadoj to confirm and then resume. However just for clarity, Michael previously confirmed that the active licensing rules and regulations were the ones shown by @Suffering when City Government (who was in-charge at the time of this incident). ))