almightybounter

"Ms. Thyne, your objection to Q16 is overruled. Captain Guanti’s answer to Q16 is admissible under Rule 701 as it is rationally based on his perception and helpful to the court’s understanding of the situation. His conclusion about whether Sergeant Castillo had an opportunity to leave is derived from specific, observable facts and his extensive experience in similar circumstances. Therefore, it does not constitute mere speculation." "The witness's response to Q16 will remain part of the record, and the proceedings should continue with a focus on eliciting further relevant and informed testimony." @Michael

The objections to Questions 6 and 9 are sustained as they call for speculative responses beyond the witness’s direct observations. The objection to Question 7 is overruled as Captain Guanti’s experience qualifies him to speak to standard procedures he is familiar with. The objection to the original Question 10 is sustained for being outside the scope and irrelevant, but the rephrased question is allowed. The proceedings should continue with a focus on relevant and informed testimony within the witness’s direct knowledge and experience.

"Very well. The request for a redirect is noted. Counsel for the defense, you may now proceed with your cross-examination of Captain Guanti." @Michael

In the Court of Appeals for the State of San Andreas Los Santos County Sheriff's Department v. Eustace Horvat, Buck Sloan Appellate Decision Prepared by: Chief Justice Faircloth Date: 13.07.2024 I. Introduction This appeal arises from a decision by the lower court in favor of the appellees, Mr. Eustace Horvat and Mr. Buck Sloan, concerning the revocation of their firearms licenses and subsequent monetary awards. The Los Santos County Sheriff's Department (LSSD) challenges the lower court's rulings on several grounds, including the authority to revoke a firearms license, the awarding of lost earnings, attorney fees, and procedural errors during the trial. II. Background The appellees were arrested on June 2, 2024, for openly carrying firearms without a concealed carry permit. Their licenses were revoked under charge (9)13. CCW / PF Violation, which stipulates that carrying a legal, registered firearm without a concealed carry permit is a misdemeanor and can result in license revocation at the officer's discretion. The lower court ruled in favor of the appellees, awarding them $7,000,000 in damages and reinstating their firearms licenses. III. Questions of Law Authority to Revoke PF License The central issue is whether the LSSD has the authority to revoke a Personal Firearms (PF) license based on codified law rather than city government policy. The relevant statute, (9)13. CCW / PF Violation, clearly states that the revocation of a firearms license falls under officer discretion. Additionally, the State Constitution grants the LSSD the jurisdiction to revoke licenses. The lower court's reliance on city government policy over the codified law is misplaced. The State Constitution and Penal Code take precedence over non-codified policies. Thus, the LSSD acted within its legal authority to revoke the appellees' licenses. Awarding of Lost Earnings The lower court awarded the appellees $5,000,000 for lost earnings without substantial evidence. Established precedent in Jeffries v. 3520 Broadway Management Co. requires concrete evidence to support claims for lost earnings, which was not provided by the appellees. The awarding of such a substantial sum without adequate evidence is arbitrary and capricious. Furthermore, the Sovereign Immunity Act of 2018 limits the amount a state or local agency can be subjected to pay for any claim to $200,000. The lower court's award exceeds this statutory limit. Awarding of Attorney Fees Under the American Rule, attorney fees are not recoverable by the prevailing party in the absence of statutory authorization. The appellees failed to provide statutory grounds for the recovery of attorney fees. Therefore, the awarding of attorney fees by the lower court was improper. Procedural Error The lower court rendered a judgment prematurely during the discovery phase, bypassing the trial and arguments phases. This is a clear procedural error. According to Marbury v. Madison, judicial review is meant to determine the constitutionality of laws, not specific actions. The case should have undergone the complete trial process before any judgment was rendered. IV. Conclusion Based on the foregoing, the lower court's judgment is reversed on the following grounds: The LSSD has the authority to revoke a PF license based on the State Constitution and Penal Code. The awarding of $5,000,000 for lost earnings is unsupported by evidence and exceeds statutory limits. Attorney fees are not recoverable under the American Rule without statutory authorization. Procedural errors occurred in the handling of the case, warranting a new trial. The court orders an emergency stay on the collection of the lower court's judgment pending this appeal's conclusion. The case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. Chief Justice Faircloth Appellate Court of San Andreas

"Thank you, Captain Guanti, for your testimony. Mr. Wright, do you have any further questions for this witness?" @Kotwica

"Very well, Mr. Wright. Please call your first witness to the stand." (Courtroom bailiff stands and prepares to escort the witness to the stand.) (Once the witness is seated and sworn in, proceed with the examination.) "Mr. Wright, you may begin your examination."

