#24-CM-0030 State of San Andreas v. Mike Luigi

Post by **Antonio McFornell** » 29 Jun 2024, 14:11

Document 1 | Filed 29/JUN/2024 | Page 1 of 1

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT
FOR THE STATE OF SAN ANDREAS

Docket Number:
#24-CM-0030
Date Filed:
29/JUN/2024
Violations:
8x GM11 - Predatory Lending
GF06 - Blackmail
GF09 - Embezzlement
Attempted GF05 - Extortion
State of San Andreas

v.

Mike Luigi

INDICTMENT

THE PROSECUTION CHARGES THAT:
1. During June 2023, Weazel News published an article referencing a possibility of corruption within Loan Companies.
2. Prosecutors attempted to work with affiliates at Weazel News to enlist witnesses to any possible crimes, which as a result allowed the Prosecution to determine that a law enforcement officer was using their badge to pressure civilians into paying back past-due loans.
3. The prosecution, among their initial findings, concluded that the language utilized for the terms of the loans were predatory.
4. The prosecution was able to conclude that multiple properties, vehicles and assets had been seized as a result of predatory clauses within loan contracts.
5. On the 31st of May, 2024, the Prosecution presented a criminal complaint, looking to pursue the defendant, Mike Luigi, for allegedlly incurring in the penal conducts described above.

Presiding:

Superior Court Judge
San Andreas Judicial Branch

Document 2 | Filed 29/JUN/2024 | Page 1 of 1

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT
FOR THE STATE OF SAN ANDREAS

Docket Number:
#24-CM-0030
Date Filed:
29/JUN/2024
Violations:
8x GM11 - Predatory Lending
GF06 - Blackmail
GF09 - Embezzlement
Attempted GF05 - Extortion
State of San Andreas

v.

Mike Luigi

NOTICE TO RESPOND

Notice is given that Mike Luigi is ordered to respond using the Plea Form below between the dates of;
- 29/JUN/2024
  - and
- 6/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 29/JUN/2024 | Page 1 of 1

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT
FOR THE STATE OF SAN ANDREAS

Docket Number:
#24-CM-0030
Date Filed:
29/JUN/2024
Violations:
8x GM11 - Predatory Lending
GF06 - Blackmail
GF09 - Embezzlement
Attempted GF05 - Extortion
State of San Andreas

v.

Mike Luigi

ARRAIGNMENT FORM

Mike Luigi you are facing misdemeanor and felony charges for alleged conducts that have occurred since the 23st of June, 2023.

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.
Mike Luigi, 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.

Counts 1 through 8 are GM11 - Predatory Lending, a felony misdemeanor charge punishable by 15 months of incarceration and a fine of $2,000 per commission, punishable for a grand total of 120 months of incarceration and a fine of $16,000.

Count 9 is GF06 - Blackmail, a felony charge punishable by 45 months of incarceration and a fine of $1,000.

Count 10 is GF09 - Embezzlement, a felony charge punishable by 45 months of incarceration and a fine of $3,000.

Count 11 is Attempted GF05 - Extortion, a felony charge punishable by 22.5 months of incarceration and a fine of $500.

The prosecuting is seeking a total of 232.5 months of incarceration and a total fine of $20,500.

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 eight charges of GM11 - Predatory Lending, I am entering a plea as follows:[/b]
[list=none]
[ ] Guilty
[ ] Not Guilty
[ ] No Contest
[/list]

[b]On the charge of GF06 - Blackmail, I am entering a plea as follows:[/b]
[list=none]
[ ] Guilty
[ ] Not Guilty
[ ] No Contest
[/list]

[b]On the charge of GF09 - Embezzlement, I am entering a plea as follows:[/b]
[list=none]
[ ] Guilty
[ ] Not Guilty
[ ] No Contest
[/list]

[b]On the charge of Attempted GF05 - Extortion, 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 **Hope Kant** » 06 Jul 2024, 20:07

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

Honorable Judge McFornell and pertaining parties,

The prosecution would like this message to serve as a notice to the courts of a request for extension in response time. Talks between prosecution and the defendant have begun with the defendant. Both sides have noted the need for an extension to allow for a complete discussion. The prosecution is requesting the courts give the defendant an additional 7 day extension, pending the defense/defendant has no objections to this request.

