Kotwica

"Honorable Clerk, the document that was filed notates "Motion for" that should be struck and replaced with "Notice of" as the Court of Appeals has ruled in our favor. With that, good afternoon Donald J. Wright from Wright and Wong Law Firm for Ms. Jefferson."

"Your Honor, a client has a right to counsel of their own choosing. The term counsel does not refer to a singular person. Additionally, there is only a notice requirement, an attorney does not need permission to take a case or add themselves onto a case, that is a contractual arrangement between the attorneys and the plaintiff or defendant. The Supreme Court has outlined limited circumstances where counsel can be "denied" and that relies on the grounds of compromising loyalty, or competence. This court has no right to deny such counsel, your argument about delaying trial is not ripe for judgment as it has not occurred in this case. We request a motion to reconsider or I will file a motion to stay the proceedings until the Court of Appeals rules on the issue. Thank you." (( @almightybounter ))

Michelle Jefferson v. Los Santos Police Department Case Number: 24-CV-1034 Prepared by: Donald J. Wright and Jacob Ezekiel Rabinowitz III. MOTION FOR ADDITION OF COUNSEL _______________________________________________ Comes now, Donald J. Wright and Jacob E. Rabinowitz III after approval from the plaintiff, request the court record reflect the addition of counsel. Mr. Wright and Mr. Rabinowitz are acting pro bono in this matter for the sole purpose of protecting the citizens of the United States who choose to express their dissatisfaction with their government, including that of protesting. Arrangements have been made with the current listed counsel and we have his consent as well. _______________________________________________ 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 18 day of September, 2024 by: /s/ Donald J. Wright Donald J. Wright on behalf of himself and Jacob Ezekiel Rabinowitz III. (( @almightybounter ))

"Your honor, we would request you instruct the witness to answer." (( @Kayayday, @Michael, @Fabi ))

"Q38. Did you keep notes of your conversation with Mister Castillo? Q39. If you kept notes, what did they say? Q40. At what point did you conclude your initial investigation with Mister Castillo? Q41. At what point did you refer this incident to a formal investigation? Q42. According to your own statement you had no impression, why did you refer this to a formal investigation? Q43. What is your understanding of a law enforcement officers rights? Do they lose any rights that normal citizens have when being questioned? Q44. How did you inform Mister Castillo that he was to attend a second interview? Q45. What time did that second interview occur?" (( @Kayayday, @Michael, @Fabi ))

“Q29. What did the pager say Lieutenant? Q30. What did you and Stefan Castillo discuss? Q31. What was your impression of Mr. Castillo? Q32. Why did you select Mr Castillo as opposed to the other individuals on scene to speak to? Q33. When you spoke to Mr Castillo did you intend to conduct an investigation? Q34. Did you Mirandize or Garrity warn Mr Castillo in the hospital? Q35. What if anything did Mr Castillo admit to or deny during your conversation at All Saints? Q36. Did you request an interview in a different location? If so, where? Q37. When did you request a second interview?” (( @Kayayday, @Michael, @Fabi ))

"Your Honor, as the witness approaches the stand - permission to treat the witness as hostile?" (( @Fabi, @Michael ))

"Your Honor, if you have made a ruling on damages and contempt there is no point to compel. What is ridiculous is the amount of times the opposing counsel has attempted to mislead this court and myself the record will indicate as such. My client contacting anyone has nothing to do with opposing counsel stating that they didn't communicate with him blatantly. Your Honor we have 150 or so questions to get through with the witness that was previously called before opposing counsel decided to take weeks off without making mention of it. We ask you recall the witness for the purpose of examination." (( @Michael, @Fabi ))

