almightybounter

hey risen what's Kickin homie ?

"Mr. Rabinowitz - after carefully reviewing your submission, I will address your concerns systematically to ensure that the emergent issues are clear and at the same time consistent with the legal procedure. Rule 8(a) and Discovery: Your current reliance on Rule 8(a) is acknowledged and indeed a well-pleaded complaint must first meet the standard of stating a claim upon which relief can be granted. Howsoever, the current evidence you refer to is irrelevant at this state for the sole fact that it relates to damages. Even if the primary concern of the trial at hand is liability, the court reserves the right to request all the relevant documentation to make sure that both liability and potential damages are definitely properly substantiated. It is not unusual for the courts to seek clarity during the pre-trial phase, however-and particularly if there are gaps in the evidence presented that may influence the flow of the trial or any settlement discussions. More so ever, Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do require a full and timely disclosure of evidence, including that which will be used to substantiate all the damages. Delaying or withholding key information until post-trial does not align with the disclosure obligations that we have at hand. Procedural Timelines and Allegations of Delay: You have stated that the court has delayed proceedings and improperly balanced its judgment towards the Defense. I must remind you that any delays were the result of necessary procedural deliberations and course not due to any intent to obstruct the case at hand. It is and always has been critical for the Court to ensure that all elements of the current case are carefully considered in the interest of Justice. Your allegations that this Court has acted inappropriately by following procedure are unfounded and I can assure you, Mr. Rabinowitz, that the court's actions are consistent with both the law and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. As you have previously stated (related to the decisions that you have taken in regards of Appeals), any appeals or assertions regarding bias should be based on objective and demonstrable evidence rather than perceived grievances. Admissibility of Post-Trial Witnesses Your so-to-be request that new witnesses be introduced post-trial to testify to Ms. Jefferson's alleged rate is to be noted that: introducing new witnesses during the post-trial phase and especially if their testimony pertains to key facts that should have been established during the trial itself is not permitted. In your own submissions, you acknowledge that this witness's testimony relates to compensatory damages. Do you see the drift that this is taking, Mr. Rabinowitz? If such testimony is indeed critical to proving Ms. Jefferson's claims, it should have been brought forward during discovery. Mr. Rabinowitz, as you may clearly be aware of, introducing new witnesses after a verdict has been reached undermines the integrity of the trial process. As such, your request for post-trial witness testimony on damages at the end of the trial will be denied at this stage. Claims of Bias and Improper Admonishment You have raised concerns about perceived bias and improper conduct on the Court's side, particularly with respect to comments made on the record. I have to remind you, Mr. Rabinowitz, that the role of this Court is to remain neutral and ensure that proceedings are however conducted fairly. With everything being clarified so far, we are ready to move to trial. Plaintiff, you may begin with your opening statements." (( @Jacob Rabinowitz @Kotwica ))

