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

[Hugh Allgood]

Allgood Law Response & Motion to Suppress "Right Firm. Right Now"

---

• Superior Court of San Andreas,
  
  The defense wishes to announce on the records its disagreement with the order of the court and the dangerous precedent it creates -- effectively we have the Court acknowledging that a citizen of this State's rights have been violated by the very government the Constitution seeks to protect the citizen from, but the Court fails to take any substantive action to put forward any punitive action to discourage the government from taking the same actions again in the future. Although the defense disagrees, the defense respects the Court and its ruling and will continue to strongly advocate for its client and tirelessly litigate this case to the conclusion -- this is not the time nor place to do so, and the Defense formally requests this issue to be preserved for purposes of a later appeal, if necessary.
  
  As stated, while the Defense disagrees with the decision of the court to not dismiss this matter at this particular junction, the Defense has reviewed the decision of the court and wishes to file an additional motion to suppress within the parameters of the order -- certain evidence produced during a certain time frame shall be inadmissible.
  
  Attachment: Motion to Dismiss 6SEP2024.pdf

  

  
  

  
  
  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 6th Day of September, 2024.

  
  
  Andy Tyrie, by and through the undersigned attorney, filed this Motion to Suppress, and requests to following be suppressed from evidence;
  
  As detailed in the 4/Sep/2024 court decision (emphasis added for convenience of the Court and opposing counsel),

  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.

  
  
  The Defense has gone through all evidence currently in discovery, and formally notifies the Court of evidence produced during the ordered prohibited timeframe and as ordered by the Court seeks the following suppressions;
  

  • Exhibit #1: Governor Langley Criminal Case Submission Form
    Requested Evidence to Suppress:

    **FILED UNDER SEAL**
    

    • Detailed Reasoning: **FILED UNDER SEAL**

  
  
  Exhibit #2: Chief of Staff Whitehorse Witness Statement
  Requested Evidence to Suppress:

  **FILED UNDER SEAL**
  
  

  • Detailed Reasoning: **FILED UNDER SEAL**

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

  

---

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. As with last month, I am continuing my role on the law school selection in Las Venuturras for the second and final round of the selecting members of the next generation of legal professionals.
  
  I will leave San Andreas the evening of 13/Sep and should return on 22/Sep.

---

Respectfully,

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

[Hope Kant]

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

---

• Honorable Justice McFornell and pertaining parties,
  
  SEALED

---

• Exhibit #4: Proof Andy Tyrie Didn't Have a Phone
  The defense argues that the defendant not having a phone is circumstantial evidence. However the prosecution argues that this is a question better made at trial. The prosecution believes the evidence to be relevant to the situation as it happened within the timeline of the investigation of the stolen constitution. We ask that the courts allow the evidence to remain in full so that the prosecution may also present their argument in full as to how it pertains to the larger picture.

---

• Exhibit #5: Anonymous Tip May 1, 2024
  The defense states that exhibit #5 is hearsay. However the prosecution argues that if anonymous tips are to be considered hearsay, then are 9-1-1 calls in the same consideration? We make this argument due to the fact that the Attorney General of the State, which I was at the time, received a phone call from Rudi Edel on the day in question. Once from his number, not hidden, and a second time from his number, but hidden. This can be shown and proven in the phone records of Rudi Edel.
  
  The reason that information is relevant to the argument is because it's circumstantial evidence that allowed law enforcement to continue their investigation. We argue that the statement is not being used to prove the truth of the matter, but it is being used to prove the path of the investigation and how it progressed. All of which are pertinent to the case of the prosecution.
  
  We argue, that if hearsay is to be the objection, let it happen at trial in the event the prosecution attempts to use the information to prove the truth of the matter and not the direction of the investigation.

---

• Exhibit #13: Bank Record Andy Tyrie
  The prosecution is once again requesting that we be given the opportunity to argue the relevance of the statement at trial. We believe the bank account and actions of the defendant on the days in question are relevant to the case as they follow the proposed timeline of the missing constitution.
  
  We are not sure as to why the foundation of the statement is being questioned as the foundation lies in the current law enforcement allegation that the defendant stole the constitution. We believe the account transactions help the prosecution to assess the movement and thought process of the defendant.

