-
Liberty Supreme Court
Liberty State
Dear Court, first let me give some details about myself. My name is Quinn. I have been a citizen of Liberty City since the 17th of April 2017 when I received my passport, I have been residing in Liberty City however for around 2 weeks.
Upon receipt of my passport I have applied for my drivers license through the state operated "official" Second Street Driving School. My application was noted by Joey_Lucchese as shown below.
Evidence 1
(http://i63.tinypic.com/se3j3k.png)
Please note that the instructions given by the SSDS teacher states " Contact a /dt in game for your driving test. "
When executing that command we have our next exhibit.
Evidence 2
(http://i63.tinypic.com/288wqrq.png)
Please note that this figure states "Available teachers: paprika"
When I contacted paprika for my driving test I was told "i can not at this moment, contact id2" ID2 was Joey_Lucchese. I asked Joey for the driving test and he stated he was busy.
Evidence 3
(http://i67.tinypic.com/211qvwo.png)
I was unable to document Joey's response, for evidence but as stated above he was busy.
From that day until this very day for a total of six times on six separate calendar days I have asked SSDS Driving Teacher paprika for a driving test in which he has either stated that he is not available or outright refused.
Today I informed paprika that he is neglecting his duties as an SSDS Teacher and is showing discrimination towards me. paprika told me about some condition that Serbians have which equals stubbornness, I don't remember what the translated word is and I foolishly did not document that part of the conversation, but he clearly stated to me that he is being stubbon and refusing to give me a driving test. See next figure.
Evidence 4
(http://i63.tinypic.com/21endkw.png)(http://i66.tinypic.com/2s1luvt.png)(http://i68.tinypic.com/2vcavz8.png)(http://i67.tinypic.com/j9aiwp.png)(http://i65.tinypic.com/14cv1pv.png)(http://i66.tinypic.com/dh98hy.png)
As you can see in the previous figure, SSDS Teacher paprika clearly has some form of biased discrimination against me. I humbly request that the court either:
a). Order paprika to give me a driving exam or,
b). Remove paprika from the Second Street Driving School.
Thank you,
Quinn
Note: Unwanted replies have been removed.
-
To clarify for the court in response to Markk. I asked paprika for a driving exam once per day for 6 days. He said no and I did not ask again until the next day. Never did I "pester" or show impatience. On the fourth day we had a longer chat where he asked me about my country of origin, I dont remember all the details but he seemed mad at me for no reason.
Unfortunately I did not screenshot those encounters, but the court can be assured that never did I pester or show impatience in fact I think I have been thoroughly patient in this matter.
Markk my request in this case is not for a teacher to give me a test, it is for paprika to give it. If paprika is unable to fulfill his duties then he should not be an SSDS teacher. To prove that this is discrimination I will ask for a test every day for the next month. If paprika gives me an exam then I will withdraw this case.
Quinn
-
Dear court, I am Mr. Papa Prick, the one teacher against whom this case is.
Since Mr. Quinn came to the Liberty City I have noticed that he is constantly haunted by the idea of being close to me. Countless times have I seen him around, in my surroundings even before he came to the point where he can get in contact with me, the test for the driver`s license.
Even from earlier on, I personally have felt some sort of odd thing, call it a sixth sense that told me to avoid people such as he, but never the less I would have fulfilled my duty the first day if not for the tasks I had at my hand in that particular moment. Honorable court, events that happened from that moment and onwards cemented the picture that represents the man with name Quinn.
The first time I have been contacted by him it seemed just as a regular formality. I have been contacted from SSDS that I will soon receive a call from a new student that applied for the training sessions. Soon afterwards, the call came in and person, a man introduce himself as Quinn, asking to meet with me. I have politely explained that I can not at this moment and that he should have contact, my good colleague Joey Lucchese. Joey answered straight away to my call and noted into SSDS Headquarters that he will be able to take on the specific applicant. The things became murky after that.
Applicant did notice Joey Lucchese, seems only because of formality, but he never answered back to Joey's call to meet up at SSDS Headquarters in Algonquin/Lancaster. Further on, the specific person started contacting only me for the specific task of "driving sessions and test". At first, I was not comfortable with the actions of the one, so I have denied calls. After few days, I have decided to ask some details about individuals and see why is he so much interested that I... I only give him the lessons needed to pass the test.
The answers were a bit.. disturbing, you must agree
PS: My recorder on the phone is not of good quality, so the sound is a bit distorted
http://vocaroo.com/i/s1qmpZiPiKuP
One of the best? Okay, but.. who told you that?
http://vocaroo.com/i/s0nZyyASgRvb
That laugh.. that laugh made me worried a bit. I asked for his origins and how he came to be in Liberty City to which I had very littler trust in.
From that moment, Mr. Quinn became a bearer of ill omen to me. Something was just off, and.. oh man.. I was not wrong, honorable court.
These are just some of the occasions in which I caught specific person at.. straight off stalking me!
Stalking me on the highway, waiting for me to pass by
(http://i68.tinypic.com/124zl1i.jpg)
Watching my every move near locationg populary known as MGS
(http://i68.tinypic.com/34j534h.jpg)
He does even get to close proximity, from interior of the gas station itself
(http://i68.tinypic.com/n441c.jpg)
Or even at the park! [His body was desynced, he needed to refreshme.. ]
(http://i68.tinypic.com/nvpbpv.jpg)
The events from today made me step up and face him personally.
Mr. Quinn entered my vehicle without any permission and went along with "you are available, let's go" to which I answered with clear statement that "I am not available". After that I have started asking questions to which Mr. Quinn did not have an answer and even ended up mumbling nonsense. The whole situation escalated to that point that Mr. Quinn physically attacked me where I have defended myself and fought him off [1st picture on the Evidence 4 (http://i63.tinypic.com/21endkw.png), "That's what I thought" "spits on the side"]
After that, I gave an explanation that what saved me from him is my Serbian stubbornness, called "Inat".
I knew that something is wrong.. and now I am sure of it!
