NotCraft

It is indeed disheartening to see. In the meantime Mr Wright. The LSSD is beginning to acquire documents related to your subpoena.

The defense has no issues with providing this information however it will take time to process the request as there is years of information to go through and provide to the plaintiff.

The defense for LSSD does not have a problem with any of the plaintiffs requests as it is standard for any civil case. @Jacob Rabinowitz @Kotwica @almightybounter

The defense has nothing to add at this time, we are ready for trial. ((Nothing was directed to LSSD in the last posts. The thread was locked for a potential rule violation and then the plaintiff was speaking about LSPD's judgement)) @Jacob Rabinowitz @Kotwica @Userone @NotCraft

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: Yeshua Silvermen MOTION FOR DISMISSAL, THE LOS SANTOS COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE , ET Al _______________________________________________ Comes now, through their counsel, the defense moves for the dismissal of the case against the Los Santos County Sheriff's Department and their employees in accordance with Senate Bill No. 025-18. "Sovereign Immunity Act of 2018" the case above meets the criteria as outlined in Section 2 of the bill. Therefore it is the duty of this court to dismiss the case under Section 4 of the guidelines of the law. _______________________________________________ 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 5th day of October, 2024 by: Yeshua Silverman Silverman and Goldstein Law Firm (( @almightybounter @Kotwica ))

**Superior Court of San Andreas** **County of Los Santos** **Case No: 24-CV-1034** **Michelle Jefferson v. Los Santos Police Department, et al.** Your Honor, the Defense respectfully submits this Reply Brief in response to the Plaintiff's arguments and opposition. We are grateful for the time the court has given us to review the case and while the internal affairs investigation is on-going we believe the case can proceed. We would address the key issues raised by the Plaintiff and emphasize that the actions taken by the Los Santos County Sheriff's Department (LSSD) and its deputies were lawful, reasonable, and necessary under the circumstances that those deputies found themselves in. The Plaintiff's claims fail to account for important legal standards governing probable cause, public safety, and reasonable restrictions on assembly. We ask this Court to deny the Plaintiff’s claims and allow the defense to proceed to summary judgment. I. Probable Cause Justified the Arrests and Citations The Plaintiff contends that the arrests and citations issued by the LSSD were unlawful and lacked probable cause. However, the facts demonstrate that probable cause existed at every stage of the interaction between the Plaintiff and the LSSD deputies. The defendant has been unable to meat the burden of proof. Furthermore probable cause exists when the facts and circumstances known to law enforcement would lead a reasonable officer to believe that a crime has been, or is being, committed (see *Graham v. Connor*, 490 U.S. 386 (1989)). In this case, the Plaintiff’s repeated refusal to disperse during the unlawful assemblies and failure to comply with lawful orders provided the necessary probable cause for law enforcement to issue citations and make arrests. The Plaintiff was part of a large gathering that violated the city’s lawful time, place, and manner restrictions for public assemblies. When the Plaintiff and her associates failed to comply with orders to disperse, it created a legitimate basis for law enforcement to act in order to preserve public safety and restore order. II. Lawful Search Under Exigent Circumstances The Plaintiff argues that the search of her property was unlawful because it was conducted without a warrant. However, the defense asserts that the search was justified under the doctrine of exigent circumstances, specifically hot pursuitas recognized in *United States v. Santana*, 427 U.S. 38 (1976). The deputies reasonably believed that the Plaintiff had evaded from a lawful traffic stop by retreating into her home. Under these circumstances, law enforcement officers are permitted to enter a residence without a warrant if they are in immediate pursuit of a suspect. Furthermore, once inside the property, the deputies conducted their duties in accordance with public safety concerns and were justified in their actions. The defendant has been arrested several times on weapons offenses and is known to be armed to law enforcement. The search was conducted reasonably and did not violate the Plaintiff's Fourth Amendment rights according to Terry V. Ohio. III. Plaintiff's Contributory Negligence Contributed to the Events The Plaintiff's own actions played a significant role in escalating the situation. By repeatedly refusing to disperse from unlawful assemblies, and by failing to comply with lawful orders from law enforcement, the Plaintiff contributed to the very outcomes she now challenges. The deputies and officers explained what would happen to the defendant multiple times and she still refused to disperse even after threat of arrest. Contributory negligence is a well-established defense, and the Plaintiff's decision to engage in defiance during multiple encounters with law enforcement directly led to her arrest and citations multiple different times. The Plaintiff's failure to comply with lawful orders is a key factor in assessing the reasonableness of the deputies' actions. IV. Reasonable Restrictions on Public Assembly The Plaintiff claims that her First Amendment rights were violated by the citations and arrests for unlawful assembly. However, the Defense argues that the restrictions imposed on the Plaintiff’s gatherings were lawful, reasonable, and necessary to maintain public order. Time, place, and manner restrictions on public assemblies are constitutionally permissible, particularly when public safety is at risk (*Cox v. New Hampshire*, 312 U.S. 569 (1941)). The Plaintiff’s repeated attempts to gather large crowds without a permit as required, combined with her refusal to comply with lawful orders to disperse, placed a burden on public resources and posed potential risks to public safety. Law enforcement's actions were justified as a necessary response to prevent potential unrest or disorder. As the defendant was the organizer for the event she was the first arrest. Following her arrest the crowd dispersed and went about their business freeing up local police and fire resources to assist in their normal duties. V. No Malice or Ill Intent in Law Enforcement Actions The Plaintiff has alleged that the LSSD deputies acted with malice or ill intent in their interactions with her. However, the evidence does not support this claim once again. My deputies acted in accordance with their duties as law enforcement officers and responded to situations based on public safety concerns in support of their sister agency Los Santos Police Department. There is no indication that the deputies acted with malicious intent or reckless disregard for the Plaintiff's rights. The use of force and the issuance of citations were proportionate to the circumstances as required by law and LSSD policy and procedure, and the actions of the deputies were guided by public safety concerns, not personal animus and vendettas as the client describes. For the reasons outlined above, the Defense respectfully requests that the Court deny the Plaintiff’s claims in their entirety. The actions taken by the Los Santos County Sheriff's Department and its deputies were lawful, reasonable, and necessary to protect public safety and maintain order. Furthermore, the Plaintiff’s own actions contributed significantly to the events in question. The Plaintiff if once again tying up legitimate resources over frivolous claims of malice just like in the situation that’s lead to her arrest. We ask that the Court grant summary judgment in favor of the Los Santos County Sheriff's Department. Respectfully submitted, /s/ Yeshua Silverman **Yeshua Silverman, Esq.** **Silverman and Goldstein Law Firm** **Attorneys for Los Santos County Sheriff's Department**

