Tom Najail
-
Posts
404 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Tom Najail
-
-
-
In which case, judgment will be rendered within 48 hours.
-
Mr Berg and Mr Anderson’s motions are sustained.
The Court recognises the motion to enter discovery, however, having re-read the complaint and answer the Court believes that all claims made by the plaintiffs hinge on if the warrant was valid, bar the infliction of emotional distress claim which the plaintiffs pose the legal question as to whether or not the MSP was justified in pointing weapons at the plaintiffs based on the fact that the warrant was not labelled ‘armed and dangerous. If both parties agree, the Court is willing to make a judgment. If not, we can move to discovery.
The only reason the Court is asserting this speculation is to save all parties some time, it makes no difference to the bench.
Do both parties agree? @Jason Lee @Mike Getreel
-
The plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is overruled. There still remains disputed facts between the parties requiring trial to resolve, at this time the court cannot apply the law to identify if either party is entitled to a judgment under law due to these disputed facts.
The plaintiff's motion for sanctions is overruled. Any party filing with the court does so to the best of the person's knowledge and information at the time, if the defence is using any affirmative defence, counterclaim, etc. then they will bring evidence to support such assertion at discovery.
The Court recognises that both parties want to resolve this matter quickly. After having read the complaint and answer, the court is going to speculate that the ultimate question to be determined here is if the warrant that was used to search and seize the property was valid. If both parties will stipulate, the court would be able to rule as a matter of law.
-
The defence's motion is overruled. The court is satisfied that questions of fact remain and there is enough evidence to support a cause of action. With that being said, the court is ordering each party to submit a witness list within 48 hours.
-
Thank you, @Mike Getreel. If you can, please also update the title too. Makes it easier for the bench when filing!
@Jason Lee Please file your answer to the amended complaint within 96 hours.
@Altin Berg The defence will be afforded every oppotunity to thoroughly review and answer the complaint, I will not impeed them from doing so by allowing the plaintiff to amend the complaint whislt the defence is in the middle of drafting their answer.
-
The defendant's motion is sustained. Plaintiff's exhibit I is excluded as hearsay. The defendant may call the witness to testify if they so choose.
The plaintiff's motion is sustained, however, the defence will still be granted 96 hours from the time of any amendments.
-
1
-
-
15 hours ago, Jason Lee said:
Would we be able to get 96 hours your honor?
The defence will have 96 hours to file.
-
@Jason Lee will 72 hours surfice?
-
The court is in recipt of your case. Docket No. 7GP-DC18-032322CV-1
The Honourable Tom Najail, Esq. presiding.
@Alexis Sanchez@Jason Lee Please assign counsel for the MSP.
-
-
The plaintiff recognises that by necessity justice is a slow porcess, however, we would humbly request a Judge to be appointed forthwith. Especially considering the nature of the prima facie case filed.
-
-
-
Your Honour,
Even if the quoted section was valid in this Montana, it is irrelevant. Mr. Husky is not any form of entity listed above. Whilst section 18 allows for the State to be subject to suit arising from injury, under the doctrine of qualified immunity, Mr. Husky would be immune.
Qualified immunity arises from several cases, it’s is a common law immunity. Regardless of what some other states have done, this state is not one of them and where no legislation exists, it is up to the court to apply the common law. The Supreme Court have cemented the basis for qualified immunity which is now binding on lower courts.
-
Your Honour,
Prior to the defence's answer to the complaint, we would like to motion for dismissal on the grounds of qualified immunity. The defendant undertook this duty in his official capacity and is shielded from liability for civil damages as his conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known (Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 [1982]).
-
1
-
-
Your Honour,
72 hours will be plenty of time, thank you.
-
May it please the Court, Tom Najail, Esq. for the defence.
We acknowledge the complaint but will await reception by the judge prior to submiting a response.
-
Trial was held. Defendant is found guilty on all charges and is sentenced to life imprisonment.
-
Okay sure, if we could do 5:30?
-
@Altin Berg Is it possible to just delay for an hour or two?
-
Great. Trial is set for 1500 EST on Friday. I promise I will be there this time!
-
1
-
1
-
-
On 11/20/2021 at 4:23 PM, Vuk Slamsluger said:
This seem scuffed. 2/3 of my defence team dipped on me, as a citizen i feel violated by the system and request that all charges against me be dropped.
Mr. Berg is still your attorney, I am happy to grant a continuance if he needs it but the charges won't be dismissed.
On 11/20/2021 at 11:15 PM, Loxxon Husky said:Your Honor, @Tom Najail does next Friday sound good ? same time again ?
That works for me. @Altin Berg?
-
I apologise profusely to counsel for my failure to attend, matters prevented me from doing so and I have only just been able to remark. I will get comment shortly regarding setting a new date.
Charlie Nugget v. The Montana State Police
in Publications
Posted
The Court declines the invitation to vacate from the plaintiff. The Court was clear in its speculation, one that both parties had agreed to prior to judgement being rendered and one that I do not for a second believe that such a learned attorney such as yourself has confused. It was clear from the Court's submission and further agreement from both parties that all claims were based on questions of law which trial would not influence. Any claim that this Court has erred in this decision is welcome to be brought before the Supreme Court of the state.