#24-CM-0035 State of San Andreas v. Andy Tyrie

Post by **Antonio McFornell** » 07 Jul 2024, 18:41

Document 1 | Filed 07/JUL/2024 | Page 1 of 1

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT
FOR THE STATE OF SAN ANDREAS

Docket Number:
#23-CM-0035
Date Filed:
07/JUL/2024
Violations:
Treason
GM05 - Receiving Stolen Property against a Government Employee
GF10 - Grand Theft against a Government Employee
GF15 - Burglary against a Government Employee
State of San Andreas

v.

Andy Tyrie

INDICTMENT

THE PROSECUTION CHARGES THAT:
1. On the 30th of April, 2024, Andy Tyrie published a picture anonymously on the social media platform Lifeinvader showing the original copy of the constitution on the podium located at the front of old City Hall.
2. The Chief of Staff and Andy Tyrie were the only two individuals that were aware of the code to the secure LRC room after the Chief of Staff transmitted the code to Andy Tyrie during his emploment to assign the code to the doors. After checking the badge log of the badges that were used in order to unlock the LRC building main doors, the Prosecution could discover that only the badge of Emily Whitehorse was used to unlock the door which is after the incident happened.
3. Knowing that Andy Tyrie was responsible for building the LRC building, given a master copy of the keys by Governor Jason Castilo during construction, and that he did not return the hard keys to the government, the Prosecution establishes that those hard keys were used to unlock the main building door and then used the code to unlock the airlocked doors to the room the consitution was in. The defendant then proceeded to take that document and has since published photos of that document with the assistance of numerous unindicted co-conspirators.

Presiding:

Superior Court Judge
San Andreas Judicial Branch

Document 2 | Filed 07/JUL/2024 | Page 1 of 1

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT
FOR THE STATE OF SAN ANDREAS

Docket Number:
#23-CM-0035
Date Filed:
07/JUL/2024
Violations:
Treason
GM05 - Receiving Stolen Property against a Government Employee
GF10 - Grand Theft against a Government Employee
GF15 - Burglary against a Government Employee
State of San Andreas

v.

Andy Tyrie

NOTICE TO RESPOND

Notice is given that Andy Tyrie is ordered to respond using the Plea Form below between the dates of;
- 07/JUL/2024
  - and
- 14/JUL/2024
Or make contract with the presiding judge;

For the purpose of an Arraignment.

Failure to comply with this notice may result in additional charges and/or detainment by law enforcement.

Presiding:

Superior Court Judge
San Andreas Judicial Branch

Document 3 | Filed 07/JUL/2024 | Page 1 of 1

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT
FOR THE STATE OF SAN ANDREAS

Docket Number:
#23-CM-0035
Date Filed:
07/JUL/2024
Violations:
Treason
GM05 - Receiving Stolen Property against a Government Employee
GF10 - Grand Theft against a Government Employee
GF15 - Burglary against a Government Employee
State of San Andreas

v.

Andy Tyrie

ARRAIGNMENT FORM

Andy Tyrie you are facing misdemeanor and felony charges for alleged conduct that occurred on or about 30/APRIL/2024

This form will formally read you the charges filed against you. You may plead in one of three ways for each charge:
- Guilty
  A plea of guilty indicates to the court that you confirm your guilt of the alleged conduct that was in violation of Penal Code. If you plead guilty, the charge and fines will be placed on your record and you will have to turn yourself into law enforcement.
- Not Guilty
  A plea of not guilty indicates to the court that you dispute the charges being filed against you. If you plead not guilty, preliminary pretrial proceedings will begin and a criminal trial will be scheduled in the near future.
- No Contest
  A plea of no contest is similar to that of a guilty plea, but indicates to the court that you accept the conviction, with the exception of avoiding a factual admission of guilt. If you plead no contest, the charge and fines will similarly be placed on your record and you will have to turn yourself into law enforcement.
Before the court can accept a plea of guilty or no contest, you must be advised of your rights in this situation.
1. You have the right to plead not guilty to any and all of these charges.
2. You have the right to be represented by counsel at trial and at every other stage of the proceedings.
3. You have the right to testify and present any evidence of your own in your defense against these charges.
4. You also have the right to not testify during any of the proceedings in accordance with your right to remain silent.
5. Please be advised that anything you say or do during the proceedings can and will be used against you by the prosecution.
Andy Tyrie, please be aware that any plea you give must be made voluntarily and of your own volition, and did not result from force, threats, or promises made by any person, with the exception of a Plea Agreement that can be arranged between yourself and the prosecution.

Count 1 is Treason, a Felony charge punishable by 6 to 12 months of incarceration and a fine of $50,000 to $100,000.

Count 2 is GM05 - Receiving Stolen Property against a Government Employee, a misdeamenor charge punishable by 15 months of incarceration and a fine of $1,500.

Count 3 is GF10 - Grand Theft against a Government Employee, a felony charge punishable by 67.5 months of incarceration and a fine of $6,000.

Count 4 is GF15 - Burglary against a Government Employee, a felony charge punishable by 90 months of incarceration and a fine of $1,500.

The prosecuting is seeking a total of 178 to 184 months of incarceration and a total fine of $59,000 to $109,000.

With all previous information in mind, please make your formal plea using the following form;

Code: Select all

[img]https://i.imgur.com/UM5h3vl.png[/img]
[img]https://i.imgur.com/6h9z9Jh.png[/img]
[divbox=antiquewhite]
[b]Defendant Name:[/b] Firstname Lastname
[b]Defendant Phone:[/b] ###-####
[b]Defendant Address:[/b] Here
[b][color=#0040FF](([/color] Defendant Discord:[/b] Here [color=#0040FF][b]))[/b][/color]
[b]Requested Attorney:[/b] [i]N/A if none[/i]
[/divbox]
[img]https://i.imgur.com/F76nFHB.png[/img]
[divbox=antiquewhite]
[b]On the charge of Treason, I am entering a plea as follows:[/b]
[list=none]
[ ] Guilty
[ ] Not Guilty
[ ] No Contest
[/list]

[b]On the charge of GM05 - Receiving Stolen Property against a Government Employee, I am entering a plea as follows:[/b]
[list=none]
[ ] Guilty
[ ] Not Guilty
[ ] No Contest
[/list]

[b]On the charge of GF10 - Grand Theft against a Government Employee, I am entering a plea as follows:[/b]
[list=none]
[ ] Guilty
[ ] Not Guilty
[ ] No Contest
[/list]

[b]On the charge of GF15 - Burglary against a Government Employee, I am entering a plea as follows:[/b]
[list=none]
[ ] Guilty
[ ] Not Guilty
[ ] No Contest
[/list]
[hr][/hr]
I, [b]FIRSTNAME LASTNAME[/b], hereby affirm that this pleading is being made voluntarily and of my own volition, and did not result from force, threats, or promises made by any person, with the exception of a Plea Agreement arranged between myself and the prosecution.
[/divbox]

Presiding:

Superior Court Judge
San Andreas Judicial Branch

Post by **Antonio McFornell** » 07 Jul 2024, 19:49

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

To whom it may concern,

On the 7th of July, 2024, the Court conducted arraignment proceedings at Pillbox Medical Center, Elgin Avenue. As a result of said proceedings, the defendant Andy Tyrie has presented his pleas to this Court through the document that will be attached to this entry into the docket.
Andy Tyrie arraignment form
Defendant Name: Andy Tyrie
Defendant Phone: ###-####
Defendant Address: 85 Route 68
(( Defendant Discord:Little_Fury))
Requested Attorney: Hugh R Allgood
On the charge of Treason, I am entering a plea as follows:
- [ ] Guilty
  [X] Not Guilty
  [ ] No Contest
On the charge of GM05 - Receiving Stolen Property against a Government Employee, I am entering a plea as follows:
- [ ] Guilty
  [X] Not Guilty
  [ ] No Contest
On the charge of GF10 - Grand Theft against a Government Employee, I am entering a plea as follows:
- [ ] Guilty
  [X] Not Guilty
  [ ] No Contest
On the charge of GF15 - Burglary against a Government Employee, I am entering a plea as follows:
- [ ] Guilty
  [X] Not Guilty
  [ ] No Contest
I, Andy Tyrie, hereby affirm that this pleading is being made voluntarily and of my own volition, and did not result from force, threats, or promises made by any person, with the exception of a Plea Agreement arranged between myself and the prosecution.
Best regards,

Superior Court Judge
Director of the San Andreas Bar Association
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 553-8869 — [email protected]

Post by **Hugh Allgood** » 10 Jul 2024, 20:26

Allgood Law
24-CM-0035
"Right Firm. Right Now"

Judge McFornell,

Now that Mr. Tyrie has been arraigned, Any updates on order for discovery? Or any movements on our pre-existing petition for habeas corpus?

Respectfully,

Owner/Attorney
Allgood Law
(909) 235-6076 — [email protected]

Post by **Antonio McFornell** » 11 Jul 2024, 16:12

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

Parties,

Pursuant to the decision rendered by the Supreme Court on the 11th of July, 2024, remanding the Writ of Habeas Corpus to the Superior Court, the Prosecution is granted 24 hours to present any objections or considerations in regards to the Writ of Habeas Corpus, period after which the defendant will be granted a 24 hour period to present their considerations.

Writ of Habeas Corpus remanded
Attached Document
Best regards,

Superior Court Judge
Director of the San Andreas Bar Association
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 553-8869 — [email protected]

Post by **Hope Kant** » 11 Jul 2024, 16:23

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

Honorable Judge McFornell and pertaining parties,

The prosecution is requesting 72 hours to formulate our response as is the custom with most things in our courts. I.E. the time given to defense to review prosecution evidence, the time given to craft motions for summary judgements, etc. We understand the length the case has taken and the incarceration of the defendant and are not intentionally trying to prolong either. ((I'm in the middle of moving 7 hours away and was not expecting to only be given 24 hours to respond to something, when it had the possibility of being dismissed.)) We also have no objections to the defense extending their time period for response to 72 hours.

Respectfully,

Attorney General
Acting Director of Training
Director of Human Resources
Director of Public Notary
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 505-9925 — [email protected]

Post by **Antonio McFornell** » 12 Jul 2024, 02:22

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

Parties,

Pursuant to the Prosecution's request, the Court believes granting an additional 48 hour continuance is in order and thus will extend the timeframe provided for a total of 72 hours, beginning at the moment the initial notice was added on the docket.