((We're currently waiting on an OOC ruling and would like time without Mike_Luigi being charged due to OOC reasons.))

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 **Mike Luigi** » 06 Jul 2024, 20:10

I have no objections to the prosecutions request.

- Mike Luigi

Post by **Antonio McFornell** » 16 Jul 2024, 21:31

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

Parties,

Given the circumstances, and in order to not use Branch and State resources in vain, I will be suspending the arraignment period until further notice.

((This proceeding is indefinitely on hold until all the OOC rulings and aspects of said discussion are finalized))

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** » 20 Jul 2024, 18:46

Allgood Law
24-CM-0030
"Right Firm. Right Now"

To all concerned,

I, Hugh R. Allgood, of Allgood Law have been retained as Counsel for Mike Luigi and respectfully notify the Court and State of my entry in this matter.

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** » 06 Sep 2024, 21:49

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]

Post by **Hope Kant** » 23 Sep 2024, 23:21

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]

Post by **Antonio McFornell** » 24 Sep 2024, 14:53

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]

Post by **Terence Williams** » 24 Sep 2024, 21:29

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. Mike Luigi
#24-CM-0030

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]

Post by **Mike Luigi** » 06 Oct 2024, 19:42

Defendant Name: Mike Luigi
Defendant Phone: 381-5045
Defendant Address: 4 Calais Ave
(( Defendant Discord: / ))
Requested Attorney: Attorney Hugh Allgood

On the eight charges of GM11 - Predatory Lending, I am entering a plea as follows:

[ ] Guilty
[x] Not Guilty
[ ] No Contest

On the charge of GF06 - Blackmail, I am entering a plea as follows:

[ ] Guilty
[x] Not Guilty
[ ] No Contest

On the charge of GF09 - Embezzlement, I am entering a plea as follows:

[ ] Guilty
[x] Not Guilty
[ ] No Contest

On the charge of Attempted GF05 - Extortion, I am entering a plea as follows:

[ ] Guilty
[x] Not Guilty
[ ] No Contest

I, Mike Luigi, 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.

Post by **Hugh Allgood** » 06 Oct 2024, 21:08

Allgood Law
24-CM-0030
"Right Firm. Right Now"

Honorable Tony McFornell,

As the Court and opposing counsel is now aware -- Mr. Luigi has formally submitted his not guilty plea for all charges after failed negotiations at arriving at a plea agreement with the State.

As Mr. Luigi's retained counsel, I am formally going on the record to invoke Mr. Luigi's 6th Amendment right to a speedy trial, and request the Court to order the prosecution to provide discovery without delay.

6th Amendment
In all criminal trials brought forth by or too the San Andreas Judicial Branch, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial Judge of the State wherein the crime shall have been committed, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against them; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in their favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for their defense.

Respectfully,

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

Post by **Hugh Allgood** » 13 Oct 2024, 17:15

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. Mike Luigi
#24-CM-0030

A Motion to Compel Discovery was filed in the above case on the 13th day of October, 2024

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

Requested Discovery: all evidence collected by the Prosecution
- Detailed Reasoning: Mr. Luigi submitted his not guilty plea on 6/Oct/2024, and Defense Counsel filed a notice of speedy trial on the same date. One week has passed and no discovery has been ordered by the Court nor provided by the State. The defense believes the State should be able to provide discovery in a timely manner, as this 'investigation' has been ongoing for the better part of 16 months and recent conversations with the Prosecution indicate the Prosecution has a "file" of sorts. Not to mention, this case was initiated via indictment, which means some evidence was shown in a criminal complaint to derive the indictment for the charges the Defendant is facing. Therefore, it's not a typical case where the State has to gather the evidence to comply with the order of the court. The Defense has already demanded speedy trial and delaying an order for discovery constitutes an undue delay.

