#26-BT-0008 State of San Andreas v. Lewis Langley

[Izaak Scott]

Defendant Name: Lewis Langley
Defendant Phone: 418-9838 (unreachable)
(( Defendant Discord: lewisisdrunk ))
(( Defendant Timezone: UTC ))
Type of Representation (Pick one): Private Defense Attorneys

Charging Department: GOV

Date & Time of Incident(s): 17/JAN/2026
Charge(s):

• All charges placed on the 17th of January.

Narrative:
The charges against the defendant resulted from a flawed investigation conducted by the government of Los Santos. As a consequence of those charges, our client is currently being unlawfully detained in Jiansu, China.

Retained counsel for the defendant dispatched representatives to attempt to make contact with our client; however, we have since been informed that those representatives are deceased. The circumstances surrounding their deaths remain unclear.

---

I, Izaak Scott, 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. ))

[Joseph Horton]

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

---

NOTICE OF RECEIPT

---

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

The State of San Andreas v. Lewis Langley
#26-BT-0008

The court has hereby received and acknowledged the above case on the 20th day of January, 2026.

The Superior Court Bench Trial system runs off of defendant responsiveness. If defendants are interacting with the court or their attorney, a Notice to Schedule will be posted with all parties being able note their availablity. A Judge will then pick the most suitable time for trial. Once a trial has been scheduled, the court will consider most submissions to be final.

Prior to scheduling, the defendant is encouraged to reach out to a licensed defense attorney in order to prepare a proper defense. 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.

Respectfully,


Superior Court Justice
San Andreas Judicial Branch
274-6959 - [email protected]

[Joseph Horton]

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

The State of San Andreas v. Lewis Langley
#26-BT-0008

A Notice of Activation & Order for Discovery was entered in the above case on the 20th day of January, 2026.

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

The Superior Court Bench Trial system runs off of defendant responsiveness. If defendants are interacting with the court or their attorney, a Notice to Schedule will be posted with all parties being able note their availablity. A Judge will then pick the most suitable time for trial. Once a trial has been scheduled, the court will consider most submissions to be final.

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 defense or prosecution wishes set precedence or desire a formal criminal trial, they are welcome to file a Motion for a Change in Venue

Respectfully,


Superior Court Justice
San Andreas Judicial Branch
274-6959 - [email protected]

[Izaak Scott]

- - - - -

Blaise & Scott
5. Del Perro Blvd
"YOUR CASE, OUR COMMITMENT"

• The Defense respectfully moves the Court to compel the State to produce proof of life of the Defendant.
  
  The Defendant was transferred by the State to Jiangsu, China. The defense subsequently dispatched an entourage to China to locate, begin legal discussions and verify the Defendant’s condition; however, members of that entourage have since been found deceased. Based on these circumstances, the defense has a reasonable and well-founded belief that the Defendant’s life is in imminent danger. Accordingly, the defense urgently requests verifiable proof of life.

---

• 
  Izaak Scott Esq. - Founding Partner
  Criminal Defense & Constitutional Law
  ☏ 411-2330
  Your Case. Our Commitment.

- - - - -

[Joseph Horton]

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

---

COURT DECISION

---

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

The State of San Andreas v. Lewis Langley
#26-BT-0008

A decision was reached in the above case on the 23rd day of January, 2026.

The Court will be accepting the request from the Defense.

Prosecution, please provide verifiable proof of life of the Defendant within seven (7) days.


So Ordered,


Superior Court Justice
San Andreas Judicial Branch
274-6959 - [email protected]

[Izaak Scott]

- - - - -

Blaise & Scott
5. Del Perro Blvd
"YOUR CASE, OUR COMMITMENT"

• Your Honor,
  
  The defense has received proof of life directly from GSB via a video message. The defense respectfully requests instruction on how to proceed and whether this material should be entered into the docket, as the content is highly degrading. Additionally, if the video were to come into the possession of Japanese authorities or other parties, it could pose a significant risk to our client’s safety.

---

• 
  Izaak Scott Esq. - Founding Partner
  Criminal Defense & Constitutional Law
  ☏ 411-2330
  Your Case. Our Commitment.

