24-CV-1034 - Trial - Jefferson vs City of Los Santos, et al.

[Userone]

SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

COUNTY OF LOS SANTOS

CIVIL DIVISION

 

Case Name: Michelle Jefferson v. Los Santos Police Department

Plaintiff Attorney: -

 

CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET

_______________________________________________

 

1. Check one box below that best describes this case:

 

Personal Torts

[ ] Assault, battery, or unlawful contact

[X] False imprisonment

[ ] Intentional infliction of emotional distress

[X] Deprivation of rights under color of law

 

Negligent Torts

[X] Breach of duty

[X] Negligent infliction of emotional distress

[ ] Professional or Medical Negligence

 

Property Torts

[ ] Trespassing or Conversion

[ ] Nuisance

[ ] Theft

[ ] Detainder

 

Dignitary Torts

[ ] Defamation (Slander or Libel)

[ ] Invasion of privacy

[ ] Breach of confidence

[ ] Abuse of process

[ ] Malicious prosecution

[ ] Alienation of affections

 

Business Torts

[ ] Fraud

[ ] Tortious interference

[ ] Conspiracy

[ ] Restraint of trade

[ ] Passing off

 

Contracts

[ ] Breach of Contract

[ ] Collections

 

Judicial Review

[ ] Denial or Revocation of Business License

[ ] Denial or Revocation of Firearms License

 

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

 

• $100,000 emotional distress, due to false arrest for 'Sexual Battery,' stemming from inaccurate testimonies.

• $100,000 emotional distress, due to false arrests for 'Riot' and 'Inciting a Riot,' in violation of 1st amendment, 9 times. $900,000 total in emotional distress from false arrests.

• $2,000 false citations for 'Unlawful Assembly' 8 times. $16,000 total in false citations.

_______________________________________________

Certification. The undersigned swears or affirms, under penalty of perjury, that the information contained herein is truthful to the best of her knowledge.

 

Sworn this 13th day of September, 2024 by:

 

/S/ NAME OF PLAINTIFF

Michelle Jefferson

Plaintiff

 

/S/ NAME OF ATTORNEY
-

Attorney for Plaintiff

[Userone]

Michelle Jefferson v. Los Santos Police Department

 

Case Number: YY-XNNN

Prepared by: Michelle Jefferson

 

CIVIL CASE BRIEF FOR MICHELLE JEFFERSON V. LOS SANTOS POLICE DEPARTMENT

_______________________________________________

 

Argument

1. Michelle Jefferson is an independent entity, representing a non-profit organization "Anti-Corruption Group."

2. Officer Amber Moore of the Los Santos Police Department is a sworn law-enforcement officer, who made a promise to protect my constitutional rights, including the first amendment.

3. Officer Amber Moore of the Los Santos Police Department had falsely arrested Michelle Jefferson on 17th, 23rd, 26th, 28th, 30th of August, as well as 2nd, 9th, 10th, 12th of September, on false charges of 'Riot' and 'Inciting a Riot.'

4. Officer Amber Moore has been informed that plaintiff was at the time exercising their first amendment right to express civil grief in a public place.

5. Officer Amber Moore has falsely charged plaintiff with "Sexual Battery" on 17th of August, based on inaccurate testimonies from 2 deputies; which the very deputies have, later in an out-of-court settlement, corrected that said testimonies were inaccurate. 

6. Officer Amber Moore has issued 8 false citations for 'Unlawful Assembly' to plaintiff. The assemblies were protected by first amendment of the United States Constitution.

 

Exhibits

1. This is an out-of-court settlement with the Los Santos County Sheriffs Department, which discredits the criminal testimony on the plaintiff by two deputies on 17th August for the alleged 'Sexual Battery.' It testifies that the testimony the deputy made against the plaintiff was inaccurate, due to a misunderstanding.

Spoiler

In the matter of Michelle Jefferson's complaint against Deputy Christopher Kaminski and Marvin Low, MICHELLE JEFFERSON promises to fulfill the following obligations:

1. MICHELLE JEFFERSON will cease ongoing or future civil proceedings against the Los Santos County Sheriff's Department, regarding any action prior to 1st of September.
2. MICHELLE JEFFERSON will not be permitted to discuss any aforementioned cases regarding Marvin Low or Christopher Kaminski with anybody currently working for any registered or unregistered media outlet, and will not be permitted to discuss  with anybody 'on the record', except for the legal teams of the Los Santos County Sheriff's Department or Los Santos Police Department without mention of a settlement, or MICHELLE JEFFERSON's own legal counsel. She will only be able to notify people it was a deputy who was mistaken. She cannot give any further details about a settlement or anything of the kind.
3. MICHELLE JEFFERSON shall not pursue any action against the Department (LOS SANTOS COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT) or any of its members regarding any incident that led to her arrest prior to 1st of September.
4. MICHELLE JEFFERSON shall not discuss any details about the LSSD during any of her protests or in public regarding any named deputies.
5. MICHELLE JEFFERSON shall drop all active or future complaints regarding any incident prior to 1st of September.

