JustSid

GREAT STATE OF SAN ANDREAS GRAND OLD PARTY Fighting for your liberty to craft your own American Dream in a free society. Welcome to the official website of the San Andreas Grand Old Party, which is commonly known as the Republican Party. We believe in a prosperous, safe and working San Andreas and in a strong and free United States - and we have proven that more than once. The Republican Party is one of the world's oldest extant political parties, second oldest existing party in the U.S. It emerged in 1854 to combat the Kansas–Nebraska Act, an act that dissolved the terms of the Missouri Compromise and allowed slave or free status to be decided in the territories by popular sovereignty. The Republican Party has historically championed classical liberal ideas, including anti-slavery and economic reforms - being made of hard working Americans who believed in true American ideals. Promoting the growth of businesses and protecting factory workers and farmers from any harm. We are confident in the future of San Andreas and strongly retain the view that under a Republican majority, the great people of San Andreas can do better under a thriving economy. It is our view that the State must serve all citizens and protect individual liberties and rights. We are committed to serving the public and to serve the State to the best of our abilities in an honest and transparent government. THE REPUBLICAN PARTY IN SAN ANDREAS SAGOP's platform aims to boost the economy of San Andreas and to provide a safer home for its residents. The Republican Party has always been present in San Andreas, although it only became a strong player within the politics of San Andreas in 2016 - with former Senator. Barrett S. Johnson, Alfis Smith and Francis Underhill echoing its platform within the San Andreas State Senate. Later on, Los Santos elected Francis Underhill to serve as Mayor - in what was an astonishing landslide against candidates Gareth Keswick (D) and Brandon Daubney (I). In addition, Larry Rauner of the Republican Party was elected Governor of San Andreas. Following the years after party legends like Frank Underhill quit, the SAGOP influence on State and City politics dwindled, that until Dr. Hosea Halliday became Chairman in 2024 following a massive internal sweep of the party. Now sworn in as the Secretary of State for the State of San Andreas, Hosea Halliday's internal reforms brought the GOP back to the helm, currently, the Republican Party maintains a majority within the Legislative Branch of San Andreas and its representatives continue to fight for liberty and justice for all. -OUR VIEWS- The Economy: One of the main ideologies of the San Andreas Grand Old Party is the freedom of personal economy. Once attributed a chance, an initiative grows larger and larger resulting in progress for the better. Our infrastructure implies cutting taxes, reducing government expenses and more so stimulating and sparking the economy instead of having continuous government mediation. The freedom of market implies the notion that the people of our state come in focus and they are the ones who call their own decisions, not the government. The government is to assure a free market and economy, more so with business expansion and employment rates being crucial to the development of the two. The people of the state overtake and the government oversees; so is in the best interest of an ideal free market. The taxes and fees currently imposed on the people are high and the government is unnecessarily spending lavishly. We strongly believe that the citizens of San Andreas are not accountable even in the slightest for the lack of fiscal accountability, which unfortunately leads to reject tax burdens on the taxpayers themselves. That's you who comes at a disadvantage. We support more reasonable work requirements for welfare recipients who are willing to work and do so; and ending those benefits for those who refuse to work. Licensing fees applied upon businesses can be seen as an impediment, and we support the notion of making those affordable and to be within reasonable prices, accessible to the public. Employment and Jobs Unemployment is at an all-time high, and our society is turning to the government for aid in job opportunities. As per our stance on a free market and economy, we support small business and we promote international competition. By doing so, economic growth is more prone to occur and new jobs will appear. We are believers of the ideology that the least involvement that the government has in one's occupation, the more it will help foster low employment rates. With a modest amount of intervention, the government should ideally provide resources in order to feed the economy and ensure adequate growth within our society. Private Sectors: A private sector for healthcare all around the state is a necessity. Those ran by the state have a lower rate of efficiency and reach sub-par standards of care, compromising healthcare all around the state. The same issue strains the services which leads to obscene waiting times, which simultaneously takes its toll on emergency services. Those are fundamental requirements of our society, and having them malfunction to such a level is unacceptable for the people. Healthcare needs to be made readily available, be it private or public; and the people of San Andreas are encouraged to take the initiative and do so with the aid of private clinics and companies. Simultaneously, the private housing sector needs improvement. The government is to sell plots of land to housing architects and developers and to allow them to manage additional housing complexes. The implementation of affordable