In the Court of Appeals for the State of San Andreas Case Number: LCS-AP-2024-002 Plaintiff-Appellant: Stefan Castillo Defendant-Appellee: The Los Santos Sheriff's Department Lower Court Case Number: LCS-CV-2024-001 Judge: The Honorable Martin Hockenbeyer Opinion and Order on Emergency Appeal Before: Chief Justice Harold Faircloth The Court of Appeals reviews the emergency appeal filed by Plaintiff-Appellant Stefan Castillo. The appeal challenges specific decisions made by Judge Martin Hockenbeyer in case LCS-CV-2024-001. Castillo requests a reversal, remand, and the reappointment of a new judge for the trial. The case concerns allegations that Mr. Castillo's Garrity rights were violated. During the trial, Plaintiff's counsel questioned Captain James Guanti about various aspects of the interrogation and subsequent investigation. The defense objected to questions 13 through 18 on grounds of immateriality. Judge Hockenbeyer sustained objections to questions 17 and 18 but overruled the objections to questions 13 through 16. Plaintiff’s Arguments: Judge Hockenbeyer improperly sustained an objection by formulating his own objection to Q18. The defendant’s objection was based on immateriality, which was not applicable. The judge acted beyond neutrality, thus favoring the defendant. Preservation of objections should not be undermined by the judge’s intervention. The issue is ripe for appeal despite no final judgment. The proceedings should be stayed, the decision remanded, and a new judge appointed. Analysis: Judicial Neutrality and Objection to Q18: Plaintiff’s Argument: Plaintiff contends that Judge Hockenbeyer formulated his own objection to question 18, which is alleged to be a proper utilization of lay witness testimony under Federal Rules of Evidence Rule 701(c). They argue this did not deviate into Rule 702 testimony. Federal Rules of Evidence Rule 701 pertains to opinion testimony by lay witnesses: Rule 701(a): Testimony must be rationally based on the witness's perception. Rule 701(b): Testimony must be helpful to clearly understanding the witness's testimony or determining a fact in issue. Rule 701(c): Testimony must not be based on scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge within the scope of Rule 702. Question 18 asked Captain Guanti to compare the questioning of Mr. Castillo to normative standards expected in his supervisory experience. This potentially requires specialized knowledge and experience, thus bordering on expert testimony as defined under Rule 702, which governs testimony by experts: Rule 702: A witness who is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education may testify in the form of an opinion if: (a) The expert's scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue. (b) The testimony is based on sufficient facts or data. (c) The testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods. (d) The expert has reliably applied the principles and methods to the facts of the case. By sustaining the objection, Judge Hockenbeyer aimed to prevent testimony that might require expert qualification without the proper foundation being laid. This action ensures adherence to the evidentiary standards. Immateriality of Questions: Plaintiff’s Argument: The plaintiff argues that the defendant's objection was based on the immateriality of the questions to the case, focusing on whether Mr. Castillo's Garrity rights were violated. Legal Analysis: The relevance of evidence is governed by Federal Rules of Evidence Rule 401: Rule 401: Evidence is relevant if: (a) It has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence. (b) The fact is of consequence in determining the action. The objection on grounds of immateriality is valid if the questions posed do not directly relate to the alleged violation of Garrity rights. The Garrity rights protect public employees from being compelled to incriminate themselves during investigatory interviews conducted by their employers. Questions relevant to the circumstances of the interrogation, the environment, and the treatment of Mr. Castillo are material to determining whether these rights were upheld. Judge Hockenbeyer's decisions to overrule objections to questions 13-16 reflect their relevance