badboydhia VS ronman

[badgirl.dhia]

From:
BadGirldhia
Liberty City

To :
State of Argonath, People's Court

Dear court, i am Mrs badGirldhia , Lawyer of Mr badboydhia ! On (14/08/2019) badboydhia was parking his sultan, as soon as he start driving his car  and he saw the police sirens and got pull overed! at first the officer requested my client documents and checks them ! then mr badboy asked to know the reason of the traffic stop and the officer completely ignored him and asked him to step out of his vehicle !
as soon as badboy steps out of the vehicle the officer attempts to frisk him
my client refused , since the officer didnt mention the reason of the traffic stop and didnt provide any warrant to frisk , the lovely officer keep screaming and forced mr badboy to frisk him , when he didnt found anything on him he also attempts to abuse his duty right again an frisk the vehicle , but my client refused and didnt allow him to
i also want to mention that mr badboy requested a supervisor to be present at the scene and of course the officer completely ignored him
so this amazing officer
- performed a traffic stop on my client for no reason
-forced him and frisked him without any warrant or a reason
-attempted to frisk and search his vehicle without any warrant
-refused to call for a supervisor

hopefully the dashboard camera was running the whole time , also my client was equiped with a body camera
your honor here is a video footage


Requests
requesting a copban for this freecop for abusing rights and duty against citizens.


signed
BadGirl Dhia

[superh2o]

From:Courts of the State of Liberty
Frankfort Ave.
Liberty City, Algonquin


From: Liberty State People's Court Jury, Spokesman of Liberty City Jury Mane Jugović

The Defendant has 48h to make his case on this situation.


Signed:
Mane_Jugović

[superh2o]

For some side TL:DR, court uses LCPD procedures as standard on how officer should act.

9. An LCPD Officer is allowed to cross, search or raid private properties without a warrant:
A. When the owner of the private property is stated as suspect.
B. When someone's life is in direct danger (example: hostage situations, robberies, chasing a criminal).
C. When the owner of the private property gives permission for it.

10. An LCPD Officer is NOT allowed to cross, search or raid private properties without a warrant:
A. When the owner of the private property is NOT stated as suspect.
B. When a higher ranked LCPD member does not give permission to do so.
C. When the owner of the private property does NOT give permission (exception: life threatning situations).

13. An LCPD Officer is allowed to perform a traffic stop (using the 'yelp' siren):
A. When the driver's speed is not within the limits of the Liberty City law.
B. When the driver is driving recklessly.
C. When the driver is a suspect.


For all officers who will read this, please follow the procedures or in case of lawsuits you will be found guilty of abuse of power, for all changes that are badly needed as procedures are very old, court is not responsible for them and we cant as such change them.

To perform a search you must find weed on site (in the pot/ *growing or ready to harvest is irrelevant*), also knows as a valid crime, from there you can search the person and his property.

[ronman]

Mr. Kowalski will be representing me as my Attorney in this case.

[Kowalski.]

Spoiler for Hiden:

((Apologies for not responding sooner, had some matters come up IRL that took up my time))

Greetings to the Liberty City People's Court,

I'm Kowalski, Attorney of Mr. Ron. I'd like to start with my client's plea. NOT GUILTY.

I'd like to explain that my client had no true malicious intent, and was not attempting to abuse his rights in any way, but was, in fact, attempting to do the exact opposite, to ensure justice was served and that the laws and the constitution were upheld through his job as a policeman.

My client felt there were adequate grounds for a search as the plaintiff was in an area notorious for cultivation and production of cannabis. The plaintiff has alleged that they were awaiting a friend but has failed to provide any conclusive evidence that proves beyond reasonable doubt that said claims are true.

My client was attempting to ensure that there was no illegal drug production happening, and was not in any way abusing his rights. I'd also like to additionally point out to the Courts that Mr. Ron is also a reserve officer of the ARPD, and is not officially bound by their procedures, but the law only. Mr. Ron was frisking the plaintiff on grounds of suspected narcotics production and cultivation, which is a serious offense. My client feels that he had adequate grounds to take the measures that he took and does not regret his actions as they were in the interests of the Liberty State Constitution.