In the matter of  Michelle Jefferson's complaint against Deputy Christopher Kaminski and Marvin Low, THE LOS SANTOS COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT promises to fulfill the following obligations:

1. THE LOS SANTOS COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT SHALL FORWARD NOLLE PROSEQUI TO THE PROSECUTORS AND SHALL DROP ALL CHARGES LEVIED BY THE DEPARTMENT FROM MARVIN LOW, CHRISTOPHER KAMINSKI OR DARREN FOSTER BASED ON AN AGREEMENT OF NEW FINDINGS AND A DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVE.
2. MARVIN LOW AND CHRISTOPHER KAMINSKI HAVE AGREED TO NOT PURSUE ANY FURTHER CHARGES OF ANY INCIDENT PRIOR TO SEPTEMBER 1ST.
3. THE CHARGES OF SEXUALLY RELATED CRIME(S) (ASSAULT, etc) IS NOT FOUNDED, BUT RATHER WAS BASED OFF OF A MISUNDERSTANDING OF MARVIN LOW AND CHRISTOPHER KAMINSKI AS IT WAS NOT SEEN AND THE TWO SHOULD NOT HAVE APPLIED THE CHARGE. ANY TESTIMONY PROVIDED BY MARVIN LOW OR CHRISTOPER KAMINSKI ON 17TH OF AUGUST IS NULL AND VOID TO SERGEANT MOORE.

SIGNED AND AFFIRMED BY

Captain Elise Crawford
Los Santos County Sheriff's Department

Marvin Low
Reported Party (LSSD)

Christopher Kaminski
Reported Party (LSSD)

Michelle Jefferson
Complainant

2. Motion to discovery, officer Amber Moore's arrest reports on 17th, 23rd, 26th, 28th, 30th of August and 2nd, 9th, 10th, 12th of September in regards to false 'Riot' and 'Inciting to Riot' charges.

 

Witness List

-

 

_______________________________________________

Certification. The undersigned swears or affirms, under penalty of perjury, that the information contained herein is truthful to the best of his knowledge.

 

Sworn this 13 day of September, 2024 by:

 

Michelle Jefferson

 

/s/ NAME OF ATTORNEY

-

 

... Additional Attorney Signatures

Edited September 13, 2024 by Userone

[almightybounter]

Superior Court of San Andreas

County of Los Santos
Civil Division

---

Case Name: Michelle Jefferson v. Los Santos Police Department
Case Number: 24-CV-1034

Order to Serve:

The court hereby issues the following order:
 

Service of Process
The plaintiff, Michelle Jefferson, is ordered to serve a copy of the Civil Case Cover Sheet, Civil Case Brief, and this Order on the defendant, Los Santos Police Department, including Officer Amber Moore. The service must be conducted in accordance with the Rules of Civil Procedure for the State of San Andreas.
 

Method of Service
Service may be completed by personal delivery, certified mail, or any other method prescribed by law for the service of civil complaints. Proof of service must be filed with the court promptly upon completion of service.
 

Deadline for Service
The plaintiff must serve the defendant within 3 days from the date of this order. Failure to complete service within this timeframe may result in dismissal of the case without prejudice.
 

Defendant's Response
Upon receipt of this order, the defendant, Los Santos Police Department, shall have 5 days to file a formal response to the complaint. Failure to respond within the allotted time may result in a default judgment against the defendant.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 14, 2024

/s/ Martin Hockenbeyer
Superior Court Judge
County of Los Santos, Civil Division

 

((@Userone))

Edited September 14, 2024 by almightybounter

[nfr.ai]

Your Honor, the prosecuting party would like to file a motion.

Michelle Jefferson
Plaintiff,

v.

Los Santos Police Department
Defendant.
 

Case No. {24-CV-1034}
 

MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY
 

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Michelle Jefferson, pursuant to San Andreas Code of Civil Procedure Sections 2031.310 and 2030.300, hereby submits this Motion to Compel Discovery in the matter of case number [24-CV-1034].
 