to the interrogation's context, making it likely that these questions would impact the assessment of Mr. Castillo’s Garrity rights. Judicial Intervention and Fairness: Plaintiff’s Argument: The plaintiff argues that Judge Hockenbeyer acted beyond neutrality by inferring an objection that was not raised by the defense, potentially favoring the defendant. Legal Analysis: Judges have a duty to ensure the fairness and relevance of the proceedings and to act as neutral arbiters. According to the Code of Conduct for United States Judges, Canon 3(A)(4): "A judge should accord to every person who has a legal interest in a proceeding, and that person’s lawyer, the full right to be heard according to law." However, judges also have the responsibility to intervene when necessary to prevent improper evidence from being considered, even if an objection is not explicitly raised. In this case, Judge Hockenbeyer's intervention to sustain the objection to Q18 was to ensure the witness did not provide expert testimony without proper qualification, which is a necessary function to maintain the trial's integrity. Preservation of Objections: Plaintiff’s Argument: The plaintiff contends that if Judge Hockenbeyer's decision is upheld, it could undermine the principle that issues not raised during the trial cannot be raised on appeal. Legal Analysis: The principle of preserving objections is indeed fundamental, as outlined in Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 46: Rule 46: A formal exception to a ruling or order of the court is unnecessary. When the ruling or order is requested or made, it is sufficient that a party, at the time the ruling or order of the court is requested or made, makes known to the court the action which the party desires the court to take or the party's objection to the action of the court and the grounds therefor. However, judicial intervention to address significant evidentiary issues does not nullify this principle. Judges can act to ensure proper trial conduct and evidence admissibility. Judge Hockenbeyer's actions did not remove the necessity for objections but rather ensured that the trial adhered to evidentiary rules. Ripeness for Appeal: Plaintiff’s Argument: The plaintiff argues that the issue is ripe for appeal, even though no final judgment has been made. Legal Analysis: Interlocutory appeals, or appeals of decisions made before a final judgment, can be permissible if they address substantial questions that significantly affect the trial's fairness. According to 28 U.S. Code § 1292(b): "When a district judge, in making in a civil action an order not otherwise appealable under this section, shall be of the opinion that such order involves a controlling question of law as to which there is substantial ground for difference of opinion and that an immediate appeal from the order may materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation, he shall so state in writing in such order." Given the potential impact of the evidentiary rulings on the trial's outcome, this issue is indeed ripe for appeal. Request to Stay Proceedings, Remand, and Appoint a New Judge: Plaintiff’s Argument: The plaintiff requests that the court stay the proceedings, remand and vacate the determination made by Judge Hockenbeyer, and appoint a new judge for the trial. Legal Analysis: Such requests are typically granted under circumstances of demonstrated judicial bias or significant procedural errors. The current evidence suggests that Judge Hockenbeyer's rulings were within judicial discretion and aligned with the Federal Rules of Evidence. Conclusion: Upon review, the Court finds that Judge Hockenbeyer's decisions regarding the objections to questions 13 through 18 were appropriate and in line with the Federal Rules of Evidence. The Plaintiff-Appellant has not demonstrated judicial bias or procedural error warranting the appointment of a new judge or the staying of proceedings. Order: The emergency appeal is denied. The lower court’s decisions on the objections to questions 13 through 18 are affirmed. The case LCS-CV-2024-001 is remanded to the lower court for continuation with Judge Martin Hockenbeyer presiding. Signed: Chief Justice Harold Faircloth Date: 12.07.2024

