Leaderboard

The New Wave — Monte's First Lessons / Hustle Fundamentals

On The Line — Crucial Moments / Last Challenge / Ready To Step Up? - for the rest (Tario Moose picked up a urgent call, his phone kept ringing and ringing so he knew something was up. Shortly after the call; The Moose twins went off, supposedly in aid to Yahira Moose, their younger sister.)

.

The Execution II

The News — Official Politics / Playa Deville Club Clothing

The PDC Collection / Inspiring The Hustle

heard these fellas been terrorizing the russians...

All In For The Hustle — Money In Rotation / Hustle Highlights Into The Trap — Setting Up The Drop / Next Pack Ready On The Frontlines — Setting Up The Hustle / Monte's First Drop

Grind Mode — Stocked & Ready / Business Booming

You guys on the negative too. Up ur score🤣

ANOTHER DAY OF HARD WORK

"Thank you, your honor. We will proceed. We have laid out a series of twenty-five counts, charging the defendants with violating the Plaintiff's constitutional rights. The facts are undisputed, and we have made our arguments in our complaint as amended. In keeping with the arguments therein, Plaintiff is entitled to compensation on the grounds that her first, fourth, and fifth amendment rights were violated. This whole case flows from a one legal question that this court must answer: Does the Plaintiff have the constitutional right to protest, without a permit, in front of the LSPD Headquarters in Pershing Square? We would direct this court to the table of authorities we've submitted in our brief, specifically to Cox, Grace, Hague, Lutz, and Gitlow, which together lay out a definition of what constitutes a traditional public forum versus a limited public forum, and which spell out the restrictions that may be imposed upon each. We assert that the location of Plaintiff's protests, the sidewalk in front of the LSPD Headquarters or even the stairs themselves, provided there is no bona fide impediment to the egress or exit thereof. Following from this, we assert that the LSPD, the LSSD, and their employees had no right to detain Ms. Jefferson at any point in time, and certainly had no right to cite her or to order her or any of the participants to disperse. There was no crime in Ms. Jefferson's actions, and it is improper for Ms. Jefferson to be charged with a crime because another person in her crowd - which did not require tickets or screening prior to attendance - committed a crime. The defense will likely raise the point that Ms. Jefferson's actions were a disturbance of the peace, but we would postulate otherwise, citing Feiner from the authorities to assert that Ms. Jefferson's conduct did not meet the Supreme Court's description of civil unrest or disorder and therefore Ms. Jefferson could not have been charged for such conduct. Absent justification for charging her or any members of her group, for whom we do not speak, there was no reason to disrupt the assembly and therefore the Los Santos Police Department, and the officers employed thereby, engaged in an unlawful dispersion of the crowd in violation of the first amendment. We also charge this court to answer an additional question: Did the Deputies – Christopher Kaminski and Marvin Low – have a duty to give truthful testimony on the scene to Officer Amber Moore of the Los Santos Police Department? We would direct this court to our arguments in Count Two, in which we assert that there is an implied common law responsibility from the crime of Perjury, pursuant to Penal Code section 606(b), which states: 'A peace officer who knowingly and intentionally makes or causes to be made any material statement in an official report or to another peace officer and the statement is included in an official report, knowing the statement to be false, is guilty of a felony'. The defendants Kaminski and Low have essentially admitted as much, having recanted their original testimony. However, that testimony was used to substantiate the probable cause necessary for arresting Ms. Jefferson and she did in fact spend time in jail because of their testimony. Even if Kaminski and Low are entitled to qualified immunity under Heien, this court must conclude that Kaminski and Low had no qualified right to submit the false testimony to Officer Moore who filed an official report to arrest Ms. Jefferson. We assert that this is exactly the kind of conduct 606(b) is intended to cover, and that it was unlawful. We postulate that any statement that is not one hundred percent truthful is in fact a lie, if even only by omission or misunderstanding. The testimony given by Kaminski and Low had massive gravity upon Ms. Jefferson's life – it resulted in her being charged with a crime and imprisoned falsely. Accordingly, this court ought to find for the Plaintiff in this regard and also forward the matter to the District Attorney for levying of criminal charges against the Deputies. Lying on official records mustn't be tolerated by government agents, else the integrity of our entire justice system would be at risk. The majority of issues before this court have been decided already by the Supreme Court. If a person is detained without reasonable suspicion or arrested without probable cause, it follows that the person has endured an unlawful seizure of their person under the meaning of the fourth amendment. We direct the court to apply the Graham factors to determine if, any point, Ms. Jefferson's conduct was unlawful. If Ms. Jefferson's conduct at the protest was not unlawful then it follows that, under Graham, Ms. Jefferson could not have been detained or arrested because to do so would be an application of force, even if de minimus. The Graham test is structured such that the lack of a crime at issue provides that no amount of force would be appropriate. We also raise an issue of unlawful search and seizure on the grounds that Ms. Jefferson's home was unlawfully searched, absent a warrant. The Defendants have claimed exigent circumstances were present, but we assert that no such exigency was present because Ms. Jefferson was not fleeing or potentially destroying evidence and there was no reason to believe a crime of violence was actively being committed within her properties. Lacking substantive proof of exigency, this court must find that no such exigent circumstances were present and therefore, lacking a warrant or consent, the searches were unlawful. Any evidence therefore discovered is inadmissible against her, and any charges stemming from the evidence discovered are therefore null and void under Mapp as fruit of the poisonous tree. We raise a Monell claim as well, asserting that the Los Santos Police Department did not adequately train their officers or provide policy guidance on the issues of traditional public fora. On numerous repeated occasions, Ms. Jefferson's protests were dispersed and she was subject to citation and arrest for organizing them. But, since she was on a part of public property traditionally understood as a public forum - the sidewalk - and because the sidewalk is not a government building reserved for specific administrative duties, she was protesting within a traditional public forum. We direct this court to Gitlow, wherein the Supreme Court ruled on the restrictions that may be applied to traditional public fora. The Los Santos Police Department, as an employer, failed to train its officers correctly on which types of assemblies may be restricted or dispersed - this resulted in numerous arrests, and a pattern of dispersing protests taking place on traditional public fora. The arresting officer, Defendant Moore, was able to patrol on her own without a backing partner which signals that the Department viewed her as competent enough or sufficiently trained so as to understand the laws to an appropriate degree to warrant trust. The Department clearly erred, however, given the repeated legal errors made by Officer Moore and we assert that, under Monell, they ought to be held accountable for their failure to train officers correctly. Finally, we raise a breach of duty claim asserting that the Sheriff's Department had a duty to inform this court and counsel for the Plaintiff of any past instances of perjury. As admitted by the Sheriff's Department in a settlement agreement, submitted as evidence of record, Kaminski and Low both erred in their understanding of what happened but they gave false testimony regardless. Their false testimony is factually, by the definition of 606(b), perjury. Under Brady, we are entitled to be notified and this court must apply exceeding scrutiny to any testimony submitted by them because they've demonstrated a propensity to give false statements, either intentionally or with reckless disregard for the administration of public justice, on official records. Conclusively, we direct this court to the full, unabridged, legal arguments of our amended complaint which is made in conjunction with the submitted table of authorities and ask that this court find in favor of the plaintiff on all counts. We stand prepared to answer any specific, clarifying questions this court may choose to ask for its own knowledge in interpreting the law or any of the authorities we've submitted." (( Link to Brief: )) (( I wrote this all by myself without the need of AI tools ))

