#23-CM-0009, State of San Andreas v. Aya Kasumi

Kasumi Aya
Posts: 7
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2022 10:33 am
ECRP Forum Name: Astrx

#23-CM-0009, State of San Andreas v. Aya Kasumi

Post by Kasumi Aya »

Image
Image
Defendant Name: Aya Kasumi
Defendant Phone: 416-5001
Defendant Address:
(( Defendant Discord: Astrx#1061 ))
Requested Attorney: N/A if none
Image
Charging Department: SD
Image
Date & Time of Incident(s): 29/09/2022 17:00 ((UTC))
Charge(s):
  • Operating a Chop Shop
  • Trespassing
  • Resisting Arrest
  • Failure to Comply
Narrative:
My cousin and I are relatively new to the city and were looking around to find cool places to see, and in retrospect the place we were in it painfully obvious that its restricted but I digress. We drove inside and found a couple of open garages with a car sat inside of them, didn't think anything of it since they were garages. We took a look around for a while and after around 15-20 mins we got in our cars to leave and around 7 SD/PD officers with assault rifles come sprinting in and ordering us to put our hands up, i tried to drive away because I was scared, I regret it though. They had around 15 officers and 9 cruisers and a Heli in the air, which is excessive. But I did mess around and try to run, simply in the moment I was scared and didn't what to do. We were ultimately charged with Operation of a Chop Shop, which is completely untrue, we were simply looking around. They charged us under speculation simply because Akio had equipment which she has for personal use, as she enjoys working on vehicles.

In conclusion, i am a legal citizen with a legal business and firearms license why would i do this to ruin my career

I, Aya Kasumi, 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. ))
Image
User avatar
Roderick Marchisio
Posts: 6247
Joined: Thu May 14, 2020 1:08 pm
ECRP Forum Name: Roderick

LSPD Awards for Service

SAJB Awards

Re: State of San Andreas v. Aya Kasumi

Post by Roderick Marchisio »

Image

San Andreas Judicial Branch

Re: Aya Kasumi
"HERE FOR YOU | SAFE FOR YOU"

  • To whom it may concern,

    The purpose of this notice is to inform you that as of this moment I, Roderick Marchisio, will be representing the State of San Andreas in all the proceedings pertaining to the underlying case.

    I will take it upon myself to reach out to the involved parties to collect and review all evidence in relation to the underlying case to ensure a proper and smooth continuation of this process.

Respectfully,


Prosecuting Attorney
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 372-7719 — [email protected]
Image
User avatar
Colt Daniels
Judicial Branch
Posts: 1964
Joined: Mon Nov 18, 2019 2:01 am
ECRP Forum Name: Colt

SAJB Awards

LSSD Awards

Re: State of San Andreas v. Aya Kasumi

Post by Colt Daniels »

Image


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. Aya Kasumi

The court has hereby received and acknowledged the above case on 10 November, 2022.


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.



Chief Justice
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 402-9713 — [email protected]
Image
User avatar
Cyrus Raven
Posts: 1982
Joined: Tue Apr 16, 2019 11:14 pm
ECRP Forum Name: Cyrus Raven

LSPD Awards for Service

SAJB Awards

Re: State of San Andreas v. Aya Kasumi

Post by Cyrus Raven »

Image

San Andreas Judicial Branch

Re: State of San Andreas v. Aya Kasumi
"HERE FOR YOU | SAFE FOR YOU"

  • To whom it may concern,

    I, Chief Public Defender Cyrus Raven, will be representing the defendant, Aya Kasumi, in this case. I have made myself aware of the contents of this case. I am ready to proceed at the court's discretion.

    Respectfully,



    Image
    Chief Public Defender
    San Andreas Judicial Branch
    5356160 — [email protected]
Image
User avatar
Shaun Harper
Judicial Branch
Posts: 1040
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2022 6:33 pm
ECRP Forum Name:

SAJB Awards

Re: State of San Andreas v. Aya Kasumi

Post by Shaun Harper »

Image

San Andreas Judicial Branch

Re: State of San Andreas v. Edward Greeg
"HERE FOR YOU | SAFE FOR YOU"

  • Honorable Colt Daniels,

    I, Junior Defense Attorney Shaun Harper, will be co-counseling with Defense Attorney Cyrus Raven and representing the defendant Aya Kasumi in this case.

    Respectfully,

    Image
    Junior Defense Attorney
    San Andreas Judicial Branch
    (909) 308-7889 — [email protected]
User avatar
Judith Mason
Judicial Branch
Posts: 2578
Joined: Fri May 21, 2021 3:11 am
ECRP Forum Name: Judge Judy

SAJB Awards

Re: #23-CM-0009, State of San Andreas v. Aya Kasumi

Post by Judith Mason »

Image


San Andreas Judicial Branch
Re: #23-CM-0009, State of San Andreas v. Aya Kasumi

"EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"

  • To whom it may concern,

    I am Associate Justice Judith Mason and I will be the presiding over this case in my courtroom. At this point in time, I will be assigning this case to docket number #23-CM-0009.

