Customize

San Fagcisco November 5th Legal Troubles

Discussion in 'USA - West Coast' started by rawrz, Nov 7, 2009.

  1. rawrz Member

    San Fagcisco November 5th Legal Troubles

    Raid went normal, 10ish people protested, everything went fine except for some uberfaggotry that scilons happened to dish out and now the faggots that are involved need some legal advice from the horde over this dilemma.

    The following situation takes place in the state of California.

    Party 1 occupies a building with external "security cameras" and possibly some internal "security cameras" as well. An individual intricately associated with Party 1 accuses Party 0 of battery (hereafter "[THE EVENT]") which would have taken place in the view of multiple external "security cameras", and this accusation is escalated to include police presence and possible future formal charges.

    How would Party 0 go about subpoenaing or otherwise obtaining from Party 1 any and all external "security camera" footage (both video and any audio) during the hours in which [THE EVENT] is alleged to have taken place?

    How would Party 0 go about subpoenaing or otherwise obtaining from Party 1 any and all possible internal "security camera" footage (especially any audio) during the hours in which [THE EVENT] is alleged to have taken place?

    Just for argument's sake, lets say that Party 1 is the organization commonly known as the "CoS". How does that affect the above? What relevant previous cases/actions/documents could/should be brought up? Are there any pitfalls to be aware of?

    How would Party 0 begin to mount a vigorous defense? Should Party 1 decide to not proceed with formal charges, what options does Party 0 have? If Party 1 does decide to proceed with formal charges, what information should be brought to the attention of Party 0's legal defense personnel?

    Are these the right questions to be asking? What other questions should be asked? What issues should Party 0 bring up with a competent legal attorney?

    Cocks.
  2. BigBeard Member

    Re: San Fagcisco November 5th Legal Troubles

    IANAL, but I believe since battery would be a criminal charge the DA, or defense attorney, would request a subpena for said tapes from the appropriate judge. The owners of such external and internal cameras, whether a "church" or not, would have to turn over the tapes or be in contempt.

    Hypothetically speaking of course, the odds are pretty high that the recorders were turned off for maintenance or simultaneously malfunctioned at the same time if a certain "church" is involvoed.

    BigBeard
  3. LocalSP Member

    Re: San Fagcisco November 5th Legal Troubles

    Trust me, if party1 has video of party0 assaulting party1 charges will be filled and when party0 obtains lawyer he can file a subpoena for the tapes.

    Now for the question at hand, What the hell happened?
  4. rawrz Member

    Re: San Fagcisco November 5th Legal Troubles

    I'm not sure how much I can actually talk about what happened. Though I'm not a party directly involved....?
  5. Anonymous Member

    Re: San Fagcisco November 5th Legal Troubles

    then err on the side of not talking

    if possible, assist other(s) in consulting IRL lawyer
  6. MarlieK Member

    Re: San Fagcisco November 5th Legal Troubles

    If someone who was not involved, or a witness tells us what happened, based on what he heard, she said etc etc, it's all hearsay. Communicate accordingly.
  7. Kha Khan Member

    Re: San Fagcisco November 5th Legal Troubles

    Most importantly, Party 0 should see a licensed California attorney immediately. This is not the place to get a good answer to that question. Nevertheless....

    Party 0 and that attorney may wish to consider immediately filing a civil lawsuit against the "individual intricately associated with Party 1" for defamation (slander and/or libel, as the case may be) for falsely and publicly accusing Party 0 of committing assault and battery (assuming the allegation that Party 0 committed assault and battery is false). Party 0 and that attorney then may wish to immediately file ex parte application for early discovery pursuant to California Civil Procedure Code § 2025.210(b), which provides:
    Cal. Civ. Pro. Code § 2025.210(b) (emphasis added). The argument to the Court would be that you need to subpoena the tape ASAP to make sure it is not destroyed.