My client did not call for a supervisor because LCPD Sergeant Kawashty Gatsby was already on-scene in a Police Stinger, meaning the supervisor was present and could have intervened should the necessity have arisen, which it clearly didn't. We request the Sergeant to testify against the plaintiff, Badboydhia, regarding his presence on-scene. He was also close enough to clearly hear what was happening and didn't intervene due to no actual abuse.

To address the plaintiff's "summary":

so this amazing officer
- performed a traffic stop on my client for no reason
-forced him and frisked him without any warrant or a reason
-attempted to frisk and search his vehicle without any warrant
-refused to call for a supervisor

Bullet Point 1: My client performed a traffic stop with adequate grounds, suspicion of narcotics production, and possession.
Bullet Point 2: Again, my client felt there were adequate grounds for a search.
Bullet Point 3: My client is a reserve officer of the ARPD and therefore can't request a warrant, it'd be a very complicated process. However, my client once again felt there were adequate grounds for a search.
Bullet Point 4: Why would my client call for a supervisor when the said supervisor, Sergeant Gatsby is already on the scene?

My client is having a hard time understanding whether badboydhia is vision impaired, or if badboydhia is trying to defame his integrity by alleging that my client refused to call a supervisor despite one already being on-scene.

We demand this case be immediately closed, and my client wishes to press the following charges against badboydhia:

Code: [Select]

Act 5.10
A person spreading false news is guilty of spreading false news.


Code: [Select]

Act 5.8
A person who endangers the comfort, safety, property or lives of others is guilty of common nuisance.

Code: [Select]

Act 4.3
A person who willfully attempts to obstruct, pervert or defeat the course of justice is guilty of obstruction to justice.

Code: [Select]

Act 4.4
A person who gives contradictory or false statements to the government, courts of Liberty City or LEOs is guilty of perjury.
My client demands that badboydhia be charged with spreading false news (propaganda) against my client's character with defaming intent and that he be sentenced to two years (two minutes) in prison.
My client demands that badboydhia is also charged with common nuisance and is sentenced to five years (five minutes) in prison for common nuisance due to endangering the comfort of my client.
My client demands that badboydhia be charged with obstruction of justice and be sentenced to five years imprisonment.
My client demands that badboydhia be finally charged with perjury and be sentenced to five years imprisonment, leading to a grand total amount of time in prison being 17 years (17 minutes).
My client demands reimbursement of $250 for wasted time.
My client demands reimbursement of $250 for defamation of his integrity and accusations against his character creating an image to the public that my client is corrupt.
My client demands a further $250 due to sleep deprivation due to this case.
My client lastly demands another $250 for psychological stress due to this case, leading to a grand total of $1000.

Regards,
Kowalski
Attorney.

[superh2o]

From:Courts of the State of Liberty
Frankfort Ave.
Liberty City, Algonquin


From: Liberty State People's Court Jury, Spokesman of Liberty City Jury Mane Jugović

The court asks the defendant does he want to dissregard LCPD protocol, and be judged only per Liberty City constituation?


Signed:
Mane_Jugović

[Kowalski.]

My client says yes, as ARPD Officers are technically not bound by LCPD procedures but may choose to follow them. My client wishes to be judged based on the law, which is what he is actually bound by.

Regards,
Kowalski
Attorney

[superh2o]

From:Courts of the State of Liberty
Frankfort Ave.
Liberty City, Algonquin


From: Liberty State People's Court Jury, Spokesman of Liberty City Jury Mane Jugović

Will the plaintiff respond to the defendants statement?


Signed:
Mane_Jugović

[badgirl.dhia]

My client did not call for a supervisor because LCPD Sergeant Kawashty Gatsby was already on-scene in a Police Stinger, meaning the supervisor was present and could have intervened should the necessity have arisen, which it clearly didn't. We request the Sergeant to testify against the plaintiff, Badboydhia, regarding his presence on-scene. He was also close enough to clearly hear what was happening and didn't intervene due to no actual abuse.

as we can see from the video footage that the sergeant wasnt involved in the situation at all ! he also was far enough so he can hear us !
looks like the defendants attorney  talks too mush (lot of useless blah blah)
i am not going to waste a line to convince him that 1+1=2!
i just wanted to add that according to this

For some side TL:DR, court uses LCPD procedures as standard on how officer should act.

