#23-CM-0047, State of San Andreas v. Carl Vespucci

[Carl Vespucci]

Defendant Name: Carl Vespucci
Defendant Phone: 4686621
Defendant Address: Casino Apartments
(( Defendant Discord: Carl_Vespucci#0839 ))
Requested Attorney: Shaun Harper, Marty Millionaire

Charging Department: PD

Date & Time of Incident(s): 19/02/2023
Charge(s):

• GF25- Felony Contempt of Court
  NM04- Stalking
  Aggravated SF05- Torture of a Gov. Employee

Narrative:
I was wrongfully charged for the crimes listed above.

---

I, Carl Vespucci, hereby affirm that all information provided above is true and correct to the best of my knowledge, and understand that knowingly providing false information could result in additional charges and/or fines. (( I affirm that all information submitted has been obtained via In-Character means. ))

[Roderick Marchisio]

San Andreas Judicial Branch Re: State of San Andreas v. Carl Vespucci "HERE FOR YOU | SAFE FOR YOU"

---

• To whom it may concern,
  
  The purpose of this notice is to inform you that as of this moment I, Roderick Marchisio, will be representing the State of San Andreas in all the proceedings pertaining to the underlying case.
  
  I will take it upon myself to reach out to the involved parties to collect and review all evidence in relation to the underlying case to ensure a proper and smooth continuation of this process.

---

Respectfully,


Deputy Attorney General
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 372-7719 — [email protected]

[Robert Winejudge]

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

---

NOTICE OF RECEIPT

---

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

State of San Andreas v. Carl Vespucci

The court has hereby received and acknowledged the above case on the 20th of February, 2023.

The Superior Court of San Andreas has received your filing and the case is now pending activation. Be advised that the court system runs on a first-come, first-served basis and will only activate cases out of order for special circumstances.

During this time, the defendant is encouraged to reach out to a licensed defense attorney in order to prepare a proper defense, otherwise, a court-appointed attorney will be assigned to the case upon its activation.

The defendant is further encouraged to speak with an authorized individual at Rockford Hills City Hall, Mission Row Police Station, or Paleto Bay Sheriff's Office for official clarification on the specific charges received and their respective date and times, as once the case has been activated, any omitted charges will be considered abandoned and unable to be disputed within this case.



Court Clerk
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 372-4223 — [email protected]

[Shaun Harper]

San Andreas Judicial Branch State of San Andreas v. "HERE FOR YOU | SAFE FOR YOU"

---

• To whom it may concern,
  
  I, Senior Defense Attorney Shaun Harper, will be representing the defendant Carl Vespucci in this case.
  
  Respectfully,
  
  
  Senior Defense Attorney
  San Andreas Judicial Branch
  (909) 308-7889 — [email protected]

[Blake Eli]

San Andreas Judicial Branch
Personal Email
"EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"

---

• To whom it may concern,
  
  I, Junior Defense Attorney Blake Eli, will be co-counseling with Senior Defense Attorney Shaun Harper in defense of Carl Vespucci in this case.
  
  Respectfully,
  
  
  Junior Defense Attorney
  San Andreas Judicial Branch
  (909) 323-9861 — [email protected]

[Shaun Harper]

San Andreas Judicial Branch State of San Andreas v. "HERE FOR YOU | SAFE FOR YOU"

---

• To whom it may concern,
  
  We the Defense would like to specify that the defendant is only contesting the ''Aggravated SF05- Torture of a Gov. Employee'' charge and not the ''GF25- Felony Contempt of Court'' or ''NM04- Stalking'' as they originally stated in their criminal case submission form.
  
  Respectfully,
  
  
  Senior Defense Attorney
  San Andreas Judicial Branch
  (909) 308-7889 — [email protected]

[Antonio McFornell]

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. Carl Vespucci

A Notification of Counsel was filed in the above case on the 11th of April, 2023.

I, Tony McFornell, a Prosecuting Attorney 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.



