#24-CM-0048, State of San Andreas v. Herrman Wolff

[Herrman Wolff]

Defendant Name: Herrman Wolff
Defendant Phone: 298-4429
Defendant Address: 136 Del Perro Apartments, Del Perro
(( Defendant Discord: mcllsti ))
Requested Attorney: One that still works at the department, if any.

Charging Department: SAN ANDREAS STATE GOVERNMENT

Date & Time of Incident(s): 03/FEB/2024 01:38
Charge(s):

• SF01 - Domestic Terrorism

Narrative:
I was wrongfully charged.

---

I, Herrman Wolff, 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. ))

[Mary Burrows]

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

---

NOTIFICATION OF COUNSEL

---

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

State of San Andreas v. Herrman Wolff

A Notification of Counsel was filed in the above case on the 3rd of February, 2024

I, Mary Burrows, Prosecuting Attorney with the San Andreas Judicial Branch, will be representing the State of San Andreas in the underlying case.

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


Prosecuting Attorney
Notary Clerk
Training and Hiring Staff
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 339-5979 — [email protected]

[Lisa Winter]

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

---

NOTIFICATION OF COUNSEL

---

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

State of San Andreas v. Herrman Wolff

A Notification of Counsel was filed in the above case on the 3rd of February 2024.

I, Lisa Winter, a Public Defense Attorney with the San Andreas Judicial Branch, will be representing the Defendant, Herrman Wolff in the underlying case.

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



Public Defense Attorney
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 233-5420 — [email protected]

[Judith Mason]

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. Herrman Wolff

The court has hereby received and acknowledged the above case on the 3rd day of February, 2024.

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.



Associate Justice
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 257-9183 — [email protected]

[John Texas]

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

---

NOTIFICATION OF COUNSEL

---

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

State of San Andreas v. Herrman Wolff

A Notification of Counsel was filed in the above case on the 6th of February, 2024.

I, John Texas, Deputy Attorney General with the San Andreas Judicial Branch, will be representing the State of San Andreas in the underlying case.

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


John Texas
Deputy Attorney General
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 348-8450 — [email protected]

[David Vespucci]

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

---

NOTIFICATION OF COUNSEL

---

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

State of San Andreas v. Hermann Wolff

A Notification of Counsel was filed in the above case on 06/FEB/2024.

I, David Coast, a Public Defense Attorney with the San Andreas Judicial Branch, will be representing the Defendant, Hermann Wolff in the underlying case.

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


Public Defense Attorney
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 593-1338— [email protected]

[Nick Hightown]

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

---

NOTIFICATION OF COUNSEL

---

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

State of San Andreas v. Herrman Wolff

A Notification of Counsel was filed in the above case on the 6th of MARCH, 2024.

I, Nick Hightown, a Public Defense Attorney with the San Andreas Judicial Branch, will be representing the Defendant, Herrman Wolff in the underlying case.

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



Junior Defense Attorney
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 479-9153 — [email protected]

[Hugh Allgood]

Allgood Law Entry of appearance "Right Firm. Right Now"

---

• To all concerned,
  
  I, Hugh R. Allgood, of Allgood Law have been retained as counsel for Herrman Wolff and hereby notify the Court and all parties of my appearance, and will join Mr. Wolff's legal team in this matter.

---

Respectfully,

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

[Antonio McFornell]

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

---

NOTICE OF ACTIVATION

---

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

State of San Andreas v. Herrman Wolff
#24-CM-0048

A Notice of Activation was entered in the above case on 25thof July, 2024.

The case of the State of San Andreas v. Herrman Wolff is hereby activated by this Court under #24-CM-0048.

At this time the Defendant has adequate representation, however, a State Prosecutor has not been assigned to this case. At this time the court will delay the Order for Discovery until adequate representation has been assigned and they inform the court they are ready to proceed.

In accordance with guidelines set forth by the Supreme Court of San Andreas, this case shall require an in-person trial. Once all pretrial matters have been resolved, a Notice of Scheduling will be issued to arrange an appropriate time for trial.