9. An LCPD Officer is allowed to cross, search or raid private properties without a warrant:
A. When the owner of the private property is stated as suspect.
B. When someone's life is in direct danger (example: hostage situations, robberies, chasing a criminal).
C. When the owner of the private property gives permission for it.

10. An LCPD Officer is NOT allowed to cross, search or raid private properties without a warrant:
A. When the owner of the private property is NOT stated as suspect.
B. When a higher ranked LCPD member does not give permission to do so.
C. When the owner of the private property does NOT give permission (exception: life threatning situations).

13. An LCPD Officer is allowed to perform a traffic stop (using the 'yelp' siren):
A. When the driver's speed is not within the limits of the Liberty City law.
B. When the driver is driving recklessly.
C. When the driver is a suspect.


For all officers who will read this, please follow the procedures or in case of lawsuits you will be found guilty of abuse of power, for all changes that are badly needed as procedures are very old, court is not responsible for them and we cant as such change them.

9
A. my client wasnt suspect!
B. no ones life was in direct danger
C. my client clearly refused and didnt give permission to get frisked
10
B. the defendant didnt get any permission from a higher ranked LCPD member , he also refused to call his supervisory when my client asked

13
A. my client wasnt speeding , he got pull overed as soon as he start driving
B. my client wasnt reckless driving
C. he wasnt suspect too

To perform a search you must find weed on site (in the pot/ *growing or ready to harvest is irrelevant*), also knows as a valid crime, from there you can search the person and his property.

no weed or any type of drugs were found at the spot !
also the defandant attempted to frisk my client vehicle of course without any warrant , but my client refuse and insist !

so its clearly this freecop abuse each procedures above! and after doing all this , he simply run to his cruiser and went away.

[superh2o]

I'm sorry @badboy.dhia, you will need to re do your statement, once again i'm sorry, I was sure you will use constitution rights only as mentioned above.

The plaintiff wants to use only base constitution as his reasons for search those are following.

Ordinance IV:
The right of the citizens to be secure in their own belongings against unreasonable searches shall not be violated without probable cause. A citizen may neither be arrested without a legal reason. A law enforcer is allowed to question a person if he has any reasonable motive to think this person is doing a suspicious act. The law enforcer cannot force a person to be put in detention in the only goal to interrogate him. If, in any case, the law enforcer had to transport the person to another area in order to interrogate him and the person is found not guilty, it is the law enforcer responsibility to transport or pay for a transport to carry the person back to his initial location where he was when he was approached to be interrogated. A law enforcer may interview people present at a scene as witness.

Ordinance X:
Everyone has the right to life, liberty and safety of their person. A person cannot be deprived of those rights except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice or the interests of national security.

Ordinance XI:
A law enforcer can search and seize any illegal material. The search can only be justified by reasonable doubts and reasons. The citizen must be informed before the search. If he feels the reason is not lawful, he may request a superior authority such as sworn officer, police chief, federal agent or government official, to come and take a decision. The decision can be contested in court if the decision taken cannot be explained by valid reasons.

Ordinance XII: 
In the case of arrest or detention, a citizen must be promptly informed of the reasons, must also be informed that he has the right to a lawyer and must be allowed to use that right as soon as possible. He shall also have the validity of the detention controlled by the present law and to be released if the detention is not lawful.   

*Ordinance XII is here just cuz it is included in the police and public interactions, its only realted to the case and has no effect in this case as there was no arrest carried out.*

[Kowalski.]

My client did not call for a supervisor because LCPD Sergeant Kawashty Gatsby was already on-scene in a Police Stinger, meaning the supervisor was present and could have intervened should the necessity have arisen, which it clearly didn't. We request the Sergeant to testify against the plaintiff, Badboydhia, regarding his presence on-scene. He was also close enough to clearly hear what was happening and didn't intervene due to no actual abuse.

as we can see from the video footage that the sergeant wasnt involved in the situation at all ! he also was far enough so he can hear us !
looks like the defendants attorney  talks too mush (lot of useless blah blah)
i am not going to waste a line to convince him that 1+1=2!
i just wanted to add that according to this

For some side TL:DR, court uses LCPD procedures as standard on how officer should act.

9. An LCPD Officer is allowed to cross, search or raid private properties without a warrant:
A. When the owner of the private property is stated as suspect.
B. When someone's life is in direct danger (example: hostage situations, robberies, chasing a criminal).
C. When the owner of the private property gives permission for it.