Senior Prosecuting Attorney
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 553-8869 — [email protected]

[Judith Mason]

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

---

NOTICE OF ACTIVATION

---

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

State of San Andreas v. Carl Vespucci
#23-CM-0047

A Notice of Activation was entered in the above case on the 20th day of April, 2023.

The case of the State of San Andreas v. Carl Vespucci is hereby activated by this Court under #23-CM-0047.

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



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

[Judith Mason]

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

---

ORDER FOR DISCOVERY

---

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

State of San Andreas v. Carl Vespucci
#23-CM-0047

A court order was entered in the above case on the 20th day of April, 2023.

The case of #23-CM-0047, State of San Andreas v. Carl Vespucci is hereby opened and acknowledged by the Court.

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

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



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

[Sai Modi]

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. Carl Vespucci

A Notification of Counsel was filed in the above case on the 22nd of April, 2023.

I, Sai Modi, a Prosecuting Attorney 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.



Prosecuting Attorney
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 364-9436 — [email protected]

[Sai Modi]

San Andreas Judicial Branch "EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"

---

• To whom it may concern,
  
  I would like to provide an update to the court in regards to this case:
  
  The previous primary counsel of this case has reached out to the defendant for a plea deal, but the defendant refused the offer. This case has many pieces of evidence that are under seal, and we will ask that this case is to be entirely under seal in respect of that fact.
  
  I will be sending out a sealed Motion for Discovery soon.
  
  Respectfully,
  
  
  Sai Modi
  Prosecuting Attorney
  San Andreas Judicial Branch
  (909) 364-9436 — [email protected]

[Sai Modi]

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

---

MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE

---

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

State of San Andreas v. Carl Vespucci
#23-CM-0047

A Motion for Continuance was filed in the above case on the 27th of April, 2023.

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

• Reasoning: The Prosecution would like more time since there has been a shift in counsel
  • Detailed Explanation: The prosecution has recently shifted counsel, and I, Sai Modi am the acting primary counselor for this case. The case is a pretty lengthy case with a lot of exhibits and we would like to request further time to review everything at hand. I would also like to point out that there are concurrent investigations relating to this case and having more time can make a potential difference in the outcome of the case at hand.

Sai Modi
Prosecuting Attorney
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 364-9436 — [email protected]

[Judith Mason]

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

---

• Parties,
  
  Private Workroom 3 has been reserved in order to facilitate the transfer of information to be filed under seal. The court would ask that when information is filed under seal, a corresponding notification be submitted onto the public docket in order to preserve the record of this case.
  
  Does the defense wish to provide a comment on the record for the prosecution's Motion for Continuance?
  
  Respectfully,
  
  
  Associate Justice
  San Andreas Judicial Branch
  (909) 257-9183 — [email protected]

[Shaun Harper]

San Andreas Judicial Branch Personal E-mail "HERE FOR YOU | SAFE FOR YOU"

---

• Honorable Judith Mason,
  
  With regards to the prosecutions motion for continuance the Defense would like to note the following:
  
  The Defense is perplexed as to why the prosecution was not fully prepared despite having prior knowledge of the evidence. The prosecution has had ample time to prepare their case up until this point. We understand that the prosecution has recently shifted counsel and that there are a lot of exhibits to file, but that leads to the question of whether any preparation was done prior to the recent shift in counsel.
  
  The defendant has the right to a fair and timely trial, and further delays may violate those rights. Balancing the prosecution's need to prepare with the defendant's right to a speedy trial is crucial.
  
  Concurrent investigations should not necessarily delay the trial, as they are separate from the case. It is essential to balance the prosecution's interests with the defendant's rights for a fair and timely trial.
  
  While the prosecution's request for additional time is understandable, it is important to balance their needs with the defendant's rights
  
  Respectfully,
  
  
  Director of Training & Hiring
  Deputy Chief Public Defender
  San Andreas Judicial Branch
  (909) 308-7889 — [email protected]

[Judith Mason]

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. Carl Vespucci
#23-CM-0047

A decision was reached in the above case on the 28th day of April, 2023.

