Jump to content
OzzyGaming
pinejack

pinejack's Court Booking

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

pinejack's Court Booking
Application ID #9271
Submitted on 05/24/21 at 09:47:48 AM

----------------------
Plaintiff Steam Name
Misc
----------------------
Plaintiff Name
Bill Gambino, Brea Gambino, Dallas Gambino, Georgio Smith, James Kingsington, Gambino Family (ORG)
----------------------
Defendant Name
New South Wales Police Department
----------------------
Claim
The New South Wales Police Department's Criminal Investigation Divison has conducted a number of illegal raids on my clients, resulting in the improper search and seizure of many of my clients assets and belongings. They have also used incorrectly obtained evidence to apply for a warrant to search some of my clients. As well as this, they have used the resulting evidence from the illegal raids to apply an organisation penalty of $1,000,000.00 that we wish to dispute.

Each of my clients wish to sue the Police Department for a monetary value of $500,000 for the illegal search and seizure of goods as well as placing mandatory probation periods on them as a result of said illegal search and seizure. The Gambino Family wish to also sue the Police Department for a monetary value of $2,000,000 to cover the cost of the organisation penalty, legal fees, loss of assets and income.
----------------------
Do you confirm all information provided is the truth to the best of your knowledge?
Yes

Edited by pinejack
Spelling
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for your booking A. Embershard.
DOJ sees your request.

PD Please be made aware of this. 
By the looks of things this will be a court case.

Can Both sides please provide times over the weekend that work for them.
I will need a response within 24 hours please.

Regards, R. French

@Kraze @pinejack

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Thank you for the response.

At this moment in time, I should be available anytime after 2:00pm on Sunday however I would prefer later on in the evening. 
I will also provide some further clarification in regards to the court booking later tonight when I return to my office.

Regards, A. Embershard

- Get Outlook for iOS

Edited by pinejack
Edit
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

COPY OF LETTER ISSUED TO Aurelius Embershard RE: LETTER STATEMENT OF CLAIM TO NSW POLICE FORCE ISSUED 28/05/2021


30 May 2021

Mr Aurelius Embershard
C/- DOJ Lawyers
585 Occupation Avenue
Lost Santos, New South Wales

LETTER STATEMENT OF CLAIM TO NSW POLICE FORCE ISSUED 28/05/2021

Mr. Embershard,

We refer to your Statement of Claim issued 28/05/2021, and provide the following response to the claims set out in same:

  1. Use of ‘incorrectly obtained evidence to apply for a warrant’
    • The onus of proof to substantiate this claim rests with the Plaintiff, accordingly, we await submission of evidence which indicates that on a set date, any NSW Police Officer made an application for search and seizure warrant in relation to your client, that contained such ‘incorrectly obtained evidence.’
  2. Illegal Search and Seizure of Goods
    • NSW Police deny any allegation of misconduct in relation to the illegal search and  seizure of goods in this matter. As set out in claim (1), the onus of proof rests with the Plaintiff to produce evidence which shows that the NSW Police, on a set date, committed an offence in seizing items in relation to your client, and we await submission of such evidence.
  3. Placement of Probationary Periods
    • NSW Police maintains the placement of probationary periods internally, and maintains that the placement of such periods was subsequent to offences committed, where the subjects have been already convicted. Therefore, the Plaintiff seeks judicial determination of a criminal matter, in a civil jurisdiction, which is an abuse of court process. We will seek to have this matter dismissed.
  4. Seeking damages of total $4 500 000
    • The onus rests on the Plaintiff to substantiate the damages of $4 500 000 across 6 clients. We await submission of evidence which indicates that, if the above claims were ruled in the favour of the Plaintiff, that said actions resulted in $500 000 worth of damages to each individual, and $2 000 000 worth of damages to the Gambino Family Organisation, as set out in the claim.


Further, if this claim is sustained, NSW Police will lodge motion for summary dismissal of claims on the following merits:

  1. The claim by the Plaintiff is vexatious
    1. The basis of the action against NSW Police is emotionally motivated by the Plaintiff’s desire to seek revenge on NSW Police. Claim was only filed after a monetary penalty was placed on the Plaintiffs, considerable time after the alleged action described in this claim took place.
    2. The Plaintiff has failed to provide any evidence to substantiate the allegations in this claim, as well as evidence to substantiate the claim for non-economic and economic loss.
  2. The claim is an abuse of process
    1. The Plaintiff seeks judicial determination of a criminal matter, in a civil jurisdiction, which is an abuse of court process.


NSW Police require disclosure of all materials that will be used at Hearing, as well as a list of witnesses that will appear for cross-examination by our office. 

If the Plaintiff is unable to prove the claim against NSW Police, the NSW Crown Solicitor’s Office will seek full costs relating to the defence of the claim, including, but not limited to, solicitor and barrister fees, administration fees and court appearance fees. A copy of this letter will be attached to the court-booking docket for reference purposes.

