Kotwica

"Your honor, I am sure you are well aware that there is no official requirement to submit a Curriculum Vitae in accordance with Rule 702, it is a simple courtesy. Opposing counsel has objected on the grounds that we would then admit the witness as an expert, satisfying the notice requirement. If opposing counsel needs time to prepare for an expert witness they knew that at the point that they objected. Additionally, your honor, the plaintiff makes note that opposing counsel did not raise the issue regarding an expert witness, the court did, and by doing so has resulted in a denial of natural justice."

** Donald nods ** "Your honor, we request to waive notification to the opposing counsel admission of an expert witness, additionally we move to waive the requirement of admission of a Curriculum Vitae as the witness is in the court room. We proffer that we can etablish Captain Guanti as an expert witness in the aforementioned questions. Upon his completion of those questions we proffer to this court that he be established as an expert witness and be permitted to answer question 18. Your honor we respectfully request that question seventeen be asked because the question would further narrow the possible reasons for his administrative leave squarely to the point that he refused to question, not that he was disrespectful to the internal affairs sergeant. If opposing counsel stipulates to the fact that Mister Castillo we don't see a need for question seventeen but I expect they will not."

"Your honor, that question is squarely involved in this case. Garrity itself identifies a right to remain silent, in my opening I outlined the fact that I believe retaliation had a part to play here, thus a violation of my clients Constitutional rights. Additionally, the questions are more probative than prejudicial under Federal Rules of Evidence Rule 403."

** Donald moves into the well, standing to the side of the witness booth and readjusts his large glasses, moving the notepad out to look out of the bottom of his bifocals. ** Q1. Captain Guanti, can you introduce yourself to the court and begin by spelling out your full name? Q2. Captain Guanti, who are you employed by? Q3. How long have you been an employee of your agency? Q4. What position do you hold? Q5. In order to obtain this position can you identify what training, if any you had to take? Q6. Can you explain the role your rank plays within your agency? Q7. Have you received any advanced education whether on the job training or formal education on employee rights due to your position within your agency? Q8. Have you ever conducted employee interviews for administrative punishments, or criminal investigations? If so, could you approximate how many you have conducted? Rough estimations are find. Q9. Do you remember attending an internal affairs investigation with Stefan Castillo? ** Donald licks his right index and thumb, reaching to the bottom of the page and flips it over to the next sheet on his yellow notepad. ** Q10. During that investigation do you remember Stefan Castillo being presented with something called a Garrity Warning? Q11. Did Stefan Castillo sign that warning and did you review that warning with him before he signed it? Q12. Did you sign the warning yourself? Q13. Can you identify the location of the interrogation? Q14. How was the room arranged, was Stefan and yourself closer to the door or was the Internal Affairs representatives closest to the door? Q15. How would you, personally in your lay opinion describe the atmosphere of the room. Your honor to question 15 we would consider this proper utilization of lay witness testimony under the Federal Rules of Evidence Rule 701(a). Q16. In your perspective did you feel that Stefan Castillo as his representative had an opportunity to leave? Your honor to question 16 we would consider this proper utilization of lay witness testimony under Federal Rules of Evidence Rule 701(a). Q17. Did Mr. Castillo in your opinion respond respectfully to the questions being asked of him? Your honor to question 17 we would consider this proper utilization of lay witness testimony under Federal Rules of Evidence Rule 701(a). Q18. In your experience as a supervisor did the questioning of Mister Castillo conform to the norms of what you would expect? Your honor to question 18 we would consider this proper utilization of lay witness testimony under Federal Rules of Evidence Rule 701(c), we do not believe this deviates into Rule 702 testimony. However, if this court prefers we can present Captain Guanti has a 702 expert witness. @GriffinT

“Thank you your honor, the plaintiff asks this honorable court to summon Captain Guanti to the stand.”

* Donald nods as Sophie finishes her sentence, stepping out of the way for her to walk to her seat from podium before stepping to the podium, his elderly smile raises his bifocaled top bar glasses. Donald wobbles to the podium before placing a yellow notepad onto it. * "Opposing counsel, thank you for your kind comment. Your honor, as I have never stood before you in your courtroom before do you have a preference on utilization of the well of the court and approaching witnesses?"