Stefan Castillo v. Los Santos County Sheriff's Department Case Number: LCS-CV-2024-001 Prepared by: Donald J. Wright MOTION FOR CONTEMPT OF COURT OF SOPHIE THYNE _______________________________________________ Comes now, through the Plaintiff's counsel the Plaintiff moves this honorable court to hold the Defense Attorney, Sophie Thyne a representative of the Los Santos County Sheriff's Department while employed by the Los Santos Police Department in contempt of court. Sophie Thyne in her representation has provided false information misleading both this court and the Plaintiff counsel for personal gain. On multiple occasions Sophie Thyne has changed the Defendant's position relating to a settlement conference. It has been brought to light that Sophie Thyne on behalf of the Los Santos Sheriff's Department has violated Model Rule of Professional Responsibility Rule 4.2 by contacting Stefan Castillo while knowing he is being represented by an attorney. Sophie Thyne refused to acknowledge that she transmitted a settlement document to Stefan Castillo on August 24th. Instead, Sophie Thyne made multiple assertions to this court that she did not provide any documentation or communicate with Stefan Castillo, rather she was preparing a document on behalf of the Los Santos Sheriff's Department Executive Staff. This behavior disrespected the decorum of the court, and infringed upon due process of the plaintiff. On September 14th Sophie Thyne offered a document to the court which listed a member of the Los Santos Sheriff's Department Executive Staff in the address line. The Defense was made aware that this document was familiar to the plaintiff who provided an e-mail received from Sophie Thyne identical to the offered document. The plaintiff produced this document and the document was admitted as Plaintiff Exhibit Two. As Sophie Thyne has violated the Model Rules of Professional Conduct 3.3 Candor toward the Tribunal, 3.4 Fairness to Opposing Party and Counsel, 3.5 Impartiality and Decorum of the Tribunal, 4.1 Truthfulness in Statements to Others, 4.2 Communications with Person Represented by Counsel, and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 11 Signing Pleadings, Motions, and Other Papers; Representations to the Court; Sanctions, specifically 11(b). The plaintiff moves this prays that this court will impose a warrant for arrest on Sophie Thyne for violating San Andreas Criminal Code 622 Contempt of Court. _______________________________________________ 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 14 day of September, 2024 by: /s/ Donald J. Wright Donald J. Wright

"Your honor, with exhibit two - will the court find the defenses writing as an admission of improper conduct on behalf of their investigator as the defense has lied on the record regarding my motion to compel production? Additionally, we request that the sanctions be awarded to the plaintiff. For the purposes of appeal we object to the courts ruling of the citation as an abuse in discretion." (( @Fabi, @Michael ))