Best regards,

Superior Court Judge
Director of the San Andreas Bar Association
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 553-8869 — [email protected]

Post by **Hope Kant** » 13 Jul 2024, 02:28

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

Honorable Judge McFornell and pertaining parties,

We would like to first thank the courts for hearing both sides on the case and weighing the options. While we are not given the chance to provide discovery at this point, the prosecution believes the right of the State to detain and hold those properly indited and accused of treason until their trial remains intact. Under the 5th Amendment it states "Should the crimes of the individual detail treason, grand acts of terrorism, or murder of public officials the individual will be held in the Department of Corrections until a trial date can be set and due process followed." The defendant was detained based off the signing of a search warrant from the Judicial Branch that allowed for the search of his places, persons, and question the individual. From there he was held for questioning, then indicted by the prosecution for the charge of treason.

The Constitution of the State of San Andreas was not only referenced by the defendants attorney, but written by the judge on the case. Article III, Section 2: Sources of law and jurisdiction states "The judicial power shall judge all cases in law and equity, with direct observance of the Constitution, the Laws of San Andreas and Treaties made... The only binding source of law that the judicial power must enforce, respect and cannot reject, is the Constitution and Written Legislation of the State of San Andreas." It is the responsibility of the judge on the case to utilize and apply the constitution in the way it was written. The way it was written allows for the charge and application of Treason.

To reiterate, the Constitution of the State of San Andreas, the same document that the prosecution believes to have been stolen by the defendant. Gives the Government the ability to act as they have. Not only does it state and allow for the charge of treason, but it gives the state the ability to hold the individual until trial. We believe this petition should be thrown out in it's entirety as it lacks the probable necessary to be heard by the courts. Thank you.

Respectfully,

Attorney General
Acting Director of Training
Director of Human Resources
Director of Public Notary
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 505-9925 — [email protected]

Post by **Hugh Allgood** » 13 Jul 2024, 03:26

Allgood Law
24-CM-0035 - Response
"Right Firm. Right Now"

Superior Court of San Andreas,

The Defense will keep our comments brief, as our arguments have been made in much greater detail in the petition.

There are a number of issues with the State's argument.

(1) Andy Tyrie was not "properly indited" (sic)

the prosecution believes the right of the State to detain and hold those properly indited and accused of treason until their trial remains intact.

From there he was held for questioning, then indicted by the prosecution for the charge of treason.
Andy Tyrie was detained on 31/May/2024 and this indictment was filed on 7/Jul/2024... 39 days, which by the State's own argument that Andy Tyrie was held unconstitutionally and unlawfully. Andy Tyrie was initially detained for questioning, which Andy Tyrie invoked his rights and demanded an attorney. Andy Tyrie was not afforded the right to an attorney at the time of his detention, nor for several days. Andy Tyrie has been deprived of his ability to have contact with the outside world, and Counsel was only notified of the request for representation through third parties.

(2) The crime of treason does not exist, and therefore, Andy Tyrie cannot commit it as a crime.

"Should the crimes of the individual detail treason, grand acts of terrorism, or murder of public officials the individual will be held in the Department of Corrections until a trial date can be set and due process followed."
This is first day law school type stuff. The laws of this State are found within the penal code, and the authority of the executive to place charges on an individual come from the penal code for laws passed by the legislature. This is affirmed in the latest Supreme Court decision -- "but for the court to permit the Executive Branch to [...] enacting legislation at their own discretion, beyond the consent of the will of the people, would akin the State of San Andreas to a monarchy, with a King at the seat of the government, [...] enact new laws, and imprison perceived threats absent due process, all without restraint." The State cannot pass and enforce laws ex post facto, either.

The judicial power shall judge all cases in law and equity, with direct observance of the Constitution, the Laws of San Andreas and Treaties made.
The judicial power shall judge all cases in law and equity - again, treason does not exist as a law, therefore, the judicial has no ability to judge a case of treason. Even if we are to consider it as an applicable charge, as stated above - Andy Tyrie was not indicted for the charge until 39 days later -- a violation of his right to due process.

The only binding source of law that the judicial power must enforce, respect and cannot reject, is the Constitution and Written Legislation of the State of San Andreas."

It is the responsibility of the judge on the case to utilize and apply the constitution in the way it was written. The way it was written allows for the charge and application of Treason.
The Constitution itself does not create law. The Constitution details the authorities of the various branches of government and the rights that citizens are to enjoy. Judicial power enforces laws found in the penal code, with respect to the rights of the accused as afforded by the Constitution.

(3) No warrant has ever been provided to the Defendant, nor Defendant's counsel.

The defendant was detained based off the signing of a search warrant from the Judicial Branch that allowed for the search of his places, persons, and question the individual.
To date, counsel has not been afforded the opportunity to review the warrant although it has been requested on numerous occasions. Even if such warrant existed, a search warrant does not grant the authority to detain someone without cause or without due process, nor does a search warrant ever grant the government the right to "question the individual". That's a violation of the 5th Amendment to require a person to be a witness against themselves.

(4) The theft of the Constitution, in and of itself does not constitute "treason"

The common definition of treason is, "the offense of attempting by overt acts to overthrow the government of the state to which the offender owes allegiance or to kill or personally injure the sovereign or the sovereign's family".

If the State claims the belief is that Andy Tyrie stole the Constitution, then the Defense counters as the theft of the Constitution is theft and possibly receiving stolen property as detailed in the laws of this State, which are charges contained within the indictment. The theft of the Constitution, without more, is not capable of overthrowing the government; The text of the Constitution is available electronically on the Government website, and the theft of the original paper document hardly has/had any potential of overthrowing the government. Maybe a different argument if that was the ONLY copy that existed, and the loss of the document would send the State into a state of destruction.

Furthermore, from Counsel's time in the branch, Counsel can think of a number of situations where individuals or groups have taken direct attacks on the government, and none of these individuals were ever charged with treason (e.g. attack on the powerplant sending the entire state into days of darkness, the multiple times past and present City Hall has been on lock down due to threats made on government officials) -- why not? Maybe because it does not exist in the penal code? The theft of a document in the grand scheme of acts intended to overthrow the government is a stretch.

In conclusion -- The Defense stands firm on the petition and notes Andy Tyrie has been detained for 39 days without charges or other legal authority, and in violation of his right to due process and under an inapplicable section of the very Constitution he has been alleged to have stolen. The Defense demands the immediate release of Andy Tyrie from custody and does not believe the State has come anywhere within a millimeter of making any argument to justify the detention of Andy Tyrie nor an explanation for the trampling upon the very rights the Constitution aims to protect.

Respectfully,

Owner/Attorney
Allgood Law
(909) 235-6076 — [email protected]

Post by **Hope Kant** » 13 Jul 2024, 17:23

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

Honorable Judge McFornell and pertaining parties,

There are several claims the defense has made that are factually incorrect.

As for point 1 of the defense, the indictment was filed before the official post on the docket by the judge. Our courts work on a first-come, first-served basis. Mr. Tyrie's case was officially posted the moment it was first possible by the courts. Defense attorneys were paged and called when asked, but none showed. The prosecution has not been made aware of any time when Mr. Tyrie asked for representation but was denied that right. Making the claim is just that: a claim without proof.

As for point 2 presented by the defense, the prosecution has shown through multiple written quotes of the constitution that treason is, in fact, a crime within the state of San Andreas. To begin, there are multiple instances where treason itself is mentioned as a crime. Article I, Section 6 states, "Representatives shall in all cases, except Treason, Felony, and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their attendance at the session of the house." Additionally, the quote that has been referenced numerous times already, "Should the crimes of the individual detail treason, grand acts of terrorism, or murder of public officials, the individual will be held in the Department of Corrections until a trial date can be set and due process followed." The prosecution would like to point out that even outside of our state, the crime of treason is defined within the constitution, utilizing it as the highest legal definition of treason. The crime of treason, being such a great violation of our state itself, does not need to be written in the penal code as it resides within a legally binding document that each individual residing within our state must follow: the constitution.

While the defense has been so kind as to introduce their definition of the crime, the issue itself plays ZERO part in the arguments presented. As any crime that should detail treason allows the office of the attorney general to exercise the right to incarcerate that individual until trial. Once again, following the written word of our constitution.

The petition made by the defense was in regards to the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus. The prosecution asserts that due process, per the writing of the constitution, has been followed. As has been seen by the most recent LifeInvader posts from the now-disgraced and former Chief Justice Robert Winejudge, Article II, Section 1: Vesting of Executive Power in the Board of Governors, states, "The executive power shall be vested in a Board of Governors for the State of San Andreas, who will have absolute control over the legislative and judicial branches of government." While you may agree or disagree with this clause of the constitution, it exists and is required to be followed by the individuals that reside within the state.

Mr. Tyrie was detained and questioned as per the search warrant. The search warrant was withheld not only on the specific wording of the judge within the warrant but also due to the direction of the government. Each of these actions still follows and allows for due process per the constitution of the state of San Andreas.

Finally, point four made by the defense is almost laughable, that stealing the original physical constitution and then allegedly defacing said constitution would not be seen as a crime against the state. The prosecution has nothing further to add in regards to this point, as there is no need to belabor the idea that an individual who steals the only document containing the clause for treason and the only document containing the directives and base civil rights given to individuals within the state is not actively warring with the state itself.

In conclusion, we believe the petition still lacks the fundamental probable cause necessary to be seen within the court of law. We would like to move forward in order to seek justice for the state. Thank you to the defense and judge on the case for their review.

Respectfully,

Attorney General
Acting Director of Training
Director of Human Resources
Director of Public Notary
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 505-9925 — [email protected]

Post by **Hugh Allgood** » 13 Jul 2024, 22:02

Allgood Law
24-CM-0035 Response
"Right Firm. Right Now"

Superior Court,

This will be the last response from the Defense in relation to the Petition as the Defense acknowledges engaging in a back and forth is counter productive, especially under the current circumstances.

The indictment was filed on the date listed on the indictment itself. If the Attorney General is referring to the criminal complaint existing before this, that would make sense. But a criminal complaint is not grounds for detaining someone for 39 days, and growing, without affording them due process. Even the thought of using the “first come, first serve” argument is actually a slap in the face of the rights of Andy Tyrie and the face of the citizens of this State. What the Attorney General is saying is that a criminal complaint can be filed and persons indefinitely detained until the Courts effectively “get around to it”. That’s not how this works.

