#24-CM-0093, State of San Andreas v. Huw Masons

User avatar
Hope Kant
Judicial Branch
Posts: 6388
Joined: 30 Jan 2021, 19:56
ECRP Forum Name:
Discord:

SAJB Awards

#24-CM-0093, State of San Andreas v. Huw Masons

Post by Hope Kant »

Document 1 | Filed 30/12/2024

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT
FOR THE STATE OF SAN ANDREAS

  • Docket Number:
    #24-CM-0093
    Date Filed:
    30/12/2024
    Violations:
    GM02 - Battery
    GM14 - Obstruction of Justice
    GM25 - Possession/Unlawful use of Government Equipment
    GM19 - Face Concealment (b)
    State of San Andreas

    v.

    Huw Masons

INDICTMENT

  • THE PROSECUTION CHARGES THAT:
    1. On 26/JUL/2024, then-GSB officer Huw Parry was present at City Hall, as was citizen Lee Ping, who was there to inquire about employment. At no time was Mr. Ping under arrest or subject to lawful detainment. During this time, Mr. Parry clocked onto GSB duty, proceeded to handcuff Mr. Ping, removed his own shirt to use as a face covering, retrieved his government-issued taser, and discharged it on Mr. Ping before returning to the time-clock area. This sequence of events is captured on bodycam footage, CCTV, and corroborated by multiple witness statements. Following the incident, Mr. Ping reported the occurrence to law enforcement.

      Upon arrival at City Hall, responding officers encountered Huw Parry with other GSB agents. When officers asked Mr. Parry directly who tazed Mr. Ping, he initially denied knowledge. Only after officers viewed CCTV footage did Mr. Parry admit to the action, justifying it by stating that Mr. Ping was being “very difficult and annoying.”

NOTICE TO RESPOND

  • Notice is given that Huw Masons is ordered to respond using the Plea Form below between the dates of;
    • 30/12/2024
      • and
    • 6/1/2025
    Or make contact 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.

  • Huw Masons8 you are facing misdemeanor and felony charges for alleged conduct that occurred on or about 26/JUL/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.
    Huw Masons, 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 GM02 - Battery, a misdemeanor charge punishable by 20 months and a fine of $2,000.

    Count 2 is GM14 - Obstruction of Justice, a misdemeanor charge punishable by 25 months and a fine of $1,000.

    Count 3 is GM19 - Face Concealment (b), a misdemeanor charge punishable by 10 months and a fine of $500.

    Count 4 is GM25 - Possession/Unlawful use of Government Equipment, a misdemeanor charge punishable by 25 months and a fine of $1,500.


    The prosecution is seeking a total of 80 months and a total fine of $5,000.

    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 GM02 - Battery, I am entering a plea as follows:[/b]
[list=none]
[ ] Guilty
[ ] Not Guilty
[ ] No Contest
[/list]

[b]On the charge of GM14 - Obstruction of Justice, I am entering a plea as follows:[/b]
[list=none]
[ ] Guilty
[ ] Not Guilty
[ ] No Contest
[/list]

[b]On the charge of GM19 - Face Concealment (b), I am entering a plea as follows:[/b]
[list=none]
[ ] Guilty
[ ] Not Guilty
[ ] No Contest
[/list]

[b]On the charge of GM25 - Possession/Unlawful use of Government Equipment, 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:
    Image
    Superior Court Justice
    Branch Administrator

    San Andreas Judicial Branch
    505-9925 — [email protected]
Image
User avatar
Hope Kant
Judicial Branch
Posts: 6388
Joined: 30 Jan 2021, 19:56
ECRP Forum Name:
Discord:

SAJB Awards

Re: #24-CM-0093, State of San Andreas v. Huw Masons

Post by Hope Kant »

Image

San Andreas Judicial Branch

Docket Notice
"HERE FOR YOU | SAFE FOR YOU"

  • Prosecution and defense counsel,

    Let this serve as a notice to all involved. The defendant has notified the courts via email that they will be unavailable till around the 10th of January. The court accepts this temporary recess request, and will plan to resume on that date.

    Respectfully,
    Image
    Superior Court Justice
    Branch Administrator

    San Andreas Judicial Branch
    505-9925 — [email protected]
Image
Image
Huw Masons
Posts: 1561
Joined: 12 Sep 2020, 07:31
ECRP Forum Name: Capone.
Discord: DarkStarJordan

LSSD Awards

LSEMS Awards

SASG Awards

LSPD Awards for Service

Re: #24-CM-0093, State of San Andreas v. Huw Masons

Post by Huw Masons »

Image
Image
Defendant Name: Huw Masons
Defendant Phone: 429-4854
Defendant Address: Redacted
(( Defendant Discord: jrich1997 ))
Requested Attorney: Work in progress
Image
On the charge of GM02 - Battery, I am entering a plea as follows:
  • [ ] Guilty
    [ X ] Not Guilty
    [ ] No Contest
On the charge of GM14 - Obstruction of Justice, I am entering a plea as follows:
  • [ ] Guilty
    [ X ] Not Guilty
    [ ] No Contest
On the charge of GM19 - Face Concealment (b), I am entering a plea as follows:
  • [ ] Guilty
    [ X ] Not Guilty
    [ ] No Contest
On the charge of GM25 - Possession/Unlawful use of Government Equipment, I am entering a plea as follows:
  • [ ] Guilty
    [ X ] Not Guilty
    [ ] No Contest

I, Huw Masons, 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.
Last edited by Huw Masons on 22 Jan 2025, 19:17, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Izaak Scott
Posts: 737
Joined: 02 May 2024, 14:06
ECRP Forum Name: Kujima
Discord:

SAJB Awards

Re: #24-CM-0093, State of San Andreas v. Huw Masons

Post by Izaak Scott »

- - - - -
Image

  • To all parties,

    Please take notice that the undersigned attorney, Izaak Scott of Assured Law, enters an appearance as counsel for the defendant, Huw Masons, in this matter.

