- Joined
- Mar 10, 2024
- Messages
- 23
Appeal Submission for Punishment under General Rule 6.4
I am submitting an appeal regarding the recent decision to impose a punishment on me (ID 141372) under General Rule 6.4, related to an incident that took place 15 days ago. Based on the elapsed time, it seems this decision may not have been implemented in line with procedural guidelines. However, setting this issue aside, I wish to address the key reasons for my appeal.
The provided bodycam footage from the forums, specifically from the FIB DA (timestamp 4:30 to 5:30), shows that I clearly stated in court, “This is a provisional case file and may be subject to change, in accordance with the requirements for provisional case files.” This notice was explicitly documented within the case file, and I had already informed both the judicial panel and the DOJ of its provisional nature.
It is the duty of the defense counsel to ensure they have the most current version of the case file from the DOJ prior to the court hearing. The prosecution is not obligated to provide these updates to the defense, especially as the provisional status is clearly stated at the top of the case file. If the defendant’s counsel did not retrieve the latest file, that is outside the responsibilities of the prosecution. Furthermore, according to the procedural standards, the defense should regularly communicate with the DOJ for any case updates.
(You can clearly see it's written in case file itself)
(In this photo, it’s evident that I included a link to the provisional case file within the subpoena. However, the defense's representative—who lacked a formal contract and was therefore presenting without proper authorization—failed to thoroughly review any of the provided documents.)
As it stands, the DOJ and government agencies consistently coordinated on this matter, while the defense did not make contact with the DOJ regarding the case file. All submitted evidence and documentation have been reviewed and confirmed by the curators, there you can see: no input from the FIB. Given this context, it would appear the defense was not fully diligent in its responsibilities.
This appeal challenges the decision on the grounds that procedural errors and misinterpretations occurred. I will continue to present additional supporting points as necessary. I request that the forum consider this carefully and ensure all details are evaluated in the proper context.
Supporting Evidence and Relevant Forum References
In support of my appeal, I will present all relevant forums and documentation associated with this case, detailing each forum’s findings, discussions, and relevant timestamps. This evidence aims to clarify procedural points and reinforce the basis of my appeal.
Reviewed - ForceRP, Gen rule 6.4 | 141372, 91999, 99128 (Forum 1: Source of Trial Recording)
Reviewed - SR 2.5, GR 6.4 | 99128,135347,141372 (It’s clear from all the forums that every document I submitted was thoroughly reviewed and verified by both judges and curators. If there had been any misconduct on my part, I would have been charged under the relevant general rules during the verdict period. Given the volume of forums addressing this case, any violations on my part would have already resulted in penalties. The claims against me appear to be manipulated by the FIB leader and their DA, as they are aware of their own errors in the matter.)
(In this forum, I initially appealed under General Rule 6.17 for ID 31129, but this appeal was overlooked. I am therefore submitting it again here, as it directly pertains to this case. I encourage curators to review the forums I have attached, as well as any available videos from the other party’s side. None of their recordings contain overlays, and I have provided specific timestamps for reference in my comments. I respectfully request that curators take a closer look at this matter.)
Reviewed - S.R 1.8, G.R 6.4 | 141372 (In this forum, not everything stated by Bam was accurate; he presented information selectively to fit his own narrative.)
Reviewed - Abuse of Administrative Power: Unfair Interference in IC Issue: Biased Admin | Yaswanth Trigger (This forum served as the source from which he drew references for his own arguments, continually targeting me without a proper understanding of the procedural standards. As a result, the inquiries he made in this forum are entirely unfounded.)