The statement about defense attorneys may only be partially true. If “defense attorneys” refers to public defenders, then perhaps it’s true. But Andy Tyree very specifically asked for Allgood Law, and was told by Governor Langley that he didn’t have Counsel’s number. No attorney showed up, yet government agents attempted to question Andy Tyrie against his continued objection. If the prosecution wants “proof”, I’m sure Andy Tyrie will testify under oath about it.

The Attorney General mentions a Constitution outside of San Andreas, which has no bearing here. But for sake of argument, Counsel notes “treason” itself is defined in criminal penal code in these jurisdictions. It’s not defined here, and from a Constitutional standpoint, it’s outlandish to suggest that citizens need to follow not only the laws within the penal code, but certain other innumerable and unlisted laws. The Constitution also mentions terrorism and murder too, but yet our legislature has went ahead and defined these in an applicable code.

“ As any crime that should detail treason allows the office of the attorney general to exercise the right to incarcerate that individual until trial.”

This is very dangerous to hear from the mouth of the Attorney General. So who decides if an act is treason? The Attorney General? If the crime of treason is not to be spelled out, then the Attorney General just gets to apply the label of treason to whoever he/she deems fit?

“ The prosecution asserts that due process, per the writing of the constitution, has been followed.”

When and how? By finally filing a document and having a judge meet with Andy Tyrie to accept a not guilty plea? Counsel is not sure “due process” includes detention and handcuffed in a hospital bed is due process.

“ Board of Governors for the State of San Andreas, who will have absolute control over the legislative and judicial branches of government.”

Not sure what State Counsel is attempting to say here… this provision gives BOG the power over the legislative and executive branches. The BOG does not have full and unchecked power over Andy Tyrie, or the people of this state.

“Mr. Tyrie was detained and questioned as per the search warrant. The search warrant was withheld not only on the specific wording of the judge within the warrant but also due to the direction of the government. Each of these actions still follows and allows for due process per the constitution of the state of San Andreas.“

I invite the Attorney General to read the 4th Amendment. Warrants do not give authority to question someone. And what would be the reasoning for withholding the warrant by the government? “Due process” includes giving a Defendant a chance to review the evidence against them. It’s also the least the government can do after chaining someone to a bed for the past month and a half…

While defense counsel appreciates the States counsel’s attempt at ridicularity regardless of the crime which an individual is accused of, that individual still has rights and “laughing” at that individual, through their counsel, to afford them that right is very inappropriate. The Defense was merely pointing out the flaw in argument of not defining treason and the unequal treatment of others who have done far worse things than allegedly stealing a document and not getting chained to a hospital bed for 40 days.

Respectfully,

Owner/Attorney
Allgood Law
(909) 235-6076 — [email protected]

Post by **Hope Kant** » 13 Jul 2024, 22:38

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

Honorable Judge McFornell and pertaining parties,

As the defense was the petitioning party in this case, the prosecution will not respond further. Allowing them to have the final say, as they also would have the burden of proof to prove that the petition holds probable cause. We appreciate the time of both the counsel and judge on the case.

Respectfully,

Attorney General
Acting Director of Training
Director of Human Resources
Director of Public Notary
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 505-9925 — [email protected]

Post by **Antonio McFornell** » 14 Jul 2024, 15:08

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. Andy Tyrie
#24-CM-0035

A decision was reached in the above case on the 14th day of July, 2024.

Introduction & Arguments Presented
On June 22, 2024, Mr. Hugh Allgood, defense attorney for defendant Andy Tyrie, submitted a Writ of Habeas Corpus to the Supreme Court of San Andreas. The petition for Habeas Corpus, in summary, argued the following:

That Mr. Tyrie was detained by the San Andreas State Government with the assistance of the Los Santos Police Department on or about May 31st, 2024.
That Mr. Tyrie hadn't been charged or indicted with any of the crimes described in the 5th Amendment of the San Andreas Constitution, meaning they should not be held in the Department of Corrections pending trial for a non-existent charge.
That the "crime of treason does not exist within the penal code."
That the State of San Andreas has been unwilling to release Mr. Tyrie or otherwise allow speedy and fluent communication with their attorneys, particularly depriving him of human contact and the technological means to conduct his defense.
That the rights afforded by the 4th Amendment have been breached, given that Mr. Tyrie had his person and effects seized without a warrant.

On July 11th, the Supreme Court of San Andreas remanded the decision of the Writ of Habeas Corpus to this Court, on the basis that the Superior Court had competence since it was currently hearing case #24-CM-0035, State v. Tyrie.

The Prosecution affirmed that it is within the State's right to detain and hold those properly indicted and accused of treason until their trial, citing the 5th Amendment of the Constitution, adding that the defendant was detained based on the signing of a search warrant from the Judicial Branch that allowed for the search of his places, person, and to question the individual.

The Prosecution also argued that it believes the defendant has stolen the Constitution - as in, the physical text - and allows for the charge of treason. Given that we are currently in pre-trial proceedings, the Court will not make further reference to this argument, given that it would imply pre-judgment and deciding on whether the indictment presented by the Prosecution merits - or not - finding the defendant guilty.

The defense responded to the Prosecution's arguments, affirming that:

Andy Tyrie was not "properly indicted," adding that between the date of detainment and the filing of the indictment 39 days had passed, and that the defendant - when invoking his right to an attorney - was denied it for several days.
That the crime of treason does not exist, and therefore, Andy Tyrie cannot commit it as a crime, citing the Supreme Court's latest decision and presenting other arguments as to why treason does not exist as a law, and thus, the Judicial Branch would be unable to judge for said charge.
That the Constitution itself does not create law, but rather, it details the authorities of the various branches of government and the rights that citizens are to enjoy.
To date, the defendant's counsel has been unable to review the warrant although requested on numerous occasions, and even if it did exist, it does not grant the authority to detain someone without cause or due process.
The theft of the Constitution, in and of itself, does not constitute "treason."

The Prosecution finally responded, arguing that:

The indictment was presented to the Superior Court way before it was published on the docket, and in regards to Mr. Tyrie's detainment, defense attorneys were requested but none could be present, adding also that the Prosecution is unaware of any denied or otherwise ignored requests of Mr. Tyrie requesting representation.
The crime of treason, being such a great violation of our state itself, does not need to be written in the penal code as it resides within a legally binding document that each individual residing within our state must follow: the Constitution.
That due process was followed given that the warrant was withheld as an order of the Government, which had to be followed on the basis of Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution.

The Defense, finally, added that the defendant requested Allgood Law to assist them numerous times, and that multiple attempts were made to question Andy Tyrie against his continued objection, and without the presence of his attorney, under the pretense that "Governor Langley (did not) have Counsel's number." Also, they added that the State cannot pass and enforce laws ex post facto, either.

The Superior Court, in the decision revolving around the Writ of Habeas Corpus, is tasked with answering the following questions:

Whether the constitutional text is of direct application, or if it requires legal development - that is, through ordinary laws - for its clauses to be applicable.
Assuming that the constitutional text is indeed of direct application, whether the Prosecution can pursue somebody for the charge of treason, albeit it not being inside of the Penal Code.
Whether Andy Tyrie's detainment constitutes a violation of his rights afforded by the 4th and 5th Amendments, and in that sense;
Whether the Writ of Habeas Corpus is appropriate.

Judgment
The petitioner is incorrect in asserting that constitutional clauses are not of direct application because a charge does not exist, and thus it should be contained in the Penal Code before its prosecution, and that the State cannot pass and enforce laws ex post facto.
This argument was also touched on by the Prosecution, and the Court has no other option but to agree. Constitutional clauses must be, as far as the legal system allows, of immediate and direct application. Asserting that someone cannot be prosecuted for treason would imply admitting that, for example, the Constitution recognizes a number of rights that cannot be enforced or developed as long as there is no particular law (in the case cited by the defense, this particular law would be the Penal Code) addressing the matter. In other words, it would subject the application of the Constitution to the will of a few - namely, the State Legislature.
The Court, however, does recognize that the State cannot pass and enforce laws ex post facto, however, that is not the case under study in these proceedings, given that the law (constitutional law) had been passed -at the enactment of the Constitution-, which was years before the events that have led to this proceeding.

The Prosecution is not wrong when it asserts that the State has the power to detain those who have been, in their own words, "properly indicted and accused of treason." In the case under study, it is apparent to the Court that an indictment was indeed processed on July 7th, 2024. Despite the delays caused by reasons beyond the defendant's control, the Court must consider that the criminal complaint was presented to this Court only on Monday, June 24th, 2024. In that sense, the defense is not wrong in asserting that Andy Tyrie was under detention for approximately 24 days without an indictment, without being charged or otherwise having a criminal complaint filed. At this moment, the Court does not find it relevant to set an exclusive rule regarding whether a criminal complaint constitutes sufficient merit to justify a detention; however, the Court does affirm that it is evident that a prolonged period of time passed between the criminal complaint and the detention.

To this Court, it is evident that the detention of Andy Tyrie violated constitutional precepts and was not justified. The case would be different if the detention had taken place starting from July 7th, 2024, or even June 24th, 2024. Particularly, this Court does not reach a level of conviction that allows it to conclude that there is a risk -as the defense has repeatedly claimed, a point that the Prosecution has never addressed- of escape or intention to disobey orders that this Court and other authorities may decree from a properly filed indictment. In other words, the Court does not consider that Mr. Tyrie was what is considered a "flight risk."

Similarly, to the Court, the argument that the defendant's detention is justified based on a signed search warrant seems insufficient, not because there is no reason to do so, as it is common for affected individuals to be temporarily detained during the execution of a search warrant - for example, if they are inside the property, if they are opposing the search, etc. However, for the Court, there are no elements of judgment that would allow it to reach such a conclusion. In this sense, Andy Tyrie's detention should have ended once the execution of the warrant was completed and the indictment initiated, but not prolonged indefinitely over time.

Consummated Damage & the Writ of Habeas Corpus
The purpose of the Writ of Habeas Corpus is not to protect an individual for allegedly not being guilty of a crime or offense for which they are being investigated, prosecuted, indicted, etc.; instead, it seeks to challenge the legality of a prisoner's (or detainee's) detention. It has been established that Andy Tyrie's detainment lacked legal and constitutional grounds - at least until June 24th or July 7th. To this Court, it is clear that the damage that the Writ sought to alleviate has consummated. The consummated damage occurs when the violation of the fundamental right that was intended to be avoided materializes after the presentation of the Writ or request.

At this point in time, Mr. Tyrie's detainment is constitutionally and legally valid, and thus, the Court will not order the defendant's release from custody. However, given that it has been established that Mr. Tyrie does not pose a "flight risk" and is under trial for a very unique and specific offense - treason, primarily - the Court will order measures that ensure their due process rights are upheld and his human dignity and well-being are respected throughout the development of this indictment.