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

Post by **Terence Williams** » 13 Oct 2024, 20:37

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

OBJECTION

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

State of San Andreas v. Mike Luigi
#24-CM-0030

An Objection 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 objection on the following grounds;

Statement being objected to:
The Defense's recent Motion to Compel Discovery
- Detailed Reasoning: There is nothing that can compel the Prosecution to share its discovery besides a court-ordered Order for Discovery. The Defense's recent motion is out of place as no such order has been issued yet, nor is the Prosecution violating any such order. Additionally, the pace of the court not fitting that of counsel is not cause for undue delay nor is it infringing on any amendment-protected rights to a speedy trial, as has been decided multiple times in previous cases.

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

Post by **Hugh Allgood** » 14 Oct 2024, 00:18

Allgood Law
Defense response; prosecution objection
"Right Firm. Right Now"

Superior Court of San Andreas,

As the petitioning party, the defense will provide its one and only response.

Perhaps the Attorney General needs some re-educating on what the purpose of a "motion" is. A "motion" is a formal request from party's counsel for the Court or judge to take an action or provide a ruling. In this case, the request was made by Defense counsel and the request is for the Court to compel the prosecution to provide discovery. The motion is not directed at the prosecution, and therefore, the prosecution should not even respond unless the prosecution has a legal argument to be made (as to why the Prosecution should not be compelled to provide discovery, in this case). The prosecution cannot object to the defense's ability to make a motion of the Court -- only to what the motion itself is requesting.

And Defense disagrees with the notion that the "pace of the court not fitting that of counsel" is not undue delay or is an infringement against the right to a speedy trial. This is abhorrently false. The longer we wait for the Prosecution to provide their discovery on their own motion or for the Court to order discovery, the more this case will be delayed. Each delay goes against the Defendant's right to a speedy trial. Even once Discovery is ordered, there will certainly be litigation that will go back and forth before we even get to a point where a trial or other disposition is appropriate. Defense counsel is merely trying to get this case moving, considering the burden it places on Mr. Luigi who has been investigated by the Attorney General's office for the last 16 months.

While it's unclear beyond speculating the motivation of the Attorney General to make an opposition at this stage, or whether the Attorney General even knows or understands the purpose of court motions, it's safe to say, it's time for the Attorney General to stop opposing progression of this case. This motion made by the defense is intended to get the case going and objecting to getting the case going does nothing other than cause further delay in these proceedings.

Again - in summary. Defense has filed a motion FOR THE COURT to compel the prosecution to provide discovery. And objection to the motion must be based on legal grounds as to why THE COURT should not order such discovery. This is no different than a motion to suppress -- a formal request by counsel FOR THE COURT to consider suppression of evidence. Opposing counsel can object to the motion via legal argument as to why evidence should not be suppressed. But opposing counsel cannot object on the mere fact or ability for the opposing counsel to make the motion as the Attorney General has done in this matter.

Respectfully,

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

Post by **Antonio McFornell** » 17 Oct 2024, 18:43

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. Mike Luigi
#24-CM-0030

A court order was entered in the above case on the 17th of October, 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,

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

Post by **Terence Williams** » 23 Oct 2024, 20:01

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. Mike Luigi
#24-CM-0030

A Motion for Continuance was filed in the above case on the 23rd of October, 2024.

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

Reasoning: New evidence requiring exploration
- Detailed Explanation: New information has come to light regarding the defendant's crimes that the Prosecution needs time to investigate. This includes evidence gained through search warrants, information from the public, as well as pending a subpoena for additional contracts failing to properly define collateral and default. Due to these factors, the Prosecution requests a 10-day continuance to gather and review this evidence further.

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

Post by **Hugh Allgood** » 23 Oct 2024, 23:27

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

OBJECTION TO STATE'S MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

State of San Andreas v. Mike Luigi
#24-CM-0030

A Motion for continuance was filed by the State on the 23rd day of October and this objection to said motion was filed in the above case on the 23rd day of October, 2024

The Defendant, Mike Luigi, by and through the undersigned attorney, filed this Objection to the State's Motion for Continuance due to the following;

Detailed Reasoning: As detailed in previous submissions before this Court, Mr. Luigi has been under investigation by the Office of the Attorney General for the last 16 months or greater during which time the Prosecution has had more than an ample opportunity to investigate the Defendant, and recent meetings with the Attorney General and the fact this case was presented to a judge at some point to get to this indictment should suggest the Prosecution can comply with the order of the Court in the timeframe ordered.

