Kotwica

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 ))

Donald Wright rises again. "Thank you for the long, profound, eloquent, albeit it circular admonishment. Three items the plaintiff wishes to raise. First, the plaintiff is informing the court for a fourth time that we plan on utilizing subpoenas which is a pre-trial filing, commencing the court case is premature. The court was put on ample notice of our intent. Second, the plaintiff is requesting clarification based off of the courts previous statement regarding liability and damages, or outline this two-fold approach. Third, the plaintiff also requests the court to outline how damages would be allocated if we are plaintiff is successful as there are differing theories. Thank you." (( @almightybounter, @NotCraft, @Jacob Rabinowitz ))

Donald Wright rises. "Do you hear yourself? You are raising arguments on behalf of the Defense that they failed to raise during their initial filing. As my co-counsel has stated multiple times, we have met all requirements under Rule 8, full stop. Your bickering is doing nothing but prejudicing our client and our position. By these actions you showing that this court cannot handle a simple tortfeasor case. To your statement of taking an issue under advisement, no one made a legal argument to you, or requested you to take any item under advisement. You improperly raised an issue on your own accord and have now set it out for an unknown period of time, improperly and in doing so you are attacking the complaint well after it's filing, while there is a justiciable argument presented to the court. Look at what has been offered, a deposit slip from 2019 that establishes a payment history, payments are at issue in this case. We have alerted the court that we plan on issuing subpoenas like the majority of other tort cases to prove the controversial amount at issue. That initial payment meets the Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) plausibility standard where the United States Supreme Court only requires an initial filing to be "plausible" on it's face. I challenge the court to find any case where damages are pled that have not been modified from filing, to the use of subpoenas, to judgment. As for your statement of "damages are distinct from liability." What does that even mean? If a party is not liable they do not owe anyone any damages, that is a basic concept of tort law. In light of this statement the plaintiff requests for the record that the court rephrase and cite to a case that proves that statement. The plaintiff is concerned that the court will misapply precedent and requests the court to clarify that statement. Additionally, what is the court referencing when it uses the term "consideration?" Consideration has a legal definition that is found in contract law that is wholly unapplicable to the case before this court. The court should be aware for purposes of the record that they should refrain from using terminology that has an established legal definition and use." (( @almightybounter, @NotCraft, @Jacob Rabinowitz ))

"Your honor, a demand letter has been served upon Sophie Thyne and Elise Crawford. The notice requires payment by 10/10/2024. If payment is not completed by that date we will move for further sanctions." (( @Fabi ))

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: Plaintiff or Attorney Name MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT AS AGAINST ALEXANDER BLAIR, THE LOS SANTOS POLICE DEPARTMENT, SAMUEL GONZALEZ IN HIS INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITY, AND AMBER MOORE IN HER INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITY. _______________________________________________ Comes now, through her counsel, the plaintiff Michelle Jefferson moves for default judgment against the above mentioned parties for failing to respond to the complaint in a timely manner. The above mentioned were duly served notice of this case and Ms. Jefferson is entitled to judgment under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 37(b)(2)(v). _______________________________________________ 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 3 day of October, 2024 by: /s/ Donald J. Wright DONALD J. WRIGHT Co-Counsel for Plaintiff JACOB E. RABINOWITZ Co-Counsel for Plaintiff XAVIER CASTENDAS Lead Counsel for Plaintiff (( @almightybounter, @Cashew, @Michael, @Eren ))