"Mr. Wright, you are entitled to seek appellate review if you believe that an error has been made. However, be advised that a stay will delay the resolution of this case, which may not be in the best interests of your client. If you wish to proceed with filing a stay, I will respect your decision. I must also remind you that the appellate court will consider whether the procedural decisions made here are in line with established legal principles and whether they affect the substantive rights of the parties involved. For the record, I am committed to ensuring a fair trial for all parties, and my rulings are based on the necessity of adhering to legal standards and ensuring the proper administration of justice. Court is adjourned to allow Mr. Wright time to file his motion. We will reconvene once the appellate court has made a determination. Thank you."

"Mr. Wright, I appreciate your passion and your commitment to your client's case. However, let’s clarify a few points. First, as the presiding Judge, it is within my purview to address and manage procedural issues that arise during the course of the trial, including the qualifications of expert witnesses. My intervention is not an objection but a necessary oversight to ensure the trial proceeds fairly and justly. Secondly, it is crucial to address the procedural aspect of introducing expert testimony. Ensuring both parties have adequate notice and preparation time for expert testimony is fundamental to a fair trial. This is not merely a question of relevance but one of due process and proper notice, which affects the quality and reliability of the evidence presented. Your client's rights, as well as the integrity of these proceedings, are paramount. If you feel that an appeal is necessary to preserve your client’s rights, you are well within your rights to pursue that course of action. However, threatening a mistrial over procedural clarifications is neither productive nor conducive to the efficient administration of justice. I am well-versed in Rule 702 and its requirements for expert testimony. We will proceed with your questions to establish Captain Guanti’s qualifications as an expert witness. Once that is complete, I will make a determination based on the evidence and arguments presented. Court will reconvene in 30 minutes to address these matters."

"Mr. Wright, I appreciate your enthusiasm and your reminder of the flexibility within Rule 702. However, let's get a few things straight. While it may be 'a simple courtesy' to submit a Curriculum Vitae, it is also a standard practice that promotes transparency and fairness. Courts aren't in the habit of making decisions based on surprises, and we're not about to start now. Opposing counsel objected because have a right to prepare for an expert witness. Just because they could guess that you might call Captain Guanti as an expert doesn't mean they should be left to rely on their crystal ball. Legal procedures are in place to ensure both sides are on equal footing, not to keep anyone on their toes with last-minute revelations. You mentioned 'natural justice.' Natural justice includes the right to a fair trial, which means following procedures that ensure both sides can adequately present their cases. I raised the issue to prevent any claims of unfairness later on. So, if you want Captain Guanti recognized as an expert witness, you will do it by the book. Provide the necessary foundation for his qualifications, give opposing counsel the opportunity to review and prepare, and we will proceed accordingly. We won't cut corners just because you think the rules are a courtesy. Now, I suggest you use this time wisely. We're taking a 30-minute recess so you can get your ducks in a row. Court is adjourned until then."

"Mr. Wright, I appreciate your arguments, but there are specific legal standards and procedural requirements that must be adhered to in this court. First, regarding your request to waive notification to opposing counsel for the admission of an expert witness and the requirement to present a Curriculum Vitae, I must deny this request. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Federal Rules of Evidence require that opposing counsel be notified of the intention to call an expert witness and be provided with the expert's qualifications in advance. This ensures that all parties have a fair opportunity to prepare for cross-examination and to challenge the expert's qualifications if necessary. Allowing such a waiver without proper notice and documentation would be prejudicial to the defense. Second, as for establishing Captain Guanti as an expert witness, this must be done following the proper procedures. You will need to lay the foundation for his qualifications on the record, and I will make a determination based on that foundation and any objections raised by opposing counsel. Lastly, regarding question seventeen, the potential relevance of Mr. Castillo's demeanor during the interview does not directly pertain to the primary issue of whether his Garrity rights were violated. The question about his respectfulness does not sufficiently narrow the focus to the legality of the interrogation process itself. Therefore, I stand by my earlier decision to sustain the objection to question seventeen. You may proceed with the questions that have been permitted, and if you wish to establish Captain Guanti as an expert witness, you must follow the proper procedures for doing so."

