#25-CM-0034, State of San Andreas v. Alistair Vespucci

[Alistair Vespucci]

Defendant Name: Alistair Vespucci
Defendant Phone: 315-6876
(( Defendant Discord: Steak Happy ))
(( Defendant Timezone: EST ))
Type of Representation (Pick one): Public Defender

Charging Department: LSSD, presumably.

Date & Time of Incident(s): 10/JAN/2025 23:20
Charge(s):

• NM03 - Unlawful Assembly
• NM06 - Trespassing of a Gov. Employee
• GF21 - Prison Break
• GF05 - Extortion of a Gov. Employee
• GF11 - Grand Theft Auto of a Gov. Employee
• GF14 - False Impersonation of a Gov. Employee
• SF04 - Kidnapping of a Gov. Employee
• SF01 - Domestic Terrorism
• GF10 - Grand Theft of a Gov. Employee
• GM25 - Possession/Unlawful Use of Government Equipment
• NM08 - Abuse of Government Public Safety Radio Frequencies or Hotlines

Narrative:
I have been charged with the prison break of Sophia Falcone, to which I was not involved.

---

I, Alistair Vespucci, hereby affirm that all information provided above is true and correct to the best of my knowledge, and understand that knowingly providing false information could result in additional charges and/or fines. (( I affirm that all information submitted has been obtained via In-Character means. ))

[QuentinDeLaVentura]

- - - - -

---

NOTIFICATION OF COUNSEL

---

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

State of San Andreas v. Alistair Vespucci

A Notification of Counsel was filed in the above case on the 13th day of January, 2025.

I, Quentin Delaventura Esq., a Defense Attorney with the Private Law Firm, Assured Law, will be representing the Defendant, Alistair Vespucci, in the underlying case.

I will be taking the responsibility of Primary Counsel, and will await further instruction from the Presiding Judge.

---

• Best regards,
  
  Quentin Delaventura Esq.
  "Your Voice, My Win"
  (702) 395-6394
  [email protected]
  
  Assured Services
  Attorney at Law, Assured Law
  Bluff Tower, 72 Bay City Avenue

- - - - -

[Hope Kant]

San Andreas Judicial Branch
Superior Court of San Andreas
"EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"

---

NOTICE OF RECEIPT

---

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

State of San Andreas v. Alistair Vespucci

The court has hereby received and acknowledged the above case on the 16th day of January, 2025.

The Superior Court of San Andreas has received your filing and the case is now pending activation. Be advised that the court system runs on a first-come, first-served basis and will only activate cases out of order for special circumstances.

During this time, the defendant is encouraged to reach out to a licensed defense attorney in order to prepare a proper defense, otherwise, a court-appointed attorney will be assigned to the case upon its activation.

The defendant is further encouraged to speak with an authorized individual at Rockford Hills City Hall, Mission Row Police Station, or Paleto Bay Sheriff's Office for official clarification on the specific charges received and their respective date and times, as once the case has been activated, any omitted charges will be considered abandoned and unable to be disputed within this case.


Superior Court Justice
Branch Administrator
San Andreas Judicial Branch
505-9925 — [email protected]

[Jay Wellberg]

- - - - -

---

NOTIFICATION OF COUNSEL

---

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

State of San Andreas v. Alistair Vespucci


A Notification of Counsel was filed in the above case on the 20 of January, 2025.

I, Jay Wellberg, a Defense Attorney with Assured Law , will be representing the Defendant, Alistair Vespucci in the underlying case.

I will be taking the responsibility of Co-Counsel and will await further instruction from the Presiding Judge.

---

• Sincerely,
  
  Jay Wellberg
  Assured Services
  Attorney, Assured Law
  Bluff Tower, 72 Bay City Avenue

- - - - -

[Sayaka Yukimura]

San Andreas Judicial Branch
Superior Court of San Andreas
"EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"

---

NOTICE OF ACTIVATION & ORDER FOR DISCOVERY

---

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

State of San Andreas v. Alistair Vespucci
#25-BT-0051

A Notice of Activation & Order for Discovery was entered in the above case on the 26th day of April, 2025.

The case of State of San Andreas v. Alistair Vespucci is hereby activated and opened by this Court.

Be advised that the bench-trial court system runs on a weekly time-slot system. The prosecution and defense are hereby ordered to provide their evidence to the Court via Motion for Discovery within the next 30 days or file a Motion for Continuance.

If at any point in time the defendant or prosecution wishes set precedence or desire a formal criminal trial, they are welcome to file a Motion for a Change in Venue.


Superior Court Judge
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 304-2935 — [email protected]

[Jay Wellberg]

San Andreas Judicial Branch
Superior Court of San Andreas
"EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"

---

MOTION FOR CHANGE OF VENUE

---

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

State of San Andreas v. Alistair Vespucci
#25-BT-0051

A Motion for Change of Venue was filed in the above case on the 27 of April, 2025.

The Defendant, by and through the undersigned attorney, filed this Motion for Change of Venue, and the reasoning for request is as follows;

• Requested Venue: Normal Trial
  • Detailed Explanation: With the number of charges being contested and the potential lengthy amount of evidence that will be presented, the defense believes that this trial should be done the regular way, via a normal trial. We ask that if this motion is granted that the case remains activate and moves forward as it was planned to avoid any unnecessary delays.