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 IN OPPOSITION OF DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS _______________________________________________ Comes now, Michelle Jefferson through her counsel opposes the Defendant's motion for summary judgment. (1) Summary judgment is inappropriate Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 governs Summary Judgment. Summary judgment is only appropriate in situations where there is (1) no genuine dispute of material fact; (2) the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. In determining whether the moving party is entitled, the court must look at the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Here, the defense does not respond adequately to the twenty four claims, therefore leaving the question of material facts at issue, and the moving party is not entitled to judgment as a matter of law. (2) The Defendant's claim in I. Probable Cause Justified the Arrests and Citations are circular, and are statements not arguments. The Defendant states their opinion, lacking any specificity to their claim. Additionally, the defense does not address the claims outlined in count two and thirteen through twenty-two. Count two, and thirteen through twenty-two meet Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 8 as well pleaded complaints. Simple disagreement with the assertions does not lead to an entitlement to the motion for summary judgment. (3) The Defendant's claim of contributory negligence is an affirmative defense that requires specific pleading. The Defendant's claim of contributory negligence is an affirmative defense that requires specificity by Rule 8(c)(1), claiming such defense is a bar on a motion for summary judgment as it raises a new claim by the defense that the defense has not thoroughly pleaded and is a matter of fact which requires this court to hear the proceedings. This claim raises another question of law, therefore prohibiting summary judgment. (3) The Defendant's claim in II. Lawful Search Under Exigent Circumstances are opinions of legal interpretation, not legal conclusions. The Defendant states their opinion, lacking any specificity to their claim. Additionally, the defense does not address the claims outlined in count twenty four. Count twenty four meets Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 8 as a well pleaded complaint. Disagreement with the facts, and law pled by the plaintiff prohibits summary judgment. (4) The Defendant's claim in IV. Reasonable Restrictions on Public Assembly are opinions of legal interpretation, not legal conclusions. The Defendant does not adequately state a rebuttal to claim three through twenty four that would entitle them to a summary judgment motion, they do not thoroughly dispel the case theory of the plaintiff that was well pleaded under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 8. Disagreement with the facts, and law pled by the plaintiff prohibits summary judgment. (5) The Defendant's claim in V. No Ill Will or Malice The defendant raises a claim of no ill will or malice, this statement is not correlated to the complaint. This theory appears to be an affirmative defense which lacks specificity under Rule 8(c)(1). The Defendant's claim has no legal significance as it is a circular statement. This claim was not pled in the complaint, therefore the defenses pleading raises another issue of fact and law which prohibits summary judgment. _______________________________________________ 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 2 day of October, 2024 by: /s/ Donald J. Wright DONALD J. WRIGHT Co-Counsel for Plaintiff JACOB E. RABINOWITZ Co-Counsel for Plaintiff XAVIER CASTENDAS Lead Counsel for Plaintiff (( @almightybounter @NotCraft ))

"Your Honor, Silverman and Goldstein's Law Firm's response was untimely they were given until the end of September 30th to file, they filed their response hours after the period given to them by the court. The plaintiff is therefore entitled to a Rule 55 Default Judgment, and move for such against the Los Santos Sheriff's Department. If this request is denied, we would request an opportunity to respond to the claim for summary judgment that has been improperly filed." (( @NotCraft, @almightybounter ))

"Your Honor, it is uncustomary for a rebuttal. However, as Ms. Thyne is attacking my professional conduct I will put this on the record: The defense counsel never indicated they were going to call any witnesses in their reply, or in pretrial filings. That is a failure on Ms. Thyne, no one else. Additionally, Ms. Thyne is unaware of how evidence is to be introduced, those "filler" questions are foundation questions, the only way to bring evidence into trial. Ms. Thyne's belief was that any documents in pre-trial were somehow admitted immediately. Again, opposing counsel is unaware of the rules of court, that's no ones fault except her own. We are limited to the record created. Again, nothing of substance from opposing counsel, simply excuses. Lastly, the statement about "dragging out" is quite remarkable coming from the counsel who did not show up to court for roughly twenty days, during those twenty days made unethical communications to my client, lied about it in open court, and was reprimanded for it. Those are your actions Ms. Thyne, not mine, do not attempt to taint the record because of your incompetence." (( @Michael, @Fabi ))

"Your Honor, in our profession it is customary not to object to the opposing counsels opening or closing. However, at this point I believe that opposing counsel does not deserve the decency of customary norms. The Defense either purposefully or intentionally ignores the Supreme Courts holding in Thompson v. Keohane, 516 U.S. 99, 112 (1995), which establishes the rule and precedent "a reasonable person would have felt he or she was not at liberty to terminate the interrogation and leave." It is absolutely relevant to this case that a Captain, who is seasoned in the department, who was at the scene, who had conducted questioning himself felt he was not free to leave, meeting all of the elements of a custodial interrogation. The Defense makes mention of a lay testimony, no conclusion was given, Captain Guanti never provided a lawful conclusion that he was in a custodial interrogation, nor did the witnesses in Thompson v. Keohane. This is a ludicrous statement with no significance. Additionally, it does not matter if Stefan Castillo asked to leave the interrogation. That is not required by the Thompson ruling. Rather, the mere feeling that they are unable to leave meets the first requirement, paired with the questioning and the location of the questioning the totality of the circumstance can lead any reasonable person to believe he was not free to leave. Additionally, with Captain Guanti's statement that only adds to the presumption. We move the strike the statement "Your honour, in my personal experience I feel like I'm not free to leave when my mother in law wants me for Christmas, and dare I say no reasonable person believes they would be able to leave either - does that make it custodial by any meaning of the word?" as it is irrelevant. In the defenses hypothetical here there is no government actor, therefore of course there would be no custodial interrogation. To address the statement that the "Defense maintains that this was demonstrably not a custodial interview and was, in fact, a performance review." The defense by not calling any witnesses, cannot now choose to add defenses. This was never properly brought forth through a witness, nor was it pled. Even if it was pled timely, the evidence clearly shows Mister Castillo was questioned regarding the shooting of a person. Therefore, despite any claim of the defense, he could have been charged with a crime. If the defense refuses that claim, they again caught in an equal protections violation claim as any other person without a badge would have been afforded their Miranda warning. We raise that the defense has not raised a single case that would support any of their claims, they did not bring forth any witnesses. In their closing argument they did not rely on any of the testimony provided by the case. Rather, opposing counsel is attempting to "read in" his own interpretation of the law which is inappropriate as an attorney is not permitted to instruct any judge on the law. We request that the defense counsel be counseled as such. Thank you your Honor." (( @Fabi, @Michael ))