** Yeshua Silverman adjusts his tie and takes a sip of his Dasani water, before clearing his throat to speak ** "The Defense thanks the Honorable judge for additional timing. We would also like to add that the internal investigation has not been completed regarding the plaintiff's initial report to the Los Santos Sheriff's Department. Therefore the Los Santos Sheriff's Department is still attempting to gather all of the facts of this case. I'm unaware of where Mr. Rabinowitz learned that the case had been closed. " ((@almightybounter @Jacob Rabinowitz))

Case Number: 24-CV-1034 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE AND REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCE The Los Santos County Sheriff's Department (LSSD), represented through its counsel Silverman and Goldstein Law Firm, hereby enters its appearance in this case and respectfully requests a postponement of the proceedings. We have recently become aware of the lawsuit filed by Michelle Jefferson. The LSSD is actively reviewing the claims and needs additional time to gather all relevant information. We are conducting a thorough internal investigation and review to understand the details of the allegations. Additional time will allow us to prepare a clear and comprehensive plan of action to present all factual information to the Court. We respectfully ask the Court to grant a five (5) day continuance to complete our review and formulate an appropriate response. SILVERMAN AND GOLDSTEIN LAW FIRM Attorneys for Los Santos County Sheriff's Department By: /s/ Yeshua Silverman YESHUA SILVERMAN, ESQ. Silverman and Goldstein Law Firm ((@almightybounter ))

100% Cocaine