    As it has been several months since the submission of this case, I would ask that parties confirm they are ready to proceed before an Order for Discovery is issued.

    Respectfully,

    Image
    Associate Justice
    San Andreas Judicial Branch
    (909) 257-9183 — [email protected]
Image
User avatar
Shaun Harper
Judicial Branch
Posts: 1040
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2022 6:33 pm
ECRP Forum Name:

SAJB Awards

Re: #23-CM-0009, State of San Andreas v. Aya Kasumi

Post by Shaun Harper »

Image

San Andreas Judicial Branch

Re: State of San Andreas v. Edward Greeg
"HERE FOR YOU | SAFE FOR YOU"

  • Honorable Judge Judith Mason,

    Contact with the defendant has been made and they are willing to proceed.

    Respectfully,

    Image
    Public Defense Attorney
    San Andreas Judicial Branch
    (909) 308-7889 — [email protected]
User avatar
Judith Mason
Judicial Branch
Posts: 2578
Joined: Fri May 21, 2021 3:11 am
ECRP Forum Name: Judge Judy

SAJB Awards

Re: #23-CM-0009, State of San Andreas v. Aya Kasumi

Post by Judith Mason »

Image



San Andreas Judicial Branch

"HERE FOR YOU | SAFE FOR YOU"


#23-CM-0009
Presiding Judge: Judith Mason

ORDER FOR DISCOVERY


IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

State of San Andreas v. Aya Kasumi
#23-CM-0009

A court order was entered in the above case on 16 January, 2023.


The case of the #23-CM-0009, State of San Andreas v. Aya Kasumi 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.



Image
Associate Justice
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 257-9183 — [email protected]
Image
User avatar
Shaun Harper
Judicial Branch
Posts: 1040
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2022 6:33 pm
ECRP Forum Name:

SAJB Awards

Re: #23-CM-0009, State of San Andreas v. Aya Kasumi

Post by Shaun Harper »

Image

San Andreas Judicial Branch

State of San Andreas v.
"HERE FOR YOU | SAFE FOR YOU"

  • Honorable Judge Judith Mason,

    The cases of ''#23-CM-0009, State of San Andreas v. Aya Kasumi'' and ''#23-CM-0008, State of San Andreas v. Akio Yamada'' seem to be about the same situation. Can these be fused into one case?

    Respectfully,

    Image
    Public Defense Attorney
    San Andreas Judicial Branch
    (909) 308-7889 — [email protected]
User avatar
Judith Mason
Judicial Branch
Posts: 2578
Joined: Fri May 21, 2021 3:11 am
ECRP Forum Name: Judge Judy

SAJB Awards

Re: #23-CM-0009, State of San Andreas v. Aya Kasumi

Post by Judith Mason »

Image


San Andreas Judicial Branch
Re: #23-CM-0009, State of San Andreas v. Aya Kasumi

"EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"

  • Parties,

    I will allow the prosecution to respond on the option to join the case of #23-CM-0008, State of San Andreas v. Akio Yamada and #23-CM-0009, State of San Andreas v. Aya Kasumi. As Deputy Attorney General Marchisio is representing the State of San Andreas for both cases, I would ask that a response only be submitted to the docket of #23-CM-0008 to avoid redundant responses.

    Respectfully,

    Image
    Associate Justice
    San Andreas Judicial Branch
    (909) 257-9183 — [email protected]
Image
User avatar
Cyrus Raven
Posts: 1982
Joined: Tue Apr 16, 2019 11:14 pm
ECRP Forum Name: Cyrus Raven

LSPD Awards for Service

SAJB Awards

Re: #23-CM-0009, State of San Andreas v. Aya Kasumi

Post by Cyrus Raven »

Image

San Andreas Judicial Branch

Docket Notice
"HERE FOR YOU | SAFE FOR YOU"

  • Honorable Judith Mason,

    I will no longer be acting as primary council. This will be Attorney Harper's position. This is a notice informing the court that I will be acting as co-council for Ms. Kasumi.


    Respectfully,

    Cyrus Raven
    Deputy Chief Public Defender
    San Andreas Judicial Branch
    5356160 — [email protected]
Image
User avatar
Ruwin Korbel
Posts: 95
Joined: Tue Dec 06, 2022 8:00 am
ECRP Forum Name: Ruwin Korbel

SAJB Awards

Re: #23-CM-0009, State of San Andreas v. Aya Kasumi

Post by Ruwin Korbel »

Image

San Andreas Judicial Branch

Re: State of San Andreas v Aya Kasumi
"HERE FOR YOU | SAFE FOR YOU"

  • To whom it may concern,

    I, Junior Defence Attourney Ruwin korbel Will be Co-Counselling with Defence Attourney Shaun Harper and representing the Defendant Aya Kasumi in this case

    Respectfully,



    Image
    Ruwin "Quiet" Korbel
    Junior Defence Counsellor
    San Andreas Judicial Branch
    556-2848 — [email protected]
Image
User avatar
Roderick Marchisio
Posts: 6247
Joined: Thu May 14, 2020 1:08 pm
ECRP Forum Name: Roderick