---

• Exhibit # 14 & 15: Rudi Edel Phone Record & Herrman Wolff Phone Record
  The prosecution has already provided reasons above under "Exhibit #5: Anonymous Tip May 1, 2024" as to why the phone records of Rudi Edel are relevant to the situation. He is the anonymous caller and the phone records are being used to provide proof to that fact.
  
  The prosecution does not object to the phone records of Herrman Wolff being suppressed.

---

• As for the most recent motion to suppress, the prosecution believes the court already ruled all the current information to not be "fruits of the poisoned tree". That being said, we stand by the ruling of the Justice McFornell.
  
  We await any further instruction from the courts.
  
  Respectfully,
  
  
  Director of Human Resources
  San Andreas Judicial Branch
  (909) 505-9925 — [email protected]

[Hugh Allgood]

Allgood Law Defense response "Right Firm. Right Now"

---

• To all concerned parties,
  
  As the petitioning party, Defense will make the one and final response to the State's response to the motion.
  
  Exhibit 2: **FILED UNDER SEAL**
  
  Exhibit 4: Defense restates our earlier position, the fact Andy Tyrie did or did not have a phone is not relevant in the charges for which he faces and the State has not provided any evidence in discovery or in their response as to how this information is relevant other than "as it happened within the timeline of the investigation of the stolen constitution". These are two separate things - (1) the theft of the Constitution and (2) the investigation into its theft. Andy Tyrie is alleged to have done #1. If #2 is to show an investigative step, then it should also be connected with some sort of evidence to come along with it. It would be different if the state were saying because Andy Tyrie did not have a phone, we can also prove X, it would be a different story. It's a missing link and leaves a hanging conclusion the finder of fact (the judge) must make on their own, which is not fair to the Defendant.
  
  To put this issue into a different perspective. The evidence presented by the State is much the same as a case where investigators dusted several surfaces for fingerprints, and none were found. If the State presented evidence that investigators dusted for fingerprints, but did not produce any evidence of fingerprints recovered or any matches found therein, it leaves the fact finder to question whether fingerprints matching the defendant were or were not located. It's a STEP in the investigation without any evidence to support its necessary inclusion into the State's case-in-chief.
  
  If the Court wishes to hear the State further at trial, the Defense will respect this. But this is edging the line of encroaching upon the Defendant's right to a fair trial.
  
  Exhibit 5: First off, the State attempts to tie 911 calls into this anonymous call made. This is different for two reasons. First with 911 calls, the caller is generally usually identified by a name or at the very least phone number. So this is different than a seemingly anonymous complaint. Which for the first time, the State seems to connect Rudi Edel to the one who made this call, which was not clear in the discover presented to this point. Secondly, 911 calls are non-testimonial whereas this "anonymous phone call" is. A testimonial statement used to prove the truth of the matter is hearsay and the Defense maintains its original position.
  
  It's clear the State is intending to use this phone call to prove the truth of the matter as the caller details the theft of the Constitution and what actions were taken afterwards. It's spoken from the position of the caller was told something by allegedly Andy Tyrie detailing Andy Tyrie taking the Constitution and posting a picture in front of old City Hall. These are facts the State has proven they intend to admit at trial given the discovery including the LifeInvader post and search warrant results. If the State were merely using it to detail "the direction of the investigation", the content of the recording itself should be redacted and censored and the mere 'fact' Ms. Kant received the phone call can be proven based on redacted recording with State's argument that the evidence is a phone call was made to Ms. Kant herself and not going into any details of the phone call to prove the truth of the matter. Inclusion of the contents of this call does not give the Defense an adequate chance to properly cross-examine the caller.
  
  Exhibit 13: Same argument as exhibit 4.
  
  Exhibit 14: The Defense finds it interesting that Rudi Edel's phone records are important to prove anything as Exhibit 5 is just an audio recording and not in any way tied to a phone. What made the State decide after receiving a phone call from Rudi Edel that the next call had to be the same person?
  