"Your honor, opposing counsel, may it please the court. My name is Donald Wright, I represent the interest of the plaintiff Mister Stefan Castillo in this trial. The question before this court is not a new question, rather a question that has been affirmed time and time again -that any person in custody has the right to effective legal counsel- this is the law established in Miranda v. Arizona, Garrity v. New Jersey, and Berghuis v. Thompkins. A fundamental point that the Supreme Court has reiterated time and time again is that when an individual is detained, in order to prevent coercion and to assure that the rights of a citizen is protected that they are to be advised of the rights they possess. In this case, the Sheriff's Department has deviated from that understanding and has muddied the water of what is a lawful detention and whether an employee can be retaliated against when they ask for legal representation. The facts of this case are familiar to this court, and I will not focus on what has already been addressed. The plaintiffs have a genuine concern in the investigation, whether there was a proper ground to detain Mister Castillo, and what rights he was deprived in that detention. Any other individual not wearing a badge would have been read their Miranda Rights prior to any questioning when detained if it was a criminal investigation, or a Garrity Warning if it was administrative. However, the retaliation of the Sheriff's Department openly admitted (albeit with "paid leave") is squarely the problem at question. The Sheriff's Department in this situation wished to compel testimony of Mister Castillo after performing an initial "use of force investigation." Compelling ones speech under the threat of administrative or criminal punishment is by definition coercion. Coercion was the same question that the United States Supreme Court addressed in Kastigar v. United States. This case is distinct from Kastigar as the Supreme Court only granted the compulsion because the witness was given immunity. Rather, what it appears happened here is that the Sheriff's Department requested a quid pro quo that Mister Castillo waive his rights in order to maintain his position within the Sheriff's Department. The Supreme Court held in Garrity v. New Jersey: "[We held in] Slochower v. Board of Education, 350 U. S. 551, that a public school teacher could not be discharged merely because he had invoked the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination when questioned by a congressional committee: "The privilege against self-incrimination would be reduced to a hollow mockery if its exercise could be taken as equivalent either to a confession of guilt or a conclusive presumption of perjury. . . ." The privilege serves to protect the innocent who otherwise might be ensnared by ambiguous circumstances." Id. at 350 U. S. 557-558. We conclude that policemen, like teachers and lawyers, are not relegated to a watered-down version of constitutional rights." Here we have a Sheriff's Department watering down the rights of a law enforcement officer who punished him for simply asserting what he is entitled to under this Constitution and the plethora of cases that have followed. If this court determines that a law enforcement agency can punish any law enforcement officer for invoking a right where there is potential of criminal prosecution this court would stand in square opposition to the Supreme Court and make a hollow mockery of the privilege against self-incrimination. This court must take into account that the Sheriff's Department has made multiple separate statements about the type of investigation, whether it was official or unofficial, and whether it could have been used in criminal proceedings or not. Opposing counsel states that they couldn't use it in a criminal investigation, and that it was unofficial.. However, the Internal Affairs Sergeant conducting this interview identified and I quote: "We during Use of Force investigation ascertain whether or not we launch an admin or criminal or use of force case file." Break in time... "When we respond to IAB activations we are technically in the sense of the word investigating whether or not we wanna make it into a case file. So, again: Think wisely about how you wanna put that answer." This case presents nothing new to this court, or any court in the country. What we have is a department that has fallen out of line with the Constitutional protections afforded to citizens. We have an Internal Affairs Sergeant who made combative argumentative statements and affirmed that there was still a potential of criminal and administrative incrimination. We do not believe that there are any further questions of this court due to the established precedent by so many courts in the United States and the overwhelmingly clear and definitive opinions provided again and again. Thank you." "Your honor, at this time I would also like to move to remove the attorney fees, I will represent my client pro bono."

"The plaintiff is prepared to move forward with opening statements, the plaintiff requests the court acknowledge our formal objection and as new counsel I would like to add additional witnesses if permitted. Namely Sergeant Crawford."