II. BACKGROUND

Discovery Requests for disclosure of information: On September 15, 2024, the plaintiff served documents - police reports of Officer Sergeant Amber Moore, created and constituted evidence in the case Despite repeated attempts to obtain the requested information, including the case and the request, which was sent a day/several days ago, the Los Santos Police Department failed to respond appropriately or provide the requested documents.
 

III. REQUEST FOR RELIEF

 Plaintiff asks the court to compel the Los Santos Police Department to respond to the following discovery requests: Police report of Sergeant Amber Moore.

The plaintiff also requests that the court impose appropriate sanctions for failure to fulfill explanatory obligations, including the inability to obtain compensation in the case for the accusing party
 

IV. ARGUMENT

 Under San Andreas Code of Civil Procedure Sections 2031.310 and 2030.300, a party may file a motion to compel if the opposing party fails to respond to discovery requests or provides inadequate responses.

The requested documents are crucial to establishing that it constitutes one piece of evidence in a case that shows that all incidents
 

V. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS
 

Exhibit A: Copy of the discovery requests served on 17th, 23rd, 26th, 28th, 30th, of August + 2nd, 9th, 10th, 12th and now also 14th of September.
Exhibit B: Copy of the responses received, if any, or correspondence showing the failure to respond.
Exhibit C: Proof of attempts to resolve the dispute without court intervention.

VI. SIGNATURE

Xavier Castenda
Castenda Law Firm
Los Santos, SAN ANDREAS, 90004
2247739
[email protected]

Signature: Castenda's
Date: 15th of September, 2024.

Edited September 15, 2024 by nfr.ai

[Userone]

Your honor,

 

I'd like to update you in regards to the current situation.

 

1st) Officer Amber Moore arrested me again on the 14th of September.

2nd) I have found a lawyer to represent me in this trial. His name is Xavier Castenda.

3rd) I now realized I forgot to mention the false charges of 'Obstruction of Justice,' also by officer Amber Moore during the same incidents.

 

I have updated the case file with these points in mind:

Quote

Michelle Jefferson v. Los Santos Police Department

 

Case Number: 24-CV-1034

Prepared by: Michelle Jefferson

 

CIVIL CASE BRIEF FOR MICHELLE JEFFERSON V. LOS SANTOS POLICE DEPARTMENT

_______________________________________________

 

Argument

1. Michelle Jefferson is an independent entity, representing a non-profit organization "Anti-Corruption Group."

2. Officer Amber Moore of the Los Santos Police Department is a sworn law-enforcement officer, who made a promise to protect my constitutional rights, including the first amendment.

3. Officer Amber Moore of the Los Santos Police Department had falsely arrested Michelle Jefferson on 17th, 23rd, 26th, 28th, 30th of August, as well as 2nd, 9th, 10th, 12th and 14th of September, on false charges of 'Riot,' 'Inciting a Riot' and 'Obstruction of Justice.'

4. Officer Amber Moore has been informed that plaintiff was at the time exercising their first amendment right to express civil grief in a public place.

5. Officer Amber Moore has falsely charged plaintiff with "Sexual Battery" on 17th of August, based on inaccurate testimonies from 2 deputies; which the very deputies have, later in an out-of-court settlement, corrected that said testimonies were inaccurate. 

6. Officer Amber Moore has issued 8 false citations for 'Unlawful Assembly' to plaintiff. The assemblies were protected by first amendment of the United States Constitution.

 

Exhibits

1. This is an out-of-court settlement with the Los Santos County Sheriffs Department, which discredits the criminal testimony on the plaintiff by two deputies on 17th August for the alleged 'Sexual Battery.' It testifies that the testimony the deputy made against the plaintiff was inaccurate, due to a misunderstanding.

Spoiler

In the matter of Michelle Jefferson's complaint against Deputy Christopher Kaminski and Marvin Low, MICHELLE JEFFERSON promises to fulfill the following obligations:

1. MICHELLE JEFFERSON will cease ongoing or future civil proceedings against the Los Santos County Sheriff's Department, regarding any action prior to 1st of September.
2. MICHELLE JEFFERSON will not be permitted to discuss any aforementioned cases regarding Marvin Low or Christopher Kaminski with anybody currently working for any registered or unregistered media outlet, and will not be permitted to discuss  with anybody 'on the record', except for the legal teams of the Los Santos County Sheriff's Department or Los Santos Police Department without mention of a settlement, or MICHELLE JEFFERSON's own legal counsel. She will only be able to notify people it was a deputy who was mistaken. She cannot give any further details about a settlement or anything of the kind.
3. MICHELLE JEFFERSON shall not pursue any action against the Department (LOS SANTOS COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT) or any of its members regarding any incident that led to her arrest prior to 1st of September.
4. MICHELLE JEFFERSON shall not discuss any details about the LSSD during any of her protests or in public regarding any named deputies.
5. MICHELLE JEFFERSON shall drop all active or future complaints regarding any incident prior to 1st of September.