LSPD Awards for Service

SAJB Awards

Re: #23-CM-0009, State of San Andreas v. Aya Kasumi

Post by Roderick Marchisio »

Motion for Discovery
San Andreas Judicial Branch
Motion for Discovery

Honorable Mason,

  • We the Prosecution in the case below are presenting our discovery to the court.
    State of San Andreas v. Aya Kasumi
    Assigned Court Case Number: #23-CM-0009
    Requesting Party: N/A
    Party Members: Roderick Marchisio
    Exhibit #1: Arrest Report Aya Kasumi
    Type of Discovery:
    • Physical Evidence
    Spoiler
    All Information from the Discovery The arrest report as written by Deputy Hartwell of the Los Santos County Sheriff's Department gives insight into the situation that led to the arrest of the Defendant. In this respect, we specifically note to the section in relation to the details of the incident leading up to the arrest. In this arrest report, Deputy Hartwell indicates that the Defendant, in collaboration with another individual, was operating a chop shop inside a garage in Fort Zancudo. Upon confrontation, the Defendant attempted to evade using the stolen vehicle. Further, the arrest report indicates that the individuals were caught in possession of multiple pieces of mechanic equipment. For completeness' sake, the Prosecution would like to note that the charges of both individuals in the arrest report have been erroneously mixed up between the two individuals.
    • Image
      ARREST REPORT
      MUGSHOT
      SUSPECT 1 DETAILS
      • Full Name: Aya Kasumi
        Telephone Number: 4165001
        Licenses Revoked: Yes
        • Weapon
        Charges:
        • NM06 - Trespassing
        • VF03 - Operating a Chop Shop
        • GM04 - Resisting Arrest
        • GF11 - Grand Theft Auto
        How did the suspect plea to the above charges?
        Suspect pleaded guilty to some of the charges.
        Additional Details (Suspect's vehicle, etc.) :
      MUGSHOT
      SUSPECT 2 DETAILS
      • Full Name: Akio Yamada
        Telephone Number: 3969888
        Licenses Revoked: Yes
        • Weapon
        Charges:
        • NM06 - Trespassing
        • VF03 - Operating a Chop Shop
        • GM10 - Failure to Comply / Identify
        • GM04 - Resisting Arrest
        How did the suspect plea to the above charges?
        Suspect pleaded not guilty to all charges.
        Additional Details (Suspect's vehicle, etc.) :
      VEHICLES INVOLVED
      • Vehicle A:
      DEPUTY DETAILS
      • Full Name: Audrey Hartwell
        Badge Number: 9344
        Callsign: 12-E-17
      INCIDENT DETAILS
      • Date of Arrest: 2022-09-29
        Deputies Involved: Audrey Hartwell, Colt Black, Oscar Black, Tom Brown

        Provide details of the incident leading up to the arrest
        • Both suspects were spotted by Deputy Hartwell operating a chop shop inside of the garages in Fort Zancudo. We requested backup from the LSPD as we had few units available to respond. The LSPD assisted us in blocking off the area and pushing inside of the chop shop, where we caught Akio and Aya red handed operating a chop shop with a stolen vehicle. Akio was the suspect who tried to drive away in the stolen vehicle, and so was charged with Grand Theft Auto. Both suspects pleaded not guilty to operating a chop shop, even though they were caught red-handed inside of an active chop shop, and both tried to evade the scene once police arrived. Both suspects had licensed firearms on them. These firearms were seized and licenses suspended. Both suspects also were caught in possession of multiple pieces of mechanic equipment commonly seen at Chop Shops.
      EVIDENCE DETAILS
      • Note from Prosecution: refer to evidence exhibit #2
      ARRESTING DEPUTY SIGNATURE
      Image

      Image
    Exhibit #2: Items as found on the Defendant
    Type of Discovery:
    • Physical evidence
    Spoiler
    All Information from the Discovery The items as found on both the Defendant and the other individual that was arrested contained a consaw, car jack, wrench, lockpicks, battery, screwdriver, lug wrench, car lift, engine hoist and a legal firearm. In this respect, the Prosecution notes that the Combat Pistol that was found belonged to the Defendant. If required, the Prosecution can further provide the Form A Firearms' License Request that the Defendant filed on August 16, 2022 with the Los Santos Police Department.
    • Image
      Image
    Exhibit #3: Bodycam footage Audrey Hartwell
    Type of Discovery:
    • Physical evidence
    Spoiler
    All Information from the Discovery The bodycam footage as provided by Deputy Hartwell with the Los Santos County Sheriff's Department shows the Defendent, in collaboration with another individual, working on the stolen vehicle at 0:07 and further in the footage.
    Exhibit #4: Witness Statement Audrey Hartwell
    Type of Discovery:
    • Witness Statement
    Spoiler
    All Information from the Discovery The witness statement as provided by Deputy Hartwell with the Los Santos County Sheriff's Department further shows that the Defendant, in collaboration with another individual, was working on the stolen vehicle in a private garage on Government property, being Fort Zancudo. In her witness statement, following up on evidence exhibits #1 and #3, she further affirms witnessing the Defendant, in collaboration with another individual, using mechanical equipment and other tools to dismantle a vehicle. This witness statement also again confirms that both individuals attempted to scramble from the situation. Finally, in her witness statement, Deputy Hartwell confirms the story in the arrest report as per evidence exhibit #1.
    • Image