Finally, the Court urges both parties -defense and Prosecution- to limit their arguments and legal opinions to the facts and the law. In that sense, this Court will not tolerate subjective references or assessments about the arguments presented by either party and urges both parties -especially the Prosecution, which represents the State- to remain respectful throughout these proceedings.

Decision
With these considerations in mind, the Court hereby:

DENIES the Writ of Habeas Corpus for the reasons indicated in the previous paragraphs.
DECLARES that the damages or violations of the rights of the defendant that were intended to be preserved through Habeas Corpus have been consummated, and therefore a circumstance of consummated damage has occurred.
ORDERS that Andy Tyrie be transferred, within the next 24 hours, to a prison facility for their temporary detainment under the provisions of the 5th Amendment of the Constitution, where he shall be guaranteed immediate communication with their attorney -be it through cellphone, e-mail, pager, etc-, mobility, exercise and ample time outdoors, which shall not be inferior than six hours per day, in at least two different periods or blocks of time.
NOTIFIES the representatives -High Command- of the State Agencies that partook in Andy Tyrie's unconstitutional detainment between the 31st of May until the 7th of July, for them to initiate, conduct and conclude the appropriate internal (disciplinary, or not) investigations in a period no longer than 30 days, time after which they must report their findings to this Court.
INVITES the parties to this process to ensure all their manifestations and interventions are respectful and decorous.

So ordered,

Superior Court Judge
Director of the San Andreas Bar Association
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 553-8869 — [email protected]

Post by **Antonio McFornell** » 14 Jul 2024, 15:40

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. Andy Tyrie
#24-CM-0035

A court order was entered in the above case on the 14th of July, 2024.

The prosecution is hereby ordered to provide all evidence collected 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
Director of the San Andreas Bar Association
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 553-8869 — [email protected]

Post by **Hope Kant** » 21 Jul 2024, 12:40

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. Andy Tyrie
#24-CM-0035

A Motion for Discovery was filed in the above case on the 21st of July, 2024.

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

Exhibit #1: Governor Langley Criminal Case Submission Form

[SEALED]

Exhibit #2: Chief of Staff Whitehorse Witness Statement

[SEALED]

Exhibit #3: Search Warrant and results of the April 30, 2024 Lifeinvader Post

((RP))

Spoiler

Exhibit #4: Proof Andy Tyrie Didn't Have a Phone

Screenshot taken Wednesday, May 1, 2024

Exhibit #5: Anonymous Tip May 1, 2024

Voice Recording

Exhibit #6: Weazel News, May 4, 2024 LifeInvader Post

Picture of Constitution at Bayviewt

Exhibit #7: May 6th, 2024 Vehicle in front of Weazel

Exhibit #8: Proof of Andy Tyrie Owning a Mamba

Exhibit #9: May 6th, 2024 Surveillance Photos of Weazel News

Exhibit #10: Old Photos of Andy

Exhibit #11: Weazel News, May 9, 2024 LifeInvader Post

Picture of Constitution at Weazel News

Exhibit #12: Full Search Warrant Into Andy Tyrie and company

[SEALED]

Exhibit #13: Bank Record Andy Tyrie

Andy Tyrie - Purchased clothes, Binco Clothes Shop - $1,081 - 30/Apr/2024 06:02 PM
Andy Tyrie - Purchased clothes, Binco Clothes Shop - $787 - 30/Apr/2024 06:02 PM
Andy Tyrie - Purchased clothes, Binco Clothes Shop - $1,005 - 30/Apr/2024 06:02 PM.
Andy Tyrie - Purchased clothes, Binco Clothes Shop - $708 - 30/Apr/2024 06:02 PM.
Andy Tyrie - Purchased clothes, Binco Clothes Shop - $947 - 30/Apr/2024 06:04 PM.
Andy Tyrie - Purchased Long Black Gloves, ApeStore General Store - $4,000 - 30/Apr/2024 06:05 PM
Andy Tyrie - Purchased Hobo Stove, ApeStore General Store - $1,800- 30/Apr/2024 06:14 PM
Andy Tyrie - Parking Lot Fee - $0 - 30/Apr/2024 06:36 PM
Andy Tyrie - Tollbooth Fee - $0 - 01/May/2024 01:29 PM
Andy Tyrie - Parking Lot Fee - $0 - 01/May/2024 01:37 PM
Andy Tyrie - Refuel Bill - $885 - 01/May/2024 02:17 PM
Andy Tyrie - Purchased Laptop, HappyHunter General Store - $8,899 - 01/May/2024 02:27 PM
Andy Tyrie - Purchased Campfire, HappyHunter General Store - $1,900 - 01/May/2024 02:27 PM
Andy Tyrie - Purchased Hatchet, HappyHunter General Store - $1,700 - 01/May/2024 02:27 PM
Andy Tyrie - Purchased Hobo Shelter, HappyHunter General Store - $2,900 - 01/May/2024 02:27 PM
Andy Tyrie - Purchased Fishing Rod, HappyHunter General Store - $1,000 - 01/May/2024 02:44 PM
Andy Tyrie - Purchased Knife, HappyHunter General Store - $1,350 - 01/May/2024 02:44 PM
Andy Tyrie - Purchased Microfiber Cloth, HappyHunter General Store - $1,700 - 01/May/2024 02:44 PM
Andy Tyrie - Purchased clothes, Suburban Clothes Shop - $840 - 01/May/2024 02:47 PM
Andy Tyrie - Purchased clothes, Suburban Clothes Shop - $598 - 01/May/2024 02:49 PM
Andy Tyrie - Purchased clothes, Suburban Clothes Shop - $915 - 01/May/2024 02:50 PM
Andy Tyrie - Purchased clothes, Suburban Clothes Shop - $924 - 01/May/2024 02:50 PM
Andy Tyrie - Purchased clothes, Suburban Clothes Shop - $900 - 01/May/2024 02:50 PM
Andy Tyrie - Purchased clothes, Suburban Clothes Shop - $1,014 - 01/May/2024 02:51 PM
Andy Tyrie - Purchased clothes, Suburban Clothes Shop - $878 - 01/May/2024 02:52 PM
Andy Tyrie - Purchased clothes, Suburban Clothes Shop - $500 - 01/May/2024 02:52 PM
Andy Tyrie - Purchased clothes, Suburban Clothes Shop - $636 - 01/May/2024 02:55 PM
Andy Tyrie - Purchased clothes, Suburban Clothes Shop - $538 - 01/May/2024 02:56 PM
Andy Tyrie - Parking Lot Fee - $0 - 01/May/2024 02:58 PM
Andy Tyrie - Purchased Working Gloves, MotorSnacks General Store - $4,000 - 01/May/2024 02:59 PM
Andy Tyrie - Purchased Leather Gloves, MotorSnacks General Store - $4,000 - 01/May/2024 02:59 PM
Andy Tyrie - Purchased Jerry Can, MotorSnacks General Store - $2,490 - 01/May/2024 02:59 PM
Andy Tyrie - Purchased Long Black Gloves, MotorSnacks General Store - $4,000 - 01/May/2024 02:59 PM
Andy Tyrie - Purchased Water, HappyHunter General Store - $199 - 01/May/2024 03:19 PM
Andy Tyrie - Purchased Map, ZancudoDrop General Store - $200 - 01/May/2024 01/May/2024 04:05 PM
Andy Tyrie - Purchased Flashlight, ZancudoDrop General Store - $1,550 - 01/May/2024 04:05 PM
Andy Tyrie - Purchased Charger, ZancudoDrop General Store - $300 - 01/May/2024 04:05 PM
Andy Tyrie - Purchased 200x 9mm Weapon Ammunition, Bryds Bullets - $6,000 - 01/May/2024 04:19 PM
Andy Tyrie - Government Donation - $50,000 - 01/May/2024 08:27 PM
Andy Tyrie - Purchased clothes, Ponsonbys Clothes Shop - $1,141 - 01/May/2024 08:47 PM
Andy Tyrie - Purchased clothes, Ponsonbys Clothes Shop - $713 - 01/May/2024 08:47 PM
Andy Tyrie - Purchased clothes, Ponsonbys Clothes Shop - $602 - 01/May/2024 08:47 PM
Andy Tyrie - Purchased clothes, Ponsonbys Clothes Shop - $610 - 01/May/2024 08:48 PM
Andy Tyrie - Purchased clothes, Ponsonbys Clothes Shop - $1,113 - 01/May/2024 08:48 PM
Andy Tyrie - Paid Citation - $600 - 06/May/2024 08:54 PM
Andy Tyrie - Parking Lot Fee - $0 - 06/May/2024 09:36 PM
Andy Tyrie - Mechanic Shop Services - $850 - 06/May/2024 09:39 PM
Andy Tyrie - Purchased Phone, ApeStore General Store - $1,500 - 06/May/2024 09:49 PM
Andy Tyrie - Parking Lot Fee - $0 - 06/May/2024 10:16 PM
Andy Tyrie - ATM Deposit - $3,483 - 19/May/2024 12:08 PM
Andy Tyrie - Redeemed Salary - $32,633 - 19/May/2024 12:08 PM
Andy Tyrie - Purchased clothes, Ponsonbys Clothes Shop - $1,010 - 19/May/2024 12:10 PM
Andy Tyrie - Purchased clothes, Ponsonbys Clothes Shop - $825 - 19/May/2024 12:10 PM
Andy Tyrie - Purchased clothes, Ponsonbys Clothes Shop - $702 - 19/May/2024 12:10 PM
Andy Tyrie - Purchased clothes, Ponsonbys Clothes Shop - $500 - 19/May/2024 12:11 PM
Andy Tyrie - Purchased clothes, Ponsonbys Clothes Shop - $630 - 19/May/2024 12:11 PM
Andy Tyrie - Purchased clothes, Ponsonbys Clothes Shop - $887 - 19/May/2024 12:11 PM
Andy Tyrie - Purchased clothes, Ponsonbys Clothes Shop - $893 - 19/May/2024 12:13 PM
Andy Tyrie - Purchased clothes, Ponsonbys Clothes Shop - $878 - 19/May/2024 12:14 PM
Andy Tyrie - Car Wash Fee - $0 - 19/May/2024 12:15 PM

Exhibit #14: Rudi Edel Phone Record((Time zone to be checked, we're assuming it's UTC))