The Motion for Continuance is granted which shall delay the expiration of the Order for Discovery until the 4th of May at approximately 7am. The prosecution is advised to withdraw the remainder of the continuance should it no longer be necessary.



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

[Sai Modi]

San Andreas Judicial Branch "EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"

---

• To whom it may concern,
  
  The first Motion for Discovery has been filed under seal as of this moment, there will be a followup with a second Motion for Discovery seeing as the exhibits are very lengthy.
  
  Respectfully,
  
  
  Sai Modi
  Prosecuting Attorney
  San Andreas Judicial Branch
  (909) 364-9436 — [email protected]

[Judith Mason]

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

---

• To whom it may concern,
  
  For the record, the court has received two Motions for Discovery: one submitted on 01/MAY/2023 with 18 attached exhibits and the second submitted on 03/MAY/2023 with an additional 6 attached exhibits.
  
  With the Order for Discovery having expired yesterday at approximately 7am, the defense has until the 7th of May at approximately 7am to submit any motions in response to the presented discovery. Should any responding motions reference sealed material, the court asks the motion to be submitted in the appropriate private workroom to keep any confidential information from the public docket.
  
  To that point, the court would also be willing to entertain a motion to unseal some of the information provided in the discovery considering all 24 exhibits of this case have been filed under seal and kept from public view. Should the parties deem it necessary, the court would ask arguments to unseal similarly take place within the private workroom.
  
  Respectfully,
  
  
  Associate Justice
  San Andreas Judicial Branch
  (909) 257-9183 — [email protected]

[Shaun Harper]

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

---

MOTION FOR DISMISSAL

---

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

State of San Andreas v. Carl Vespucci
#23-CM-0047

A Motion for Dismissal was filed in the above case on the 6 of May, 2023.

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

• Reasoning: Double Jeopardy
  • Detailed Explanation: The prosecution is using evidence in this case from previous instances which our client isn't contesting. Our client has already been punished for the prior offenses in question, and he is not contesting those charges. To allow the prosecution to uphold these charges based on evidence from those prior instances would constitute a violation of our client's rights.
    
    Our client was arrested and served time for the torture charge on the 25 of January 2023. Using evidence from before that date to prove he (again) tortured someone is a clear violation of the double jeopardy clause.

Director of Training & Hiring
Deputy Chief Public Defender
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 308-7889 — [email protected]

[Roderick Marchisio]

San Andreas Judicial Branch
Re: #23-CM-0047, State of San Andreas v. Carl Vespucci
"EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"

---

• Honorable Mason,
  
  We would like to thank the Defense for their creative Motion to Dismiss based on double jeopardy. However, as you can imagine, we respectfully disagree with their arguments. Double jeopardy is the legal principle that prevents an individual from being charged twice for the same offense after they have already been acquitted or convicted of that offense. In this respect, we note that it is important to note that double jeopardy only applies to the same offense or crime. If a person is charged with a different offense or crime that is distinct from the original charge, they can be tried again without violating the double jeopardy principle.
  
  In the underlying case, the Defendant is being charged with a separate instance of SF05- Aggravated Torture of a Govenment Employee that occurred after the original arrest and punishment. In this respect, we refer to all the evidence provided dated after the arrest that was conducted on the 25th of January, 2023 as mentioned by the Defense. The fact that the Prosecution is using evidence from previous instances does not necessarily make it the same crime or violate double jeopardy. Evidence from previous instances can still be relevant to establishing a pattern or intent, which have always been and should always remain admissible in a separate charge.
  
  Furthermore, it is important to note that double jeopardy does not prevent the use of prior bad acts evidence to prove a defendant's guilt in a subsequent trial for a separate crime. As the Prosecution has established the relevance of the evidence to the current charge as well as the fact that its probative value outweighs its potential prejudice, the evidence should be admissible.
  
  Summarized, there is no legal doctrine that would allow the conclusion to be drawn that the double jeopardy is indeed present in the underlying case. Therefore, we respectfully request the Motion to Dismiss to be denied in full and that the case proceed.
  