    Respectfully submitted on the 14th day of January, 2025.

  • Sincerely,

    Izaak Scott
    Assured Services
    Managing Attorney, Assured Law
    Bluff Tower, 72 Bay City Avenue
- - - - -
Terence Williams
Posts: 4094
Joined: 26 May 2023, 19:02
ECRP Forum Name:
Discord:

SAJB Awards

Re: #24-CM-0093, State of San Andreas v. Huw Masons

Post by Terence Williams »

Image



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. Huw Masons
#24-CM-0093

A Notification of Counsel was filed in the above case on the 14th of January, 2025.


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.

Image
Terence Williams
Attorney General
San Andreas Judicial Branch
234-9321 — [email protected]
Image
User avatar
Hope Kant
Judicial Branch
Posts: 6388
Joined: 30 Jan 2021, 19:56
ECRP Forum Name:
Discord:

SAJB Awards

Re: #24-CM-0093, State of San Andreas v. Huw Masons

Post by Hope Kant »

Image



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. Huw Masons
#24-CM-0093

A Notice of Activation was entered in the above case on 15th of January, 2025.


The case of the State of San Andreas v. Huw Masons is hereby activated by this Court under #24-CM-0093.

Both the State and Defendant have adequate representation in the case, as such, immediately following this notice, the Presiding Judge will be filing the Order for Discovery.

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.


Respectfully,

Image
Superior Court Justice
Branch Administrator

San Andreas Judicial Branch
505-9925 — [email protected]
Image
Image
User avatar
Hope Kant
Judicial Branch
Posts: 6388
Joined: 30 Jan 2021, 19:56
ECRP Forum Name:
Discord:

SAJB Awards

Re: #24-CM-0093, State of San Andreas v. Huw Masons

Post by Hope Kant »

Image



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. Huw Masons
#24-CM-0093

A court order was entered in the above case on 15 of January, 2025.


The case of #24-CM-0093, State of San Andreas v. Huw Masons is hereby opened and acknowledged by the Court.

The prosecution is hereby ordered to provide all evidence collected from the arresting Law Enforcement Agency and submit it to the Court via Motion for Discovery within seven days. If additional time is needed, the prosecution can file a Motion for Continuance.

Once evidence has been submitted to the official docket the defense can begin filing motions.

So ordered,

Image
Superior Court Justice
Branch Administrator

San Andreas Judicial Branch
505-9925 — [email protected]
Image
Image
Terence Williams
Posts: 4094
Joined: 26 May 2023, 19:02
ECRP Forum Name:
Discord:

SAJB Awards

Re: #24-CM-0093, State of San Andreas v. Huw Masons

Post by Terence Williams »

Image



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. Huw Masons
#24-CM-0093

A Motion for Discovery was filed in the above case on the 17th of January, 2025.