Jay Wellberg
Assured Services
Attorney, Assured Law
Bluff Tower, 72 Bay City Avenue

[Terence Williams]

San Andreas Judicial Branch Docket Notice "HERE FOR YOU | SAFE FOR YOU"

---

• Honorable Judge Yukimura and pertaining parties,
  
  The Prosecution has no objection to the above motion.
  
  Regards,
  
  Terence Williams
  Attorney General
  San Andreas Judicial Branch
  234-9321 — [email protected]

[Hope Kant]

San Andreas Judicial Branch
Superior Court of San Andreas
"EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"

---

COURT DECISION

---

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

State of San Andreas v. Alistair Vespucci

A decision was reached in the above case on the 15th day of June, 2025.

The court will be granting the defenses request to hear this as a Formal Criminal Trial. We are rescinding the order for discovery due to the transition of this case from bench trial to formal criminal trial. As such both parties will be notified when they are ordered to provide any evidence to the court via a new Order for Discovery and set timeline for progress. The court thanks all parties for their patience in this matter.

Respectfully,


Associate Justice
Branch Administrator
San Andreas Judicial Branch
505-9925 — [email protected]

[Terence Williams]

San Andreas Judicial Branch
Superior Court of San Andreas
"EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"

---

MOTION FOR JOINDER

---

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

State of San Andreas v. Alistair Vespucci

A Motion for Joinder was filed in the above case on the 8th of July, 2025.

The State of San Andreas, by and through the undersigned attorney, filed this Motion for Joinder, requesting this and the following list of cases be joined together for collective prosecution.

• • Case information
    #25-BT-0039, State of San Andreas v. David Vespucci
    case number and name
    
    David Deltoid
    defendant
    
    David Deltoid (self-representation)
    defense attorney
  
  
  • Case information
    #25-BT-0040, State of San Andreas v. Nathaniel Luceran
    case number and name
    
    Nathaniel Luceran
    defendant
    
    Luna McMillan, Vanguard Law
    defense attorney
  
  
  • Case information
    State of San Andreas v. Carl Valentine
    case number and name
    
    Carl Valentine
    defendant
    
    Jay Wellberg, Assured Law
    defense attorney
  
  
  • Case information
    #25-BT-0048, State of San Andreas v. Cortez Rivera
    case number and name
    
    Cortez Rivera
    defendant
    
    Public Defender
    defense attorney

• Detailed Explanation: The four (4) listed cases are all the result of the same investigation into the August 18th prison break of Sophia Falcone, as is the defendant's. All five (5) defendants are alleged to have been part of the planning and execution of the prison break, all of them receiving many, and in some cases all, of the same charges as the other defendants. Consolidating these cases will minimize the duplication of efforts by prosecutors, witnesses, and resources, and thereby reduce judicial resources on trying five (5) near-identical cases, while also promoting judicial efficiency, consistency, and fairness. Due to the nature of the crimes, being interconnected and committed in concert, makes it logical to address their actions collectively. Trying the cases separately could potentially lead to inconsistent verdicts, thereby undermining the principles of fairness, for example, by allowing one defendant's testimony or evidence to influence the outcome of another. Joining the trials could prevent the defendants from presenting conflicting defenses that could be unfairly advantaged. Moreover, the defendants' coordinated actions and shared responsibilities in committing the alleged crimes make trying the cases separately redundant and potentially prejudicial to the other cases. Trying the cases together promotes the interests of justice with an equitable resolution for all parties involved.

Terence Williams
Attorney General
San Andreas Judicial Branch
234-9321 — [email protected]

[Jay Wellberg]

San Andreas Judicial Branch
Superior Court of San Andreas
"EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"

---

Honorable Judge and pertaining parties,

• The Defense strongly objects to the Prosecution’s Motion for Joinder.
  
  First and foremost, there are 5 defendants involved in these cases, each of them submitted separate appeals to this Court, requesting that their cases be considered individually. Assured Law is representing only 2 of these defendants and the remaining 3 are represented by different attorneys. It would be fundamentally unfair to merge these cases when the defendants have clearly asserted their right to be tried separately and fairly.
  
  Each defense will inevitably pursue distinct trial strategies, and merging these cases would create a clear conflict of interest, potentially forcing some defendants to adopt antagonistic defenses. That risk alone undermines the core principle of a fair trial.
  
  Additionally merging the cases would create undue prejudice. Evidence presented against one defendant may improperly influence the court's perception of the others, particularly where roles or levels of involvement differ. Our clients have a constitutional right to be judged only on the evidence presented against them, not by association or implication.
  
  The Prosecution argues that the merge is for efficiency, but efficiency cannot override constitutional protections. Our clients are entitled to a fair trial one that is free from the confusion, complexity, and prejudice that comes with lumping together five co-defendants in a single proceeding, and the prosecution should have no right in whether or not the cases should be tried together or separately
  
  Trying our clients separately is not inefficient but it is necessary to ensure justice is served correctly.