5529889 PHONE CALL TO 3731392 24/May/2024 11:17 PM
5529889 PHONE CALL TO 2335420 24/May/2024 11:17 PM
5529889 PHONE CALL TO 2579183 24/May/2024 11:16 PM
5529889 PHONE CALL TO 5522854 24/May/2024 11:15 PM
5529889 PHONE CALL TO 5762152 24/May/2024 11:15 PM
5529889 PHONE CALL TO 3983216 24/May/2024 11:14 PM
5529889 PHONE CALL TO 2251530 24/May/2024 11:14 PM
5529889 PHONE CALL TO 3247120 24/May/2024 11:13 PM
5529889 PHONE CALL TO 3543649 24/May/2024 11:12 PM
5529889 PHONE CALL TO 5059925 24/May/2024 11:12 PM
5529889 PHONE CALL TO 2097917 24/May/2024 11:11 PM
5529889 PHONE CALL TO 2984429 24/May/2024 11:09 PM
5529889 PHONE CALL TO 2348770 24/May/2024 10:48 PM
5529889 PHONE CALL TO 2097917 24/May/2024 10:47 PM
5529889 PHONE CALL TO 2984429 24/May/2024 10:47 PM
5529889 PHONE CALL TO 2348770 24/May/2024 10:20 PM
5529889 PHONE CALL TO 2097917 24/May/2024 10:15 PM
5529889 PHONE CALL TO 2984429 24/May/2024 10:15 PM
5529889 PHONE CALL TO 5059925 24/May/2024 10:14 PM
5529889 PHONE CALL TO 4773925 24/May/2024 10:13 PM
2403249 PHONE CALL TO 5529889 23/May/2024 08:48 PM
5529889 PHONE CALL TO 2984429 22/May/2024 09:55 PM
5529889 PHONE CALL TO 2348770 22/May/2024 09:54 PM
5529889 PHONE CALL TO 5059925 22/May/2024 09:54 PM
5529889 PHONE CALL TO 2984429 22/May/2024 09:33 PM
5529889 PHONE CALL TO 2348770 22/May/2024 09:07 PM
5529889 PHONE CALL TO 2984429 22/May/2024 09:05 PM
5529889 PHONE CALL TO 2097917 22/May/2024 08:15 PM
5529889 PHONE CALL TO 2984429 22/May/2024 06:52 PM
5529889 PHONE CALL TO 2348770 20/May/2024 09:32 PM
5529889 PHONE CALL TO 5059925 19/May/2024 10:38 PM
5529889 PHONE CALL TO 2097917 19/May/2024 10:29 PM
5529889 PHONE CALL TO 2097917 19/May/2024 09:36 PM
5529889 PHONE CALL TO 2097917 19/May/2024 09:19 PM
5529889 PHONE CALL TO 2984429 17/May/2024 09:08 PM
5529889 PHONE CALL TO 5059925 17/May/2024 09:04 PM
5529889 PHONE CALL TO 5059925 17/May/2024 01:06 AM
5529889 PHONE CALL TO 5059925 16/May/2024 11:10 PM
5529889 PHONE CALL TO 5059925 16/May/2024 10:45 PM
5529889 PHONE CALL TO 2984429 15/May/2024 09:15 PM
5529889 PHONE CALL TO 2837753 15/May/2024 09:12 PM
5529889 PHONE CALL TO 5522854 15/May/2024 12:47 AM
5529889 PHONE CALL TO 2837753 14/May/2024 10:49 PM
2097917 PHONE CALL TO 5529889 14/May/2024 10:33 PM
4773925 PHONE CALL TO 5529889 14/May/2024 10:10 PM
5529889 PHONE CALL TO 2097917 14/May/2024 10:10 PM
5529889 PHONE CALL TO 2097917 14/May/2024 09:06 PM
2984429 PHONE CALL TO 5529889 14/May/2024 08:10 PM
5529889 PHONE CALL TO 4773925 12/May/2024 10:24 PM
5529889 PHONE CALL TO 2097917 12/May/2024 01:01 AM
2097917 PHONE CALL TO 5529889 12/May/2024 12:57 AM
5529889 PHONE CALL TO 2348770 11/May/2024 10:58 PM
4773925 PHONE CALL TO 5529889 11/May/2024 08:51 PM
2097917 PHONE CALL TO 5529889 11/May/2024 08:45 PM
2097917 PHONE CALL TO 5529889 11/May/2024 08:38 PM
5529889 PHONE CALL TO 4041526 11/May/2024 08:34 PM
5529889 PHONE CALL TO 2335420 11/May/2024 08:34 PM
5529889 PHONE CALL TO 2097917 11/May/2024 08:29 PM
5529889 PHONE CALL TO 3188168 11/May/2024 08:21 PM
5529889 PHONE CALL TO 5059925 11/May/2024 08:20 PM
5529889 PHONE CALL TO 2097917 11/May/2024 08:13 PM
5529889 PHONE CALL TO 2097917 11/May/2024 01:39 PM
5529889 PHONE CALL TO 2097917 10/May/2024 10:15 PM
5529889 PHONE CALL TO 2348770 10/May/2024 10:15 PM
5529889 PHONE CALL TO 2097917 10/May/2024 07:33 PM
5529889 PHONE CALL TO 5059925 09/May/2024 09:56 PM
5529889 PHONE CALL TO 2097917 09/May/2024 09:55 PM
5529889 PHONE CALL TO 2308815 06/May/2024 09:54 PM
5529889 PHONE CALL TO 4395821 05/May/2024 10:00 PM
5529889 PHONE CALL TO 2348770 05/May/2024 12:13 AM
5529889 PHONE CALL TO 2984429 04/May/2024 11:00 PM
5529889 PHONE CALL TO 4773925 04/May/2024 10:32 PM
4773925 PHONE CALL TO 5529889 04/May/2024 10:23 PM
5529889 PHONE CALL TO 2308815 04/May/2024 02:31 PM
5529889 PHONE CALL TO 5059925 03/May/2024 11:03 PM
5529889 PHONE CALL TO 2837753 02/May/2024 11:27 PM
5529889 PHONE CALL TO 2837753 02/May/2024 09:29 PM
5529889 PHONE CALL TO 4473543 02/May/2024 09:10 PM
5529889 PHONE CALL TO 2097917 01/May/2024 10:32 PM
5529889 PHONE CALL TO 2097917 01/May/2024 10:19 PM
5529889 PHONE CALL TO 5059925 01/May/2024 09:19 PM
5529889 PHONE CALL TO 2984429 01/May/2024 09:18 PM
5529889 PHONE CALL TO 5059925 01/May/2024 09:10 PM
5529889 PHONE CALL TO 5059925 01/May/2024 08:46 PM
2097917 PHONE CALL TO 5529889 01/May/2024 07:10 PM
5529889 PHONE CALL TO 2984429 01/May/2024 06:23 PM
5529889 PHONE CALL TO 4041526 01/May/2024 06:20 PM
4041526 PHONE CALL TO 5529889 01/May/2024 06:20 PM
5529889 PHONE CALL TO 5059925 30/Apr/2024 06:39 PM
2097917 PHONE CALL TO 5529889 30/Apr/2024 06:30 PM
4888798 PHONE CALL TO 5529889 30/Apr/2024 06:21 PM

Exhibit #15: Herrman Wolf Phone Record ((Time zone to be checked, we're assuming it's UTC))