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


  • Exhibit #1: Audio recording - Police Commander Jessica Nash statement
    Audio recording
    ((Proof of RP))
    Transcript
    **Recording begins**
    T: Alright so, the date is the 28th of December 2024, the time is 5 minutes past 10PM. I am Attorney General Terence Williams, conducting an interview with LSPD Police Commander Jessica Nash
    J: Okay, so this is Police Commander Jessica Nash with the LSPD. I'll be giving my statement with regards to the situation that happened with Huw Parry.
    J: I started patrol that day with Deputy Chief Jaxon Nash. We received a 911 call from a civilian inside of City Hall, stating they had been tased for no reason. We arrived to find a half-naked male in the lobby of city hall, stating a government official had tased them for no reason.
    J: I asked for a description of the individual, and they described a man waering a leather jacket, a desert scarf-type scarf, and distinctive tattoos, short brown/Black hair. I know what Huw Parry looks like, and he's someone I generally would be able to recognise, so it sounded like him but I didn't say anything at the moment.
    J: I asked GSB Alfie Watch if Huw was on shift, and he said that he wasn't but he was on top of the stairs, the balcony. I went to go speak to him and ask him if he knew what the civilian was talking about, he said he had no idea, and that the guy was just causing a disturbance and being [scoffs], I'm trying to find, like, Words that aren't swearwords. Just unruly, you know, breaching the peace.
    J: I went back to speak to the individual WHO said that I should check the CCTV of the camera that is above the door where the changing rooms are, where people get their uniform and go on duty, because he said that he went into the locker room, put a mask on his face and took his jacket off, and then came back out and then tased him and then went back in, put his jacket back on, and then came back out without the mask on.
    J: So I checked the CCTV footage, and it did indeed show somebody matching Huw Parry's description, without a mask on, going in, and then somebody coming out, with very distinctive tattoos on his back, and a mask on his face. And he did indeed tase the subject, run back to the locker room door, go in, and then Huw Parry came out again without any mask on.
    J: So I went and spoke to Huw Parry again, and I said to him, you know look, it's not gonna look good if you lie about the situation, it's better if you're just honest, cause it's gonna come back on you. I'm not in a position, due to professional courtesy, to place charges on you, it's probably more misconduct unless they decide they want to do something with it. And he admitted to me in that moment that he did do it, because he was being unruly and he just lost his temper, and tased him once.
    J: So I took his word for it and I went back and spoke to the civilian, and said that we would be reporting him to his higher-ups. And the civilian seemed happy with that, so I left, wrote an email to Emily Whitehorse with a statement of what had happened, and then forwarded that to Attorney General Terence.
    J: I, Jessica Nash, affirm that the above statement is true to the best of my knowledge and belief. I affirm that this statement has been made voluntarily, made without promise of reward, and made not under threat, force, or coercion.
    T: Alright, the time is now 10 minutes past 10.
    **Recording ends**
  • Exhibit #2: Bodycam footage - Police Commander Jessica Nash, 26/JUL/2024
    * At the start of the footage, you'd see Commander Nash arrive at City Hall, walking past Alfie Watch and another GSB agent (Unknown name). You'd watch her walk into City Hall and speak with "Lee Ping"
    * You'd hear Lee_Ping state he was tazed by a government official for no reason and describe him as wearing jeans, with no t-shirt and a t-shirt wrapped around his head.
    * Commander Nash would climb the stairs to speak with Alfie Watch, whom was now standing with Huw Parry and a female employee. You'd here her ask if either of them know who tazed the individual and the both would say they have no idea
    * You'd see Commander Nash, head back downstairs to Mr Ping and advise that without footage, it'd be difficult to further investigate, to which they advise you to check the CCTV that sits above the "Clock in room" as this would have caught the individual putting a mask on and pulling out a tazer.
    * Commander Nash would then head to the camera and begin watching the footage on a laptop. The footage would show Huw Parry enter the door, wearing a denim style jacket, jeans and trainers with gloves, then an individual would exit with their back to the camera, remove their t-shirt & jacket, then wrap a tshirt around their head, pulling out a tazer from their waist and walk towards Mr Ping. You'd notice the individual has very distinctive tattoos also.
    * Upon finding this footage, you'd see Commander Nash approach Alfie Watch to ask where Huw Parry was, and he would advise he was at "Lewis's hangout". Commander Nash would find him on the top floor
    * You'd hear Commander Nash speak with Huw and explain to him that trying to conceal the truth of the events reflects poorly on him and GOV and that whilst she wouldn't press criminal charges due to professional courtesy and the need to internally investigate.
    * Huw would seemingly agree and understand but also explain that Mr. Ping was being very difficult and annoying
    * The footage would end with Commander Nash state that it's not that he tazed the unarmed suspect that is worrying, its the fact he tried to hide and lie about it, and also that he was trying to conceal his identity whilst performing this act.
  • Exhibit #3: Jessica Nash email to GOV
    -------- Original Message --------
    Subject: Re: GOV| Statement Request
    Date: Sun Aug 04, 2024 11:05 pm
    From: Jessica Nash
    To: Julia Whitehorse

    Jessica Nash wrote: Image
    Image

    Los Santos Police Department

    Personal Mail
    "TO PROTECT AND SERVE"

    • Good Afternoon!

      We recieved a 911 call from City Hall from a civilian, stating that they had been tazed for no reason by a shirtless man in a t-shirt mask. We were told via department radio to ignore but we were already on scene. We spoke with the man and then spoke with GSB Alfie, whom seemed hesitant to discuss what happened. I then noticed Huw at the top of the stairs and asked if he knew anything about the situation, which he initially denied, but i headed to watch CCTV, as the 911 caller said the man came out of the "Clock in" door, which would have captured him putting a mask on.

      I checked the footage, and once i saw it matched the description of Huw, whom was stood at the top of the stairs, I asked to speak to him privately. I'll be honest, I was more 'miffed' that he seemed to be trying to lie. He admitted that he had gone into the locker room, gone on duty to get a duty tazer, take off his shirt and wrap it around his head to conceal his identity and taze the man as he was being unruly and rude.

      Due to interdepartmental courtesy, I advised the civilian to file an IA report, as whilst Huw could be liable for battery, I felt it best handed internally.

      Enclosed is the footage
      (( I only took screenshots, but i have bodycam RP and can do /me and /do if need, but you'll see, it matches his tattoos and he also admitted it to me with my body cam on)).
      Still image from CCTV
      Image
      ((Bodycam RP))
      Image
      [/spoil]

      Sincerely,
      Image
      Captain III Jessica Nash,
      Commanding Officer, Recruitment and Employment Division
      Los Santos Police Department
    Image
  • Exhibit #4: CCTV footage - still image, 26/JUL/2024
    Image
  • Exhibit #5: Bodycam footage
    UNDER SEAL
  • Exhibit #6: Witness statement
    UNDER SEAL

Image
Terence Williams
Attorney General
San Andreas Judicial Branch
234-9321 — [email protected]
Image
Last edited by Terence Williams on 22 Jan 2025, 19:53, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
Hope Kant
Judicial Branch
Posts: 6388
Joined: 30 Jan 2021, 19:56
ECRP Forum Name:
Discord:

SAJB Awards

Re: #24-CM-0093, State of San Andreas v. Huw Masons

Post by Hope Kant »

Image

San Andreas Judicial Branch

Docket Notice
"HERE FOR YOU | SAFE FOR YOU"

  • Prosecution and defense counsel,

    Assuming the prosecution has no further need for the 7 days allotted to present the bulk of their discovery, the court will now pass the case over to that of the defense counsel. I'd like to remind the defense that, if at any point they feel they need more time, they are more than able to submit a motion for continuance to the court. Defense counsel, you have 3 days to present motions and your discovery to the court.

