Eclipse Government

---

---

The Defendant, by and through the undersigned attorney, filed this Surrebuttal;

The prosecution may be correct with their statement, but as stated in both Motions the defense is not requesting that the prosecution be held under contempt for the subpoena. The defense is asking that the prosecutor, Michael Blaise, be held under contempt for failing to submit their compelled discovery in the given seven (7) days. The Motion to Compel was accepted on March 3rd, 2025. Within the rules for discovery you are given seven (7) days to present this evidence to the court. If you are not able to submit the discovery on time you must post a motion for continuance. The prosecution has failed to do both of these. The prosecution didn't decide to post their discovery until nine (9) days after the granted request and after they were asked to be held under contempt. The prosecution seems to be dragging this case on longer than needed and fails to follow court rules. For this reason, the defense will continue to request that all parties listed in the Motion be held under contempt.


Chief Public Defender
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 313 — [email protected]

---

• Honorable Judge McColluch and pertaining parties,
  
  The defense will be withdrawing the Motion for Contempt for the following parties:
  • Deputy Chief Einhart
  • Captain Willowick
  • Detective Linton
  • Captain Luigi
    
    We will be requesting that a new due date for the subpoena be set, allowing these 4 officers another five (5) days just like the previous subpoena. If possible, we would like the start date to be today.
    
    The defense retains the argument against Michael Blaise and his wrongful tardiness.
    
    
    Very Respectfully,
    
    
    Chief Public Defender
    San Andreas Judicial Branch
    (909) 313 — [email protected]

---

---

The Prosecution acknowledges an inadvertent delay in the submission of evidence and takes full responsibility for its tardiness. However, it is important to recognize that the process of obtaining certain evidence can require time. The Prosecution concedes that a motion for continuance should have been filed but, regrettably, an oversight occurred in tracking deadlines. Notwithstanding this delay, the Prosecution was fully prepared to provide the requested evidence when the court sought an update today.

Given these circumstances, it is both inappropriate and excessive for the Defense to pursue a contempt of court charge with such insistence—particularly when the delay amounted to only two days on a motion to compel, and the requested evidence has now been submitted.

Accordingly, the Prosecution respectfully asks the Court to consider the Defense’s true intent in this matter. Is this motion being advanced in good faith, or is it an attempt to unduly penalize the Prosecution for an unintentional and minor delay that has since been remedied?

Respectfully,


Deputy Attorney General
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 552-8150 — [email protected]

---

---

The Defendant, by and through the undersigned attorney, filed this Surrebuttal;

The prosecution asks what the defense true intent for this motion is. The true intent of the defense is to make sure that justice is served correctly. That's what everyone in the court is here for. It is stated not only in our employee handbook, but stated to the prosecution and defense attorneys that if you see a crime then report the crime. I understand that the prosecution may have only taken two extra days, but the defense previously stated that my client has been waiting two hundred and twenty-one (221) days for this case. That is two hundred and twenty-one (221) days of being an accused terrorist, this is two hundred and twenty-one (221) days of my client being an accused murderer, it has been two hundred and twenty-one (221) days of my client being accused of crimes she did not commit. My client did her time and was held accountable for actions she did not do. The prosecution sits here being free from jail his entire life not understanding this struggle. The prosecution admits that they had the evidence before the court asked for an update earlier today. The only thing the defense asks is that the court upholds the law and holds Michael Blaise accountable for his admitted wrongful acts. To not allow this motion to go through means that you set a precedent for future cases saying that any attorney will be able to break the discovery rules. We as attorneys are held to a high standard and are expected to give these responses in the correct time. Michael Blaise has been in the Judicial Branch long enough to understand this, yet still failed to do so.


Chief Public Defender
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 313 — [email protected]

---

---

The Prosecution elects to rest its case and will await the Presiding Judge’s ruling on the Defense’s transparent attempt to seek the removal of a Prosecutor under the pretense of "upholding justice."

Respectfully,


Deputy Attorney General
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 552-8150 — [email protected]

---

---

The Prosecution filed this Motion for Contempt, and the reasoning for request is as follows;

• Parties:
  • Chief Public Defender Daniel Carmello
  • Public Defense Attorney Piper Johnson
  
  Reasoning: Failure to Comply with Subpoena Constituting Misconduct
  • Detailed Explanation:
    
    On March 3, 2025, the Court issued a court-ordered subpoena directing the Defense to present it to the Los Santos Police Department for the purpose of obtaining body-worn camera footage from the officers involved in the incident in question. The deadline for compliance with this subpoena was March 10, 2025.
    