4463724 PHONE CALL TO 2984429 04/May/2024 06:25 PM
4463724 PHONE CALL TO 2984429 04/May/2024 03:38 AM
4463724 PHONE CALL TO 2984429 04/May/2024 03:24 AM
2984429 PHONE CALL TO 4189838 04/May/2024 03:23 AM
2984429 PHONE CALL TO 3985868 04/May/2024 02:15 AM
5152806 PHONE CALL TO 2984429 03/May/2024 09:10 PM
4463724 PHONE CALL TO 2984429 03/May/2024 02:32 AM
5762152 PHONE CALL TO 2984429 02/May/2024 11:21 PM
2837753 PHONE CALL TO 2984429 02/May/2024 11:13 PM
2837753 PHONE CALL TO 2984429 02/May/2024 11:07 PM
2984429 PHONE CALL TO 2837753 02/May/2024 10:23 PM
2984429 PHONE CALL TO 5721219 02/May/2024 08:56 PM
2984429 PHONE CALL TO 2837753 02/May/2024 08:34 PM
5948122 PHONE CALL TO 2984429 02/May/2024 02:25 AM
2984429 PHONE CALL TO 4285041 01/May/2024 11:06 PM
2984429 PHONE CALL TO 2864405 01/May/2024 11:05 PM
2984429 PHONE CALL TO 2251530 01/May/2024 10:53 PM
2984429 PHONE CALL TO 3212132 01/May/2024 10:49 PM
5529889 PHONE CALL TO 2984429 01/May/2024 09:18 PM
2251530 PHONE CALL TO 2984429 01/May/2024 08:41 PM
2251530 PHONE CALL TO 2984429 01/May/2024 08:40 PM
3983216 PHONE CALL TO 2984429 01/May/2024 07:38 PM
2984429 PHONE CALL TO 3983216 01/May/2024 06:33 PM
5529889 PHONE CALL TO 2984429 01/May/2024 06:23 PM
5059925 PHONE CALL TO 2984429 30/Apr/2024 10:44 PM
2251530 PHONE CALL TO 2984429 30/Apr/2024 10:34 PM
2251530 PHONE CALL TO 2984429 30/Apr/2024 09:45 PM
2984429 PHONE CALL TO 2254437 30/Apr/2024 09:33 PM
4681014 PHONE CALL TO 2984429 30/Apr/2024 08:17 PM
4799153 PHONE CALL TO 2984429 17/May/2024 10:00 PM
5529889 PHONE CALL TO 2984429 17/May/2024 09:08 PM
4799153 PHONE CALL TO 2984429 17/May/2024 08:43 PM
2984429 PHONE CALL TO 2367350 16/May/2024 10:21 PM
2984429 PHONE CALL TO 4799153 16/May/2024 07:47 PM
5307766 PHONE CALL TO 2984429 16/May/2024 01:36 AM
2984429 PHONE CALL TO 5307766 16/May/2024 01:30 AM
5973823 PHONE CALL TO 2984429 15/May/2024 10:31 PM
5529889 PHONE CALL TO 2984429 15/May/2024 09:15 PM
2984429 PHONE CALL TO 5529889 14/May/2024 08:10 PM
2984429 PHONE CALL TO 2837753 13/May/2024 07:58 PM
2984429 PHONE CALL TO 2254437 10/May/2024 01:52 AM
2837753 PHONE CALL TO 2984429 10/May/2024 01:35 AM
2837753 PHONE CALL TO 2984429 10/May/2024 01:34 AM
2984429 PHONE CALL TO 2895356 09/May/2024 11:57 PM
2984429 PHONE CALL TO 4724033 09/May/2024 10:45 PM
2984429 PHONE CALL TO 2254437 08/May/2024 08:32 PM
2984429 PHONE CALL TO 2837753 07/May/2024 11:18 PM
2984429 PHONE CALL TO 2254437 07/May/2024 11:17 PM
2984429 PHONE CALL TO 2837753 07/May/2024 08:44 PM
2984429 PHONE CALL TO 2254437 07/May/2024 08:41 PM
2984429 PHONE CALL TO 5529889 06/May/2024 10:49 PM
5059925 PHONE CALL TO 2984429 06/May/2024 09:37 PM
3291349 PHONE CALL TO 2984429 06/May/2024 07:53 PM
5948122 PHONE CALL TO 2984429 06/May/2024 07:51 PM
2984429 PHONE CALL TO 2254437 06/May/2024 07:15 PM
2984429 PHONE CALL TO 2254437 06/May/2024 12:28 AM
2302248 PHONE CALL TO 2984429 05/May/2024 01:18 AM
5948122 PHONE CALL TO 2984429 04/May/2024 11:58 PM
4463724 PHONE CALL TO 2984429 04/May/2024 11:36 PM
4463724 PHONE CALL TO 2984429 04/May/2024 11:15 PM
4463724 PHONE CALL TO 2984429 04/May/2024 11:13 PM
4463724 PHONE CALL TO 2984429 04/May/2024 11:06 PM
5529889 PHONE CALL TO 2984429 04/May/2024 11:00 PM
4463724 PHONE CALL TO 2984429 04/May/2024 10:57 PM
4463724 PHONE CALL TO 2984429 04/May/2024 10:37 PM
4463724 PHONE CALL TO 2984429 04/May/2024 06:26 PM
4463724 PHONE CALL TO 2984429 04/May/2024 06:25 PM
4463724 PHONE CALL TO 2984429 04/May/2024 03:38 AM
4463724 PHONE CALL TO 2984429 04/May/2024 03:24 AM
2984429 PHONE CALL TO 4189838 04/May/2024 03:23 AM
2984429 PHONE CALL TO 3985868 04/May/2024 02:15 AM
5152806 PHONE CALL TO 2984429 03/May/2024 09:10 PM
4463724 PHONE CALL TO 2984429 03/May/2024 02:32 AM
5762152 PHONE CALL TO 2984429 02/May/2024 11:21 PM
2837753 PHONE CALL TO 2984429 02/May/2024 11:13 PM
2837753 PHONE CALL TO 2984429 02/May/2024 11:07 PM
2984429 PHONE CALL TO 2837753 02/May/2024 10:23 PM
2984429 PHONE CALL TO 5721219 02/May/2024 08:56 PM
2984429 PHONE CALL TO 2837753 02/May/2024 08:34 PM
5948122 PHONE CALL TO 2984429 02/May/2024 02:25 AM
2984429 PHONE CALL TO 4285041 01/May/2024 11:06 PM
2984429 PHONE CALL TO 2864405 01/May/2024 11:05 PM
2984429 PHONE CALL TO 2251530 01/May/2024 10:53 PM
2984429 PHONE CALL TO 3212132 01/May/2024 10:49 PM
5529889 PHONE CALL TO 2984429 01/May/2024 09:18 PM
2251530 PHONE CALL TO 2984429 01/May/2024 08:41 PM
2251530 PHONE CALL TO 2984429 01/May/2024 08:40 PM
3983216 PHONE CALL TO 2984429 01/May/2024 07:38 PM
2984429 PHONE CALL TO 3983216 01/May/2024 06:33 PM
5529889 PHONE CALL TO 2984429 01/May/2024 06:23 PM
5059925 PHONE CALL TO 2984429 30/Apr/2024 10:44 PM
2251530 PHONE CALL TO 2984429 30/Apr/2024 10:34 PM
2251530 PHONE CALL TO 2984429 30/Apr/2024 09:45 PM
2984429 PHONE CALL TO 2254437 30/Apr/2024 09:33 PM
4681014 PHONE CALL TO 2984429 30/Apr/2024 08:17 PM

Exhibit #16: Email to Hope Kant from Andy Tyrie - Bill Submission for His Definition of Treason

Andy Tyrie wrote:

4th CONGRESS
1st Session

H.R. 1

A Bill in recognition of the paramount importance of safeguarding the security and integrity of the state of San Andreas. This bill aims to establish comprehensive provisions for the identification, prosecution, and punishment of acts of treason committed against the state, irrespective of the existence of war.

_______________________________________________________________________

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
DD/MMM/YYYY
The Delegate for the San Andreas State Government, Marc Ericsson Introduced the following Bill:

_______________________________________________________________________

A BILL

A Bill in recognition of the paramount importance of safeguarding the security and integrity of the state of San Andreas. This bill aims to establish comprehensive provisions for the identification, prosecution, and punishment of acts of treason committed against the state, irrespective of the existence of war.

Be it enacted by the House of Representatives of the State of San Andreas in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. Short Title

This Bill may be cited as the "Treason Prevention and Punishment Act"

SECTION 2. Definitions
In this Bill, unless the context otherwise requires:

"Enemy" refers to Entities engaged in hostilities or activities against the State of San Andreas.

"Life Imprisonment" shall be interpreted as Incarceration until the death of the convicted individual.

"Indictment" refers to a formal written accusation charging an individual with the offense of treason, issued by the Judicial Branch in accordance with the prescribed legal process.

"Sentencing Judge" refers to the judicial officer responsible for determining and imposing the appropriate sentence upon conviction for the charge of treason.

"Aggravating Factors" include, but are not limited to, circumstances that may increase the severity of the offense, such as premeditation, the use of violence, or the involvement of multiple parties.

"Mitigating Factors" include, but are not limited to, circumstances that may reduce the severity of the offense, such as lack of criminal history, remorse, or cooperation with authorities.

SECTION 3. Offence of Treason
The Act of Treason shall consist of:

Levying war against the State of San Andreas.

Assisting any State or Person in levying war against the State of San Andreas.

Inciting or conspiring with any person to levy war against the State of San Andreas.

Overthrowing, by force of arms or other violent means, the organs of the government as established by the constitution of the State of San Andreas.

Attempting, by force of arms or other violent means, to overthrow the organs of the government as established by the constitution of the State of San Andreas.

Removing the Constitutional authorities of the State of San Andreas from office or making them unable to exercise their authority.

Giving aid or comfort to those engaged in acts of treason against the State of San Andreas.

No attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood.

SECTION 4. Indictment

The offence of 'Treason' shall be exclusively initiated through the process of indictment. No individual may be charged with treason except through an indictment issued by the Judicial Branch. Any accusation of treason not procured through the prescribed indictment process, as outlined in this section, shall be rendered null and void.

SECTION 5. Sentencing of Treason

The minimum sentence for the charge of treason shall be 120 months.

The maximum sentence for the charge of treason shall be life imprisonment.

A monetary fine of up to $50,000 may be imposed upon conviction for the charge of treason.

Once Convicted of Treason, No Public Office may be held

SECTION 6. Judicial Discretion in Sentencing

The Sentencing Judge, upon conviction for the charge of Treason, shall have the discretion to determine the specific sentence within the above-outlined Section 6, based on the severity and nature of the acts committed.

In exercising such discretion, the Judge may take into account any aggravating or mitigating factors related to the offense, the defendant's history, and any other relevant circumstances.

In determining the sentence, the judge shall provide a transparent justification for the chosen sentence, taking into consideration the principles of fairness and justice.

SECTION 7. Commutation and Pardon

No person convicted of treason under the laws of the State of San Andreas shall be eligible for pardon, commutation, or reprieve. This prohibition extends to the San Andreas Board of Governors.

OFFICE USE ONLY | AMENDMENTS

AMEND. 1 - H. R. X | Submitted by The Honorable John Doe
Placeholder

AMEND. 2 - H. R. X
Placeholder

AMEND. 3 - H. R. X
Placeholder

OFFICE USE ONLY | VOTE TALLY

AYES: ( )
NOES: ( )
ABSTAIN: ( )
ABSENT: ( )

Signed & Verified by;

House Speaker: _______________________
House Clerk: _______________________

Attorney General
Acting Director of Training
Director of Human Resources
Director of Public Notary
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 505-9925 — [email protected]

Post by **Hope Kant** » 21 Jul 2024, 12:41

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. Andy Tyrie
#24-CM-0035

A Motion for Continuance was filed in the above case on the 21 of July, 2024.

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: Gathering Evidence
- Detailed Explanation: The prosecution is waiting on 1-2 crucial pieces of evidence for the case. ((RP is still being confirmed/checked by admins to make sure it is valid)) We understand the nature of the detainment of the defendant, however we are requesting an additional 7 days be afforded to the prosecution in order to gather all evidence necessary. As a show of good faith, the prosecution has posted the discovery that we have so far. Once we are made aware of the final pieces of discovery, we will present them to the docket immediately. At that point in time will we no longer require additional time to present evidence.

High Command
Acting Director of Training
Director of Human Resources
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 505-9925 — [email protected]

Post by **Antonio McFornell** » 22 Jul 2024, 16:58

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. Andy Tyrie
#24-CM-0035

A decision was reached in the above case on the 22nd day of July, 2024.

The Motion for Continuance is hereby granted, and thus the prosecution will be allowed an extra seven days ((Please interpret this as however long admins take to confirm RP)) to present additional discovery.

However, the defense will be allowed to present any motions they please during the following days in relation to the already-presented Discovery on the docket.

Superior Court Justice
Director of the San Andreas Bar Association
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 553-8869 — [email protected]

Post by **Hope Kant** » 28 Jul 2024, 03:08

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. Andy Tyrie
#24-CM-0035

A Motion for Discovery was filed in the above case on the 27th of July, 2024.