“Mr. Wright and Mr. Rabinowitz, I see your latest submissions not only as a persistent misapprehension about this Court’s past processes but also as an unfortunate departure from the usual practice. To start with, Mr. Wright, you contend that having to comply with subpoenas is a hurdle in proceeding to the trial because they are integral in your theory of the case. However, as I have already pointed out, this should not have been the case as the discovery process, including subpoenas, should have been completed prior to the commencement of the trial. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 26 US Codes or Policies and Standards, requires that all necessary information be provided ahead of the court’s hearing, while the same rules, 16(f), allow this court to impose sanctions for failure to adhere to rules of the same section. This court will also not extend the dates of trial to allow you time to get ready or to cover the discovery stage as matters should have been ‘timed’ correctly. Also, according to you, going to trial would further exacerbate the harm to the defense in that the findings which would be obtained from permitting such subpoenas would be of little use. But, the defense has been in default and cannot suffer prejudice by findings that could have been sought in the course of discovery. This is not supported by any evidence. The Federal Rules leave no room for doubt – Discovery is not wide opened in the midst of a trial – Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b)(2) provides for a hearing on damages after default and to wit, a default has already been entered. Moreover, your assertion that this matter is still within the stage of pre-trial discovery is also wrong, and it is an indication of a lack of comprehension of the order of events and the stage of the proceedings in this trial. This Court has fixed a timetable for the trial. This period has elapsed for the purposes of discovery. You cannot disobey the orders of this Court and then contend that you have a right to cause more delay in the case. Now, with respect to your request regarding the negligence theory of the Court, you say this is a ‘new legal issue’. I have to say this to you – negligence law has been developed in detail in the United States of America due to its common law system, and this Court does not embrace a new idea in relation to such a fundamental legal concept. The standard principles of negligence – duty, breach, causation, and damages – are what will be applied here. This is simply wrong and evil. How can the accused be allowed to even argue such a thing? It suggests either an active attempt to mislead the court or ignorance of principles that are very basic in law practice. Also for your reference, Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Co., 248 N. Y. 339 (1928) remains an important decision that is usually cited for the holding that a tort is actionable only if it was reasonable to foresee in determining the extent of duty owed by the defendant. One would expect no less of your proposals to this court which are rather more provocative then most attempts in asking the courts to abandon established law. Now, let’s focus on Mr. Rabinowitz’s rejoinder. You still maintained a position that your assertion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a) is that of a well pleaded complaint as it does not obligate you to prove the claim for damages until after the judgment has been pronounced. While this complement is correct in a normative sense that a complaint is only required to state a plausible case for relief, it does not relieve you from the duty to adduce evidence once default judgment has been granted against the defendant. According to Rule 55(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, federal courts have the power to require evidence of the amount of the damages claimed. The standards set by this rule can certainly not be satisfied with your bare averments as to hourly rates and your vague estimates as to the amount of compensation that you sought. In addition, the manner in which you attempted to procure the evidence of the additional witness at this late stage ought to have been procured in good time and should have been avoided since it goes to the disorganized strategy you have taken with these court proceedings. This Court made scheduling orders at a preliminary stage and case management order as per rule 16(b) may only be altered for good cause shown. Delay in naming the witnesses which was clearly a consequence of your failure to prepare for quite a simple case does not qualify as good cause. I dare say both of you need to remember that when this case began, I specifically told you that I would not allow you to represent the Plaintiff pro bono because you do not seem to be organized, prepared or prompt enough. Unfortunately, it appears that these worries have indeed been vindicated during the course of this trial. The same allegations as regards the non-compliance to the orders and scheduling of the Court have been made against you all the time and your persistently twisted understanding and application of the law and procedural concepts only reflect back on your client’s image. Now, to bring everything together for the purpose of making the record clearer: Subpoenas were supposed to be issued during the period of the discovery process. The fact that you have not done so will not further ait the trial. Liability and damages are two distinct questions of law, and it has already been established as a matter of default that the Los Santos Police Department is the one that bears liability. What this Court has to deal with is the measure of damages which you have not been able to prove satisfactorily so far. No new witnesses will be allowed during this period unless a valid reason has been given for why the witness was not presented earlier. This Court will not entertain any further interruptions to the trial schedule owing to your lack of readiness for the trial. Last but not least, I would like to take this opportunity to say to you, let us begin with an admonition: You do not want to disregard this Court’s order, or fail to comply with the rules of the procedure, or advance idiotic legal theories. If you do so, it will not be a problem for me to use the sanctions allowed by Fed . R. Civ. P. 11 which deals with absurd and improper litigations. Court rooms such as this one are governed by norms of order and decorum, as well as the expectation that you will practice such conduct." @Kotwica @Jacob Rabinowitz

