Approved 6.4 I Sophia Degray

[Dray San]

Curator from GOV gave me a warning for 6.4 corruption.

Approved - GR 6.4 | Government

I was doing a case at DOC when a DCJ (District Court Judge) Zladko Allen came over to me and instigated a confrontation. He threatened my Job and that he could get me arrested in 10 mins if he wanted to. This would be miss use of power as all ex-DOJ employees mostly know that a sole person...

gta5grand.com

So, the District Court Judge falls under the Supreme Court Judge members. Therefore, the DCJ has full immunity.

Same curator told me I need 11 evidence/situations to remove immunity from someone. But for this situation I should have signed off on the arrest warrant and revoke immunity right away?

Since this is just 1 situation, i should not have signed off on it anyway. Why do I get a warning for this? And if rules of 11 evidence are not a real thing why do i get false information, then?

Senior admin, please look into this. I do not agree with the decision Sophia made here.

 

[Dray San]

Sophia Degrey*

 

[Bobby Pluxury]

Locked for Deputy Chief

 

[Floki Vilgeroarson]

Show me where does it say you need 11 evidence to remove someone's immunity
You have 6 hours

 

[Dray San]

It does not, but this is what the curator from GOV told me? Sophia literally said in order to remove someones immunity you need a case file with 11 pieces of evidence. And it cannot be 1 situation.

 

[Sophia Queen]

You were handing in a case file against the leader of an organization, therefore I told you that you need to have 10 evidence to revoke his immunity and get him arrested because it would mean that the admins have to find either a temp. leader or disband the organization and open leader applications. I never stated that you need 10 evidence to revoke the immunity of an individual which is not a leader because I personally know that someone had his immunity revoked with only one evidence.

 

[Dray San]

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/1052901152531947531/1078549035331362916/Screenshot_20230224-105818_Discord.jpg

Oh, here we see Sophia saying: From the same situation.

This was about an arrest warrant / immunity revocation of another individual that also has full immunity.

She means: you need evidence from MULTIPLE situations.

 

[Dray San]

You were handing in a case file against the leader of an organization, therefore I told you that you need to have 10 evidence to revoke his immunity and get him arrested because it would mean that the admins have to find either a temp. leader or disband the organization and open leader applications. I never stated that you need 10 evidence to revoke the immunity of an individual which is not a leader because I personally know that someone had his immunity revoked with only one evidence.

That's false. You said: to revoke full immunity, you need 11 evidences.

It was never mentioned that it is only for leaders. If you meant it that way, then it was simply miscommunication. But you can't expect me to know that piece of information myself.

I can't see anywhere that it is needed to have 11 evidences for the leader as well. So that was never clear to me. Hence the warning was in my opinion not a good decision here.

 

[Dray San]

10.2 Full immunity status is given to the following individuals
- The Governor/Governess
- The Deputy Governor/Governess
- Leaders of state organizations.
- Deputies of state organizations.
- Judiciary members of the Supreme Court
- Judiciary members of the Superior Court
- Judiciary members of the Military Court
- The Attorney General


If the Leaders of state organizations and Judiciary members of the superior court are in the same list, then where would I see any difference in revoking immunity?

So even if you stated that Leaders of state orgs have to have 11 evidences (changed to 10 suddenly) to get their immunity revoked, this list makes it reasonable to think that every person that falls under the above needs to have the same?

 

[Sophia Queen]

It's not only an arrest warrant against a person with full immunity, it's an arrest warrant against the leader of an organization who holds full immunity and I said in my opinion it's a no because it was not a proper case file and even offered you a case file against a leader so you can have a look at it. Why would I give you knowingly false information when I had the immunity of my own deputy revoked with only one evidence by my Attorney General? Instead of guessing that it is the same, you could have asked me as I offered you my help multiple times regarding case files and DOJ work.

 

[Dray San]

So basically, I get told that the leader needs multiple evidence against him/her to revoke immunity. Then the person will have no immunity, will be arrested and a new leader will get appointed.

From here you assumed I would link that to: Leader has a different full immunity than any other full immunity member.

And when it becomes clear that I did not think that, since in the legislation judiciary members are listed in the same list as the leader, you made the decision to give me a 7 days warning, removing me from my position, for corruption. Where corruption means misusing my power for own benefits.

And your reasoning behind this is: You could have asked me if the immunity for leaders is the same as for judiciary members.

I don't see corruption here. If I did it on purpose, and misused my power, then sure, its 6.4. But here its miscommunication and no knowledge of what you meant with what you said. Miscommunication and a lack of knowledge because of it.

So literally me guessing that it is the same, would mean I did not do corruption, therefore I did not break 6.4

 

[Floki Vilgeroarson]

On Consideration

 

[Floki Vilgeroarson]

Closed
Warn will be removed but jail stays, consider this your last chance.