Best Regards,
Daniel La Trinité
Chief Crown Solicitor

Jp-8nQnne2z3mURjDhfEK8Pko0i8yp9kDQIpFm2vH4glfHQmBypSoO8wYytwNV4LNEiEPQUrpiqONAxOhRBF4ZuyCFXj1pMdAIr8wJF9g1FEzD4P7y47k2DqvG3S2YG4laj8JaHP

 

Edited by Kraze
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW  SOUTH WALES 

COMMON LAW DIVISION 

NOTICE OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY  DISMISSAL 

 

AFFIDAVIT OF 

Daniel La Trinité
 5 June 2021 

 

Filed for 
 NSW Police Force

Plaintiff(s)
 Bill Gambino, Brea Gambino, Dallas Gambino, Georgio Smith, James Kingsington, Gambino Family (ORG).

Defendant
 NSW Police

 

Counsel for the Defendant 
 Daniel La Trinité

Counsel for the Plaintiff
 Aurelius Embershard

 


The Defendant seeks for the Court to  grant a summary dismissal of this case on the following grounds: 

1. The claim by the Plaintiff is vexatious 

1.1 The Plaintiff has failed to provide any evidence to substantiate the allegations in this claim, as well as evidence to substantiate the claim for non-economic and economic loss.

 

2. The claim by the Plaintiff is an abuse of process 

2.1 In relation to claim regarding probationary periods, the Plaintiff seeks judicial determination of a criminal matter, in a civil jurisdiction, which is an abuse of court process.

 

Further, after being prompted via letter correspondence (see previous in docket), and a waiting period of six (6) days given, the plaintiff is yet to provide any evidence to substantiate claims made in the original booking, let alone reply or acknowledge the submission in a private or public manner.

The plaintiff seeks to make a mockery of the Department of Justice by filing such claims that have little to no legal standing, and failing to follow up or substantiate their claims in any capacity. We therefore seek that the Court grant a summary dismissal on this case.

Edited by Kraze
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for your response on the current legal proceedings Daniel,

I will be issuing out a letter to you in response to your previous correspondence within the next 48 hours. I have been unable to before hand as I have been in the process of getting my affairs in order, and organising the funeral proceedings for my wife. I appreciate your patience during this time.

- Aurelius Embershard

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

13 June 2021

Mr Aurelius Embershard
C/- DOJ Lawyers
585 Occupation Avenue
Lost Santos, New South Wales

LETTER OF REPLY TO NSW POLICE FORCE ISSUED 09/06/2021

Mr. Embershard,
We refer to your letter of reply and offer the following in response:

  1. Use of ‘incorrectly obtained evidence to apply for a warrant’
    1. As stated in our previous message, the onus of proof to substantiate this claim rests with the Plaintiff, accordingly, we await submission of evidence which indicates that on a set date, any NSW Police Officer made an application for search and seizure warrant in relation to your client, that contained such ‘incorrectly obtained evidence.’
    2. Further, evidence submitted to DOJ for warrants is vetted and reviewed by Judges before being considered for a warrant, thus has already been checked by a Judge and deemed admissible and suitable for use.
  1. Illegal Search and Seizure of Goods
    1. Following investigation, it has been discovered that due to DOJ clerical errors, the warrant paperwork was dated incorrectly and a trivial misspell of the name of two subjects was included. The search warrants were approved on 2 May 2021, as you knew, when you personally confirmed the matter with Justice Freeman after the first warrant was executed. We are currently working with DOJ to have this resolved.
  1. Placement of Probationary Periods
    1. We echo our previous reply: NSW Police maintains the placement of probationary periods internally, and maintains that the placement of such periods was subsequent to offences committed, where the subjects have been already convicted. Therefore, the Plaintiff seeks judicial determination of a criminal matter, in a civil jurisdiction, which is an abuse of court process.
    2. We would further like to clarify that unless the Plaintiff seeks to appeal the charges that resulted in the placement of the probationary periods in a criminal jurisdiction, it is not possible to consider this claim.
  1. Seeking damages of total $4,500,000
    1. Again we echo our previous reply: The onus rests on the Plaintiff to substantiate the damages of $4 500 000 across 6 clients. We await submission of evidence which indicates that, if the above claims were ruled in the favour of the Plaintiff, that said actions resulted in $500 000 worth of damages to each individual, and $2 000 000 worth of damages to the Gambino Family Organisation, as set out in the claim.
    2. We would again like to clarify that in your reply, you simply allocated a certain amount of money to individuals and provided reasons, however you have again failed to include any evidence to substantiate the claims made see above. 
  1. Motion for summary dismissal
    1. As the Plaintiff has become present again, the motion for summary dismissal has been paused, and a response will not be provided unless this matter becomes relevant in the future.
       

Should you have any questions or concerns relating to this matter or to the process of legal proceedings, please feel free to contact me during business hours.  A copy of this letter will be attached to the court-booking docket for reference purposes.


Best Regards,
Daniel La Trinité
Chief Crown Solicitor

Jp-8nQnne2z3mURjDhfEK8Pko0i8yp9kDQIpFm2vH4glfHQmBypSoO8wYytwNV4LNEiEPQUrpiqONAxOhRBF4ZuyCFXj1pMdAIr8wJF9g1FEzD4P7y47k2DqvG3S2YG4laj8JaHP

Edited by Kraze
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...