Killercroc

Changelog 06/03/2024 Change: Rule addition for zone wars

Dear Chief Justice Morgan Freeman and whomever else it may concern, I am writing to inform the court that the New South Wales Police Force has discontinued proceedings and "dropped the charge" of Accessory to Armed Robbery (Bank) against Mr Langley. Mr Langley's legal representative was informed of this by written correspondence at 9:52 PM on the 24th of this month. Mr Langley's criminal record has been updated to reflect this change. The NSWPF has made an apology to Mr Langley and has, in the same correspondence as mentioned above, undertaken to refund (from its budget) Mr. Langley the full amount of the fine that was issued to him for said charge. Regards, Jake Pawar Chief Superintendent Jake Pawar Prosecutor, New South Wales Police Force

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

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

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

To whom it may concern, Due to the reasoning you have provided (de-sync) we don't believe the court is the appropriate body to resolve this issue instead we may refer you to the government. In future if you believe there is a clerical issue regarding strikes we would advise you to contact a member of PTD or the prosecutions team directly in order for a quick resolution. Lastly for administrative convenience and common courtesy please bring the matter forwards straight away rather than leave it for 2 months. Regards, Sergeant Jake Pawar Prosecutor New South Wales Police Force

To Whom it may concern, The New South Wales police force request the case be dismissed immediately due to the plaintiff not following up with the manor in a suitable amount of time. Regards, Sergeant Jake Pawar Prosecutor New South Wales Police Force

Welcome back! Hope you have a great experience