    Once the ex parte application is granted, Party 0 can subpoena the tape.
  8. voiceless849 Member

    Re: San Fagcisco November 5th Legal Troubles

    And seriously - GET AN ATTORNEY!
  9. MarlieK Member

    Re: San Fagcisco November 5th Legal Troubles

    Ask the cops to get the video footage immediately. If the scilons refuse, the cops just may decide to drop the case.

    Take photos of the video camera surveillance to make sure they are not changed around.
  10. Sponge Member

    Re: San Fagcisco November 5th Legal Troubles

    If they pressed charges then you'd get to see any video tapes used in evidence eventually.
  11. Kha Khan Member

    ^^^^^ THIS. And do so immediately. ASAP. No later than Monday morning only because it will be difficult to get one on Sunday if you don't have a prior relationship.

    Very good advise.
  12. Herro Member

    Re: San Fagcisco November 5th Legal Troubles

    So who did you guys hit?

    Seriously though, if you're so concerned ask a lawyer what to do about getting the camera footage. I'm sure there are ways of doing so if you need to defend yourself against claims, but you had better do it fast before it conveniently disappears.


    But really, use your words, not your hands kids.
  13. caekanon Member

    Re: San Fagcisco November 5th Legal Troubles

    Of course the footage will have been destroyed. You know the scilons. You'll end up namefagging yourself for a subpoena of which you'll never get the tape because it either "was conveniently not working" or "recorded over" of course on purpose. It's been a couple days? It's already been destroyed. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that out. You'll end up spending money on attorney fees and court costs for something that will end up being thrown out unless you got plenty of witnesses who are also willing to fag themselves... even then may not stick. My advice, unless it was something major that required a hospital visit, to drop it and remind yourself to have your own video cameras next time. The cams are not just there to make lulzy youtube videos, they're there for your protection; it's your security blanket. Bring them and don't come bawwing about how you got victimized when you know full-well the scilons are going to try and pull this crap and you not being prepared even though you knew better.

    tl;dr NEVER RAID WITHOUT A CAMERA ANON.
  14. moreanonymous Member

    Re: San Fagcisco November 5th Legal Troubles

    Don't forget, one of the asst. DAs is involved with party 1. Keep a close eye on that docket.
  15. Anonymous Member

    Re: San Fagcisco November 5th Legal Troubles

    no sympathy here. It was beatened to death for anons to raid with their own cameras.
  16. AnonymousNow Member

    Re: San Fagcisco November 5th Legal Troubles

    Caek, lurk moar. Scilons have alleged assault, not the anons. The question is how to prove a negative, that the assault did not take place. It would be difficult or impossible to prove with an anon's personal video camera, unless they had It tained on the alleged attacker the whole time. That's why the interest in the security cams.
  17. Robocat Member

    Re: San Fagcisco November 5th Legal Troubles

    This^

    Also lawyer up nao. PM me at home if you need help.
  18. anonymous612 Member

    Re: San Fagcisco November 5th Legal Troubles

    1) LOL at namefagging being an actual concern, grow some balls.
    2) If it "conveniently disappeared" the scifags obviously can't use it as evidence. In a he-said-she-said, the scifags would be responsible for proving it occurred, not the anons for proving it didn't occur.

    ITT: We have not lerned2firstgradereadinglevel yet.
  19. Anonymous Member

    Re: San Fagcisco November 5th Legal Troubles

    I still haven't seen dox for this.
  20. Anonymous Member

    Re: San Fagcisco November 5th Legal Troubles

    Lol @ the SFPD : "Officer, I was assaulted with a Xenu balloon!"

    /facepalm.
  21. rawrz Member

    Re: San Fagcisco November 5th Legal Troubles

    Does any body have any knowledge of/experience with community court? Especially concerning California?/San Francisco?

Share This Page

Customize Theme Colors

Close

Choose a color via Color picker or click the predefined style names!

Primary Color :

Secondary Color :
Predefined Skins