    To date, the Defense has failed to properly serve the subpoena to the LSPD. Instead, they have attempted to shift responsibility onto the Prosecution to remedy their procedural failure. Furthermore, while the Defense has now requested a motion for continuance, this request was filed two days after the deadline had already passed.
    
    Given these circumstances, the Defense has failed to comply with a court-ordered subpoena and, based on the defense's own logic in this case, should be held in contempt of court for its noncompliance

Respectfully,


Deputy Attorney General
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 552-8150 — [email protected]

---

• Honorable Judge McColluch and pertaining parties,
  
  The prosecution sees this as an attempt to remove a prosecutor. This is incorrect and speculative. The defense would like to mention that the prosecution has attempted to suppress evidence, hold members of the defense in contempt and retract statements in previous cases all because of time delays. This was never seen as an "attempt to remove" a public defender. It was also never seen as an attempt to "unduly penalize" the defense division. The defense is doing nothing more than what the prosecution would do in my position. The defense's motion should not be seen as anything other than an attempt to make sure court rules are followed and justice is served correctly. If this motion is rejected by the court the defense will assume that there are no due dates and that court cases will take longer than necessary. This will be set in precedent for all future cases and court rules will mean nothing to us attorneys. What are rules in place for if they are not to be followed?
  
  The defense rests on this matter and will await further instruction from Judge McColluch.
  
  Very Respectfully,
  
  
  Chief Public Defender
  San Andreas Judicial Branch
  (909) 313 — [email protected]

---

---

---

I would like to start off by informing you that I would appreciate a more professional manner from both sides in these proceedings. Both parties have failed to meet deadlines, I started today off with the opportunity to remind both parties so the court could receive the requested information. It turned into what I could only compare to a playground argument. Going forward, if either of you has any claims about one another, I expect those claims to be backed by evidence. If it isn't, and we are throwing accusations around, then I will be holding the accuser for contempt and a fine. I would like us to focus back on the case in hand instead of engaging in petty arguments. This is the first and only warning I will be issuing to both parties. Should any future deadlines be missed by either party the offender will be held accountable for their actions.

Response to Motion for Dismissal

The Court will be denying this motion, I would like to acknowledge that a deadline was missed by the prosecution; however, the same could be said of the Defense. The decision to accept or deny a motion for dismissal solely lies on a judge. Missing a court deadline is a reason a Judge could choose to dismiss; however, it isn't mandatory. That decision is at the judge's discretion.

Response to Motion for Contempt (Defense)

The Court will be denying this motion, I would like to acknowledge that a deadline was missed by the prosecution; however, the same could be said of the Defense. I will not be holding either party in contempt as I believe that both sides were trying to ensure that they delivered on time. Both sides failed to do so. This was either down to forgetfulness or waiting on responses from the parties from whom the evidence was being requested. If I held everyone in contempt for this, then there wouldn't be an attorney left in the state without a misdemeanour contempt charge.

Response to New Subpoena Deadline

The Court will be approving another 5 days for the LSPD to comply with the Subpoena. The clock for the 5 days will begin today. This means I am expecting to see evidence submitted by Defense by the 17th of March 2025. If, for any reason, this information can't be gathered, the court would appreciate clear communication in a timely manner so as to not waste more time.

Response to Motion for Contempt (Prosecution)

The Court will be denying this motion for the same reason I denied the Defenses motion for contempt.

---

Respectfully,


Superior Court Judge
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 274-4300 - [email protected]

---

---

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

• Exhibit #7: City Hall CCTV Stills

  
  
  
  
  

  ((Proof of RP))

  (())

---

---

---

The Defendant, by and through the undersigned attorney, filed this Motion for Continuance, and the reasoning for request is as follows;

• Reasoning: Footage Processing
  • Detailed Explanation: I have received the bodycamera footage from each officer. I am still attempting to process this footage. As you may know, processing this abundant amount of footage can take some time and for this reason the defense asks for another seven (7) days to attempt to process this information. We will attempt to get the footage posted on the docket quicker, but this could take up to seven (7) days.
    
    ((I have attempted to do the RP with the officers, but it seems we are all on different schedules. We will continue to try and contact these officers and hopefully get in contact with them this week.))

Chief Public Defender
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 313 — [email protected]

---

• Defense,
  
  The court will accept the motion for continuance, I ask that you do your best to get the information at your earliest convenience. I understand the difficulty of receiving such information however I would like to keep this trial moving so we can look at scheduling trial in the near future.
  
