[CV-0113] Khalil Adewale v. San Andreas Police Department

[Vincent Quinn]

Khalil Adewale v. San Andreas Police Department

I. OPENING STATEMENT
To the honourable court,
Mr. Adewale has chosen Harry Kingsman as his legal representative for this case.

On 16th of October 2024, Mr. Adewale(referred as to the plantiff) was taken Into custody by the "Special Weapons and Tactics" division In an FBI rancher, whilst being transported one of the operators which Is known as Mrs. Benson (referred as to the defendant) used excessive force by slapping my client, to confirm my client was cuffed seated In a vehicle fully armoured and had no way to show threats to any of the operators there, therefore we belive that this operator has used excessive force without any cause, the plantiff on the same day has made a complaint on the official website of the agency and still hasn't recieved any response, as per the court rules a civilian may file a law suit after the agency fails to resolve the complaint within 14 days, and after 14 days the client has 7 days to file a law suit today Is the 4th day, which makes this case valid.


II. EVIDENCE
We'd demand the operators which were present to hand out their bodycam to watch the tape ((We have proof but the plantiff In this case didn't have a camera to record so the proof will remain OOC till the operators hand their bodycams))



III. DEMANDS

• Immediate suspension of the officer upon successful completion

• Immediate demotion of the officer upon successful completion

• Immediate suspension/demotion from the division of the officer upon successful completion

• A public apology from both the officer, and the highest ranked officer from the department

• Compensation of $1,500,000 United States Dollars to cover the damages done

IV. CLOSING STATEMENT
Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, In this case you've seen undeniable proof of how Mr. Adewale was treated, not as a citizen, but as an object to be controlled through brutal force.This case Isn't about just my client, It's about all the civilians who have placed their trust Into the ones that have sworn to protect the state from both foreign and domestic criminals.Show that justice Is more than a promise, thank you!

Signed,

Harry Kingsman
State Licensed Attorney

Signed,
Khalil Adewale

[Marko Vanhanen]

State of San Andreas
First Judicial District Court
United States Courthouse
3321 Downtown Avenue, Los Santos, San Andreas

---

Khalil Adewale
v.
San Andreas Police Department

CASE # CV-0113
HONORABLE JUDGE PRESIDING:
Marko Vanhanen

The First Judicial District Court recognises this Civil Lawsuit as submitted by Mr. Khalil Adewale, henceforth the Plaintiff. We recognise State Licensed Attorney Harry Kingsman as the legal counsel for the Plaintiff. Let it be recognised that the court has assigned this case ID # CV-0113.

To the Defendant:
You have forty-eight (48) hours to confirm whether you will be represented by a legal counsel or intend to defend yourself in this case. If you have hired legal counsel, please have them reply to this court communique with their details. Failure to confirm these details within the 48 hour window will result in this court issuing a summons for your appearance. Failure to appear before this court does not invalidate this case and we will proceed without you if we need to.

(( Please forum PM me if there's a particular reason as to why this timeframe is unreasonable ))

To the Plaintiff:
Please refrain from pre-assigning number identification to case which you are presenting to the court. You do not decide regarding this matter.

Also please elaborate this court meaning of your closing statement. We can see that you are mentioning "In this case you've seen undeniable proof" and also "was treated, not as a citizen, but as an object to be controlled through brutal force". Define this court please what proof we saw. As far as this court is concerned, no proof has been provided yet.
You have the next 48 hours to provide this court with a witness list that you intend to call upon.

Signed,

Marko Vanhanen
Hon. District Judge
District of San Andreas

[Richard Sullivan]

San Andreas Police

COURT LIASON

Civil Case CV-0113

Central Station

Pershing Square

Los Santos, SA 90014

To the Honourable Judge Vanhanen,

The San Andreas Police Department has appointed Commander Richard M. Sullivan as lead counsel for the case of Khalil Adewale v. San Andreas Police Department.

The defence files a motion for summary judgement.

The claimaints in a civil case are required to meet a threshold of a preponderance of evidence under their burden of proof. This case has been submitted with exactly no evidence, essentially forming a "he said she said" argument as the basis for the entire complaint. The San Andreas Police Department stresses the fact that it cannot be forced to compel bodycam footage after a civil case has been submitted without any prior supporting evidence to back up the claims of the plaintiff.