      San Andreas Judicial Branch
      Official Witness Statement
      "HERE FOR YOU | SAFE FOR YOU"
      Case Information
      • Case Number: [Case Number]
        Incident Date: [29/SEP/2022]
      Witness Information
      • Name: [Audrey Hartwell]
        Date of Birth: [10/MAY/1995]
        Phone Number: [377-1669]
        Occupation: Master Deputy
      Witness Statement
      • - Bodycam Footage Attached HERE
        - ((Proof of RP))


        Statement

        - As seen in the bodycamera footage attached above, I come across the two individuals using mechanical equipment around a stolen vehicle in a private garage on government property. I personally witnessed both suspects using mechanical equipment as well as tools to dismantle a vehicle, and some mechanical equipment originally inside the garage.

        - After the scene that is shown in my Body camera footage, Hunter and I stay nearby to the crime scene and call for assistance from the Police Department. PD and METRO arrive at Fort Zancudo soon after and assist us in moving into the chop shop, putting the suspects under gunpoint as they tried to scramble from dismantling their equipment, and into the red stolen vehicle. Thankfully, PD and SD had the place blocked off, which gave the suspects no other choice but to surrender and stop attempting to evade using the stolen vehicle.

        Visually, all deputies and police officers that were on the scene that I questioned agreed that the chop shop was active as we moved in to attempt to detain and arrest both suspects.


        The Arrest Report gives the same narrative, and is 100% the truth.
      Witness Affirmation
      • I, Audrey Hartwell, affirm that the above statement is true to the best of my knowledge and belief. I affirm that this statement has been made voluntarily, made without promise of reward, and made not under threat, force, or coercion. ((I affirm that all information submitted has been obtained via In-Character means.))

        Signed,

        Image
        Audrey Hartwell
        Master Deputy
        Los Santos Sheriff's Deparmtnet

        Date: [13/NOV/2022]
      Image
    Exhibit #5: Witness Statement Tom Brown
    Type of Discovery:
    • Witness Statement
    Spoiler
    All Information from the Discovery The witness statement as provided by Deputy Brown with the Los Santos County Sheriff's Department further shows that two unmarked vehicles had entered Fort Zancudo, which led to the original investigation of Deputy Hartwell. Further, this witness statement shows that one individual, which through evidence exhibits #1 and #4 has been confirmed as the Defendant, attempted to drive off in a vehicle.
    • Image

      San Andreas Judicial Branch
      Official Witness Statement
      "HERE FOR YOU | SAFE FOR YOU"
      Case Information
      • Case Number: [Case Number]
        Incident Date: [01/JAN/2000]
      Witness Information
      • Name: Tom Brown.
        Date of Birth: 04/AUG/1994.
        Phone Number: 2414272.
        Occupation: Los Santos County Sheriff.
      Witness Statement
      • While deployed as ALPHA (Air unit) I noticed two vehicles without any Government markings entering Fort Zancudo. This led me to inform Audrey Hartwell to check them out as no one had informed ATC/SAAA they were entering the facility over the department radio. Audrey Hartwell checked the garage location and I informed her they went inside. She saw both Akio Yamada and Aya Kasumi standing inside with the mechanic tools and equipment. We called for PD assistance as we had low units at the time and we planned to block the main entrance of the compound they were in and push in on foot.

        One suspect attempted to drive off from the scene but surrendered when they realised they were blocked in completely. One of the suspects was called out to be continuously running away from Officers/Deputies resisting arrest multiple times. With both of them detained I remained on overwatch checking for any vehicles entering the facility, clearing shortly after to a store robbery call close by.
      Witness Affirmation
      • I, Tom Brown, affirm that the above statement is true to the best of my knowledge and belief. I affirm that this statement has been made voluntarily, made without promise of reward, and made not under threat, force, or coercion. ((I affirm that all information submitted has been obtained via In-Character means.))

        Signed,

        Image
        Tom Brown.
        Deputy Sheriff II.
        Los Santos County Sheriff's Department.

        Date: [13/NOV/2022]
      Image


Sincerely,


Deputy Attorney General
Director of Public Notary
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 372-7719 — [email protected]
Image
Last edited by Roderick Marchisio on Sun Jan 22, 2023 1:03 pm, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
Roderick Marchisio
Posts: 6247
Joined: Thu May 14, 2020 1:08 pm
ECRP Forum Name: Roderick

LSPD Awards for Service

SAJB Awards

Re: #23-CM-0009, State of San Andreas v. Aya Kasumi

Post by Roderick Marchisio »