I will quote Mr. Quinn now:
"To clarify for the court in response to Markk. I asked paprika for a driving exam once per day for 6 days."
"Markk my request in this case is not for a teacher to give me a test, it is for paprika to give it."
" To prove that this is discrimination I will ask for a test every day for the next month. If paprika gives me an exam then I will withdraw this case."
Honorable court, this is a clear sign that this person has something aimed personally against me.
As my colleague Markk responded, I am not obliged to respond personal requests of the applicants. The applicants only right is to receive his training upon creating a valid application with correct form at the SSDS Headquarters. That form has been reviewed and answered by Joey Lucchese [Not me]. The same man later on even offered him assistance when Mr. Quinn was available at the time even tough he was asking me for the tasks I could not perform. He is clearly hiding it with "I was unable to document Joey's response, for evidence but as stated above he was busy."
Honorable court, this is a clear case of obsession and a possible turn towards disturbance and criminal activities with sexual connotation!
- I request this case to be dismissed
- That Mr. Quinn gets perimeter restriction for approaching anywhere close to me in distance of 30 or more meters.
- A public apology for bashing onto Second Street Driving School and its employee, Papa "paprika" Prick for false accusations
Regards,
Papa Prick
-
Before I make my counter-argument to Mr. Papa Prick I must take care of a few formalities.
Firstly I need to amend my previous response to Mr Markk. Mr Markk stated:
As SSDS teacher and previously manager of the school i can tell you didn't read the disclaimers on the first page of SSDS topic.
Clearly Mr Markk did not read the court rules which state:
It is strictly forbidden to post into a topic if you are not related to it. People authorised to post: Judges, witnesses, prosecutor and his lawyer (Must state clearly that he is the prosecution's lawyer) and the defender and his lawyer
Also:As SSDS teacher and previously manager of the school
Clearly Mr Markk has a vested interest in protecting his colleague from prosecution by the court and has a biased opinion.
This is a court of law, a court of evidence, and a court of facts. Mr Mark has stated his own opinions and has presented no usable evidence or facts.
Because Mr Markk spoke without permission by the court I motion the court to inform the jury that any statements made by Mr Mark should not have any weight or bearing on their verdict in this case. Mr Markks statements should be considered null and void.
(https://vignette3.wikia.nocookie.net/gtawiki/images/9/93/CivilizationCommittee-GTA4-logo.jpg/revision/latest/scale-to-width-down/200?cb=20100404131206)
|
|
Civillization Committee
Albany Ave.
Algonquin, Liberty City
| (http://i65.tinypic.com/14vlapt.png) |
TO:The Liberty Court, Supreme Court of Liberty City
Frankfort Ave.
Liberty City, Algonquin
DATE: 24/04/2017FROM: Civillization Committee Commander John MeesesTO: LC Court Jury
SUBJECT: Quinn VS SSDS
As the Civilization Committee Commander, I am unsure if my say is allowed here, but I will make a suggestion to try and help, as that is my job. Mr. Quinn's opinion is valued, and his proof of evidence DOES show Mr. Papa Prick being slightly rude. Spoiler 4 shows the accused being slightly rude, however, the accusations against Quinn are valid, all sources have been shown and it has been proved. Also, the demands "a). Order paprika to give me a driving exam or,
b). Remove paprika from the Second Street Driving School." are invalid, a driving teacher should not be removed because someone didn't get a driving test. As the Civilization Committee Commander, I believe the best way to resolve the conflict between Mr. Quinn and Mr. Prick is to close this case and give Mr. Quinn a driving test when the teacher is available. The Committee believes that the conflict can be resolved if Mr. Quinn shows patience, then when a Driving Instructor is available, he will be examined. I know Mr. Prick very well, he is always respectful towards me and the others around him, he has no discriminations at all towards anyone, also the demand "Order paprika to give me a test" is invalid, because Mr. Quinn has been pestering him, showing a lack of consideration for Mr. Prick, trying to force him to give him a test.
Signed,John MeesesCivillization Committee Commander, Gruppe Sechs Chief & Tw@ Internet Cafe Founder
Mr Meeses you have violated the court rules by posting here. Please cease and desist immediately. I must also ask the court to dismiss comments made by Mr Meeses who has spoken out of turn and without permission of the court.
-
Honorable court,
the information and facts that Mr. Markk has stated are posted on the official web page of Second Street Driving School which can be found here >[LICENSE] SSDS - Second Street Driving School (http://www.argonathrpg.eu/index.php?topic=61136.msg893109#post_Why)< and as such, they are open for public.
Due to that, I believe that they should be included into consideration regardless of actions of the individual.
From the other hand, I do agree that the actions of Mr. Markk personally are against the court procedures and should be treated seriously.
Regards,
Papa Prick
-
The quoted text from SSDS may remain, however the opinions given and the advice to "learn to be patient" are uncalled for in this setting.
-
*Papa Prick nods that he agrees*
*Papa Prick is eagerly looking at Quinn to see what will he say*
-
Ladies and gentlemen of the Court and Jury. Before I dissect Mr Prick's testimony piece by piece I need to clear the air of something that has been whispered around. I am not some impatient beggar who came to court because he was mad he didn't get his driving test right away. On the contrary I am really not in a hurry to get my license, now let me tell you why.
I have been working hard in Liberty City. My current job has the potential of making good profits later after it is developed but the early profits are very low. My goal is to have a nice car, the car I want will require around 2 months of work to acquire. I may apply for a loan to get the car sooner but the loan companies in Liberty City require 30 days of citizenship to be eligible for the loan. So as you can see, I have no immediate need for a drivers license at the moment.
I will state it again, I asked Mr Prick for a license test once per day for 6 consecutive days. On the sixth day (see evidence 4) is when I may have pushed a little harder than I did in the past. This was done intentionally to prove if my suspicions were true. You see after the second or third time I asked Mr Prick for a driving test I got the suspicion that he did not like me but I don't know why. I think I even asked Mr Prick jokingly "why do you hate me?" and he replied "why do you love me?"