Jay Wellberg
Assured Services
Attorney, Assured Law
Bluff Tower, 72 Bay City Avenue

[Hugh Allgood]

San Andreas Judicial Branch
Personal Email
"EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"

---

• All concerned parties,
  
  Let this notice reflect that I, Superior Court Judge Hugh R. Allgood, will be assuming the role of Presiding Judge on this case. In the interest of judicial efficiency, I will also be presiding over the other 3 associated cases; State of San Andreas V. Nathaniel Luceran, State of San Andreas v. David Vespucci, and State of San Andreas v. Cortez Rivera.
  
  After review of the motions that have been filed in this matter, the motion for joinder has yet to be ruled on. Consistent with ruling consistent as previous judiciary on these matters (#25-BT-0039 State of San Andreas v. David Vespucci), I will be denying the motion for joinder as the Defense has objected to such motion, and the denying of the motion on the other associated cases (it would not make sense to join this case with 3 others, if one of the other cases was not also being joined in).
  
  As this case was already ruled to be heard as a formal trial, this case is being hereby assigned a case 25-CM-0034, and an order for discovery will be following this notice.
  
  Respectfully,
  
  
  Superior Court Judge
  San Andreas Judicial Branch
  (909) 235-6076 — [email protected]

[Hugh Allgood]

San Andreas Judicial Branch
Superior Court of San Andreas
"EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"

---

ORDER FOR DISCOVERY

---

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

State of San Andreas v. Alistair Vespucci
#25-CM-0034

A court order was entered in the above case on 10th of August, 2025

The case of #25-CM-0034, State of San Andreas v. Alistair Vespucci is hereby opened and acknowledged by the Court.

The prosecution is hereby ordered to provide all evidence collected from the arresting Law Enforcement Agency and submit it to the Court via Motion for Discovery within seven days. If additional time is needed, the prosecution can file a Motion for Continuance.

Once evidence has been submitted to the official docket the defense can begin filing motions.

So ordered,


Superior Court Judge
San Andreas Judicial Branch
235-6076 — [email protected]

[Terence Williams]

San Andreas Judicial Branch
Superior Court of San Andreas
"EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"

---

MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE

---

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

State of San Andreas v. Alistair Vespucci
#25-CM-0034

A Motion for Continuance was filed in the above case on the 15th of August, 2025.

The State of San Andreas, by and through the undersigned attorney, filed this Motion for Continuance, and the reasoning for the request is as follows;

• Reasoning: Extenuating circumstances
  • Detailed Explanation: The Prosecution's counsel has only just returned from an extended LOA due to an unexpected accident, and has not been able to work on the case since before its activation. Additionally, this case is one (1) of four (4) cases being tried for the same incident, with two (2) of the cases still pending a decision on a Motion for Change of Venue for a formal trial. These are nearly identical cases, with nearly identical evidence. Providing discovery on the active cases before a decision has been reached on the venue motions risks compromising the Prosecution's case with potential bias and unfair review of the case until they are all ready to receive discovery. As such, the Prosecution requests that discovery be put on hold until a decision has been reached in the other cases and they are all prepared to receive discovery.

Terence Williams
Attorney General
San Andreas Judicial Branch
234-9321 — [email protected]

[Jay Wellberg]

San Andreas Judicial Branch
Superior Court of San Andreas
"EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"

---

Honorable Judge and pertaining parties,

• The Defense objects to the Prosecution’s Motion .
  
  It had been over a year since the incident occurred at the SADOC and almost a year since our client has been charged. We would not like our client’s right to a speedy trial be thrown out the window, it’s already been a long time, the opposing counsel has had ample time to collect and review any evidence they needed and quite frankly, it is not fair to delay our clients case because of factors from other cases. We have no idea how long those other motions will take to be ruled on, and allowing this continuance would be a severe breach of our clients rights.
  
  Additionally we do no see how the opposing counsel would be at a disadvantage, all that is being provided is the discovery, and if they are using the same discovery for all the cases they are trying, then what would cause a disadvantage? The evidence would be provided at some point regardless of which case its released on first.
  
  In summary, the prosecution has had plenty of time to prepare their case since August last year when this situation occurred, we do not believe that a recent ended LOA should play any major role in their preparation for this case as again, they had so much time to prepare the discovery before the order was given. Additionally allowing a continuance until other cases’s motions are ruled on would be a breach of our client’s right to a speedy trial. The last thing I would want for our client is for this case to go to trial 6,9 months down the road and it turns out the prosecution has little to no evidence, as has been seen in the past.

Jay Wellberg
Assured Services
Attorney, Assured Law
Bluff Tower, 72 Bay City Avenue

[Terence Williams]

San Andreas Judicial Branch Docket Notice "HERE FOR YOU | SAFE FOR YOU"

---

• Honorable Judge Allgood and pertaining parties,
  
  The Prosecution retains its argument from the original motion. Just as citizens are protected by their constitutional rights to due process and a fair trial, so is the Prosecution also protected by the Constitution with the right to fairly accuse the alleged before a competent court.
  
  The Prosecution has no comments on the process of a speedy trial, which has been the topic of multiple other cases in the past.
  
  Regards,
  
  Terence Williams
  Attorney General
  San Andreas Judicial Branch
  234-9321 — [email protected]

[Hugh Allgood]

San Andreas Judicial Branch
Superior Court of San Andreas
"EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"

---

COURT DECISION

---

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

State of San Andreas v. Alistair Vespucci
#25-CM-0034

A decision was reached in the above case on the 21st day of August, 2025.

