Quinn vs Second Street Driving School

[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.

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.

[Mihail Junkovich]

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.

*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.

[Quinn]

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.

* Mr Prick's discrimination is a violation of Ordinance VII of the Argonath Constitution.

* 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 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*

[James Conway]

Are there any closing arguments before the Judge or Jury will make his verdict?

[Quinn]

I have made my closing remarks and am ready for the verdict.

[Mihail Junkovich]

Guess the jury will just make its verdict without further questioning. I am alright with that, I have said what I wanted to

[Quinn]

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.

[James Conway]

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.

[Quinn]

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.

[James Conway]

 

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

[James Conway]

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.

[Mihail Junkovich]

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*

[Quinn]

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.

[Mihail Junkovich]

*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

[Quinn]

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.