After I had those suspicions I decided, since I knew that I will not need my license for at least 30 days that I will test this "paprika" to see if he truly hates me or is discriminating against me. I will test him by asking for a driving test once per day. I do not want to be a nuisance because then he will have a valid reason for refusing.
Now that is out of the way let me re-state my complaint against the Second Street Driving School (SSDS) to the court. My complaint is as follows:
a). Mr Papa "paprika" Prick refuses to give I the plaintiff (Quinn) a driving exam.
b). Mr Papa "paprika" Prick refuses to give I the plaintiff (Quinn) a driving exam based on discrimination.
Now if we look at Mr Prick's testimony to the court, never one time did Mr Prick deny the aforementioned accusations. In fact, Mr Prick even confirmed the complaint against him as highlighted below:
Exhibit 1
I personally have felt some sort of odd thing, call it a sixth sense that told me to avoid people such as he
At first, I was not comfortable with the actions of the one, so I have denied calls.
I asked for his origins and how he came to be in Liberty City to which I had very littler trust in.
From that moment, Mr. Quinn became a bearer of ill omen to me.
(http://i68.tinypic.com/faag7q.png)
In addition to not denying the charges against him, it appears that most of Mr Prick's defense was merely pointing the finger in another direction. Instead of defending his own actions he has pointed out irrelevant things about myself and others. (I will give more details on this in my next statement)
Honorable Judge and ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I feel that right here and now I have proved beyond a reasonable doubt that my claims against the defendant are true. There are many false statements and even a few lies in Mr Prick's testimony that I will showcase below, but at this point I think the evidence is clear.
I will remind the court that I am not "demanding" I prefer the term request, but I am not requesting a huge payout on this case, I am not requesting any monetary reimbursement. I am only asking for justice and for what is fair. All I am asking for is that Papa "paprika" Prick fulfill his duties as a SSDS teacher and give me a driving exam.
I request at this time that the court ask Mr Prick if he is willing to give I the defendant a driving exam ever. If not then I request that the court order Mr Prick to give I the defendant a driving exam within 30 days which seems very reasonable. If Mr Prick cannot give I the defendant a driving exam within 30 days then I petition the court to suspend Mr Pricks rights as a teacher as it would be clear at that point that Mr Prick is using discriminatory practices based on personal malice.
I will need some time to prepare my statement where I go deeper into Mr Prick's testimony. This statement will showcase the false accusations and a few lies. Also this ridiculous notion that I am somehow stalking him, when clearly he is photographing me from great distances. It is very clear that the person doing the stalking is not me.
Kind regards to the court. I will take a recess to prepare my next statement.
-
Objection!
Honorable court, Mr. Quinn is obviously side-tracking and disregarding questions directed at him!
- Why didn't you accept training from Joey Lucchese and where is the evidence showing that he was busy
- Why did you illegally enter my personal vehicle and demanded driving sessions!
- Why are you now proving opposite from your previous statement
"Markk my request in this case is not for a teacher to give me a test, it is for paprika to give it."
I will remind the court that I am not "demanding" I prefer the term request, but I am not requesting a huge payout on this case, I am not requesting any monetary reimbursement. I am only asking for justice and for what is fair. All I am asking for is that Papa "paprika" Prick fulfill his duties as a SSDS teacher and give me a driving exam.
-
Honorable court, Mr. Quinn is obviously side-tracking and disregarding questions directed at him!
I have not sidetracked, I have accurately replied to various portions of your testimony where you freely and willfully admit to the court that you have a discriminatory bias towards me. I think if the court and the jury read through both of our testimony they will find that the only one sidetracking in this courtroom is the defendant.
- Why didn't you accept training from Joey Lucchese and where is the evidence showing that he was busy
I find this irrelevant to my case as the case is directed at your discrimination towards an SSDS applicant. Whether accepting or not accepting training does not change the fact that you have and are discriminating. However I was planning to address this in my second statement to the court even though I find it to be moot and irrelevant and merely another attempt to divert attention away from the actual case.
- Why did you illegally enter my personal vehicle and demanded driving sessions!
I did not realize I was illegally entering your vehicle, if I was then that should be reported to the LCPD, not to this court as it has no relevance to my case at hand. However, you never asked me to leave your vehicle and never heard any complaint about it until now. I think this is another attempt at pointing attention away from your own wrongdoings.
- Why are you now proving opposite from your previous statement
I think my statements have been consistent from start to finish, I don't recall my position ever changing.
Now lets move on...
I would like to point out to the court some false statements made by Mr Prick in his defense statement. The first item at hand is Mr Prick's preoccupation and statements regarding SSDS teacher Joey Lucchese. I would like to read back a few statements made by Mr Prick regarding this teacher.
Applicant did notice Joey Lucchese, seems only because of formality, but he never answered back to Joey's call to meet up at SSDS Headquarters in Algonquin/Lancaster
That form has been reviewed and answered by Joey Lucchese [Not me]. The same man later on even offered him assistance when Mr. Quinn was available at the time
Let me make this very clear, I never received any call from Joey Lucchese to "meet up at SSDS Headquarters" nor did Joey Lucchese ever "offered assistance". The only conversation I ever had with Mr Lucchese was when I asked him for a driving test after Mr Prick told me he could not. Mr Lucchese also stated that he cannot, but that he could later. I waited around and Mr Lucchese disconnected. Perhaps he forgot or perhaps something came up and he was unable.
For the next days it seemed that only Mr Prick was available when I checked for available teachers. After the second or third denial and after our strange conversation as I stated previously I became suspicious and wanted to see if my suspicion about Mr Prick was correct that he was discriminating against me. At that time I decided to only ask Mr Prick for tests to verify my suspicions.