The Court acknowledges arguments from both sides.

The Prosecution filed their request approximately a week ago, and part of their argument also extends to the fact there were additional associated cases that were not formal trials and providing discovery in this matter before those would negatively affect their ability to prosecute the cases. Those motions have been finalized, and discovery has been ordered on these other cases. The Court also acknowledges the Prosecution claims the evidence in all four cases are substantially the same.

The Court also acknowledges the Defense arguments and wants to afford the Defendant a speedy trial.

While the Court is inclined to believe the State should be able to provide their evidence sooner than a week given the claims made about the similarity of the evidence, the Court sees no harm in setting the deadline in all cases to be the same -- one week from today as ordered in the two other cases that just had their venues change.


Respectfully,


Superior Court Judge
San Andreas Judicial Branch
235-6076 — [email protected]

[Terence Williams]

San Andreas Judicial Branch
Superior Court of San Andreas
"EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"

---

MOTION FOR DISCOVERY

---

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

State of San Andreas v. Alistair Vespucci
#25-CM-0034

A Motion for Discovery was filed in the above case on the 28th of August, 2025.

The State of San Andreas, by and through the undersigned attorney, filed this Motion for Discovery, and presents the following as evidence;

• Exhibit #1: Arrest report - Alistair Vespucci, 10/JAN/2025

  

  ARREST REPORT
  

  MUGSHOT

  SUSPECT 1 DETAILS

  • 
    
    
    Full Name: Alistair Vespucci
    Telephone Number: Redacted
    Licenses Suspended: No
    Charges:
    • NM03 - Unlawful Assembly
    • NM06 - Trespassing of a Gov. employee
    • GF21 - Prison Break
    • GF05 - Extortion of a Gov. employee
    • GF10 - Grand Theft of a Gov. employee
    • GF11 - Grand Theft Auto of a Gov. employee
    • GF14 - False Impersonation of a Gov. employee
    • SF04 - Kidnapping of a Gov. employee
    • SF01 - Domestic Terrorism
    • GM25 - Possession/Unlawful use of Government Equipment
    • NM08 - Abuse of Government Public Safety Radio Frequencies or Hotlines
    
    
    Additional Details (Suspect's vehicle, etc.) :
    Suspect was arrested in Mirror Park on his drag

  
  
  VEHICLES INVOLVED

  
  
  DEPUTY DETAILS

  • Full Name: Mathew Handley
    Badge Number: 12823
    Callsign: 3-W-30

  
  
  INCIDENT DETAILS

  • Date of Arrest: 2025-01-10
    Deputies Involved: Investigator Handley, Sheriff Black, Sheriff Payne, Investigator Hoffman, Captain Rosselli, Investigator Valor, IIT Callas, IIT Lawless
    
    Provide details of the incident leading up to the arrest
    • In conclusion to casefile #187266.

  
  EVIDENCE DETAILS

  • Location of Evidence Locker: N/A

  
  
  ARRESTING DEPUTY SIGNATURE
  
  

  ---

  

• Exhibit #2: Arrest report - Nathaniel Luceran, 11/JAN/2025

  

  ARREST REPORT
  

  MUGSHOT

  SUSPECT 1 DETAILS

  • 
    Full Name: Nathaniel Luceran
    Telephone Number: Redacted
    Licenses Suspended: Yes
    • Driver
    • Trucker
    Charges:
    • NM08 - Abuse of Government Public Safety Radio Frequencies or Hotlines
    • GM25 - Possession/Unlawful use of Government Equipment
    • GF10 - Grand Theft of a Gov. employee
    • SF01 - Domestic Terrorism
    • SF04 - Kidnapping of a Gov. employee
    • GF14 - False Impersonation of a Gov. employee
    • GF11 - Grand Theft Auto of a Gov. employee
    • GF05 - Extortion of a Gov. employee
    • GF21 - Prison Break
    • NM06 - Trespassing of a Gov. employee
    • NM03 - Unlawful Assembly
    Additional Details (Suspect's vehicle, etc.) :

  VEHICLES INVOLVED

  DEPUTY DETAILS

  • Full Name: James Valor
    Badge Number: 6374
    Callsign: 3-Z-10

  INCIDENT DETAILS

  • Date of Arrest: 2025-01-11
    Deputies Involved: Investigator III Arnold Rimmer, Investigator II James Valor, Investigator I Louise Hoffman
    
    Provide details of the incident leading up to the arrest
    • arrested via the conclusion of casefile #187266.