housing solutions with cheaper rent and a better standard is one of our goals. Private sectors altogether can act as a safety net for those less financially fortunate to afford reasonable solutions for their needs, whichever they may be. We oppose any form of state monopoly which can be considered to even actually constitute a form of socialized medicine. Veteran Support: The San Andreas Grand Old Party supports all veterans of the United States. Thanks to them, we are able to call ourselves a free country. After their continuous efforts and aid in keeping our country free and serving it with their lives, it is now our task to support them in their life as now regular citizens of the state. We plan on securing job programs, housing assistance, retirement and health plans for veterans of our country. We could never fully repay the brave men and women who put their lives on the lane for the sole purpose of representing our country in all that is good. Our heroes deserve the best health care and treatments possible, for if it weren't for them to step up? Who would have? In a time of war and despair, only true heroes arise and those deserve the utmost respect. The Right to Bear Arms: We strongly uphold the right of individuals to own and bear arms, a right fortified by the Second Amendment. We fully acknowledge and support the God-given right of self-defense which every law-abiding citizen should have. We recognize the protection of individual rights and more so the responsibility to safely use and store firearms. The Republican Party of San Andreas is fully supportive of the Constitution and more so the Second Amendment, and we further encourage it. As it stands, the gun laws in San Andreas have a worrying emphasis on disarming our law-abiding citizens and not the criminals of the state. We oppose any further legislation or restrictions imposed against the liberty of law-abiding citizens to carry firearms, as is correct by their rights. The Right to Life: The Grand Old Party of San Andreas is pro-life, believing that that life roots from the very notion, coming to an end at the time natural death. Tax-payer funded and underage abortions are to be prevented without the consent of parents or the carers. Every child deserves a healthy and proper life in order to prosper and further give life on to others. In total, we support adoption over abortion and plan on simplifying the process of adoption and making it more accessible. Preventing Crime: We believe that the State of San Andreas is to be more stern on crime punishment. Longer times should be applied upon repeat offenders, and those who are notorious criminals are to be rightfully punished as well. The Courts should be issued instructions on issuing harsher punishments, and this does not only serve as a method of prevention. Crime within a civilized society is unacceptable and is to not be treated lightly for those who willingly choose to not abide by the law. As such, criminals belong behind the bars, where they can not harm the public. We are thus supportive of mandatory sentencing for gang crimes, violent or sexual offenses against children, and violent repeat offenders. The Courts should more frequently have the opportunity to impose the death penalty in murder cases. More so, we oppose parole or probation solutions for dangerous and repeat felons with no salvation in sight. To achieve this, specific deterrents are required. Undeniably, the best way to deter crime is to enforce and emphasize existing laws and to toughen penalties against those who commit violent crimes or those involving firearms. Legislation for the death penalty, restitution to victims, removal of criminal aliens, and vigilance against terrorism are all within our agenda. -MAJOR LEGISLATIONS- The Silva Act of 2018 (passed) - An Act that was proposed to establish antitrust regulations and enjoining monopolies, ensuring a free market. Senate Special Committee on Firearms Licensing (FLC) (passed) - A Special Committee tasked with investigating the issues surrounding the policies and regulations of firearms licensing in the State of San Andreas, the Committee managed to bring changes to the current process of acquiring a firearm. Licensing Ordinance of 2018 (passed)- An Act which established an official State licensing authority. The Sex Offenders Act of 2018 (passed) - Written by former Senator Charles Moreno (D) and Senator Frank Underhill (R), the Act aims to protect the public from sexual offenders. Prohibited Weapons Act of 2018 (passed) - An Act to control prohibited weapons for the purpose of safety and security of the citizens of San Andreas The CRASH Act of 2018 (passed) - An Act to provide law enforcement and correctional agencies with additional measures to combat gang crime. Corrections Budget Adjustment Act of 2018 (passed) - An Act to increase funds destined to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation for the current fiscal year. 2020 San Andreas Healthcare Reform Act (passed) - An Act to reform healthcare in San Andreas and to strengthen the healthcare workforce. Stand Your Ground Act of 2020 (passed) - An act to redefine private and personal defence laws, and clarify 'Stand Your Ground' defences.

When browsing these forums please bare in mind the following: Only registered parties may post a thread in this section. You may find registration info on city.lsgov.com. You are free to comment on any of the party threads. Keep it respectful and relevant. If you have any concerns with a party, certain issues with an individual, OOCly, then we ask you address it with the GOV leadership at @JustSid and @Venta. Kind regards JustSid.

Congratulations to all.