I have submitted all relevant documents to the judicial rulings, which have been forwarded to the curators. Consequently, all necessary documentation is in their possession. However, since I no longer wish to keep this information confidential, I will provide you with all the documents and links related to this case file below. Despite having followed all procedures and patiently awaited resolution, I am still facing punishment, which calls into question the effectiveness of the processes I have adhered to throughout my case.
docs.google.com
(First Person Immunity)
docs.google.com
(First Person Immunity Investigation Report)
docs.google.com
(Case File-17102024-DOJ-NG-FIB-CF01)
docs.google.com
(Affidavit 17.10.2024)
docs.google.com
(Subpoena for Court Appearance 17102024-DOJ-NG-FIB-SA01)
docs.google.com
(Reschedule for Court Appearance)
The Weaver order documents are held by the judicial panels and curators; you may request them directly. I have provided all the necessary information because I am frustrated with the continuous scrutiny I am facing in forums. It is evident that all procedures were conducted in accordance with the legislation. Additionally, the defendants had numerous points they could have raised to support their case, but their failure to thoroughly review the case file has ultimately worked to their disadvantage. (There are many forums on me which I don't even mentioned)
Given all the evidence presented, do you still believe I am involved in corruption? I encourage you to review the first-person immunity investigation report; it will clarify the entire situation. Additionally, I am submitting appeals for General Rule 6.17 for ID 31129, as well as General Rule 6.4 for IDs 31129 and 155409. The defendants represented themselves in court without a valid attorney-client contract, and I had to highlight this issue before the judges. This constitutes a breach of protocol, and the documents I have provided serve as proof of these claims.
I am submitting an appeal regarding the recent decision to impose a punishment on me (ID 141372) under General Rule 6.4, related to an incident that took place 15 days ago. Based on the elapsed time, it seems this decision may not have been implemented in line with procedural guidelines. However, setting this issue aside, I wish to address the key reasons for my appeal.
The provided bodycam footage from the forums, specifically from the FIB DA (timestamp 4:30 to 5:30), shows that I clearly stated in court, “This is a provisional case file and may be subject to change, in accordance with the requirements for provisional case files.” This notice was explicitly documented within the case file, and I had already informed both the judicial panel and the DOJ of its provisional nature.
It is the duty of the defense counsel to ensure they have the most current version of the case file from the DOJ prior to the court hearing. The prosecution is not obligated to provide these updates to the defense, especially as the provisional status is clearly stated at the top of the case file. If the defendant’s counsel did not retrieve the latest file, that is outside the responsibilities of the prosecution. Furthermore, according to the procedural standards, the defense should regularly communicate with the DOJ for any case updates.
(You can clearly see it's written in case file itself)
(In this photo, it’s evident that I included a link to the provisional case file within the subpoena. However, the defense's representative—who lacked a formal contract and was therefore presenting without proper authorization—failed to thoroughly review any of the provided documents.)
As it stands, the DOJ and government agencies consistently coordinated on this matter, while the defense did not make contact with the DOJ regarding the case file. All submitted evidence and documentation have been reviewed and confirmed by the curators, there you can see: no input from the FIB. Given this context, it would appear the defense was not fully diligent in its responsibilities.
This appeal challenges the decision on the grounds that procedural errors and misinterpretations occurred. I will continue to present additional supporting points as necessary. I request that the forum consider this carefully and ensure all details are evaluated in the proper context.
Supporting Evidence and Relevant Forum References
In support of my appeal, I will present all relevant forums and documentation associated with this case, detailing each forum’s findings, discussions, and relevant timestamps. This evidence aims to clarify procedural points and reinforce the basis of my appeal.
Reviewed - ForceRP, Gen rule 6.4 | 141372, 91999, 99128 (Forum 1: Source of Trial Recording)
Reviewed - SR 2.5, GR 6.4 | 99128,135347,141372
Please once again lock for senior state curators, thank you. Court trial part 2: Electric Boogaloo, this time including State rule 2.5. Day 2 following the previous: On consideration - ForceRP, Gen rule 6.4 | 141372, 91999, 99128 POV#1 Point 1: Refusing to show documents related to the case...
gta5grand.com
Reviewed - SR 2.5, GR 6.4 | 99128,135347,141372
Please once again lock for senior state curators, thank you. Court trial part 2: Electric Boogaloo, this time including State rule 2.5. Day 2 following the previous: On consideration - ForceRP, Gen rule 6.4 | 141372, 91999, 99128 POV#1 Point 1: Refusing to show documents related to the case...
gta5grand.com
Reviewed - S.R 1.8, G.R 6.4 | 141372 (In this forum, not everything stated by Bam was accurate; he presented information selectively to fit his own narrative.)