  EVIDENCE DETAILS

  • Location of Evidence Locker: N/A

  ARRESTING DEPUTY SIGNATURE
  
  

  ---

  

• Exhibit #3: Arrest report - Cortez Rivera, 11/JAN/2025

  

  ARREST REPORT
  

  MUGSHOT

  SUSPECT 1 DETAILS

  • 
    Full Name: Cortez Rivera
    Telephone Number: Redacted
    Licenses Suspended: No
    Charges:
    • WM02 - Possession of a Class 1 Firearm
    • WM03 - Criminal Use of Weapon Modifications
    • NM03 - Unlawful Assembly
    • NM06 - Trespassing
    • VF04 - Felony Public Endangerment
    • GF21 - Prison Break
    • GF05 - Extortion of a Gov. employee
    • GF11 - Grand Theft Auto of a Gov. employee
    • GF14 - False Impersonation of a Gov. employee
    • SF04 - Kidnapping of a Gov. employee
    • SF01 - Domestic Terrorism
    • GF10 - Grand Theft of a Gov. employee
    • GM25 - Possession/Unlawful use of Government Equipment
    • NM08 - Abuse of Government Public Safety Radio Frequencies or Hotlines
    Additional Details (Suspect's vehicle, etc.) :

  VEHICLES INVOLVED

  DEPUTY DETAILS

  • Full Name: Vincenzo Callas
    Badge Number: 17063
    Callsign: 3-Z-10

  INCIDENT DETAILS

  • Date of Arrest: 2025-01-11
    Deputies Involved: James Valor, Cole Lawless, John Kemp, and more SIB
    
    Provide details of the incident leading up to the arrest
    • He was arrested through the conclusion of casefile #187266.
      Upon arresting him we found a Pistol .50 in the glovebox of his vehicle.

  EVIDENCE DETAILS

  • Location of Evidence Locker: Sandy Station
    Exhibit A: Pistol .50 with 45x ammo Serial number: 1734881882973;
    Exhibit B: 1x Suppressor
    
    Photo of the evidence in the locker (if applicable)

    

    ---

  ARRESTING DEPUTY SIGNATURE
  Vincenzo Callas
  

  ---

  

• Exhibit #4: Arrest report - David Vespucci, 11/JAN/2025

  

  ARREST REPORT
  

  MUGSHOT

  SUSPECT 1 DETAILS

  • 
    Full Name: David Vespucci
    Telephone Number: Redacted
    Licenses Suspended: No
    Charges:
    • NM03 - Unlawful Assembly
    • GF21 - Prison Break
    • GF05 - Extortion of a Gov. employee
    • GF11 - Accessory to Grand Theft Auto of a Gov. employee
    • SF04 - Kidnapping of a Gov. employee
    • SF01 - Domestic Terrorism
    Additional Details (Suspect's vehicle, etc.) :
    Suspect was arrested at MRPD.

  VEHICLES INVOLVED

  DEPUTY DETAILS

  • Full Name: Louise Hoffman
    Badge Number: 20109
    Callsign: 3-X-21

  INCIDENT DETAILS

  • Date of Arrest: 2025-01-11
    Deputies Involved: Investigator Handley, Sheriff Black, Sheriff Payne, Investigator Hoffman, Captain Rosselli, Investigator Valor, IIT Callas, IIT Lawless
    
    Provide details of the incident leading up to the arrest
    • In conclusion to casefile #187266.

  EVIDENCE DETAILS

  • Location of Evidence Locker: N/A

  ARRESTING DEPUTY SIGNATURE
  
  

  ---

  

• Exhibit #5: Witness statement

  Under seal

• Exhibit #6: Witness statement

  Under seal

• Exhibit #7: LifeInvader post - Cobb Blogg news report

  
  Source

• Exhibit #8: Footage - Cobb Blog news report

  ((RP))

  * Solomon Cobb would have attached several files to this email, containing the raw unedited clips of what is found in this video.
  * The content of the footage would be the same, except there'd be no overlays, no sound effects and no pausing, zooming, cuts or edits.))

• Exhibit #9 A/B: Phone records / Consent form

  Under seal

• Exhibit #10: Admission of Guilt

  Under seal

• Exhibit #11: 911 call log

  Under seal

• Exhibit #12: Arrest report

  Under seal

• Exhibit #13: MDC record

  Under seal

• Exhibit #14: Image - 10 Mirror Park Blvd.

  

• Exhibit #15: Document - 10 Mirror Park Blvd. ownership record

  Under seal

• Exhibit #16 A/B: Records - Nathaniel Luceran phone records / Search warrant

  A - Phone records

  
  ((Proof of RP))

  B - Search warrant

  

  
  
  

  San Andreas Judicial Branch SEARCH WARRANT "HERE FOR YOU | SAFE FOR YOU"

  ---

  • To:
    The Los Santos Sheriffs Department operating within the State of San Andreas and their respective investigative and tactical divisions:
    
    You are hereby directed to conduct a search of iFruit Phone Company for the following designated records:
    
    • Nathaniel Luceran's phone records from 12/AUG/2024 - 19/AUG/2024
    [X] Any evidence of crimes in violation of the San Andreas Penal Law Article GM to SF, included but not limited to:
    
    • GF21 - Prison Break
    • SF04 - Kidnapping of a Gov. Employee
    You are directed to execute this warrant between the hours of:
    
    • [ ] 06:00 - 21:00
    • [X] 08:00 - 22:00 (Hours of Operation for the Bank of San Andreas)
    • [ ] Any time day or night.
    A copy of this warrant may be kept from the owner of the phone to preserve the integrity of the investigation. The court requires a copy of all evidence seized to be submitted to the warrant application for internal archive.
    

    ---

    This warrant is issued on 11/DEC/2024 and is effective for 7 days. Should an extension be required, please submit a notice no less than 12 hours prior to this warrant's expiration.
    