    Respectfully,
    Image
    Superior Court Justice
    Branch Administrator

    San Andreas Judicial Branch
    505-9925 — [email protected]
Image
Image
User avatar
Izaak Scott
Posts: 737
Joined: 02 May 2024, 14:06
ECRP Forum Name: Kujima
Discord:

SAJB Awards

Re: #24-CM-0093, State of San Andreas v. Huw Masons

Post by Izaak Scott »

- - - - -
Image

  • To all parties,

    The Defendant, Huw Masons, by and through undersigned counsel, respectfully requests a continuance for the above-referenced matter for a period of three days to explore more avenues of defense.

  • Sincerely,

    Izaak Scott
    Assured Services
    Managing Attorney, Assured Law
    Bluff Tower, 72 Bay City Avenue
- - - - -
User avatar
Hope Kant
Judicial Branch
Posts: 6388
Joined: 30 Jan 2021, 19:56
ECRP Forum Name:
Discord:

SAJB Awards

Re: #24-CM-0093, State of San Andreas v. Huw Masons

Post by Hope Kant »

Image

San Andreas Judicial Branch

Docket Notice
"HERE FOR YOU | SAFE FOR YOU"

  • Prosecution and defense counsel,

    Defense, the court recognize your motion or request for continuance of a total of 3 days. We now await the response of the prosecution before making a determination. Prosecution, please make the court aware of your stance.

    Respectfully,
    Image
    Superior Court Justice
    Branch Administrator

    San Andreas Judicial Branch
    505-9925 — [email protected]
Image
Image
Terence Williams
Posts: 4094
Joined: 26 May 2023, 19:02
ECRP Forum Name:
Discord:

SAJB Awards

Re: #24-CM-0093, State of San Andreas v. Huw Masons

Post by Terence Williams »

Image

San Andreas Judicial Branch

Docket Notice
"HERE FOR YOU | SAFE FOR YOU"

  • Honorable Judge Kant and pertaining parties,

    The Prosecution does not believe there to be any special needs warranting an extension for the Defense, but we will not formally object to it.

    Regards,
    Image
    Terence Williams
    Attorney General
    San Andreas Judicial Branch
    234-9321 — [email protected]
Image
Lee Ping
Posts: 2
Joined: 01 Aug 2024, 02:06
ECRP Forum Name: Lestaven
Discord:

Re: #24-CM-0093, State of San Andreas v. Huw Masons

Post by Lee Ping »

My name Lee ping. I drop charges.

He say sorry now friends.
User avatar
Hope Kant
Judicial Branch
Posts: 6388
Joined: 30 Jan 2021, 19:56
ECRP Forum Name:
Discord:

SAJB Awards

Re: #24-CM-0093, State of San Andreas v. Huw Masons

Post by Hope Kant »

Image

San Andreas Judicial Branch

Docket Notice
"HERE FOR YOU | SAFE FOR YOU"

  • Prosecution,

    The alleged victim has indicated they no longer want to move forward with the charges. Does the prosecution still wish to continue on with the case?

    Respectfully,
    Image
    Superior Court Justice
    Branch Administrator

    San Andreas Judicial Branch
    505-9925 — [email protected]
Image
Image
Terence Williams
Posts: 4094
Joined: 26 May 2023, 19:02
ECRP Forum Name:
Discord:

SAJB Awards

Re: #24-CM-0093, State of San Andreas v. Huw Masons

Post by Terence Williams »

Image

San Andreas Judicial Branch

Docket Notice
"HERE FOR YOU | SAFE FOR YOU"

  • Honorable Judge Kant,

    The Prosecution will proceed.

    Regards,
    Image
    Terence Williams
    Attorney General
    San Andreas Judicial Branch
    234-9321 — [email protected]
Image
User avatar
Hope Kant
Judicial Branch
Posts: 6388
Joined: 30 Jan 2021, 19:56
ECRP Forum Name:
Discord:

SAJB Awards

Re: #24-CM-0093, State of San Andreas v. Huw Masons

Post by Hope Kant »

Image

San Andreas Judicial Branch

Docket Notice
"HERE FOR YOU | SAFE FOR YOU"

  • Prosecution and defense counsel,

    The court will be accepting the motion for continuance presented by the defense. The case will resume pending a response from the defense at the end of day on the 22nd of January. Thank you to both parties.

    Respectfully,
    Image
    Superior Court Justice
    Branch Administrator

    San Andreas Judicial Branch
    505-9925 — [email protected]
Image
Image
User avatar
Izaak Scott
Posts: 737
Joined: 02 May 2024, 14:06
ECRP Forum Name: Kujima
Discord:

SAJB Awards

Re: #24-CM-0093, State of San Andreas v. Huw Masons

Post by Izaak Scott »

- - - - -
Image

  • To all parties,

    The Defendant, Huw Masons, by and through undersigned counsel, respectfully filed this motion to supress to the courts on the 22/JAN/2025.

