Eclipse Government

• Exhibit #1: Arrest report - Nathaniel Luceran, 11/JAN/2025

  

  ARREST REPORT
  

  MUGSHOT

  SUSPECT 1 DETAILS

  • 
    
    
    Full Name: Nathaniel Luceran
    Telephone Number: Redacted
    Licenses Suspended: Yes
    • Driver
    • Trucker
    
    Charges:
    • NM08 - Abuse of Government Public Safety Radio Frequencies or Hotlines
    • GM25 - Possession/Unlawful use of Government Equipment
    • GF10 - Grand Theft of a Gov. employee
    • SF01 - Domestic Terrorism
    • SF04 - Kidnapping of a Gov. employee
    • GF14 - False Impersonation of a Gov. employee
    • GF11 - Grand Theft Auto of a Gov. employee
    • GF05 - Extortion of a Gov. employee
    • GF21 - Prison Break
    • NM06 - Trespassing of a Gov. employee
    • NM03 - Unlawful Assembly
    
    
    Additional Details (Suspect's vehicle, etc.) :

  
  
  VEHICLES INVOLVED

  
  
  DEPUTY DETAILS

  • Full Name: James Valor
    Badge Number: 6374
    Callsign: 3-Z-10

  
  
  INCIDENT DETAILS

  • Date of Arrest: 2025-01-11
    Deputies Involved: Investigator III Arnold Rimmer, Investigator II James Valor, Investigator I Louise Hoffman
    
    Provide details of the incident leading up to the arrest
    • arrested via the conclusion of casefile #187266.

  
  EVIDENCE DETAILS

  • Location of Evidence Locker: N/A

  
  
  ARRESTING DEPUTY SIGNATURE
  
  

  ---

  

• Exhibit #2: Arrest report - Alistair Vespucci, 10/JAN/2025

  

  ARREST REPORT
  

  MUGSHOT

  SUSPECT 1 DETAILS

  • 
    Full Name: Alistair Vespucci
    Telephone Number: Redacted
    Licenses Suspended: No
    Charges:
    • NM03 - Unlawful Assembly
    • NM06 - Trespassing of a Gov. employee
    • GF21 - Prison Break
    • GF05 - Extortion of a Gov. employee
    • GF10 - Grand Theft of a Gov. employee
    • GF11 - Grand Theft Auto of a Gov. employee
    • GF14 - False Impersonation of a Gov. employee
    • SF04 - Kidnapping of a Gov. employee
    • SF01 - Domestic Terrorism
    • GM25 - Possession/Unlawful use of Government Equipment
    • NM08 - Abuse of Government Public Safety Radio Frequencies or Hotlines
    Additional Details (Suspect's vehicle, etc.) :
    Suspect was arrested in Mirror Park on his drag

  VEHICLES INVOLVED

  DEPUTY DETAILS

  • Full Name: Mathew Handley
    Badge Number: 12823
    Callsign: 3-W-30

  INCIDENT DETAILS

  • Date of Arrest: 2025-01-10
    Deputies Involved: Investigator Handley, Sheriff Black, Sheriff Payne, Investigator Hoffman, Captain Rosselli, Investigator Valor, IIT Callas, IIT Lawless
    
    Provide details of the incident leading up to the arrest
    • In conclusion to casefile #187266.

  EVIDENCE DETAILS

  • Location of Evidence Locker: N/A

  ARRESTING DEPUTY SIGNATURE
  
  

  ---

  

• Exhibit #3: Arrest report - Cortez Rivera, 11/JAN/2025

  