The indictment against the Defendant was filed on 29/Jun/2024, and some 4 months later here we are. The Defendant entered his not guilty plea on 6/Oct/2024 and we invoked our right to a speedy trial, yet the Court delayed in ordering discovery until the 17th of October. Defense presumes the Prosecution is referring to "new information" obtained via its 8/Oct/2024 press release. It is the Defense position that a) if the Prosecution sought further information, this should have been done in the 16 months it had to investigate the Defendant and b) the State was already been granted ample time considering the Order for Discovery came 11 days after the first Defense request for such.

In San Andreas, such Orders for Discovery are due after 7 days and can be extended up to 7 more days upon request, for a total of 14 days. It has now been 17 days since the first Defense request for discovery. Not only has the 14 day total 'available' period of discovery expired by 3 days, but granting the Prosecution for a 10-day continuance would increase the total amount of time the State gets to comply with the Order of the Court to 3/Nov/2024 for a total of 28 days from the date of the Defendant's not guilty plea. Even counting the number of days from when discovery was actually ordered, this is a total of 17 days which is unprecedent in this State.

Given the 16 month time period the State has had to investigate Mr. Luigi, the extraordinary 'fishing expedition' (the 8/Oct/2024 press release) and the unprecedented move by the State to request a total of 17-28 days of discovery (depending on when this 'clock' is started) suggests the State is not ready for trial. This is the fault of the State and not the fault of the Defendant who should be able to enjoy a right to a speedy trial. Although the Courts have not really honored this right of any one, this is a perfect time to start.

Again, this is not a typical case where the Prosecution has been 'caught with their pants down' to scramble and collect evidence in a typical case following an arrest -- the State has had many months to collect this evidence. Rather, this seems more like a case where the Prosecution realizes they have been 'caught with their pants down' and needs time to do damage control. The State controlled this indictment and therefore should be held to their case as presented. Lastly, as previously mentioned, several weeks ago the Attorney General was prepared to resolve this case with the Defense via a plea agreement. However, the Defense refused the proposed agreement. The Defense believes the Prosecution is now retaliating against the Defendant, both in making this motion to further delay the matter and go on a further 'fishing expedition', and the continued investigation (harassment) that is subjecting the Defendant to further investigation. This is certainly not equal protection of the law (a violation of the 14th Amendment). If requested, the Defense can provide the Court with additional evidence to support these claims. The Defense respectfully objects to this motion, citing the 6th & 14th Amendments.

In all criminal trials brought forth by or too the San Andreas Judicial Branch, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial Judge of the State wherein the crime shall have been committed, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against them; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in their favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for their defense.

All persons born or naturalized in the State of San Andreas, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the State of San Andreas. The state shall not make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the State of San Andreas. The state shall not deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

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

Post by **Antonio McFornell** » 24 Oct 2024, 05:14

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. Mike Luigi
#24-CM-0030

A decision was reached in the above case on the 23rd day of October, 2024.

The request for Continuance is denied. While it is not often the Superior Court provides motivation for procedural decisions, in this occasion the Court believes the Prosecution has had ample opportunity to prepare discovery, specially given the nature -indictment- of the proceeding. Furthermore, it is not unknown for additional discovery to be presented as cases develop, and thus, any additional evidence that might be gathered will and must be presented as the case proceeds. However, to the Court it is of paramount importance to guarantee the defendant's right to a speedy trial and will not allow a Continuance to cause further delay on this already-prolonged matter.

With this in mind, the Court will be expecting Discovery to be published no later than on October 24th, 2024, pursuant to the original order for discovery.

