What's new

Thomas Paganelli v. State of San Andreas

Status
Not open for further replies.

Abdulaziz

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2017
Messages
2,809
Location
oink oink
In The Court of Appeals
For The State of San Andreas​

Thomas Paganelli et al.,
Plaintiffs

v.
Criminal Appeal Action No. [TO BE ASSIGNED]

State of San Andreas et al.,
Defendants



DISPUTE FOR CRIMINAL CHARGES
Charges:
  • §208.000 Failure To Comply
Charging date: 21st of August, 2018.

Time served: Undetermined. (Currently on an unsecured bond)


Jurisdiction:

The case is filled under the geographical jurisdiction of Bone County, State of San Andreas.


Plaintiff's Plea:

On the 21st of August, The Booby Trap was raided by the Sheriff's Office. The plaintiff with everyone else whom was inside were escorted outside of the premises. The plaintiff, exercising his first amendment, took out his phone and start recording the ordeal. A deputy constantly shouts "go home", the plaintiff already away from the scene keeps on recording. The deputy puts the plaintiff's friend under arrest, this is when he also orders another deputy to put the plaintiff under arrest for no apparent reason. The plaintiff was not issued any clear lawful orders therefor didn't have any lawful orders to fail and comply with. The plaintiff also did not interfere with the deputies' duties and kept a great amount of distance. The plaintiff was at no point told to get away from the scene and was recording while standing on a public sidewalk that is far away from the scene. The plaintiff was then arrested by the Sheriff's office and his phone was seized. He still has not been given his phone back to this current moment of time. The plaintiff pleads not guilty to one count of failure to comply.


Remedy:

The Plaintiff requests for a speedy and fair criminal trial to pursue to determine the validity of his charges. Once done, the plaintiff requests the continuation of the civil lawsuit that is currently put on hold to resume regardless of the outcome of this criminal trial.



Dated this 23rd day of August, 2018







Signature A. Garcia

Adriana Garcia, State Bar License No. 735, Attorney at Law
 
Last edited:

Zoltan

Faction Consultant
Joined
Dec 4, 2011
Messages
5,978


San Andreas State Appellate Court


Receipt of Filing





Thomas Paganelli(s) v. San Andreas County Sheriff's Office(s)






Judge Assignment
The Court requires that the defendant(s) be notified in a timely manner; no less than seventy-two hours (3 days). Once proof of notice has been submitted to the Court, defendants have exactly one week to file an answer that addresses all of the claims alleged in the complaint. If the defendant fails to respond within seven days after proof of notice was supplied to the court, then the possesses the discretion to sustain the complaint or make a default judgment. Additionally, if the plaintiff's party fails to supply the Court with adequate proof of notice, then the case shall be disposed via involuntary dismissal.


((Screenshots are required of an in-game notification or a notification via forum.))

Only one defendant is require to answer this complaint, however, all plaintiff may file separate answers; unique to each. No answer from any defendant shall be accepted more than seven days after proof of notice has been supplied.

JUDGE ASSIGNMENT:
Justice Haines


((@Codac ))
 

Codac

Donator
Joined
Mar 29, 2013
Messages
5,195
San Andreas State Appeals Court
Verdict





Thomas Paganelli(s) v. San Andreas County Sheriff's Office(s)





Justice Haines,

Verdict
The San Andreas County Sheriff's Office has failed to respond to the notice to respond to the case. As such, the verdict shall automatically make the plaintiff Thompas Paganelli not guilty, and the charge shall be removed from his record.


The Appeal Court hereby rules in favor of the plaintiff.​




San Andreas State Court
The Honorable Justice Haines
 

Anderson

Retired Admin
Joined
Nov 17, 2016
Messages
1,904
Formal Answer To Complaint
In The Court of Appeals
For The State of San Andreas​

IN RE: Thomas Paganelli v. State of San Andreas

Samuel Accorsi
v.