So ordered,

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

[Hope Kant]

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

---

NOTIFICATION OF COUNSEL

---

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

State of San Andreas v. Herrman Wolff

A Notification of Counsel was filed in the above case on 26/JUL/2024.

I, Hope Kant, will be representing the State of San Andreas in the underlying case.

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


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

[Hope Kant]

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

---

MOTION TO STAY PENDING APPEAL

---

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

State of San Andreas v. Herrman Wolff
#24-CM-0048

A Motion to Stay Pending Appeal 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 to Stay Pending Appeal, and the reasoning for request is as follows;

• Reasoning: The Prosecution is waiting on the verdict from the last appealed Herrman Wolff case. As the prosecution had stated previously, we were requesting a motion for voluntary dismissal without prejudice as it would allow us to use the information for a future investigation. Namely this specific case. To not allow the prosecution a chance to present all evidence for the case only serves to hurt the state and the fair process afforded by our court system.

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

[Hugh Allgood]

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

---

OBJECTION TO MOTION TO STAY PENDING APPEAL

---

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

State of San Andreas v. Herrman Wolff
#24-CM-0048

An objection to the motion to stay pending appeal was filed in the above case on the 29th day of July, 2024

The Defendant, Herrman Wolff, by and through the undersigned attorney, filed this objection to the motion to stay pending appeal, and the reasoning for request is as follows;

Firstly, the Defense notes there have been no decisions rendered on the present case which are appealable, therefore, this does not meet the criteria for a motion to stay pending appeal.

you wish to appeal a motion granted during a case, you wish to appeal a verdict based on arguments that there were errors in the trials procedure or errors in the judge's interpretation of the law, or new evidence has come to light proving the appellants innocence.

Secondly, The defense continues to object to the arguments made by the State and wishes to incorporate all of its arguments made in 24-CM-0021, State of San Andreas v. Herrman Wolff, and also remind this court of the precedence set in that case -- allowing the Prosecution to essentially use a 'proverbial time-out' option any time they wanted sets a very dangerous precedent, not only from a practical standpoint, but also puts citizens at risk of having their Constitutional rights violated at the whim of the State.

To cite the presiding judge directly:

The Superior Court believes that allowing the prosecution to dismiss the case, and retaining the right to use the information related to it at a later date, exposes in these particular circumstances the defendant to an excessive, unlimited or otherwise uncontrolled degree of interference against their constitutional rights by the State -whether be it by the Prosecution, by the Police Department or by any authority who would utilize said information at a later date-, and thus ignores the constitutional prohibition of double jeopardy.

This counsel firmly agrees with the Presiding Judge in that the move sought to be taken by the State in 24-CM-0021 and now this one is an "excessive, unlimited or otherwise uncontrolled degree of interference against their constitutional rights by the State".

As the Court stated in 24-CM-0021, and the defense agrees with, The State, by and through the LSPD, felt it had enough evidence to arrest the Defendant on 3/Feb/2024 on a charge of domestic terrorism. The State also has not made a "good faith" move as they did in 24-CM-0030, State of San Andreas v. Mike Luigi by providing the evidence in their possession at the current time and the Defense feels their request to throw the "time-out" flag at this particular juncture is as the court stated designed to have unlimited interference against Mr. Wolff's life and right to be free from interference by the Government is not only unconstitutional, but highly inappropriate. The Defense believes the State, by and through the LSPD, made their bed and now it's time to sleep in it. If the State does not have enough evidence to achieve a conviction against Mr. Wolff, the State must do what their prosecutor's code of ethics requires they do, dismiss the charges against Mr. Wolff with prejudice.


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

[Hope Kant]

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

---

• Honorable Judge McFornell and pertaining parties,
  
  The prosecution understands that it is the responsibility of the defense to grasp at whatever straws are available in order to properly defend their client. We respect the time and work of the defense on the case. However they have incorrectly quoted when the prosecution released information for good faith, which was the Andy Tyrie case, and not Mike Luigi.
  