- - - - -

[Hugh Allgood]

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

---

DOCKET NOTICE

---

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

State of San Andreas v. Lewis Langley
26-BT-#0008

A Docket Notice was filed in the above case on the 30th day of January, 2026.

The State of San Andreas, by and through the undersigned attorney, states as follows;

• The Prosecution would like to formally notify the Court that the Prosecution recognizes today to be the deadline from the ruling of this Court on 23/Jan/2026. However, the Prosecution has not received any evidence from SAGOV of the proof of life of the Defendant, but has received confirmation from SAGOV that proof of life does in-fact exist ((There was supposedly some RP to be played out, which has since happened, but the content of the RP has not been provided)).
  
  As such, the Prosecution would move this Court to recognize the Defense response to resolve the court order imposed upon the State.
  
  The Prosecution has reached out to SAGOV again to inquire further on the proof of life. But, as the State has not seen this proof of life, the State cannot comment on the allegations as to the "degrading" content of the proof of life made by the Defense at this time.

Attorney General
San Andreas Judicial Branch
235-6076 - [email protected]

[Izaak Scott]

- - - - -

Blaise & Scott
5. Del Perro Blvd
"YOUR CASE, OUR COMMITMENT"

• The Defense would like to note the following for the Court. We are not attempting to circumvent the proper channels; I simply received a video message from a government official and wanted to inform the Court. The Defense is also agreeable to resolving the Court order in that manner.
  
  Additionally, I have been informed that China and Japan are separate countries. My apologies for the earlier confusion - when referring to my last notice, I mean Chinese authorities, not Japanese.

---

• 
  Izaak Scott Esq. - Founding Partner
  Criminal Defense & Constitutional Law
  ☏ 411-2330
  Your Case. Our Commitment.

- - - - -

[Joseph Horton]

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

---

COURT DECISION

---

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

The State of San Andreas v. Lewis Langley
#26-BT-0008

A decision was reached in the above case on the 31st day of January, 2026.

Defense, the Court requires the proof of life footage to be sent directly to my email, along with the Attorney General. The Court would like this no later than forty-eight (48) hours from now; if this is not possible, please inform the Courts the reasoning and the appropriate timeframe.

Given the claims from the Defense, the Court will remind the State of the 8th amendment of the Constitution: "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted." If the court finds that the defendant is being held in such a state that the Government itself violates its own constitution, and continues to do so without immediate rectification, the court will have to reconsider the charges against the defendant.

Prosecution, the reason this has seemingly fallen upon the Defense is through the stated decision by GSB to bypass Prosecution and directly inform the Defense Counsel of the proof of life, despite the Court order being directed to the Prosecution. The Court finds it questionable that the Prosecution has supposedly not been kept in the loop when it comes to such matters, but for that reason, the Court will not be looking to admonish either party for the mishandling of proof of life up until this point.

The Court will hold off on amending any active Motions for Continuance on other Dockets until it has had the chance to review the proof of life footage, along with the Prosecution receiving the same opportunity.


So Ordered,


Associate Justice
San Andreas Judicial Branch
274-6959 - [email protected]

[Joseph Horton]

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

---

• Prosecution and defense counsel,
  
  The Court has received satisfactory Proof of Life.
  
  This particular Docket is still pending Discovery, which still has a period of nineteen (19) days left.
  
  Respectfully,
  
  Associate Justice
  San Andreas Judicial Branch
  274-6959 - [email protected]

[Izaak Scott]

- - - - -

Blaise & Scott
5. Del Perro Blvd
"YOUR CASE, OUR COMMITMENT"

• The Defense respectfully moves this Court for an Involuntary Dismissal of all charges against the Defendant.
  
  The Defendant was charged by the State of San Andreas and subsequently transferred to Jiangsu, China. Not to a Department of Corrections facility within this State. Not under the supervision of this Court. But to a foreign jurisdiction, outside the territorial authority of the San Andreas Judicial Branch, for an extended period of time.
  
  We are left to ask a rather simple question: at what point did the State determine that exporting a citizen beyond the reach of Article III was constitutionally sound?
  