    Exhibit #1: Audio recording - Police Commander Jessica Nash statement
    Requested Evidence to Suppress:
    Entire Exhibit
    • Detailed Reasoning: This bodycam footage captures a questioning conducted after the fact, which the prosecution now seeks to introduce as a form of witness testimony. The defense was not afforded the opportunity to cross-examine the witness during this interaction, effectively stripping the defendant of a fundamental right to challenge the accuracy or credibility of the statements made. While audio recordings like this can, in some cases, be admissible as evidence, this situation is unique. Here, the prosecutor is essentially presenting a deposition taken without the defense present, which undermines the fairness of the process and deprives the defense of a crucial opportunity to contest the said evidence.
  • Exhibit #2: Bodycam footage - Police Commander Jessica Nash, 26/JUL/2024
    Requested Evidence to Suppress:
    Any part of this footage, with the CCTV footage present.
    • Detailed Reasoning: This part of the bodycam footage provides only brief glimpses and snippets of the CCTV footage from the event. The defense argues that admitting this portion into evidence would be the same as allowing edited or altered footage, as we cannot verify its authenticity or ensure it represents the original, unmodified recording. Therefore, this portion of the footage should not be considered reliable evidence.
  • Exhibit #3: Jessica Nash email to GOV
    Requested Evidence to Suppress:
    Exhibit #3: Jessica Nash email to GOV
    -------- Original Message --------
    Subject: Re: GOV| Statement Request
    Date: Sun Aug 04, 2024 11:05 pm
    From: Jessica Nash
    To: Julia Whitehorse
    Jessica Nash wrote: Image
    Image

    Los Santos Police Department

    Personal Mail
    "TO PROTECT AND SERVE"

    • Good Afternoon!

      We recieved a 911 call from City Hall from a civilian, stating that they had been tazed for no reason by a shirtless man in a t-shirt mask. We were told via department radio to ignore but we were already on scene. We spoke with the man and then spoke with GSB Alfie, whom seemed hesitant to discuss what happened. I then noticed Huw at the top of the stairs and asked if he knew anything about the situation, which he initially denied, but i headed to watch CCTV, as the 911 caller said the man came out of the "Clock in" door, which would have captured him putting a mask on.

      I checked the footage, and once i saw it matched the description of Huw, whom was stood at the top of the stairs, I asked to speak to him privately. I'll be honest, I was more 'miffed' that he seemed to be trying to lie. He admitted that he had gone into the locker room, gone on duty to get a duty tazer, take off his shirt and wrap it around his head to conceal his identity and taze the man as he was being unruly and rude.

      Due to interdepartmental courtesy, I advised the civilian to file an IA report, as whilst Huw could be liable for battery, I felt it best handed internally.

      Enclosed is the footage
      (( I only took screenshots, but i have bodycam RP and can do /me and /do if need, but you'll see, it matches his tattoos and he also admitted it to me with my body cam on)).
      Still image from CCTV
      Image
      ((Bodycam RP))
      Image
      [/spoil]

      Sincerely,
      Image
      Captain III Jessica Nash,
      Commanding Officer, Recruitment and Employment Division
      Los Santos Police Department
    Image
    • Detailed Reasoning: We respectfully request the court to suppress the statements highlighted in yellow on the grounds of hearsay. These statements were made by an out-of-court declarant during an informal questioning, without being properly Mirandized. As such, they are inadmissible and should not be considered, as they were not subjected to cross-examination or introduced in a formal court document. Allowing such statements would violate the defendant's rights under the hearsay rule.

      We also move to suppress the statement highlighted in green, as it references footage that has not been submitted into evidence. Without the actual footage being presented, any conclusions or observations derived from it cannot be properly verified or challenged. Allowing this statement without the corresponding evidence would be prejudicial and speculative, and as such, it should not be admitted.
  • Exhibit #4: CCTV footage - still image, 26/JUL/2024
    Requested Evidence to Suppress:
    Entire Exhibit
    • Detailed Reasoning: The prosecution has presented a still image from the CCTV footage taken at City Hall on 26/JUL/2024, an image that portrays a partial and potentially distorted view of the events. The selective use of this single image without the context of the full footage unfairly prejudices the judge by emphasizing a specific moment, which may inaccurately reflect the totality of the circumstances surrounding the alleged incident. The selective presentation of evidence by the prosecution, in this case, undermines the Defendant's constitutional right to a fair trial.
  • Exhibit #5: Bodycam footage
    Requested Evidence to Suppress:
    • Detailed Reasoning: UNDER SEAL




  • Sincerely,

    Izaak Scott
    Assured Services
    Managing Attorney, Assured Law
    Bluff Tower, 72 Bay City Avenue
- - - - -
Last edited by Izaak Scott on 22 Jan 2025, 21:51, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
Izaak Scott
Posts: 737
Joined: 02 May 2024, 14:06
ECRP Forum Name: Kujima
Discord:

SAJB Awards

Re: #24-CM-0093, State of San Andreas v. Huw Masons

Post by Izaak Scott »

- - - - -
Image

  • To all parties,

    Requested Discovery: The entire CCTV Footage, City Hall
    Detailed Reasoning: The prosecution, even though having access to the entirety of the City Hall's CCTV, has decided to only present a still image, attempting to paint a skewed narrative of the alleged events to the courts. The defense seeks the entire footage to present a full and unbiased account of the incident.

    Requested Discovery: Internal Affairs Reports and Communication, GOV site
    Detailed Reasoning: An Internal Affairs report was advised to be made against Huw Masons following the incident. The defense seeks access to this report and all related communications to verify the conclusions of the investigation and to challenge any potential biases or procedural missteps during the internal matters.

    Requested Discovery: Personnel Records of Huw Masons, GSB & SD
    Detailed Reasoning: The personnel records of Huw Masons are requested to assess his history of disciplinary actions, commendations, or other relevant details. This information will provide critical context to the defendant’s character and history, which may support the defense’s argument regarding intent and conduct during the incident.