10. An LCPD Officer is NOT allowed to cross, search or raid private properties without a warrant:
A. When the owner of the private property is NOT stated as suspect.
B. When a higher ranked LCPD member does not give permission to do so.
C. When the owner of the private property does NOT give permission (exception: life threatning situations).

13. An LCPD Officer is allowed to perform a traffic stop (using the 'yelp' siren):
A. When the driver's speed is not within the limits of the Liberty City law.
B. When the driver is driving recklessly.
C. When the driver is a suspect.


For all officers who will read this, please follow the procedures or in case of lawsuits you will be found guilty of abuse of power, for all changes that are badly needed as procedures are very old, court is not responsible for them and we cant as such change them.

Sergeant Gatsby was able to hear you and my client clearly, yet didn't intervene as there was no abuse according to the constitution. We request the said Sergeant, Kawashty Gatsby, to confirm this.

According to Ordinance IV, your right to be secure in your belongings can't be violated without probable cause, which Mr. ronman had. He suspected as an officer that you were growing narcotics and therefore had every right to search you and your vehicle to ensure the law wasn't being violated.

Ordinance XI also allows said actions to be carried out. You had the right to request a supervisor who was already on-scene ensuring all actions were lawful. Sergeant Gatsby was able to hear you and see what was happening, and didn't intervene as there was no abuse from my client's end.

We therefore wish to add the following charges against badboydhia and his lawyer, badgirldhia:

Code: [Select]

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.
Regards,
Kowalski
Attorney

[superh2o]

From:Courts of the State of Liberty
Frankfort Ave.
Liberty City, Algonquin


From: Liberty State People's Court Jury, Spokesman of Liberty City Jury Mane Jugović

According to Ordinance IV, your right to be secure in your belongings can't be violated without probable cause, which Mr. ronman had. He suspected as an officer that you were growing narcotics and therefore had every right to search you and your vehicle to ensure the law wasn't being violated.

Ordinance XI also allows said actions to be carried out. You had the right to request a supervisor who was already on-scene ensuring all actions were lawful. Sergeant Gatsby was able to hear you and see what was happening, and didn't intervene as there was no abuse from my client's end.

As per defenses claims, now the defense must present there evidence, not guesses that will show that plaintiff did indeed break the law at the time he was pulled over and searched.

Court will only take into account facts, not guesses, and based on supervisors statement, he also can be charged with abuse of power.

The court calls the supervisor on scene to make his statement. @kawashty

The court gives the supervisor 48h to reply.

The Court asks the plaintiff to wait for supervisors and defenses response before making new submissions to court.

Signed:
Mane_Jugović

[Kowalski.]

Sergeant Gatsby's testimony is what we'll await before proceeding further.

[kawashty]

I am Sergeant Ray Fearon,


I was there at the scene that's right, i was in HP Duty as i got a call for backup for further situations.


I was observing from a distance through the mirrors and making sure that i am ready for any possible evasion as i am in HP Vehicle, i heared some shouting so i asked the officer through radio if everything is alright, he confirmed that everything is Good.


According to my observation i saw that the citizen was abit resisting the orders of the officer while frisking process.


The officer is free to follow our procedures, no restrictions on them for now.

Spoiler for Hiden:

Scriptly i can hear, if you tell me the script is perfectly done, nothing is perfectly made unless its by god, When the officer moved to his crusier and the citizen went to him, the conversation were cut out, i believe that an attorney should gather the info then evidence too before considering someone has done something.

[Kowalski.]

Thanks for the testimony. The conversation that was cut out from Sgt. Gatsby's hearing range was shown on camera.

Another note, LCPD procedures are simply rules enforced internally by the LCPD. They cannot be cited as laws or criminal ordinances. Should a breach of procedure be done, reporting the Officer can be done over the ARPD forum. In Mr. Ron's case, as he's not an LCPD official, he can't be reported and even LCPD officials can't be held criminally responsible for breaching internal procedures.

Therefore, the plaintiff's case is to some extent invalid unless they wish to prosecute my client based off constitutional ordinances and/or laws.
 
((OOC: The range is set so it's reasonable and so counts. Also, the evidence is shown on camera))

Regards,
Kowalski
Attorney