Alexis

Alexis's Court Booking Application ID #10027 Submitted on 09/19/21 at 10:01:20 PM ---------------------- Plaintiff Steam Name NxrveS ---------------------- Plaintiff Name John Gerald ---------------------- Defendant Name NSWPD ---------------------- Claim Summary. Request for the Removal of the Strike Recorded against the motor vehicle Dodge Challenger, Plate Number: DÔêàDGE prior to the 25th of July 2021. Incorrect number of strikes communicated by an officer prior to the purchase of a motor vehicle. To Whom it May concern, My client, JOHN GERALD purchased a motor vehicle on the 25/07/2021 from ZACK ROCHE following typical Vehicle purchasing guidelines. Which includes verifying that the stated upgrades are installed at a mechanic shop and that any vehicle strikes are known by contacting a member of NSWPD. My Client made their purchase of the motor vehicle upon verifying with the correct departments that all details were true and correct. A Strike Check was completed prior to the purchase with Officer CHRIS BOLTON. The result was that there were no strikes listed for the requested plate. An hour after the purchase of the vehicle on the same date 25/07/2021, my client was pulled over by Highway Patrol. During Conversation with the officer, my client was informed that the vehicle had 2 strikes and was instructed to consult with his lawyer. This implied that the vehicle had two (2) strikes prior to my client's purchase. Information that was displayed incorrectly at the time of purchase. This information was later verified by myself with Officer EMIYA. I have since verified that the officer that checked the strike, provided the information that was supplied to him at that time. From my investigation, all procedures were followed and all parties have independently verified and collaborated on the history of events. It appears that there was a City record issue where details failed to update (de-sync) when the strike check was conducted. Request for Action I am requesting that the strikes be removed for the above vehicle, for the incident recorded prior to the 25th of July 2021. ---------------------- Do you confirm all information provided is the truth to the best of your knowledge? Yes

Alexis's Court Booking Application ID #10018 Submitted on 09/17/21 at 10:23:01 AM ---------------------- Plaintiff Steam Name BLACK SANTA ---------------------- Plaintiff Name Pitt Langley ---------------------- Defendant Name NSWPD ---------------------- Claim Motion for Re-trial. Court Case https://www.ozzygaming.com.au/topic/16139-alexiss-court-booking/ A Court Booking was set for 6pm Tuesday 14th September 2021. Reason for Retrial Two items were revealed to be in conflict with a fair and impartial trial. 1. Judge Selection, Partial to ruling verdict. During the Court Proceedings it was revealed that the same judge that signed the warrant for the arrest, search and seizure of items of my clients property was responsible for their verdict. In this instance it can be argued that the courts did not provide a fair and impartial trial. REF: Justice System Protocol https://docs.google.com/document/d/1YBKXkvyH25Jsffi8IGEk176RZoANoZ3JpM4kWIwZyLE/edit Page 2, Paragraph 2 Line 2. "They must give all parties a reasonable chance to state their case, evidence and reasoning. They must rule on the evidence presented and the quality of the argument, ignoring any preconceived ideas or OOC knowledge of the case. Their judgements are final. Appeals will only be heard if suitable evidence is provided that material information was omitted/misrepresented or the circumstance warrants (such as a miscarriage of justice). In extreme cases, the government may order a retrial." 2. Secretive Authoritative Evidence. Under the rules governing submission of evidence, both the plaintiff and defendant are required to submit to the courts evidence prior to the trial. This information is to be provided to the courts and then distributed to the opposing counsel in order to represent the evidence for their client. In the case Pitt Langley vs NSWPD held on Tuesday 14th September 2021 new evidence was presented prior to the final verdict. This information was not provided to the defense counsel and was not able to be screened for authenticity of information, qualification of the witness nor the integrity for which the information was gathered. During the trial, the defense counsel was not able to view, hear or examine the evidence that had been provided to the courts. Given that this information was provided at the trial, it may be concluded that it was the sole piece of information used to indict my client. To promote a fair and balanced court system I feel it is necessary to have this case scheduled for Re-trial. Request: If the Secretive Authoritative Evidence that was used in the previous case is required in the next scheduling, I would like to ask the courts that this information be made available to the defense prior to the next court date. I also ask that the courts consider assigning a judge who was not involved in the signing of the warrant to oversee the re-trial for this case. ---------------------- Do you confirm all information provided is the truth to the best of your knowledge? Yes

Alexis's Court Booking Application ID #10009 Submitted on 09/13/21 at 04:54:51 AM ---------------------- Plaintiff Steam Name rxalexis ---------------------- Plaintiff Name Alana Rose ---------------------- Defendant Name NSWPD ---------------------- Claim Court Summary: On the 13th of September 2021 my client Anthony Martial inquired about a strike on his Vehicle at Benny's Garage. The vehicle in question is Mclaren Senna S19, Plate: YOUNGN Details: In this interaction Officer [207] Osiris Mendez checked the CAD and verified the vehicle plate belonging to Anthony Martial. Noting that the vehicle had a single strike recorded against it. The CAD only showed that the vehicle was striked the previous Friday the 10th of September 2021. Following this statement my client asked if there was any information relating to an offense that would warrant the strike. The officer provided that there was no recorded information regarding any offense. Dispute: The lack of recorded charges against my client do not meet evidentiary requirements of striking the vehicle and should therefore be removed, in accordance with the law. Settlement sought: Removal of strike on Vehicle Mclaren Senna S19 Plate: YOUNGN. ---------------------- Do you confirm all information provided is the truth to the best of your knowledge? Yes