In the matter of  Michelle Jefferson's complaint against Deputy Christopher Kaminski and Marvin Low, THE LOS SANTOS COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT promises to fulfill the following obligations:

1. THE LOS SANTOS COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT SHALL FORWARD NOLLE PROSEQUI TO THE PROSECUTORS AND SHALL DROP ALL CHARGES LEVIED BY THE DEPARTMENT FROM MARVIN LOW, CHRISTOPHER KAMINSKI OR DARREN FOSTER BASED ON AN AGREEMENT OF NEW FINDINGS AND A DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVE.
2. MARVIN LOW AND CHRISTOPHER KAMINSKI HAVE AGREED TO NOT PURSUE ANY FURTHER CHARGES OF ANY INCIDENT PRIOR TO SEPTEMBER 1ST.
3. THE CHARGES OF SEXUALLY RELATED CRIME(S) (ASSAULT, etc) IS NOT FOUNDED, BUT RATHER WAS BASED OFF OF A MISUNDERSTANDING OF MARVIN LOW AND CHRISTOPHER KAMINSKI AS IT WAS NOT SEEN AND THE TWO SHOULD NOT HAVE APPLIED THE CHARGE. ANY TESTIMONY PROVIDED BY MARVIN LOW OR CHRISTOPER KAMINSKI ON 17TH OF AUGUST IS NULL AND VOID TO SERGEANT MOORE.

SIGNED AND AFFIRMED BY

Captain Elise Crawford
Los Santos County Sheriff's Department

Marvin Low
Reported Party (LSSD)

Christopher Kaminski
Reported Party (LSSD)

Michelle Jefferson
Complainant

2. Officer Amber Moore's arrest reports on 17th, 23rd, 26th, 28th, 30th of August and 2nd, 9th, 10th, 12th and 14th of September in regards to false 'Riot,' 'Inciting to Riot' and 'Obstruction of Justice' charges. Motion of discovery pending. 

 

Witness List

-

 

_______________________________________________

Certification. The undersigned swears or affirms, under penalty of perjury, that the information contained herein is truthful to the best of his knowledge.

 

Sworn this 16th day of September, 2024 by:

 

Michelle Jefferson

 

/s/ NAME OF ATTORNEY

Xavier Castenda

 

Regarding your order to provide the case file to Los Santos Police Department, including officer Amber Moore herself. I will provide the copy of the updated case file to the Los Santos Police Department reception immediately after, as for officer Amber Moore I hope to serve her the copy by tomorrow.

[almightybounter]

"The court acknowledges the recent communication dated September 16, 2024, from the plaintiff, Michelle Jefferson, which includes the following updates:

• Amendment of Allegations:
  • The plaintiff has included an additional allegation of false arrest occurring on September 14, 2024.
  • The plaintiff has further asserted that the charges of "Obstruction of Justice" were falsely levied by Officer Amber Moore on multiple occasions.
     
• Legal Representation:
  • The court acknowledges that the plaintiff has retained legal counsel, Mr. Xavier Castenda, who will represent her in this matter moving forward.

Orders:

The court hereby issues the following orders in light of the recent updates to the case:

• Defendant's Response:
  • The Los Santos Police Department and Officer Amber Moore are ordered to file an updated response to the amended complaint. The deadline for this response is 5 days from the date of service of the updated case file.
     
• Proof of Service:
  • Plaintiff's counsel, Mr. Xavier Castenda, is ordered to file proof of service with the court for both the Los Santos Police Department and Officer Amber Moore immediately upon completion of service."

SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 16, 2024

/s/ Judge Martin Hockenbeyer
Superior Court Judge
County of Los Santos, Civil Division

 

(( @Userone ))

Edited September 16, 2024 by almightybounter

[Userone]

Your honor,

 

I have made efforts to contact officer Amber Moore. However, I was unsuccessful. I have, however, reached out to Los Santos Police Department and handed in a copy of my case-file at their reception.

 

I would like to ask if that is sufficient, or if I have to ask for contingency to serve Amber Moore directly.

 

Proof of Service:

Spoiler

 

[John Gilbane]

SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

COUNTY OF LOS SANTOS

CIVIL DIVISION

Case Name: Michelle Jefferson v. Los Santos Police Department

Defense Argument for the Los Santos Police Department

Presented by John Gilbane, Esq.