Motion to Amend Charges
San Andreas Judicial Branch
Motion to Amend Charges

Honorable Mason,

  • We the prosecution in the case are requesting an amendment of the charges.
    State of San Andreas v. Aya Kasumi
    Assigned Court Case Number: #23-CM-0009
    Requesting Party: Prosecution
    Party Members: Roderick Marchisio
    Original Charges:
    • VF03 - Operating a Chop Shop
    • NM06 - Trespassing
    • GM04 - Resisting Arrest
    • GM10 - Failure to Comply / Identify
    Amended Charges:
    • VF03 - Operating a Chop Shop
    • NM06 - Trespassing
    • GM04 - Resisting Arrest
    • GM10 - Failure to Comply / Identify
    • GF11 - Accessory to Grand Theft Auto
    • Primarily VF01 - Evading an Officer, subsidiarily VF01 - Attempted Evading an Officer
    • GF24 - Perjury

    Detailed explanation:
    As shown in evidence exhibits #1, #4 and #5 in combination with the Defendants' own narrative ("We took a look around for a while and after around 15-20 mins we got in our cars to leave and around 7 SD/PD officers with assault rifles come sprinting in and ordering us to put our hands up, i tried to drive away because I was scared, I regret it though."), it becomes abundantly clear that the Defended attempted to use a vehicle with the aim to evade the officers who were attempting to apprehend the individual. As such, the Prosecution is seeking to pursue primarily VF01 - Evading an Officer and subsidiarily VF01 - Attempted Evading an Officer.

    The Prosecution further notes that while it might be unclear which of the two individuals had actually stolen the vehicle, it is without a doubt that both the Defendant as well as the other individual that were working on the active chop shop were collaborating. As per #22-CM-0060, State of San Andreas v. Edward Greeg, the court has previously ruled that an accessory can be held liable for any crime committed by the principal that was reasonably foreseeable as a result of the conspiracy. In this particular situation, it is abundantly clear the Defendant was at the very least more than aware that the vehicle had been stolen. While the Prosecution is unable to prove that the Defendant was the principal offender, any reasonable thinking person can only come to the conclusion that realizing the vehicle that was being stripped in the active chop shop was in fact stolen was more than reasonably forseeable.

    With reference to the aforementioned, the Prosecution notes that as per the Defendants' narrative under oath as submitted to the court, the Defendant has knowingly and willingly made numerous clearly untrue statements in this official statement to mislead the court in this trial. In this respect, the Prosecution notes to the following sentences:
    • 1. We drove inside and found a couple of open garages with a car sat inside of them - please refer to previous evidence exhibits where it can be concluded that only two vehicles were sighted during the situation and both were spotted by the helicopter pilot driving inside.
    • 2. We were ultimately charged with Operation of a Chop Shop, which is completely untrue, we were simply looking around - refer to previous evidence exhibits where it becomes abundantly clear the Defendant was operating a chop shop.
    • 3. They charged us under speculation simply because Akio had equipment which she has for personal use, as she enjoys working on vehicles. - the Prosecution notes with reference to the evidence exhibits as previously presented to the court that the Los Santos County Sheriff's Department had sufficient evidence to charge the Defendant rather than mere speculation as the Defendant states.
    The Prosecution notes that in case the Prosecution had not been able to present the abundantly clear evidence as kindly provided by the Los Santos County Sheriff's Department as previously presented to the Court, these false statements by the Defendant, which are in a direct relation to this trial, would at the very least have had the potential to affect the outcome of the trial. As such, the Prosecution can only conclude that the action of knowingly and willingly providing these false statements to the court should only result in the application of the charge GF24 - Perjury.

Sincerely,


Deputy Attorney General
Director of Public Notary
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 372-7719 — [email protected]
Image
Marty Millionaire
Posts: 42
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2020 5:53 am
ECRP Forum Name:

SAJB Awards

Re: #23-CM-0009, State of San Andreas v. Aya Kasumi

Post by Marty Millionaire »

Image

San Andreas Judicial Branch

Re: State of San Andreas v. Aya Kasumi
"HERE FOR YOU | SAFE FOR YOU"

  • Honorable Judge Judith Mason,


    I, Junior Defense Attorney Marty Millionaire, will be co-counseling with Defense Attorney Shaun Harper, Ruwin Korbel and representing the defendant Aya Kasumi in this case.


    Respectfully,

    Image
    Junior Public Defense Attorney
    San Andreas Judicial Branch
    (909) 450-3722 — [email protected]
Chief Loan Officer Marty Millionaire
Amount of loans given out (to date).
=
$3,071,000
Ashcroft Financial"Making Dreams come True"
User avatar
Shaun Harper
Judicial Branch
Posts: 1040
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2022 6:33 pm
ECRP Forum Name:

SAJB Awards

Re: #23-CM-0009, State of San Andreas v. Aya Kasumi

Post by Shaun Harper »

Motion to Suppress
San Andreas Judicial Branch
Motion to Suppress

Honorable Judith Mason,

  • We the Defense in the case below are requesting that certain evidence be inadmissible in court.
    State of San Andreas v. Aya Kasumi
    Assigned Court Case Number: #23-CM-0009
    Requesting Party: Defense
    Party Members: Cyrus Raven, Ruwin Korbel, Shaun Harper, Marty Millionaire.
    Requested Evidence to Suppress: Exhibit #4: Witness Statement Audrey Hartwell
    Detailed explanation:
    The following should be suppresed for: Speculation

    ''As seen in the bodycamera footage attached above, I come across the two individuals using mechanical equipment around a stolen vehicle in a private garage on government property. I personally witnessed both suspects using mechanical equipment as well as tools to dismantle a vehicle, and some mechanical equipment originally inside the garage.''