So ordered,

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

Post by **Terence Williams** » 24 Oct 2024, 14:45

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. Mike Luigi
#24-CM-0030

A Motion to Stay Pending Appeal was filed in the above case on the 24th 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 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]

Post by **Hugh Allgood** » 25 Oct 2024, 16:23

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

OBJECTION TO STATE'S MOTION TO STAY PENDING APPEAL

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

State of San Andreas v. Mike Luigi
#24-CM-0030

A Motion to Stay these proceeding pending an appeal was filed by the State on the 24th day of October and this objection to said motion was filed in the above case on the 25th day of October, 2024

The Defendant, Mike Luigi, by and through the undersigned attorney, filed this Objection to the State's Motion to Stay Pending Appeal due to the following;

On the 17th of October, 2024, the Prosecution was ordered by this Court to provide "all evidence collected and submit it to the Court via Motion for Discovery within seven days", which was due yesterday (24th of October, 2024). On the 23rd of October, 2024, one day prior to the deadline, the Prosecution requested a 10-day continuance, which would have extended the deadline to the 3rd of November, 2024, if granted. The State cited its reasons as,

New information has come to light regarding the defendant's crimes that the Prosecution needs time to investigate. This includes evidence gained through search warrants, information from the public, as well as pending a subpoena for additional contracts failing to properly define collateral and default. Due to these factors, the Prosecution requests a 10-day continuance to gather and review this evidence further.

As the Defendant has been under investigation by the Office of the Attorney General for at least 16 months, it was/is the belief of the Defense the prosecution has had sufficient time to not only collect evidence, and therefore should have not waited to seek further search warrants and information from the public, or attempt to subpoena the Defendant's records. The Defense objected to the continuance citing 6th and 14th Amendment violations. The Court ruled with the Defense, citing the ample time for the prosecution to provide discovery and furthermore the potential for the State to provide further information as the case proceeds. But noting these requests of the State should not be allowed to continue at the expense of the Defendant's Constitutional protected right to speedy trial.

By filing this "Motion to Stay Pending Appeal", the State has directly subverted the decision of the Court. The Defense has done an evaluation of cases lodged in the Court of Appeals during this calendar year. The Court of Appeals has concluded 6 appeals this year, 5 of which were filed before verdict, as this one has. The average length of time from an appeal being started to being activated was 63 days, with the minimum being 9 days and the maximum being 136 days. From activation to decision, the average time was 27 days, with a minimum of 2 days and a maximum of 44 days. This totals 90 days average from activation to conclusion, with the minimum being 11 and the maximum being 180 days. There is currently 1 case active, which was activated 82 days from the time of initiation. There are currently 6 cases, including this one, awaiting activation at appeal. It is important to note 4 of these 6 appeals are "before verdict" appeals (2 of the appeals are for the same case), meaning there are 3 active cases here in this Court that are "on hold" awaiting appeal. With an average of 63 days from appeal to activation, and this case being #6 in the queue, it's very likely this appeal will also follow suit. And what was initially a requested 10 additional day for continuance will very quickly turn into 90 days from start to finish.

As the Defense has gone blue in the face reminding the Court and opposing counsel, the Defendant has a RIGHT to a speedy trial -- it's not a suggestion whenever is convenient for the Prosecution. And actions by the prosecution should not be allowed to pause speedy trial. The clock is still ticking. The Prosecution has now exceeded the original order of the court by 1 day, and the violation of the Defendant's right to speedy trial has commenced, which Defense will be keeping track of.

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

Post by **Terence Williams** » 29 Oct 2024, 22:37

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

Honorable Judge McFornell,

Apologies to the court for the late response to the Defense's objection.

The defendant has, following the indictment, admitted to further criminal acts and owning evidence related to those acts. It is the Prosecution's obligation, through the Office of the Attorney General, to investigate this and incorporate it into the current indictment. Prior to the deadline for providing discovery, the Prosecution filed a subpoena request with the SAJB judiciary, formally issuing the subpoena to the defendant on the due date for discovery, October 24th. As of the filing of this response, the defendant, through their counsel, has so far refused to comply with the court order to turn over the evidence. The Prosecution is currently in the process of getting the subpoena enforced.

The belief that the Prosecution has filed this appeal with malicious intent is offensive and ignorant, as the Court of Appeals is an integral part of the San Andreas Court System. The Prosecution retains its right to appeal a court decision if deemed necessary, a step believed to be more than warranted in the current situation. As the appeal is an extension of an active trial, procedure dictates that it shall be activated as soon as possible after filing and handled with priority, and therefore should not be considered a breach of the 6th and 14th amendment.