 

Your Honor,

 

On behalf of the Los Santos Police Department (LSPD), I respectfully submit that the allegations made by the Plaintiff, Michelle Jefferson, are unfounded and should be dismissed in their entirety. The Plaintiff claims false imprisonment, deprivation of rights, breach of duty, and emotional distress, but these accusations lack the necessary legal basis and supporting evidence.

 

1. False Imprisonment & Breach of Duty
The Plaintiff asserts that she was falsely imprisoned and detained unlawfully by the LSPD. However, records will show that the Plaintiff was arrested and detained in accordance with proper legal procedures and protocols. The LSPD acted under reasonable suspicion and probable cause in each instance. It is critical to note that the arrests were supported by credible testimonies and evidence. The notion that these arrests were made on “inaccurate testimonies” is entirely speculative and unsupported by the facts.

 

Furthermore, the Plaintiff has failed to provide any direct evidence that the actions of the LSPD officers were unreasonable under the circumstances or that they acted in any manner that deviated from the standard operating procedures.

 

2. Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law

The Plaintiff claims her First Amendment rights were violated by being falsely arrested nine times for "Riot" and "Inciting a Riot." However, these charges were brought forward due to the Plaintiff’s active participation in civil disturbances that posed significant public safety concerns. The LSPD has an obligation to maintain public order and protect citizens from harm. Any assembly that escalated into unlawful activity or posed a threat to peace and safety warranted police intervention. These actions were not in violation of constitutional rights but were measures to ensure public safety.

 

The Plaintiff has not shown any deprivation of rights that would satisfy the necessary elements of this claim, as the police actions were justified by substantial public safety interests and were in full compliance with the law.

 

3. Emotional Distress Claims
The Plaintiff has claimed emotional distress totaling $1,000,000 from alleged false arrests and citations. However, emotional distress claims in tort law require a showing of severe distress caused by extreme and outrageous conduct, which is conspicuously absent in this case. The arrests and citations were based on probable cause and legal justifications, and at no point did the LSPD officers act with malice or reckless disregard for the Plaintiff’s rights. The emotional distress claims are therefore baseless, as there was no negligent or intentional conduct that would give rise to such damages.

 

4. False Citations
The Plaintiff seeks $16,000 in damages for allegedly false citations related to "Unlawful Assembly." These citations were issued in direct response to violations of local assembly laws and were processed in accordance with established legal frameworks. The Plaintiff's repeated participation in unlawful assemblies warranted the issuance of these citations. As such, there was no wrongful act on the part of the LSPD, and these citations were legally justified.

 

Conclusion: The Plaintiff's allegations of false imprisonment, breach of duty, and emotional distress are not supported by facts or evidence. The LSPD acted in accordance with its duty to protect public safety, and its officers conducted themselves professionally and within the scope of the law at all times. The charges and citations brought against the Plaintiff were based on clear legal justifications, and there is no evidence to support her claims of misconduct.

 

We respectfully request that this Court dismiss the Plaintiff’s claims in their entirety and find in favor of the Los Santos Police Department.

 

/S/ John Gilbane, Esq.

 

Attorney for the Defendant, Los Santos Police Department

[Userone]

3 minutes ago, Darren Foster said:

(( Ladies and gentlemen, hold your horses! My character's name is currently being metagamed here. I have filed a forum report against Michelle for metagaming which can be seen below. ))

 

 

(( “In his claim, he alleged that I, as Darren Foster, was involved in a corruption case. However, it is crucial to highlight that he could not have accurately identified me as Darren Foster due to the fact that my nametag was deliberately concealed during the incident in question.” ))

 

(( Nobody identified Darren Foster by name anywhere in this suit. Also, it’s against LSPD, not LSSD.

 

The Sheriff’s Department is mentioned in the suit, because two deputies who testified earlier against Michelle, signed an out-of-court settlement discrediting their earlier testimony.

 

No metagaming took place. ))

[nfr.ai]

Case Name: Michelle Jefferson v. Los Santos Police Department
Case No: 24-CV-1034

Plaintiff’s Motion in Response to Defense Arguments

Presented by: Xavier Castenda, Esq.

Date: 17th of September, 2024.