    Although the body cam footage shows one of the defendants (Akio Yamada) bowing down, this does not equate to someone using mechanical equipment to dismantle a vehicle. The other defendant (Aya Kasumi) is standing and walking around the car, clearly not using any tools nor touching the car.


    Requested Evidence to Suppress: Exhibit #5: Witness Statement Tom Brown
    Detailed explanation:
    The following should be suppresed for: Speculation

    ''While deployed as ALPHA (Air unit) I noticed two vehicles without any Government markings entering Fort Zancudo. This led me to inform Audrey Hartwell to check them out as no one had informed ATC/SAAA they were entering the facility over the department radio. Audrey Hartwell checked the garage location and I informed her they went inside. She saw both Akio Yamada and Aya Kasumi standing inside with the mechanic tools and equipment. We called for PD assistance as we had low units at the time and we planned to block the main entrance of the compound they were in and push in on foot.''

    The witness does not have first-hand knowledge of the fact he is testifying to.


Sincerely,


Image
Shaun Harper
Public Defense Attorney
Image
User avatar
Shaun Harper
Judicial Branch
Posts: 1040
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2022 6:33 pm
ECRP Forum Name:

SAJB Awards

Re: #23-CM-0009, State of San Andreas v. Aya Kasumi

Post by Shaun Harper »

Motion to Compel Discovery
San Andreas Judicial Branch
Motion to Compel Discovery

Honorable Judith Mason,

  • We the Defense in the case below are requesting the disclosure of the following material by opposing counsel, please find a detailed reason as to our request below.
    State of San Andreas v. Aya Kasumi
    Assigned Court Case Number: #23-CM-0009
    Requesting Party: Defense
    Party Members: Cyrus Raven, Ruwin Korbel, Shaun Harper, Marty Millionaire
    Discovery from: PD

    Type of Discovery: Witness Statement
    • The Defense is requesting a witness statement from officer Rija Luigi of the Los Santos Police Department
    Detailed reasoning:
    • Officer Luigi responded to the scene of the crime. We the defense believe this additional witness statement could shine more light on what happened at at scene of the crime.


Sincerely,

Image
Shaun Harper
Public Defense Attorney
Image
User avatar
Roderick Marchisio
Posts: 6247
Joined: Thu May 14, 2020 1:08 pm
ECRP Forum Name: Roderick

LSPD Awards for Service

SAJB Awards

Re: #23-CM-0009, State of San Andreas v. Aya Kasumi

Post by Roderick Marchisio »

Image

San Andreas Judicial Branch

Re: #23-CM-0009, State of San Andreas v. Aya Kasumi
"HERE FOR YOU | SAFE FOR YOU"

  • Honorable Mason,

    With respect to the Motion to Suppress as filed by the Defense, the Prosecution would like to rebuttal as follows.

    First of all, in relation to evidence exhibit #4, the Defense states that the phrase "using mechanical equipment" should be suppressed, as - according to the Defense - bowing down does not equate to someone using mechanical equipment. However, analyzing the footage clearly shows one of the Defendants holding mechanical equipment as well as both individuals can be seen carrying pieces of mechanical equipment throughout the footage:
    Footage
    Image
    With respect to the portion that is aimed at the second sentence in the Witness Statement of the fourth exibit, the Prosecution notes that this sentence evidently does not refer to the bodycam footage itself but is part of the statement the Deputy is making in her Witness Statement. It is the Deputy's recollection of events and as such, the Defense has no grounds whatsoever to call this speculation in any way. Further, the Prosecution notes that this is a Witness Statement from a law enforcement officer who is under a legal duty to report. As such, the public records and reports exemption should apply on this statement.

    In relation to the fifth exhibit, the Defense is looking to suppress this statement based on speculation. As the court will no doubt agree, the statement as made by the Deputy is not considered as the term speculation. Further, the Prosecution notes that this is a Witness Statement from a law enforcement officer who is under a legal duty to report. As such, the public records and reports exemption should apply on this statement.

Respectfully,

Deputy Attorney General
Director of Public Notary
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 372-7719 — [email protected]
Image
User avatar
Roderick Marchisio
Posts: 6247
Joined: Thu May 14, 2020 1:08 pm
ECRP Forum Name: Roderick

LSPD Awards for Service

SAJB Awards

Re: #23-CM-0009, State of San Andreas v. Aya Kasumi

Post by Roderick Marchisio »

Image

San Andreas Judicial Branch

Re: #23-CM-0009, State of San Andreas v. Aya Kasumi
"HERE FOR YOU | SAFE FOR YOU"

  • Honorable Mason,

    In relation to the Motion to Compel Discovery as filed by the Defense, the Prosecution notes that the name of Rija Luigi was not mentioned in any of the listed evidence exhibits. As such, the Prosecution would like to postpone the reaction to the Motion to Compel Discovery until further insight has been given by the Defense how exactly they are aware of which officers responded to this scene.

