Jack Chapman

@Sean Fetty@Kelvin Levington@Oliver Shaw it has come to my attention that Exhibit A frrom the prosecution has been made private. Please rectify this immediately. If this is not corrected in 24 hours the provider of the evidence may face legal consequences for tampering with/removing court evidence.

@Brady Warhorsemy decisions were final on the motions, at this time I will not hear further discussion on the subject.

Please enter your plea to each charge as requested, and specify which parts of the REA SOP you want in discovery. Failure to respond with your plea within 24 hours will result in no-contest being assumed/summary judgement.

In regards to MSP/MST SOPs, at this time I will be denying this request for now. The REA SOPs should sufficiently show your use of force policies and trainings, if not we can re-visit this at a later stage.

On the final point I missed off my last response, I will be denying the request to remove @Oliver Shawfrom the case, at this time there is no proof presented to the court of any wrongdoing on his behalf, and until that is done I will not make any such judgement.

Discovery is still open, and as such any "exculpatory" evidence can be requested here.

I, Judge Jack Chapman will be presiding over this case.

First off, before I get into pre-trial motions I would like to sternly warn both parties to follow court proceedings and to act respectfully at all times. The way both parties have conducted themselves is unacceptable, and if it continues there will be consequences. 

In reference to the motion to supress the statement within Coutn 1, this will be denied. This statement is from the witness/evidence perpsective as to what they saw, no room for off-island conversations in that regard, so unless otherwise told by federal government, that statement is to remain.

On the motion to dismiss, I will be denying this request at this time pending further court proceedings to establish facts.

In terms of case law mentioned by the defence, they are under very different circumstances:

In Plakas v. Drinsk, the individual the force was used on is alleged to have used a poker which risks serious bodily harm compared to the use of fists.

For Graham v. Connor, the courts conclusion is summed up as:

Quote

The outcome of the case was the creation of an "objective reasonableness test" when examining an officer's actions. That test, over time via case law, would evolve to something that could be summed up as "given the facts known at the time, would a similarly trained and experienced officer respond in a similar fashion".

As such, this case requires further court discussion and evidence consideration before dismissing this case outright.

On the motion to discover for the REA SOPs, I will not authorise the release of the document in it's entirety. Please can both parties specify which specific aspects/topics from within this classified document you are requesting within discovery. @Andrew Scott - Notice, please wait for full information on the exact aspects requested.

In terms of the request to delay pending IA or AC-12 investigations into the matter, this will be denied. Both of these are internal investigations with no criminal ramifcations (unless they seperately file additional charges at their discretion), and as such are outside of the powers of this court to control, and would not wish to do so if we were able to.

Please can the defence enter a plea for each charge presented and can both paries put forward availability for a court case.

@Brady Warhorse@Oliver Shaw@Kelvin Levington

@Tom Najail @Jamaal Murray

Having reviewed both sides, at this time I am going to sustain the motion for dismissal on grounds of qualified immunity.

The section of the Montana constitution the claimant makes reference to is clearly in relation to entities and organisations, not individuals. And in-line with US Supreme Court caselaw, individuals operating on the behalf of government entities qualify for immunity.

At this point, I do not feel that sufficient evidence has been provided that @Loxxon Huskyacted outside of his government role to maliciously defame the claimant, or that any statements made on the official documents would lead to sufficient reputation damage and loss of income to warrant the requested financial relief.

Claim dismissed without prejudice.

@Tom Najail motion acknowledged. Before I make a ruling, does the claimant @Jamaal Murray wish to counter this motion?

The court is in receipt of this civil complaint. I will be presiding over this case. @Tom Najail@Jamaal Murray

How long does the defence seek to provide a reply? Will 72 hours be sufficient?

4 hours ago, Jack Noble said:

Afaik (correct me if I’m wrong), to be an FTO in PD you have to be a corporal - free rank to those FTOs who have little to no experience or care/motivation for their role. 
For our FTOs in CG to become FTOs in PD, they will realistically need to learn everything in depth before being qualified to train people. 
As for personnel, that is something that will likely have to be discussed with the Academy Captain - don’t expect free rank here either, to my understanding Academy already has a lot of members 

Not true, anyone in the PD can join the academy team, if in DOC it's like senior deputy+, deputy + for patrol. All CPLs used to have join academy but with recent changes thats not the case. It's not a free rank or anything like that, it's a path to leadership sure but also just a place to help out.