** Donald motions to his paralegal who approaches with a uPad. Donald looks at it as he speaks. ** "Your Honor, let's do exactly what opposing counsel referenced. On August 28th we were notified that the defendant in this matter was seeking to settle the claim. However, Plaintiff Exhibit 2 shows the transmitting four days earlier on the 24. When I raised that this was a violation of Rule 4.2 opposing counsel on the 28th stated: "We would like to ask for a continuance. We are negotiating an out of court settlement with Mr. Castillo as we speak and would appreciate the time to get this finalised before we waste any more of the court's time." Emphasizing the word "we" as it identifies opposing counsel as a member of that negotiation. After this statement I raised that this violated Rule 4.2, at which point opposing counsel changes their story to: "Communications with Mr. Castillo have not been related to the subject of this lawsuit and his claim that he was unfairly terminated from employment. Opposing counsel can rest assured that we will not be communicating with Mr. Castillo about the subject of this lawsuit without going through opposing counsel, but that we reserve the right to communicate with his as a former employee of the Department about matters that may be related to - but are not - the subject of opposing counsel's representation. Any discussions with Mr. Castillo have been entirely related to the Internal Affairs Bureau's internal policies and how employees perceive them in the interest of internal reviews and changes that are happening totally independently of this case." I outlined that this statement was a contradiction of their initial statement, and the story continued, opposing counsel then stated: "Your honour, we are negotiating with the LSSD's executive staff - to make a settlement offer to Mr. Castillo. I am not authorised to make any changes myself and the Department will not just accept any change we might want to offer Mr. Castillo. If opposing counsel wishes for us to communicate through him anything that might - and I quote - "provide an appearance of relation" without it actually being directly in relation to the case, he should have asked that before. We are happy to inform Mr. Castillo that we won't be communicating with him at all regarding his own tenure as an employee of the LSSD and his experiences in his last few weeks as an employee if this is what opposing counsel wishes." We again can look at Plaintiff Exhibit Two and see that opposing counsel is lying to the court as she transmitted an e-mail to Mister Castillo stating in part "Regarding civil case number" followed by this cases assigned identifier. I then made a motion for production in which the opposing counsel responded: " "Your honour, Plaintiff's request asks for any document in relation to the settlement discussion. This includes documents that have been sent to IAB and LSSD executive staff that are not ready for viewing by Stefan Castillo or opposing counsel as negotiations are still underway internally between IAB and LSSD executive staff. I ask that the request is limited only to settlement offers actually intended for, and submitted to Mr. Castillo for consideration." Again, another factual misrepresentation. Opposing counsel transmitted the e-mail dated August 24, six days earlier, how are they not ready for viewing if it was already transmitted? Why did opposing counsel not notify me, or this court that they transmitted an offer? Opposing counsel then put on the record that I was attempting to manipulate the court. Eery to say the least. Again on August 30th opposing counsel states: "Your honour, am I to understand that Mr. Wright wants to see the working document that we are yet to finalise, that is being worked on currently with the cooperation of LSSD department management, that has not yet been submitted to Mr. Castillo for consideration? I want to reiterate - would Mr. Wright like to see a document that was proposed to the Internal Affairs Bureau that has not yet been actioned or approved, merely because I asked for - and was not granted - a continuance while we waited for LSSD department management to action this request between myself and my own client?" Yet to finalize? The item was previously transmitted, it was finalized enough to transmit to my client. If the document was previously transmitted by a timestamp in the e-mail, why are they petitioning a court for a continuance? Prior to this dialogue they remained mute with the court for two weeks. Then again today, the defense put on another factual misrepresentation in stating: "I want to make it clear again that this is an internal document sent to LSSD's executive staff through their IAB, and has not yet been approved for submission to Mr. Castillo, and in voluntarily providing this document to the court I hope that counsel for plaintiff will understand that the LSSD is acting in the interest of not only the public good but the good of Mr. Castillo himself. We are showing our hand here, counselor, I do hope that you don't take advantage of this gesture of goodwill for personal benefit and you think only of Mr. Castillo who has undoubtedly been through an ordeal. Any 'negotiations' regarding a 'settlement with Stefan Castillo' are entirely negotiations between myself and my client as I have not been authorised to make such offers on their behalf without the review and approval of my client. I want to reiterate that Mr. Castillo is not involved in any kind of settlement negotiation between myself and my client. If such private communications with my own client are a breach of ethics, I will gladly take the admonishment and apologise duly to Mr. Wright. This is, as of the 13th of September of the year 2024, the only electronic document that has been passed between myself and my client regarding this settlement negotiation. As I mentioned many times before, the department's executive staff are mulling over this document quite slowly and I am requesting the continuance specifically because of this slow progress from my client." Opposing counsel transmitted a message to my client on the 24th, the exact document that they offered to the court as a "draft negotiation." And stated that this was the ONLY electronic document that has been passed between herself and her client. She is twisting her own words to make it seem as if she abided by my request for production while failing to identify once again that she transmitted an offer to my client. Opposing counsel has put on multiple factual misrepresentations. These factual misrepresentations are in keeping with our case theory that the Los Santos Sheriff's Department performs shotty investigations, violates laws and ethical boundaries to "get the job done." However, I would never have imagined that opposing counsel, an officer of the court, would lie so many times in order to attempt to save themselves from public embarrassment or win a case. This country relies on attorneys providing all information whether it is of benefit to them or not before the court and opposing counsel. We also believe at this point opposing counsel violated Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 11, specifically 11(b). In this case there is no possible excuse for the amount of factual misrepresentations besides a motive to subvert this court, myself, and my client. We believe this goes beyond sanctions and we are prepared to file a Motion for Contempt at this time if the court so pleases. We reiterate to the court that our case theory was to prove that the defendant performs shotty investigations that undermine the rules and laws established by the Constitution and the United States Supreme Court. Opposing counsel has shown through her actions that it does not merely stop with their investigators, this behavior is prevalent all the way to the top." (( @Fabi, @Michael ))

"Your Honor, I just spoke with my client Mister Castillo. Mister Castillo has provided me with a copy of an e-mail he received on his official government e-mail address from the defense counsel. This item is identical to the proposed exhibit Plaintiff 1. We ask this exhibit be marked as Plaintiff Exhibit 2. Your honor, this is deeply troubling that an officer of the court would make a statement as unequivocally as the defense counsel has that is factually inaccurate. The representation that the defense counsel has presented to this court has been nothing but a lie. We believe that this would fall under Contempt of Court, if not Corruption of Public Office." ** Donald J. Wright hands over a freshly printed copy from the law library printer to the court. ** (( Tyler Bouc is Stefan Castillo's new LSSD character name @Michael, @Fabi)).

“Your honor, can I ask for a fifteen minute recess? I have been notified by my co counsel of an issue that needs my attention.”