Regards,

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

Post by **Hugh Allgood** » 30 Oct 2024, 06:34

Allgood Law
Response
"Right Firm. Right Now"

Superior Court of San Andreas,

As the initiating party to the objection, the Defense will provide its one and only response as is the general policy of this Counsel. No further response will be given nor entertained and the Defense requests the Court to rule on the motion and corresponding Defense objection expeditiously.

First off, the Defense wishes to state on the record that the Attorney General is being deceptive in their response to the court. The Defendant, Mike Luigi, has not admitted to any criminal acts and maintains his innocence, both factually and legally. This entire case is a difference in opinion between the Attorney General and the Defendant. To put an analogy to it - The Defendant says the sky is blue and the Attorney General says it's green, and is using this difference in opinion to claim the Defendant must be crazy and in need of CRU. To steal the words of the Attorney General, "See you in court.". Well, Mr. Attorney General - let's go to court. Oh wait - you're not ready yet.

As the State continues to bring up the subpoena, the subpoena is being attached to this response for the public domain as well as the defense response.

The Defendant and counsel has not refused to comply with the court order -- the records do not exist as the records are not required to be maintained by the Defendant or any other finance company here in San Andreas beyond 90 days from the completion of a loan. The only portion of the subpoena the defense is not complying with is the the unlawful and unconstitutional part -
Loan contracts issued by Total Bankers between April 1st, 2023, and April 1st, 2024, that contain both of the following qualifiers:
A clause requiring full repayment of the loan even after collateral has been seized
Ambiguous or unclear default clauses that fail to specify when the loan is considered in breach
.

The Defendant providing any contracts in response to this "order" requires the Defendant to a) admit the contracts contain such language and b) turn them over. This is an intent to require the Defendant to be a witness against himself. It's like subpoenaing a murder defendant to turn over the murder weapon, thereby admitting they have the murder weapon so the State can then use this evidence against them. The fact the Attorney General does not see the issue with this calls into question their competency to hold a bar license. Let this be a reminder of who has the burden of proof here - it's not the Defense's job to help the State convict them.
The State has had 16 plus months to gather its evidence to do so, and here we are. Furthermore, if the State wishes to press the issue, this would also fall under the same response as the other records - they do not exist; the Defendant's contracts contain no such language meeting both of those qualifiers.

The State's ominous threat of "getting the subpoena enforced" is laughable at best -- what does the State want the Defendant to do, create currently non-existent records to comply with their order? In the first place, a subpoena is unheard of here in San Andreas, but you cannot subpoena that which does not exist. It's simple. Refusing to turn over non-existent records is not refusing to comply with a subpoena - defense counsel complied with the subpoena by responding to the subpoena accordingly (no responsive records found in response to the subpoena). But if this means the State intends to arrest either the Defendant or Counsel, this will be an unlawful arrest and will be met with the applicable legal action being brought against the Attorney General.

procedure dictates that it shall be activated as soon as possible after filing and handled with priority, and therefore should not be considered a breach of the 6th and 14th amendment.
Define "as soon as possible". As detailed above, the average wait time from appeal activation to conclusion sitting at 90 days at last calculation, this is hardly speedy. And with this case being #3 in the queue, it will most certainly be at least 90 days before this is resolved and another judge ruling on the appeal. The appeal is indeed malicious -- as it's an argument over 10 days that has now feasibly been extended for 90 days. Keep in mind the ONLY POSSIBLE outcome of another judge's ruling is to either rule Justice McFornell is right or he was wrong. Regardless... the end result is the same. The State will be ordered to turn over the evidence at some point -- it just will very likely will be sometime hopefully in 2025 because the Attorney General cannot accept being told no.