Superior Court of Los Santos
Los Santos, SA 90012

---

Dear Honorable Judge,

On behalf of my client, Michelle Jefferson, I respectfully submit the following arguments in response to the claims made by the Los Santos Police Department. We assert that the Plaintiff’s claims are fully justified and that the arguments presented by LSPD are unfounded and unsupported by the facts. Below, we outline the key arguments that substantiate the Plaintiff’s claims:

1. False Arrest and Breach of Duty

My client, Michelle Jefferson, has been repeatedly arrested by LSPD officers without proper legal grounds. The documentation and evidence presented in this case reveal numerous irregularities in the arrest process. The arrests were conducted based on incorrect or incomplete information, and LSPD officers failed to follow proper legal procedures. Multiple instances of false arrests indicate systematic violations of the Plaintiff’s rights and misconduct on the part of LSPD.

2. Deprivation of Rights Under the Pretext of Law

The Plaintiff asserts that her rights to free speech and assembly were repeatedly violated through false arrests for "Riot" and "Inciting a Riot." Evidence shows that the Plaintiff participated in peaceful protests that were unjustly suppressed by LSPD. The arrests and charges were applied inappropriately and were, in reality, attempts to suppress her right to peacefully express her views. The actions of LSPD were unlawful and infringed upon the Plaintiff’s fundamental rights.

3. Emotional Distress Claims

The Plaintiff is seeking compensation for emotional distress caused by unjustified arrests and citations. Evidence in this case, including medical reports and witness testimonies, confirms the severe emotional impact that LSPD’s actions had on the Plaintiff. The conduct of the officers, including harassment and baseless arrests, adversely affected the Plaintiff’s mental health, justifying her claims for damages.

4. False Citations

The Plaintiff is seeking damages for false citations related to "Unlawful Assembly." These citations were issued improperly and were not based on actual violations of the law. Documentation shows that the Plaintiff was penalized for participating in peaceful assemblies, which constitutes a violation of her rights to assembly and free speech. The issuance of these citations was unfounded and constituted an abuse of power by LSPD.

Conclusion

The allegations made by LSPD are baseless and unsupported by evidence. The actions of LSPD, including false arrests, rights violations, and unjustified citations, have had serious consequences for the Plaintiff, Michelle Jefferson. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s claims are fully justified, and she is entitled to appropriate compensation.

We respectfully request that the Plaintiff’s claims be upheld and that a judgment be issued in her favor. Witnesses will be summoned to court shortly.

Sincerely,

/S/ Xavier Castenda, Esq.
Attorney for Plaintiff

Edited September 17, 2024 by nfr.ai

[nfr.ai]

Your Honor, we would like to file an motion.
 

Michelle Jefferson
Plaintiff,

v.

Los Santos Police Department
Defendant.

Case No.: 24-CV-1034
Superior Court of Los Santos
Los Santos, SA 90012

MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF EVIDENCE

---

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Michelle Jefferson, pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedur 2031.310 and 2030.300, hereby submits this Motion to Compel Production of Evidence. Specifically, we request the production of bodycam and dash cam footage from Officer Sergeant Amber Moore. These materials are essential for the proper adjudication of case number 24-CV-1034.

II. BACKGROUND

On September 15, 2024, the plaintiff submitted discovery requests, including requests for bodycam and dash cam footage from Officer Sergeant Amber Moore. Despite multiple attempts to obtain these materials and subsequent follow-up requests, the Los Santos Police Department has failed to provide the requested evidence or respond to the requests.

III. REQUEST FOR RELIEF

Plaintiff respectfully requests that the court order the Los Santos Police Department to produce the following evidence:

1. Bodycam footage from Officer Sergeant Amber Moore, including all recordings related to incidents occurring on [insert dates].
2. Dash cam footage from the police vehicle occupied by Sergeant Amber Moore, including all recordings related to incidents occurring on [insert dates].

IV. ARGUMENT

Under Federal Rules of Civil Procedur Sections 2031.310 and 2030.300, a party may file a motion to compel if the opposing party fails to respond to discovery requests or provides inadequate responses. The requested footage is crucial for establishing facts in the case and may have a decisive impact on the outcome.

V. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS

Exhibit A: Copy of discovery requests for bodycam and dash cam footage, submitted on August 17, 23, 26, 28, 30, and September 2, 9, 10, 12, and 14. Exhibit B: Copy of correspondence or lack of response from Los Santos Police Department. Exhibit 😄 Proof of attempts to resolve the dispute without court intervention.

VI. SIGNATURE

Xavier Castenda
Castenda Law Firm
Los Santos, SAN ANDREAS, 90004
2247739
[email protected]

Signature: Xavier Castenda
Date: September 15, 2024

[John Gilbane]

** John raises an eyebrow at Xavier from across the courtroom, muttering quietly to himself. With a quick adjustment of his tie, he rises to readdress the court **

 

SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

COUNTY OF LOS SANTOS

Case No: 24-CV-1034

Michelle Jefferson v. Los Santos Police Department

Defense Response to Plaintiff’s Motion

Presented by: John Gilbane, Esq.