  

  ---

  Respectfully,
  
  
  Attorney General
  Director of Public Notary
  San Andreas Judicial Branch
  (909) 372-7719 — [email protected]

[Shaun Harper]

San Andreas Judicial Branch Personal Email "HERE FOR YOU | SAFE FOR YOU"

---

• Honorable Judith Mason,
  
  The state initially charged the Defendant with ''SF05 - Torture'' on the 25th of January, 2023.
  
  The state then charged the Defendant with Aggravated SF05- Torture of a Gov. Employee 25 days later, on the 19th of February, 2023.
  
  The prosecution claims ''the Defendant is being charged with a separate instance of SF05- Aggravated Torture of a Government Employee that occurred after the original arrest and punishment. In this respect, we refer to all the evidence provided dated after the arrest that was conducted on the 25th of January, 2023''
  
  However, the basis for this new charge is the previous incident between the Defendant and the alleged victim on the 25th of January, 2023, for which the Defendant was charged, served his sentence and has not nor is looking to appeal.
  
  As it stands, the only Exhibit, showing any sort of direct action by the Defendant is Exhibit #15, body-cam footage. As this is under seal, we will not describe what is seen on this footage on the public docket. However, one thing is clear, no torture is seen in this video. Additionally, in this very same Exhibit, a statement from the alleged Victim is shown, however no references are made about a new torture situation than that of the 25th of January, 2023.
  
  In Exhibit #20, a member of the Los Santos Police Department explicitly draws a connection between the new torture charge and Exhibit #15, using it as the main justification for charging the Defendant with Aggravated SF05- Torture of a Gov. Employee, keep in mind once again, Exhibit #15 does not at any point show any sort of torture taking place nor anything that could be construed as torture.
  
  Additionally, Exhibit #20 mentions a protective order which was submitted after the 25th of January, 2023. However, the justification for the protection order is the incident the Defendant was charged for on the 25th of January, 2023, providing further validity to our argument that the state is using evidence of a prior crime for which the Defendant has already been charged to once again charge him for the same exact situation.
  
  The burden of proof is on the prosecution. The Defendant is only appealing the charge of Aggravated SF05- Torture of a Gov. Employee. Despite the inundation of exhibits, the prosecution has failed to provide any evidence of this crime having taken place between 25th of January, 2023, the last time the Defendant was charged for torture and 19th February, 2023, the date he was charged for another instance of torture. While the prosecution might allude to a ''separate instance'' of torture, they have failed to provide evidence of such a new instance.
  
  It is with the above considerations that we argue this is a clear violation of the Double Jeopardy rule as this court would be placing the Defendant in jeopardy of life or limb for substantially the same crime, absent evidence of a new crime having taken place.
  
  Respectfully,
  
  
  Director of Training & Hiring
  Deputy Chief Public Defender
  San Andreas Judicial Branch
  (909) 308-7889 — [email protected]

[Shaun Harper]

San Andreas Judicial Branch #23-CM-0047, State of San Andreas v. Carl Vespucci "EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"

---

• Honorable Judith Mason,
  
  Is there an update on the current motions? Apologies for the insistence, but this situation has been pending for sometime and the Defendant is looking to get this situation behind him as soon as possible.
  
  Respectfully,
  
  
  Director of Training & Hiring
  Deputy Chief Public Defender
  San Andreas Judicial Branch
  (909) 308-7889 — [email protected]

[Judith Mason]

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. Carl Vespucci
#23-CM-0047

A decision was reached in the above case on the 24th day of May, 2023.

The court will be reserving judgment on the Motion to Dismiss on the grounds of double jeopardy, pending clarification from the prosecution.

With the defendant only disputing the SF05 - Aggravated Torture of a Government Employee charge placed on 19/FEB/2023, and considering the defendant received a charge on 25/JAN/2023, the court finds it reasonable for the prosecution to indicate, specifically, which pieces of evidence are being used as prior bad acts to show this pattern of conduct or character evidence and which pieces of evidence are being used to show the conduct of the defendant that rises to the level of SF05 - Aggravated Torture of a Government Employee which had occurred in between the 25th of January and the 19th of February.