“Your honor we request that the copy provided to the court be admitted as evidence as a business record marking it as exhibit Plaintiff Exhibit 1. Additionally, if no offer was made - why did we go for almost a month without any progression in this case? Why would opposing counsel put on the record they are negotiating a settlement with my client as “we speak?” The story only changed once I outlined the ethical violation. We believe a motion to compel is appropriate and ask the court to reconsider. (( @Fabi, @Michael ))

"Your Honor, Donald J. Wright for the plaintiff Mr. Stefan Castillo. I am not barred within this court but practice in San Fierro. I was given permission to practice by the previous judge. Your honor we have two issues. The first issue is that the defense has communicated with my client ex parte, without my knowledge. This is a violation of the American Bar Association Model Rules of Professional Conduct's Rule 4.2. Since this was not an agreed upon negotiation we did not waive any admissibility of the proposed settlement. As the defense violated the ethical code we believe this is keeping with the theory of our case I filed a motion to compel on August 30th requesting that the Los Santos Sheriff's Department produce all documents from any member of the opposing counsel, or the defendant organization relating to the so called settlement discussion or negotiation from August 1 through the 30th. As this court did not properly address our motion I would ask that it be extended. Additionally, we have waited a month at this point for the court to instruct the witness to answer our questions. I have roughly one hundred and fifty more questions for this witness and am conscience of the time it will take to fully examine this witness. Additionally, I will make a motion at this time for the court to admonish opposing counsel for their ethical violation, violating Rule 4.2 and at this point also Rule 3.2 as opposing counsel has been non-responsive." (( @Fabi, @Michael ))

the best

Stefan Castillo v. Los Santos County Sheriff's Department Case Number: YY-XNNN Prepared by: Donald J. Wright MOTION FOR EMERGENCY REMOVAL OF A JUDGE _______________________________________________ Argument Comes now, the Plaintiff in the matter Stefan Castillo v. Los Santos County Sheriff's Department LCS-CV-2024-001 asks this Honorable Court to assert judicial review and remove Judge Hockenbeyer from the abovementioned case due to his negligent handling, and inability or unwillingness to timely address the civil issue before the court. After an objection between plaintiff and defense counsel on August 19, Judge Hockenbeyer has refused to show up to court, and address the witness to answer further questions. Rather, Judge Hockenbeyer availed himself only when the opposing counsel made mention of the offer for settlement. Judge Hockenbeyer then abruptly and incorrectly interpreted the law in stating. "I must remind you that your client's active participation is essential for these discussions to proceed effectively. If you are unable to reach your client and facilitate their involvement in these negotiations, the court may consider dismissal of the case for failure to prosecute. Under Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a court may dismiss an action if the plaintiff fails to prosecute or to comply with these rules or a court order. This includes situations where a plaintiff is unresponsive or otherwise fails to move their case forward. The court is empowered to dismiss the case with or without prejudice depending on the circumstances." My client has no obligation to engage in ANY settlement negotiation. We are the party that is prepared to continue to try this case, we have shown up to court ready to proceed. The idea that the party that has asked the court to instruct a witness to answer is at fault for attempt to trying a case goes against the most basic concepts of court procedure. Additionally, threatening myself and my client that our case will be dismissed because my client was approached ex parte and did not agree to negotiate is an extraordinary abuse of discretion. Judge Hockenbeyer in this comment exhibits an extreme prejudice or evidence that he is incapable of understanding basic concepts of law and should not serve on this bench. As this court has failed to facilitate any dialogue close to one month our only hope is that through judicial review this higher court reassign this case to a judge of competence and who will not further waste and abuse my time, and my clients time. I also will advise this court that it is my plan to sue this body if proper awards are not made for my continuous travel to and from San Fierro to find a judge not at the bench during almost a month of scheduled trial. _______________________________________________ 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 12 day of September, 2024 by: /s/ Donald J. Wright Donald J. Wright

"Your Honor, this is becoming to be excessive. The court's inability or unwillingness to address our requests or address the issues in front of this court has done nothing but draw out this case. The court denied our motion for summary judgment months ago, now the court is absent and will not instruct a witness to answer, or answer our request regarding the conduct of opposing counsel. At this point we would formally request that the Judge Hockenbeyer be removed from this case and that the clerk return a copy to the plaintiff counsel for filing of a grievance against Judge Hockenbeyer. We will also petition the court for reasonable mileage payment and gas funds due to my continual travel back and forth from San Fierro to attend to this case." (( @Michael, @almightybounter ))

