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

[Cashew]

  

 

(( These were the regulations in place for SAMP at the time when firearms licensing was handled by the Government. ))

[DadoJ]

(( If Cashew's message didn't help, feel free to shoot @bobster a message who's the newest Head of Legal after I stepped down! ))

[Iudex]

(( Thank you both. Was the agreement in the application the same for samp? Regarding my image earlier. @bobster @Cashew ))

[Suffering]

Your honor my clients have informed me that while the defence has tried to drag this case on as long as possible despite the facts being clear, their rivals, Avidity, have now opened a CIT department. This, combined with the inability to bid on government contracts while this case drags on needlessly, means the lost earnings have increased significantly. 

 

The damages have been recalculated.

 

Attorney fees: $2,000,000

Lost earnings: $12,000,000

[Cashew]

Quote

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.

Applicant Signature: Eustace Horvat

(( That is what was signed pulled directly from Horvat’s application. If you need anything else from the archive just get in touch. @Iudex ))

[Iudex]

Your honor, we enter the above into evidence that they signed a legal document to not carry their weapon in public without a CCW and that it is grounds for revocation. 

 

@joxii@Levy

[Iudex]

@joxii@Levy

[Efraim_Gold]

Your honor, the defense repeatedly seeks to prolong this case unnecessarily. As previously mentioned, while the guard card was not yet implemented, my clients are the ones who keep the city functioning and performed their duties to the best of their abilities. While there were lapses in adherence to previous PF regulations, the appropriate consequence should have been a strike, not a complete revocation. A precedent was established in the Cohen vs. LSPD case. The defense continues to ignore the given evidence and disrespects this court.

 

@joxii @Iudex @Levy, Bell & Weinstein

[owen]

  

40 minutes ago, Efraim_Gold said:

Your honor, the defense repeatedly seeks to prolong this case unnecessarily. As previously mentioned, while the guard card was not yet implemented, my clients are the ones who keep the city functioning and performed their duties to the best of their abilities. While there were lapses in adherence to previous PF regulations, the appropriate consequence should have been a strike, not a complete revocation. A precedent was established in the Cohen vs. LSPD case. The defense continues to ignore the given evidence and disrespects this court.

 

@joxii @Iudex @Levy, Bell & Weinstein

 

Whilst I appreciate the concerns, please don't interrupt the court unless you're the plaintiff's attorney. I don't know who you are.

 

Secondly, I've made my decision. The defence's argument is based on the the ability to 'invalidate' the license at any time if the person carries the firearm as a concealed carry without the correct permit, however there is an obvious contradiction to this issue with the prior City Government's enforcement of this policy.

 

Within the written policy openly accessed and viewable by all individuals of the state, it was clearly displayed as a three strike violation in which resulted in a temporary revokation of their firearm however we obviously see that any 'arrest' for felonies or 'serious' misdeamours which I and I'm sure all of you can agree is open to interpretation... 

 

I also have to remind the defence that these policies were solely enforced by City Government, so revocation (at the time of this incident) was solely down to the decision of City Government, rather than any law enforcement agency in which thankfully has now changed as I do understand there were confusing factors which even made me think twice. 

 

Ultimately, the plaintiff did violate the licensing rules and regulations however I am of the genuine belief that the correct punishment at the time and with the official policies in view of any and all citizens of the state was for solely City Government to temporarily revoke the license as per a three strike violation and it was not the purview of the law enforcement agency to dictate the revocation of the license.

 

 I will consider that the firearm seizure was temporarily revoked and can now be retrieved by the plaintiff, alongside the firearm license being restored to the plaintiff. Regarding monetary compsentation, this is my verdict and will need to be paid by the 18th of July 2024 by the Los Santos County Sheriff Department:

 

1. Attorney fees: $2,000,000

 

2. Lost earnings: $12,000,000 - As the plaintiff has not provided any evidence to support the plaintiff(s) salaries amounting to this number, I cannot blindly accept a pay out like that. I urge the plaintiff to provide analytic evidence of monetary loss next time to prevent this occurring again.

 

I will however accept the loss of earnings and longevitiy through this case and will grant a sum of:

 

1. Eustace Horvat - $2,500,000

2. Buck Sloan - $2,500,000

 

 

Edited July 8, 2024 by joxii

[Iudex]

Your honor, I think there is a misunderstanding, we still are in discovery, we have not had the chance to present our opening arguments or even closing. Even if we wish to consider that this is a merely judicial review; damages cannot be awarded on judicial reviews, merely restorations can be granted. Therefore, we either ask for the case to provide us with the ability for opening and closing statements and to follow the flow of a civil case or have the restitution be sought after in a civil lawsuit, aside from the restoration. @joxii

[Iudex]

Not to mention your honor, the whole case was wrongly ruled on because the Penal Code states the following. (A paper is presented.)

 

1. A person who carries concealed a legal, registered firearm that is not authorized as a conceal-carry weapon.

- Penal Code (9)13 is a misdemeanor punishable [...] as well as weapon license revocation upon Officer Discretion. This entire charge also falls under Officer Discretion. 

 

Your honor, the Penal Code is a law that states a license revocation can take place upon Officer Discretion. While the regulations for the CCW / PF are merely that, regulations that are not codified law. We ask the court reconsider, including the fact a judgement was rendered during discovery or the fact that a judicial review has damages awarded, despite it not being a civil case, but rather a review. During a court hearing on the invalidity of a traffic ticket, can the appellant ask for an award based on being late cause of said invalid ticket? It is frivolous. Any damages must be sought after in an actual court case.

 

We reinforce that the weapon revocation was in accordance with law. 

 

@joxii