  ARREST REPORT
  

  MUGSHOT

  SUSPECT 1 DETAILS

  • 
    Full Name: Cortez Rivera
    Telephone Number: Redacted
    Licenses Suspended: No
    Charges:
    • WM02 - Possession of a Class 1 Firearm
    • WM03 - Criminal Use of Weapon Modifications
    • NM03 - Unlawful Assembly
    • NM06 - Trespassing
    • VF04 - Felony Public Endangerment
    • GF21 - Prison Break
    • GF05 - Extortion of a Gov. employee
    • GF11 - Grand Theft Auto of a Gov. employee
    • GF14 - False Impersonation of a Gov. employee
    • SF04 - Kidnapping of a Gov. employee
    • SF01 - Domestic Terrorism
    • GF10 - Grand Theft of a Gov. employee
    • GM25 - Possession/Unlawful use of Government Equipment
    • NM08 - Abuse of Government Public Safety Radio Frequencies or Hotlines
    Additional Details (Suspect's vehicle, etc.) :

  VEHICLES INVOLVED

  DEPUTY DETAILS

  • Full Name: Vincenzo Callas
    Badge Number: 17063
    Callsign: 3-Z-10

  INCIDENT DETAILS

  • Date of Arrest: 2025-01-11
    Deputies Involved: James Valor, Cole Lawless, John Kemp, and more SIB
    
    Provide details of the incident leading up to the arrest
    • He was arrested through the conclusion of casefile #187266.
      Upon arresting him we found a Pistol .50 in the glovebox of his vehicle.

  EVIDENCE DETAILS

  • Location of Evidence Locker: Sandy Station
    Exhibit A: Pistol .50 with 45x ammo Serial number: 1734881882973;
    Exhibit B: 1x Suppressor
    
    Photo of the evidence in the locker (if applicable)

    

    ---

  ARRESTING DEPUTY SIGNATURE
  Vincenzo Callas
  

  ---

  

• Exhibit #4: Arrest report - David Vespucci, 11/JAN/2025

  

  ARREST REPORT
  

  MUGSHOT

  SUSPECT 1 DETAILS

  • 
    Full Name: David Vespucci
    Telephone Number: Redacted
    Licenses Suspended: No
    Charges:
    • NM03 - Unlawful Assembly
    • GF21 - Prison Break
    • GF05 - Extortion of a Gov. employee
    • GF11 - Accessory to Grand Theft Auto of a Gov. employee
    • SF04 - Kidnapping of a Gov. employee
    • SF01 - Domestic Terrorism
    Additional Details (Suspect's vehicle, etc.) :
    Suspect was arrested at MRPD.

  VEHICLES INVOLVED

  DEPUTY DETAILS

  • Full Name: Louise Hoffman
    Badge Number: 20109
    Callsign: 3-X-21

  INCIDENT DETAILS

  • Date of Arrest: 2025-01-11
    Deputies Involved: Investigator Handley, Sheriff Black, Sheriff Payne, Investigator Hoffman, Captain Rosselli, Investigator Valor, IIT Callas, IIT Lawless
    
    Provide details of the incident leading up to the arrest
    • In conclusion to casefile #187266.

  EVIDENCE DETAILS

  • Location of Evidence Locker: N/A

  ARRESTING DEPUTY SIGNATURE
  
  

  ---

  

• Exhibit #5: Witness statement

  Under seal

• Exhibit #6: Witness statement

  Under seal

• Exhibit #7: LifeInvader post - Cobb Blogg news report

  
  Source

• Exhibit #8: Footage - Cobb Blog news report

  ((RP))

  * Solomon Cobb would have attached several files to this email, containing the raw unedited clips of what is found in this video.
  * The content of the footage would be the same, except there'd be no overlays, no sound effects and no pausing, zooming, cuts or edits.))

• Exhibit #9 A/B: Phone records / Consent form

  Under seal

• Exhibit #10: Admission of Guilt

  Under seal

• Exhibit #11: 911 call log

  Under seal

• Exhibit #12: Arrest report

  Under seal

• Exhibit #13: MDC record

  Under seal

• Exhibit #14: Image - 10 Mirror Park Blvd.