We could certainly call Mr Lucchese as a witness to answer a few questions in this matter, however as stated previously I find this to be irrelevant and a moot point and has no impact on my case. Lets pretend that Mr Prick's statements are true and I ignored Mr Lucchese's call to meet at SSDS Headquarters. Does my choosing not to take a test with a certain teacher eliminate the possibility that another teacher is indiscriminately refusing to give the test? If true what if I had an emergency or an issue that prevented me from meeting for the test? These are only hypothetical questions because as previously stated Mr Lucchese never contacted me in that manner. If the defendant thinks that witness testimony from Mr Lucchese is helpful to his defense then he may call him as a witness, I have no desire to do so and if Mr Lucchese is honest in his testimony it will only help my case and hurt the defendant's. I will leave the decision to call this witness on the defense.
Lets move on...
After that I have started asking questions to which Mr. Quinn did not have an answer and even ended up mumbling nonsense. The whole situation escalated to that point that Mr. Quinn physically attacked me where I have defended myself and fought him off
As for the first part of this statement I see it as another distraction technique by Mr Prick. "I asked some questions, he did not have an answer, ended up mumbling nonsense". This information provides zero information to the court and jury and is merely random words spoken into the air, they have no meaning or relevance to the case. Are we seeing a trend in Mr Prick's testimony yet?
After that, I gave an explanation that what saved me from him is my Serbian stubbornness, called "Inat".
Last order of business...
Since Mr. Quinn came to the Liberty City I have noticed that he is constantly haunted by the idea of being close to me. Countless times have I seen him around, in my surroundings even before he came to the point where he can get in contact with me, the test for the driver`s license.
These are just some of the occasions in which I caught specific person at.. straight off stalking me!
Stalking me on the highway, waiting for me to pass by
(http://i68.tinypic.com/124zl1i.jpg)
Watching my every move near locationg populary known as MGS
(http://i68.tinypic.com/34j534h.jpg)
He does even get to close proximity, from interior of the gas station itself
(http://i68.tinypic.com/n441c.jpg)
Or even at the park! [His body was desynced, he needed to refreshme.. ]
(http://i68.tinypic.com/nvpbpv.jpg)
At first I thought it was a bit hypocritical that he stated that I am stalking him when it is he who is photographing me from great distances where I am clearly unaware of his presence. It surely looks like the defendant is the one stalking me doesn't it? But wait theres more...
As I looked closely at these images I noticed that something wasn't quite right. Lets take a look at Mr Prick's first example.
(http://i68.tinypic.com/amaxzm.jpg)
Is this a ghost? This number is not possible! How could this be? Just when I thought this treachery couldn't be any worse I noticed this!
(http://i68.tinypic.com/9uqlxy.jpg)
Another ghost? A phantom? A clone? Are my eyes deceiving me?
If you look at the other examples provided by Mr Prick you will see that my name is not even the same font as the others captured in the photograph! Ladies and gentlemen of the court Mr Prick has tried to trick you by providing counterfeit documents to this court! This is outrageous! I demand the court bailiff seize this individual and take him into custody immediately for these crimes against the justice system!
I will allow the court and jury to convene on these matters and the defendant to respond before I make my closing argument.
*steps down from the podium*
-
I find this irrelevant to my case as the case is directed at your discrimination towards an SSDS applicant. Whether accepting or not accepting training does not change the fact that you have and are discriminating.
It is directed at my discrimination towards you even dough you are the one that has been avoiding this question for so long. Honorable court, instructors, and employees of SSDS have access to an application called "am-a-free-o-meter". This application allows them to constantly update the live feed on SSDS web site which shows if they are available or not. If activated over a phone, the message automatically comes through and gives a public notice that the specific driving teacher is available.
Honorable court, Joey Lucchese has used that application moment before I asked him politely to take on Quinn as an applicant. The statement, that was given out by Mr. Quinn himself states.. and I quote:
The only conversation I ever had with Mr Lucchese was when I asked him for a driving test after Mr Prick told me he could not. Mr Lucchese also stated that he cannot, but that he could later.
I am asking for phone call history from local telecommunication company for this statement as, solo as it is.. is just a conjecture, hence it should be disregarded.
I did not realize I was illegally entering your vehicle
Honorable court, Mr. Quinn has admitted that he has entered my vehicle without permission. He, Mr. Quinn, straight away went with "Oh, you are here, let's go." After I clearly stated that I am not available, Mr. Quinn kept on pushing after which the situation escalated to a brawl! I defended myself honorable court, not vice versa. The man at hand, entered my personal vehicle, my property, my comfort zone. I felt endangered and threatened.
I think my statements have been consistent from start to finish, I don't recall my position ever changing.
Honorable court, I have clearly stated where have Mr. Quinn changed his statement.
"Markk my request in this case is not for a teacher to give me a test, it is for paprika to give it."
I will remind the court that I am not "demanding" I prefer the term request, but I am not requesting a huge payout on this case, I am not requesting any monetary reimbursement. I am only asking for justice and for what is fair. All I am asking for is that Papa "paprika" Prick fulfill his duties as a SSDS teacher and give me a driving exam.
I think my statements have been consistent from start to finish, I don't recall my position ever changing.
Regarding the statement, and I quote:
Does my choosing not to take a test with a certain teacher eliminate the possibility that another teacher is indiscriminately refusing to give the test?
Applicant does not have an option to choose with which driving instructor will he pass the training session. Only that he will pass when any of the Instructors is clearly available.
Also, regarding the following statement:
This is not only false but an outright lie. Mr Prick challenged me to a fight and stated that if I win that I will receive a driving test. I threw a few punches and missed
*Papa Prick coughs*
*Papa Prick smiles*
This is not only false but an outright lie.
I threw a few punches and missed.
Let me repeat that honorable court.
I threw a few punches and missed.
It is clear from the statement of Mr.Quinn who started the brawl. I must remind you, Mr.Quinn, that whomever commits physical attack onto another person is guilty of assault as it is stated in Liberty City Laws - Part six - "Crimes against the person and reputation", act seven.
Act 6.7
A person who attacks another person, with or without a weapon, is guilty of assault.