Alexis's Court Booking Application ID #9992 Submitted on 09/09/21 at 03:12:49 AM ---------------------- Plaintiff Steam Name BLACK SANTA ---------------------- Plaintiff Name Pitt Langley, Heda Langley ---------------------- Defendant Name NSWPD ---------------------- Claim My Clients: Pitt Langley Heda Langley Known Detectives/ Officers Involved: Detectives Jackson Main Other Unknown officers. Investigation On Wednesday the 01st of September 2021 an Armed Robbery took place at a Store in Los Santos CBD. It is alleged that my client was responsible for this crime. Detainment At approximately 08:00pm on Sunday night the 08th of August 2021 my clients were taken into custody from a public event (Sunshine Autos GoKart Race) 61 Drydock Street, East Los Santos. The detainment of my clients followed a warrant for the arrest of Pitt Langley, for a crime that took place on Wednesday the 01st of September 2021. Interrogation My clients were transported to an "MCD Black Site" where they were questioned up to three (3) hours regarding any involvement in the activities that took place during the aforementioned store robbery. Case Notes 1. The Warrant is not signed with the time that it was issued. 2. Heda Langley was not included in this warrant and was detained also. 3. No charges were presented to Heda Langley 4. No Alert or communication of the warrant was given to my clients prior to their detainment, either by phone, email, in person or other means. Purported Evidence 1. The occupants of the store at the time of the robbery were visually identified as being dressed in mouse masks. 2. Other identifiable features could not be made at the time of the crime. 3. A vehicle belonging to Heda Langley had been seen at the scene. 4. This vehicle had been recorded as stolen earlier that day. (Other details of the crime have not been made public.) Subpoena Request 1. Evidence used to indict my client including the Body Camera Footage relating to the incident as it was recorded, at the time of the store robbery on Wednesday the 01st of September 2021. Charges Contested 1. 1x Armed Robbery of a Store 2. 1x Money Laundering Dispute 1. Alleged Involvement in the store robbery recorded on the 01st of September 2021. 2. Unwarranted Arrest of Heda Langley and subsequent Interrogation. 3. The public apprehension and detention of Mr Langley prior to a warrant for his arrest being issued. 4. Allegations of Money Laundering Settlement Sought 1. Armed Robbery and Money Laundering Charges Expunged 2. Compensation for Wrongful Charges of Pitt Langley. 3. Compensation for Wrongful Detention of Heda Langley. Pending courts decision. Kind Regards, Alana Rose Lawyer DOJ ---------------------- Do you confirm all information provided is the truth to the best of your knowledge? Yes

Alexis's Court Booking Application ID #9898 Submitted on 08/30/21 at 01:44:30 AM ---------------------- Plaintiff Steam Name ASPEX ---------------------- Plaintiff Name Dimitri Papadopoulos ---------------------- Defendant Name NSWPD ---------------------- Claim Overview My Client Dimitri Dimitri Papadopoulos was recently taken into custody at their place of work. At approximately 10:45pm on Tuesday the 24th of August 2021. Two officers were present during the detainment of my Client. Detectives Finlay Little and Detective Ernesto Pinto. Their justification for detainment is a charge against my client having committed the crime of accessory to murder. The time of this crime was approximately 10:30pm the day prior on Monday the 23rd of August 2021. Crime Scene The scene follows a police convoy used in the transportation of a detained individual. The police convoy was moving from Paleto PD to Mission Row PD for processing. During the trip, the police convoy entered the tunnel just to the north of Grapeseed where a number of vehicles blocked and ambushed the southern exit. During the ambush, the assailants became hostile and casualties amassed. Charges Alleged -Accessory to Murder of a Government Employee -Obstruction of Justice Police Conversation - Paleto PD 11:00pm 24th of August 2021 Investigating the claim, I was informed that my clients vehicle was seen at the scene of a crime on a body camera that continued to roll post mortem on one of the officers that was shot in this altercation. Since a vehicle at the scene of a crime may indicate that it may have been involved, it does not mean that it was used in the crime, furthermore a vehicle is not a person, and it alone does not supply evidence that my client was at the scene of the crime, as it is claimed. Inquiring further, the detectives claimed that my client was also seen to closely resemble my client on body camera. Dispute Dimitri Papadopoulous owns a business and was present at the time of the crimes alleged against him. Multiple eye witnesses place him at his workplace. Presence of a personal vehicle at a place where a crime has taken place does not imply personal involvement. Subpoena Request Evidence used to indict my client including the Body Camera Footage relating to the incident as it was recorded, at the time of 10:30pm Monday the 23rd of August 2021. Settlement All Charges Expunged Compensation for Wrongful Charges Pending court decision. Kind Regards, Alana Rose Lawyer DOJ ---------------------- Do you confirm all information provided is the truth to the best of your knowledge? Yes