The San Andreas Police Department Supervisory Staff unfortunately did not action the complaint in the appropriate amount of time which allowed the plaintiff to bring a case to the civil court. This does not mean that the internal investigation of these officers now becomes a matter of the proceedings as the same burden of proof does not apply.

The San Andreas Police Department regularly investigates cases with a lack of initial evidence in order to meet our public duties of ensuring a professional department. This should not extend to the Judicial system, whereby the burden of proof remains on the plaintiff to present a legally sound case that has a preponderance of evidence to proceed to the next stages.


The San Andreas Police Department appreciates the effort of the court in this case.

---

Richard Sullivan
Police Commander
Command Consultant

[Vincent Quinn]

Khalil Adewale v. San Andreas Police Department

We politely oppose the San Andreas Police Department's (SAPD) request for summary judgment in Khalil Adewale v. San Andreas Police Department.

It would not be fair to decide on summary judgment only because we have not yet provided our first evidence, especially since SAPD holds key evidence that could prove or disprove our arguments. Summary judgment is only used in situations where there is no real disagreement over important facts. The bodycam footage that is being kept secret is causing exactly that type of disagreement. The video may provide insight into important interactions pivotal to the case.

Therefore, we request the court to reject SAPD's request for summary judgment and instruct the department to provide the specified bodycam footage. Having access to this evidence is crucial in order to have a fair chance to present the facts and meet our obligation to prove.

Regarding the request from the judge: "You have the next 48 hours to provide this court with a witness list that you intend to call upon", the only witnesses In the scene Is the rest of the officers In the rancher:B.Ross, L.Fratto, In addition we'd demand to check the 911 call logs In the mobile digital computer, as my client claims to have called the Police Department's supervisors via 911 hotline.

Thank you for taking into account.

Signed,

Harry Kingsman
State Licensed Attorney

Signed,
Khalil Adewale

[Richard Sullivan]

San Andreas Police

COURT LIASON

Civil Case CV-0113

Central Station

Pershing Square

Los Santos, SA 90014

To the Honourable Judge Vanhanen,

The defence will make an additional argument in response to the Plaintiff's claim as we respectfully reiterate our previous motion for summary judgement, with the emphasis being placed on the lack of initial evidence to support the claims submitted.

As stated in the original motion, it is up to the plaintiff to present a preponderance of evidence to substantiate their claims. This differs entirely from the internal SAPD complaints procedure, though that is up to the discretion of the Police Department to maintain the regulations for how they handle complaints. It must remain a fundamental requirement of any civil case that a plaintiff presents the appropriate level of evidence to backup their claims in the court of law.

Simply saying that the evidence exists is insufficient grounds to reject our motion for a summary judgement. It is the plaintiff's duty to submit any amount of supporting evidence to substantiate their claim, of which they currently have none.

If the court permits the case to advance without any evidence submitted, a dangerous precedent of allowing baseless civil cases to take up precious judicial time and resources while undermining the requirement for the plaintiff to include any amount of evidence in their original claim.

The San Andreas Police Department has no further comment on the matter of the request for summary judgement and thanks the court for their time.

---

Richard Sullivan
Police Commander
Command Consultant

[Marko Vanhanen]

State of San Andreas
First Judicial District Court
United States Courthouse
3321 Downtown Avenue, Los Santos, San Andreas

---

Khalil Adewale
v.
San Andreas Police Department

CASE # CV-0113
HONORABLE JUDGE PRESIDING:
Marko Vanhanen

*Bangs his gavel and says: ORDER IN THE COURT ROOM*

Speaking up during proceedings of a case without Judge's constent is not permitted. Mr. Richard Sullivan has disturbed this courtroom and is hereby held in contempt of court. The Court orders Mr. Richard Sullivan to remain silent unless instructed otherwise, else he will be escorted out of the courtroom and may be fined as a consequence for his actions. The Court did not request San Andreas Police Department to present a summary judgement nor a further reply to Mr. Harry Kingsman, the Court only requested San Andreas Police Department to present who will be their representative in this case.