"Firstly, your honor, you mistake what I have said in reference to our well-pleaded complaint under Rule 8(a). I have stated that this particular evidence is not a necessity at this point because it is not integral to discovery of evidence relevant to the facts of this case. We say this in order to inform the court that it need not wait for this evidence, because we have demonstrated that our client is entitled to a trial in this matter even if there is evidence still pending. Furthermore, this evidence is needed only to substantiate the award amount and a hearing can be held at the conclusion of trial if liability is found by this court. Secondly, to make an additional record, I believe it is highly improper for this court to admonish myself and Mr. Wright publicly on the record for our insistence that procedure be correctly followed. Your honor has, on numerous occasions, attempted to act as counsel for the government in such a manner that we ought to move for mistrial. However, in the interest of public accountability, we intend to move forward and to appeal any elements of the final ruling we believe to be rooted in bias toward counsel for the plaintiff. Your honor has also improperly slandered both of us, thereby further demonstrating bias toward us personally. You say we are not organized, prepared, or prompt enough, but it is your honor that has failed on multiple occasions to adhere to this court's own procedural time-tables. According to the record, we were supposed to proceed to trial more than a week ago but your honor has unduly delayed that process. Your honor states that its initial belief has been vindicated, thereby disrespecting the order of the appellate court that forced this court to permit additional counsel for the Plaintiff and, in so doing, asserted the rights of the Plaintiff in this matter. Thirdly, your honor states that no new witnesses will be permitted during the post-trial phase, but your honor fails to understand that these are not witnesses material to the cause of action. The witnesses we intend to introduce in post-trial are able to testify to the amount to which Ms. Jefferson is entitled as a billable rate that is honored by the many adult entertainment establishes that hire her on a regular basis. We have, for example, one witness that will testify to the fact that Ms. Jefferson is regularly paid a rate of $30,000 per hour. This, however, does not relate to the cause of action against the defendants but to the award. Therefore, a separate hearing is warranted during post-trial to ascertain and substantiate an award amount to which Ms. Jefferson is entitled as compensatory damages and punitive damages to follow. If your honor wishes to refuse us the ability to introduce these witnesses in post-trial or allow us to show cause for the damages we have claimed in our amended complaint, we will deal with the same on appeal following issuance of this court's final judgment. Finally, your honor improperly submits to the record an implied belief that either myself or Mr. Wright would submit what you refer to as 'idiotic legal theories'. In so doing, your honor shows bias toward counsel once more and already has created grounds for a new trial to be granted on appeal. As members of the bar, it is highly irregular and inappropriate for your honor to openly admonish counsel by inferring that we would ever submit legal theories that are 'idiotic' or, to use another term, frivolous. To submit frivolous legal theories would be grounds for admonishment by the state bar including disbarment – we have no intention of doing so, and your honor should refrain from disparaging counsel in this way without substantive cause. If there is reason to believe we've acted in a way that violates this court's orders, we would respectfully ask that this court adhere to the procedural rules regarding contempt of court and hold a proper hearing on the matter so that myself and Mr. Wright may have an opportunity to show cause before this court unduly admonishes us. With this, I will say once again that we are ready to proceed to trial." (( @almightybounter @Kotwica @NotCraft )) (( I wrote this all by myself without the need of AI tools ))

best mechanic in LS +1

🙌 fire

🔥

The Execution I

The New Beachside Wave — Beach Kick Salesmen / Brothers In Arms ft. Newborn Playball (#6) Murray

This makes me regret dropping off Aslan and Frank's bond

The defense has nothing to add at this time, we are ready for trial. ((Nothing was directed to LSSD in the last posts. The thread was locked for a potential rule violation and then the plaintiff was speaking about LSPD's judgement)) @Jacob Rabinowitz @Kotwica @Userone @NotCraft