  Under seal

• Exhibit #15: Document - 10 Mirror Park Blvd. ownership record

  Under seal

• Exhibit #16 A/B: Records - Nathaniel Luceran phone records / Search warrant

  A - Phone records

  
  ((Proof of RP))

  B - Search warrant

  

  
  
  

  San Andreas Judicial Branch SEARCH WARRANT "HERE FOR YOU | SAFE FOR YOU"

  ---

  • To:
    The Los Santos Sheriffs Department operating within the State of San Andreas and their respective investigative and tactical divisions:
    
    You are hereby directed to conduct a search of iFruit Phone Company for the following designated records:
    
    • Nathaniel Luceran's phone records from 12/AUG/2024 - 19/AUG/2024
    [X] Any evidence of crimes in violation of the San Andreas Penal Law Article GM to SF, included but not limited to:
    
    • GF21 - Prison Break
    • SF04 - Kidnapping of a Gov. Employee
    You are directed to execute this warrant between the hours of:
    
    • [ ] 06:00 - 21:00
    • [X] 08:00 - 22:00 (Hours of Operation for the Bank of San Andreas)
    • [ ] Any time day or night.
    A copy of this warrant may be kept from the owner of the phone to preserve the integrity of the investigation. The court requires a copy of all evidence seized to be submitted to the warrant application for internal archive.
    

    ---

    This warrant is issued on 11/DEC/2024 and is effective for 7 days. Should an extension be required, please submit a notice no less than 12 hours prior to this warrant's expiration.
    
    Respectfully,
    
    Superior Court Justice
    Branch Administrator
    San Andreas Judicial Branch
    505-9925 — [email protected]

  

• Exhibit #17 A/B: Alistair Vespucci phone records / Search warrant

  A - Phone records

  
  
  

  B - Search warrant

  

  
  
  

  San Andreas Judicial Branch SEARCH WARRANT "HERE FOR YOU | SAFE FOR YOU"

  ---

  • To:
    The Los Santos Sheriffs Department operating within the State of San Andreas and their respective investigative and tactical divisions:
    
    You are hereby directed to conduct a search of iFruit Phone Company for the following designated records:
    
    • Alistair Vespucci's phone records from 05/AUG/2024 - 19/AUG/2024
    [X] Any evidence of crimes in violation of the San Andreas Penal Law Article GM to SF, included but not limited to:
    
    • GF21 - Prison Break
    • SF04 - Kidnapping of a Gov. Employee
    You are directed to execute this warrant between the hours of:
    
    • [ ] 06:00 - 21:00
    • [X] 08:00 - 22:00 (Hours of Operation for the Bank of San Andreas)
    • [ ] Any time day or night.
    A copy of this warrant may be kept from the owner of the phone to preserve the integrity of the investigation. The court requires a copy of all evidence seized to be submitted to the warrant application for internal archive.
    

    ---

    This warrant is issued on 14/DEC/2024 and is effective for 7 days. Should an extension be required, please submit a notice no less than 12 hours prior to this warrant's expiration.
    
    Respectfully,
    
    Superior Court Justice
    Branch Administrator
    San Andreas Judicial Branch
    505-9925 — [email protected]

  

• Exhibit #18 A/B: Bodycam footage

  Under seal

• Documents/Information Requested: *** FILED UNDER SEAL ***
  • Purpose/Reasoning for Subpoena: *** FILED UNDER SEAL ***

Jay Wellberg
Assured Services
Attorney, Assured Law
Bluff Tower, 72 Bay City Avenue

• Reasoning: Requesting a 48 hour continuance to finalize and post two (2) motions.
  • Detailed Explanation: With how late the discovery was provided to us, we are requesting a 72 hour continuance, to allow us to analyze the discovery and post two (2) motions of our own, one of them being a motion for discovery of our own.

Jay Wellberg
Assured Services
Attorney, Assured Law
Bluff Tower, 72 Bay City Avenue

• Mr. Wellberg,
  
  Typically defense gets 7 days to file motions. Are you requesting an additional 2 days for a total of 9? If so, that's fine.
  
  Respectfully,
  
  
  Superior Court Judge
  San Andreas Judicial Branch
  (909) 235-6076 — [email protected]

• Honorable Judge Allgood and pertaining parties,
  
  This notice is to indicate the Prosecution's intent to respond to opposing motions and requests filed on the docket in the format Your Honor deems appropriate for a formal trial, and when such an order has been announced.
  