Stefan Castillo v. Los Santos Sheriff's Department Case Number: LCS-CV-2024-001 Prepared by: Donald J. Wright MOTION FOR JUDGEMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW _______________________________________________ Comes now, the plaintiff Stefan Castillo through his counsel moves this court to render a judgment in favor of the moving party as a matter of law. The Los Santos Sheriff's Department violated fundamental rights of Mister Castillo. When they were confronted with them, they became sheepish and refused to cooperate with the legal system. As a result, the Internal Affairs Bureau Lieutenant is not answering questions. The counsel for the Defense has drug her feet, and has lied to this court about settlements. Why? Because the evidence that would come out of this case would taint the public image of the Sheriff's Department and would show that their Internal Affairs, and Executive Staff are clueless on how to conduct lawful interrogations. Judgement as a Matter of Law is appropriate in circumstances where there is (1) no genuine dispute of a material fact; (2) the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Argument One: Stefan Castillo, despite the Los Santos Sheriff's Departments effort to prove otherwise was in a custodial interrogation resulting from discharging his firearm and his questioning required him to be read his Miranda Rights. Law Enforcement Officers do not lose the rights afforded to any person within the United States, they do not receive a watered down version of Constitutional Rights. Garrity v. New Jersey, 385 U.S. 493 (1967). In any other circumstance besides the fact that this was a police officer involved shooting, any other person in public would have been afforded their Miranda Warning. This court has an obligation to ensure that law enforcement officers are afforded their Miranda Rights when involved in an officer involved shooting as the elements of a criminal act have been committed, and until proven otherwise are deemed a homicide. This state's law enforcement agencies have time and time again utilized an administrative warning to conduct a dual purpose investigation. The transcript of the interrogation is clear that the purpose of that investigation was the shooting of a suspect, albeit the evidence was inadmissible because of the Defenses refusal to cooperate with the lawful proceedings of this court. We offer the interrogation in this extraordinary circumstance, as we were unable due to her refusal to testify to bring in this dialogue. Here, a custodial interrogation was conducted by the Los Santos Sheriff's Department as we heard from Captain Guanti who stated he felt he was not free to go. Miranda establishes a two step process that determines when a custodial interrogation takes place. The two elements plainly are "(1) a person is in custody or feels that their otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way, (2) was questioned." Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 444 (1966). A multitude of cases were argued on whether a person is truly "in custody" or "feels that their otherwise deprived of freedom of action in a significant way." The Supreme Court determined the test to be applied is whether "a reasonable person would have felt he or she was not at liberty to terminate the interrogation and leave." Thompson v. Keohane, 516 U.S. 99, 112 (1995). Here, a seasoned Captain of the Los Santos Sheriffs Department felt that he was not free to leave. Argument Two: Mister Castillo was deprived of Equal Protection he was discriminated against because he was a law enforcement officer. Due Process is afforded to all persons who are present on American soil. Shaughnessy v. United States ex rel Mezei, 345 U.S. 206 (1953). Here, Stefan Castillo as a state government employee had a liberty interest in his job. Arnett v. Kennedy, 416 U.S. 134 (1974). This case demonstrates the fact that law enforcement involved in an officer involved shooting are not afforded the same rights as a citizen who would be in the same custodial interrogation. This liberty interest in entitled to the court's rational basis review of whether there is any lawful government interest in not affording the same protections to citizens to a law enforcement officer. Garrity v. New Jersey answers this question question that law enforcement officers do not lose rights afforded to any other person within the United States. This court is bound by that determination. Although Miranda is not a Constitutional requirement, Equal Protection is, and here the Los Santos Sheriffs Department treated Mister Castillo differently based solely on his occupation. Argument Three: The Defense has made this trial an obstacle from the beginning, depriving Mister Castillo again from Due Process. The Defense in this case have gone out of their way to prevent Mister Castillo from receiving protections owed to him, even now. Mister Castillo has not been afforded an opportunity to remedy the situation against him. The Defense has continuously undermined this court, Mister Castillo, and myself and that is evident on the record itself. Refusing to answer questions for a month, lying under oath, and now a resurgence of refusing to answer questions in a courtroom have done nothing but prolonged the suffering of my client. The actions of the defense has brought great shame upon law enforcement, and civil servants throughout this state. Due to the extraordinarily circumstances of this case, we reraise the court to consider the charge of contempt due to the defenses continual delay of due process of Mister Castillo. Additionally, we request attorney fees to be paid by the state, in addition to the amount requested in the original complaint and any other relief this court finds applicable. _______________________________________________ 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 29 day of September, 2024 by: /s/ Donald J. Wright Donald J. Wright (( @Fabi, @Michael ))