  The Defendant has been unable to testify in his own defense. The Defense was forced to initiate these proceedings without consultation solely to comply with the seven-day filing requirement. Had we waited for actual access to our client, the State would have surely argued procedural default. Thus, the Defense was placed in the untenable position of filing blind - not as strategy, but as necessity.
  
  The State has further failed to provide reliable and independently verifiable proof of life. The only proof provided to the Defense came from the arresting department itself, in the form of a video recording displaying the Defendant with the date written next to his head. The Defense struggles to recall when judicial verification was replaced with imagery more commonly associated with ransom communications.
  
  Even more troubling, attorneys and representatives who attempted to travel to establish contact with the Defendant have since been found deceased. The Defense will not engage in speculation. We will, however, observe that lawful access to counsel has been rendered functionally impossible.
  
  The Sixth Amendment guarantees the assistance of counsel. It does not guarantee counsel in theory while the client is held in a location where consultation cannot occur. The Defendant was not afforded access to counsel prior to transfer, nor during detention. That alone renders these proceedings constitutionally defective.
  
  The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments prohibit deprivation of liberty without due process of law. Due process does not consist of charging a citizen, removing him beyond the Court’s reach, and later inviting him to contest the consequences after punishment has already been executed.
  
  The Eighth Amendment prohibits cruel and unusual punishment. The Thirteenth Amendment prohibits involuntary servitude absent lawful conviction and judicial oversight. If the State intends to argue that forced labor in a foreign jurisdiction satisfies constitutional standards, it may do so explicitly.
  
  Article III makes clear that judicial power extends to cases involving citizens of San Andreas. Section 3.1 further provides for original jurisdiction where foreign sovereigns are implicated. By transferring the Defendant outside this State’s jurisdiction, the executive has frustrated the judiciary’s constitutional function. The Court cannot meaningfully exercise oversight over a citizen who has been removed from its reach.
  
  This is not a procedural defect. This is structural.
  
  The cumulative effect of these actions - denial of access to counsel, inability to testify, absence of proper proof of life, punishment executed beyond jurisdiction, and conditions amounting to involuntary servitude - undermines the legitimacy of this prosecution in its entirety.
  
  If the State believes it may charge first, export later, and answer constitutional questions only when convenient, then the Court’s authority exists at the pleasure of the executive, a reading unsupported anywhere in the Constitution of San Andreas.
  
  We urge this Court to dismiss the charges in their entirety.

---

• 
  Izaak Scott Esq. - Founding Partner
  Criminal Defense & Constitutional Law
  ☏ 411-2330
  Your Case. Our Commitment.

- - - - -

[Joseph Horton]

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

---

• Prosecution and defense counsel,
  
  The Court acknowledges the Motion for Involuntary Dismissal submitted by the Defense on the 8th of February, 2026.
  
  Prosecution, you will have seven (7) days to provide a rebuttal. If any additional time is needed, file a Motion for Continuance as required.
  
  Respectfully,
  
  Associate Justice
  San Andreas Judicial Branch
  274-6959 - [email protected]

[Rowin Lawson]

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

---

MOTION FOR DISMISSAL REBUTTAL

---

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

State of San Andreas v. Lewis Langley
#26-BT-0008

A Motion For Dismissal Rebuttal was filed in the above case on the 12th day of February, 2026.

The State of San Andreas, by and through the undersigned attorney, filed this Motion For Dismissal Rebuttal;

The Prosecution recognizes that relocating the Defendant outside the territorial boundaries of San Andreas introduced logistical complications to an already complex matter. However, those decisions were made by the Executive Branch with the stated objective of preserving the integrity of these proceedings and ensuring a fair and impartial trial.

The Defendant, former Governor Lewis Langley, maintained significant political and institutional influence within Los Santos. Concerns were raised that continued detention within a local facility could create opportunities for witness interference or obstruction of the judicial process. The relocation was preventative in nature. Physical location does not nullify the authority of this Court. The Defense cites no constitutional provision, statute, or precedent establishing that temporary relocation of a defendant extinguishes subject matter jurisdiction or mandates dismissal of charges.