Respectfully,

Deputy Attorney General
Director of Public Notary
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 372-7719 — [email protected]
Image
User avatar
Shaun Harper
Judicial Branch
Posts: 1040
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2022 6:33 pm
ECRP Forum Name:

SAJB Awards

Re: #23-CM-0009, State of San Andreas v. Aya Kasumi

Post by Shaun Harper »

Image

San Andreas Judicial Branch

State of San Andreas v.
"HERE FOR YOU | SAFE FOR YOU"

  • Honorable Judge Judith Mason,

    In response to the question from the prosecution,
    Akio Yamada has let the defense know they had been in contact with Officer Luigi because they wanted to ask for their charges. Officer luigi then told Ms. Yamada she was at the scene of the crime. The officer already provided a statement about the situation. Furthermore The defense believes this statement will provide additional details that will clarify the situation. This statement is important for the case of Aya Kasumi as well considering the cases #23-CM-0009, State of San Andreas v. Aya Kasumi and #23-CM-0008, State of San Andreas v. Akio Yamada are basically one and the same.

    Respectfully,

    Image
    Public Defense Attorney
    San Andreas Judicial Branch
    (909) 308-7889 — [email protected]
User avatar
Roderick Marchisio
Posts: 6247
Joined: Thu May 14, 2020 1:08 pm
ECRP Forum Name: Roderick

LSPD Awards for Service

SAJB Awards

Re: #23-CM-0009, State of San Andreas v. Aya Kasumi

Post by Roderick Marchisio »

Motion for Involuntary Dismissal
San Andreas Judicial Branch
Motion for Involuntary Dismissal

Honorable Mason,

  • We the Prosecution in the case below are requesting an involuntary dismissal from the court, please find the reason for it below.
    State of San Andreas v. Aya Kasumi
    Assigned Court Case Number: #23-CM-0009
    Requesting Party: Prosecution
    Party Members: Roderick Marchisio
    Involuntary Dismissal: Breach of court protocol, violation of good process order and breach of Code of Ethics
    Detailed explanation:

    As the Defense has admitted publicly on the Docket, the Defense has been in contact with a party that is being represented by the Prosecution, namely a law enforcement officer working for the State. In this respect, the Prosecution notes that the Defense has obtained a Witness Statement from the Officer by contacting them privately. Further, it is obvious that the witness statement that has been obtained by the Defense - which has been provided to the presiding judge privately - contains information that is to be considered both confidential and privileged. As such, it is obvious that with these ridiculous procedural tactics the Defense has willingly and knowingly interfered with court protocal and has violated the good process order that can be expected from parties that adhere to the Rule of Law.

    Further, the Prosecution notes that each and every one of the Defense attorneys named to this underlying case are all bar certified with the San Andreas Judicial Branch and therefore are deemed to adhere to the Code of Ethics. In this respect, the Prosecution refers to the various sections of the Code of Ethics, including but not limited to V - Relationship to the Adverse Party under e.: An attorney shall not come into any contact with the adverse party without the knowledge of the party's counsel or without the knowledge of his or her own client.
    Given the fact that the Defense is actively using the argument of the witness statement of the Officer in question, as well as their own admittance, it is evidently clear the Defense has violated the Code of Ethics with the sole purpose of gaining an advantage in the underlying case.

    Following the above, the Prosecution deems it clear that the Defense has intentionally not only brought harm to the legal certainty that can and should be expected from parties in the courts of the State of San Andreas as well as the courts image but also to the evidence the Prosecution is presenting in the underlying case. As such, the Prosecution is requesting the court the following:
    • 1. That the appeal in the underlying case be formally dismissed;
    • 2. That the presiding judge takes a decision surrounding the Motion to Amend Charges with the evidence as already provided to the court;
    • 3. These allegations formally forwarded by the presiding judge to the Bar Ethics Review Board for further investigation.

    Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,


Deputy Attorney General
Director of Public Notary
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 372-7719 — [email protected]
Image
User avatar
Cyrus Raven
Posts: 1982
Joined: Tue Apr 16, 2019 11:14 pm
ECRP Forum Name: Cyrus Raven

LSPD Awards for Service

SAJB Awards

Re: #23-CM-0009, State of San Andreas v. Aya Kasumi

Post by Cyrus Raven »

Image

San Andreas Judicial Branch

Re: #23-CM-0009, State of San Andreas v. Aya Kasumi
"HERE FOR YOU | SAFE FOR YOU"

  • Honorable Judith Mason,

    On the 17th of January I received an email from Attorney Shaun Harper regarding a statement by Officer Luigi made directly to the Defendant.

    The following is a redacted version of that email which can be made available to the presiding Judge:
    Redacted Email
    Image
    As can be clearly seen, Officer Luigi is directly replying to the Defendant. No member of the Public Defense Division requested this initial statement.