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

Exhibit #17: Door Access on the 30th of Apr, 2024
Director of Human Resources
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 505-9925 — [email protected]

Post by **Hugh Allgood** » 30 Jul 2024, 19:07

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

MOTION FOR INVOLUNTARY DISMISSAL

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

State of San Andreas v. Andy Tyrie
#24-CM-0035

A Motion for Involuntary Dismissal was filed in the above case on the 30th day of July, 2024

The Defendant, Andy Tyrie, by and through the undersigned attorney, filed this Motion for Involuntary Dismissal, and the reasoning for request is as follows;

Reasoning: Punitive action against the State by/through exclusion due to violation of the Defendant's 4th, 5th, & 14th Constitutional rights committed by the State and its agents.
- Detailed Explanation:
  
  Background
  
  On the 14/Jul/2024, Superior Court Justice Tony McFornell ruled on the defense Petition for Habeas Corpus filed on 22/Jun/2024, arguing, in part, the Defendant was detained in violation of his 4th and 5th Amendments per the San Andreas Constitution, and was additionally held without proper due process or legal recourse.
  
  In the ruling, it was revealed -- for the first time, that the criminal complaint used to file the indictment against the Defendant was filed on June 24th, 2024 (ironically two days after the Defense Petition for Habeas Corpus being filed and released publicly -- defense questions when/if the State would have made the application for indictment had this Petition not been filed to force the State's hand), and the indictment followed on July 7th, 2024. The Defendant was detained on May 31st, 2024, which is 24 days from time of the criminal complaint being filed. Although Defense does not wholly agree with the ruling of the court as to the direct application of the Constitution to laws that do not directly exist in the penal code, the Defense respects this decision. As argued both in the Petition for Habeas Corpus and affirmed in the ruling of the Court, persons may be held indefinitely when "properly indicted and accused of treason" (see cite)
  
  The Prosecution is not wrong when it asserts that the State has the power to detain those who have been, in their own words, "properly indicted and accused of treason."
  
  This is a direct nod to the 5th Amendment of the Constitution, which states (emphasis added, where appropriate)
  
  In cases of indictment by the Office of the Attorney General, no person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime unless the presentment of indictment is approved by a qualified judge as the Chief Justice may see fit.
  
  It is apparent the State, and as affirmed by the Court, is running with the argument of treason being a capital crime. But as argued by the Defense, and also affirmed by the ruling of the court (see cite), the Defendant was held for 24 days without being "properly indicted and accused of treason." Furthermore, the Court ruled that this period of detention was unconstitutional, unjustified, and in essence unlawful (see cites)
  
  the detention of Andy Tyrie violated constitutional precepts and was not justified.
  
  In this sense, Andy Tyrie's detention should have ended once the execution of the warrant was completed and the indictment initiated, but not prolonged indefinitely over time.
  
  It has been established that Andy Tyrie's detainment lacked legal and constitutional grounds - at least until June 24th or July 7th.
  
  Argument
  
  The Defense would like to first begin this argument with the theoretical idea of the power of rights to be enjoyed by citizens of this State as enumerated within the Constitution. The power of these rights remains a theoretical notion if not applied in application -- a right without a remedy is no right at all. If the Government is not held accountable for not providing a citizen with a right, then is it really a right?
  
  As detailed in the background section, the Defendant was detained without proper due process, namely, a properly filed indictment, and therefore was detained unlawfully. While there is dispute on when the detention became lawful - June 24th, 2024 or July 7th, 2024, it's irrelevant to this overall argument. The Defendant was detained unlawfully, and in violation of his 4th and 5th Constitutional right for a minimum of 24 days -- although it could be argued that the detention was unlawful for 38 days. At any rate, whether it's 24 days, 38 days, or 1 day, it's a violation of the Defendant's Constitutional rights.
  
  Defense believes the only remedy for the actions of the State against the Defendant's rights is by use of the exclusionary rule -- colloquially called the "Fruit of the Poisonous Tree". This legal principle has been affirmed numerous times within the Courts of San Andreas; #23-CM-0036, State of San Andreas v. Frank Haswell; #23-AP-0008, State of San Andreas v. Frank Haswell and #22-CM-0048, State of San Andreas v. Nanna Bohanna.
  
  In simple terms, the "tree" in this situation is the investigation and charges filed upon the Defendant being tainted by his unlawful detention, and therefore, the fruit of that tree is also tainted. No other viable remedy exists to correct the actions of the Government when it tramples on the rights enumerated in the very Constitution the Government alleges the Defendant stole, other than exclusion. This is precisely the legal mechanism intended with the exclusionary rule -- as a means of punishing unlawful behavior by the State, and further deter further misconduct committed by the State. No matter the case, theft, murder, or treason, the State must not violate the rights of its citizens, and the State must suffer the pains of their tainted fruit.
  
  Therefore, the Defense believes it is only appropriate for this case to be involuntary dismissed by the Court, with prejudice.

Attorney
Owner
Allgood Law
909) 235-6076 — [email protected]

Post by **Hope Kant** » 31 Jul 2024, 19:10

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

Honorable Judge McFornell and pertaining parties,

The state does not contest the fact that Mr. Tyrie has been detained, and that an indictment was filed after the initial detainment occurred. The prosecution asserts that the state held Mr. Tyrie for questioning, during that period Mr. Tyrie fell ill. The state investigative body assumed they'd be able to question Mr. Tyrie as it pertains to the events and the missing Constitution.

When that failed the prosecution informed the state that an indictment needed to be filed in order to follow due process according to the Constitution. The state provided the papers to the prosecution on Jun 18, 2024, they were then filed on Jun 24, 2024. During that small time period, the prosecution was speaking with the state in regards to which charges specifically should be applied versus others.

The prosecution cannot disagree with the defense when they say time passed between his detention and the filing of the indictment. However the prosecution contends that exigent circumstances occurred; IE: the sickness of the defendant, the investigators wanting to question the defendant prior to indictment, and minor discussions between the prosecution.

The prosecution also wants to address the precedence incorrectly referenced by the defense. #23-CM-0036, State of San Andreas v. Frank Haswell; #23-AP-0008, State of San Andreas v. Frank Haswell, and #22-CM-0048, State of San Andreas v. Nanna Bohanna: the prosecutions evidence was suppressed due to a lack of probable cause, which led to the defendant not suffering any charges. The poisoned fruit in this case was the fact that Law Enforcement Officers (LEOs) had no right to search the defendant. In the case of Andy Tyrie, the judge has already ruled the prosecution had probable cause to detain and hold the individual.

While we agree the indictment was not filed immediately, the prosecution asserts that this does not negate the alleged crimes committed by the defendant. We therefore believe the case still retains the probable cause necessary to be held at court. We ask the judge to allow the case to continue.

Respectfully,

Director of Human Resources
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 505-9925 — [email protected]

Post by **Hugh Allgood** » 01 Aug 2024, 03:43

Allgood Law
24-CM-0035
"Right Firm. Right Now"

Justice McFornell,

As the petitioning party, the Defense will make its one and final response to the State on the Defense motion to dismiss.

As Defense Counsel read the State's response, Defense counsel was initially optimistic as the State acknowledges the many concerns raised by Defense counsel. However, the optimism quickly dwindled into shame. Defense Counsel is honestly very surprised at the ultimate legal argument made by the State -- effectively the State is suggesting that the severity of the charge against someone should give the State latitude to bypass certain Constitutional rights to accomplish its objective. Defense rejects this notion with resounding objection.

Let's again look at the facts:

Andy Tyrie was picked up by GOV officials on 31/May/2024, attempted to be questioned without an attorney present despite repeated requests for an attorney (violation of Andy Tyrie's 5th Amendment right). After hours of detainment, Andy Tyrie falls ill and is transferred to the hospital. Instead of releasing Andy Tyrie from detention so Andy Tyrie can get the medical care he needs, GOV doubles down and chains Andy Tyrie to the hospital bed - both arms and both feet. To borrow the phrasing of a high-ranking official of the LSPD, Andy Tyrie was "horizontally crucified" by GOV (violation of Andy Tyrie's 8th amendment right). PD was able to "convince" (if this is even the right word for the encouragement for treating someone with common human decency) GOV to remove all but one handcuff, leaving Andy only secured to the bed with one handcuff. From that point forward, Andy Tyrie has been under constant 24-hour guard from prison guards since then. To not beat the point across, as the State presumably agrees with the Defense argument that Andy Tyrie has been detained, which as the Court concluded was unlawful up to 24/Jun/2024 at a minimum.

But, the "assumption" that the State's "investigative" body would be able to question Andy Tyrie is totally out of the question for two reasons; (1) Andy Tyrie objected to questioning without an attorney (specifically requesting Allgood Law), and no attorney was provided to him nor was Allgood Law ever contacted by GOV seeking an opportunity to question Andy Tyrie and (2) after it became apparent GOV would not be successful in questioning Andy Tyrie, GOV decided to 'horizontally crucify' Andy Tyrie although Andy Tyrie was clearly in no state to flee or otherwise be unavailable for questioning at a later date. If this is how the State's "investigative" branch believes investigations are to be handled, perhaps the State's "investigative" branch has some serious lessons to learn... Given Counsel's prior experience as the Attorney General, GOV could probably benefit from invested some serious money into hiring Allgood Law to put on some training for its investigators. Furthermore... "When that failed" the State suddenly realized due process has not been followed and 'reminds' GOV of due process, and GOV allegedly provides its information on 18/Jun/2024, some 19 days into Andy Tyrie's detention. 5 more days ("that small time period" wherein Andy Tyrie, meanwhile is handcuffed to a hospital bed) follows before the Prosecution, obviously concerned with Andy Tyrie's due process rights, files the criminal complaint. This further supports the Defense position that the ball was dropped not just once, but several times, by all parties involved -- Governor down to the Prosecutors.

Defense firmly rejects the State's argument that "exigent circumstances" existed as a means of justifying anything. It was obviously not exigent enough that the State contacted Andy Tyrie's attorney when requested prior to him feeling ill, which arguably was an illness caused by the direct actions of the State. And even after Allgood Law got involved, no one from the State has ever reached out to Allgood Law about questioning Andy Tyrie. So the claim of wishing to question Andy Tyrie before the indictment is false.

Defense is not sure what the argument being made by the prosecutor is on the case precedence cited. Perhaps the Prosecution is correct on the suppression of evidence in those case being suppressed due to lack of probable cause, but this was not the argument made by the Defense in this matter. Defense argument is the case against Andy Tyrie should be dismissed because the investigation allegedly supporting the indictment against Andy Tyrie was completed through unlawful and unconstitutional actions against Andy Tyrie; Defense was only pointing out the legal notion of "Fruit from the Poisoned Tree" has been used in the Courts of San Andreas as a remedy for bad acts by the State. To put it in the same contextual framework as the State, but more correctly stated (in the cases cited the poisoned tree was the unlawful search; the poisoned fruit was the evidence from the search)-- the poisoned tree in this case was that the State had no right to imprison Andy Tyrie and the fruit is the entire investigation up to the indictment. As stated in our motion, the mechanism of exclusion is intended to shock the State and its agents into not repeating unlawful acts such as the one done against Andy Tyrie.