The Defense further claims that it was forced to “file blindly” and that access to their client was denied. These assertions are factually inaccurate. At no time was the Defense formally denied access to the Defendant. In fact, during discussions with government officials, the Defense acknowledged that it had not initially taken steps to coordinate access through appropriate governmental channels. The Prosecution cannot be faulted for a failure to request access that was never properly made.

Additionally, the Defense’s allegations regarding “lack of proof of life” are unsupported, the Defense was able to offer proof of life therefore removing the need for it to be presented by The Prosecution or the Executive branch. The Defense offers rhetoric in place of evidence and analogy in place of legal authority.

The Motion further raises speculative assertions regarding constitutional violations under the Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Thirteenth Amendments. These claims are not supported by any documentation or demonstrable prejudice. No trial has occurred. No testimony has been excluded. No evidence has been suppressed. No conviction has been entered. Accordingly, arguments concerning punishment, involuntary servitude, or cruel and unusual conditions are premature.

Taking into consideration that logistical obstacles existed, the remedy would be to file a continuance or contact official channels about gaining access not dismissal. Courts do not dismiss otherwise valid charges based on speculative or curable procedural concerns. The Defense has not demonstrated structural error, loss of jurisdiction, or irreparable prejudice that would justify the extraordinary relief requested.

The Prosecution respectfully submits that the Defense’s Motion relies heavily on conjecture and dramatic characterization while failing to establish a legal basis for dismissal.

the Prosecution respectfully requests that the Court deny the Motion for Involuntary Dismissal in its entirety.

Rowin Lawson
Deputy Attorney General
San Andreas Judicial Branch
451-9939 - [email protected]

[Izaak Scott]

- - - - -

Blaise & Scott
5. Del Perro Blvd
"YOUR CASE, OUR COMMITMENT"

• The Defense opposes the Prosecution’s response regarding the Defendant’s removal from San Andreas. Their response confirms exactly what we said: yes, the transfer happened, and no, the State has no legal authority to justify it.
  
  The Executive Branch removed the Defendant and put him under a foreign authority. The Prosecution talks about what might have happened if he had stayed here. That’s not law. That’s speculation. Rights don’t disappear just because the State thinks they’re inconvenient.
  
  They claim it was necessary to preserve the “integrity” of proceedings. Integrity? How can proceedings have integrity when the Defendant is completely out of reach - beyond counsel, beyond the Court, beyond the Constitution itself? No trial. No advice. No consultation. Just removal. That’s obstruction.
  
  They say location doesn’t nullify this Court’s authority. Fine. Then why couldn’t the Court produce him? Why couldn’t the Defense consult him? Why was proof of life just a video from the very department that removed him? Authority you can’t use is theater.
  
  The Prosecution claims the Defense never requested access. Right. Because apparently it’s the Defense’s job to negotiate with foreign authorities to find their own client. The State created the barrier. The Defense tried to get around it.
  
  The Defense even sent a team to establish contact. That team was later found dead. If it weren’t for the retained attorneys still fighting in the background - filing the case, piecing together what little facts they could get - the Defendant would have had no way to contest even a single charge. That’s a total denial of the Sixth Amendment.
  
  The Prosecution calls this “speculative” because no trial has happened. That misunderstands the Constitution. The Fifth and Sixth Amendments don't start being applicable at the start of opening statements - they start from the moment you are physically present within San Andreas. Removing a Defendant from the Court’s reach is the violation. Not theory. Violation.
  
  And then they claim sending him to China isn’t punishment. That’s not logic. He wasn’t on holiday. He was removed from home, counsel, and Court, under a foreign authority. That is punishment.
  
  We’ve reviewed the San Andreas Penal Code. Not a single charge authorizes deportation or placement under foreign authority and that is just a fact. The State just made it up and expects the Court to accept it.
  
  This motion has a clear legal basis. The State’s actions - removal, denial of counsel, obstruction - directly undermine the Judicial Branch and the Defendant’s most basic right to representation.

---

• 
  Izaak Scott Esq. - Founding Partner
  Criminal Defense & Constitutional Law
  ☏ 411-2330
  Your Case. Our Commitment.