What I personally did here was an act of self-defense. I have punched Mr. Quinn until he was on the ground and stopped being imminent...
*Papa Prick smiles*
..imminent danger to me.
*Papa Prick makes a brief pause and then continues*
Statement of Mr. Quinn, quoting:
How exactly does ones stubbornness save one from another? Mr Prick has twisted the conversation. When I asked Mr Prick why he refuses to test me he states "Serbians have this thing called 'inat' which equates to stubbornness.". Mr Prick has attempted to save himself from this damaging evidence by twisting the context of its use to lessen the burden on himself, however if you read his statement and think about it, it hardly makes any sense.
The whole explanation of that is due to the nature of the situation at hand. There is no any twisting of context in the assault that you made onto me. I merely stated that the "Inat" was the thing that kept me on stand-by in case of danger.
As for the evidence that I have provided..
*Papa Prick sighs*
Those are the images that I have got from surveillance of traffic and/or public property. The images were not altered by me. I have delivered them in the original state as I have received it from the ARA Personnel.
-
let me re-state my complaint against the Second Street Driving School (SSDS) to the court. My complaint is as follows:
a). Mr Papa "paprika" Prick refuses to give I the plaintiff (Quinn) a driving exam.
b). Mr Papa "paprika" Prick refuses to give I the plaintiff (Quinn) a driving exam based on discrimination.
Mr Prick still has not denied the charges against him as well as Mr Prick continues to provide statements to the court that fail to hold relevance to these charges. None of Mr Pricks previous statements defend his actions of discrimination towards me and I would like to point out that Mr Prick still does not deny taking such discriminatory actions against me.
The telecommunication records are irrelevant as they have no impact on the charges, but I have nothing to hide please present these records to the court if it will make the defendant happy.
Mr Prick says that my statement has changed yet he provides two quotes of me saying the same thing with different wording. *scratches his head in confusion*
Mr Prick provided false documents to the court, he did not have the documents verified before submitting them, therefor he is responsible for their content.
Mr Prick challenged me to a fight and took a fighting stance, we began fighting at the same time. I did not start a fight, this was mutual combat initiated by both parties. Once again this is an LCPD matter and has no relevance to this case.
Mr Prick is clearly using a strategy of distracting and confusing the jury by providing extra things in an attempt to tarnish my name and reputation to give him favor by the jury. i have confidence that the jury is intelligent enough to see through this trickery.
-
I am asking for phone call history from local telecommunication company for this statement as, solo as it is.. is just a conjecture, hence it should be disregarded.
I have nothing to hide please present these records to the court if it will make the defendant happy.
I would like to make an amendment to my previous statement.
If telecommunications history is going to be provided for these proceedings then I make the motion that all telecommunications transmissions be made available to this court including state, government, administrative radio's and communication devices where the defendant and SSDS teacher Joey Lucchese have the ability to communicate about an applicant.
Does the defendant withdraw his request?
-
Mr Prick still has not denied the charges against him as well as Mr Prick continues to provide statements to the court that fail to hold relevance to these charges. None of Mr Pricks previous statements defend his actions of discrimination towards me and I would like to point out that Mr Prick still does not deny taking such discriminatory actions against me.
I hold up to my right as a member of Second Street Driving School that I can deny the applicant if I am not available for the training session. Honorable court, beside the job in "SSDS" I am also doing goods transportation for SnN Transporation systems, I am a fisherman and I do deserve some free time. What Mr. Quinn is asking here is solely based on his personal preference that have unknown intentions to it. I will repeat his statements:
"To clarify for the court in response to Markk. I asked paprika for a driving exam once per day for 6 days."
"Markk my request in this case is not for a teacher to give me a test, it is for paprika to give it."
" To prove that this is discrimination I will ask for a test every day for the next month. If paprika gives me an exam then I will withdraw this case."
Your honor, this is a clear display of obsession. I personally feel discomfort even in this room while sitting close to Mr. Quinn. His intentions are clear - Aim for me, Mr. Papa Prick, until he does not crack down.
Honorable court, I still request for phone history from local telecommunication company as well as for web site live-feed update stating that Mr. Joey Lucchese was available at the time Mr. Quinn has contacted me.
Mr Prick says that my statement has changed yet he provides two quotes of me saying the same thing with different wording.
The wording has not been changed, I am pretty sure you have noticed this lovely lady on the side that has been typing each and every word that was spoken out here.
*Papa Prick points towards the lady at side typing the statements*
*Papa Prick winks*
Mr Prick provided false documents to the court, he did not have the documents verified before submitting them, therefor he is responsible for their content.
I solely can not be responsible for the material that was provided to me by official Liberty City company ARA, for I have only asked for footage of locations at specific time intervals. The rest was on the company itself.
Mr Prick challenged me to a fight and took a fighting stance, we began fighting at the same time. I did not start a fight, this was mutual combat initiated by both parties. Once again this is an LCPD matter and has no relevance to this case.
No relevance to this case? Honorable court, he is clearly stating his intentions in these actions. If I may, I will use an old saying here
"A barking dog never bites"
I was merely trying to get Mr. Quinn to get away from me. I never had intentions to hurt him.
*Papa Prick smiles as he slowly sits down*
-
Honorable court
I would like to return to the very start of this case and the demands/claims of the Mr. Quinn.
Mr. Quinn is accusing me of discrimination. I personally do not claim that I did discriminate Mr. Quinn but I would like to state that discrimination on its own is not a crime or any type of an offense stated in Liberty City laws.
If Mr. Quinn is not accepting my actions or sees that they are not fitting for an employee of Second Street Driving School, he should file in a compliment to the manager of SSDS, not to the court.
I will hold up to my demands requesting for:
- I request this case to be dismissed
- That Mr. Quinn gets perimeter restriction for approaching anywhere close to me in distance of 30 or more meters.
- A public apology for bashing onto Second Street Driving School and its employee, Papa "paprika" Prick for false accusations.