11 hours ago, George said:

I LOVE COCK

Me too!

Good for the prosecution. See you all then.

Your Honour @Tom Najail,

This request is quite frankly rediculous, I'm fully aware of the defence council's reason to request this delay however this is entirely of his own making or that he at least had plenty of time to assign alternative council or request a stay with ample notice.

I respectfully request we continue with this case regardless and compell @Altin Berg to attend court at the time (which i add he agreed to)...

Works for me. @Altin Berg@David Coast?

The time is good for me, Friday makes more sense though because of gang wars.

A weekend is fine for me, probably best we base it around a time friendly for AU @Loxxon Husky

So the winners are in and the posters are in on the last update. 

The winners are as follows:

@Paul Phantom - x1 Poster

@Mike Getreel - x3 Posters

@Elliot B - x2 Sexy Posters

@Richard baer - x1 Poster

@Fredrick Armstrong - x1 Poster

@Lee Bread - x2 Posters

@William Cobblestone - x1 Poster

@Astrid Hawking - x4 Posters

@Tyler Davis - x1 Poster

@Dave Coleman - x1 Scary Poster

@Boble Nick - x1 Poster

@Seska - x1 Modern Art

@Bobby Hill - x1 Poster

@Scotty Lee - x1 ACU case

@Isaak Red - x 1 Why, just why?

@Bert Schitts - x1 Poster

Please contact me in-game or Discord when you're available to sort out receiving the trading card prizes!

5 hours ago, Papa Pug said:

*My apologies for the delay in this posting.  I thought it posted earlier tonight but when I checked the status the post was not uploaded.  If it updates and creates a double post I will file to correct the record.  

The trial was held on the Discord Stage earlier today and was a little behind schedule due to my technical difficulties precluding trial being conducted in game. 

During the trial Mr. Chapman was warned several times for his argumentative behavior, outburst, speaking out of line with off-comments and the DA at 1 point even asked to address the court in an attempt to warn Mr. Chapman that he could be punished by the court if he did not follow the Judges orders/rulings as a courtesy to a fellow attorney and in an effort to help maintain decorum.

Mr. Hoffa was found Guilty of all charges, 8 counts.

We moved to sentencing phase and Mr. Ibney made recommendations on sentencing without incident.  When Mr. Chapman began arguments he opened with how his client was not guilty of the charges;  I stopped Mr. Chapman and warned him again that the facts in this case are that his client was found guilty of the charges and that the court was not going to hear arguments on his clients innocence and would only hear arguments to address sentencing as we were past the trial phase.  Mr. Chapman ran out of the courtroom.

We were in shock but I warned the court that we would allow Mr. Chapman an opportunity to rejoin, we would not speculate and we went on recess for 5 minutes.

I tried to contact Mr. Chapman to return.  I addressed the courtroom on the two avenues the trial would go depending on how Mr. Chapman responded and the circumstances.

I did contact Mr. chapman and confirmed he did in fact leave the courtroom on purpose and told him he was in contempt and needed to return.  He refused.

I held Mr. Chapman in contempt.  Notified the DA, Mr. Ibney of my intent to remove Mr. Chapman and Notified the courtroom that we would be entering recess until this matter was cleared up and would address sentencing at a later date.

Mr. Ibney entered a motion for sanctions and I informed Mr. Ibney that the motion was noted for the record and that this court would fully address the actions of Mr. Chapman.

Court was placed in recess.

@Jack Chapman This is your Official Notice for this Order to Show Cause.  You are Ordered to respond within 48hours or request an extension.  You will not practice law until this matter is resolved.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1r4msN4bsg95O0qAmEiYlkHJ8Fy8BbnBXggvb4Tnwlq4/edit?usp=sharing

Your Honour @Papa Pug,

The last I checked the intended role of the judge is to act as an impartial body governing the court, only speaking to ensure trials stay on course, to correctly resolve any objections etc, not to needlessly interrupt and argue with either party involved. 
 
