Eclipse Government

Posted: **14 Apr 2024, 07:04**

Motion to Supress
State of San Andreas v. Frank Haswell

To whom it may concern,

The defense, in light of evidence presented by the prosecution in Exhibits #14 and #15, respectfully moves to suppress both exhibits fully for the following reasons:

The exhibits presented by the prosecution, namely Exhibit #14 (Jack Goodnight Chronology of Events) and Exhibit #15 (Assistant Warden Issei Schneider Witness Statement), lack relevance to the case at hand. While the chronology of events provided in Exhibit #14 outlines past encounters involving Mr. Jack Goodnight with law enforcement, the defense contends that the time elapsed since his last charge demonstrates his efforts to reintegrate into society and lead a law-abiding life. Notably, Mr. Goodnight's last charge occurred approximately [insert time frame] ago, indicating that he has served his time to society for his past actions. Additionally, the witness statement in Exhibit #15, dated February 01, 2024, reflects information that is around 2 months old. In the time since then, Mr. Goodnight has undergone significant personal growth and is committed to making positive contributions to society. Therefore, the exhibits fail to establish a direct connection to the charges against the defendant, Frank Haswell, and should be suppressed.
Admitting Exhibits #14 and #15 into evidence would infringe upon the defendant's right to a fair trial as guaranteed by the Constitution. By allowing irrelevant and prejudicial evidence to be presented before the jury, the court risks unfairly influencing the perception of the jury and denying Mr. Haswell his fundamental right to due process.

The defense would also like to note again that there are multiple people who are in Supervisor+ Positions in Government Agencies who were given a chance to prove that they were changed.

The defense would like to state that we would be more than happy to submit a witness list and have jack goodnight take the stand so that he can speak his truth and you can ask him questions in trial. But there is no reason for the prosecution to continue outcasting my client for choices he has made and regretted in the past.

((On an OOC Note as well with the way that IRL time is portrayed ICly this would mean that Jack Goodnight has been clean for a reasonable amount of time. We urge you to also view this from a OOC level within the latter of the IRL time conversion to IC time.))

Respectfully,

Mary Burrows
Associate
Bar Certified Attorney
☏ 339-5979

Posted: **16 Apr 2024, 20:50**

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

Honorable Judge Mason and pertaining parties,

We're concerned about the method the defense went about constructing their previous argument ((it's written by chat GPT)). There's issues at several points where the prosecution feels that clarification is required. To begin the defense states "Notably, Mr. Goodnight's last charge occurred approximately [insert time frame] ago, indicating that he has served his time to society for his past actions." Mr. Goodnight's last charge(s) was on the 17 of March. One of which was WF01 - Assault with a Deadly Weapon of a Gov. Employee placed by an SADOC officer. Once again, the prosecution has proven that Mr. Goodnight was NOT in good standing when he made the witness statement. The witness statement was posted on the 12th of March. 5 days prior to continued attacks by Mr. Goodnight on SADOC. Additionally, as the defense has only had the witness sign and not date the statement, suggesting that the statement was incorrectly obtained.

((The OOC timeline in this case means nothing as the Jack Goodnight was still actively committing crimes when he made the statement to the defense. With the way that IRL time is portrayed ICly this would mean that Jack Goodnight had NOT been clean until days after making the statement to the defense.))

Moving onto the next confusing statements made by the defense. "By allowing irrelevant and prejudicial evidence to be presented before the jury, the court risks unfairly influencing the perception of the jury and denying Mr. Haswell his fundamental right to due process." First, the jury is not being presented information, the judge is. Second, the prosecution has presented the information similar to how courts outside of our state impeach witnesses.

Outside of our state to impeach a witness, the prosecution can include the several items in regards to an arrest as long as it pertains to the impeachment and not the guilt of the individual. These items are location, charges, date, and a small description of the events, but only if it is necessary for context (IE: showing how antagonistic Mr. Goodnight is to SADOC). None of this information is considered more prejudicial than probative as it does not sway the judge to feel any way about the defendant. It is about impeaching a witness, and having that information on the record for trial.

Speaking of trial, the prosecution is ready for trial or whatever the next step required by the Judge are.