To the Defendant:
This Court recognises Mr. Richard Sullivan as a legal representative of San Andreas Police Department in this case.
The Court will recognise the summary judgement as presented by Defendant's eventhough there was no request for any kind of summary to be presented. The Court will not recognise the further reply presented by the Defendant. This Court would like to remind the Defendant, that they will have a right to question witnesses.

To the Plaintiff:
This Court recognises the witness list provided by the Plaintiff. The Court recognises the request from the Plaintiff towards the Defendant to provide the needed bodycam footage from the afformentioned incident.


The Court orders the Defence to provide the required bodycam footage from the afformentioned incident on 16th of October 2024. This Court also orders the Plaintiff to be cooperative with the Defence in order to track down the bodycam footage by providing details if necessary.
((Plaintiff may send the video of the incident to the Defendant in order for Defence to "provide it".))

This Court also subphoneas Mr. Bradley Ross and Mr. Louis Fratto for the court hearing. The Defendant may now cross examine the witnesses.
((Defence can now present questions for the witnesses, which they will answer in this cross-hearing. You may put questions for both witnesses in one reply. After that, witnesses will answer the questions.))

Signed,

Marko Vanhanen
Hon. District Judge
District of San Andreas

[Richard Sullivan]

San Andreas Police

COURT LIASON

Civil Case CV-0113

Central Station

Pershing Square

Los Santos, SA 90014

To the Honourable Judge Vanhanen,

In order to save time for all parties involved, as well as the Court's, we intend to make this case as simple as possible.

The San Andreas Police Department accepts that Officer Olivia Benson struck the cuffed plaintiff in this case.

The San Andreas Police Department wishes to offer the Plaintiff's $150,000 as direct compensation for the event that ocurred without argument. The San Andreas Police Department will also refer this case to the Internal Affairs division for a final judgement on any disciplinary actions.

The San Andreas Police Department wishes to remind everyone involved that as a civil case, no power involved here has the ability to issue direct disciplinary action to any singular individual, though will accept recommendations from the Court if they wish to provide one.

If the Plaintiff decides that the amount offered is not sufficient, we will continue with this case as per normal procedure and then wish to subpoena the relevant medical records and Doctors involved in the treatment in order to justify the $1,500,000 request for "damages".

---

Richard Sullivan
Police Commander
Command Consultant

[Kira Hernandez]

Hon. District Judge Kira Hernandez will proceed with the case from now on as Judge Marko Vanhanen is out for medical issues (( Real life -busy )).

[Kira Hernandez]

State of San Andreas
First Judicial District Court
United States Courthouse
3321 Downtown Avenue, Los Santos, San Andreas

---

Khalil Adewale
v.
San Andreas Police Department

CASE # CV-0113
HONORABLE JUDGE PRESIDING:
Kira Hernandez

The First Judicial District Court recognises this civil case as submitted by State Licensed Attorney Harry Kingsman on behalf of Khalil Adewale. Let it be recognised that the court has assigned this case ID # CV-0113, Khalil Adewale v. San Andreas Police Department, henceforth the Defendant.

I. FINDINGS
At the start of the case, the Plaintiff was providing statement regarding evidence & actions taken which was never been presented and the court never acknowledged. The court takes San Andreas Police Department's statement into consideration regarding the submission of a lawsuit without evidence.

However, regardless of the recent hearings and whatever had been said, and after reviewing and studying both parties, the court will decide as presented by the San Andreas Police Department, to not waste any more time since this case has been open for decades, the court will adjust the following as requested by Command Consultant & Commander Richard Sullivan, let it be known and serve as example for anyone wish to go beyond the law.

II. RULING
The court finds Officer Olivia Benson GUILTY.

• The San Andreas Police Department to provide $150,000$ as direct compensation to the Plaintiff.
• The Court provides an advisory, punishment to the San Andreas Police Department's Officer. Mrs. Olivia Benson, with at least 72 hours suspension from the Department and/or 72 hours suspension from the Division of Special Weapons and Tactics.

(( Have the SAPD forum punishment topic updated with the punishment whenever you are ready ))

*Bangs her Gavel*

Signed,
Honorable District Judge Kira Hernandez