  Regards,
  
  Terence Williams
  Attorney General
  San Andreas Judicial Branch
  234-9321 — [email protected]

• Exhibit #19: CCTV footage

  UNDER SEAL

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

• Documents/Information Requested: *** FILED UNDER SEAL ***
  • Purpose/Reasoning for Subpoena: *** FILED UNDER SEAL ***
  
  
  
  Jay Wellberg
  Assured Services
  Attorney, Assured Law
  Bluff Tower, 72 Bay City Avenue

• Requested Discovery:*** FILED UNDER SEAL ***
  • Detailed Reasoning: *** FILED UNDER SEAL ***

• Requested Discovery: A list of all organization and individuals involved in carrying out the official investigation for this case, Prosecution
  • Detailed Reasoning: As part of the defense, we require a complete list of all organizations and individuals who participated in this investigation beyond what is already publicly known (e.g., the Los Santos County Sheriff’s Department). This information is necessary to establish the full scope of involvement, identify potential custodians of relevant records, and is a key part to our defense strategy.

Jay Wellberg
Assured Services
Attorney, Assured Law
Bluff Tower, 72 Bay City Avenue

• Exhibit #2,3,4: Arrest report : Alistair Vespucci, Cortez Rivera, David Vespucci,
  Requested Evidence to Suppress:

  Entire Exhibits

  • Detailed Reasoning: The only information provided in these arrest reports is the single line: “He was arrested through the conclusion of casefile #187266.” This statement offers no factual detail, no context, and no evidentiary value related to the current matter before the court.
    
    Because it does not establish any connection to the defendant, the alleged incident, or the charges outlined in this case, it is wholly irrelevant. Admitting such a vague and unsupported reference would add nothing to the record except confusion and prejudice. For these reasons, the defense respectfully requests that this exhibit be excluded from evidence.

• Exhibit #5: **FILED UNDER SEAL**
  Requested Evidence to Suppress:

  Entire Exhibit

  • Detailed Reasoning: **FILED UNDER SEAL**

• Exhibit #6: **FILED UNDER SEAL**
  Requested Evidence to Suppress:

  Entire Exhibit

  • Detailed Reasoning: **FILED UNDER SEAL**

• Exhibit #9: **FILED UNDER SEAL**
  Requested Evidence to Suppress:

  Entire Exhibit

  • Detailed Reasoning: **FILED UNDER SEAL**

• Exhibit #10: **FILED UNDER SEAL**
  Requested Evidence to Suppress:

  Entire Exhibit

  • Detailed Reasoning: **FILED UNDER SEAL**

• Exhibit #11: **FILED UNDER SEAL**
  Requested Evidence to Suppress:

  Entire Exhibit

  • Detailed Reasoning: **FILED UNDER SEAL**

• Exhibit #12: **FILED UNDER SEAL**
  Requested Evidence to Suppress:

  Entire Exhibit

  • Detailed Reasoning: **FILED UNDER SEAL**

• Exhibit #13: **FILED UNDER SEAL**
  Requested Evidence to Suppress:

  Entire Exhibit

  • Detailed Reasoning: **FILED UNDER SEAL**

• Exhibit #14: Image - 10 Mirror Park Blvd.
  Requested Evidence to Suppress:

  Entire Exhibit

  • Detailed Reasoning: This exhibit is nothing more than a still image. It does not depict any unlawful act, nor does it connect the defendant to the alleged incident in question. It shows nothing of evidentiary value and provides no meaningful or probative information to this case.

• Exhibit #15: **FILED UNDER SEAL**
  Requested Evidence to Suppress:

  Entire Exhibit

  • Detailed Reasoning: **FILED UNDER SEAL**

• Exhibit #16: Records - Nathaniel Luceran phone records / Search warrant
  Requested Evidence to Suppress:

  Entire Exhibit

  • Detailed Reasoning: The search warrant was issued for “Nathaniel Luceran’s phone records from 12/AUG/2024 – 19/AUG/2024; Any evidence of crimes in violation of the San Andreas Penal Law Article GM to SF, included but not limited to: GF21 – Prison Break, SF04 – Kidnapping of a Gov. Employee.”
    