Date: 17th of September, 2024

 

Your Honor,

 

On behalf of the Los Santos Police Department, I respectfully submit this response to the Plaintiff’s motion, which mischaracterizes the facts and law in this case. The Plaintiff's claims are not supported by applicable law or the evidence presented. We will address each of the Plaintiff's claims in turn, referring to established case law and procedural principles relevant to this civil matter.

 

1. False Arrest and Breach of Duty
The Plaintiff asserts that her numerous arrests by LSPD officers were improper and based on incomplete information, alleging a breach of duty and false arrest. However, the defense contends that probable cause existed for each arrest, based on the information available to the officers at the time, in compliance with established standards in Brinegar v. United States, 338 U.S. 160 (1949). The Plaintiff’s assertion that "irregularities" in the arrest process amounted to a violation of rights is speculative and lacks merit.

 

Additionally, false arrest claims in civil court require the Plaintiff to demonstrate an absence of probable cause for her detention. As seen in Beck v. Ohio, 379 U.S. 89 (1964), probable cause justifies arrest, even when later investigation reveals that no crime was committed. The Plaintiff has failed to establish that the LSPD acted outside its lawful authority or in bad faith, and therefore, her claim for breach of duty must be dismissed.

 

2. Deprivation of Rights Under the Pretext of Law
The Plaintiff alleges that her First Amendment rights were violated when she was arrested for "Riot" and "Inciting a Riot" during peaceful protests. The defense disputes this characterization, as the Plaintiff's participation in these events escalated into unlawful assemblies, presenting a threat to public safety. Law enforcement’s actions were justified under the "clear and present danger" standard established in Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969). The court has long upheld that the right to free speech and assembly does not extend to actions that incite violence or disturb public order.

 

Furthermore, the Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate how the charges brought against her constitute a violation of her civil rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The LSPD’s response to unlawful behavior was appropriate and proportional, as law enforcement is tasked with maintaining public safety. There is no basis for the claim that the arrests were made in an effort to suppress free speech, and thus, the Plaintiff's argument lacks factual and legal foundation.

 

** John Gilbane leans slightly on the table, one hand gesturing smoothly as he speaks **

 

3. Emotional Distress Claims
The Plaintiff seeks compensation for emotional distress resulting from what she perceives as unjustified arrests. However, to succeed on a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress, the Plaintiff must show that the Defendant’s conduct was "extreme and outrageous," as established in Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46 (1988). The conduct of the LSPD officers was neither extreme nor outrageous; they acted in accordance with legal standards, and all actions were justified by probable cause.

 

Additionally, claims for negligent infliction of emotional distress require the Plaintiff to demonstrate actual injury, which she has failed to do. The medical evidence provided does not substantiate that any emotional distress was directly caused by the actions of the LSPD. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s claim for damages under this theory should be denied.

 

4. False Citations
The Plaintiff claims that citations for "Unlawful Assembly" were improperly issued. However, the defense points to the clear legal justification for these citations under Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham, 394 U.S. 147 (1969), which upheld the regulation of public assembly when it threatens public safety. The Plaintiff’s participation in these assemblies violated local laws designed to protect the public from escalating conflict, and the citations issued were fully supported by the evidence.

 

The Plaintiff has not demonstrated that the LSPD officers acted outside the scope of their authority or that the citations were issued in bad faith. As such, this claim is baseless and should be dismissed.

 

** John Gilbane tips his fedora back just slightly, as if considering a deeper point, before continuing **

 

Conclusion:
In conclusion, the Plaintiff's motion lacks both legal and factual merit. The Los Santos Police Department acted lawfully in every instance, and there is no evidence of constitutional violations or tortious misconduct. The defense requests that the court deny the Plaintiff's motion in its entirety, as the Plaintiff has failed to meet the burden of proof necessary to sustain her claims.

 

We respectfully request that this Court dismiss the Plaintiff’s claims and enter judgment in favor of the Los Santos Police Department.

 

Sincerely,

 

/S/ John Gilbane, Esq.

 

Attorney for Defendant, Los Santos Police Department

(( @nfr.ai @almightybounter @Userone ))

[John Gilbane]

** John Gilbane stands, adjusts his fedora, and addresses the court **

 

"Your Honor, the defense would like to acknowledge receipt of this Motion to Compel by Plaintiff Michelle Jefferson. We intend to address it thoroughly. However, there are substantial concerns regarding the conduct of opposing counsel, particularly their reliance on AI-generated assistance, such as ChatGPT, to construct legal arguments and documents."