Respectfully,

Attorney General
Director of Public Notary
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 505-9925 — [email protected]

Posted: **16 Apr 2024, 21:09**

Motion to Supress
State of San Andreas v. Frank Haswell

To whom it may concern,

Before I write the defenses reponse, I would like to openly criticize Attorney General Hope Kant going to a new low to criticize how I have constructed my arguments. I truly believe she is using her personal vendetta against me to try and call out my abilities as a lawyer.

((Deciding to try and point out that I use ChatGPT is very low on an OOC note. I do not use ChatGPT to construct my responses. I use a grammar checker and softwares to make sure my language is to a higher standard as it would be realistically for my character. So let’s not accuse and instead uplift and foster a great community.))

I will release the defenses response in the coming hours.

Respectfully,

Mary Burrows
Associate
Bar Certified Attorney
☏ 339-5979

Posted: **15 Jun 2024, 17:41**

Due to continued Delay and lack of communication from my attorney I, Frank Haswell, am relieving Mary Burrows, Primary Counsel for myself, from this case.

Moving forward, I shall be representing myself.

Posted: **15 Jun 2024, 17:56**

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. Frank Haswell
#23-CM-0103

A Motion for Involuntary Dismissal was filed in the above case on the 15th of June, 2024.

Defendant, Frank Haswell, by and through the undersigned attorney, filed this Motion for Involuntary Dismissal, and the reasoning for request is as follows;

Reasoning: Infringement of 6th Amendment Constitutional Right
- Detailed Explanation: The 6th Amendment of the Constitution of San Andreas states the following:
  In all criminal trials brought forth by or too the San Andreas Judicial Branch, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial Judge of the State wherein the crime shall have been committed, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against them; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in their favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for their defense.
  
  Through by neglect, or by happenstance, The Associate Justice Judith Mason, has allowed there to be a 2 month delay in answering to the Motion to Supress Evidence filed by the previous Defense, Ms. Mary Burrows. In doing so, The Defendant has endured undue mental duress and stress. The Defendant, in the pursuit of turning a new leaf, has been meaningfully unable to do so, as the shadow of the indictment casts a shadow overhead him, ready to undo any and all progress made and eligibility for employment in the State of San Andreas.
  
  That being said, The defendant prefers this case to be dismissed WITH PREJUDICE, however understanding that there are two sides to each belief, the defendant wishes to extend the opportunity for the Attorney General to provide input and allow the State to dismiss this case WITHOUT Prejudice if they find fit to reassess Mr. Haswell's ability to reform in an environment where there are no criminal influences to engage with him on a daily basis.

Title
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) ###-#### — [email protected]

Posted: **15 Jun 2024, 18:53**

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

Honorable Justice Mason and pertaining parties,

While the prosecution sympathizes with the length the defendant has had to wait to see his day in court, we would like to present a counter argument. We would like to point to the most recent verdict by Judge McFornell in #23-CM-0102, State of San Andreas v. Melody Frey et al. stating, "This Court has already extended itself enough, and thus, will make a swift conclusion: The 60 day delay between the Appeal being resolved and a decision being adopted constitutes a breach of the 6th amendment rights of the defendant. However, the rights and interests of citizens and the State would be affected in a much greater proportion if the motion for dismissal in this case were accepted." The prosecution argues again that the burden the state would endure if due process were to fail in this instance far outweighs the position of the defense. We ask the judge to push forward to verdicts on the docket as well as a trial in person.

Respectfully,

Attorney General
Director of Public Notary
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 505-9925 — [email protected]

Posted: **15 Jun 2024, 20:43**

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

Honorable Justice Mason,

If I may rebuke the statement the Prosecution has brought forth,

While the public has a perceived right to feel safe in the privacy of their own homes and whilst in public, the crimes alleged by the court are not crimes of a violent nature. Which right specifically is being impacted by the consideration of an Involuntary Dismissal?

The Defendant has gone 9 months without further criminal offense, Has he not proven that he is not a danger to the greater citizenry of the state through his continued good behavior?

