Iudex

Thank you. Where is Casey Webster

Congratulations

Good work Connectors Place

Going far, guys.

The Connectors Place!

Was awesome having you RP with us in the company. Here's to more!

(( @joxii@Levy, Bell & Weinstein@Levy@Suffering ))

(( I cannot post this in the appeals section, please move it. This is an appeal. ))

Los Santos County Sheriff's Department v. Eustace Horvat, Buck Sloan Case Number: YY-XNNN Prepared by: Juliette Naviaux APPELLATE BRIEF FOR THE LOS SANTOS COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT & AN EMERGENCY STAY ORDER _______________________________________________ Argument Background [1] The Los Santos County Sheriff's Department was party to a judicial review suit from June 16 initiated by the Appellee. [2] The Appellee alleged that the revocation was illegal as a question of law, but affirmed the question of fact that the incident did take place. The Appellee and the lower court affirmed that Mr. Horvat & Mr. Sloan were carrying their weapons without a conceal carry permit. [3] On or about 2nd of June 2024, the Appellee consisting of Mr. Horvat and Mr. Sloan were openly carrying their firearms at the Market area when they discharged them and were subsequently arrested. Their licenses were revoked pursuant the charge of (9)13. CCW / PF Violation which states: "A person who carries a legal, registered firearm that is not authorized as a conceal-carry weapon." It further states: "[...] a misdemeanor punishable [...] as well as a weapon license revocation upon Officer Discretion. This entire charge also falls under Officer Discretion." [4] The appellee claimed that the City Government's strike policy, a non-codified or enacted law trumped actual legislation, the Penal Code. [5] During the case, a ruling was announced that granted the Appellee a total sum of $7,000,000 through rendering a judgement before official arguments were heard, but rather an evidentiary phase. [6] The Judge rendered a premature judgement during the discovery phase with the following points: 1) The defense (LSSD)'s argument to invalidate the license (PF) if an individual carries a firearm without a CCW is a contradiction to the City Government's policy. The Judge further rendered the following points: 2) The ability to revoke a license (PF) solely was enforced by City Government and the decision was solely up to City Government rather than any law enforcement agency. 3) The Plaintiff did violate the licensing rules and regulations, but the correct punishment was solely for City Government to revoke [...] and it was not the purview of law enforcement to dictate the revocation of the license. The Judge then rendered that the firearms license must be reinstated and the aforementioned $7,000,000 must be paid by the LSSD by the 18th of July. [7] The Judge further addressed that he would grant $5,000,000 in loss of earnings without any entered evidence or content. [8] Through this background, we find that there is no issue of question of fact as the Judge found that the Appellee was in violation of openly carrying a firearm without a CCW, including the fact that it violates the law/policies. [9] We will address in this appeal whether or not the law allows for the revocation of a firearms license by an agency pursuant law and not pursuant non-codified or legislated policy. [10] We will further address the awarding of lost earnings & attorney fees as major points. Lastly, we will address the failure of the Judge to follow procedure in judicial reviews, prematurely rendering a judgment. Question of Law - The Revocation of a PF [11] The question whether or not a PF license can be revoked shall not involve a policy that issued by a government agency, but rather shall be based on law. We simplify our argument and assert that the Los Santos County Sheriff's Department can revoke a PF license based on law. [12] The law that allows the Los Santos County Sheriff's Department to revoke a PF license is enshrined in the State Constitution: The Jurisdictions of the Los Santos County Sheriff's Department shall be: [...] The power to revoke licenses. [13] We assert that the State Constitution is the supreme law of the land in the State of San Andreas and is trumps any non-codified/law policy issued by an agency. [14] We further assert that the City Government does not have the right to revoke licenses and there is no law that accedes the right to them, but rather LSSD and LSPD are the only agencies with the right to revoke PFs. [15] In addition, we also assert that the Penal Code gives the right to a Peace Officer (LSSD) to revoke a license in conjunction with the charge. [16] The aforementioned charge states: (9)13. CCW / PF Violation which states: "A person who carries a legal, registered firearm that is not authorized as a conceal-carry weapon." It further states: "[...] a misdemeanor punishable [...] as well as a weapon license revocation upon Officer Discretion. This entire charge also falls under Officer Discretion." [17] We find that a weapon license revocation being upon Officer Discretion (LSSD) and it entirely falling upon Officer Discretion, is grounds for a legal revocation and any internal policy shall not trump the Penal Code, a codified law. [18] Therefore, we assert the Judge's reliance on a policy is incorrect from a question of law standpoint as the City Government's policy back then was not a law signed, but rather clearly stated it is a policy. Whereas the Penal Code and State Constitution grant the inherent power to the LSSD to revoke a PF license. [19] The Judge and Appellee agreed that the individual carried a legal registered firearm when they were not authorized to carry it as a conceal-carry weapon and they did not dispute the arrest, but rather the revocation. Therefore, the question of law here is the point of contention. Question of Law - The Issuance of Lost Earnings [20] To address whether or not lost earnings can be awarded, in any capacity is based on if the pursuer of the claim can prove said lost earnings. Lost earnings must be evaluated on several conditions that are mainly: 1) Reviewing