If Mr. Quinn does not withdraw his case against Second Street Driving School and me, Mr. Papa Prick, I will open a new case where I will charge him for committing violations of Liberty City Laws:
Act 2.12
Provocation is the act of attempting, by gestures, words or blows, to start hostilities.
Act 2.13
Trespassing, or the fact of entering a property without a proper authorisation, is prohibited.
Act 5.8
A person who endangers the comfort, safety, property or lives of others is guilty of common nuisance.
Act 6.7
A person who attacks another person, with or without a weapon, is guilty of assault.
Act 6.8
A person who stalks, follows, spies on or watches a person repeatedly without his consent is guilty of harassment.
Act 13.3
The only organisation in Liberty City which is authorised to issue driving licenses is Second Street Driving School (SSDS).
SSDS is a government organisation.
To obtain a driving license, one must first pass lessons and exam.
SSDS sets the details and requirements of the exam.
I rest my case.
Regards,
Papa Prick
-
Mr. Quinn is accusing me of discrimination. I personally do not claim that I did discriminate Mr. Quinn but I would like to state that discrimination on its own is not a crime or any type of an offense stated in Liberty City laws.
If Mr. Quinn is not accepting my actions or sees that they are not fitting for an employee of Second Street Driving School, he should file in a compliment to the manager of SSDS, not to the court.
Please check the Liberty City Constitution sir, the contitution is the law of the land and outweighs any written laws.
Ordinance VII:
The rights of citizens shall not be denied or abridged by the nation or by any state because of race, color, religion, criminal history, or previous lifestyles.
This is absolutely a court matter and not an SSDS internal issue. Your discriminatory acts against me violate my civil rights and as an employee of a State Government owned business and as a government employee you may not refuse to provide services to citizens for the reasons listed above. You have denied me my right to receive a driving exam and you are hiding behind other teachers being available for tests as a cover-up for your hatred towards me.
If Mr. Quinn does not withdraw his case against Second Street Driving School and me, Mr. Papa Prick, I will open a new case where I will charge him for committing violations of Liberty City Laws:
Act 2.12
Provocation is the act of attempting, by gestures, words or blows, to start hostilities.
Act 2.13
Trespassing, or the fact of entering a property without a proper authorisation, is prohibited.
Act 5.8
A person who endangers the comfort, safety, property or lives of others is guilty of common nuisance.
Act 6.7
A person who attacks another person, with or without a weapon, is guilty of assault.
Act 6.8
A person who stalks, follows, spies on or watches a person repeatedly without his consent is guilty of harassment.
All false, no evidence, and irrelevant to this case. It was nice of you to open up the lawbook, I took a peek myself and found these:Part four - offences against administration of justice and law
Act 4.3
A person who willfully attempts to obstruct, pervert or defeat the course of justice is guilty of obstruction to justice.
Act 4.4
A person who gives contradictory or false statements to the government, courts of Liberty City or LEOs is guilty of perjury.
I would like the court to note for the record the crimes committed by the defendant for providing false/counterfeit documents to the court (violation of act 4.3) in an attempt to obstruct, pervert, or defeat the course of justice (violation of act 4.4).
Act 13.3
The only organisation in Liberty City which is authorised to issue driving licenses is Second Street Driving School (SSDS).
SSDS is a government organisation.
To obtain a driving license, one must first pass lessons and exam.
SSDS sets the details and requirements of the exam.[/i]
When you join a governmental organization which is the only organization authorized to issue anything, in this case drivers licenses, you give up any right to discriminate or deny based on whatever your reasons are. If SSDS were a privately owned business I would acknowledge their right to refuse service, in this case when the government has a monopoly on such services then the services must be provided.
-
Ordinance VII:
The rights of citizens shall not be denied or abridged by the nation or by any state because of race, color, religion, criminal history, or previous lifestyles.
Honorable court, I would like to remind all again that SSDS offered assistance to Mr. Quinn at the moment when he asked me for the training session. That was done in such manner, where another employee [Joey Lucchese] has displayed his status as available at the moment when I gave my answer to Mr. Quin that I am not available and that he should contact another driving instructor, Joey Lucchese.
Due to that circumstance, I alone, can not be claimed guilty of discrimination as the specific individual did in fact, receive the opportunity to finish the application at SSDS.
I am now asking, how come that Mr. Quinn was not available to take the driving lessons with Joey Lucchese if he just finished negotiating over the same thing with me?
Also, the question at hand is, why is Mr. Quinn hiding the answer of Joey Lucchese behind the "I was not able to document his answer.. but he was busy."
As for the claims to charge me with the violation of acts 4.3 and 4.4, I would like to repeat my statement that:
Those are the images that I have got from surveillance of traffic and/or public property. The images were not altered by me. I have delivered them in the original state as I have received it from the ARA Personnel.
Regarding the statement of Mr. Quinn that I MUST take on the training of an individual no matter the reasons at hand..
When you join a governmental organization which is the only organization authorized to issue anything, in this case drivers licenses, you give up any right to discriminate or deny based on whatever your reasons are.
..I must, again, repeat the following statement of SSDS management and Liberty City Laws.
Act 13.3
SSDS sets the details and requirements of the exam.
We have a lot of students and their numbers are always rising hence teachers might not be able to give you a lesson/exam whenever you want them to. Do not be impatient, respect our time and we will respect yours.
Considering those facts, please be advised the following:
Do not pester teachers to give you lessons or tests if stated busy.
Honorable court, it seems that Mr. Quinn has more conflicts with the way that Second Street Driving School handles its applications than with me personally not being able to provide him with proper training/testing.
Honorable court, I will repeat again my request and with this end my defense for the time being, because at this moment, I have a feeling that Mr. Quinn is just a.. big fan of the once-popular singer, Flo Rida (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CcCw1ggftuQ).
*Papa Prick starts humming the melody for a brief moment*
*Papa Prick coughs and then smiles*
As I was saying, my request stays the same:
- I request this case to be dismissed
- That Mr. Quinn gets perimeter restriction for approaching anywhere close to me in distance of 30 or more meters.