"Let's go through the objections one by one. I'll make a ruling on each of the contested questions. Question 13: "Can you identify the location of the interrogation?" "Objection overruled. The location of the interrogation is relevant to understanding the context and environment in which Mr. Castillo's rights were read and whether he felt free to leave." Question 14: "How was the room arranged, was Stefan and yourself closer to the door or was the Internal Affairs representatives closest to the door?" "Objection overruled. The arrangement of the room can speak to the psychological atmosphere of the interrogation, which is relevant to whether Mr. Castillo felt free to leave." Question 15: "How would you, personally in your lay opinion describe the atmosphere of the room?" "Objection overruled. The witness's lay opinion on the atmosphere of the room can be helpful to understand the environment during the interrogation, and it is admissible under Rule 701(a) of the Federal Rules of Evidence." Question 16: "In your perspective did you feel that Stefan Castillo as his representative had an opportunity to leave?" "Objection overruled. This is admissible as lay witness testimony under Rule 701(a) of the Federal Rules of Evidence. The witness's perspective on whether Mr. Castillo felt he had the opportunity to leave is relevant to the issue of whether Mr. Castillo's rights were properly upheld." Question 17: "Did Mr. Castillo in your opinion respond respectfully to the questions being asked of him?" "Objection sustained. This question appears to be immaterial to the issue of whether Mr. Castillo's Garrity rights were violated. The respectfulness of Mr. Castillo's responses does not directly pertain to the alleged coercion or improper conduct by the Sheriff's Department." Question 18: "In your experience as a supervisor did the questioning of Mister Castillo conform to the norms of what you would expect?" "Objection sustained. While the norms of questioning might be relevant, this question borders on expert testimony, which the witness has not been qualified to provide under Rule 702. Mr. Wright, if you wish to pursue this line of questioning, you may need to present Captain Guanti as an expert witness under Rule 702, with the appropriate foundation laid." "The witness is instructed to answer all questions except questions seventeen and eighteen." @GriffinT

"Counsel for the Plaintiff, Regarding your request to summon Stefan Castillo's union representative, James Guanti, to testify at trial, the court acknowledges the potential relevance of his testimony given his role in representing Sergeant Castillo during the administrative proceedings. The court hereby grants the Plaintiff’s request to subpoena James Guanti as a witness. The subpoena will compel his attendance and testimony, provided that his knowledge pertains directly to the issues at hand, such as the department's policies on administrative leave and the actions taken against Sergeant Castillo." @GriffinT

“Thank you, Mr. Wright. Welcome to my courtroom. In terms of procedure, please adhere to the following: You are permitted to utilize the well of the court, but please do so respectfully and avoid any unnecessary movements that might disrupt the proceedings. When presenting exhibits or evidence, please ensure they are properly marked and that opposing counsel has had an opportunity to review them. Maintain professionalism at all times, addressing the court and witnesses respectfully. If you have any specific needs or require clarification on any procedures during the trial, do not hesitate to ask. You may proceed, Mr. Wright.”

“Counselors, pleasure ensure that all witnesses are sworn in and that all evidence presented is clearly marked and submitted to the court.” ”Mr. Wright, please call your first witness and proceed with your case-in-chief.”

"I have reviewed your request to add Sergeant Elise Crawford as a witness in this case. Sergeant Crawford, as head of the Internal Affairs Division of the Los Santos County Sheriff's Department, is central to several allegations and claims put forth by the Plaintiff. Given the significance of Sergeant Crawford's role and the potential relevance of her testimony to the issues at hand, the court finds it appropriate to grant the Plaintiff's request to add Sergeant Elise Crawford as a witness. However, both parties are reminded of their obligations under the rules of evidence and procedural rules governing witness testimony. Sergeant Crawford's testimony should be directly relevant to the claims and defenses raised in this case. Additionally, the Plaintiff is instructed to coordinate with the court and opposing counsel regarding the logistics of Sergeant Crawford's testimony, including scheduling. Accordingly, the Plaintiff is granted permission to add Sergeant Elise Crawford as a witness. Please proceed with the necessary arrangements and inform the court of any further developments."