If we trample on the rights of one at the speculative benefit of others, what pray tell, is the intention of assigning each and every citizen of the State of San Andreas the protections and benefits of a Constitution? Are any individual's rights to be held in higher regard than another? If so, would that not exemplify a clear disparity that not all peoples within the State of San Andreas are equal? This is bordering on prejudiced accusations that because the Defendant has made mistakes, that they are a risk to the public, despite once again, not having committed a violent criminal offence since the alleged incident, and not a singular misdemeanour or felony offence for over 9 months

Additionally, The Attorney General, in her statement, seeks to infringe on the Defendant's 9th Amendment Rights, which read:
9th Amendment
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
In seeking to reference a Constitutional Right that does not exist, The Attorney General attempts to deny the Defendant their 6th Amendment rights. Additionally, as the State of San Andreas does not have an individual Bill of Rights, any reference that the Attorney General has made to the "the rights and interests of citizens and the State", is, in my opinion, to be considered Null and Void, as it does not reference any legal document penned and/or authorized by State Legislature.

Respectfully,

Me
Myself,
I.
123-456-7890 — Don't

Posted: **21 Jun 2024, 00:27**

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

NOTICE OF RECUSAL

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

State of San Andreas v. Frank Haswell
#23-CM-0103

A Notice of Recusal was entered in the above case on the 21st of June, 2024.

I, Presiding Judge Judith Mason, am hereby recusing myself from this case. Following this notice, documentation will be transferred to an alternative member of the State Judiciary who will then preside over the remainder of the proceedings.

Associate Justice
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 257-9183 — [email protected]

Posted: **22 Jun 2024, 19:01**

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

NOTICE OF REASSIGNMENT

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

State of San Andreas v. Frank Hasswell
#23-CM-0103

A Notice of Reassignment was entered in the above case on 22nd of June, 2024.

The case of the State of San Andreas v. Frank Hasswell is hereby reassigned to Superior Court Judge Antonio McFornell.

The presiding judge will familiarize himself with the case throughout the next 48 hours and will decide on any pending motions, if need be. Afterwards, the case will continue to move on swiftly should both parties (State and Defense) be ready for doing so.

Superior Court Judge
San Andreas Judicial Branch

Posted: **03 Jul 2024, 20:41**

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. Frank Haswell
#23-CM-0103

A decision was reached in the above case on the 3rd day of July, 2024.

In regards to the Motion for Continuance
The Prosecution presented a Motion for Continuance on the 9th of April, requesting additional time be granted for incorporating as separate exhibits evidence related to the character of a key witness in these legal proceedings. The defense opposed, arguing that allowing said continuance would prolong without justification the legal proceedings at hand.

The Court would like to point out that between the request for the undecided continuance and the presenting of exhibits #14 and #15, a short amount of time passed.

The Court has to reflect on the possibility of vices that could lead to a mistrial or the annullment of legal proceedings. Without the intention of going into unwarranted legal theory discussion, the Court considers the following events of great relevance:

The Prosecution requested a Continuance to allow them to gather additional evidence.
The defense opposed said requested, arguing that the rights of the defendant could be breached should said continuance be granted.
The prosecution, not long after and within the 7 days that are usually granted as a result of a motion for continuance, incorporated two exhibits (namely exhibit #14 and #15) into the docket.
The defense presented a motion to suppress, arguing that exhibits #14 and #15 lacked relevance to the case. The defense also argued that allowing said exhibits to be incorporated would equal allowing prejudicial evidence into the docket, which could influence the jury.

In regards to the correction or sanitation of defects by ratification or actions of the parties
The Court manages to identify that, initially, the defense alleged that the acceptance of the Continuance would affect the procedural rights of the defendant. However, once the Prosecution presented its Motion for Discovery, the defense did not question the legal validity of the evidence because it was presented outside the time for discovery. On the contrary, what the defense did through its Motion to Suppress was to confirm that it agreed with the untimely inclusion of evidence by the Prosecution, given that their arguments revolved around a lack of relevance and prejudicial intent. In this sense, if the evidence presented by the Prosecution had been vitiated by some type of nullity or by having been presented out of time, what the defense did when presenting its motion to suppress was to remedy said defect by ratifying exhibits #14 and #15. A different case would have been if the arguments behind the motion to suppress (or any other type of communication or Motion) had revolved around the legal invalidity that exhibits #14 and #15 could have suffered from, as a result of having been incorporated into the docket in an untimely manner.

With these considerations in mind, the Court finds that any defects related to the untimely presentation of evidence were corrected or sanitized by ratification of the defense through its actions within the docket.