Stefan Castillo v. Los Santos County Sheriff's Department Case Number: LCS-CV-2024-001 Prepared by: Donald Wright FORMAL OBJECTION AND REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION _______________________________________________ Comes now, the Plaintiff's formal objection and request for reconsideration. The plaintiff respectfully requests reconsideration on the grounds that the moving party entitled to summary judgment if two factors are met, (1) there is no genuine dispute of material fact; and (2) if the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 56. While the plaintiff acknowledges that this honorable court would like this case to move forward to trial, the plaintiff's believe that this court is bound to provide summary judgment on the basis that both sides agree to the genuine material facts, and that the plaintiffs are entitled to judgment as a matter of law based off of plain evidence agreed upon in this court. This honorable court as the trier of fact has all material facts and representation it requires to return a judgment for the plaintiff. The plaintiff there humbly requests reconsideration of the denial for 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 10th day of July, 2024 by: /s/ Donald J. Wright

Stefan Castillo v. Los Santos County Sheriff's Department Case Number: LCS-CV-2024-001 Prepared by: Donald Wright MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT _______________________________________________ Comes now, the Plaintiff's move for Summary Judgment. A plaintiff is entitled to summary judgment if two factors are met, (1) there is no dispute of material fact; and (2) if the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The defense moves for summary judgment based off of the illegal detention of Mister Castillo as stated by opposing counsel, namely: (1) "Use of Force field interviews are not part of an administrative or criminal investigation against a peace officer that is being interviewed, and is instead a tool to determine the narrative of the use of force. Mr. Castillo was not afforded a Garrity warning during this use of force field interview because Mr. Castillo was at no point under threat of incrimination as a result of this field interview." (2) "The process would have been for use of force investigators to interview Mr. Castillo, paint a background picture, and then either recommend or not recommend that an internal investigation be opened. " (3) I want to reiterate this. Mr. Castillo himself answered that the use of force field interview at the hospital, and I'm quoting direct from the transcript here, "this wasn't during any official investigation." Mr. Castillo was fully aware that there was no official investigation underway, and thus knew that he was not under threat of incrimination, and thus the Garrity rights did not apply during the use of force investigation. Mr. Castillo still intentionally blocked a lawful investigation into the use of force by a government officer against a citizen of the state. This is why Mr. Castillo was placed on administrative leave, for the now active administrative investigation into Mr. Castillo's use of force, not as retaliation for him refusing to cooperate with a use of force interview. The Plaintiff raises to the court that even the Defense acknowledges this detention was unlawful. The court is asked to ponder two questions in applying the reasonable person standard based off of the question of detention and freedom to leave. (1) Would a reasonable person who is approached after a shooting and questioned by law enforcement officers believe that they are free to leave? (2) Was Mister Castillo treated differently than a citizen who was being investigated for a potential shooting? If so, what rights would be afforded to that citizen? Is Mister Castillo less of a citizen because his job requires him to wear a badge? The lack of informing Mister Castillo of his Miranda Warning and Garrity Warning during an officer involved shooting does violate his rights, and the Sheriff's Department by pleading the above raises two separate violations of which Mister Castillo is entitled to judgment. Here, Mister Castillo was effectively detained for a shooting, was questioned related to a shooting that could have resulted in both administrative and criminal incrimination he was entitled to an attorney to be present as during this "investigation" the Sheriff's Department was actively investigating whether there was grounds for a criminal charges or administrative leave as stated by Sheriff's Department counsel: "[t]he process would have been for use of force investigators to interview Mr. Castillo, paint a background picture, and then either recommend or not recommend that an internal investigation be opened. " This statement by opposing counsel highlights that there was an investigation that the Sheriff's Department was conducting, the Sheriff's Department cannot have it both way by saying Mister Castillo was not under threat of incrimination after the field interview but that the discussion was to determine whether or not an investigation should be open, the term incrimination expands beyond mere criminal incrimination but also covers administrative incrimination, we argue that Mister Castillo was under reasonable fear of both criminal and administrative incrimination. This investigation could have (and did result) in administrative punishment, with the potential of Mister Castillo losing his job, under the threat of losing his job coercion is a significant issue for this court to consider whether Mister Castillo had reasonable fears. If the court finds he did have reasonable fears for the loss of his job the court must find that the Sheriff's Department violated his Garrity Warning. Point three raises another substantial question whether the Sheriff's Department had a legal right to detain Mister Castillo and prevent his freedom to travel. If there was no official investigation, why was he questioned, and detained for an investigation? If the court accepts this argument law enforcement officials could patrol the city, detaining both citizens and law enforcement officials under the guise of a non-official investigation. If there is a non-official investigation, is that still not an investigation which entitles protection? The plaintiff cautions the court to the dangerous precedent the Sheriff's Department is attempting to establish. _______________________________________________ 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 10th day of July, 2024 by: /s/ Donald J. Wright