    Respectfully,
    
    Superior Court Justice
    Branch Administrator
    San Andreas Judicial Branch
    505-9925 — [email protected]

  

• Exhibit #17 A/B: Alistair Vespucci phone records / Search warrant

  A - Phone records

  
  
  

  B - Search warrant

  

  
  
  

  San Andreas Judicial Branch SEARCH WARRANT "HERE FOR YOU | SAFE FOR YOU"

  ---

  • To:
    The Los Santos Sheriffs Department operating within the State of San Andreas and their respective investigative and tactical divisions:
    
    You are hereby directed to conduct a search of iFruit Phone Company for the following designated records:
    
    • Alistair Vespucci's phone records from 05/AUG/2024 - 19/AUG/2024
    [X] Any evidence of crimes in violation of the San Andreas Penal Law Article GM to SF, included but not limited to:
    
    • GF21 - Prison Break
    • SF04 - Kidnapping of a Gov. Employee
    You are directed to execute this warrant between the hours of:
    
    • [ ] 06:00 - 21:00
    • [X] 08:00 - 22:00 (Hours of Operation for the Bank of San Andreas)
    • [ ] Any time day or night.
    A copy of this warrant may be kept from the owner of the phone to preserve the integrity of the investigation. The court requires a copy of all evidence seized to be submitted to the warrant application for internal archive.
    

    ---

    This warrant is issued on 14/DEC/2024 and is effective for 7 days. Should an extension be required, please submit a notice no less than 12 hours prior to this warrant's expiration.
    
    Respectfully,
    
    Superior Court Justice
    Branch Administrator
    San Andreas Judicial Branch
    505-9925 — [email protected]

  

• Exhibit #18 A/B: Bodycam footage

  Under seal

Terence Williams
Attorney General
San Andreas Judicial Branch
234-9321 — [email protected]

[Jay Wellberg]

San Andreas Judicial Branch
Superior Court of San Andreas
"EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"

---

MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE

---

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

State of San Andreas v. Alistair Vespucci
#25-CM-0034

A Motion for Continuance was filed in the above case on the 29 of August , 2025.

The Defendant, by and through the undersigned attorney, filed this Motion for Continuance, and the reasoning for request is as follows;

• Reasoning: Requesting a 48 hour continuance to finalize and post two (2) motions.
  • Detailed Explanation: With how late the discovery was provided to us, we are requesting a 72 hour continuance, to allow us to analyze the discovery and post two (2) motions of our own.

Jay Wellberg
Assured Services
Attorney, Assured Law
Bluff Tower, 72 Bay City Avenue

[Hugh Allgood]

San Andreas Judicial Branch
Personal Email
"EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"

---

• Mr. Wellberg,
  
  Typically defense gets 7 days to file motions. Are you requesting an additional 2 days for a total of 9? If so, that's fine.
  
  Respectfully,
  
  
  Superior Court Judge
  San Andreas Judicial Branch
  (909) 235-6076 — [email protected]

[Alistair Vespucci]

((Shaggy Sin was NLR'd and should have no bearing on this case.))

[Jay Wellberg]

San Andreas Judicial Branch
Superior Court of San Andreas
"EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"

Honorable Judge Allgood,

That would be correct, we are requesting the additional on top of what is already allowed to us.



Jay Wellberg
Assured Services
Attorney, Assured Law
Bluff Tower, 72 Bay City Avenue

[Alistair Vespucci]

San Andreas Judicial Branch
Superior Court of San Andreas
"EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"

---

MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY

---

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

State of San Andreas v. Alistair Vespucci
#25-CM-0034

A Motion to Compel Discovery was filed in the above case on the 1st of September, 2025.

Firstly, I would like to specify that I am NOT opting for self-defense. However, I am exercising my right to assist in my own defense by filing the following motions, and plan to continue to collaborate with my attorney.

The Defendant filed this Motion to Compel Discovery, and requests as follows;

• Requested Discovery: Casefile #187266, All components of said casefile from any law enforcement/government agencies involved
  • Detailed Reasoning: The defendant (myself) moves to compel the prosecution to produce casefile #187266, which is currently cited as the foundation for Exhibits #1, #2, #3, and #4. These arrest reports contain no independent evidence, and rely entirely upon the absent casefile as a foundation for arrests that happened several months following the alleged incident. Without access to the referenced casefile, the prosecution lacks foundation for these exhibits, rendering them inadmissible.

315-6876

[Alistair Vespucci]

San Andreas Judicial Branch
Superior Court of San Andreas
"EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"

---

MOTION TO SUPPRESS

---

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

State of San Andreas v. Alistair Vespucci
#25-CM-0034

A Motion to Suppress was filed in the above case on the 1st of September, 2025.

The Defendant filed this Motion to Suppress, and requests the following be suppressed from evidence;

• Exhibit #1: Arrest report - Alistair Vespucci, 10/JAN/2025
  Requested Evidence to Suppress:

  Entire Exhibit.

  • Detailed Reasoning:
    
    Lack of Foundation
    This arrest report consists only of a list of charges and a brief statement of arrest, which took place a significant 145 days following the alleged incident. The “Evidence Locker” section is blank, and no bodycam footage, dashcam footage, photographs, or physical exhibits accompany it. Without supporting evidence, this document is not probative of guilt in any way, shape, or form.
    