- A public apology for bashing onto Second Street Driving School and its employee, Papa "paprika" Prick for false accusations.
-
I will make my closing argument now, outlining my claims and the flaws in Mr Pricks defense.
My case:
a). Mr Papa "paprika" Prick refuses to give I the plaintiff (Quinn) a driving exam.
b). Mr Papa "paprika" Prick refuses to give I the plaintiff (Quinn) a driving exam based on discrimination.
I ask the jury, based on the evidence are these statements accurate or inaccurate? Let me recap.
* I asked Mr Prick for a driving exam once per day for 6 consecutive days. Following each request I was given the response "I am not available". Not "later" or "maybe later" or "when i am finished with this" but simply "I am not available".
If I asked for 10 consecutive days, 20 consecutive days, 30 consecutive days would your opinion change?
* Mr Prick made it clear after the third request that he did not like me for an unknown reason, I asked Mr Prick why he hated me and he refused to answer the question.
* Mr Prick confirmed his act of discrimination against me in Exhibit 1 and Evidence 4 (http://www.argonathrpg.eu/index.php?topic=120098.msg1879087#msg1879087).
* Mr Prick's discrimination is a violation of Ordinance VII of the Argonath Constitution (http://www.argonathrpg.eu/index.php?topic=69403.msg1048909#msg1048909).
* Mr Prick has not denied his act of discrimination nor has he provided any evidence to the court to suggest otherwise. Mr Prick's primary defense has been distraction techniques and irrelevant information.
* Mr Prick has attempted to confuse and/or divert the jury by stating the Joey Lucchese was available for exams after my request. This case is not about SSDS failing to provide me a driving exam, it is about Mr Prick refusing to give me a test based on discrimination. Joey Lucchesse never made himself available for an exam as Mr Prick states however it is irrelevant. The case is pointed at SSDS because SSDS is a state government ran agency and the only group authorized to issue drivers licenses. Filing against Mr Prick personally would be inappropriate.
* Mr Prick has attempted to confuse and/or divert the jury by claiming that I am some sort of stalker. This is false, I have been incredibly busy with my work in Liberty City and simply have no time or inclination for stalking others.
* Mr Prick has attempted to confuse and/or divert the jury by claiming that I attacked him, when in reality Mr Prick challenged me to a fight which we both accepted and engaged in. This is irrelevant to this case and is merely another distraction technique.
* Mr Prick has violated Act 4.3 and Act 4.4 of the Laws of Liberty City (http://www.argonathrpg.eu/index.php?topic=118836.msg1863238#msg1863238) by providing false/counterfeit photographs to this court, photographs which were intended to portray me as a stalker. The fact that these documents were submitted raises a huge red flag showing that Mr Prick is aware of his guilt in this case and is grasping for anything to draw attention away from it.
* Mr Prick requested telecommunication records between myself and Joey Lucchese (irrelevant), but when I suggested that if those records become available than so should all records between SSDS employees regarding my application including administrative radios then the request was magically forgotten about.
Ladies and gentlemen I will close with these words. Mr Prick has obviously been a citizen of Liberty City far longer than I, he surely has friends in high places. I am the new guy in town and as a result I expect the jury may side with Mr Prick regardless of the irrefutable evidence I have provided. I have my faith in the system, I have faith in justice, and I have faith in you to do the right thing.
I would like to amend my "demands" for this case. It is not my place to determine punishment for Mr Prick. It is clear that he will not be giving me the driving exam when this is all over with. It is not my place to say that Mr Prick should be fired even though I think he should. My new demands are that SSDS take appropriate actions against Mr Prick to ensure that no other citizens rights are violated in this manner again.
Thank you for your time.
*Quinn steps down and takes a seat*
-
Are there any closing arguments before the Judge or Jury will make his verdict?
-
I have made my closing remarks and am ready for the verdict.
-
Guess the jury will just make its verdict without further questioning. I am alright with that, I have said what I wanted to
-
I would like to inform the court that I am getting close to being able to afford the car I want. I don't think Mr Prick will be willing to give me a driving test even if the court orders it.
I will be requesting the test from another teacher. This should not effect the outcome of this case as my claims against SSDS are that Mr Prick refused to give me the test based on discrimination, not the other SSDS teachers.
If this creates a problem please inform me.
-
First off, let's make a couple of things clear.
- This court case is against Paprika Prick and not versus Second Street Driving School (as the title implies)
- Demand 1: Paprika Prick is to be fired from SSDS due discrimination
Demand 2: Paprika Prick is to give Quinn a driving exam
I would like to confirm this with Quinn before we continue this case. Please note that we will not consider any change of these demands after confirmation.
-
The reason I made the case against SSDS is because they are the employer who also happens to be the "state" and are responsible for the actions of their employees. If you wish to redirect the case to Mr Prick personally then I respect your decision to do so.
I would like to amend my "demands" for this case. It is not my place to determine punishment for Mr Prick. It is clear that he will not be giving me the driving exam when this is all over with. It is not my place to say that Mr Prick should be fired even though I think he should. My new demands are that SSDS take appropriate actions against Mr Prick to ensure that no other citizens rights are violated in this manner again.
My only demand is that if Mr Prick should be found guilty that SSDS takes action they deem appropriate, if that is termination then so be it. My heart is with the citizens of Liberty City and would not wish such discrimination put onto others in the future.
-
Guess the jury will just make its verdict without further questioning.
Both the sueing party and the defending party have said enough. I am able to make a verdict basd on the replies.
Mr Pricks defense starts out with telling how Quinn has been stalking him. I do not see clear proof of this, because I only see photo's (which authenticity is questionable) where Quinn's physical body is not visible and thus his identity cannot be confirmed. Also the phone recordings are unclear which cannot confirm if it's really Quinn calling.
Evidence 4 photo 3 clearly shows that Paprika Prick is showing a particular disinterest in Quinn. On multiple occasions you have shown not to be willing to give Quinn a driving test.
