Kotwica

"The notification has been received by the court. Have you been contacted by anyone in LSPD or heard anything about this case?" @Raven @nfr.ai

Superior Court of San Andreas County of Los Santos Civil Division Case Name: Mark Lim v. Los Santos Police Department Case Number: 24-CV-1036 This court issues the following orders: 1. Assignment of Docket Number The case is provisionally assigned the docket number 24-CV-1036, pending implementation of the Unified Docket System. When a new docket number is available, this court will notify all parties. 2. Order to Serve Parties Xavier Castenda, is ordered to serve the Los Santos Police Department, the Defendant, with process notifying him of this proceeding. The Defendant is to be notified in-person, by mail, by email, or by another suitable form of service that gives reasonable notice to the defendant within 10 days prior to the scheduled date for the beginning of proceedings. (( Send as a PM to all parties and include the assigned Judge. )) 3. Scheduling of Proceedings This case is scheduled to proceed to pre-trial motions four days after the serving of parties. The judge to oversee this case will be assigned at a later time when resources permit. This date is subject to change with at least 14 days of notice to all parties. The parties are further ordered to preserve and take reasonable steps to prevent the destruction of all relevant evidence. Witnesses are ordered to remain in the state beginning 10 days before the beginning of proceedings through the final disposition of this matter. The parties are additionally ordered to begin the process of disclosure issuing subpoenas pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 45, and the clerk shall issue any necessary subpoenas to facilitate this process. Copies of all subpoenas shall be filed with this court. SO ORDERED. Dated: November 15th, 2024 /s/ Jeffrey Berd Magistrate, Civil Division, 2nd District Superior Court of San Andreas (( @nrf.ai ))

"The court has been delivered proof of service of process."

(( @almightybounter, @Userone, @Fabi, @ScubaStef ))

Donald J. Wright v. Judge Martin Hockenbeyer Case Number: YY-XNNN Prepared by: Donald J. Wright, pro se. CIVIL CASE BRIEF FOR PLAINTIFF _______________________________________________ Comes now, Donald J. Wright, for and behalf of himself and the citizens of the State of San Andreas whom deserve all rights afforded to them under the U.S. Constitution brings suit against Judge Martin Hockenbeyer ("Martin Hockenbeyer"). Argument 1. Martin Hockenbeyer, is an employee of the Judiciary of San Andreas, assigned to this Los Santos County Courthouse. 2. Martin Hockenbeyer, either presides or presided over Stefan Castillo v. Los Santos County Sheriff's Department, and Michelle Jefferson vs Los Santos Police Department, cases before this court. 3. These cases are the cause of action for this complaint, establishing the proper jurisdiction and venue for this complaint. 4. In Stefan Castillo v. Los Santos County Sheriff’s Department, from August 19 through September 28, Judge Hockenbeyer without notice to the plaintiff of whom I represented took an unexplained hiatus, effectively diminishing my income as I was unable to take additional cases due to a trial. 5. In Michelle Jefferson v. Los Santos Police Department, Judge Hockenbeyer has engaged in the same activity of taking an unexplained hiatus from October 19 through the time of filing, resulting in economic damage to myself, and my co-counsel in being unable to take additional cases. 6. Judge Hockenbeyer has utilized artificial intelligence through mechanisms such as ChatGPT or alike to render judicial decisions, violating public trust, and breaching his duty of care. 7. Judge Hockenbeyer has a duty as a judge to both the plaintiff and defendant of any case to (1) preside over trials, (2) interpret laws, (3) ensure fairness, (4) manage evidence, (5) sentence a criminal defendant (one can infer that awarding judgments would be sunonimous with sentencing). See In re Murchison, 349 U.S. 133 (1955), see also Gideon v. Wainright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963), Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., 556 U.S. 868 (2009), Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986), Alderman v. United States, 394 U.S. 165 (1968). 8. Duty of care is violated when a judge does not act like similar professionals in same customs and affairs in that area. 9. The standard of care for a judge is clearly outlined in Code of Conduct for United States Judges, see Canon 2, Performance of Judicial Duties, and Canon 3, Fairness and Impartiality. 10. A suit is permitted against Judge Martin Hockenbeyer under Mireles v. Waco, 509 U.S. 9 (1991), and Title 42 U.S.C. § 1983 as Judge Martin Hockenbeyer’s actions have a Constitutional consequence on due process. Additionally, as there is no Judicial Ethical Commission in San Andreas, as such this court is the sole remedy for rectifying and establishing precedent of such negligence. 11. The Plaintiff also demands special damages in the amount of $250,000.00, and that Judge Hockenbeyer receive a public censure and or dismissal from office. Witness List (1) Judge Hockenbeyer (named defendant). (2) Judge Robleto (3) Stefan Castillo (4) Michelle Jefferson _______________________________________________ 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 02 day of November, 2024 by: /s/ Donald J. Wright Plaintiff, pro se.

SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS COUNTY OF LOS SANTOS CIVIL DIVISION Case Name: Donald J. Wright v. Judge Martin Hockenbeyer, in his personal and official capacity Plaintiff Attorney: Donald J. Wright (pro se) CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET _______________________________________________ 1. Check one box below that best describes this case: Personal Torts [ ] Assault, battery, or unlawful contact [ ] False imprisonment [ ] Intentional infliction of emotional distress [ ] Deprivation of rights under color of law Negligent Torts [X] Breach of duty [ ] Negligent infliction of emotional distress [X] Professional or Medical Negligence Property Torts [ ] Trespassing or Conversion [ ] Nuisance [ ] Theft [ ] Detainder Dignitary Torts [ ] Defamation (Slander or Libel) [ ] Invasion of privacy [ ] Breach of confidence [ ] Abuse of process [ ] Malicious prosecution [ ] Alienation of affections Business Torts [ ] Fraud [ ] Tortious interference [ ] Conspiracy [ ] Restraint of trade [ ] Passing off Contracts [ ] Breach of Contract [ ] Collections Judicial Review [ ] Denial or Revocation of Business License [ ] Denial or Revocation of Firearms License 2. List any damages sustained or fees accrued. Include billing rate for attorneys, expert witnesses, etc. $250,000.00 for attorney fees and travel as a result of the breach of duty. _______________________________________________ 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 02 day of November, 2024 by: /S/ Donald J. Wright Donald J. Wright Plaintiff, pro se.

Donald J. Wright stands. "Not that the court is present, nor will it be seemingly for the foreseeable future. The plaintiff is meeting with the LSSD for the purpose of a potential resolution. It's likely that this court is incapable of resolving these issues. However, the default is still an item this court will need to rule on."

Donald J. Wright rises. "To make a record since it appears our judge has decided to vanish without telling anyone where he is going. Is this court prepared to do anything besides waste our time? It's over a week since this court did anything, you have multiple outstanding motions after rushing the plaintiff to trial. You rushed us, for what? To be another bureaucrat and delay due process? This is becoming a habitual occurrence with this court, namely this judge who in a previous case with the same government agency did the same thing. I am disappointed in the absurd biasness that this court has shown, and continues to show by their lack of sound reasoning, lack of proper judgment, and their lack of showing up like any other citizen and work a normal job, this has to stop." (( @almightybounter, @NotCraft, @Jacob Rabinowitz ))

"The plaintiff will be unable to agree to any such delay. This court has prematurely forced this case to move forward, as a result we are being forced to make arguments without proper time for discovery. This court was not satisfied with our filing, and through mental gymnastics moved a case to oral arguments without allowing time for proper discovery under the threat of dismissing the case on their own accord. Mister Silverman, from attorney-to-attorney I apologize for the unprecedented, and ludicrous pressure this court is putting you through because of their erroneous, and to quote this court "idiotic" decisions. However we will be forced to file a motion to compel if you are unable to get us everything we requested within the next 24 hours." (( @NotCraft, @almightybounter, @Jacob Rabinowitz ))

Michelle Jefferson v. City of Los Santos, Alexander Blair, Los Santos Police Department, Samuel Gonzales, Los Santos County Sheriff’s Department, and Roderick Hayward, in their official capacities, Amber Moore, Christopher Kaminski, and Marvin Low, in their individual and official capacities Case Number: 24-CV-1034 Prepared by: Donald J. Wright MOTION FOR THE COURT TO TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE _______________________________________________ Comes now, the plaintiff requests this court in accordance with Federal Rules of Evidence 201, a motion for the court to take judicial notice of the binding authority of the following cases on this court, and that such binding authority is not waivable, and deviation from the laws they establish would be a violation of binding precedent. Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989) Torres v. Madrid, 592 U.S. ___ (2021) Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325 (1983) Heien v. North Carolina, 574 U.S. 54 (2014) United States v. Grace, 461 U.S. 171 (1983) Gitlow v. New York, 268 U.S. 652 (1925) Cox v. New Hampshire, 312 U.S. 569 (1941) Hague v. Committee for Industrial Organization, 307 U.S. 496 (1939) Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547 (1967) Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1982) Feiner v. New York, 340 U.S. 315 (1951) Smith v. Wade, 461 U.S. 30 (1983) Monell v. Department of Soc. Svcs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978) Florida v. Jardines, 569 U.S. 1 (2013) Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 (1980) United States v. Santana, 427 U.S. 38 (1976) Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961) Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263 (1999) Armstrong v. Toler, 24 U.S. 258 (1826) The court is hereby requested to develop and deliver the order with notice to all parties. _______________________________________________ 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 19 day of October, 2024 /s/ d..j47 Donald J. Wright (( @almightybounter, @NotCraft, @Jacob Rabinowitz ))