Defense likens the filing of this appeal to a school-aged child running to the another parent because the first parent told them no. This is precisely what is going on here - Because the Judge told the State no, the State is running to a different judge to subvert the first judge. As detailed above, it's not even a major aspect of the case, nor does it affect the State's ability to carry out it's "mission" of attempting to prove their case against the Defendant. It's funny the State is complaining about the Defense not following a court order, yet this is precisely what we are arguing about here -- the State not wanting to follow an order of this very court. The only difference is the Defense cannot file an appeal or take any further action to force the State to comply with the court order.

Not sure what the State is hoping to gain here. But again, defense is keeping track of these issues. Even with "procedure" to handle this appeal with priority, it does not pause speedy trial and the "procedure" is obviously failing with a 90 day average wait time at the Court of Appeals.

We are now on day 6 of the violation of Mr. Luigi's Constitutional rights, let this be a reminder to the State.
Attachment: Subpoena for Records.pdf
San Andreas Judicial Branch
Superior Court of San Andreas
"EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"

SUBPOENA

TO: Total Bankers

YOU ARE HEREBY COMMANDED TO:
- Produce the specified physical evidence as detailed below and deliver it to the designated recipient, Attorney General Terrence Williams, by 31/OCT/2024:
  
  Unredacted versions of the following loan contracts: *Attached*
  
  Loan contracts between Total Bankers and the following individuals:
  
  Alistair Vespucci
  
  Autumn Campbell
  
  Felix Patch
  
  Sampson Jones
  
  Loan contracts issued by Total Bankers between April 1st, 2023, and April 1st, 2024, that contain both of the following qualifiers:
  
  A clause requiring full repayment of the loan even after collateral has been seized
  
  Ambiguous or unclear default clauses that fail to specify when the loan is considered in breach
  
  All documentation must be provided in its full, unredacted form
Acting Chief Justice
San Andreas Judicial Branch
257-9183 — [email protected]

DISCLAIMER: Failure to comply with this court order may result in criminal charges, including but not limited to GF25 - Felony Contempt of Court, GM22 - Contempt of Court, GF16 - Tampering with Evidence, GM14 - Obstruction of Justice
Attachment: Defense response.pdf
Hugh Allgood wrote: ↑24 Oct 2024, 16:55

Allgood Law
Total Bankers Subpoena
"Right Firm. Right Now"

Attorney General Williams & Supreme Court Justice Mason,

Mr. Luigi (Defendant), by and through counsel, issues this formal response to the undated subpoena for records from Total Bankers.

The Defendant objects to the subpoena on a number of grounds, both legal and practical.

On legal grounds, it is the Defense's position this subpoena is unlawful per the 5th Amendment of the Constitution (emphasis added where appropriate);

Each person within the State of San Andreas shall adhere to the penal code of the state, and should it be violated, with probable cause and proof of evidence, a member of any San Andreas Law Enforcement Agency may submit an individual for punishment to the Department of Corrections. 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.

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.

No person shall be subject to prosecution of the same offense twice, constituting double jeopardy, and put in jeopardy of life or limb.

No person shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against themself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.

Private property shall not be taken for public use, without just compensation.
The State is intending to make the Defendant a witness against himself by providing these records. It is also important to note the State made the move of requesting the public provide these records via its 8/Oct/2024 press release. Therefore, it is also the Defense position the State has other mechanisms of obtaining this information rather than seeking it through the Defendant through compulsory process.

Also, the provision to provide

A clause requiring full repayment of the loan even after collateral has been seized
Ambiguous or unclear default clauses that fail to specify when the loan is considered in breach
is unlawful. First, the mere production of records in response to these provisions require the Defendant to admit these exist -- a form of self-incrimination ((act of production doctrine)). As producing any records of a contract would be admitting the contracts contain a clause that requires full repayment of a loan even after collateral has been seized and/or that a record for a contract contained ambiguous or unclear default clauses to specify a breach of contract. Furthermore, this language is too broad and invokes a values assessment by the Defense who rejects the notion that any of Total Banker's contracts contain such language and the Defense posits this language is extraordinarily broad and violates the Defendant's 5th Amendment.

On practical grounds, the Defense would like to point the Court to the BLB requirements, which only require Total Bankers to keep copies of loan contracts for 90 days after the contract is completed.