Quinn: "Sir, do you treat all newcomers this way?"
Paprika: "No no, just you"
Paprika: "Keep dreaming"
Paprika: "Ain't no one gonna get a driving test today!"
Paprika: "I am not available"
Exactly six days you have been ignoring Quinn to give him a driving test. One or two days I could have understand, but six days is not a coincidence. Combining the evidences that you have not given him a test and that you showed not to be favourable of Quinn, it would be fair to say that you have not fullfilled your duty as an SSDS driving teacher.
You have shown that you are not a professional driving teacher. If you were unwilling to give Quinn a driving teacher, you could have explained this to him with your real or true reason. You could also have planned a date together for a test.
The SSDS topic does indeed show the following information:
"We have a lot of students and their numbers are always rising hence teachers might not be able to give you a lesson/exam whenever you want them to"
"Do not pester teachers to give you lessons or tests if stated busy."
However this does not mean that Paprika Prick does not ever need to give a driving test or that he needs to act in an unprofessional matter towards Quinn. Because of this unprofessionalism and the words "No no, just you" (among other words) I believe that Paprika Prick has indeed discriminated Quinn. Out of stubborness, or some annoyance that Quinn has, you have decided not to give him a test at all. Yes, there were other driving teachers available. Quinn however did not take this opportunity as he could have. Instead he waited for Paprika Prick to give one.
My verdict will be the following:
Paprika Prick has been found guilty of discriminating Quinn by not giving him a driving test with the professionalism expected of a driving teacher. A legitimate reason of why he not able to give one could not be given and the evidence shows that Paprika Prick particularly did not want to give a test to Quinn alone. Also Paprika Prick has given atleast 2 driving exams since the start of this court case, meaning he does have time to give exams, just not to Quinn.
The SSDS has a good reputation in my eyes and therefor I want to ask the SSDS to take appropiate measures like re-evaluating the position of Paprika Prick inside the teaching school or giving him a suspension of a certain amount of days. If the SSDS is not willing to take appropiate measures, I will take them.
Also, I'll be waiting for your court case Paprika Prick.
If Mr. Quinn does not withdraw his case against Second Street Driving School and me, Mr. Papa Prick, I will open a new case where I will charge him for committing violations of Liberty City Laws:
Act 2.12
Provocation is the act of attempting, by gestures, words or blows, to start hostilities.
Act 2.13
Trespassing, or the fact of entering a property without a proper authorisation, is prohibited.
Act 5.8
A person who endangers the comfort, safety, property or lives of others is guilty of common nuisance.
Act 6.7
A person who attacks another person, with or without a weapon, is guilty of assault.
Act 6.8
A person who stalks, follows, spies on or watches a person repeatedly without his consent is guilty of harassment.
Act 13.3
The only organisation in Liberty City which is authorised to issue driving licenses is Second Street Driving School (SSDS).
SSDS is a government organisation.
To obtain a driving license, one must first pass lessons and exam.
SSDS sets the details and requirements of the exam.
I rest my case.
Regards,
Papa Prick
-
Both parties have the opportunity to say something in this topic with only one reply. Actions taken by SSDS or me will be posted as last.
-
Honorable court
I object. The following comments were made only after Mr. Quinn has physically attacked me.
Paprika: "Keep dreaming"
Paprika: "Ain't no one gonna get a driving test today!"
Paprika: "I am not available"
Quinn: "Sir, do you treat all newcomers this way?"
Paprika: "No no, just you"
As such, I believe that I had the right to deny the candidate as he just showed aggression towards me personally.
Regarding the following statement:
Also Paprika Prick has given atleast 2 driving exams since the start of this court case, meaning he does have time to give exams, just not to Quinn.
I must object as the exams given were at the time when I was available. The fact that I have denied Mr. Quinn 3 times [ Yes, 3 times. No more], is only because of all the other tasks I had at my hands in given moment. And when he started the court case against me, I refused his request as he was the suing party that had a case held against me
*papa prick sits down while waiting for further response*
-
I initially did not have any final words, but I do have a reply to Mr Prick as my final words.
Mr Prick's statement that I physically attacked him is heresay and no evidence has been provided, also the time that the statements occurred cannot be proven. I do admit to a physical altercation however as stated previously this altercation was initiated by Mr Prick where he basically challenged me to combat and offered a driving test if I was victorious.
Neither party has evidence to these claims, however the evidence of discrimination has been established according to the honorable judge.
Mr Prick also had sufficient time to deny my claim that he only denied me three times instead of six. In all of Mr Prick's statements to the court he has failed to mention this until now when the court offers the parties one final comment, I see this as a last desperate grasp of reversing the courts decision.
I am satisfied with the courts decision and have no further comments.
-
*Papa Prick starts repeating Mr. Quinn`s statement*
Mr Prick's statement that I physically attacked him is heresay and no evidence has been provided, also the time that the statements occurred cannot be proven.
Neither party has evidence to these claims
I do admit to a physical altercation
however as stated previously this altercation was initiated by Mr Prick where he basically challenged me to combat and offered a driving test if I was victorious.
I threw a few punches and missed, Mr Prick punched me two times.
no evidence has been provided
Honorable court, it seems we do not have an evidence.. but we do have a statement? Is this not enough of a proof that Mr. Quinn did start to physically attack me on the day that is showed on the images?
Honorable court, I still stand by my word that I did not give a driving session to Mr. Quinn on that specific day because he physically assaulted me after illegally entering my car.
Mr Prick also had sufficient time to deny my claim that he only denied me three times instead of six.
no evidence has been provided
The suing party has only evidence of only one day where I rejected him as an applicant.
Besides that day, there were two more days as I have mentioned in my previous statements.
I alone had the right to deny the applicant on that day as he displayed himself as an imminent danger to me and probably even to my associates
-
Both parties have the opportunity to say something in this topic with only one reply. Actions taken by SSDS or me will be posted as last.
-
SSDS has chosen to suspend Papricka Prick for a week. Case closed