"Your Honor, at this point this case has wasted more time in my professional career than any other case has. Opposing counsel and this Lieutenant have dragged their feet long enough and it has caused this court to not have the ability to remedy the situation at hand. This witness will not answer and I ask that her refusal to testify look in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. I have waited over a month for lines of questions, and in a month I have had less than ten questions answered. The defense identify any witnesses to call which shows their complete levity of this court and my client. This court is incapable of rendering judgment at this time. We cannot finish our case in chief without this witness testifying and we have waited long enough for her to testify. We request that the Lieutenant be held in criminal contempt of court, we ask the court to reconsider the judgment against Sophia Thyne. Criminal Contempt is proper when a party "disrespects the decorum of the court, or otherwise infringes upon due process." The sole purpose of this case is a deprivation of Due Process, of the Second Amendment and the rights afforded to Mister Castillo as a government employee. What I have attempted to do is provide this court with the evidence required in order to come to that conclusion. However, the defense has purposely, willingly, and intentionally refused to answer. At this point this courtroom and case has become a total clown show. I have another case I am preparing for and if the defense doesn't want to protect liberty interests they should reevaluate their career decisions. I renew my motion for summary judgment when I took this case on. Thank you." (( @Fabi ))

"Your Honor, this witness is non-responsive. At this point we believe that the witness has refused to answer and will continue to refuse to give truthful answers. We ask that the witness be struck and that any testimony that the witness could have gave be viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff under the spoliation doctrine." (( @Fabi, @Kayayday, @Michael ))

DONALD J WRIGHT ASKED ABOUT A CASE DURING HIS TENURE AS A PROSECUTOR:

** Donald stands as Jacob presents a physical copy to the court after e-filing. Donald welcomes Jacob back to his seat before speaking. ** "Your honor, in order of expediency we ask the court to instruct the opposing counsel to answer timely so we can move onto our discovery conference. As the court sees we have requested additional witnesses and with those witnesses we expect to file a multitude of subpoenas duces tecum. Is it the preference of this court to file them individually, by person, or in totality?" (( @almightybounter ))

"Whether you are right or wrong in your situation, we got someone for you." Wright and Wong was founded in 2005 by a retired Judge, and prosecutor David J. Wright and his ex-permanent law clerk Jia Hao Wong. Donald J. Wright prides himself on providing top-tier legal service in complex litigation cases. He is a graduate of the University of Chicago School of Law where he graduated magnum cum laude, serving as the Editor of the University of Chicago's Law Review where he wrote multiple articles including a Treatise on Evidence comparing the fifty states and sixteen territories rules on evidence and compared them to the Federal Rules of Evidence. During Donald's time as a prosecutor he secured seven death sentences, and convicted multiple complex criminal schemes including RICO violations, and wire fraud cases. Jia Hao Wong, Donald J. Wright's previous law clerk was also a graduate of the University of Chicago. He returned to China in 2020 where he died of an unknown respiratory disease believed to have come from bats. If you believe Wright and Wong Law can help you, please feel free to contact us for an at-cost consultation. Thank you for reading, Donald.