  (( Not sure how to adequately say this IC -- but the RP in that exhibit is Hope records a radio call using her phone. And you can see the voice from the anonymous caller (ID 100) is coming through via radio. This is not a phone call, but it's being RPed as a phone call and we are using Rudi Edel's phone records to say this call (made through a radio) is one and the same? ))
  
  Exhibit 15: No response, the State concedes this should be suppressed.
  
  For the last suppression, the Defense believes the State has misquoted the Court. The Court did not rule that no evidence in discovery was produced during the prohibited time frame. The Court stated a belief and invited the Defense to bring to the attention of the Court if anything in-fact was produced, which is precisely what the Defense did.
  

  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.

---

Respectfully,

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

[Hugh Allgood]

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

---

MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY

---

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

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

A Motion to Compel Discovery was filed in the above case on the 7th of September, 2024

The Defendant, Andy Tyrie, by and through the undersigned attorney, filed this Motion to Compel Discovery, and requests as follows;

• Requested Discovery: Search warrant application for the search warrant identified as Exhibit 12
  • Detailed Reasoning: **FILED UNDER SEAL**

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

[Hugh Allgood]

Allgood Law State of San Andreas v. Andy Tyrie "Right Firm. Right Now"

---

• To all concerned,
  
  Defense makes this notice of my return from being away. Other than Thanksgiving, Christmas, and New Years holidays, Defense should be substantially available in San Andreas for the foreseeable future (hopefully this case is still not dragging on by then, but at any rate)
  
  Defense would also like to be made aware of any updates that can be provided on the outstanding motions that have been made -- the motion to suppress and the motion for discovery, specifically. Defense does intend on introducing evidence of its own, but believes the Defense cannot do so until outstanding motions have been decided on, as the decision(s) rendered will have an impact on the defense strategy and what evidence the Defense intends to use.

---

Respectfully,

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

[Hope Kant]

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

---

• Honorable Justice McFornell and pertaining parties,
  
  Thank you to all parties on the case for their diligent work. I apologize for having to part from the case at this point in time, but due to divisional conflicts of interest within the Judicial Branch, I will have to recuse myself from the case. I have made the necessary arrangements to bring the Attorney General up to speed, but ask that patience is exercised, while a new prosecutor is assigned.
  
  Respectfully,
  
  
  Director of Human Resources
  San Andreas Judicial Branch
  (909) 505-9925 — [email protected]

[Antonio McFornell]

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

---

• Attorney Kant,
  
  The Court hereby accepts the recusal and will allow the Prosecution to become acquainted with the contents of the case and notify the attorney who will be acting in representation of the State.
  
  Best regards,
  
  
  Associate Justice
  Supreme Court of San Andreas
  Director of the San Andreas Bar Association
  San Andreas Judicial Branch
  (909) 553-8869 — [email protected]

[Terence Williams]

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. Andy Tyrie
#24-CM-0035

A Notification of Counsel was filed in the above case on the 24th of September, 2024.

I, Terence Williams, Attorney General of 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 while familiarizing myself with the case.


Terence Williams
Attorney General
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 234-9321 — [email protected]

[Antonio McFornell]

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

---

• Parties,
  
  The Court presents its excuses for the delay in deciding the pending matters. Let this be a formal notice that a decision in that regard will be adopted no later than October 6th, 2024.
  
  Best regards,
  
  
  Associate Justice
  Supreme Court of San Andreas
  Director of the San Andreas Bar Association
  San Andreas Judicial Branch
  (909) 553-8869 — [email protected]

[Antonio McFornell]

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 7th day of October, 2024.

The defense has presented a motion to suppress. Given the length, and the sealed nature of some of the exhibits, the Court will try to be as brief as possible and organize the arguments considered.

MOTION TO SUPPRESS #1

Exhibit 2
DECISION UNDER SEAL

Exhibit 4
The defense has argued that this exhibit lacks relevance. The Prosecution has argued that this constitutes circumstantial evidence, and requests it to be discussed during trial proceedings. To the Court, the Prosecution has not met its burden of arguing on the reasons that should allow the evidence to remain on the docket and thus the Court will proceed with the suppression.

