What's new
Welcome

Join us now to get access to all our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, and so, so much more. It's also quick and totally free, so what are you waiting for?

Kiki Starr - Civil Complaint Form

Kiki Starr

Whitelisted
Whitelisted
Joined
Jun 9, 2022
Messages
31
Points
8
Character Name: Kiki Starr

Nature of Complaint: Civil Suit

Plantiff: Kiki Starr

Named Defendant: Aurora Hills

Statement of Claim: On August 8, 2022 at or around 22:02 Aurora Hills under her twitter handle of the same name stated "@Kiki fight me" stating an intention to engage in physical combat with the plaintiff Kiki Starr. [Labeled A] Defendant Hills further made comments which revealed that the defendant was in a combative state of mind. [Labeled B] Defendant went on eventually harassing the plaintiff more then stating "yall need a purging." these statements set the stage for what happened next.

At or around 22:46 on the same date the defendant Aurora Hills arrived at the Bean Machine where plaintiff Kiki Starr was, walked up to the plaintiff, confirmed her identity and began to assault the plaintiff with many witnesses present. She then attempted to egg the plaintiff in engaging in combat with the defendant which the defendant refused. The defendant then left the establishment walking to the parking lot where several rounds of ammunition were fired into the defendant's car in the parking lot. [Pictures labeled D and E]

A statement was made to police however a report has yet to be obtained for the incident.

Date & Approximate Time of Incident: 22:46 8/8/22

Relief: Pretrial temporary restraining order preventing the defendant from contacting or becoming a threat to the life or safety of Ms. Kiki Starr.
Permanent restraining order preventing the defendant from contacting or becoming a threat to the life or safety of Ms. Kiki Starr.
$75,000 in punitive damages.

Representative(s):

Evidence: A: Defendant stating "fight me" https://i.imgur.com/iVq5x6G.png
B: Combative statements https://i.imgur.com/zELH7Zl.png
C: Defendant stating "Y'all need a purging" https://i.imgur.com/RgvV7p8.png
D: https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/1001748136777236521/1006435039371862066/screenshot.png
E: https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/1001748136777236521/1006435135832469595/screenshot.png
 

Edward le Vandeburg III

Member
Whitelisted
Judge
LSPD
Joined
Jun 17, 2022
Messages
59
Points
8
Restraining Order Hearing
Kiki Starr v. Aurora Hills
Case no.: 11-00813-01

Presiding
Justice @Edward le Vandeburg III

Finding: The District Court of San Andreas finds there is a legal basis for this hearing.

Plaintiff Counsel: @Kiki Starr, will you be self-representing or have you obtained counsel?

Defense Counsel: @Sleepy Hills, will you be self-representing or have you obtained counsel?

Hearing Date: August 14th, 2022 at 8 PM EST.

During this hearing, both sides will be allowed to testify for this restraining order. Please let the court know if you are able to attend or of a motion of continuance is needed.

Exhibits A-E have been approved.
 

Avaa Delevingne

EMS Command
Whitelisted
EMS
EMS Command
Joined
Jun 21, 2022
Messages
30
Points
8
Will not be contesting anything so it can be passed the restraining order and ill be getting her the 75k
 

Edward le Vandeburg III

Member
Whitelisted
Judge
LSPD
Joined
Jun 17, 2022
Messages
59
Points
8
Restraining Order Hearing
Kiki Starr v. Aurora Hills
Case no.: 11-00813-01

Presiding
Justice @Edward le Vandeburg III
Decision: Upon reviewing this case, the courts have decided that due to the defendant agreeing to the terms of the request, a restraining order shall be issued, and judgment for the plaintiff in the amount of $75,000 shall be rendered. After the syllabus, the stipulations of the funds and the issue of payment shall be detailed.

Syllabus: The decision in favor of the plaintiff was solely decided based on the defendant agreeing to the terms the plaintiff requested. Had the defendant argued the legitimacy of this complaint due to the lack of a police report, witnesses, and concrete evidence to back the claim, the courts would have favored denying this request.

When the court was presented with Exhibit A, we can see that this was a mere antagonistic statement to make towards the plaintiff. Based on how Exhibit B was written by the defendant, nothing was contextually relevant to this complaint. When the court asked for clarification on the context of Exhibit C, the plaintiff's only response revealed that was speculated to be defined as cruel intent. Lastly, when viewing Exhibits D-E, the court can clearly see that there was damage to the plaintiff's vehicle. However, when the court asked for proof that asserts that the defendant was the one who damaged the vehicle, none could be provided. Without the witnesses' testimony of seeing this, the court viewed that this was based on hearsay.

In the situation of the defendant not being able to properly argue this complaint against them, but still wished to contest, based on what was previously stated, the court would have dismissed this case.

However, to reiterate, due to the defendant agreeing to accept having the restraining order placed against them and having to pay $75,000 for punitive damages, the court takes this as a contractual agreement. With that said, the court will assert that this case cannot be used as a form of precedence or used as common law due to how the courts viewed the findings of the exhibits and the nature of this complaint.

Terms of Judgement:
Aurora Hills, @Sleepy Hills,

The District Court of San Andreas hereby declares the following:
  • A Court-Issued Restraining Order will be issued to you as of 08/15/2022, 22:43 EST.
    • In the terms of this restraining order, you shall not make any form of direct contact with the plaintiff, @Kiki Starr.
      • This includes...
        • calling the plaintiff's phone.​
        • sending a text message(s) to their phone.​
        • emailing the plaintiff.​
        • tagging the plaintiff on any form of social media that is or shall be introduced to the State of San Andreas.​
      • This restraining order shall stay in place until...
        • the plaintiff requests to nullify the restraining order.​
        • the plaintiff passes away.​
        • the recipient passes away.​
        • or if this restraining order is overturned by the Superior Court.​
      • Should the terms of this restraining order be violated, the following may be levied against the recipient:
        • Harassment
        • Violating a Court Order
        • Contempt of Court
  • The Court issues that the defendant is to pay $75,000.00 to the plaintiff for the relief of the punitive damages.
    • In regards to the issuance of payment, the court requests the defendant to...
      • Pay the amount of $75,000.00 within 72 Hours of the time of this declaration. (08/15/2022, 22:43 EST)
      • The payment is to be given to a Judge/Justice or Chief Justice(s) in order to honor the restraining order issued.
      • Failure to pay this within the time limit or failure to notify the courts if the defendant is unable to make it, a charge of Violating a Court order and/or Contempt of Court may be levied.
So Ordered,
Justice Edward le Vandeberg III
 
Top