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF SAN ANDREAS RE: MENDOZA v. LOS SANTOS POLICE DEPARTMENT, et al. RENEWED RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO PETITION FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF ------------------------------------- Jurisdiction and Procedural Impropriety: Redundant Filing Against Non-Involved Parties: As in the original motion, the plaintiff erroneously names the Los Santos Sheriff's Department (LSSD) and San Andreas Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (SADCR), although there is no connection with the incident and both these agencies. Declaratory relief necessitates a "justiciable controversy" between specific parties (Maryland Cas. Co. v. Pacific Coal & Oil Co., 312 U.S. 270). They were not represented by any officers, exercised no jurisdiction over the place of the supposed conduct, and had no administrative authority over Officer Love. Such insistence upon inclusion is judicial waste and intentional misdirection. The Video Evidence and it's Contextual Clarification: Officer Love's Conduct Was Lawful and Proportionate: The video confirms Officer Love told Ms. Mendoza to "move to the other side of the street" and included the words: "Or you could join them." This language, even forceful in its rhetoric, was followed by no prior physical action, detention, or escalation, and Mendoza did move accordingly without protest. There had been no constitutional violation. The police may direct people to move in the public interest or to prevent obstruction to justice, even in a place of public resort, according to Colten v. Kentucky, 407 U.S. 104 (1972). No detention, arrest, or deprivation of liberty took place. The encounter ended peacefully, undermining allegations of coercion or violations of rights. Recording in Public; First Amendment Not Absolute: Time, Place, and Manner Restrictions Apply: Glik v. Cunniffe (1st Cir. 2011) recognized the right to record police in public, but continued to remark that the right is "not without limits" and needs to be balanced against public safety and scene control. Officer Love's directive was content-neutral, meant for clearing the active arrest scene, not suppressing Mendoza's speech. As per Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U.S. 781 (1989): "Even in a public forum, the government may impose reasonable restrictions on the time, place, or manner of protected speech." The instruction was brief, peaceful, and reasonable, consistent with safety procedure. Declaratory Relief – No Continuing Threat, Not Standing: No Live Case or Controversy: Declaratory relief under 28 U.S. Code § 2201 or state equivalents needs a continuing or threatened future legal injury. Mendoza: Was not arrested Was not charged Faces no ongoing harm or police interference The case lacks the immediacy or stakes required for declaratory judgment. Courts decline jurisdiction in such abstract disputes (Steffel v. Thompson, 415 U.S. 452). Mendoza has not demonstrated a legitimate threat of future enforcement action against her recording activity. The Court Cannot Legislate: There are no grounds for expansive judicial rulemaking: The plaintiff asks the court to set general policies on the behaviour of all law enforcement agencies towards civilian recorders. This is not a judicial but a legislative role. Courts decide individual violations, not policy guidelines. This request is vague, poses separation of powers conflict, and invites uneven enforcement across jurisdictions. The Accident Video Footage, Internal Affairs Report Becomes Obsolete, Not Evidence of Misconduct: New Video Overrides Earlier IA Finding, But Doesn't Create Misconduct: Yes, the video establishes the incident did indeed happen, which upholds against the earlier conclusion by the LSPD Internal Affairs that it "didn't occur." However: This doesn't retroactively constitute constitutional wrongdoing. The IA misreport can be an example of administrative failure, and not of legal fault. Courts do not issue declaratory relief based on bureaucratic incompetence alone (Ashwander v. TVA, 297 U.S. 288) The video creates a situation that an incident did indeed take place, not that Mendoza's rights were being violated. IN CONCLUSION: The plaintiff pleads no constitutional violation, no threat of continuation, and no fact basis for declaratory relief. The new video shows no unlawful activity on the part of Officer Love and instead confirms again that Mendoza's rights were not infringed upon. The defense respectfully requests the petition be denied in its entirety, with prejudice as to all non-involved law enforcement agencies. ---------------------- Respectfully submitted, Alexander Cornelius Braithwaite IV Office of the District Attorney | County of Los Santos State of San Andreas April 07th, 2025

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF SAN ANDREAS COUNTY OF LOS SANTOS COUNTERARGUMENT TO PLAINTIFF’S CIVIL COMPLAINT Submitted by: Alexander Cornelius Braithwaite IV District Attorney | County of Los Santos Case No.: 25-LSC-04109 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Preliminary Statement: This is a case regarding a declaratory judgment brought by the Plaintiff, Gloria Mendoza, where she requests the Court to formally adjudicate that her alleged encounter with a police officer was a violation of her First and Fourth Amendment rights. Plaintiff also requests the Court to impose judicial standards that would restrict law enforcement discretion in future encounters with civilians recording police while in public spaces. The complaint, though emotionally compelling and calling forth powerful constitutional principles, is essentially flawed both factually and legally. It lacks definite charges against all but a few of the parties named, misuses constitutional precedent, ignores jurisdictional realities, and seeks an expansive declaratory judgment outside the function of the Court and