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS COUNTY OF LOS SANTOS STEFAN CASTILLO, Plaintiff, v. LOS SANTOS COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, Defendant. Case Number: LCS-CV-2024-001 DENIAL OF FORMAL OBJECTION AND REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION The Court has reviewed the Plaintiff's formal objection and request for reconsideration regarding the denial of summary judgment. The Plaintiff argues that summary judgment should have been granted because there is no genuine dispute of material fact and the Plaintiff is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, citing Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 56. The Plaintiff contends that both parties agree on the genuine material facts and that the Plaintiff is entitled to judgment based on plain evidence already before the Court. Specifically, the Plaintiff disputes that the administrative leave was solely due to refusal to participate in a field interview. In response, the Defendant cites the Los Santos County Sheriff's Department Manual of Policy and Procedures (MPP), Section 3-01/010.10, which outlines various methods of discipline within the Department, including suspension as a disciplinary measure when warranted: Upon review of the arguments and evidence presented, the Court finds that significant issues requiring factual determination remain unresolved. Specifically, there are material disputes regarding the circumstances leading to Mr. Castillo's administrative leave and the adequacy of warnings provided during the investigative interview, which necessitate a thorough examination at trial. Accordingly, the Plaintiff's formal objection and request for reconsideration of the denial of summary judgment is DENIED. SO ORDERED. Dated this 10th day of July, 2024. /s/ Hockenbeyer Honorable Martin Hockenbeyer Superior Court Judge of San Andreas

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS COUNTY OF LOS SANTOS STEFAN CASTILLO, Plaintiff, v. LOS SANTOS COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, Defendant. Case Number: LCS-CV-2024-001 ORDER ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND MOTION TO DISMISS This matter is before the Court on two motions: the Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment and the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. The Court has thoroughly reviewed the submissions, including arguments and supporting documents presented by both parties. Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment The Plaintiff, Stefan Castillo, argues for summary judgment on the grounds that there is no dispute of material fact and that the Plaintiff is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The key points raised by the Plaintiff are as follows: Unlawful Detention and Lack of Warnings: Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant, Los Santos County Sheriff's Department, conducted an unlawful detention of Mr. Castillo without providing Miranda or Garrity warnings, during a use of force field interview following an officer-involved shooting. Reasonable Person Standard: Plaintiff contends that a reasonable person in Mr. Castillo's position would not believe they were free to leave during the questioning. Furthermore, Plaintiff argues that Mr. Castillo should have been afforded the same rights as any citizen under investigation for a shooting. Fear of Incrimination: The Plaintiff argues that Mr. Castillo was under a reasonable fear of both criminal and administrative incrimination, which justified the need for Garrity warnings during the field interview. Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss The Defendant, Los Santos County Sheriff's Department, seeks to dismiss the case on the following grounds: Lack of Cause of Action: The Defendant argues that the Plaintiff has failed to present sufficient evidence to support his claims, even after being given access to a confidential, ongoing investigative file. No Merit in Pursuing the Case: The Defendant highlights that the Plaintiff's attorney initially saw no merit in the case, and that the Plaintiff did not respond within the 24-hour period granted by the Court. In evaluating the Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment, the Court considers the precedent set by Garrity v. New Jersey, 385 U.S. 493 (1967), which established that public employees cannot be compelled to incriminate themselves during investigatory interviews conducted by their employers. This protection extends to administrative as well as criminal proceedings. The Court also considers Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), which requires that individuals be informed of their rights during custodial interrogations. The Plaintiff has provided substantial arguments suggesting that Mr. Castillo's rights under Garrity were violated due to the lack of warnings provided during the use of force field interview. The fact that the Defendant acknowledges the purpose of the interview was to potentially recommend an investigation supports the claim that Mr. Castillo was under a reasonable threat of administrative incrimination. Regarding the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, the Court acknowledges the argument concerning the Plaintiff's lack of response and the potential compromise of an ongoing investigation. However, the Court must also ensure that the fundamental rights of individuals are not overshadowed by procedural deficiencies. Court’s Decision After careful consideration, the Court rules as follows: Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment: The Court finds that there are significant issues of material fact concerning the nature of Mr. Castillo's administrative detention and the adequacy of warnings provided during the interview. These issues warrant a full hearing rather than a summary judgment at this stage. Therefore, the Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED. Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss: While the Plaintiff has faced challenges in presenting evidence, the allegations concerning potential rights violations are serious and require further examination. As such, the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss is DENIED. The Court hereby orders that this case proceed to trial to resolve the outstanding factual disputes and ensure a fair determination of the claims presented. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated this 10th day of July, 2024. /s/ Hockenbeyer Honorable Martin Hockenbeyer Superior Court Judge of San Andreas @Kotwica @Michael