Reviewed - Abuse of Administrative Power: Unfair Interference in IC Issue: Biased Admin | Yaswanth Trigger
Hello Lebron and Senior Administrators, Apologies for mentioning you directly, but I feel it's necessary to get your and the senior curators' honest opinions and answers regarding a serious matter. During the IC court trials, there was significant interference from the admins, which had a...
gta5grand.com
I have submitted all relevant documents to the judicial rulings, which have been forwarded to the curators. Consequently, all necessary documentation is in their possession. However, since I no longer wish to keep this information confidential, I will provide you with all the documents and links related to this case file below. Despite having followed all procedures and patiently awaited resolution, I am still facing punishment, which calls into question the effectiveness of the processes I have adhered to throughout my case.
First Person Immunity
Department of Justice for the State of San Andreas FIRST PERSON IMMUNITY NAME OF THE PERSON Bam Asiri (FIB Director) Summary According to the National Guard's statement, 8-10 FIB officers, including their Director and Deputy Director, entered the National Guard's base at Fort Zancudo wi...
docs.google.com
First Person Immunity Investigation Report
Department of Justice for the State of San Andreas FIRST PERSON IMMUNITY INVESTIGATION REPORT NAME OF THE PERSON Bam Asiri (FIB Director) INVESTIGATION REPORT FINDINGS As per my investigation, it has been determined that FIB Director Bam Asiri and Deputy Director Yam Zack, along with 8-1...
docs.google.com
Case File-17102024-DOJ-NG-FIB-CF01
Department of Justice for the State of San Andreas Case File-17102024-DOJ-NG-FIB-CF01 This is a provisional case file, and may be subject to change, as per the requirements for a provisional case file. Mohil Yami (DOJ Attorney General) Identity Proof VS Bam Asiri (FIB Director) Identity Pr...
docs.google.com
Affidavit 17.10.2024
Department of Justice for the State of San Andreas Affidavit 17.10.2024 NAME OF THE SOLDIERThomasTommy Vercetti (NG General) Identity proof Testimony “Do you ThomasTommy Vercetti hereby swear and affirm that the contents of your statement are true to the best of your knowledge, as well as ...
docs.google.com
Subpoena for Court Appearance 17102024-DOJ-NG-FIB-SA01
Department of Justice for the State of San Andreas Subpoena for Court Appearance 17102024-DOJ-NG-FIB-SA01 Case File Register NAME OF THE PERSON TO APPEAR IN COURTBam Asiri Identity Proof & Yam Zack Identity Proof INFORMATION TO BE PROVIDED COURT HEARING ON 17:00 ON 18th October 2...
docs.google.com
Rescheduling for Court Hearing
Department of Justice for the State of San Andreas RESCHEDULING FOR COURT HEARING Case File Register NAME OF THE PERSON TO APPEAR IN COURTBam Asiri Identity Proof & Yam Zack Identity Proof COURT HEARING ON 22:00 ON 21th October 2024 RESCHEDULING FOR COURT HEARING The Departm...
docs.google.com
The Weaver order documents are held by the judicial panels and curators; you may request them directly. I have provided all the necessary information because I am frustrated with the continuous scrutiny I am facing in forums. It is evident that all procedures were conducted in accordance with the legislation. Additionally, the defendants had numerous points they could have raised to support their case, but their failure to thoroughly review the case file has ultimately worked to their disadvantage. (There are many forums on me which I don't even mentioned)
Given all the evidence presented, do you still believe I am involved in corruption? I encourage you to review the first-person immunity investigation report; it will clarify the entire situation. Additionally, I am submitting appeals for General Rule 6.17 for ID 31129, as well as General Rule 6.4 for IDs 31129 and 155409. The defendants represented themselves in court without a valid attorney-client contract, and I had to highlight this issue before the judges. This constitutes a breach of protocol, and the documents I have provided serve as proof of these claims.