the aim of the Declaratory Judgment Act. The defence contends the following: The Plaintiff's account is uncorroborated and self-contradictory. There is no factual basis to make the Los Santos Sheriff's Department and San Andreas Department of Corrections, or "any other law enforcement agency," defendants. Plaintiff misapplies First Circuit precedent in a Ninth Circuit state (California), where this issue remains unresolved. The Plaintiff seeks a declaratory order without legal injury sufficient to warrant such relief. The Plaintiff seeks to redefine and narrow the definition of "obstruction" so as to detract from public safety and be beyond judicial authority. Clarifications and Omissions: The incident reported occurred on March 25, 2025, near the Idlewood Gas Station in a highly documented crime area of ambushes of police officers and gang activity. Plaintiff Mendoza walked up to what she described as a "large group of detained individuals," and admits that she did so with no knowledge of the situation or of any imminent threats to officer safety. She asserts that Officer Love instructed her to move and warned that if she did not, she would "join them." The LSPD Internal Affairs unit has found no indication that this incident occurred. Improper Inclusion of Non Involved Agencies: The Plaintiff names: The Los Santos Sheriff’s Department (LSSD), The San Andreas Department of Corrections (SADOC), and “Any other law enforcement agency within the State of San Andreas”. This is patently improper. Neither the LSSD nor SADOC were present at the location or involved in any aspect of the alleged incident. There are no factual allegations whatsoever supporting any claim against these entities. Under San Andreas Code of Civil Procedure § 430.30(e) and (f), the Defence demurs as to these Defendants on the following grounds: (e) The Complaint fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against these agencies. (f) The pleading is uncertain, ambiguous, and unintelligible regarding these agencies’ alleged involvement. Such overbroad naming of government agencies without factual basis is prejudicial, wasteful of judicial resources, and unjustly burdens public institutions with unnecessary litigation. Misapplication of First Amendment Doctrine: Plaintiff refers to a series of cases — United States v. Grace, Glik v. Cunniffe, Mills v. Alabama, Gentile v. State Bar of Nevada — in support of her First Amendment right to film the police. While said cases are indeed supportive of the public's interest in scrutiny, their invocation here is selective, out of context, and most critically, non-binding within the jurisdiction of San Andreas, which is aligned with that of the Ninth Circuit. The Ninth Circuit has not finally determined whether or not there is a First Amendment right to videotape police officers in public. Certain district courts within the Ninth Circuit have held that there could be such a right, but these holdings are not settled appellate precedent and must not be treated as such. Moreover, when public safety itself is threatened, courts have routinely discovered a governmental interest in officer safety and maintaining order, even in public settings. Officer Safety and discretion in High-Risk areas: It is taken for granted in constitutional law that First Amendment rights are never absolute. Reasonable time, place, and manner regulations are permitted, particularly in dangerous or fluid circumstances in which the police must make split-second judgments. Idlewood and the surrounding areas are typical sites for officer ambushes, shootings, and civilian interference. Officers are instructed to manage perimeters and limit bystander interference for their own safety and the safety of others. Even taking Plaintiff's allegations at face value, the officer's request that she move away from an active detention scene is reasonable and does not constitute a First Amendment violation. Plaintiff’s Lack of Legal Injury: The Plaintiff is not seeking monetary damages, nor does she allege any concrete harm or constitutional deprivation. She was not arrested, detained, or charged. The Plaintiff’s request for declaratory relief is therefore speculative and fails to meet the standard for Article III standing, as she has not demonstrated: An actual legal injury, A threat of future harm, or A real and immediate controversy. Her petition attempts to manufacture precedent through judicial fiat, without the presence of a real legal conflict. The role of the court is not to issue abstract declarations of policy, but to resolve live controversies with tangible injuries. Improper Use of Declaratory Judgment: The relief requested by the Plaintiff would bypass police discretion, establish confusing and potentially dangerous proximity standards for bystanders, and invite future suits based on misinterpreted encounters. Courts cannot issue blanket prescriptions on behalf of all law enforcement agencies in a state through a single declaratory judgment based upon a disputed and unverified incident. The judiciary is a reactive institution, not a legislative one. In Conclusion: This case lacks factual basis, jurisdictional alignment, legal injury, and justiciability. It is a misguided attempt to secure precedent through abstract grievance, and in doing so, it drags uninvolved public agencies and servants into litigation at public expense. The Defence respectfully requests the following: Dismissal with prejudice of all claims against LSSD, SADOC, and “all other agencies” under CCP § 430.30(e) and (f); Denial of the declaratory judgment on grounds of insufficient injury and improper legal foundation; That this Court uphold law enforcement discretion in preserving public safety under existing constitutional standards. ---------------------------------- Respectfully submitted, Alexander Cornelius Braithwaite IV Office of the District Attorney | County of Los Santos State of San Andreas April 6, 2025

.