State of San Andreas,



Statement of the Answer
Thomas Paganelli v. State of San Andreas
Sheriff Jake Anderson Esq.​



Defendant, State of San Andreas, answers the complaint for DISPUTE FOR CRIMINAL CHARGES filed by Plaintiffs, Thomas Paganelli as follows:


1.
Defendant CLAIMS AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Against all allegations.








Signature

Sheriff Jake Anderson, State Bar License No. 013, Attorney at Law

ANSWER TO COMPLAINT TO DETERMINE DISPUTE FOR CRIMINAL CHARGES




Sheriff's Office Legal Team Notification


The Sheriff's Office challenges the decision made by the Judge at hand. The judge did not wait the full 7 days, as today is our final day to answer. The summons are dated for the 25th not the 24th, as shown attached. The Sheriff's Office requests the case continue on. Failure to do so will result in legal action against the court itself.


Sheriff Jake Anderson
BAR 013

COURT SUMMON



SUMMONS IN A CRIMINAL TRIAL


Dated: 25 / AUG / 2018

This letter is to serve as a formal letter of notice. You are hereby summoned to appear for the case of Thomas Paganelli v. State of San Andreas within (7) days from this date.

You must file your answer or motion with the court. If you fail to respond, judgement by default will enter against you for the relief demanded in the complaint.

Signed,
A. Garcia
 
Last edited:

Zoltan

Faction Consultant
Joined
Dec 4, 2011
Messages
5,978
The Sheriff's Office extreme lack of professionalism or attempt to respond to these cases in a timely manner is unfortunate. This should have been handled way soon, and therefore I will uphold the default judgement verdict handed down. Case dismissed.
 

Codac

Donator
Joined
Mar 29, 2013
Messages
5,195


San Andreas State Appeals Court

Initiation of Discovery Phase




The Appeals Court of San Andreas has initiated the judicial process of discovery the matters in the case of:

Thomas Paganelli v. State of San Andreas




Current Status: Discovery


The Court recognizes that the motioning party and the defending party have acknowledged and responded to the initialization of of the judicial process. Therefore, this case shall formally proceed to the phase of discovery. During this phase, plaintiff and defendant may demand the production of relevant evidence to their case. Any and all direct, circumstantial or otherwise relevant evidence must be made known to the Court at this time, and formally introduced. If evidence is not introduced before the end of the discovery phase, it may be inadmissible to the court and will not be considered during trial. If either party refuses to produce evidence for the other voluntarily, and the requesting party may fill out an attached subpoena, interrogatory, or deposition form, and submit it to clerk of the court.

Below the tools of discovery are (1) "Motion" forms, (2) objections, and (3) informal statement cards. Motion forms will allow parties to ask the court to grant a specific request. Objection cards ask the court to strike, rule, or otherwise forbid a piece of evidence, comment, or request from being heard or considered by the court. Informal statement cards allow either party to make statements that do not fit into the other two categories.

((Attempting to complete any of the actions listed above without suing the provided formats, will result in the removal of the reply/comment from this topic.))



Code:
[divbox=#F5BA87,black][hr][/hr][center][img]http://i.imgur.com/uMSztic.png[/img]
[b][size=200][font=Algerian]San Andreas State Trial Court[/font][/size][/b]
[hr][/hr]
[font=arabic typesetting][size=200][u]Statement or Motion to the Court[/u][/size][/font][/center]
[justify][font=courier new]Counsel for the [b][MOVING/DEFENDING][/b] party requests that:
[list=1][b]
[*] (List any and all demands applicable at this time; address "who," "what," "where," "when," "why," and "how.")
[*] 
[*]
[*]
[*][/list][/b][/font]
[spoiler="Additional Comments / Evidence"]((Place evidence, or additional comments supporting your reasoning in here.))[/spoiler][/justify][center][font=arabic typesetting][size=200]Attorney at Law:[/size] 
((Name of attorney making the motion))[/font][/center][/divbox]
 

Anderson

Retired Admin
Joined
Nov 17, 2016
Messages
1,904


San Andreas State Trial Court


Statement or Motion to the Court
Counsel for the DEFENDING party requests that:

  1. [*] Video Evidence of the situation.
    [*] Request forms to show an attempt to get back your personal property was made.

N/a
Attorney at Law: Sheriff Jake Anderson
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top