Exhibit 5
The defense argues that the exhibit constitutes hearsay on the grounds that the person who made the anonymous tip can't be cross-examined, and that third party statements can't be utilized to establish the truth. The prosecution has objected, and affirmed that the evidence contained was utilized to set the path of an investigation, but not to prove the truth of the matter. To the Court, the objection presented appears reasonable and given the special nature of the evidence in this exhibit, the Court will allow it to remain of the docket. However -and without pre-judging-, the Court has to remind all parties that evidence of anonymous nature -given that it' can't be examined, for instance- might be granted a lower force of conviction when deciding. The court will not grant the motion.

Exhibit 13
The defense has argued that his exhibit lacks relevance and foundation on the basis that the bank records of the defendant have not been tied to any criminal act in specific, and rather, show a regular movement of finances and purchases throughout the day in question. Without diving deeper into the arguments presented, the Court believes that the Prosecution has not met the minimum argumentative burden that would invalidate the defense's argument. Thus, the Court will allow the motion.

Exhibits 14 & 15
The defense has argued that the phone records contained within the exhibits lack relevance. The prosecution argued that the records in exhibit 14 are directly tied to exhibit #5, and has agreed that exhibit 15 should be suppressed. The Court believes that the arguments presented by the Prosecution are sufficient, and exhibit 14 in tandem with exhibit 5 become relevant for the case, and will only allow the suppression of exhibit #15.


MOTION TO SUPPRESS #2
The Court also has to decide on a second Motion to Suppress presented as a result of the timeframe provided by the Court in which evidence production would be automatically deemed unfit for consideration during discovery.

Exhibit 1
DECISION UNDER SEAL

Exhibit 2
As for Exhibit #2, the Court stand by its decision. All evidence gathered between the given dates, as a result of the detainment, must become null and void, thus the Court will be granting the suppression of this exhibit.


MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY
Finally, the Court must decide on a Motion to Compel Discovery presented by the defense. The defense has requested a copy of the search warrant application for the warrant issued within Exhibit #12. The Court believes this request is reasonable, and must be produced -specially since it was not objected-.

So ordered,

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

[Terence Williams]

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. Andy Tyrie
#24-CM-0035

A Motion to Stay Pending Appeal was filed in the above case on the 8th of October, 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 in this case has initiated an appeal within the San Andreas Court of Appeals following the latest Court Decision.

Terence Williams
Attorney General
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 234-9321 — [email protected]

[Terence Williams]

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. Andy Tyrie
#24-CM-0035

A Motion to Stay Pending Appeal was filed in the above case on the 13th of October, 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 in this case has initiated an appeal within the San Andreas Court of Appeals following the latest Court Decision.

Terence Williams
Attorney General
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 234-9321 — [email protected]

[Hugh Allgood]

Allgood Law Update "Right Firm. Right Now"

---

• Superior Court of San Andreas,
  
  It is with great regret I must inform the Court of the passing of the Defendant, Andy Tyrie, in this case.
  
  Although Mr. Tyrie has passed away, I would like to make a plea to the Court that this case be allowed to continue to progress posthumously. If this is permitted, Defense will continue to await the results of the current appeals before proceeding.

---

Respectfully,

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

[Terence Williams]

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

---

MOTION FOR VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL

---

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

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

A Motion for Voluntary Dismissal was filed in the above case on the 1st of November, 2024.

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

• Reasoning: Death of the defendant
  • Detailed Explanation: Following the unfortunate death of the defendant, there is no cause to proceed with the case. While the late defendant's counsel may wish to continue the case to seek justice for the defendant posthumously, issuing a verdict at this point, whether guilty or not guilty, would be fruitless as there is no possibility of reparation, be it for the defendant or the state. The case should be dismissed as the Prosecution no longer has a defendant to prosecute, nor does the Defense have a client to defend. The dead are not considered rights-holders, so there are no concerns for due process any longer.

Terence Williams
Attorney General
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 234-9321 — [email protected]

[Antonio McFornell]

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 9th day of November, 2024.

The matter of State v. Tyrie is hereby dismissed, given that the Court has learned of the defendant's unfortunate passing.

So ordered,

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