    Reliance on Absent Casefile #187266
    The narrative portion of the report states only: “In conclusion to casefile #187266.” The prosecution has not produced this referenced casefile. Without the mentioned casefile, the arrest report relies on hearsay and cannot be cross-examined. It is improper to admit a report that simply points to an absent, undisclosed file.
    
    Prejudicial vs. Probative Value
    The report’s probative value, quite simply, does not exist. It only proves (barely) that an arrest occurred 145 days following the alleged incident, not that any crime was actually committed. By listing this series of severe (wrongful) charges without any attempt at substantiation, the exhibit unfairly prejudices the defendant (myself) by inviting the judge in this case to confuse accusation with proof. Simple rules of evidence: It is required that an exhibit offers more Probative than Prejudicial value, and this exhibit simply does not meet that burden.

• Exhibits #2-4: Various unrelated arrest reports or David Vespucci, Nathaniel Luceran, and Cortez Rivera
  Requested Evidence to Suppress:

  Entirety of Each of the Three Exhibits

  • Detailed Reasoning:
    
    Irrelevance to the Defendant
    Each report pertains to a different individual. None of the narratives or charges reference the defendant (myself), nor do they establish that he participated in or was an accomplice to the incident at the heart of this case. The fact that other individuals were arrested does not prove the defendant's guilt. To admit these exhibits against him would improperly attempt to establish guilt by association.
    
    Reliance on Absent Casefile #187266
    The narrative portion of the report states only: “In conclusion to casefile #187266.” The prosecution has not produced this referenced casefile. Without the mentioned casefile, the arrest report relies on hearsay and cannot be cross-examined. It is improper to admit a report that simply points to an absent, undisclosed file.
    
    Lack of Foundation
    As with Exhibit #1, these reports are administrative records, not evidence. The “Evidence Locker” fields are marked “N/A” (other than the firearm recovered from Cortez Rivera.) In Exhibit #3, the listed firearm and suppressor were recovered from Mr. Rivera’s vehicle, not the defendant, and are therefore irrelevant to the defendant. These reports establish only that arrests occurred months following the alleged incident, not that crimes were committed by the defendant.
    
    Prejudice vs. Probative Value
    Admission of these reports risks severely prejudicing the fact-finder in this case by presenting multiple charge lists against other individuals as if they substantiate a broad conspiracy. The probative value as to the defendant, myself, is nonexistent. The prejudicial effect, encouraging the judge to convict by association rather than by direct evidence, is substantial and considerable

• Exhibits #s 5 and 6: Witness Statements, under seal
  Requested Evidence to Suppress:

  Will be provided in private due to evidence being under seal.

  • Detailed Reasoning: Will be provided in private due to evidence being under seal.

• Exhibit #7: LifeInvader post - Cobb Blogg news report
  Requested Evidence to Suppress:

  Entire Exhibit

  • Detailed Reasoning:
    
    Hearsay and Lack of Foundation
    This exhibit is a media article, not sworn testimony or admissible evidence. It contains unsworn statements by a third party who is neither under oath nor subject to cross-examination. As such, it is classic hearsay.
    
    Irrelevance to the Defendant
    A news agency’s reporting of an event does not prove that the defendant committed any act. Public reporting cannot substitute for evidence of guilt. Admission of this exhibit improperly shifts the trial’s focus to public perception rather than factual proof.
    
    Prejudice vs. Probative Value
    The probative value of a LifeInvader post by an indepedent news agency is nonexistent. It demonstrates only that the media outlet reported on alleged events. The prejudicial effect, however, is significant. It invites the judge to treat press coverage as evidence, encouraging conviction by narrative rather than by proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

• Exhibit #8: Exhibit #8: Footage - Cobb Blog news report
  Requested Evidence to Suppress:

  Entire Exhibit

  • Detailed Reasoning:
    
    See the above grounds for suppression on Exhibit #7.

• Exhibits #9-13: Exhibits under seal
  Requested Evidence to Suppress:

  Will be provided in private due to evidence being under seal.

  • Detailed Reasoning: Will be provided in private due to evidence being under seal.

• Exhibit #14: Exhibit #14: Image - 10 Mirror Park Blvd.
  Requested Evidence to Suppress:

  Entire Exhibit.

  • Detailed Reasoning:
    
    Lack of Foundation
    The exhibit is a bare photograph of a door. The prosecution has not established who took the image, when it was taken, or what it is even meant to convey. Without testimony, metadata confirming its origin and accuracy, or an actual reason for providing a picture of a door as evidence, the exhibit lacks foundation and cannot be admitted.
    
    Irrelevance to the Defendant
    The photograph depicts nothing more than the door of an apartment. It does not show the defendant or any criminal activity. At most, it demonstrates that an apartment has a door. I, the defendant, am aware that apartments have doors, and have not attempted to refute this.
    
    Speculative and Prejudicial Use
    The only purpose of this image is to invite the judge to speculate that the location was connected to the alleged crimes. However, the photograph itself provides no evidence of such connection, nor does it establish that the defendant (myself) ever visited, used, or was associated with the apartment. Its prejudicial effect substantially outweighs any probative value... given that we are not attempting to prove/disprove that apartments have exterior doors, which is exceptionally and exceedingly common.