the individual's work history, including skills and talents; 2) Involving experts to determine the organization's ability to obtain alleged contracts 3) Using wage comparisons and market values to determine how much they lost. [21] None of the aforementioned actions were taken, the Appellee claimed they lost on a potential contract, but none was entered into evidence, no wage comparison was made, market value research, et cetera. [22] We argue that additionally through Jeffries v. 3520 Broadway Management Co. it was held that a court cannot award for past and future lost earnings when the plaintiff fails to proffer evidence to support the claimed loss of earnings except their testimony. [23] We assert that the Appellee only provided testimony and did not provide evidence except statements that they failed to obtain a contract and provided no paystubs, previous contracts, et cetera. [24] Thereby, we conclude that the awarding of lost earnings fails to satisfy the most basic of standards, where an individual is awarded a sum of money while failing to prove they could have reasonably obtained such amount. We further assert that $5,000,000 is an absurd amount and it is the first-time a Court in the State of San Andreas awards such an amount for any incident. $5,000,000 is an absurd amount and typically is a quarterly/yearly budget for most Departments pursuant State Senate acts. [25] To conclude the Sovereign Immunity Act of 2018 states the following: [...] the maximum amount any State, local agency, or actor shall be subjected to pay for any particular claim shall be $200,000. [26] Therefore, we come to the conclusion the awarding of $5,000,000 is arbitrary and borders incompetence. Question of Law - Attorney Fees [27] The question of whether or not attorney fees can be awarded shall be based on a legal standard. We assert that States must legislate whether or not it follows the American Rule. [28] We assert that no legislation determining anything different than the American Rule makes it the default standard to follow. [29] Under the American Rule, attorneys' fees are not [...] recoverable by the prevailing cases in the absences of a statutory authorization (legistation, et cetera), therefore the individual cannot recover attorneys' fees [...] only Congress/Legislative Branch can authorize an exception to the American Rule. Alyeska Pipeline Svc. Co. v. Wilderness Soc'y, 421 U.S. 240 (1975) [30] We assert no exception to the American Rule was made through legislation. [31] Pursuant Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 54, attorney's fees must be substantiated through specifying the statue that entitles the movant to obtain said fees. [32] We further add that the amount of attorney fees was not documented and the Court failed to determine the validity of the attorney fees and provided it under a blanket approach. Procedural Error [33] In order to determine whether or not the case went through procedural errors, we must first find the intent of a judicial review. Pursuant Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803), the definition and origins of a judicial review is to determine whether or not a law is unconstitutional, not a situation or action. [34] We argue that a judicial review is reserved pursuant the aforementioned caselaw and its origins is to determine whether or not a law or act is unconstitutional. We assert that an arrest is not a law or act that can be found to be constitutional, therefore a civil action should have been pursued not a judicial review. [35] We move onto the procedural aspect. During the review, the Judge during the entrance of evidence rendered a judgment, prematurely rendering the question of law and not taking into account the procedures of the court which state the case shall undergo the following phases: 1) Answer 2) Discovery & Pre-Trial Motions 3) Trial 4) Decision [36] We assert that during the 2nd phase of the case, the Judge rendered a judgment without answering the question of law that was raised initially and without asking for arguments to be given. Conclusion [37] For the matter of the revocation of a PF the primary question of law, we assert that the LSSD through the Penal Code and State Constitution are empowered to revoke a PF license, contrary to the lower court's ruling. The Penal Code also authorized the LSSD to revoke a license when a person carries without a CCW, completely refuting the lower court's ruling. We argue a policy does not equate law. [38] For the matter lost earnings, we assert the amount awarded is absurd and fails to meet caselaw in awarding lost earnings. The amount was awarded without evidence and was arbitrarily decided on. The amount is also an amount that exceeds most State Government agencies budgets, reinforcing the fact $5,000,000 is absurd. Additionally, the Sovereign Immunity Act of 2018 only allows $200,000 to be collected. [39] For attorney fees, we assert that the State of San Andreas does not have a law that permits the collection of attorney fees in private suits pursuant the American Rule standard and the aforementioned caselaw. Furthermore, the Sovereign Immunity Act of 2018 allows the maximum of $200,000 to be awarded on government agencies. [40] For the matter of procedural error, we assert that the Judge rendered a judgment during the evidentiary stage and failed to consider or rule on specific points brought up, such as the fact the awarding of attorney fees, the fact the Penal Code empowers the LSSD to revoke licenses. [41] We implore the Court to impose a stay order on the collection of the lower court's judgment, pending this appeal's conclusion. Authorities 1. Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803) 2. Jeffries v. 3520 Broadway Management Co. 3. Sovereign Immunity Act of 2018 4. Alyeska Pipeline Svc. Co. v. Wilderness Soc'y, 421 U.S. 240 (1975) 5. The Penal Code (( Old one was in effect )) 6. The San Andreas State Constitution _______________________________________________ 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 13th day of July, 2024 by: /s/ JULIETTE NAVIAUX Juliette Naviaux