The prosecution is instructed to indicate, under seal, the differentiation between the two types of presented evidence within 7 days of this notice. Once a submission is received, a decision will be made on the Motion to Dismiss.

---

As a matter of record keeping, in response to the Motion to Suppress filed by the defense on 06/MAY/2023, the court has issued a decision on 24/MAY/2023 to grant suppression of Exhibit 11 and deny suppression of Exhibit 20.



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

[Greg Kumerow]

San Andreas Judicial Branch
Re: #23-CM-0047, State of San Andreas v. Carl Vespucci
"EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"

---

• Honorable Mason,
  
  So as to avoid wasting time, I shall hop right into the prosecution's explanation.
  
  First and foremost, see Exhibit #20. In this witness statement it is revealed the circumstances for the first charge of torture on the 25th of January. Additionally, consider Exhibit #16, filed a mere 2 days after the initial charge. Scrolling down, one will notice an update on the fifth of February indicating a violation in regards to the specifics of Exhibit #16. Exhibit #21 likewise indicates a violation and undoubtedly creates an aura of fear around place of work for the victim.
  
  Additionally, notice Exhibit #23. In the attached case file, dated Feburary 10th, one finds the evidence for continued targeting of co-workers. Keep in mind that this is after the initial charge of torture which to my knowledge the defendant has not contested and therefore stands. The situation here is all pointing in a singular direction; Mr. Vespucci repeatedly targeted co-workers of the victim in close proximity to the victim, after kidnapping and torturing said victim. One wonders how someone might feel if their abuser decided to haunt their place of work and repeatedly induce harm on their coworkers for seemingly no reason.
  
  I ask you if you can empathize with someone dealing with such a scenario. Keep in mind that the prosecution does not contest a case of physical torture was performed after the initial charge. Instead, a more ghastly and nauseating form of torture was utilized; mental torture.
  
  While the defense may scoff at such a notion, it is far from unheard of. Consider one of the most famous examples of torture in Poe's the pit and the pendulum. Despite being focused on torture, throughout the course of the short story the narrator is never once physically abused by his captors. Instead, he spends its pages in anguish at his impending doom despite it never making contact with him in the titular pendulum.
  
  Similarly, Mr. Vespucci instituted his own veritable pit of despair with his repeated and reprehensible acts documented in the above. Indeed, the mental trauma induced was enough to hospitalize the victim after a mental episode, documented by LSEMS themselves in Exhibit #24. Now we have the induced hospitalization, covering the aggravated charge, as well as the fact that the victim in question was working as a government employee at the time and we have the basis for aggravated torture of a government employee.
  
  These repeated acts, in a concerted and targeted effort towards a particular locale, introduced an aura of uncertainty and fear that undoubtedly left the victim in a state of trauma. If one is to doubt the idea that such an aura can exist, one need only look at the penal code and its frequent notions of intimidation. What are these acts other than those designed to intimidate?
  
  Mr. Vespucci undoubtedly committed the acts that enabled the first charge of torture, and it was his continued acts outlined above that induced a hospitalization and worked towards another kind of torture thereafter. The hospitalization outlined in Exhibit #24 did not spontaneously emerge from the ether without cause.
  
  
  It is for these reasons and the multitude of evidence to the contrary that the prosecution asks you to deny the motion for dismissal as these charges are clearly for two different offenses even if the first offense feeds into the second one intrinsically.
  
  Respectfully,
  
  
  Senior Prosecuting Attorney
  San Andreas Judicial Branch
  (909) 219-6537 — [email protected]

[Shaun Harper]

San Andreas Judicial Branch #23-CM-0047, State of San Andreas v. Carl Vespucci "EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"

---

• Honorable Judge Judith Mason,
  
  While the prosecution has presented a series of exhibits, I contend that their interpretation of the evidence is misleading and fails to meet the legal standard defined in the penal code.
  
  The prosecution argues that our client, Mr. Vespucci, inflicted mental torture upon the victim and her coworkers. However, it is crucial to note that the penal code clearly defines torture as "inflicting cruel and unusual bodily harm upon another person." The code's language specifically focuses on bodily harm, which signifies a physical aspect of harm inflicted upon an individual.
  
  While the prosecution attempts to draw comparisons to literary examples and concepts of mental anguish, it is important to adhere to the legal definition of torture as stated in the penal code. The evidence presented by the prosecution does not support the contention that my client inflicted cruel and unusual bodily harm upon the victim.
  
  The prosecution's reference to an "aura of uncertainty and fear" created by my client's actions does not align with the legal standard of bodily harm required for a charge of torture. Feelings of fear and uncertainty, do not fall within the scope of the penal code's definition of torture.
  
  Furthermore, the alleged discussion to hospitalize the victim, as outlined in Exhibit #24, does not provide evidence of cruel and unusual bodily harm inflicted by our client. These issues can arise from various sources, and it would be inappropriate to attribute this solely to my client's conduct without clear evidence demonstrating the physical aspect of bodily harm.
  
  In summary, it is essential to adhere to the legal definition of torture as stated in the penal code, which requires the infliction of cruel and unusual bodily harm upon another person. The prosecution has failed to present sufficient evidence that my client met this criterion. Therefore, I urge you, Your Honor, to consider the lack of evidence supporting the charge of ''Aggravated SF05- Torture of a Gov. Employee'' and grant the motion for dismissal. Thank you.
  
  Respectfully,
  
  
  Director of Training & Hiring
  Deputy Chief Public Defender
  San Andreas Judicial Branch
  (909) 308-7889 — [email protected]

[Greg Kumerow]

San Andreas Judicial Branch
Re: #23-CM-0047, State of San Andreas v. Carl Vespucci
"EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"

---

• Honorable Mason,
  
  Allow me to retort.
  
  It is actually a little-known scientific fact that for the duration of ones' life, the brain and all its inner mechanisms like consciousness are actually floating out in the ether and connected only to the body through thin strands of particles that are completely imperceptible to even the most fine-tuned of scientific instruments.
  
  ... is of course what one would have to believe to think that the brain is disconnected from the body. Indeed, the brain is intricately connected to the rest of the body through the nervous system and even pure cognition can cause exceptionally detrimental effects from thoughts alone, such as depression. The placebo effect, for example, is the process by which an inadequate or ineffective solution is given to a problem, usually a physical ailment, and by pure belief that it will cure, that ailment is resolved even though normally it would not. It would be exceptionally silly to argue that mental perception is irrelevant to someone's wellbeing; the evidence against such a claim is overwhelming.
  
  I believe it is for situations like this that a purposive approach to the ruling is in order. Ask yourself this; did the lawmakers behind the penal code really intend for mental anguish to be completely acceptable under the law? Were they somehow unaware that words can evoke emotions, sometimes very powerful negative ones? Did they truly intend to write the law in such a way that you could, for example, harass someone every day for a year threatening or implying violence and this would be okay as long as no physical contact could be made?
  
  I can say this much; it certainly seems like that was never their intent. Why else would such crimes as GM13 - Criminal threats be established into law? They're just words! They're not inflicting bodily harm, so what's the problem? Should we just as well remove NM04 - Stalking? After all, what harm does following someone incessantly cause as long as no physical damage is reported?
  
  To ignore the obvious intent behind the law and be willfully ignorant of the implications that strict adherence to its lettering at the detriment of its effectiveness is the height of foolishness. Such actions will cause irreparable harm to this state as a whole and efforts to undermine the spirit of law should be brushed aside. I ask you to think logically about the implications that reading the law to mean strictly physical harm would do, as well as consider the obvious intent of the legislative branch while ruling.
  
  This is all, of course, to ignore the logistical aspect of consciousness being a collection of brain chemicals working in tandem such that even mental anguish can be argued to be physical trauma under a scientific definition.
  
  That being said, I ask that you affirm justice and common sense and deny the motion to dismiss. Thank you.
  
  Respectfully,
  
  
  Senior Prosecuting Attorney
  San Andreas Judicial Branch
  (909) 219-6537 — [email protected]