- - - - -

[Joseph Horton]

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

---

• Prosecution and defense counsel,
  
  The Court acknowledges the latest rebuttal from both Prosecution and Defense.
  
  Prosecution, please inform the Court if you have anything additional to add before the Court deliberates on this Motion. Defense will be provided the same opportunity if you have a further rebuttal.
  
  Please provide a response within three (3) days.
  
  Respectfully,
  
  Associate Justice
  San Andreas Judicial Branch
  274-6959 - [email protected]

[Rowin Lawson]

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

---

MOTION FOR DISMISSAL REBUTTAL CONT.

---

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

State of San Andreas v. Lewis Langly
#26-BT-0008

The Defense continues to frame this case as though the Defendant was removed and stripped of his rights. That is not what occurred. Mr. Langley was arrested. Charges were placed. He served his sentence. He then exercised his right to appeal. The Defense repeatedly argues that removal itself was a constitutional violation. That argument ignores the procedural posture of this case. Removal did not undo a lawful sentence, and it did not divest this Court of jurisdiction.

The Defense again claims they were denied access to their client. That claim remains unsupported by any documentation. At no point did the Defense formally request facilitation through the Executive Branch or the Judicial Branch, and at no point was a documented request for access denied. Instead, the Defense chose to pursue independent efforts without first contacting any member of Government or the Judicial Branch who could have facilitated a meeting. If the Defense required additional time to prepare prior to submitting motions or filing on the Defendant’s behalf, the proper course of action would have been to request assistance from the Court or seek a continuance not seek dismissal of the charges.

The Defense continues to argue that because the Defendant was outside the State, this Court’s authority became meaningless. That is incorrect. The Court retained authority throughout the arrest, incarceration, and appeal of the Defendant. The Defense has not demonstrated otherwise.

Assertions that removal was “punishment” beyond the sentence imposed are rhetorical in nature. The Defendant was incarcerated pursuant to charges already lawfully entered. The Penal Code defines offenses and penalties; it does not require custodial placement to occur within a specific geographic boundary.

Even assuming logistical complications existed, dismissal is not the appropriate remedy. The Defense has not demonstrated structural error, invalid sentencing, loss of jurisdiction, or irreparable prejudice. At most, they describe procedural concerns that could have been addressed through proper motion practice or communication with the Court.

The State respectfully submits that the Defense’s argument relies on characterization rather than documented wrongdoing by the State, and therefore the Motion for Dismissal should be denied.

Rowin Lawson
Deputy Attorney General
San Andreas Judicial Branch
451-9939 - [email protected]

[Izaak Scott]

- - - - -

Blaise & Scott
5. Del Perro Blvd
"YOUR CASE, OUR COMMITMENT"

• The Defense is done discussing this motion. Our point is clear and cut: the Prosecution clearly breached the constitutional rights of my Defendant. Is the Court really going to allow this completely egregious violation to be passed on? Are we going to set the precedent that the State has no consequence for sending a citizen of this country to a foreign jurisdiction and neglecting them of defense attorneys? The Prosecution can say what they want - claiming procedural concerns is downright absurd. Again, if the Defendant did not already have retained attorneys who went out on a whim appealing a case, the Defendant would not have been able to appeal his charges and would be in China long past the 7-day window.
  
  The Defendant has a right to representation. That right was infringed upon under the idea of “At no point did the Defense formally request facilitation through the Executive Branch or the Judicial Branch” - let’s just get this straight.
  
  • Despite all constitutional safeguards in this State, let’s send the Defendant to China instead of a prison in San Andreas.
  • Expect the Defense to magically gather the knowledge that the Defendant is in China despite not being told, speak to the Executive Branch - the same people who charged the Defendant - about arranging transport to China, in the hopes they accept it and arrange transport within 7 days of the charges being placed.
  Do you understand how absurd that is? The Prosecution couldn’t even provide proof of life; it was sent to the Defense by the arresting department. This whole situation is completely insane - the current government sending the former Governor to a country known to not have the best relations with ours, claiming in a press release that this is basically revenge.
  
  This is not a single violation. This is the State asserting that constitutional rights exist only when convenient. If that position is accepted, then those rights do not belong to this Defendant - they belong to the State.