 

** John Gilbane steps forward confidently, his voice calm but firm **

 

"We would like to file a motion to recuse opposing counsel, as it has come to our attention that the integrity of these legal filings is in question due to the reliance on automated assistance for generating substantial portions of this motion. It is vital that human attorneys remain the sole preparers and signatories of legal filings in this jurisdiction."

 

** John pauses, glancing toward opposing counsel before turning back to the judge **

 

"We respectfully request that this issue be addressed before any further legal proceedings."

[almightybounter]

Superior Court of San Andreas

County of Los Santos

Civil Division

Case No: 24-CV-1034
Case Name: Michelle Jefferson v. Los Santos Police Department

---

 

ORDER ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF EVIDENCE

The court has reviewed the Plaintiff’s "Motion to Compel Production of Evidence," filed by Attorney Xavier Castenda on behalf of Michelle Jefferson, as well as the response submitted by Attorney John Gilbane for the Defendant, the Los Santos Police Department (LSPD). The plaintiff has requested the production of bodycam and dashcam footage from Officer Sergeant Amber Moore, alleging that this evidence is essential for the case's proper adjudication.

The Plaintiff filed this motion under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Sections 2031.310 and 2030.300, seeking to compel the production of specific evidence after the LSPD allegedly failed to comply with prior discovery requests. The defense’s response argues against the merits of the plaintiff’s underlying claims but does not directly address the discovery request at hand.

In civil litigation, discovery is intended to allow both parties access to evidence that is likely to support or refute the claims and defenses presented. The court finds that the requested bodycam and dashcam footage is potentially relevant to the matters in dispute. As such, its production is necessary for a fair and thorough examination of the facts.

 

---

 

ORDER

 

The Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Production of Evidence is hereby GRANTED.
 

The Los Santos Police Department is ordered to produce the following evidence:

• Bodycam footage from Officer Sergeant Amber Moore, including all recordings related to incidents occurring on the dates specified in the Plaintiff's request.
• Dashcam footage from the police vehicle occupied by Officer Sergeant Amber Moore on the dates specified in the Plaintiff's request.

  ---

The Los Santos Police Department shall comply with this order by producing the requested footage no later than September 19, 2024.

Failure to comply with this order may result in sanctions against the Defendant, including but not limited to adverse inferences being drawn from the non-production of the requested evidence.

---

SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 18, 2024

/s/ Judge Martin Hockenbeyer
Superior Court Judge
County of Los Santos, Civil Division

 

(( @John Gilbane @Userone @nfr.ai )) 

Edited September 17, 2024 by almightybounter

[almightybounter]

Superior Court of San Andreas

County of Los Santos

Civil Division

---

Case No: 24-CV-1034
Case Name: Michelle Jefferson v. Los Santos Police Department

---

ORDER ON DEFENSE'S ORAL MOTION TO RECUSE OPPOSING COUNSEL

The court has been presented with an oral motion by the Defense, represented by Attorney John Gilbane, to recuse the Plaintiff’s counsel, Attorney Xavier Castenda. The Defense raises concerns regarding the use of AI-generated assistance in the preparation of legal documents, asserting that such reliance may compromise the integrity of legal filings.

In this jurisdiction, the court recognizes that technology, including AI tools, can assist attorneys in preparing legal documents. However, the use of such tools does not absolve an attorney from their professional responsibilities. It is the duty of counsel to ensure that any documents submitted to the court are accurate, properly researched, and compliant with applicable laws and ethical standards.
 

The court requires clarification on the following points:

• Nature of AI Assistance: Whether the use of AI in this case was merely for drafting support or if it supplanted the professional judgment of Plaintiff's counsel.
• Counsel’s Oversight: Assurance that Attorney Xavier Castenda has thoroughly reviewed, modified, and endorsed all documents submitted, ensuring they meet the standards of professional legal conduct.

 

ORDER:

 

The court will hold a hearing on this matter to allow both parties to present arguments regarding the use of AI assistance in this case. The hearing is scheduled for September 18, 2024.

Both parties are directed to submit briefs outlining their positions on the use of AI-generated assistance in legal filings.

The Plaintiff's counsel shall submit their brief by September 19, 2024.

The Defense shall submit any responses by September 20, 2024.

 

Until this matter is resolved, the court will stay further proceedings on the Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Production of Evidence.

---

SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 18, 2024

/s/ Judge Martin Hockenbeyer
Superior Court Judge
County of Los Santos, Civil Division

 

(( @John Gilbane @nfr.ai )) 

Edited September 17, 2024 by almightybounter