    The provided phone records show nothing related to this. Instead, they simply reflect two individuals having regular, everyday conversations. One message is nothing more than arranging to meet, which does not in any way establish evidence of a prison break, a kidnapping, or any other offense covered by the scope of the warrant.
    
    Because these records do not connect to the crimes listed in the warrant, they hold no probative value to this case. Introducing them would only serve to confuse or prejudice the proceedings. For this reason, the defense asserts that the exhibit is irrelevant, outside the scope of the warrant, and should be excluded from evidence.

• Exhibit #17: Alistair Vespucci phone records / Search warrant
  Requested Evidence to Suppress:

  Entire Exhibit

  • Detailed Reasoning: This exhibit again has no relevance to this case. First of all, these phone records have nothing to do with the defendant, as they are between three completely different individuals. Additionally, the content of these records has no connection to what is outlined in the original warrant request.
    
    The conversations between Alistair Vespucci, Cortez Rivera, and Shaggy Sin are nothing more than routine exchanges, they are sharing radio frequencies and holding regular discussions. None of this material relates in any way to GF21 – Prison Break or SF04 – Kidnapping of a Government Employee, the specified crimes under the warrant.
    
    Because the records neither involve the defendant nor provide evidence of the alleged offenses, they lack any probative value. Their inclusion would only serve to distract, confuse, or unfairly prejudice the proceedings. For these reasons, the defense respectfully requests that this exhibit be excluded from evidence.

• Exhibit #18: **FILED UNDER SEAL**
  Requested Evidence to Suppress:

  Entire Exhibit

  • Detailed Reasoning: **FILED UNDER SEAL**

• Exhibit #19: CCTV footage
  Requested Evidence to Suppress:

  Entire Exhibit

  • Detailed Reasoning: Simply put, it has been 9 days since the end of the discovery period. The prosecution should not be allowed to submit evidence so late after they have had multiple continuances related to this same discovery.

Jay Wellberg
Assured Services
Attorney, Assured Law
Bluff Tower, 72 Bay City Avenue

• ((Exhibit #18 Proof of RP for hidden bodycam))
  
  
  Regards,
  
  Terence Williams
  Attorney General
  San Andreas Judicial Branch
  234-9321 — [email protected]

• Subpoena Request - 28/AUG/2025
• Motion to Suppress - 7/SEP/2025
• Motion to Compel Discovery - 7/SEP/2025
• Subpoena Request - 7/SEP/2025

When it comes to the late introduction of evidence that comes beyond the specifically allotted window for discovery outlined in the Order for Discovery, the court will chiefly examine whether or not the admission of the disputed evidence presents prejudicial circumstances against the adverse party. Additionally, the court must examine the circumstances which contributed to the delay in presentation of the evidence and evaluate the reasonableness of the explanation provided, taking into account the timing of the disclosure and it's proximity to the trial date in relation to the adverse party's ability to prepare an adequate defense in light of the late disclosure. Lastly, the court will review the importance of the exhibit as it relates to the general underlying case and whether disallowing the exhibit would present unfair circumstances against the disclosing party.

The prosecution responded stating they received this evidence 2 days before it was provided on the docket, and also argued the Defense has a reasonable amount of time to examine the exhibit. The Prosecution also pointed to 24-CM-0030, State of San Andreas v. Mike Luigi as support for their arguments on the allowance of late exhibits. This Court, while being intrinsically aware of the facts of this case as this Judge was a participating counsel, reviewed the case further. In this decision, the Defense objected to the introduction of evidence submitted beyond the established deadline of the Court, following very similar arguments made by the Defense in this case. The Court allowed the introduction of one exhibit, finding its inclusion did not prejudice the defense and noted the Defense had already sought to compel it. The Court did not allow the exhibit of another exhibit, noting the prosecution's delay in introducing the exhibit was not justified, and therefore disrupted the orderly progression of the case.