---

• 
  Izaak Scott Esq. - Founding Partner
  Criminal Defense & Constitutional Law
  ☏ 411-2330
  Your Case. Our Commitment.

- - - - -

[Joseph Horton]

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

---

• Prosecution and defense counsel,
  
  The Court acknowledges all responses to the Motion for Involuntary Dismissal.
  
  At this time, the Court will begin deliberations on the Motion and intends to provide a decision within the next seven (7) days.
  
  Respectfully,
  
  Associate Justice
  San Andreas Judicial Branch
  274-6959 - [email protected]

[Joseph Horton]

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

---

• Prosecution and defense counsel,
  
  The Court is still in deliberation on this Motion.
  
  Prosecution, can you please provide answers to the following questions:
  
  • Why was the determination made to move the Defendant out of state for incarceration?
  • What steps were taken by the State to ensure the Defendant had access to legal representation?
  • How was it determined that the facilities utilised in the other Country met the standards for imprisonment, given the Constitutional requirements of our State?
  The Court requires a response within three (3) days. If additional time is required, please file a Motion for Continuance.
  
  Respectfully,
  
  Associate Justice
  San Andreas Judicial Branch
  274-6959 - [email protected]

[Joseph Horton]

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

---

• Prosecution and defense counsel,
  
  Defense, can you please provide a quoted copy of the Proof of Life that you received?
  
  Please provide this to my email directly, given the sensitive nature of the information and in adherence to previous Court Orders surrounding the Proof of Life.
  
  The Court requires this within three (3) days. If additional time is required, please file a Motion for Continuance.
  
  Respectfully,
  
  Associate Justice
  San Andreas Judicial Branch
  274-6959 - [email protected]

[Rowin Lawson]

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. Lewis Langley
#26-BT-0008

A Motion for Continuance was filed in the above case on the 23rd day of February, 2026.

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

• Reasoning: The Prosecution would like to request a continuance while we collect the information requested by the court. If the court would allow an additional Four days to retrieve the requested evidence that would be appreciated.

Rowin Lawson
Deputy Attorney General
San Andreas Judicial Branch
451-9939 - [email protected]

[Joseph Horton]

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

---

COURT DECISION

---

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

The State of San Andreas v. Lewis Langley
#26-BT-0008

A decision was reached in the above case on the 23rd day of February, 2026.

Given the short nature of the time requested and the importance of the information to be provided, the Court will accept the Motion for Continuance, unless significant objections are raised by the Defense.


So Ordered,


Associate Justice
San Andreas Judicial Branch
274-6959 - [email protected]

[Rowin Lawson]

San Andreas Judicial Branch

"EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"

---

• Justice Horton,
  
  The prosecution would like to request that a workroom be created in order to present the evidence under seal. The prosecution is prepared to present answers to the questions presented by the courts. The evidence contains sensitive material that should not be disclosed publicly at this stage of the proceedings.
  
  The Prosecution is prepared to address and respond to the questions previously presented by the Court and will provide all requested clarifications within the workroom upon its creation. Accordingly, the Prosecution respectfully requests that the Court grant this request so that the evidence may be properly submitted.
  
  Respectfully,
  
  Rowin Lawson
  Deputy Attorney General
  San Andreas Judicial Branch
  451-9939 - [email protected]

[Joseph Horton]

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

---

• Prosecution and defense counsel,
  
  The Court has set up the workroom for the initial review of evidence.
  
  All evidence being submitted under seal needs to be initially reviewed for suitability for remaining under seal. Prosecution, you have been given access to the workroom. Please submit your evidence within forty-eight (48) hours for Judicial Review to ensure it meets the evidentiary suitability for being under seal.
  
  Respectfully,
  
  Associate Justice
  San Andreas Judicial Branch
  274-6959 - [email protected]

[Joseph Horton]

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

---

• Prosecution and defense counsel,
  
  The Court apologizes for the delay; however, due to the complexities of the arguments made, the Court is still in deliberation. The Court aims to have a response to the Motion by the end of the week.
  
  Respectfully,
  
  Associate Justice
  San Andreas Judicial Branch
  274-6959 - [email protected]