    Requested Discovery: Witness Statements from Lee Ping and other bystanders
    Detailed Reasoning: The witness statements from those present during the incident will provide alternative perspectives and allow the defense to challenge the credibility of certain allegations, such as Mr. Masons’ intent and level of aggression of the alleged incident.

    Due to the non corrupted audio file being edited in, we will edit our suppression accordingly.

    ((Ignore the bad formatting, had a GOV site moment))

  • Sincerely,

    Izaak Scott
    Assured Services
    Managing Attorney, Assured Law
    Bluff Tower, 72 Bay City Avenue
- - - - -
Terence Williams
Posts: 4094
Joined: 26 May 2023, 19:02
ECRP Forum Name:
Discord:

SAJB Awards

Re: #24-CM-0093, State of San Andreas v. Huw Masons

Post by Terence Williams »

Image



San Andreas Judicial Branch

Superior Court of San Andreas
"EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"

Rebuttal


IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

State of San Andreas v. Huw Masons
#24-CM-0093

A Rebuttal was filed in the above case on the 22nd of January, 2025.


The State of San Andreas, by and through the undersigned attorney, presents a rebuttal to the recent motion;


  • Exhibit #1: Audio recording - Police Commander Jessica Nash statement
    This recording is not from a questioning or a deposition. It is simply a witness providing their statement to the Prosecution. No questions were asked and no guidance was given by the to the witness on how to present their testimony. There is nothing unique about this situation compared to others, and the Defense is free to request to depose the witness. This vocal statement is tantamount to a written witness statement, which are all done after the fact, and dismissing the evidence for the listed reasons would be irrational.
  • Exhibit #2: Bodycam footage - Police Commander Jessica Nash, 26/JUL/2024
    Regarding reliability
    The Defense's claim that parts of the footage in this exhibit is unreliable is absurd. The provided footage is a continuous recording from the commander's POV for the duration of their investigation, including connecting their laptop directly to the CCTV camera and watching the raw, unedited, unaltered footage on said laptop. The reliability of part of the footage depicting the CCTV footage is authenticated by the rest of the footage in this exhibit. As such, the evidence should remain in full.
  • Exhibit #3: Jessica Nash email to GOV
    Regarding hearsay
    The Defense is claiming that these sections should be suppressed due to being out-of-court statements and without being Mirandized. However, Miranda rights are not always required to allow for the use of provided statements. At the time, the defendant was neither a suspect in a criminal investigation nor in police custody, and willingly provided the information to the commander, who still hadn't taken the defendant into custody or was asking any type of guilt-seeking questions. Additionally, the apparent confession wasn't prompted by any direct questions from the commander, but given independently by the defendant. As such, the requirement for the defendant to have been read their rights does not apply, and the statements would be admissible in court.
    Regarding prejudice and speculation
    The Prosecution would like to reiterate that the footage being referenced is clearly visible in Exhibit #2.
  • Exhibit #4: CCTV footage - still image, 26/JUL/2024
    The Prosecution has not presented any evidence selectively. All evidence has been presented in its totality. This specific exhibit is used to show the describing factors used by the commander to identify the defendant. Additionally, this is just an excerpt from the CCTV footage provided as part of Exhibit #2, and does nothing to prejudice the judge against the defendant, but only to explain the narrative of the Prosecution's investigation.
  • Exhibit #5: Bodycam footage
    UNDER SEAL




Image
Terence Williams
Attorney General
San Andreas Judicial Branch
234-9321 — [email protected]
Image
User avatar
Hope Kant
Judicial Branch
Posts: 6388
Joined: 30 Jan 2021, 19:56
ECRP Forum Name:
Discord:

SAJB Awards

Re: #24-CM-0093, State of San Andreas v. Huw Masons

Post by Hope Kant »

Image


San Andreas Judicial Branch

Superior Court of San Andreas
"EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"

COURT DECISION


IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

State of San Andreas v. Huw Masons
#24-CM-0093

A decision was reached in the above case on the 28th day of January, 2025.


Exhibit #1 Suppression

As it stands, the court will rule to grant the suppression of exhibit #1. The court rules with the defense under the finding that the statement provided is a witness statement and not a one-sided deposition. Currently the statement does possess the judicial branch affirmation, however it does not posses the correct format. In accordance with the precedence set from #22-CM-0036, State of San Andreas v. Hailee Copyak and later affirmed by #22-CM-0072, State of San Andreas v. Hassan Readick and finally entered into binding precedence under #23-CM-0086, State of San Andreas v. Bongo Haze, all witness statements presented to the court must be written with the affirmation and in the correct format.

As has happened in the prior cases, we will be giving the prosecution 72 hours to gather and re-submit the evidence to the court in the proper format. ((Given that it's been blurred it's also hard to tell if anything has been spoken through text chat.))


Exhibit #2 Suppression

While the defense presents a compelling argument towards suppression, due to the possible lack of a complete picture, saved footage, the court rules to deny the suppression of exhibit #2. The court finds the officer to have reviewed the footage attached to the event in its fullness. While it may not be the direct downloadable footage, the officer used their department issued bodycam to record CCTV footage after gaining access to City Halls secure server. ((Please keep in mind this is obviously /me and /do RP, and I am opting to give the benefit of the doubt to some extent. If the defendant has an issue with the /me and /do's conducted, we should be able to organize a time to redo the RP.))