• Exhibit #15: Exhibit under seal
  Requested Evidence to Suppress:

  Will be provided in private due to evidence being under seal.

  • Detailed Reasoning: Will be provided in private due to evidence being under seal.

• Exhibit #16: Exhibit #16 A/B: Records - Nathaniel Luceran phone records / Search warrant
  Requested Evidence to Suppress:

  Entire Exhibit.

  • Detailed Reasoning:
    
    Constitutional Violation
    
    Put simply, this warrant is a violation of the defendant's (my) constitutional 4th amendment right.
    
    The 4th Amendment states:
    “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
    
    The search warrant that led to the prosecution's obtainment of these phone records fails this standard. It authorized seizure of “any evidence of crimes in violation of San Andreas Penal Law Article GM to SF,” encompassing a massive range of offenses without limitation, from a general misdemeanor to a serious felony. Such language constitutes a general warrant, expressly prohibited by the constitutional amendment listed above. The warrant did not “particularly describe” the communications to be seized, but instead granted open-ended authority to search through private records in hopes of uncovering something incriminating. I believe that, in legally-minded circles, this could be called a fishing expedition.
    
    Additionally, the warrant was issued on December 14, 2024. This is nearly four months after the alleged incident on August 18, 2024. This time gap renders the probable cause stale, as the State has not shown why evidence would still reasonably exist in the defendant’s phone records months after the fact. For these reasons, the warrant fails the 4th Amendment’s requirements of both probable cause and specificity, and the evidence obtained from it must be suppressed as fruit from the poisonous tree.
    
    Lack of Authentication
    The prosecution has not authenticated these records. A phone record does not, on its own, prove authorship. Devices may be shared, numbers spoofed, or generally be accessed by others. Without verification linking the texts directly to Mr. Vespucci, Exhibit #16 lacks the foundation required for admissibility.
    
    Ambiguity of the Communications
    Even if authenticated, the conversation is vague and does not reference DOC, a prison break, or terrorism. Phrases such as “Got a few down” and “I think I have 8” have no explicit, clear criminal meaning. To present them as incriminating evidence requires pure speculation.
    
    Prejudice vs. Probative Value
    The probative value of these texts is minimal given their ambiguity as mentioned above. The prejudicial effect is significant, as the judge may be misled into treating language without context as evidence of conspiracy to commit a crime, even without any indicators for this being the case. This prejudice substantially outweighs any probative value.

• Exhibit #17: Exhibit #17 A/B: Alistair Vespucci phone records / Search warrant
  Requested Evidence to Suppress:

  Entire Exhibit.

  • Detailed Reasoning:
    
    This exhibit should be suppressed on the same grounds as Exhibit #16, as the warrant uses the exact same wording. Additionally, the following grounds apply:
    
    Vagueness of Communications
    The defendant’s (my) alleged communications consist of numbers labeled as “binds” or “freqs.” These numbers have no inherent meaning, contain no reference to the SADOC, and make no mention of a prison break, kidnapping, or terrorism. Without context, these communications are meaningless and do not establish any element of the charged offenses.
    
    Disconnect From Charges
    The State has charged the defendant (me) with specific crimes. This exhibit does not show planning of a prison break, the taking of a guard hostage, the use of government equipment, or any of the specific conduct alleged. At most, the exhibit reflects vague discussions about radio frequencies, which are not inherently criminal on their own. If the State would like to prove that any of these radio frequencies were used in commission of the alleged crime, it would then be admissible. As it stands, this has not happened.
    
    To treat these messages as incriminating evidence requires the prosecution (and the judge) to speculate as to their meaning, assuming without evidence that “binds” and “freqs” must be connected to the alleged crimes. Courts have long held that speculative interpretation does not make evidence relevant. Unless the state can directly link these numbers to the breakout, they remain, demonstrably, irrelevant.

• Exhibit #18: Exhibit under seal
  Requested Evidence to Suppress:

  Will be provided in private due to evidence being under seal.

  • Detailed Reasoning: Will be provided in private due to evidence being under seal.

315-6876

[Terence Williams]

San Andreas Judicial Branch Docket Notice "HERE FOR YOU | SAFE FOR YOU"

---

• Honorable Judge Allgood and pertaining parties,
  
  This notice is to indicate the Prosecution's intent to respond to opposing motions and requests filed on the docket in the format Your Honor deems appropriate for a formal trial, and when such an order has been announced.
  
  Regards,
  
  Terence Williams
  Attorney General
  San Andreas Judicial Branch
  234-9321 — [email protected]

[Terence Williams]

San Andreas Judicial Branch
Superior Court of San Andreas
"EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"

---

MOTION FOR DISCOVERY

---

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

State of San Andreas v. Alistair Vespucci
#25-CM-0034

A Motion for Discovery was filed in the above case on the 5th of September, 2025.

The State of San Andreas, by and through the undersigned attorney, filed this Motion for Discovery, and presents the following as evidence;

• Exhibit #19: CCTV footage

  UNDER SEAL

Terence Williams
Attorney General
San Andreas Judicial Branch
234-9321 — [email protected]