Stefan Castillo v. Los Santos County Sheriff's Department Case Number: LCS-CV-2024-001 Prepared by: Donald Wright MOTION TO MODIFY COUNSEL _______________________________________________ Comes now, the plaintiff requests this honorable court to approve a modification of counsel and permission for Donald Wright, an attorney barred and licensed in the San Fierro courts the privilege of representation on a temporary license. _______________________________________________ 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 10th day of July, 2024 by: /s/ Donald Wright Donald J. Wright

hey man! welcome back!

A lot of these responses hurt to see. If anyone wants to send me a personal message or reach out to me on Discord I’ll happily raise any concerns to management. My discord is kotwica.

I play the server but thought I’d go into what I’ve heard and witnessed myself. (1) Clear roadmap of what we want the server to be and how we will get there. Relying off of our name from SAMP isn’t going to work. (2) New features or opportunities for roleplay that are unique to LSRP, working with the illegal factions and IFM to address their concerns regarding guns. (3) A roleplay center, in SAMP this was Idlewood and then the Mall. The map is simply too big for new players to find roleplay. (4) Better jobs for newer players, incentives to put in hours. This is partly addressed by the social security check that players receive but it’s not enough for a player to even afford a car to get to their place of work. (5) Balancing the police and criminal roleplay. Not necessarily meaning limiting police officers that can be on duty but limiting the response for common call occurrence. The entire LSPD and LSSD shouldn’t be chasing a suspect who evades from a traffic stop. (6) Make staff more approachable, this includes monthly chats with management and an overall zero tolerance policy for staff being rude to players. Staff is here to assist.

Very nice. Love that you are taking requests!

You're extremely talented with this stuff!

This is great work!

RuneScaper Kotwica checking in.

Courthouse pls!

y so mean

I think that this is a really key point that we didn't do too much on SAMP and we need it now more than ever.

Firstly, I want to thank everyone for being upright and honest, I think that community feedback is instrumental for the future development of the server and if the server is going to succeed it is because the community feels that they can be honest and the administration takes the feedback. My feedback on the staff question/point - I am one of those staff members that seemingly have minimal contributions. I didn't find a faction, I didn't roleplay a criminal. However, what I am trying to do is fill gaps in the server and give back to the server not through roleplay but through administrating the server. The reality of the situation is that there is an unintended consequence of becoming a game administration and that is if you are a member of a criminal or legal faction and you are called to a staff scene and you rule against a particular party it can be drawn out to be because you are a member of an opposing faction. A lot of the work that staff does is discrete, character applications, monitoring player base, tracking down ban evaders, etc. It's not glamorous and a lot of it can't be tracked by members of the community. However, trust me we are doing things!

congrats to all

The pleading form would be an item given to the prisoner who clicks buttons that then alerts the DAO. As for the “more paperwork” for cops excuse, that’s what police officers do. It is part of the discretion of arresting someone if you want to sit there and type out the report both irl and ig. It’s not supposed to be a command and back on the road, if that’s what it was supposed to be, this would be no more than a cops and robbers server. The judiciary is here to stay and it will require more documentation so criminals have a fighting chance against a single determination to put them behind bars.

thanks matt, i r b staffer now 🙂