“With respect to your concerns Mr. Wright, I shall try to respond to them in the following manner. To begin with, in regards to the issue of subpoenas which you have raised several times, the Court has already taken note of your intention to file subpoenas on a number of times. But the issuance of subpoenas coupled with the pre-trial stage have not affected our ability to proceed with this trial. Certainly sufficient efforts should have been made to issue the subpoenas as part of your case in the discovery phase. The trial proceeds and now, all subpoenas are to be dealt with in the context of the trial. The Court will in response to your numerous notices of intention to file subpoena plaits not postpone the trial any further. Secondly, with respect to the Court’s differences between liability and damages, this is not a novel or difficult concept. Liability means the part which seeks an answer to the question; was the Defendant in Tort who caused tortious harm. Damages are distinct, and are only considered once the legal liability has been established. Once liability is established we are then concerned with the determination of the quantum of liability the Plaintiff is to be paid. There are two steps to this process; we do not award damages without first establishing liability. You do not need to ask for any clarification on this point as it is trite and applicable to all tort law situations. Also, let me remind you that a default judgment has already been made against the Defendant, which is the Los Santos Police Department, for not responding at first. Let us come back to this competency and explain its significance for understanding the context: For Jefferson, the LSPD is liable for the claims advanced by the plaintiff. The current activities relate to assessing the damages to be awarded. I have, however, proposed that the plaintiff explain why he should be allowed to claim as much as 10,000 dollars an hour in the present circumstances. So far evidence is scant that explains the rationality of this demand. Supporting documentation is not sufficient: when you provide a single deposit slip dated 2019-all these materials do not correspond to the level of evidentiary support required to maintain your client's claims for so-called ongoing damages at the amount of 10,000 dollars an hour. Should you want to support their particulars in the way that they devised it, but in the proportionality that they require a considerable amount of strong and unitary evidence. Last but not least, as for the distribution of damages should the plaintiff win the case, this will be determined by the amount of evidence the parties provide during the trial. The Court will assess compensatory damages from losses or harms established by the Plaintiff and if applicable may award punitive damages. The distribution will be made in accordance with the established legal practice with taking into account the circumstances of harm, the Plaintiff’s material and case law applicable in this case.” @Kotwica

"Very well so. The Court is now in session, and we are officially commencing the trial in the matter of Michelle Jefferson v. City of Los Santos, et al., Case Number 24-CV-1034. Both the Plaintiff and Defense are instructed to prepare their opening statements and be ready to present their respective cases. Plaintiff, you may begin whenever ready." @Kotwica @Jacob Rabinowitz @NotCraft

* Martin Hockenbeyer strolls into the courtroom, scanning the room and beginning to speak. "Good morning. I see that the case was previously adjudicated and an order was issued awarding damages to the Plaintiff. How are we getting along with that? Plaintiff, you may approach the bench." @Kotwica

Michelle Jefferson Plaintiff, vs. City of Los Santos, Alexander Blair, Los Santos Police Department, Samuel Gonzales, Sheriff of the County of Los Santos, Roderick H. Hayward, in their official position, Amber Moore, Christopher Kaminski and Marvin Low, in their individual and official position Defendants. Case No.: 24-CV-1034 INTERIM ORDER CUSTODIAL PROVISIONS IN RESPECT OF THE DEFENSE’S FAILURE IN REPLY AND A NOTICE OF POTENTIAL DEFAULT JUDGEMENT The Defense counsel has been defaulting in complying with this Court's orders and in taking part in the proceedings, the Court notes with concern. Despite this continuing situation from the Defense, where no arguments have been offered, this Court is forced to make a decision regarding what is to be done as is provided for under the Constitution of the United States of America, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedures as well as the law. The Court admits that there are two potential courses of action as already indicated in the beginning; Even in the event where the Defense is silent, the Court has the option of going on with the trial. Still, in light of the present circumstances where the Defense does not take any active step, it would all the same lead to a lopsided proceeding, foregoing any contest to the Plaintiff’s claims. Even though this enables the Plaintiff to have the opportunity and present her case in full, it is still subverts the essence of an equitable jousting system whereby a Defense fails to show up. The alternative within which the Court can act under Rule 55 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is the awarding of the judgment in favour of the Plaintiff and this is called default judgment. There are no circumstances under which a default judgment can be issued except where one party fails to meet the deadline complying, or participating in a trimming process issued out by the Court. Due to the non-intervention of the said action by the Defense, such a judgment is sure to hold the Defendants liable automatically, the only issue fetching about being the issue of damages liable. Given the situation, this Court is more likely than not to issue the default judgment by the end of the specified court date if no substantial ground is shown by the Defense. As the Plaintiff has adduced evidence in compliance with her orders from this Court, it would be unreasonable to keep stalling the matter further because of the inertia of the Defense. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED: Last and final extension is given to the Defense to communicate with the Court through a outline made and filed within two days from the date of this Order. Otherwise in the event that this time is elapsed without any action on this response from the Defense, the Court will move ahead and enter a default judgment against the Defense who is evading the Plaintiff. In the event a punitive order is given in this regard, the Plaintiff will in the award stage of the proceedings be required to give sufficient evidence to prove her loss assessed in monetary terms including loss of earning capacity discussed above. If the Defense fails to do so, any further defense will be waived, and the Court will do as it considers appropriate in accordance with Rule 55 and the law. SO ORDERED. Honorable Martin Hockenbeyer Dated 16-10-2024; @Jacob Rabinowitz @Kotwica @Userone @NotCraft

“Mr. Wright, your recent comments against this Court cannot only be described as improper but distasteful. Let me say this quite clearly: there is no magistrate in this Court who is willing to tolerate such disrespect from any advocate, however passionately they argue for their case. As an advocate, you are required to sponsor the arguments of your client — not undermine the respect of the Court or disturb the proceedings in an arranged manner. This court has no time for blame games. Now, concerning your complaints, let us get to them apropos. First, you claim that the Court raised some issues that were in favor of the Defense. This is a very serious violation of this Court’s role. It is not within the province of this Court to be asked to ‘advocate’ for anyone in this case. The role of the Court is to rule and administer law that exists as is. Why would you make such outrageous accusations? If your case is valid then it will be proven valid and the legal boundaries will not be crossed in such idiotic pronouncements. The Court also questions its jurisdiction even over matters which have to be determined. Let me recall a well known fact for you, Mr. Wright, that nothing precludes the Court from formulating its position on the merits of the case which it exercises last for legal and factual justifications, especially when justice so dictates. There will be no hurry and pressure in the pursuance of that process in this Court. As an aside, with regard to your citation of Ashcroft v. Iqbal, I must say that the plausibility standard is available where pleadings are being evaluated, however, this particular weakness with regard to this stage of the litigation does not relieve you of the burden of proving your claims at the right time. This looks like a deposit slip that you are sure is relevant but stands alone and is worlds away from satisfying the egregious damage that is sought if any at all. One financial paper such as one from the year 2019 is grossly insufficient, and it is quite clear why that is the case. As you have pointed out, subpoenas may provide more insight into the issue, but until that time, the value of the evidence that you present is questionable. Let us consider the topics of liability and damages. Yes, you are right. A defendant in a court case cannot be held liable in damages simpliciter without having been first found liable. The statement of the Court was aimed at stressing the two-fold aspect in which liability is the precursor to the award of damages. These are basic tenets on tort. Should this particular idea be hard to comprehend, I would recommend going back to the provisions on tort litigation. To conclude, your comments regarding the consideration of "consideration" have no bearing. The Court did not use the term contemplation in the context of breach of contract claim. Rather it was used in the meaning of the process or thought about something. This is quite right and proper for the situation in which it was employed. I think it will be better for you not to seek to antagonize this Court on matters of definitions of legal terms. Mr. Wright, let this serve as a final warning: Such behavior will be dealt with in accordance with this Court’s Policy and any further not only disrespectful actions on your part or that of any member of your team will not be tolerated. This Court requires all counsels to observe absolute decorum and respect, and any such contrary conduct shall attract sanctions. If you think that I would withdraw my arguments, there is no such possibility in this court because everyone is bound by order, respect, and law. Don’t confuse your duty as an attorney with a free hand to disturb these proceedings. Defense, are there any requests or motions before we proceed into trial with this case?” @Kotwica @NotCraft

"As we prepare to move forward with the trial proceedings in Michelle Jefferson v. City of Los Santos, et al., the Court asks both parties if there are any additional matters or concerns that need to be addressed before we proceed. If there are any outstanding motions, requests, or issues that have yet to be raised, please do so now to ensure we move into the trial with full clarity and readiness." @NotCraft @Jacob Rabinowitz @Kotwica @Userone

"Mr. Rabinowitz, the court has once again reviewed your submission of the deposit notice dated... October 6th, 2019. It only reflects a one time deposit of $15,000. While this document has been entered into the record, the Court notes that the claim in question involves an alleged hourly rate of $10,000, not a singular deposit. The submission is relevant to the potential damages, but it does not provide the consistent documentation necessary to substantiate an hourly rate of $10,000 as claimed. The Court will take it under advisement during the award phase. Additionally, the Court does remind the parties that this consideration relates to the default judgment entered against the Los Santos Police Department. The issue of liability remains distinct from determination of damages those which will be addressed separately in the award phase of the case." @Jacob Rabinowitz

"After considerable examination of the Defense's motion for dismissal based on sovereign immunity and the Plaintiff's response to said motion, the Court finds that the motion for dismissal cannot be granted. The Plaintiff has successfully demonstrated that exemptions under Senate Bill 025-18, more exactly Sections 3(A), (B)2, (B)3 prevent the application of sovereign immunity in this case. Additionally, the Court finds that the Defendant's motion was filed too late. Sovereign immunity, as an alternative defense, should have been raised in the initial pleadings as per the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8(c). For the abovementioned reasons, the Defendant's motion to dismiss is denied and the case will move forward to trial." @Kotwica @Jacob Rabinowitz @NotCraft

"Mr. Rabinowitz, the Court acknowledges the receipt of your correspondence concerning Ms. Jefferson’s pursuit of compensatory damages pegged at an extraordinary rate of $10,000 per hour. However, the Court necessitates factual evidence of the so claimed amount. The Court will have to be provided any form of employment records, income statements, or any other relevant financial documentation that can demonstrate an established pattern of earnings in amount of $10,000 per hour. Sincerely, Judge Martin Hockenbeyer" @Jacob Rabinowitz

(( REF: https://community.ls-rp.com/forums/topic/19539-michelle-jefferson-vs-los-santos-police-department/?do=findComment&comment=190783 )) (( Case is currently on hold. ))

(( The case is currently on hold. A continuous rule breaking has been done, including the terms of metagaming, common courtesy and such. None of the Plaintiff defending characters exist at all in the SA:MP universe and I'm currently weighting the current options that we have. If the case is decided to be nulled, it is due to the recently brought-to-my-attention fact that none of the characters exist. There are explanations to be done, and I'm currently busy and not have the necessary resources and tools at my hand to deal with it in this moment. It'll be reviewed throughout the week and/or weekend by me and get back with a decision. All the procedures are on hold. ))

MICHELLE JEFFERSON, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF LOS SANTOS, ALEXANDER BLAIR, LOS SANTOS POLICE DEPARTMENT, SAMUEL GONZALEZ, and AMBER MOORE, Defendants. Case No.: 24-CV-1034 ORDER GRANTING DEFAULT JUDGMENT AGAINST DEFENDANTS ALEXANDER BLAIR, LOS SANTOS POLICE DEPARTMENT, SAMUEL GONZALEZ, AND AMBER MOORE ORDER This matter is presented before the Court on the Plaintiff, Michelle Jefferson’s, Motion for Default Judgment directed at Defendants Alexander Blair, Los Santos Police Department, Samuel Gonzalez, both in his individual and official capacities, and Amber Moore, likewise in her individual and official capacities. These Defendants were duly served with the Complaint, yet have neglected to respond or mount a defense within the timeframe mandated by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. A. Rule 55 Standard Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55 empowers a plaintiff to seek a default judgment when a defendant has failed to timely respond to the action. Following the entry of default, the Court is authorized to render judgment in favor of the plaintiff, provided that the absence of a response is not attributable to excusable neglect, and the plaintiff's claims are substantiated by adequate evidence. B. Service and Failure to Respond The Court has meticulously examined the case file and verifies that Defendants Alexander Blair, Los Santos Police Department, Samuel Gonzalez, and Amber Moore were served in strict compliance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Defendants were afforded a reasonable period to respond to the complaint, yet no response or appearance has been recorded within the stipulated timeframe. C. Liability and Damages Upon the establishment of default, the well-pleaded factual assertions within the complaint, excluding those related to the determination of damages, are accepted as accurate. Nevertheless, the Court must evaluate the sufficiency of the allegations and confirm the legal validity of the Plaintiff’s claims. In this instance, the assertions against the Defendants appear to be sufficiently corroborated by the documentation on file. Given that a default judgment constitutes a severe remedy, the Court shall arrange a hearing to ascertain the extent of damages and any other suitable relief to which the Plaintiff may be entitled. The Plaintiff is instructed to present evidence concerning the specific damages sought in this instance. D. Conclusion In light of the foregoing, it is hereby ORDERED: The Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment against Defendants Alexander Blair, Los Santos Police Department, Samuel Gonzalez, and Amber Moore is GRANTED with respect to liability. A hearing to determine damages is scheduled for 07/10/2024. The Plaintiff is to provide evidence of damages within six days following this Order. SO ORDERED. Dated: 04/10/2024 Hon. Martin Hockenbeyer (( @Kotwica @Jacob Rabinowitz ))