Reviewing the Court of Appeals precedence, this Court reviews the contested exhibit in line with the criterion used; (1) whether the admission unfairly prejudices the adverse party, (2) the circumstances contributing to the delay in evidence presentation, (3) reasonableness in the explanation provided for the delay, (4) the proximity to the trial date, and (5) the importance of the exhibit in the general underlying case.

As already noted, the prosecution claims this information was only received by them 2 days prior to the discovery, which is 7 days beyond the initial discovery period closing. The Court believes this address two of the five prongs to be used in evaluation - the circumstances and explanation provided are reasonable; the prosecution cannot disclose evidence it does not have. And whether this information was provided on the same day received or when it was, it was still over the deadline and the same arguments would have likely been made by the Defense. As far as proximity to the trial date, a trial has not been scheduled in this matter, therefore, the introduction of this evidence does not preclude the defense from mounting a defense against it. For the importance of the exhibit, the Court notes CCTV footage from within the DOC grounds forms a central component of this case, even without reviewing the footage, as the Defendants are facing charges for their involvement in a prison break. Lastly, unfair prejudice. The Court does not find the introduction of this exhibit unfairly prejudices the Defense, as the Defense has not made any arguments about this other than the 9 day late disclosure.

Therefore, this motion is denied.

Subpoena Request, 28/AUG/2025, filed under seal

**FILED UNDER SEAL**

Subpoena Request, 7/SEP/2025, filed under seal

**FILED UNDER SEAL**

Motion to compel discovery, 7/SEP/2025, filed under seal

**FILED UNDER SEAL**

Regarding the list of individuals involved in the investigation, the Court does not see how a list of individuals involved in the investigation would offer up anything for this case. However, the Court does agree that the Defense case and investigation may be stunted by the inability to identify any potential custodians of records. As argued at the motions hearing in #25-CM-0034, State of San Andreas v. Alistair Vespucci, the agencies involved in this investigation can be derived from the exhibits currently on the docket - LSSD, SASG (housing records), and DOC (CCTV footage). If the Prosecution knows of any other agencies, the Prosecution is hereby ordered to make notice of such on the docket.
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]

• All,
  
  Still waiting for availability to be filed by either of the two defense counsel assigned.
  
  Respectfully,
  
  
  Superior Court Judge
  San Andreas Judicial Branch
  (909) 235-6076 — [email protected]

• Judge Allgood,
  
  Defense is unable to fill out the schedule at this time as availability for the next few weeks is unknown. We will inform the courts as soon as we are able to.
  
  ((As explained over DM's to Allgood, I am busy with irl stuff so I need to confirm when I can be free first. I am still unsure at this time.))
  
  Respectfully,
  
  
  Jay Wellberg
  Assured Services
  Attorney, Assured Law
  Bluff Tower, 72 Bay City Avenue

• 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]

• Judge Allgood,
  
  Defense is has filled their availability. As per the scheduling notice, we will be filing our witness list shortly.
  Respectfully,
  
  
  Jay Wellberg
  Assured Services
  Attorney, Assured Law
  Bluff Tower, 72 Bay City Avenue

• The Defendant, 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:
  Nathaniel Luceran
  Type of Witness: (eye, fact, expert, or other type of witness)
  Fact
  Relevance to the case:
  Defendent.
  
  Name of Witness:
  Vito Saint
  Type of Witness: (eye, fact, expert, or other type of witness)
  Eye / Fact
  Relevance to the case:
  As mentioned in the motions hearing, we asked to have this witnessed call so we can cross examine them during trial.

Jay Wellberg
Assured Services
Attorney, Assured Law
Bluff Tower, 72 Bay City Avenue

• Witness being objected to: Vito Saint
  
  • Detailed Reasoning: The Defense cannot call a Prosecution witness to testify. Not only would it be considered a breach of the Code of Ethics section V - Relationship to the Adverse Party, but the witness cannot be compelled to testify for or by the Defense.

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