owen

Whilst I appreciate the concerns, please don't interrupt the court unless you're the plaintiff's attorney. I don't know who you are. Secondly, I've made my decision. The defence's argument is based on the the ability to 'invalidate' the license at any time if the person carries the firearm as a concealed carry without the correct permit, however there is an obvious contradiction to this issue with the prior City Government's enforcement of this policy. Within the written policy openly accessed and viewable by all individuals of the state, it was clearly displayed as a three strike violation in which resulted in a temporary revokation of their firearm however we obviously see that any 'arrest' for felonies or 'serious' misdeamours which I and I'm sure all of you can agree is open to interpretation... I also have to remind the defence that these policies were solely enforced by City Government, so revocation (at the time of this incident) was solely down to the decision of City Government, rather than any law enforcement agency in which thankfully has now changed as I do understand there were confusing factors which even made me think twice. Ultimately, the plaintiff did violate the licensing rules and regulations however I am of the genuine belief that the correct punishment at the time and with the official policies in view of any and all citizens of the state was for solely City Government to temporarily revoke the license as per a three strike violation and it was not the purview of the law enforcement agency to dictate the revocation of the license. I will consider that the firearm seizure was temporarily revoked and can now be retrieved by the plaintiff, alongside the firearm license being restored to the plaintiff. Regarding monetary compsentation, this is my verdict and will need to be paid by the 18th of July 2024 by the Los Santos County Sheriff Department: 1. Attorney fees: $2,000,000 2. Lost earnings: $12,000,000 - As the plaintiff has not provided any evidence to support the plaintiff(s) salaries amounting to this number, I cannot blindly accept a pay out like that. I urge the plaintiff to provide analytic evidence of monetary loss next time to prevent this occurring again. I will however accept the loss of earnings and longevitiy through this case and will grant a sum of: 1. Eustace Horvat - $2,500,000 2. Buck Sloan - $2,500,000

(( We'll wait for Dadoj to confirm and then resume. However just for clarity, Michael previously confirmed that the active licensing rules and regulations were the ones shown by @Suffering when City Government (who was in-charge at the time of this incident). ))

Thank you. I just need clarification on when at the time of the license being revoked what the current cities policies were regarding firearm licenses. And to clarify your comment, I fully understand that the plaintiff admitted fault but the penalty for the fault would have been different dependent on the time of the seizure. I’ll permit 72 hours for the defence to consult with city government to gather the relevant information. We’ll reconvene then.

Can my question be answered please? @Levy, Bell & Weinstein @Iudex

I understand your point, and I am fully aware that the party has admitted that they violated the policy. However… I need to make sure that the correct process was followed to ensure legal compliance. This complaint was made on the 2nd of June 2024 and the plaintiff’s firearm was seized and their license was permanently revoked. At the time of the incident, was the city operating under the old strike violation system? That system being: For a 3 strike offence (open carry violation) resulted in: Suspension of license and confiscation of relevant firearms for 14 days It’s really important we clarify this point, because I want us all to be on the same page here. @Iudex @Suffering

Very well. Case finalised by ADR. The case is dismissed, thank you everyone and I wish you the best of luck.

@Michael Thank you. Sophie, can I get clarification from yourself with my question: 1. Was the plaintiff's license revoked whilst the prior licensing regulations and policies were active after recieving one strike, that strike being for and I quote: ''When transporting a firearm in a vehicle, the firearm must be securely locked in a container that can only be unlocked by biometrics, physical key, or combination locking mechanisms. Penalty: 1 strike'' The changing of government policies has confused me slightly... so if we're all on the same page about that, we can find the truth relatively quickly and get this worked out.

(( It not being available for you to retrieve is still IC. If it's not possible to find the evidence, it's not possible so I'll take that as an IC reply. ))

Very well. Please provide me with the prior PF regulations and stipulation clause in relation to the 'strikes' with violations. As far as I have always been aware, a revocation of a license can be done instantly under discretion of the individual in-charge, therein it doesn't require a set of 'strikes' to then be seized?

Thank you for submitting that evidence. I'll need this clarified with the defence as I don't see the neccessity for the defence to be here if this has been settled out of court via their own department's compsentation scheme. Can I get some clarification in relation to this evidence disclosed and if it pertains to this incident? @Iudex

Thank you Sophie. Although I'd appreciate it if we could all stick to our allocated time slots given. I've read the defence's evidence and disclosure provided however and the allegation is that the plaintiff carried the firearm in their glove compartment, a clear violation of the rules and regulations. Does the plantiff wish to pursue, or do they wish to issue a voluntary dismissal? @canthurrylove

I have no doubt that the Los Santos County Sheriff Department stated the Defendants had not committed a crime, that's not what I'm enquiring about. My enquiry is relating to the allegation of 'concealed carrying' and the violation of the personal firearm license. If you are saying that the Los Santos County Sheriff Department 'admitted' that at no point did your Defendants conceal carry a firearm, the evidence to support that claim will need to be provided for disclosure. I need the following from yourself: 1. Please brief with your Defendant(s) invididually and provide me with their statements of the incident that day, start to finish. 2. Provide me with disclosure evidence of and I quote ''At no point was their weapon concealed, and the Sheriff’s Department admitted this'' to support this claim. My request to the Los Santos County Sheriff Department still stands, specifically: 1. ''Statement from the Deputy at the scene (this can be digitally signed and sent to yourself from the Deputy).'' I will have no rebuttales from defence nor the plaintiff until the following above have been provided to my clerk.

Thank you Napoleon. I understand your concerns in relation to your first argument, specifically and I quote from your statement ''At the time of the incident, discharging a firearm in public while transporting received a strike. My defendants should have received a strike. Their licenses were revoked.'' in which I will ascertain the nature of the seizure and the Deputy testimony. I will, however, need you to provide evidence of the PF policies (and strike admenments) that aid your case. Please provide the following: 1. PF policy that pertains to ''discharging a firearm in public while transporting received a strike'' with any and all possibly punishments listed. 2. Rationale as to why the defendants exited their vehicle, removed their firearms from safe storage and walked into the LS Mall? I'll need to know from the point they turned their ignition off within their vehicle to the point of engaging with the male who they fired upon what was going through their mind. It's incredibly important I recieve this as the way I'm reading this incident to the way you are describing it, is very different. To Juliette, Please can it be made possible that I receive the following evidence from your department, and the Deputies involved: 1. Statement from the Deputy at the scene (this can be digitally signed and sent to yourself from the Deputy). This argument appears to be around the defendant(s) concealing their weapons in a public place, pertinent to ''A person who carries concealed a legal, registered firearm that is not authorized as a conceal-carry weapon.'' and I just need to clearly establish wether or not the defendant(s) in question were in fact concealing their firearms in a public place. @Iudex @Suffering

Thank you Juliette, I've acknowledged the notice and reveiwed the substantiated evidence. Does the plaintiff have a reply to the facts and findings that the defence has provided? @Levy, Bell & Weinstein I'd like to highlight this specifically from the defence, and I quote ''Furthermore, the Open Carry act was not enacted until June 10th, 2024, yet the incident took place June 2nd, 2024.''

Noted. I'm permitting a 48 hour motion for the defence to prepare and address their statement(s). We will reconvene when ready.