Leaderboard

Old Man Lanagan would be proud Luke.

Carlo Scaglione, 2012, Valenti Associate with the Pellicano crew. Murdered for accidentally getting crew mates pinched after hanging a guy who owed Martin Busato money over a ledge. Gary Carfaglia, 2013, White Devil's MC Patched member. Committed suicide after being ostracized by his gang. Arnold Bellomo, 2014-2016, incumbent boss of the Bellomo Crime Family, ailing and dying, at large for a number of menacing crimes and gang wars, including sanctioning a hit on an LSPD detective Dominic McClane. Johnathan Carminati, 2016-2018, Shelved hitman, ex streetboss for Bellomo acting boss George Stancato. Still alive, not active. Dean Cracchiolo, 2023-2024, Ex captain, current board member in Aroldo Bianco's era of the Bellomo Crime Family. Active and present.

caught at the light

The Valenti Crime Family has done more for the server than the server has done for the faction.

Forni's such a crackhead.

Some day, we'll eat fried chicken and burritos together, holmes. EHC x 38ST

Travis Razon narrowly escaped war in his homeland, seeking refuge in Los Santos, a city of endless possibilities and lurking dangers.

This thread follows the character development of Stephan Jovanovic

🤣 I did not know that, but that's hilarious. Is it still accessible and if so, can you PM me the link please? Ahahaha.

The Dispatchers Outlaw Motorcycle Gang, a motorcycle club, was a motley crew of misfits, a rough-and-tumble bunch of ex-vets and ex-cons who ran roughshod over the city. A support club for the Vagos, they were the muscle, the stormtroopers, and arguably the ones who cleaned up after the bigger boys. Vincent Mahan aka Goblin their leader wasn't a man of many words. He was a man of action. He lived for the roar of the engine, the rumble of the road, the primal rush of adrenaline that coursed through him when he rode. The Dispatchers weren't about fancy leather jackets or intricate patches. They were about chaos, about living on the edge, about being the wild dogs of the city. Goblin donned tattooed hands, each one telling a story of violence and survival. He'd seen things most people couldn't even fathom, and he'd come out the other side, scarred but unbroken. The Dispatchers were a family, a brotherhood forged in the fires of danger and loyalty. The gang didn't need fancy clubhouses or strict hierarchy. They had their bikes, brotherhood, and the open road. The Dispatchers didn't have a set territory. They were nomads, drifting from one bar to the next, chasing the next thrill, the next job. Their reputation was built on fear, a dark whisper that followed them like a shadow. They were the ones you called when you needed a message delivered, a debt collected, a rival silenced.

long time no see

Big dog status.

DICE LICK HECTIC

Hot

.

SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS, COUNTY OF LOS SANTOS PLAINTIFF: George Nixon DEFENDANT: San Andreas Network CASE NUMBER: BCV24001 JUDGEMENT BY DEFAULT _______________________________________________ I. BACKGROUND The factual background surrounding Mr George Nixon’s libel by the San Andreas Network is summarized below, followed by an overview of the procedural history of this case. The factual background is based upon the detailed case brief submitted by the Plaintiff in support of their motion for default judgment, as well as attached exhibits. II. FINDINGS OF FACTS 1. Plaintiff George Nixon has standing to pursue this action. Mr Nixon is an Associate Warden with the San Andreas Department of Correction and Rehabilitation. 2. Defendant San Andreas Network is a public corporation duly organized, existing, and operating under the laws of the State of San Andreas. 3. On June 22nd, 2024, the San Andreas Network published an article redacted by one of their journalists, Ms Catherine Church, regarding the activity of the Plaintiff and the alleged fact he was "abusing inmates [and] endangering correctional officers". See Ex. 1. 4. In the aforementioned news article, an attached video recording evidentiates the Plaintiff engaging in a physical altercation with now-identified Mr Ignacio Huerta. 5. According to the presented disciplinary segragration report (hereinafter "report"), on the night of June 18th, 2024, Mr Ignacio Huerta confronted the Plaintiff by verbally assaulting him, being uncooperative and eventually grasping at his uniform shirt. See Ex. 2. Due to the uncontested nature of this official report, this Court presumes its contents to be veridic. 6. Mr Ignacio Huerta was subdued through use of force, precisely physical force, less-than-letal weaponry and OC spray. See Ex. 1 and 2. No further details are presented regarding his medical condition ex post. III. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Plaintiff Mr George Nixon filed this lawsuit against the Defendant, the San Andreas Network, on June 22, 2024. See Cover sheet. Mr Nixon served the San Andreas Network in accordance with state statutes on civil procedure. After the expiration of the five-day period granted to the defendant to answer, the Plaintiff sought entry of default and instantly requested a default judgement, supported by the case brief and presented exhibits. The Plaintiff's motion for default judgment is now ripe for review. IV. LEGAL STANDARD In the absence of binding state-level case law regarding such matters, this Court recognizes the persuasive authority of all federal courts. A court may consider entering a default judgment when a party applies for that relief. “Strong policies favor resolution of disputes on their merits,” and therefore, “‘the default judgment must normally be viewed as available only when the adversary process has been halted because of an essentially unresponsive party.’” Jackson v. Beech, 636 F.2d 831, 836 (D.C. Cir. 1980). Notwithstanding its appropriateness in some circumstances, “entry of a default judgment is not automatic.” Mwani v. bin Laden, 417 F.3d 1, 6 (D.C. Cir. 2005). Thus, the procedural posture of a default does not relieve a court of its “affirmative obligation” to determine whether it has subject matter jurisdiction over the action. James Madison Ltd. by Hecht v. Ludwig, 82 F.3d 1085, 1092 (D.C. Cir. 1996). Additionally, “a court should satisfy itself that it has personal jurisdiction before entering judgment against an absent defendant.” Mwani, 417 F.3d at 6. The “plaintiffs retain ‘the burden of proving personal jurisdiction, [and] they can satisfy that burden with a prima facie showing.’”. In doing so, “they may rest their argument on their pleadings, bolstered by such affidavits and other written materials as they can otherwise obtain.” Id. at 7. This Court has found all aforementioned requirements to be met. V. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. This Court has general subject-matter and personal jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to state statutes. 2. To prevail on a claim of defamation under San Andreas law, a plaintiff must prove the following elements: 1) a false and defamatory statement concerning another; 2) an unprivileged publication to a third party; 3) fault amounting to at least negligence on the part of the publisher; and 4) either actionability of the statement irrespective of special harm or the existence of special harm caused by the publication. 3. This Court finds that the statements made by the Defendant about the Plaintiff were false and defamatory, constituting libel per se. No explanatory matter is necessary to establish the defamatory character of the statements due to this being a default judgement. The Defendant failed to contest the claims of the Plaintiff. VI. DAMAGES AND FEES The Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory damages due to suffered emotional distress and attorney fees. See Cover sheet. The damages to which the plaintiff is entitled are described below. A. Compensatory damages The purpose of damages is to put the plaintiff in the position he would have been in if the tort had not been committed — restitutio in integrum. Damages are not awarded to over-enrich a plaintiff far beyond his actual losses. The reverse is also the case — the plaintiff should not get far less than his actual loss. Furthermore, a wide range of reporting about both public officials and candidates is protected. Certainly, the conduct of official duties by public officials is subject to the widest scrutiny and criticism. See Rosenblatt v. Baer, 383 U.S. 75, 85 (1966). But the Court has held as well that criticism that reflects generally upon an official’s integrity and honesty is protected. According to different statutes, the term “public official” means, inter alia, "any elected official, appointed official, or employee of a Federal, State, or local unit of government in the United States". Substantial damages may be awarded in tort for presumed injury to reputation merely upon a showing of publication. But this discretion has the potential to inhibit the exercise of freedom of the press, and moreover permitted the penalization of unpopular opinion through the awarding of damages. Therefore, defamation plaintiffs who do not prove actual malice — that is, knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth — will be limited to compensation for actual provable injuries, such as out-of-pocket loss, impairment of reputation and standing, personal humiliation, and mental anguish and suffering. A plaintiff who proves actual malice will be entitled as well to collect punitive damages. See Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323 (1974) at 348-50. Therefore, this Courts disapproves on the presence of actual malice and will limit the compensation as deemed reasonable. Having examined closely the facts of this particular case, George Nixon is entitled to $75,000, to account for the suffered emotional distress. B. Attorney fees The general rule of law known as the "American rule" is that attorney’s fees and ordinary expenses and burdens of litigation are not allowed to the successful party absent a contractual or statutory exception. This rule is generally followed throughout the country, including the State of San Andreas. There are few exceptions. For example, a specific contractual term may provide for the recovery of attorney’s fees and costs or a statute may confer such rights. It has also been recognized that bad faith is an exception to the American rule, which permits a court to award attorney’s fees to the prevailing party on the basis of bad faith conduct of the other party or the other party’s attorney. This Court has found no exceptions to be incident hence no attorney fees will be awarded in this matter. VII. CONCLUSIONS For the reasons outlined above, the Plaintiff's motion for default judgment is granted. The San Andreas Network is liable for the defemation through libel of Mr George Nixon. The plaintiff is entitled to $75,000 in general damages as emotional distress. _______________________________________________ IT IS SO ORDERED. DATE: JULY 9, 2024 /s/ SERGIO ROBLETO San Andreas Superior Court Judge (( Thank you for your patience! @Levy @Levy, Bell & Weinstein @Cashew @Yaffa ))

This is hot

good stuff fella