In regards to the Motion to Suppress
Having said that, the Court now has to resolve the Motion to Suppress presented by the defense. To not further extend this decision, the Court has to conclude that the exhibits presented do not lack relevance to the case, as they are valid means utilized by the prosecution to impeach the credibility of the statements offered by Jack Goodnight. This evidence is not prejudicial, given that this Court will have to eventually, before casting a verdict, determine whether this evidence -and any other- is able to create doubt on the presiding judge when deciding this matter. Furthermore, there is no risk of unfairly influencing the perception of the jury simply because of the fact that there is no jury to influence.

In regards to the Motion for Dismissal
Finally, in relation to the Motion for Unvoluntary Dismissal, the defense argues that "through the neglect, or by happenstance, the [presiding Judge] has (...) submitted the defendant to undue mental duress and stress", which has also disallowed the defendant from being able to turn a new leaf.

In State v. Frey et al, the Court concluded:

"However, the presiding judge has to make one final consideration: It is necessary to ponder between the constitutional right of the defendant (6th amendment) and the constitutional interests that are being defended by the indictment. The Superior Court Judge finds that, unlike other criminal cases, the economic, political, employment and many other rights afforded to the defendant haven’t been affected (which does happen, in practice, in non-indictment cases). However, the State seeks to defend valid and constitutional protected interests by pursuing the commission of crime through this proceeding.

This Court has already extended itself enough, and thus, will make a swift conclusion: The 60 day delay between the Appeal being resolved and a decision being adopted constitutes a breach of the 6th amendment rights of the defendant. However, the rights and interests of citizens and the State would be affected in a much greater proportion if the motion for dismissal in this case were accepted. In other words, the judge considers that the burden to which the defendant is being subjected through this decision is justified based on the rules of pondering and reflections proposed here."

The Court finds itself in need of quoting these reflections, as they are directly applicable to the case at hand, as mentioned by the Prosecution on their arguments against the Motion. References to the "rights and interests of citizens and the State" will not be considered null and void, not because they exist in a legal document "authorized by State Legislature", as the defense argues, but because these are foundational principles and elements of our legal system. For that matter, and to finalize the presentation of the arguments that lead the Court to dismiss the Motion in question, there would be no reason for the existence of any state entity, neither the government, nor the three branches of power, nor the Constitution of San Andreas, if the permanent protection of the rights and interests of the citizens and the State were not sought. In other words, there is no explicit constitutional or legal norm mandating the protection of the rights and interests of the citizens and the State simply because particularly that same mandate is -in great proportion- what justifies the existence of our constitutional and legal system.

The Court will now proceed with determining the methods to be utilized in order to practice the Trial for #23-CM-0103, and thus, will be reaching out to the involved parties before publishing a Notice of Trial.

So ordered,

Superior Court Judge
Director of the San Andreas Bar Association
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 553-8869 — [email protected]

Posted: **03 Jul 2024, 21:14**

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

MOTION TO STAY PENDING APPEAL

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

State of San Andreas v. Frank Haswell
#23-CM-0103

A Motion to Stay Pending Appeal was filed in the above case on the 3rd of July, 2024.

The State of San Andreas/Defendant, Frank Haswell, by and through the undersigned attorney, filed this Motion to Stay Pending Appeal, and the reasoning for request is as follows;

Reasoning: The Defense in this case has initiated an appeal within the San Andreas Court of Appeals following the latest Court Decision.

Frank Haswell
Self Representing
(909) ###-#### — [email protected]

Posted: **15 Jul 2024, 14:05**

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. Frank Haswell
#23-CM-0103

An attempt to schedule was made and recorded by the court on 15th of July, 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 make one more attempt to schedule. Should this second attempt fail, a docket Trial will be ordered to avoid further delays.

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.

So ordered,

Superior Court Judge
Director of the San Andreas Bar Association
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 553-8869 — [email protected]

Posted: **16 Jul 2024, 22:17**

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

NOTICE OF TRIAL

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

State of San Andreas v. Frank Haswell
#23-CM-103

A trial date was set on the above case on July 16th, 2024.

In accordance with the availability reported by both parties in response to the Notice of Scheduling, this trial shall take place at 05:00 PM on July 20th, 2024 at Rockford Hills City Hall, Carcer Way, Metro Los Santos, SA.