MCB kinda RP

Caught me with a Nine

DONT STEP ON IT

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

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

@joxii@Levy

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

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

(( The forums are hidden, then. Can @DadoJ confirm then if it is the same? ))

(Juliette Naviaux presents the document.) Your honor, not sure what wool they are speaking of. This is the agreement they signed and it was in effect since 2023. It's on the City Government's portal. Your honor, it is one thing to display the strike system's functions, but it is another to showcase what the revocation reasons can be. We wholeheartedly assert we are correct and have even displayed evidence that supports it may be revoked. A strike system does not necessarily constitute what the revocation system is. We have shown what the revocation system is through the agreement the Petitioners signed and the statement from the Licensing Division. @joxii@Levy

Your honor, we have not received a response from the City Government despite our attempt to reach out. We assert that we are not responsible for the collection of law, but rather this responsibility falls upon the Petitioner as the burden of proof falls upon them. We wholeheartedly assert that the Department member had the right to revoke the license pursuant the policies enshrined currently and anything to argue against it falls against the Petitioner to achieve. Therefore, we urge the Court to levy the burden of proof upon the Petitioner, in this matter and we reinforce our motion to dismiss on the basis of the Petitioner failing to show any malice in the revocation of the PF thus far. We must remember who the burden falls upon in civil cases. However, will additionally enter into evidence the statement that everyone signs prior to obtaining a PF. This has certain parts highlighted. 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. @Levy@joxii

We will contact City Government, your honor. @joxii @Levy, Bell & Weinstein

Your honor, regardless of a point or strike system, the Petitioner admitted fault. We're just going in circles here. The stenographer transcribed the following: "Firstly, the defendants retrieved their weapons from safe storage within their vehicle. [...]" The PF Regulations state: Furthermore, the criteria for revocation is: Also, again, the American Rule prohibits collection of attorney fees. We reiterate our motion to dismiss. @joxii@Levy, Bell & Weinstein

Your honor, We are currently working on obtaining these documents to showcase. However, the letter presented does not absolve the party of their guilt in the matter. We will present the evidence below: Exhibit A: Complaint submitted by Petitioners. We need to look no further than what is stated in the complaint: "[...] It is important to add that SO's Horvat and Buck were PF only license owners and openly-carried their firearms inside the holsters on their duty belts." Your honor, even in the complaint the Petitioners showcase and admit their fault in the very issue they wish to claim relief from, thus we reinforce our motion to dismiss. @joxii@Suffering

Infamous Pension Pincher Big Dukes