Exhibit #3 Suppression

The court rules to grant the suppression of exhibit #3 in part. The court will be suppressing the lines "which he initially denied" and "He admitted that he had gone into the locker room, gone on duty to get a duty tazer, take off his shirt and wrap it around his head to conceal his identity and taze the man as he was being unruly and rude." As it stands, the bodycam footage provided by Commander Jessica Nash only shows the defendant seemingly agreeing and understanding to Commander Nash stating "trying to conceal the truth of the events reflects poorly on him and GOV and that whilst she wouldn't press criminal charges due to professional courtesy and the need to internally investigate."

The defendant goes on to explain that Mr. Ping was being very difficult and annoying. The court agrees with the defense that none of these statements would be fit the evaluation of the yellow highlighted statements.

As for the green highlighted statement, we will be denying the defenses motion to suppress. The information is contained within other exhibits and is a personal observation of the Commander, not an assertion of the guilt of the defendant, but the steps taken during an investigation.


Exhibit #4 Suppression

The CCTV has been shown in exhibit #2. For that reason, we will be denying the defenses request for suppression, unless the defense is able to provide evidence to show that the image has been tampered.


Exhibit #5 Suppression

Under seal.

So Ordered,

Image
Superior Court Justice
Branch Administrator

San Andreas Judicial Branch
505-9925 — [email protected]
Image
Image
User avatar
Hope Kant
Judicial Branch
Posts: 6388
Joined: 30 Jan 2021, 19:56
ECRP Forum Name:
Discord:

SAJB Awards

Re: #24-CM-0093, State of San Andreas v. Huw Masons

Post by Hope Kant »

Image

San Andreas Judicial Branch

Docket Notice
"HERE FOR YOU | SAFE FOR YOU"

  • Prosecution and defense counsel,

    Thank you for both your submissions on the docket thus far. Prosecution, you have 72 hours to respond to the defenses Motion to Compel Discovery or the court will proceed accordingly. After a ruling has made and the information obtained (if so ruled), the trial will proceed to scheduling.

    Respectfully,
    Image
    Superior Court Justice
    Branch Administrator

    San Andreas Judicial Branch
    505-9925 — [email protected]
Image
Image
Terence Williams
Posts: 4094
Joined: 26 May 2023, 19:02
ECRP Forum Name:
Discord:

SAJB Awards

Re: #24-CM-0093, State of San Andreas v. Huw Masons

Post by Terence Williams »

Image

San Andreas Judicial Branch

Docket Notice
"HERE FOR YOU | SAFE FOR YOU"

  • Honorable Judge Kant and pertaining parties,
    • Regarding the request for City Hall CCTV footage
      Contrary to what counsel is stating, no members of the Prosecution or the Judicial Branch have access to the CCTV footage at City Hall. That access is restricted to select members of the Government Security Bureau and the Board of Governors. Additionally, the Prosecution does not believe this request should be handled by the court but rather made directly to the State Government as part of the Defense's own investigation into the incident.
    • Regarding the request for GOV IA reports and communication
      While current evidence states that the defendant's victim was advised to file an IA report, there is no evidence that such a report was ever filed. Defense counsel is on a fishing expedition by requesting potentially fictional evidence to support their case. Additionally, the Prosecution does not believe this request should be handled by the court but rather made directly to the respective workplace as part of the Defense's own investigation into the incident.
    • Regarding the request for personnel records
      The Prosecution does not necessarily object to allowing these records to be introduced as evidence but does not see the relevance of records from the LSSD, as the defendant had not been an employee for well over six (6) months at the time of the incident. Additionally, the Prosecution does not believe this request should be handled by the court but rather made directly to the respective workplace as part of the Defense's own investigation into the incident.
    • Regarding the request for witness statements
      The Prosecution objects to this request as the court should not compel individuals to testify. The Defense is free to investigate the incident themselves and reach out to potential witnesses and should do so rather than relying on the court to do the work for them by compelling testimony from potentially unwilling witnesses.

    Regards,
    Image
    Terence Williams
    Attorney General
    San Andreas Judicial Branch
    234-9321 — [email protected]
Image
User avatar
Hope Kant
Judicial Branch
Posts: 6388
Joined: 30 Jan 2021, 19:56
ECRP Forum Name:
Discord:

SAJB Awards

Re: #24-CM-0093, State of San Andreas v. Huw Masons

Post by Hope Kant »

Image


San Andreas Judicial Branch

Superior Court of San Andreas
"EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"

COURT DECISION


IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

State of San Andreas v. Huw Masons
#24-CM-0093

A decision was reached in the above case on the 29th day of January, 2025.


The court has previously warned counsel about the importance of maintaining professionalism and respect in its filings. The court will be issuing that warning again for both parties. As stated by Judge Fitzgerald, "There is no need for making assumptions about the other side, or asking questions about why they have made decisions." Moving forward, the court expects a more measured and neutral tone in all submissions or the either party may face fines.

Requested Discovery: The entire CCTV Footage, City Hall
  • The CCTV footage was provided within the bodycam footage of Commander Nash. For that reason, we will be denying the defense request. ((If the OOC feeling is that the bodycam RP of the CCTV is incomplete, the defendant or even Lee Ping and the defendant could RP to add to it. It already RPly exists.))


Requested Discovery: Internal Affairs Reports and Communication, GOV site
  • UNDER SEAL

    However, the court considers IA reports to be sensitive and confidential business records and will generally deny access unless the Defense can demonstrate a compelling need for the report.

