pinejack Posted January 8, 2022 Share Posted January 8, 2022 (edited) pinejack's Court Booking Application ID #10277 Submitted on 01/08/22 at 11:24:49 AM ---------------------- Plaintiff Steam Name Namula ---------------------- Plaintiff Name Alessandra Moonbroke ---------------------- Defendant Name New South Wales Police Department ---------------------- Claim On the 17th of December 2021 at approximately 2325 AEDT, my client Alessandra Moonbroke was arrested and charged by Officer David Yellow for the following: - Armed Robbery of a Store (x1) - Reckless Evasion (x1) - Kidnapping (x1) - Accessory to Attempted Murder (x1) On behalf of my client, we would like to dispute the following charges: - Accessory to Attempted Murder (x1) - Reckless Evasion (x1) In regards to the Accessory to Attempted Murder, my client did not actively engage in any form of violence towards the New South Wales Police Department, nor were they aware that the individual who was also caught on the scene would engage in hostilities towards the Police. As defined in the OzzyGaming Lawbook, Accessory crimes are when you have "aided or assisted in some manner with knowledge of actions being taken." and therefore should not have been charged for this as they had no prior knowledge that the other individual would act in such a way. On the 8th of Janurary 2022 at approximately 2057 AEDT, a discussion occurred with officer Simon Riley outside of the Mission Row Police Precinct, and it was discussed that my client should have actually been charged with "Evasion", not "Reckless Evasion" as my client did evade in a safe and controlled manner. In the words of Officer Riley, my client "Did not evade recklessly and it should have just been evasion.". On behalf of my client, we are looking for an amendment to their criminal record to accurately show their charges in relation to the situation, as well as for financial compensation for fines, time served and damages. ---------------------- Do you confirm all information provided is the truth to the best of your knowledge? Yes Edited January 8, 2022 by pinejack Edit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Killercroc Posted January 9, 2022 Share Posted January 9, 2022 (edited) To whom it may concern, The New South Wales police force request that the case be dismissed based on the following. The plaintiff has had ample time to follow the matter up however has decided to wait 22 days since it occurred which does not fall within the time frame set out by the courts. Secondly the officer that provided the information about the charge is not the arresting officer and has a previous relationship with Miss Moonbrooke making it a conflict of interest. If Miss Moonbrooke truly believes the wrong charges have been added to her record she should file a PTD report requesting a review. Regards, Superintendent Jake Pawar Prosecutor New South Wales police force Edited January 9, 2022 by Killercroc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pinejack Posted January 9, 2022 Author Share Posted January 9, 2022 (edited) In response to the motion to dismiss lodged by the New South Wales Police Force. The plaintiff has lodged the dispute to the charges laid upon them for the events transpired on the 17th of December 2021 at approximately 11:30pm, and the court booking was lodged on the 8th of January 2022. At this current time, the courts does not publicly have any statute of limitation published for the time requirement for lodging the dispute of a charge or fine, nor is it currently contained within the Law Book. Even if the 21 day rules was officially in place or otherwise cited, this claim was lodged on the 22nd day after the charges, however due to my client being charged at 11:25pm on the night of, an exemption could be made to extend this by one day. The New South Wales Police Department do not have any grounds to request the dismissal of this case, as their only dispute to it going forward is that it was lodged out of date, which it has not, and that the officer questioned about the arrest has had a previous relationship with my client. Neither of these reasons warrant the dismissal of this case, and we are requesting a court booking be set at the courts earliest convince as my client has been falsely accused and convicted of crimes she did not commit. Regards, Blake Weathers Lawyer, Department of Justice Edited January 9, 2022 by pinejack Tweaked Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Killercroc Posted January 9, 2022 Share Posted January 9, 2022 Firstly 22 days is 15 days over the time frame set out by the courts. Secondly the previous relationship does matter as the charges being contested are based on the discussion that was had with officer Riley, as per the original booking stated "In the words of Officer Riley, my client Did not evade recklessly and it should have just been evasion.". This more than warrants the dismissal of this case Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pinejack Posted January 9, 2022 Author Share Posted January 9, 2022 In response