Must keep all contracts between the company and clients stored safely for up to 90 days after the contract is completed.
As such, the provision of the subpoena "Loan contracts issued by Total Bankers between April 1st, 2023, and April 1st, 2024" is requiring Total Bankers to maintain and produce contracts beyond the 90-day time table.

Regarding the provision to provide unredacted contracts in the attachment. These are contracts Total Bankers voluntarily provided back in November and December 2023. As these contracts are redacted, the Defendant has no way of identifying these contracts to a) provide them and b) these contracts were produced 12-13 months ago, and are not required by BLB requirements to be maintained.

Therefore, the Defendant cannot comply with this subpoena due to the inexistence of records and the inability to identify the redacted records. And the Defendant will not comply on grounds of a 5th Amendment violation via this compulsory process to require the Defendant to be a witness against himself.

Respectfully,

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

Respectfully,

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

Post by **Antonio McFornell** » 31 Oct 2024, 16:14

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

Parties,

The Superior Court ultimately has no bearing on decisions that the Court of Appeals must adopt, and in that regard is unable to deny a motion to stay pending appeal. While it is agreed by the incumbent that the circumstances are very unfortunate and dimish the legal process by causing extreme delay, it is a matter under the purview of the Appeals judge who decides on the matter.

The Superior Court, however, will send a notice to the Court of Appeals requesting this matter be addressed with urgency, given that it is an ongoing trial matter and not an after-verdict appeal.

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]

Post by **Hugh Allgood** » 01 Nov 2024, 20:23

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. Mike Luigi
#24-CM-0030

A Motion to Compel Discovery was filed in the above case on the 1st day of November, 2024

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

Requested Discovery: all evidence collected by the Prosecution
- Detailed Reasoning:
  
  The Defense incorporates all of the arguments from the 13/Oct/2024 Motion to Compel Discovery, as well as highlight/incorporate several new arguments.
  
  On 6/Oct/2024, the Defendant submitted their not guilty plea, officially beginning the 'proverbial clock' for speedy trial, which was affirmed in a same day filing by Counsel. On 13/Oct/2024, Counsel filed a motion to compel discovery, which the State attempted to improperly object to, and discovery was subsequently ordered by the Court on the 17/Oct/2024. That order ordered the State to turn over all evidence collected within 7 days, which should have been due on 24/Oct/2024. On 23/Oct/2024, the State requested the unprecedented 10 day continuance; unprecedented because standard practice is continuances can be generally only be granted for up to 7 days. The Defendant through counsel objected, and the Court ruled in the favor of the Defense, ordering the State to comply with the order of the court by 24/Oct/2024. The State chose to not comply with the order of the Court and instead file an appeal in the Court of Appeals.
  
  Without considering the motives for the State to file the motion, the Defendant believes the State by its own request should be required to still present its evidence at this stage, considering the State is now 8 days in violation of an Order of this court, and given the State's initial denied request was for a 10 day continuance from the due date, which is 3/Nov/2024. 11:59PM on 3/Nov/2024 is just over 48 hours away (51 1/2 hours away), and therefore it is the belief of the Defense that appeal or not, the State should be held accountable to not only this Court, but to their original request. The State should not have been allowed to subvert the decision of this Court in the first place, and the State should not be allowed to extend it's request beyond its initial request.
  
  On the other hand, the current appeal is over this denied continuance. While the Defense still believes the Court was correct in denying the State's motion, the State through its stay got their continuance, anyway. The Defense believes the only way to preserve some level of the Defendant's Constitutional right to speedy trial, it is best to abandon this issue of the continuance, as it's already happened, and make this demand for discovery by 11:59PM on 3/Nov/2024. And if the State does so, it is the belief of the Defense the need for an appeal should have cured itself, or at the very least, this matter should be able to proceed without being stayed as any ruling made by the appellate court will have no bearing on the progression of this case.

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

SAJB Awards

SAJB Awards

LSPD Awards for Service

LSSD Awards

LSPD Awards for Bravery

SAJB Awards

SAJB Awards

SAJB Awards

SAJB Awards

SAJB Awards

SAJB Awards

SAJB Awards

LSPD Awards for Service

LSSD Awards

LSPD Awards for Bravery

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