    While the court acknowledges the Defense's request, it is important to note that, in the future, the judiciary may consider introducing an in-camera review process to assess the relevance and necessity of certain documents before they are added to the docket. However, as one does not exist currently, the court is unwilling to require Government Agencies or Businesses to provide sensitive and confidential personnel records without significant reasoning, and as such will be denying the defenses request.


Requested Discovery: Personnel Records of Huw Masons, GSB & SD
  • The court finds that the personnel records of the defendant from the Government Security Bureau (GSB) and the Los Santos Sheriff's Department (LSSD) are not pertinent to the matter at hand. While the defendant was employed with GSB at the time, the central issue in this case is not the defendant's job performance or character as an employee, but whether the defendant committed the alleged crimes. As such, the request for these records is denied, as they do not provide material evidence relevant to the charges in this case.


Requested Discovery: Witness Statements from Lee Ping and other bystanders
  • The court has not compelled individuals to testify previously, and while this may be considered in future cases, we are not inclined to require testimony at this stage without sufficient justification. In the present matter, the defendant has already indicated their desire to drop the charges and has provided a statement to the officer on scene, as evidenced by the bodycam footage. Given this, the court finds no current need to compel further testimony from them or others, and will be denying the request.


So Ordered,

Image
Superior Court Justice
Branch Administrator

San Andreas Judicial Branch
505-9925 — [email protected]
Image
Image
User avatar
Hope Kant
Judicial Branch
Posts: 6388
Joined: 30 Jan 2021, 19:56
ECRP Forum Name:
Discord:

SAJB Awards

Re: #24-CM-0093, State of San Andreas v. Huw Masons

Post by Hope Kant »

Image

San Andreas Judicial Branch

Docket Notice
"HERE FOR YOU | SAFE FOR YOU"

  • Prosecution and defense counsel,

    The court will be waiting the remaining 2 (or less) days for the prosecution to amend their evidence. If more time is needed, a motion for continuance may be submitted for review. Thank you to both parties for your patience.

    Respectfully,
    Image
    Superior Court Justice
    Branch Administrator

    San Andreas Judicial Branch
    505-9925 — [email protected]
Image
Image
Terence Williams
Posts: 4094
Joined: 26 May 2023, 19:02
ECRP Forum Name:
Discord:

SAJB Awards

Re: #24-CM-0093, State of San Andreas v. Huw Masons

Post by Terence Williams »

Image



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. Huw Masons
#24-CM-0093

A Motion for Discovery was filed in the above case on the 31st of January, 2025.


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


  • Exhibit #7: Witness statement - Police Commander Jessica Nash
    Image

    San Andreas Judicial Branch
    Official Witness Statement
    "HERE FOR YOU | SAFE FOR YOU"
    Case Information
    • Case Number: [0093]
      Incident Date: [26/JUL/2024]
    Witness Information
    • Name: [Jessica Nash]
      Date of Birth: [REDACTED]
      Phone Number: [REDACTED]
      Occupation: Police Commander, Los Santos Police Department
    Witness Statement
    • As I have reiterated on multiple occasions, Chief Nash and Myself Commander Nash, recieved a 911 call from a civilian, located at the City Hall, Carcer Way, stating they had been tazed for no reason.

      We arrived to find an agitated, half naked gentleman, standing in the lobby. He advised us that he had been tazed by someone that works at city hall, describing their clothing (Leather look jacket, jeans on the bottom half, back tattoo and brown/black spiky hair). I immediately thought of Huw Parry, but opted to speak to Alfie (Cannot remember his last name) of GSB to see what he knew and if Huw was around. He stated Huw was on the second story, standing with 1x male and 1x female. I approached Huw to ask if he knew what was going on, he said he had no idea but that the individual (Complaintant) was being rowdy and refusing to leave.

      I went back to the complaintant and he advised that the accused, went into a downstairs doorway, returning seconds later, shirtless, with a black tshirt mask around his face, but that his jeans and shoes were exactly the same. I checked the CCTV from the door in which the complaintant spoke of and found CCTV footage of Huw Parry Entering, and a gentlemen leaving, (same jeans, shoes, distinctive back tattoo). I took the CCTV footage and approached Huw Parry again.

      Before confronting him with the evidence, i stated to him that it would look better on him if he told the truth, as my personal issue would not be the act, but it would be the lying and that it would be likely to result in an IA rather than criminal charges, as a professional courtesy. He admitted that he did it, and stated it was because he was being incredibly rude and refusing to leave, that he lost his temper and that was all. I advised again that i'd be passing this information to internal affairs, and then left to speak with the complaintant.

      I advised the complaintant that we have gathered evidence but due to the nature of the reported 'crime' - we must forward this evidence and information for review by internal affairs, as the individual is an employee of the state. He seemed satisfied with this.
      I then wrote an email to Emily Whitehorse, including the same recount above, along with CCTV footage.
    Witness Affirmation
    • I, [Jessica Nash], affirm that the above statement is true to the best of my knowledge and belief. I affirm that this statement has been made voluntarily, made without promise of reward, and made not under threat, force, or coercion. ((I affirm that all information submitted has been obtained via In-Character means.))

      Signed,

      Image
      [Jessica Nash]
      [Police Commander]
      [Los Santos Police Department]

      Date: [30/JAN/2025]

    Image
  • Exhibit #8: Bodycam footage audio file
    UNDER SEAL



Image
Terence Williams
Attorney General
San Andreas Judicial Branch
234-9321 — [email protected]
Image
Locked

Return to “SAJB - Archived Formal Criminal Cases”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests