Page 2 of 3
Re: #24-CM-0020, State of San Andreas v. Cyrus Raven
Posted: 29 May 2024, 18:54
by Hugh Allgood
San Andreas Judicial Branch
Superior Court of San Andreas
"EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"
MOTION FOR INVOLUNTARY DISMISSAL
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS
State of San Andreas v. Cyrus Raven
#24-CM-0020
A Motion for Involuntary Dismissal was filed in the above case on the 29th day of May, 2024
The Defendant, Cyrus Raven, by and through the undersigned attorney, filed this Motion for Involuntary Dismissal, and the reasoning for request is as follows;
- Reasoning: Undue Delay; violation of the defendant's 6th Amendment
- Detailed Explanation: The defense wishes to refresh its Motion for Involuntary Dismissal filed on 12/Apr/2024 and fully incorporate it herein insofar as it pertains to the alleged violation of Cyrus Raven's 6th Amendment; in part, "enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial".
To remind the Court and applicable parties where we are -- Cyrus Raven was arrested and charged in November 2023. And since that time, there has been no Constitutional protections pertaining to Cyrus Raven's 6th Amendment right guaranteeing that he would receive a speedy public trial, nor that such trial, if it ever happened, would be fair. From the perspective of the seemingly foreign concept of speedy trial, this case was activated by the Superior Court at the beginning of April 2024, and we are nearly in the month of June with effectively no movement on this matter other than Cyrus Raven and his defense team has finally seen the evidence amounted against Cyrus Raven for the first time in the 5 months Cyrus Raven had to wait before having this privilege (despite his right to be afforded the opportunity to confront the evidence and witnesses against him). Prior to receiving the discovery, the State requested a continuance in this matter -- despite the fact they had 5 months to get their 'ducks in a row', and the Court granted this continuance over the defense objection. So delay in activation and delay in being afforded the right to confront his accusers. Since this court-afforded delay, the defense has filed a motion to suppress evidence, and a motion to unseal evidence between 17-18/Apr/2024. On 6/May/2024 the Prosecution filed additional discovery beyond the Court ordered discovery window closing, and also a motion to amend charges. In response, the Defense filed a motion to suppress that evidence (due to the lack of timeliness by the State) and a response to the State's response to the defense motion to unseal evidence. The Defense also submitted evidence of its own around the same time. The prosecution would like to cite a case noting " the nature of the evidence, exigent circumstances within the prosecution department, time given to defense to review said evidence, amount of evidence being presented, etc. etc.", however, none of this is persuasive. It's a single piece of evidence the Prosecution has had in their possession this whole time, there are no "exigent circumstances" cited (other than maybe the Prosecution feeling pressured to try and find and make something stick at this point), or the amount of time the defense has had. Whether the Defense has this information or doesn't is irrelevant as the burden is on the State not the Defense, and this information has not been considered at this point because the defense has not been notified of the State intending on using it due to the lack of disclosure through discovery. Again, just yet another tactic to delay this matter further, without any consideration to Cyrus Raven's Constitutional right to a speedy trial.
To add further salt to injury, we filed a request for an update with the Court on 22/May/2024. This request is also being fully incorporated herein for reference. The Court responded several hours later promising "pending motions will be responded to in the following days. I appreciate your patience on this matter, you will hear from the court soon regarding motions and a full court decision. Just what is "following days" and "soon"? It's been a week now, and nothing has happened. Again, another delay with ZERO consideration to Cyrus Raven's Constitutional rights. It's been 7 months now, and with each passing day, it becomes greater in length.
Therefore, we respectfully request this case to be involuntary dismissed due to the repeated and persistent violations of Cyrus Raven's 6th Amendment right to a speedy trial.
Attorney
Owner
Allgood Law
909) 235-6076 — [email protected]
Re: #24-CM-0020, State of San Andreas v. Cyrus Raven
Posted: 30 May 2024, 15:09
by Hope Kant
San Andreas Judicial Branch
Docket Notice
"HERE FOR YOU | SAFE FOR YOU"
|
- Honorable Chief Justice Winejudge and pertaining parties,
To make the courts aware of the specific timeline the defense is referencing, we would like to provide the less-dramatized version of events:
- Apr 04, 2024 - Case is Activated by Chief Justice Winejudge.
- Apr 08, 2024 - Prosecution requests a continuance till the 15th of April.
- Apr 09, 2024 - Defense Objects to the Prosecutions motion, but states they are okay with the April 15th deadline.
- Apr 12, 2024 - Defense Submits 1st Motion for Involuntary Dismissal.
- Apr 12, 2024 - Chief Justice Winejudge denies the motion and allows discovery to continue till the 15th of April.
- Apr 15, 2024 - Prosecution Posts Motion for Discovery.
- Apr 17, 2024 - Chief Justice Robert Winejudge goes on LOA
- Apr 18, 2024 - Defense Posts Response.
- Apr 20, 2024 - Prosecution goes on LOA.
- May 02, 2024 - Prosecution is put on Medical Leave.
- May 05, 2024 - Prosecution Medical Leave Ends.
- May 06, 2024 - Prosecution Posts Responses.
- May 09, 2024 - Prosecution and Chief Justice Winejudge end LOA.
When the timeline is broken down, the prosecution took a total of 5 days to post the one piece of additional discovery and 2 days to respond to motions. The prosecution worked through their approved LOA, and has not in any way delayed the progress of the trial beyond the allotted time given to the prosecution to respond.
Respectfully,
Attorney General
Director of Public Notary
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 505-9925 — [email protected]
Re: #24-CM-0020, State of San Andreas v. Cyrus Raven
Posted: 26 Jun 2024, 10:00
by Hugh Allgood
Allgood Law
24-CM-0020
"Right Firm. Right Now"
|
- Superior Court of San Andreas,
The defense wishes to, again, affirm the previous motion for involuntary dismissal.
This entire case has been plagued by delay after delay after delay, with ZERO consideration for the Constitutional rights of Cyrus Raven. Initially the delay was as a result of the prosecution requesting a continuance to review evidence despite having months and months to collect and review the evidence used to support Cyrus Raven’s arrest. The Court granted the request and denied the defense request for dismissal at that time over defense objections. As a former member of the branch, I am disappointed in the current state of the branch and the judiciary and the overall lack of respect for the rights of defendants going through the system.
Very astoundingly, there has been no further movement in this case since then. A number of motions have been filed, and the Court has not reviewed or rendered any decisions, and we are no where closer to receiving a decision or getting to trial than we were when this case was activated. The Court stated on 22/May/2024 that “the pending motions will be responded to in the following days.” It’s been 35 days since this decision.
I guess jokes on Cyrus Raven and his defense team because technically “the following days” can mean 1 day, 35 days, 365 days, or even 6 years from now. This may be the only truth that’s been upheld in this whole thing. - I guess whenever we get a decision, if we ever get any decisions, the Court will have held to their word of getting a decision within “the following days” from 22/May/2024. Hopefully it occurs at some time before defense counsel’s retirement plans.
Although not convinced this will get reviewed or anything…We believe and reaffirm our earlier motion to dismiss this matter. It’s drawn on long enough, with no end in sight, and no provisioning of Cyrus Raven’s Constitutional right to a speedy trial in sight. Justice delayed is justice denied.
Respectfully,
Owner/Attorney
Allgood Law
(909) 235-6076 —
[email protected]
Re: #24-CM-0020, State of San Andreas v. Cyrus Raven
Posted: 24 Jul 2024, 23:44
by Bret Hyland
San Andreas Judicial Branch
Superior Court of San Andreas
"EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"
COURT NOTICE
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS
State of San Andreas v. Cyrus Raven
#24-CM-0020
A Notice is issued as of the 24th day of July 2024
Due to the nature of this case, and the conflicts of interest associated, I will now be presiding over this file.
Both Defense and Prosecution will submit all evidence that is being accepted to this trial in a formal document and it SHALL be organized, I do not want to see anything that has been redacted, or has been appealed lodged in this document from both teams.
You have until this Saturday, failure to do so will only hinder the speed in which this case is completed.
Both sides shall conduct themselves professionally, and in accordance with both the oath they swore and the code of conduct issued by the Bar Association, failure todo so shall have you removed from this case, zero tolerances afforded.
I will review your documents on July 27th, and confirm them against all other filings.
We will be pressing for trial on the 3rd/4th of August, get your ducks in a row.
Superior Judge
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 225-3056 — [email protected]
Re: #24-CM-0020, State of San Andreas v. Cyrus Raven
Posted: 25 Jul 2024, 00:20
by Hugh Allgood
Allgood Law
24-CM-0020
"Right Firm. Right Now"
|
- Judge Hyland & Opposing Counsel,
With all due respect, it is this counsels believe the Court needs to rule on the outstanding motions that have already been filed before pushing forward into a trial next week.
It would seem to put the buggy before the horse to require the prosecution to republish their evidence they wish to use, especially since defense has requested suppression of a considerable amount and this motion was never ruled on. Or to request the defense to come up with their entire case around evidence the defense believes should be suppressed to begin with. This does not afford the defendant a fair trial.
There’s an outstanding motion to suppress from 17/April, motion to unseal evidence from 18/April, a motion to suppress from 8/May, a defense motion for discovery from 11/May, and a motion to involuntarily dismiss from 29/May.
Respectfully,
Owner/Attorney
Allgood Law
(909) 235-6076 —
[email protected]
Re: #24-CM-0020, State of San Andreas v. Cyrus Raven
Posted: 25 Jul 2024, 00:32
by Bret Hyland
San Andreas Judicial Branch
Superior Court of San Andreas
"EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"
COURT NOTICE
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS
State of San Andreas v. Cyrus Raven
#24-CM-0020
A Notice is issued as of the 24th day of July 2024
Defense, I appreciate your feedback, I am not looking to spend my entire day re-reading information, and going over every judgement that has already been established. I shall rule on these appeals shortly, but you wished for a hasty resolution for your client, I have granted this to you. Prepare your case Attorney Allgood, you will have my decisions shortly.
Superior Judge
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 225-3056 — [email protected]
Re: #24-CM-0020, State of San Andreas v. Cyrus Raven
Posted: 25 Jul 2024, 01:22
by Bret Hyland
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. Cyrus Raven
#24-CM-0020
A decision was reached in the above case on the 24th day of July, 2024.
Relation to motion to unseal Evidence. - Prosecution please release side files to my direct e-mail for review and redaction should it apply, prior to the defense collecting the required signature below.
- Defense, please note once this information is public I will not be re-sealing this evidence, regardless of claims of defamation, or information released in this documents, thus I request you have your client sign a document and submit it to the court that they understand the possible implications associated by the release of this information. Once received I will grant the motion to unseal this evidence, and it will become public in this case.
Motion to Supresss
-Exhibit 1, This will not be suppressed as I expect during trial the prosecution will make their ties your wishing to suppress, and I find no justification in your request as it sites itself and other areas in the same exhibit to justify the suppression. During trial you may object and justify at that point why the information should be omitted.
THIS SHALL STAND.
- Exhibit 5,7, - Sealed evidence shall not be suppressed, especially since you have requested its opening, meet my requirements and I shall grant your opening, and the documents released to the case and subsequently the public.
-Exhibit 8
-First yellow portion, I find your request vague and of no additional merit than the initial evidence, thus without further reasoning and/or justification I see no reason to dismiss this evidence.
-Second Yellow Portion, the requested portion does not link Mr. Williams to the cartel as you so stated, this is affirmed in the information previously disclosed in your non requested suppressed information. This is an officers sworn statement, and shall be considered acceptable in this trial, you may object this information when presented at the trial if you can justify the request when doing so.
-I will suppress the 3rd area, this is acceptable and incidents occurring post charges being laid against the defendant.
-Exhibit 10 - You have provided no justification for the suppression of this information in relation to this trial, and have thrown allegations against decorated members of the Sherriff's departments, I request you reframe from making these allegations going forward in relation to cases, especially without justifications. Should your office wish to raise a case against these members please file the appropriate documents to commence such an investigation. - This shall remain intact. ((Prosecution, please update the links associated with this document as some appear broken))
Please note that whilst the prosecution may not be looking to charge the other partcipants in the information from these files should the court deem that these are cases that need further investigation the court will apply pressure to have these cases investigated and presented for trial.
-Exhibit 11 - Get me a signed document from your client allowing the release of this information, and his acknowledgment of the possible ramifications and it will be released, otherwise it remains intact.
May 8th
-Exhibit 13 - Your client as you stated, "gave the records consensually to be fully transparent" - This shall stand as your client submitted it to the prosecution of their own accord. Referencing your note pertaining a previous case, this is not the same instance as your client willing fully and knowingly submitted it, versus the prosecution continuing their investigation, your client gave them the information thus knowing what they were doing, especially considering their law enforcement background and their history in the Judicial department.
This shall remain.
May 11th
-To clarify, 3 days prior your were requesting to suppress evidence in this trial due to being outside of the allotted time, followed by a submission of your own.
May 29th,
-Denied, I will not be dismissing this case at this point, prepare yourself, this trial will happen either the 3rd or 4th of august, it is time to complete this, and in accordance with your clients 6th amendment we will get a speedy trial completed.
Superior Judge
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 225-3056 — [email protected]
Re: #24-CM-0020, State of San Andreas v. Cyrus Raven
Posted: 26 Jul 2024, 22:51
by Bret Hyland
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. Cyrus Raven
#24-CM-0020
A decision was reached in the above case on the 25th day of July, 2024.
Defense as instructed please submit your clients acceptance, that should anything come for unsealing these, that he understands the ramifications.
Submit it to the trial case file, for the record to show.
Exhibit 2 - Can be released to the file
Exhibit 3 - Can be released, redacting the names, positions and titles of the officials that completed the inquiry.
Exhibit 4 - Offers little to support either side, thus I have no issue having it released in its entirety
Exhibit 6 - Release this also please.
Superior Judge
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 225-3056 — [email protected]
Re: #24-CM-0020, State of San Andreas v. Cyrus Raven
Posted: 26 Jul 2024, 23:21
by Hugh Allgood
San Andreas Judicial Branch
Superior Court of San Andreas
"EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"
DEFENDANT'S ATTESTATION OF REQUEST TO UNSEAL EVIDENCE
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS
State of San Andreas v. Cyrus Raven
#24-CM-0020
I, Cyrus Raven, have been duly informed by counsel Hugh R. Allgood of all possible implications of unsealing evidence intended for use by the State in its prosecution against me in the case cited as 24-CM-0020, State of San Andreas v. Cyrus Raven. I acknowledge once unsealed, the evidence will not be resealed and will be posted publicly on the docket in the aforementioned case.
I make this attestation being of sound mind, and affirm I make such attestation willingly and not under any form of duress, coercion, nor any internal or external influence.
Affirmed on this 26th day of July, 2024.
Cyrus Raven
Cyrus Raven
Defendant
Affirmed on this 26th day of July, 2024.
Hugh R. Allgood
Counsel for Defendant
Re: #24-CM-0020, State of San Andreas v. Cyrus Raven
Posted: 31 Jul 2024, 18:38
by Hope Kant
Re: #24-CM-0020, State of San Andreas v. Cyrus Raven
Posted: 31 Jul 2024, 22:10
by Bret Hyland
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. Cyrus Raven
#24-CM-0020
A decision was reached in the above case on the 31st day of July, 2024.
We will release the following documents to the file.
Exhibit 2
Exhibit 3
Exhibit 4
Exhibit 6
Exhibit 5,7,11 can remain sealed, as they were not requested to be unsealed, and also in response to your request.
Thank you
Superior Judge
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 225-3056 — [email protected]
Re: #24-CM-0020, State of San Andreas v. Cyrus Raven
Posted: 01 Aug 2024, 02:32
by Hugh Allgood
Allgood Law
24-CM-0020
"Right Firm. Right Now"
|
- Judge Hyland,
We actually did request exhibit #11 to be unsealed (see attachment). First off, it's the Defendant's phone records, and while there is a low-level of merit in the concerns of the prosecutor as far as attorney-client privilege is concerned, Defense counsel has reviewed these records with the Defendant and we are confident the information contained in the exhibit will not negatively affect attorney-client privilege.
The Defendant wants a public trial, and this includes allowing the public to see the evidence the State believes meets their burden of proof.
The Defense, again, respectfully requests this evidence to also be unsealed.
Hugh Allgood wrote: ↑18 Apr 2024, 21:36
San Andreas Judicial Branch
Superior Court of San Andreas
"EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"
MOTION TO UNSEAL EVIDENCE
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS
State of San Andreas v. Cyrus Raven
24-CM-0020
The following motion for unseal evidence was filed in the above case on the 18th of April, 2024.
Cyrus Raven, by and through the undersigned attorney and Chief Public Defender Shaun Harper and Senior Defense Attorney Lisa Winter, filed this Motion requesting the unsealing of evidence, and the reasoning for request is as follows;
- Reasoning: Preserve Defendant's right to a public trial + request of Cyrus Raven
- Detailed Explanation:
Related to the evidence under seal, the Defense believes the following exhibits should be unsealed;
- 11: “Cyrus Raven Phone Records”
Mr. Raven requests his phone and text logs to be unsealed in the full interest of transparency, and wants this information (his information) to be fully available to the public.
Attorney
Owner
Allgood Law
909) 235-6076 — [email protected]
Respectfully,
Owner/Attorney
Allgood Law
(909) 235-6076 —
[email protected]
Re: #24-CM-0020, State of San Andreas v. Cyrus Raven
Posted: 04 Aug 2024, 02:17
by Hugh Allgood
Allgood Law
Upcoming absence
"Right Firm. Right Now"
|
- To whom it concerns,
This notice is intended to serve as official notice of Counsel’s upcoming absence. I have been honorably requested to serve on a law school selection committee in Las Venuturras selecting a small section of the next generation of legal professionals.
I will leave San Andreas early morning on 10/Aug/2024 and return 19/Aug/2024.
Respectfully,
Owner/Attorney
Allgood Law
(909) 235-6076 —
[email protected]
Re: #24-CM-0020, State of San Andreas v. Cyrus Raven
Posted: 06 Aug 2024, 23:43
by Bret Hyland
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. Cyrus Raven
#24-CM-0020
A decision was reached in the above case on the 8th day of August, 2024.
Exhibit 11 can be unsealed once Mr. Raven states he is aware that information shared from this document should it impact the Attorney, Client relations that he and his representation will be held responsible for this release and should one of the people listed in the document come forward with concerns understands the risks associated to this release.
The state shall not be held accountable for the violation of said attorney, client privileges' as it is the request of the defendant and his representation that has requested this list.
For clarity as per the Barr Association as per section II, please review this document as the defendant and his representation maybe held liable for violations of this Section from the BARR association.
Section II
Violations in relation to the violation of Attorney, Client privilege's are subject to a review by the BARR association.
I require prior to the release of Exhibit 11, a written statement from both Mr. Cyrus Raven and his representation stating they understand the possible ramifications and repercussions of this request.
Thank you
Superior Judge
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 225-3056 — [email protected]
Re: #24-CM-0020, State of San Andreas v. Cyrus Raven
Posted: 09 Aug 2024, 23:16
by Cyrus Raven
- Honorable Judge Hyland,
I, Cyrus Raven, agree to the unsealing of Exhibit #11 and understand what the court has outlined in its previous court decision.
My Attorney, Hugh Allgood, is acting on my instructions alone and as such I request he not be forced to make any additional statements accepting responsibility for actions he has no control over.
Respectfully,
Re: #24-CM-0020, State of San Andreas v. Cyrus Raven
Posted: 23 Aug 2024, 18:06
by Hugh Allgood
San Andreas Judicial Branch
Superior Court of San Andreas
"EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"
MOTION FOR INVOLUNTARY DISMISSAL
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS
State of San Andreas v. Cyrus Raven
#24-CM-0020
A Motion for Involuntary Dismissal was filed in the above case on the 23rd day of August, 2024
The Defendant, Cyrus Raven, by and through the undersigned attorney, filed this Motion for Involuntary Dismissal, and the reasoning for request is as follows;
- Reasoning: Undue Delay; violation of the defendant's 6th Amendment
- Detailed Explanation: The defense wishes to refresh its Motion for Involuntary Dismissal filed on both 12/Apr/2024 and 29th/May/2024 and fully incorporate it herein insofar as it pertains to the alleged violation of Cyrus Raven's 6th Amendment; in part Cyrus Raven's right to "enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial".
To remind the Court and applicable parties where we are -- Cyrus Raven was arrested and charged in November 2023 and this case was activated in April 2024. The charges stem from an investigation commencing sometime in August 2023, as this is when Mr. Raven was terminated from his position as Attorney General. We are now a year later, at the end of August, 2024, with no legitimate movement on the case, other than the current Presiding Judge taking over the case from former Chief Justice Winejudge and essentially trying to rush this case into a trial the week of 3/August/2024, which never happened. We had the request to unseal evidence, which Defense timely complied with the court direction on having the Defendant complete an attestation for the unsealing of evidence, including exhibit 11 although the Court for some reason wanted more information from the Defendant on this information getting unsealed. Although the court ordered for the exhibits, excepting exhibit 11, to be unsealed on 8/Aug/2024, the evidence has never been unsealed. The Defendant acknowledged his request for the records to be unsealed as requested of the court on 9/Aug/2024, and no further response or direction from the Court has been received.
There are a number of other appealable issues in this matter, but at this particular juncture, these issues will be preserved for an appeal as applicable.
Therefore, we respectfully (again) request this case to be involuntary dismissed due to the repeated and persistent violations of Cyrus Raven's 6th Amendment right to a speedy trial.
Attorney
Owner
Allgood Law
909) 235-6076 — [email protected]
Re: #24-CM-0020, State of San Andreas v. Cyrus Raven
Posted: 23 Aug 2024, 18:35
by Hope Kant
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. Cyrus Raven
# 24-CM-0020
A Motion for Discovery was filed in the above case on the 23th of August, 2024.
The State of San Andreas by and through the undersigned attorney, filed this Motion for Discovery, and presents the following as evidence;
San Andreas State Government
Law Review Committee
Application Form
|
1. CANDIDATE INFORMATION - Personal Section
- First Name: Cyrus
Middle Names:
Last Name: Raven
Date of Birth: 11/10/1980
Home Address: Weazel Plaza Apartments 33
Phone Number: 535-6160
Email: [email protected]
Current Occupation: Chief Public Defender, San Andreas Judicial Branch
Business Ventures: Raven Lottery (Inactive), Raven Law (Sold)
Owned Property: N/A
2. CANDIDATE PLATFORM - Party & Policy Section
- Party Affiliation : Independent
Candidate Biography (150 Words):
I was born in Liberty City and moved to Los Santos at a young age. I attended the University of Los Santos for Criminal Law where I took a few courses of management and accounting. I briefly worked as a stunt car driver for a few small time movies and while that did solidify my love for cars, it was short lived as I pursued a career in Law Enforcement.
I initially joined the Los Santos Police Department back in 2019 where I remained until the start of 2020. I joined the Los Santos Sheriff's Department as part of the first wave of recruits to help establish the new department up north. After becoming a full operative with SED and achieving my initial goals, I took a long break from Law Enforcement before returning once more and rejoining the Los Santos Police Department. Having wanted to be a Detective since I first joined in 2019, I worked hard and pursued that position, earning Detective I on November of 2020. I once again took a break at the start of 2021, where I focused on growing Raven Lottery, the first lottery business in the city. After a brief return to the LSPD on March of 2022, I applied and become a Public Defense Attorney with the Judicial Branch where over the course of a few months I was promoted to Chief Public Defender. I have spent my time at the Judicial Branch defending the citizens of Los Santos in court, helping them appeal their charges.
Candidate Statement (150 Words):
Although this is a preliminary application, I feel like I should use this section to address the people of Los Santos. As far as I am aware, there might be a chance that this application does not get accepted due to my position at the Judicial Branch, but I will have done my job if I at least leave you with an impression as to what a proper candidate should be.
My goal for as far as I can remember has been justice. Justice is an interesting word. To some it is a synonym to prison and the inability to move forward from small mistakes , to others it is a word used to apply heavy handed and unjust enforcement of law.
To me, Justice is a balance of power. A moral and legal tool to ensure that the law is applied fairly and equally, no matter someone's race, age, sexual orientation, gender, but perhaps more importantly, occupation.
How does this version of Justice impact you? Well, if elected as a representative for Los Santos I will continue my work to achieve Justice from all sides. Whether it is fighting against extremist terrorist groups or against police overreach.
A few of the changes I will be seeking are the following:
- Reduction of Jail Time on all charges.
- Increase in speed limit throughout Los Santos
- Establishing a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)
- Establishing a Freedom of the Press Act (FOPA)
- Establish the first unions for our government agencies. (PD,SD,MD,DOC)
- Increase funding for SD and PD with a focus on non-lethal enforcement techniques.
I am honest about my background and I know that this city has a deep divide that needs fixing between those that enforce the law and those who have at one point broken the law. However, my open approach and past background in law enforcement and public defense is what Los Santos needs to move forward. Enough talking about the issue, it is time to do something about it.
Candidate Picture:
Additional Links/Information/Material (Optional, can be added in the future): To be announced...
3. CANDIDATE AGREEMENT
- Please Confirm the Following:
Mark an X in the appropriate checkbox.
[X] You are not currently employed as a command member of the LSPD, LSSD, LSEMS, or DOC
[X] You have not been a employed as a command member of LSPD, LSSD, LSEMS, or DOC in the last two months
[X] You assert you have never been found guilty of domestic terrorism, and are not currently regarded as an enemy of the state.
[X] You confirm that you would pass the necessary background check and are eligible to sit as a representative in the state including not having committed any felonies in the past 2 years.
[X] You are not currently affiliated with any criminal organizations
[X] You are willing to make financial disclosures when requested by the Chairperson of the Congress, including documentation of any donation made over $10,000
((4. OOC REQUIREMENTS))
- In order to apply, you must meet the 80,000 Experience requirement on any character. Please post a photo below proving this.
5. CANDIDACY PAYMENT
- Visit the San Andreas Executive Building (City Hall), and walk up to the Information desk and pay the fee on the left side of the desk with the card reader. Afterward, you will attach a digital copy of your receipt on this candidacy form. ((Post a screenshot of the notification in your chatbox once you make the donation. ))
Total Due: $15,000
Copy of Receipt: Receipt
6. AGREEMENT
- By submitting this request you hereby agree that all information provided is truthful and that any fraudulent submission will be subject to criminal prosecution.
Candidate's Signature: 
Date: 15/11/2022
Redacted wrote:04 Jan 2023, 17:16
Redacted
Need information about LRC members receiving donations
Dear Rasheed,
I contacted you a few weeks ago about Cyrus Raven. I know he received a huge contribution while campaigning for LRC seat. This is an ongoing investigation and I need to know the amount and who donated the money to Cryus Raven. This should be public knowledge, but I am requesting it as a government director. This is an urgent matter as I think it will link with the Bob situation.
- Sincerely,
Redacted
Rockford Hills City Rasheed Briggs wrote: ↑05 Jan 2023, 02:21
Mr Wood,
Thanks for reaching out. Below you will find the amounts that Cyrus Raven submitted to our committee.
500,000$ James Eriksen/Motorsport Dealership
500,000$ Vince Williams
Cyrus Raven wrote: ↑18 Dec 2022, 13:16
CONTACT INFORMATION
Full Name: Cyrus Raven
Phone Number: 5356160
INQUIRY
I am submitting this inquiry/concern on behalf of my constituents. With regards to
Press Release #53, specifically the new
Business Competition Policy.
The purpose stated with this new policy is to ''
manage competition between businesses and the identification and management of price fixing in favour of business owners.''. Likewise, it states ''
The San Andreas State Government has identified a requirement to introduce an official policy regarding Business Competition to prevent the formation of monopolies, avoid any form of price fixing in favour of business owners and generally encourage competition between businesses.''
With this being said, a few questions:
- What does the San Andreas State Government define as a ''monopoly''?
- What does the San Andreas State Government define as ''price fixing''?
- Is there any law against monopolies?
- Is there any law against price fixing?
- Why is this policy being passed unilaterally without vote and consultation from the Law Review Committee?
- What data/evidence, if any, is there of a current monopoly on any of the ''defined'' businesses currently operating in Los Santos?
- What data/evidence, if any, is there of any price fixing behaviour within any of the ''defined'' businesses currently operating in Los Santos?
- Were current ''defined'' business owners consulted about this new policy, if so, who?
- Is there any concerns from the San Andreas State Government that this policy might be in breach of the 4th Amendment, specifically ''The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures''
- With so many unused defined business locations from various types. Why has the San Andreas State Government not put these to use before enacting this policy? As an example, here are FIVE unused locations just in the city alone.
Looking forward to a response.
[Redacted]
Cyrus Raven wrote: ↑07 Jan 2023, 13:44
1st CONGRESS
1st Session
H.R. XX
A bill to alter the changes outlined in the Business Licensing Bureau's new background check policy and business competition policy, ensuring that businesses are treated fairly and equally.
_______________________________________________________________________
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
06/01/2022
Representative Cyrus Raven introduced the following bill
_______________________________________________________________________
A BILL
A bill to alter the changes outlined in the Business Licensing Bureau's new background check policy and business competition policy, ensuring that businesses are treated fairly and equally.
Be it enacted by the House of Representatives of the State of San Andreas in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. Short Title
- This act may be cited as the Fair Business Act.
SECTION 2. Acknowledgement
- We are deeply saddened and outraged by the news of the recent kidnapping and killing of a government official working for the SASG. The actions of the unknown group that is believed to have kidnapped and killed this official are reprehensible and we hope that those responsible will be swiftly brought to justice.
We understand that this bill being brought forward seeks to reverse certain decisions supported by the group. We want to make it clear that we do not condone or support the use of violence or illegal means to achieve any goal.
We offer our sincere condolences to the government official's family and loved ones and stand with them in this difficult time.
SECTION 3. Fair Business Act - Penal Code Entry
- A new penal code entry shall be created and named as the ''Fair Business Act''
- Under the Fair Business Act the following shall be implemented:
- The Business Licensing Bureau* shall not revoke or reject any new or existing business registrations or licenses based on the results of a background check except:
- Where the background check determines that registered owner of the business is in breach of any of the criminal offenses set out under [PRESS RELEASE #53] Updates from the Business Licensing Bureau > Background Check Policy Changes. A failed background can only lead to a revoked business license.
- The Business Licensing Bureau* shall not limit the owner of a business from selecting who registers the business.
- The Business Licensing Bureau* shall not limit the owner of a business from selecting who licenses the business.
- The Business Licensing Bureau* shall not implement any limitations to the amount of businesses owned, registered or licensed by an entity or individual(s).
SECTION 4. Implementation
- The Fair Business Act, upon being signed into law by the executive government, shall be implemented into force within the San Andreas State Penal Code at the leisure of the highest executive authority.
SECTION 5. Footnotes
- *For the purposes of this bill, the term ''Business Licensing Bureau'' refers to any government entity operating at the same level or under the San Andreas State Government.
|
- OFFICE USE ONLY | AMENDMENTS
Placeholder
Placeholder
Placeholder
OFFICE USE ONLY | VOTE TALLY
AYES: ( )
NOES: ( )
ABSTAIN: ( )
ABSENT: ( )
Signed & Verified by;
House Speaker: _______________________
House Clerk: _______________________
|
[Redacted]
San Andreas Judicial Branch
Official Witness Statement
"HERE FOR YOU | SAFE FOR YOU"
Case Information
- Case Number: Not applicable.
Incident Date: Unsure.
Witness Information
- Name: Oscar Black
Date of Birth: 21st of June, 1998
Phone Number: [REDACTED]
Occupation: Captain, Los Santos County Sheriff's Department
Credentials
- I first entered service within the Sheriff's Department on the 8th of August, 2021. Nearly three (3) years ago. Since then, I've always had a deep interest in the Gangs and Narcotics Division, and I've been a part of the Sheriff's Investigations Bureau for two (2) years. In September of last year, I was appointed the official Commanding Officer of the Gangs & Narcotics Division, which I had already been leading without the official title and appointment.
Expert Witness Statement
- All individuals involved in this incident are confirmed to be members of "The Cartel". We know this since the incident that took place sometime last year, I had compromised a frequency from a gang that has since disbanded, "The Russians". They were speaking about receiving messages from Vince Williams, who they mentioned was the leader of "The Cartel". The message was about picking up a Supercar from an undisclosed location for a prize which could've been in money, or weapons. Fortunately for us, "The Russians" managed to find the vehicle that "The Cartel" was looking for, they ended up delivering the vehicle behind a warehouse on Popular St, where I had set up several units from METRO and SED to breach in once the deal was made. The deal was made, and units managed to push in, we secured all evidence, and located on Charlie Mchoe was a duffel bag, which had two (2) AK-47s with 200 rounds of ammunition each.
Vince Williams was also recently arrested for operating a military-esque vehicle on the 18th of March, 2024. He was driving an armoured vehicle which had built-in machine guns. With this, he was subsequently charged by the Los Santos Police Department for WF05 - Possession of a Class 4 Firearm. Arrest Report: Vince Williams.
Witness Affirmation
- I, Oscar Black, 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,
Captain Oscar Black
Commanding Officer, Gangs & Narcotics Division
Date: 2nd of April, 2024
Luke Raven wrote: ↑21 Apr 2023, 14:57
Hi, I would like to update the MotorsnacksCH registration information, as there have been some internal changes. Dario Greenwood has stepped down from Owner, and Luke Raven will take over as Owner, furthermore Cyrus Raven will be added as store Manager.
OWNER INFORMATION
- First and Lastname: Luke Raven
Phone Number: 3522900
Email: [email protected]
Home Address: N/A
BUSINESS INFORMATION
- Name of Business: Raven24/7
Business Address: 15 Inseno Road.
Type of Business: General Store
Mark an X in the appropriate checkbox.
[ ] Stand-Alone ($15,000)
[X] Subsidiary ($35,000)
[ ] Parent ($50,000)
Parent Company name: Eriksen-West Holdings
Photo of the Business Exterior Entrance:
EMPLOYEE INFORMATION
- List of Current Employees & their position(s):
- Luke Raven - Owner
- James Eriksen - Advisor
- Cyrus Raven - Manager
AGREEMENT
- By submitting this request you hereby agree that all information provided is truthful. If your registration is approved, you agree on a continuous effort to adhere to laws and regulations laid out by the San Andreas State Government. You also agree to submit any future changes to your business to the Business Licensing Bureau. You also agree to a full legal background check of your person and that you're the rightful owner of the property in question.
Previous Owner's Signature:
Date: 06/APR/2023
New Owner's Signature:
Luke Raven
Date: 06/APR/2023
Sincerely,
Luke Raven
Luke Raven
Dario Greenwood
James Eriksen
.
- Jaxon Nash (JN): For the record, this is Captain Jaxon Nash with the Los Santos Police Department the time is now 8:42 PM (( UTC )) on the 31st of August 2023
JN: Can you please state your name for the record?
Cyrus Raven (CR): Cyrus Raven
JN: Thank you for coming in today Mr. Raven. I called you in today to ask you a few questions today so this shouldn't take to long. For the record you are waving your right to have a lawyer present correct?
CR: Yea
JN: Alright wonderful, lets get to it. The first question I have for you is regarding the two large donations you received from a Mr. Vince Williams, and a Mr. James Eriksen in the sum of $1,000,000. Could you please explain to me what that money was used for upon receiving it?
CR: Um, it was a mixer of things, I believe about $200,000 of it, I not going to be able to give you an exact as its been awhile. But around $200,000 went to Weazel News advertisements for my LRC campaign, and then the rest was just kept in reserves depending on whether it was needed for anything.
JN: Ok, so $200,000 went to Weazel for advertising, do you happen to have any of the receipts to confirm this?
CR: Uh, you would have to check with Weazel. If I bought the ads then I signed the invoice which should exist on their end. I don't keep receipts.
JN: Ok, do you remember the person you bought the ads from?
CR: Um (Pause) no, I don't recall.
JN: Ok, fair enough. You stated that you spent roughly $200,000 at Weazel for ads regarding your LRC campaign. So do you happen to know what happen to the roughly $800,000 that was left over from the donations?
CR: The rest of the amount was kept in my own personal bank account, I don't know if I allocated a specific amount for personal endeavors. It just became part of my total wealth if you want to put it that way.
JN: Is there a way that you kept that money separate from any other income?
CR: Its hard to say. I had that money in my bank account. I obviously have my money outside of that campaign donation. Besides those Weazel ads I bought um, the rest was just kept in my accounts. I'm assuming it was spent just like I spend my own personal money, whether its on cars or houses etc.
JN: Ok, so in the time that you received that donation up until this point have you made any large purchases?
CR: Any large purchases? Oh gosh yeah.
JN: I would consider anything over the $500,000 mark a large purchase, just for the record.
CR: Probably yes, I bought a Comet S2. I believe I bought that after my LRC campaign, Comet S2's cost anywhere between $800,000 to $900,000. Bought a couple of houses as well. One thing that should be noted. The reason, and I'm sure that now you have access to my bank logs to check this. I also play a lot of poker and I make a decent chunk of change doing that. So it could be the case that I bought like three or four houses, two or three houses' ever since I received that initial donation. But I am not going to be able to tell you that specific amount of money went to a specific house or car. It just sort of got blended with the rest of my money.
JN: Ok, now do you currently own any of those properties or vehicles at this current point in time?
CR: The houses are all flipped. The only house I currently own is my Weazel plaza one. I still do own the car yeah.
JN: Ok Mr. Raven, that is going to conclude everything I have at this time. Should we require more in the future I will reach out via telephone. Do you have any questions for me?
CR: No, no. I mean you already know my thoughts on the subject I have written about it extensively so I don't think I need to rehash that.
CR: I do hope you take in to consideration my cooperation. I could have very well asked for a lawyer and remain quiet. I have nothing to hide.
30/AUG/2023
Police Captain II Jaxon Nash
Los Santos Police Department
Re: #24-CM-0020, State of San Andreas v. Cyrus Raven
Posted: 23 Aug 2024, 22:21
by Hope Kant
Re: #24-CM-0020, State of San Andreas v. Cyrus Raven
Posted: 06 Sep 2024, 21:47
by Hugh Allgood
Allgood Law
Upcoming absence
"Right Firm. Right Now"
|
- To whom it concerns,
This notice is intended to serve as official notice of Counsel’s upcoming absence. As with last month, I am continuing my role on the law school selection in Las Venuturras for the second and final round of the selecting members of the next generation of legal professionals.
I will leave San Andreas the evening of 13/Sep and should return on 22/Sep.
Respectfully,
Owner/Attorney
Allgood Law
(909) 235-6076 —
[email protected]
Re: #24-CM-0020, State of San Andreas v. Cyrus Raven
Posted: 15 Sep 2024, 14:45
by Bret Hyland
San Andreas Judicial Branch
Superior Court of San Andreas
"EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"
NOTICE OF SCHEDULING
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS
State of San Andreas v. Cyrus Raven
#24-CM-0020
An attempt to schedule was made and recorded by the court on 15th day of September 2024
All parties in this case are encouraged to complete the following Scheduling Tool in an attempt to schedule a trial on the above case.
In the event all parties have overlapping availability the Presiding Judge will determine the best date and time to have a trial take place and post a Notice of Trial informing all of the upcoming proceeding.
In the event some or all parties do not have overlapping availability, the Presiding Judge will continue to attempt to schedule the proceeding or seek alternative avenues to conclude the case.
If either party has the intentions of calling a witness to the stand during the proceeding they must inform the court by filing a Witness List at the time of filing their availability. If no Witness List is filed before the Notice of Trial is filed you will be unable to call a witness during the proceeding.
Superior Judge
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 225-3056 — [email protected]
Re: #24-CM-0020, State of San Andreas v. Cyrus Raven
Posted: 23 Sep 2024, 23:18
by Hope Kant
Re: #24-CM-0020, State of San Andreas v. Cyrus Raven
Posted: 24 Sep 2024, 21:28
by Terence Williams
San Andreas Judicial Branch
Superior Court of San Andreas
"EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"
NOTIFICATION OF COUNSEL
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS
State of San Andreas v. Cyrus Raven
#24-CM-0020
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]
Re: #24-CM-0020, State of San Andreas v. Cyrus Raven
Posted: 29 Sep 2024, 17:23
by Bret Hyland
San Andreas Judicial Branch
Superior Court of San Andreas
"EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"
NOTICE OF SCHEDULING
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS
State of San Andreas v. Cyrus Raven
#24-CM-0020
An attempt to schedule has been made and recorded by the court on 29th day of September 2024
Due to lack of availability of all participants and the new council we will attempt to schedule this trial once again.
All parties in this case are encouraged to complete the following Scheduling Tool in an attempt to schedule a trial on the above case.
In the event all parties have overlapping availability the Presiding Judge will determine the best date and time to have a trial take place and post a Notice of Trial informing all of the upcoming proceeding.
In the event some or all parties do not have overlapping availability, the Presiding Judge will continue to attempt to schedule the proceeding or seek alternative avenues to conclude the case.
If either party has the intentions of calling a witness to the stand during the proceeding they must inform the court by filing a Witness List at the time of filing their availability. If no Witness List is filed before the Notice of Trial is filed you will be unable to call a witness during the proceeding.
Superior Judge
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 225-3056 — [email protected]
Re: #24-CM-0020, State of San Andreas v. Cyrus Raven
Posted: 02 Oct 2024, 16:04
by Hugh Allgood
San Andreas Judicial Branch
Superior Court of San Andreas
"EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"
WITNESS LIST
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS
State of San Andreas v. Cyrus Raven
#24-CM-0020
A Witness List was filed in the above case on the 2nd of October, 2024.
- The Defendant, Cyrus Raven, by and through the undersigned attorney, filed this Witness List, designating the following list of individuals as witnesses, who may be called to the stand.
Name of Witness:
James Eriksen
Description: (party, fact witness, expert, other)
Fact witness
Witness Agency:
N/A
Name of Witness:
Vince Williams
Description: (party, fact witness, expert, other)
Fact witness
Witness Agency:
N/A
Name of Witness:
Emily Whitehorse
Description: (party, fact witness, expert, other)
Fact witness
Witness Agency:
San Andreas State Government
Name of Witness:
Luke Raven
Description: (party, fact witness, expert, other)
Fact witness
Witness Agency:
N/A
Name of Witness:
Cyrus Raven
Description: (party, fact witness, expert, other)
Party & Fact Witness
Witness Agency:
N/A
Owner/Attorney
Allgood Law
(909) 235-6076 — [email protected]
Re: #24-CM-0020, State of San Andreas v. Cyrus Raven
Posted: 04 Oct 2024, 21:12
by Terence Williams