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS COUNTY OF LOS SANTOS STEFAN CASTILLO, Plaintiff, v. LOS SANTOS COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, Defendant. Case Number: LCS-CV-2024-001 ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO MODIFY COUNSEL This matter is before the Court on the Plaintiff's Motion to Modify Counsel. Upon consideration of the motion, the Court finds that: The Plaintiff, Stefan Castillo, has requested a modification of counsel. The Plaintiff seeks to have Donald Wright, an attorney barred and licensed in the San Fierro courts, represent him on a temporary license. Attorney Donald Wright has affirmed, under penalty of perjury, that the information contained in the motion is truthful to the best of his knowledge. Granting the motion would not cause undue delay or prejudice to any party involved in the case. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that: The Plaintiff’s Motion to Modify Counsel is GRANTED. Donald Wright is hereby permitted to represent the Plaintiff, Stefan Castillo, in this case on a temporary license. Donald Wright shall be granted the same privileges and responsibilities as any attorney duly licensed to practice in the courts of San Andreas for the duration of his representation in this matter. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated this 10th day of July, 2024. /s/ Hockenbeyer Honorable Martin Hockenbeyer Superior Court Judge of San Andreas

"Given the seriousness of this motion, we will defer a decision until the Plaintiff has had an opportunity to respond. Sergeant Castillo, the Defense is requesting dismissal of your case. Do you wish to file a written response to this motion?" @ScubaStef

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF SAN ANDREAS Stefan Castillo, Plaintiff, v. Los Santos County Sheriff's Department, Defendant. Case Number: LCS-CV-2024-001 Date: 08-07-2024 This Court is in receipt of a request from Attorney Ari Levy to withdraw from representing Plaintiff, Stefan Castillo, in this case. A trial date has been set, and the Court is nearing the commencement of the trial proceedings. Attorney Levy's desire to withdraw from representation raises concerns about the Plaintiff's ability to proceed effectively at trial. The Plaintiff has the right to be represented by legal counsel of his choosing. However, he also has the right to proceed pro se (self-represented) if he so chooses. Order to Show Cause IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Attorney Ari Levy appear before this Court within twenty-four (24) hours to show cause why his withdrawal request should be granted. Notice to Plaintiff Plaintiff, Stefan Castillo, is hereby notified of the following: Attorney Ari Levy's request to withdraw from representing him in this case. The potential consequences of Attorney Levy's withdrawal, including the complexities of representing oneself in a legal proceeding. His right to object to Attorney Levy's withdrawal. His right to seek new legal representation. His right to proceed pro se (self-represented) if he chooses not to secure new legal counsel. The Court strongly recommends that Plaintiff seek new legal representation given the complexities of this case and the importance of effective legal representation for a fair trial. A copy of this Order shall be served on Attorney Ari Levy and the Plaintiff, Stefan Castillo, via certified mail at their last known addresses. SO ORDERED. Martin Hockenbeyer Superior Judge

"Sergeant Castillo and Attorney Levy, we have addressed all the motions presented before the court. Is the Plaintiff prepared to proceed with opening statements?" @ScubaStef @Levy

"Mister Castillo, I appreciate your desire to raise these concerns personally. However, it's important to remember that complex legal matters are often best addressed by an attorney who can navigate the intricacies of court procedures and legal arguments." "While you have the right to self-representation, it can be a challenging process. Ensuring all your arguments are presented effectively and following proper legal protocol can be difficult without legal expertise." "If your concerns require a formal motion, please submit it to the court for review before we proceed." "If your concerns relate to matters best addressed during trial, such as the evidence or arguments, I encourage you to raise them during your opening statement or cross-examination." @Michael @ScubaStef

Our faction is currently in an invite-only phase. So if you wish to join, you'll need to fully approach us in character. But before you jump into roleplaying with us, kindly create a ticket on our Discord and show your interest in joining our faction. Click on the image below to join our discord.

>>