  Moving on, what the prosecution chooses to do in one case does not set precedence for every case. We are not judges and are allowed to exercise prosecutorial discretion when we choose to. The differences between this case and the case referenced by the defense are self-evident, so we will not belabor the point.
  
  If processes within our court systems moved faster, the prosecution realistically would've been able to provide their evidence within the given time frame. As the previous case and subsequently the prosecutions evidence is held hostage by the previous appeal, forcing the prosecution to provide evidence without following the due process of the previous case would be unjust.
  
  The defense used the quote of the judge on the previous case, a ruling which is being appealed, to further prove their case. This neither makes sense, nor holds weight in the current court as it is under review pending the court of appeals. Additionally, this is one singular ruling, not binding precedence, and therefore can be subject to change.
  
  With the above considered we are requesting that the judge on the case acknowledge and allow for the motion to continue. Thank you to both parties for your time.
  
  Respectfully,
  
  
  Director of Human Resources
  San Andreas Judicial Branch
  (909) 505-9925 — [email protected]

[Hugh Allgood]

Allgood Law 24-CM-0048 "Right Firm. Right Now"

---

• Justice McFornell,
  
  With all due respect, I do not appreciate the lack of professionalism in State's counsel, and respectfully request the Court formally censure State's counsel. Saying things like Defense counsel is "grasp at whatever straws are available in order to properly defend their client." is wholly inappropriate considering what the Defense was responding to -- a request by the State's counsel to pass on with a delay against Herrman Wolff in direct opposition, yet again, to Mr. Wolff's Constitutional rights for a speedy trial. Defense counsel refuses to provide ineffective counsel to Mr. Wolff and Defense counsel should not have to deal with a lack of professionalism from Ms. Kant in the provisioning of Constitutionally afforded legal defense to Mr. Wolff.
  
  If there is one thing Defense counsel and State's counsel can agree on -- the Court processes need to move faster. The Defendant would not even be raising this issue if it were not for the State seeking to dismiss charges and hang them over Mr. Wolff's head for however long they want, although Mr. Wolff has already been arrested, convicted, and served the sentence for the charges he is appealing. Defense Counsel will not allow the State to trample on the Defendant's rights, at least not without a fight. This is not grasping at straws. In all honesty, Defense Counsel is ashamed of the actions of the State in this case, and several other cases as of late in the lack of respect to the Constitutional rights of the citizens the Prosecutor is representing as the people's attorney.
  
  Defense stands corrected on case incorrectly quoted. But regardless of this unintentional error, the message remains the same.
  
  Defense agrees the prosecution has prosecutorial discretion -- keep it up. The prosecution's evidence is not held hostage by the appeal... the prosecution's evidence is held hostage by the Prosecution. If the State is willing to release evidence in one case as a show of "good faith", but refuses to release it on the other, then logic suggests the State's refusal to dismiss the case with prejudice or release the evidence it has while this appeal in 24-CM-0021 is pending as a sign of bad faith. Especially under argument from Defense counsel that the State does not have sufficient evidence to convict the Defendant, and therefore unlawfully arrested him, and is merely using the appeals system to delay the matter and bypass the ruling of Judge McFornell. If this is the level of transparency the State is comfortable with, it's been noted by the Defense and will be addressed through the proper legal channels as necessary.
  
  Although under appeal, the decision in 24-CM-0021 is currently binding as this was the ruling of the court, and Defense agrees with the Court in this case for the same reasons argued in the initiating defense motion in the other case.
  
  This will be the last response from the Defense on this matter. If the Court feels it would be better served to let the previous appeal go through, then the Defense will respect this decision. But this response should put the State on notice the uphill battle the State will have to face when it could be so much simpler to let this case (and frankly even the other case) go through the process without putting up a roadblock in the form of stays.

---

Respectfully,

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

[Hugh Allgood]

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]

[Ren Sanchez]

((Archived due to player is no longer on the server))