And where the State really doubles down and thumbs its nose into the citizens of the state is in this statement,

While we agree the indictment was not filed immediately, the prosecution asserts that this does not negate the alleged crimes committed by the defendant. We therefore believe the case still retains the probable cause necessary to be held at court.
Unbelievable.... Totally unbelievable.

Does the State believe because the Constitution was stolen by an unknown perpetrator that the contents of the document go out the window? That's what this statement is basically saying when you remove the veil surrounding it... "yea, we agree we unlawfully and unconstitutionally detained Andy Tyrie, but because Andy Tryie was alleged to have committed serious crimes, it's okay." Let that sink in...

Respectfully,

Owner/Attorney
Allgood Law
(909) 235-6076 — [email protected]

Post by **Hugh Allgood** » 04 Aug 2024, 02:18

Allgood Law
Upcoming absence
"Right Firm. Right Now"

To whom it concerns,

This notice is intended to serve as official notice of Counsel’s upcoming absence. I have been honorably requested to serve on a law school selection committee in Las Venuturras selecting a small section of the next generation of legal professionals.

I will leave San Andreas early morning on 10/Aug/2024 and return 19/Aug/2024.

Respectfully,

Owner/Attorney
Allgood Law
(909) 235-6076 — [email protected]

Post by **Hugh Allgood** » 08 Aug 2024, 22:20

Allgood Law
24-CM-0035; Motion to Suppress
"Right Firm. Right Now"

To whom it concerns,

In lieu of awaiting for a decision to be rendered on the outstanding motion to involuntary dismiss and as a result of Counsel's upcoming leave of absence, Counsel will be filing a motion to suppress out of convenience to the Court and opposing Counsel.

However, the Defense does not make this motion as a means of giving permission for the previous motion to be denied -- again, this motion is being made purely out of convenience to all parties. It would obviously be a moot point if the Court decides to side with the Defense (and on the side of Justice) on the dismissal motion before ruling on the suppression.

Respectfully,

Owner/Attorney
Allgood Law
(909) 235-6076 — [email protected]

Post by **Hugh Allgood** » 08 Aug 2024, 22:21

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. Andy Tyrie
#24-CM-0035

A Motion to Suppress was filed in the above case on the 8th Day of August, 2024.

Andy Tyrie, by and through the undersigned attorney, filed this Motion to Suppress, and requests to following be suppressed from evidence;

Exhibit #2: Chief of Staff Whitehorse Witness Statement
Requested Evidence to Suppress:
**FILED UNDER SEAL**
- Detailed Reasoning: **FILED UNDER SEAL**

Exhibit #4: Proof Andy Tyrie Didn't Have a Phone
Requested Evidence to Suppress:

The entire exhibit

Detailed Reasoning: Relevance -- There is no relevance to the fact Andy Tyrie had or did not have a phone, and the State has not provided any argument as to this exhibit. Andy Tyrie has not been charged with any crimes associated with not having a phone, nor is it unlawful for someone to not have a phone.

Exhibit #5: Anonymous Tip May 1, 2024
Requested Evidence to Suppress:

The entire exhibit

Detailed Reasoning: Hearsay - The Defense cannot adequately cross-examine the person who made this phone call. It's a statement made outside of court used to establish a truth of the matter. This court has ruled on this issue many times even with written and sworn statements that any statement made by one person about what another person says used to establish the truth of the matter is hearsay and is not allowed. This is a statement by an unknown person and is presented by the State to establish truth.

Exhibit #13: Bank Record Andy Tyrie
Requested Evidence to Suppress:

The entire exhibit

Detailed Reasoning: Relevance and lack of foundation: Based on the evidence in this docket, the State is apparently alleging that the Defendant stole the Constitution. There is no evidence in the Defendant's bank records showing anything relevant to this matter - As above, there is nothing unlawful about a person buying clothing, paying tolls, making governmental donations, getting a car wash, or buying fuel for a vehicle, and certainly offers nothing of support for the crimes for which the Defendant has allegedly committed.

Exhibit # 14 & 15: Rudi Edel Phone Record & Herrman Wolff Phone Record
Requested Evidence to Suppress:

Exhibit in entirety

Detailed Reasoning: Relevance: The phone records of Rudi Edel and Herrman Wolff are irrelevant to the charges faced by the Defendant, and it's certainly not clear how these records can be considered evidence in the matter against Andy Tyrie. Defense notes these two were detained at or around the same time as the Defendant, but the State has failed to make any ties to their involvement, and these records further prove the lack of a tie.

Attorney
Owner
Allgood Law
(909) 235-6076 — [email protected]

Post by **Hope Kant** » 23 Aug 2024, 23:11

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

Honorable Justice McFornell and pertaining parties,

The prosecution will be awaiting the judges ruling on the prior involuntary motion for dismissal before responding to the defense. Please do not take this as a delay by the prosecution, but a want to understand the position of the case prior to responding to the defenses motion to suppress. We await further instruction from the judge.

Respectfully,

Director of Human Resources
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 505-9925 — [email protected]

Post by **Antonio McFornell** » 04 Sep 2024, 18:21

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. Andy Tyrie
#24-CM-0035

A decision was reached in the above case on the 4th day of September, 2024.

Introduction & Arguments Presented
On July 30th, the defense presented a motion for involuntary dismissal. Particularly, the defense’s arguments behind the motion to dismiss revolved around a decision adopted by the presiding judge on the 14th of July, in which it was ruled that a portion of the detianment of the defendant was ruled illegal or otherwise unconstitutional. The defense insists that the defendant was detained unlawfully and thus, the exclusionary rule or doctrine of of ‘Fruit of the posionous tree’ should be applied. The defense cited previous precedent adopted by the Superior Court and the Court of Appeals. Particularly, this Court would like to cite the precedent raised by the defense in the following terms:

“#23-AP-0008” wrote:Based upon the original arguments for and against the Motion to Suppress in addition to the arguments made in this case by the appellant and respondent, the court has come to the following conclusion: hazardous conditions were present and Frank Haswell's use of face concealment while on the scene of a road worker incident that he was directly involved in mitigating was lawful under the reasonable cause exception of the GC04 - Face Concealment citation. As such, the order given to Mr. Haswell to remove the face concealment and identify himself immediately was not a lawful order, thereby causing his arrest to be similarly unlawful and any evidence seized during the subsequent unlawful search of Mr. Haswell's person and belongings are subject to suppression under the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine.

“#22-CM-0048” wrote:I have made the decision to grant the Motion to Suppress of Exhibit #2.
This is due to the court's belief that, while law enforcement officers had established reasonable suspicion due to the defendants alleged association with some of the assailants and her proximity to the shootout, the court believes that probable cause to search Nanna Bohanna was not established, and thus the search of the defendant's vehicle was not a lawful search.  Probable cause requires there to be sufficient evidence available to lead a reasonable person to believe that a specific crime had been committed, however, it is the court's decision that Nanna Bohanna's actions only established reasonable suspicion and not probable cause. 

Emphasis added by the Court for additional clarity.

The defense finally argued that, in their opinion, the whole of the investigation and charges levied against them are poisoned or tainted as a result of the unlawufl detention suffered, and thus the State must suffer the pains of their tainted fruit.

To the arguments presented, the Prosecution affirmed that Mr. Tyrie’s detention is not a matter that was being contested -situation which had already been clarified in the writ of habeas corpus decision adopted by the Court. The Prosecution added that exigent circumstances occurred (i.e, sickness of the defendant, intention of interviews to be conducted on the defendant before the indictment, internal discussion between the prosecution) and that the precedent quoted by the defense was being incorrectly interpreted, finally asserting that the Court has already ruled the detainment of the defendant to be lawful.

Finally, the defense countered the arguments presented by the Prosecution by stating that the whole of the investigation and findings resulted from Mr. Tyrie’s unlawful detainment.

Considerations & Decision
With the arguments presented, the Court is now tasked with determining whether the precedent brought forward by both parties is applicable, and if there are grounds to dismiss the case at hand.

According to the precedent brought forward, the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine essentially entails that any and all evidence obtained as a result of unlawful, illegal or viced procedures must be declared inadmissible in Court. In the aforementioned cases, the Court ruled pieces of evidence -that sustained in whole, or partially, the conviction of the defendant- to be suppressed or otherwise inadmissible in Court, given that it was obtained without legal grounds (lack of probable cause, in the investigation of a crime, as a result of an illegal search). In simple terms, all evidence - fruit - obtained from a flawed, suppressed or inadmissible procedure or circumstance - poisonous tree - must follow the fate of the latter.

The Court has already established in a previous decision that not all proceedings in the current case were viced or otherwise should be considered moot. Had the Court noticed any circumstances that would vice the remainder of the case and any future proceedings, it would have dismissed the case on those grounds ex officio. With this consideration in mind, the Court has no option other than to restate that this case is not subject to a dismissal on the terms requested by the defense. However, it is clear to the court that the doctrine previously mentioned is applicable to the case at hand: In short, the Court believes that any and all evidence gathered between the 31st of May and until the 7th of July, as a result of the detainment of the defendant must be suppressed from the docket. However, it appears to the Court that none of the exhibits provided as a result of the order for discovery were produced during the timeframe stated. Needless to say, if the defense believes the Court has failed in the determination of the timeframe related to the production of evidence (in other words, there is evidence in the docket that was in fact obtained during the timeframe mentioned), the Court expects them to let this be known.

With these considerations in mind, the Court decides not to dismiss the case and also notifies the Prosecution so that they present their arguments in regards to the most recent Motion to Suppress presented by the defense.

So ordered,

Associate Justice
Supreme Court of San Andreas
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 553-8869 — [email protected]

SAJB Awards

SAJB Awards

SAJB Awards

SAJB Awards

SAJB Awards

SAJB Awards

SAJB Awards

SAJB Awards

SAJB Awards

SAJB Awards

SAJB Awards

SAJB Awards

SAJB Awards

SAJB Awards

SAJB Awards

SAJB Awards

SAJB Awards

SAJB Awards

SAJB Awards

SAJB Awards

SAJB Awards

SAJB Awards

SAJB Awards

SAJB Awards

SAJB Awards