From the get-go the actions taken from yourself were anything but impartial. I can’t say for sure if it was down to connection delays for yourself on Discord, or something else, but right on multiple occasions you very ungracefully and potentially argumentatively requested I stop interrupting the witness, despite the fact on each occasion the witness had finished their reply seconds prior. 
 
Putting this down to connection issues given our alternative court location, although annoyed I tried to ignore it and carry on with the case. Further into the case, where you allege “out-of-line comments when he didn't like what he was hearing from the judge or a witness and interrupting trying to argue on judge rulings”, I would not be properly doing my client or myself justice if I did not attempt to raise reasonable concerns that a number of your sustained objections were purely illogical, incorrect and potentially crossing impartiality.
 
Some of the ridiculous objections from the prosecution you sustained were as simple as me asking the witness to state what he said inside of a house, a simple and reasonable request to affirm what was documented in the video evidence and to lead to reasonable follow up questions. I think any reasonable lawyer would be equally as confused and frustrated by any such sustain of an objection by a judge.
 
Granted at this point I let my frustrations get the better of me, but any lawyer invested in their clients case would equally be at the same point.
 
With regards to what occurred at sentencing, I would appreciate it if you do not attempt to put words in my mouth when that is clearly not what I stated. During sentencing, I stated “Despite my disagreement with these charges put forward…” and before even getting a chance to finish that sentence with how I wished you to consider sentencing you interrupted me. You yet again made an unfair assumption of the direction my statement was heading in, instead of allowing 5 more seconds for context before stepping in.
 
Had you allowed my statement to be finished, I was going to provide a fair and reasonable statement as to how I felt he should be sentenced, not to argue any further about the charges themselves.
 
At this point, given I was yet again unfairly interrupted without any reasonable basis to do so, and under false assumptions, I again reasonably got frustrated. At that point I felt I faced a choice:

A. Remain in the courtroom through my frustrations and say something that would likely make this situation worse and more argumentative, leading to charges.
 
OR

B. Leave the courtroom in an attempt to calm down.
 
Given it simply wasn’t worth the charges for remaining or undue anger it was causing me, I elected to take the path of least damage.
 
At this time given the clear lack of impartiality shown by yourself, I would ask another judge to review this matter and rule upon it, otherwise any such ruling issued by yourself would be appealed.

52 minutes ago, Papa Pug said:

Please just provide proof that he is waiving his right to be present.

Your motion to remove will be denied.  That said this court will only allow the use of that evidence to show that the defendant has not served time for the crimes be charged in this case and will not use that evidence to prejudice these proceedings unless a valid argument is made and ruled on that would change this.

This does not apply to sentencing after the case in chief has been made should the defendant be found guilty. 

Your Honour @Papa Pug,

Just had word, my client wont be able to be present at court due to being away for the weekend, however he's fully happy to have me represent him in his absence. Are you happy for us to still go ahead? Once he returns he will be willing to turn himself in if required dependent on the result of the case.

At this time I'd also like to motion to remove the prosecutions Exhibit H due to the lack of relevance to this case. His previous convictions should not have any impact upon this case, and only serves to present him in a negative light.

Sorry I read it as EST not PST, can never remember your weird American timezones. Can we do 2PM PST instead? Didn't realise how late that goes into in my timezone if we're talking PST.

On 9/29/2021 at 5:43 AM, Joseph Ibney said:

Your honor, I’m available this Friday between 11:30 and 4:30 PST. Alternative to that I will have to inform you as I’m asked as my schedule is a bit hectic.

@Joseph Ibney?????

@Papa Pug @Joseph Ibney 1PM EST that day works for me.

@Papa Pug

Our client wishes to plead not guilty to all charges.

@Papa Pug

Just to clear this up I will be the chief council for the defence as appointed by Altin, @harrison kings will be joining as co-council. We will be discussing with our client and be back in touch shortly.

1 minute ago, Doug Jumper said:

same  

We need to add a memorial mailbox somewhere in it's memory

1 hour ago, Seska said:

Amazing work as always Scott