Michelle Jefferson v. City of Los Santos, Alexander Blair, Los Santos Police Department, Samuel Gonzales, Los Santos County Sheriff’s Department, and Roderick Hayward, in their official capacities, Amber Moore, Christopher Kaminski, and Marvin Low, in their individual and official capacities Case Number: 24-CV-1034 Prepared by: Donald J. Wright MOTION FOR THE SEQUESTERING OF WITNESSES _______________________________________________ Comes now, the plaintiff requests this court in accordance with Federal Rules of Evidence 615, a standing motion is hereby filed with the court for a rule 615 motion. The court is hereby requested to develop and deliver the order with notice to all parties. _______________________________________________ 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 19 day of October, 2024 /s/ dj47 Donald J. Wright (( @almightybounter, @NotCraft, @Jacob Rabinowitz ))

Michelle Jefferson v. City of Los Santos, Alexander Blair, Los Santos Police Department, Samuel Gonzales, Los Santos County Sheriff’s Department, and Roderick Hayward, in their official capacities, Amber Moore, Christopher Kaminski, and Marvin Low, in their individual and official capacities Case Number: 24-CV-1034 Prepared by: Donald J. Wright MOTION FOR THE ISSUANCE OF SUBPOENAS FOR TESTIMONY _______________________________________________ Comes now, the plaintiff requests this court in accordance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 45(c) to issue the following subpoenas for the testimony of the following employees of the Los Santos Sheriff's Department: (1) Roderick Hayward (2) Christopher Kaminski (3) Marvin Low Additionally, the same request aforementioned is requested for the following employees of Octopussy Gentlemen's Club: (1) Michelle Jefferson (2) Kimberly Washington (3) Adir Havshush The court is hereby requested to develop and deliver the order with notice to all parties. _______________________________________________ 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 19 day of October, 2024 /s/ dj47 Donald J. Wright CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of this Motion for Issuance of Subpoena was served on all parties involved in this case on October 19, 2024. /s/ dj47 (( @NotCraft, @almightybounter, @Jacob Rabinowitz ))

Michelle Jefferson v. City of Los Santos, Alexander Blair, Los Santos Police Department, Samuel Gonzales, Los Santos County Sheriff’s Department, and Roderick Hayward, in their official capacities, Amber Moore, Christopher Kaminski, and Marvin Low, in their individual and official capacities Case Number: 24-CV-1034 Prepared by: Donald J. Wright MOTION FOR THE ISSUANCE OF DUCES TECUM SUBPEONAS _______________________________________________ Comes now, the plaintiff requests this court in accordance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 45(c) to issue the following subpoenas against the Los Santos Sheriffs Department: I. Full unredacted internal affairs files/personnel files/training files for: (1) Roderick Hayward (2) Christopher Kaminski (3) Marvin Low II. Training documents related to Constitutional Rights. III. Procedures related to Constitutional Rights. IV. Training documents related to arrest procedures. V. Procedures related to arrest procedures. VI. Dates of when each procedure went into effect. VII. All eyewitness accounts. VIII. All arrest records relating to Michelle Jefferson’s arrests stemming from these events. IX. All inventory records from custodial searches on Michelle Jefferson stemming from these events. X. All CCTV/video tapes of Pershing Square on the applicable dates. XI. Any and all dashcam footage from LSSD vehicles stemming from these events. The court is hereby requested to develop and deliver the order with notice to all parties. _______________________________________________ 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 19 day of October, 2024 /s/ dj47 Donald J. Wright CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of this Motion for Issuance of Subpoena was served on all parties involved in this case on October 19, 2024. /s/ dj47 (( @NotCraft, @almightybounter, @Jacob Rabinowitz ))

"The plaintiff has not yet been paid. We have been in communication with the defense and have no reason to believe they will not pay. We will inform the court once that payment has been received." (( @Michael, @almightybounter ))

"It is a barrier to proceeding to trial as any case theory relies on what is received from a subpoena. Also, it would unfairly prejudice the defense if we proceeded to trial without giving them notice of our findings under Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 26. This case is still well within discovery. As for your response to allocation, I will assist the court in narrowing my question. It appears this is a novel issue, and the legislative branch is silent - what theory of negligence does this court adopt?" (( @NotCraft @almightybounter @Jacob Rabinowitz ))