to the New South Wales Police Departments response. The only timeframe currently set out by the courts is for the Court Bail & Bench Trials which states: Quote If the NSW Court is open & operating at the time of your arrest your lawyer can elect a trial & bail. Trials must be within 7 days of the charge date, providing the duty judge has authorised bail & has set down a date for trial. Lawyers may still elect a trial outside of court operating hours however bail will not be granted & any imprisonment sentence must be served at the time of processing. Police CID members, Police prosecutors & Police Administration + can elect a trial against a suspect within 7 days with the approval of their commander (CID) or Police cabinet & Judge who will set a date for trial. This booking is pertaining to section Disputing Fines & Charges which states: Quote Every civilian has the right to dispute their charges or fines in court with the support of a registered lawyer or via PSC after they have been released from custody. At this stage, the prior relationship between Officer Riley and my client does not have any impact towards the booking of this case, and any bias for or against her would need to be determined by a Judge in the Courts. As well as this, his statement is only being used as evidence in support of the dispute of the Reckless Evasion charge, not the other/s being disputed. On top of this, it has come to my attention that on the 9th of January 2022 at approximately 5:20pm AEDT, Superintendent Jake Pawar contacted my client directly via mobile phone to discuss the case with her, instead of getting myself involved. He stated to her over the phone that he "had already put through to get the claim dismissed" and to remember that the contract between Los Santos Customs and the New South Wales Police Department was on his desk. Due to these actions, my client has requested that any and all correspondence between the New South Wales Police Department and themselves relating to the Court booking and the dispute of these charges be through myself, or that I be present when conversations relating to the case take place. Regards, Blake Weathers Lawyer, Department of Justice Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Killercroc Posted January 9, 2022 Share Posted January 9, 2022 This case is a waste of the courts time, on the phone call I informed the plaintiff of a better way to deal with this situation which is through PTD hence why I informed her that I put in a motion to dismiss the case. The other claim about the contract is a separate matter all together and has nothing to do with this case as it was not made by me. The New South Wales police force Personal Training Division is the appropriate body to handle such a matter, however the plaintiff has made no attempt to even try and resolve this out of court. There is no need for this case to be handled in this matter. If the plaintiff truly believes the wrong charges have been given she should do as I told her over the phone, make a PTD report so it can be investigated and save the courts time. If the courts wish to proceed with this case they will being going against their own precedents they have in place. There is a better way to do this and it is not through the courts. The NSWPF will not be replying any further until a decision has been made by a judge. Regards, Superintendent Jake Pawar Prosecutor New South Wales police force Edited 58 minutes ago by Killercroc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PandaKazii Posted January 18, 2022 Share Posted January 18, 2022 (edited) Good Afternoon all, The DOJ has approved the hearing of this appeal. Appeal date has been laid down for Friday the 28th of January 2022 at 19:00 AEST The Judges/Justices presiding will be as follows; Justice Morgan Freeman If the event the Judge cannot make the appeal Justice Evan will sit in absence. Matter of Alessandra Moonbroke VS NSWPF Charge: - Armed Robbery of a Store (x1) - Reckless Evasion (x1) - Kidnapping (x1) - Accessory to Attempted Murder (x1) Full evidential disclosure is to be submitted to all parties by Tuesday the 25th of January 2022 at 23:59 A full witness list that either party wishes to call on the day of appeal must be provided to Justice Freeman by Tuesday the 25th of January 2022 at 23:59 Any evidence provided beyond the above date will NOT be heard on the day of the appeal. Regards, Edited January 27, 2022 by PandaKazii Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pinejack Posted January 19, 2022 Author Share Posted January 19, 2022 Good Afternoon. As per a conversation that occurred earlier today, my client no longer wishes to pursue this case in court and formally wishes to withdraw the booking. I apologise on behalf of myself and my client for any inconveniences this may have caused. Kind Regards, Blake Weathers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PandaKazii Posted January 19, 2022 Share Posted January 19, 2022 Good Evening, Case has been withdrawn. Regards, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