"My motion outlines my request. The opposing counsel has stated on the record that they "are negotiating an out of court settlement with Mister Castillo as we speak." As this is extraordinarily inappropriate for counsel to engage or allow their client to engage with a party in an ongoing court case without notification and approval of the opposing counsel. As soon as the opposing counsel was made aware of this negotiation she has an obligation not only to make me aware but make this court aware. Instead, we waited two weeks for them to ask for a continuance. Additionally, as my second chair identified this court cannot force my client to negotiate or settle. He will make a decision with my counsel and this goes to the same issue presented by the defense." (( @Michael, @almightybounter ))

"Your Honor, opposing counsel is making an outrageous statement that I am being disingenious to the court. The opposing represent the Los Santos Sheriff's Department in all aspects regarding this case, if the opposing counsel was aware of negotiations he has an obligation to make me and the court aware. Instead of communicating to me and to the court, we have heard nothing from the witness and the opposing counsel of this settlement. As for the opposing counsel's wanting to limit the information, our position is that it would be inappopriate to limit the request as at this point there has been a break down of collegiality with such a blatant violation and an ex parte communication which is impermissible. I am concerned about coercion, and questionable actions as evidenced in the information produced in discovery. I am able to proffer the document we were working to admit with this witness before the unannounced pause in these proceedings based off of the witness and this court not responding to my request to compel the witness to answer the question. As opposing counsel has mentioned the settlement on the record without making opposing counsel aware, it is now part of the case and I am asking for all aspects of the settlement as it is relevant to an ex parte communication. If opposing counsel approached me before discovery and asked to engage in a discussion about my client and his wishes and as part of that discussion agree that it would not be admissible we would be in a different situation. This is why most attorneys speak directly through another attorney. Opposing counsel did not do that, therefore we request the totality of the discussion. As I have not been engaged in a settlement discussion this is an ex parte communication with my client related to this case and I am entitled to this information as I was never put on notice of any settlement and waived nothing." (( @Michael, @almightybounter ))

"Your Honor, a limited production is not appropriate as opposing counsel is aware of all documents and has violated their ethical responsibility to alert opposing counsel. As there is a negotiation that placed on the record and there is an appearance of misconduct the entire file is ripe for review. Any law student would understand that opposing counsel should be made aware and kept aware of any discussion relating to a settlement. We also note for the record that in the opposing counsels response the opposing counsel states that there was settlement offers submitted to Mr. Castillo for consideration. As this counsel is aware of the submission and did not alert myself the violation is clearly established." (( @Michael, @almightybounter ))

Stefan Castillo v. Los Santos County Sheriff's Department Case Number: LCS-CV-2024-001 Prepared by: Donald J. Wright REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION _______________________________________________ Comes now, the below mentioned attorney requests the representative of the Los Santos Sheriff's Department to produce all documents from any member of the opposing counsel, or the defendant organization relating to the so called settlement discussion or negotiation from the period of 08/01/2024 to the current date. This request is made in accordance with Model Rules of Professional Responsibility Rule 4.2 where counsel for the plaintiff should have been engaged. Additionally this request serves as an official record of potential misconduct for the purpose of any appeal. _______________________________________________ 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 30 day of August, 2024 by: /s/ DONALD J. WRIGHT Donald J. Wright

"Your honor opposing counsel is contradicting their initial statement where the court reporter can report that the terminology used is "We are negotiating an out of court settlement with Mr. Castillo." Any discussion with my client relating this case or anything that could prove to provide an appearance of relation to this case requires opposing counsel to speak to me. My questions have put the question of unlawful administrative proceedings and termination squarely at issue. The fact that opposing counsel is communicating with my client related to these issues is extraordinarily problematic. Again we move this court for sanctions." (( @Michael, @almightybounter))

"Your Honor, I am appalled that opposing counsel is negotiating with my client without my knowledge or concurrence. I refer the court to the American Bar Association's Model Rules for Professional Conduct Rule 4.2, it reads: "In representing a client, a lawyer shall not communicate about the subject of the representation with a person the lawyer knows to be represented by another lawyer in the matter, unless the lawyer has the consent of the other lawyer or is authorized to do so by law or a court order." As opposing counsel has taken an extensive period of time to respond, and now at this point is violating the Rules of Professional Conduct, I am moving this court to impose sanctions upon the opposing counsel as this is a clear violation of the rule. It is unheard of for opposing counsel not to communicate with a clients counsel in any stage of negotiation. This has taken me by surprise as I am completely unaware of the opposing counsel's intent and actions. (( @Michael, @almightybounter ))