((Please view this image to locate the time locally in the scheduling tool))

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 cancelation 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
Director of the San Andreas Bar Association
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 553-8869 — [email protected]

Posted: **24 Jul 2024, 15:08**

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. Frank Haswell
#23-CM-0103

A decision was reached in the above case on the 20th day of July, 2024.

Pre-Trial Proceedings
The defendant, Frank Haswell, found himself in trial for the alleged crimes of Robbery of a Government Employee, Tampering with Evidence and Obstruction of Justice.

The narrative proposed by the Prosecution to justify the aforementioned charges werebased on the defendant allegedly taking items from his locker and the lockers of fellow employees and later on filling two bags with the presumed contents of said lockers, all while employed by the Department of Corrections.

Upon further inspection of the defendant’s locker, it was concluded that there were items totalling $280,000 in value after he had already left with the mentioned bags. As such, the Prosecution accused the defendant of concealing evidence and stealing the mentioned contents.

To all the charges, the defendant pled not guilty.

Trial Proceedings
The Court noted the absence of the defendant, Frank Haswell, despite confirmation of his awareness of the proceedings and his presence in town. He had expressed unwillingness to attend through representatives of the Branch. The presiding judge determined to proceed with the trial in his absence, noting the defendant's waiver of his right to a public defender.

The Prosecution contended that the defendant abused his position as a Custodian Officer at the Department of Corrections to gain unauthorized access to items and remove them from SADOC’s premises.

The Court finds that the Prosecution had substantiated the claim that the defendant provided false statements regarding the origin of knives discovered in the DOC lobby. Additionally, the Court concludesthat the defendant unlawfully removed items from a locker, not belonging to him or a colleague. Furthermore, items found in the defendant’s locker, such as stamps, tin ore, dirty inmate laundry, and numerous pickaxes, strongly suggested they were unlawfully obtained from inmate or colleague lockers. Such actions were inconsistent with the expected conduct of a public servant.

The Court acknowledges the Prosecution’s efforts to discredit witness Jack Goodnight, particularly his subsequent written statement affirming the defendant's permission to access the items. However, the Court finds discrepancies between this statement and the witness' testimony during interrogation, casting doubt on its veracity. Therefore, the Court is not inclined to believe that the defendant had lawful authorization to retrieve the items.

The Court, then, finds beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant, Frank Haswell, unlawfully appropriated property belonging to another individual without their consent, constituting theft under our penal code, aggravated by the victim's status as a government employee. However, the Court also believes that the Prosecution had not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant intended to obstruct an ongoing investigation. It was evident that the defendant unlawfully took these items for personal gain, without regard to their involvement in an investigation, suggesting no intent to interfere with ongoing proceedings. Nevertheless, the Court finds that the defendant did interfere, delay, obstruct, or provide false information to authorities regarding the origin of the knives and related events.

With these considerations in mind, the verdict of this court is as follows:

On the count of GF02 - Robbery of a Government Employee, I find the defendant, Frank Haswell, Guilty.
On the count of GF16 - Tampering with Evidence, I find the defendant, Frank Haswell, Not Guilty.
On the count of GM14 - Obstruction of Justice, I find the defendant, Frank Haswell, Guilty.

So ordered,

Superior Court Justice
Director of the San Andreas Bar Association
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 553-8869 — [email protected][/list]

Eclipse Government

#23-CM-0103, State of San Andreas v. Frank Haswell

Re: #23-CM-0103, State of San Andreas v. Frank Haswell

Re: #23-CM-0103, State of San Andreas v. Frank Haswell

Re: #23-CM-0103, State of San Andreas v. Frank Haswell

Re: #23-CM-0103, State of San Andreas v. Frank Haswell

Re: #23-CM-0103, State of San Andreas v. Frank Haswell

Re: #23-CM-0103, State of San Andreas v. Frank Haswell

Re: #23-CM-0103, State of San Andreas v. Frank Haswell

Re: #23-CM-0103, State of San Andreas v. Frank Haswell

Re: #23-CM-0103, State of San Andreas v. Frank Haswell

Re: #23-CM-0103, State of San Andreas v. Frank Haswell

Re: #23-CM-0103, State of San Andreas v. Frank Haswell

Re: #23-CM-0103, State of San Andreas v. Frank Haswell

Re: #23-CM-0103, State of San Andreas v. Frank Haswell

Re: #23-CM-0103, State of San Andreas v. Frank Haswell