  Respectfully,
  
  
  Superior Court Judge
  San Andreas Judicial Branch
  (909) 274-4300 - [email protected]

---

---

The Defendant, by and through the undersigned attorney, filed this Motion for Discovery, and presents the following as evidence;

• Exhibit #8: Bodycam Footage, Deputy Chief Einhart
  Spoiler

  
  
  (())

• Exhibit #9: Bodycam Footage, Captain Willowick
  Spoiler

  
  
  (())

• Exhibit #10: Bodycam Footage, Detective Linton
  Spoiler

  
  
  (())

• Exhibit #11: Bodycam Footage, Captain Luigi
  Spoiler

  
  
  (())

Senior Defense Attorney
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 480-1442 — [email protected]

Chief Public Defender
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 313 — [email protected]

---

---

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

• Reasoning: Resignation of assigned counsel
  • Detailed Explanation: The Prosecution's primary counsel for this case has just resigned and left their position within the Prosecution and the Judicial Branch. Additionally, the Prosecution is experiencing staffing issues. As such, the Prosecution is requesting a 10-day continuance to assign new counsel and get oriented with this case before responding to any motions.

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

---

---

The court will be accepting the Motion for continuance due to the staffing challenges across the branch.

Respectfully,


Superior Court Judge
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 274-4300 - [email protected]

---

---

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

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



Deputy Attorney General
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 552-8150 — [email protected]

---

• Honorable Judge McCulloch and pertaining parties,
  
  The defense is ready to start our trial scheduling as long as the prosecution has nothing further to add to this case.
  
  Very Respectfully,
  
  
  Chief Public Defender
  San Andreas Judicial Branch
  (909) 313 — [email protected]

---

---

The Prosecution elects to rest its case and will await trial scheduling.

Respectfully,


Deputy Attorney General
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 552-8150 — [email protected]

---

---

The case of the State of San Andreas v. Diana Butler is hereby reassigned to Superior Court Judge Hugh R. Allgood.

The presiding judge has reviewed this case and the multitude of motions that have been filed and ruled upon. Based on the last responses from both the Prosecution and Defense, I believe all motions have been heard and adjudicated and all that is left is for a trial scheduling attempt to be made. If this is not correct, please let me know ASAP. I will aim to have a notice of scheduling up within the next few days if I have not heard from either side otherwise.



Superior Court Judge
San Andreas Judicial Branch

---

---

I, Terence Williams, Attorney General of the San Andreas Judicial Branch, will represent the State of San Andreas in the underlying case.

I will take responsibility as Primary Counsel and await further instruction from the Presiding Judge.


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

---

---

All parties in this case are encouraged to complete the following Scheduling Tool in an attempt to schedule a trial on the above case. When the scheduling tool has been completed by either party, please post on the docket stating as such.

((I know the link has the wrong case cite -- it's fine. It won't let me edit the title and I don't want to re-create it.))

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.


Respectfully,


Superior Court Judge
San Andreas Judicial Branch
235-6076 — [email protected]

---

• Honorable Judge Allgood and pertaining parties,
  
  The Prosecution has filed for its availability.
  
  Regards,
  
  Terence Williams
  Attorney General
  San Andreas Judicial Branch
  234-9321 — [email protected]

---

---

In accordance with the availability reported by both parties in response to the Notice of Scheduling, this trial shall take place at 7:15PM on the 24th Day of May, 2025 at Rockford Hills City Hall, Carcer Way, Metro Los Santos, SA.

Both parties are ordered to be present in the Judges Chambers no later than 15 minutes prior to the above listed date for pretrial arrangements. If complications occur that must result in a delay or cancellation of the trial, you are ordered to inform the court no later than 12 hours prior to the above listed date.


So ordered,


Superior Court Judge
San Andreas Judicial Branch
235-6076 — [email protected]

---

• Honorable Judge Allgood and pertaining parties,
  
  Due to a scheduling conflict with #24-CM-0093, State of San Andreas v. Huw Masons, the Prosecution asks to reschedule this trial for another date.
  
  Regards,
  
  Terence Williams
  Attorney General
  San Andreas Judicial Branch
  234-9321 — [email protected]

---

---

All parties in this case are encouraged to complete the following Scheduling Tool in an attempt to schedule a trial on the above case. When the scheduling tool has been completed by either party, please post on the docket stating as such.

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.


Respectfully,


Superior Court Judge
San Andreas Judicial Branch
235-6076 — [email protected]

---

• Honorable Judge Allgood and pertaining parties,
  
  The defense has filed for its availability for the following week. If these times do not work I will need another week before I am able to set an availability for the week of June 8th to the 15th.
  
  Kind Regards,
  
  Daniel Carmello
  Chief Public Defender
  San Andreas Judicial Branch
  313 — [email protected]