    I initially instructed Attorney Harper to get the same statement in the format of a witness statement. In hindsight this was not only not needed, as a submission using a standard motion for discovery by the defense was sufficient, but requesting this statement could bring up issues concerning the CoE: V - Relationship to the Adverse Party as mentioned by the prosecution. I advised Attorney Harper to ''bench'' the witness statement and to simply request it through a motion to compel discovery to avoid any ethical issues.

    As such the following facts are true:
    1. The initial communication was between the Defendant and Officer Luigi.
    2. No attorney from the Public Defense Division approached Officer Luigi for a statement, they were approached to reformat their original communication with the Defendant.
    3. The initial communication would be admissible via a motion for discovery.
    I urge the court to accept the motion to compel discovery taking into account this statement was given on a voluntary basis and that this initial correspondence between the Defendant and the Officer are admissible via a motion for discovery.

    There have been mistakes made in this situation and I will take responsibility for them moving forward to avoid any similar issues in future cases. The prosecution is entitled to file whatever bar ethics review board reports they deem necessary. However, this is not the forum to conduct such investigations. I believe the court is solely trying to determine whether this requested evidence should be admissible and I believe the above points make it abundantly clear that it should be.


    Respectfully,

    Cyrus Raven
    Deputy Chief Public Defender
    San Andreas Judicial Branch
    5356160 — [email protected]
Image
User avatar
Judith Mason
Judicial Branch
Posts: 2578
Joined: Fri May 21, 2021 3:11 am
ECRP Forum Name: Judge Judy

SAJB Awards

Re: #23-CM-0009, State of San Andreas v. Aya Kasumi

Post by Judith Mason »

Image


San Andreas Judicial Branch
Superior Court of San Andreas

"EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"

  • Parties,

    I will be ordering a continuance in this case to address the pending ethical complaint and to determine if the conduct alleged is appropriate grounds for dismissal. I will, thus, be delaying my decision regarding the Motion for Involuntary Dismissal and other pending motions until the appointed investigating member of the Bar Ethics Review Board has concluded their inquiries and made a recommendation for potential remedies.

    Respectfully,

    Image
    Associate Justice
    San Andreas Judicial Branch
    (909) 257-9183 — [email protected]
Image
User avatar
Judith Mason
Judicial Branch
Posts: 2578
Joined: Fri May 21, 2021 3:11 am
ECRP Forum Name: Judge Judy

SAJB Awards

Re: #23-CM-0009, State of San Andreas v. Aya Kasumi

Post by Judith Mason »

Image


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. Aya Kasumi
#23-CM-0009

A decision was reached in the above case on the 16th day of February, 2023.


The court will be denying the Prosecution's Motion for Involuntary Dismissal.

Based upon the submission onto the docket of this case, an inquiry by the Bar Ethics Review Board was undertaken to determine the nature and scope of the alleged unethical conduct by those involved in this case under Section V - Relationship to the Adverse Party of the Code of Ethics.

As stated by the investigator, "the contact with Officer Luigi of the Los Santos Police Department was initiated by the defendant themselves, and this resulting statement was provided by the defendant to their attorneys. The attorneys realized the statement could not be accepted because it was not on the official witness statement form. The initial handling attorney [...] contacted their immediate supervisor [...] to seek advice on how to proceed. Initially [the supervisor] told [the initial handling attorney] to reach out to [the Los Santos Police Department] to format their statement on the appropriate forms, however, this advice was then rescinded, and [the initial handling attorney] was instructed to seek this information through a motion for discovery."

In accordance with the findings of the Bar Ethics Review Board, it is the court's determination that any error or misconduct on the part of Judicial Branch attorneys was non-intentional and any acts that may have occurred were mitigated.

The court now cautions all parties to adhere to proper courtroom procedure to ensure no violations occur from this point forth, and further instruction is made for the defendant to rely upon their attorneys to properly conduct themselves during these proceedings.

This case is now pending a decision on the remaining motions. To ensure both parties have made their positions known now that the Motion for Involuntary Dismissal has been denied, the court will allow 24 hours for final submissions in favor or against the remaining motions before a decision will be issued.


Image
Associate Justice
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 257-9183 — [email protected]
Image
User avatar
Shaun Harper
Judicial Branch
Posts: 1040
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2022 6:33 pm
ECRP Forum Name:

SAJB Awards

Re: #23-CM-0009, State of San Andreas v. Aya Kasumi

Post by Shaun Harper »

Image

San Andreas Judicial Branch

State of San Andreas v.
"HERE FOR YOU | SAFE FOR YOU"

  • Honorable Judge Judith Mason,

    The defense is ready to proceed at the courts discretion.

    In regards to the motion to compel discovery, we the defense believe this would be a vital piece of evidence. The witness statement from the officer may contain critical evidence that could impact the outcome of the case. This evidence could potentially be the key to proving or disproving important facts or allegations that are central to the case.

    Furthermore, it is in the best interest of both parties to disclose all relevant evidence that is within their possession or control.

    Without this evidence, the court may not have a complete understanding of the situation at hand and may not be able to make a fair and just ruling.

    Respectfully,

    Image
    Senior Defense Attorney
    San Andreas Judicial Branch
    (909) 308-7889 — [email protected]
Locked

Return to “SAJB - Archived Criminal Cases”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests