#23-CM-0066, State of San Andreas v. Stelio Bathsheba

User avatar
Blake Eli
Posts: 159
Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2021 5:04 pm
ECRP Forum Name: Eli Blake

LSEMS Awards

#23-CM-0066, State of San Andreas v. Stelio Bathsheba

Post by Blake Eli »

Image
Image
Defendant Name: Stelio Bathsheba
Defendant Phone: 525-5342
Defendant Address: Bathsheba Church
(( Defendant Discord: Woot_BeerFloat#8572 ))
Requested Attorney: Blake Eli & Cyrus Raven
Image
Charging Department: PD
Image
Date & Time of Incident(s): 20/April/2023 23:49
Charge(s):
  • GM10-Failure to Comply
Narrative:
I Blake Eli, a Defense Attorney with the Judicial Branch will be writing the narrative for the defendant as he has difficulty reading and writing.

Ronnie and Stelio drove to MD to ensure that Wolfgang was getting proper treatment after he was unnecessarily tased and struck on the head during a previous trial that day. Ronnie and Stelio parked in one of the public parking spaces at the upper bill box and after exiting the vehicle stayed within near proximity of the vehicle. While beside their vehicle they locked the door as they saw Wolfgang running toward them to greet them and thank them for making checking on his well-being. While Wolfgang was being taken from MD towards DOC at least two PD officers and one DOC agent was still on the scene at MD with the Bathsheba's. At this point one of the officers instructed the Bathsheba's to go back even further away from their current position as she felt they posed a threat. Stelio asked the officer why they needed to leave MD as they were just checking on a family member and both gentlemen were unarmed. In response, the officer replied, "Because I said so." At this point, without showing any indications of aggression Stelio asked the officer what reasonable cause she has to demand that they left MD as neither men were armed nor were being verbally or physically aggressive with the officers. A DOC agent on the scene stated to the officer that neither men were being aggressive and that they shouldn't be commanded to leave MD. At this point, the officers said that the defendants were failing to comply and tased Ronnie once where he stood and proceeded to tase him once more while he was helpless on the ground. The defendant disagrees with the validity of the charges and wishes to dispute them in Criminal Court.



I, Stelio Bathsheba, 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. ))
Image
User avatar
Blake Eli
Posts: 159
Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2021 5:04 pm
ECRP Forum Name: Eli Blake

LSEMS Awards

Re: State of San Andreas v. Stelio Bathsheba

Post by Blake Eli »

Image



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. Stelio Bathsheba

A Notification of Counsel was filed in the above case on the 21st of April, 2023.


I, Blake Eli, a Public Defense Attorney with the San Andreas Judicial Branch, will be representing the Defendant, Stelio Bathsheba.

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


Image
Defense Attorney
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 323-9861 — [email protected]
Image
User avatar
Hope Kant
Judicial Branch
Posts: 2669
Joined: Sat Jan 30, 2021 7:56 pm
ECRP Forum Name:

SAJB Awards

Re: State of San Andreas v. Stelio Bathsheba

Post by Hope Kant »

Image



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. Stelio Bathsheba

A Notification of Counsel was filed in the above case on 22/APR/2023.


I, Hope Kant, 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.


Image
Prosecuting Attorney
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 321-2132 — [email protected][/list]

Image
Image
User avatar
Robert Winejudge
Judicial Branch
Posts: 445
Joined: Sat Jun 25, 2022 10:37 pm
ECRP Forum Name:

SAJB Awards

Re: State of San Andreas v. Stelio Bathsheba

Post by Robert Winejudge »

Image


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. Stelio Bathsheba

The court has hereby received and acknowledged the above case on the 22nd of April, 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.


Image
Court Clerk
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 372-4223 — [email protected]
Image
Image
User avatar
Ruwin Korbel
Posts: 95
Joined: Tue Dec 06, 2022 8:00 am
ECRP Forum Name: Ruwin Korbel

SAJB Awards

Re: State of San Andreas v. Stelio Bathsheba

Post by Ruwin Korbel »

Image



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. Stelio Bathsheba

A Notification of Counsel was filed in the above case on the 17th of May, 2023


I, Ruwin Korbel, a Senior Public Defense Attorney with the San Andreas Judicial Branch, will be representing the Defendant, Stelio Bathsheba in the underlying case.

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

Image

Ruwin "Quiet" Korbel
Senior Public Defence Attourney
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 556-2848 — [email protected][/list]
Image
Lilian LeFay
Posts: 45
Joined: Thu Jun 08, 2023 12:39 pm
ECRP Forum Name: Lilian LeFay

Re: State of San Andreas v. Stelio Bathsheba

Post by Lilian LeFay »

Image



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. Stelio Bathsheba

A Notification of Counsel was filed in the above case on the 25 of June, 2023.


I, Lilian LeFay, a Public Defense Attorney with the San Andreas Judicial Branch, will be representing the Defendant, Stelio Bathsheba in the underlying case.

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

Image
Junior Defense Attorney
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 216-8336 — [email protected]
Image
User avatar
Robert Winejudge
Judicial Branch
Posts: 445
Joined: Sat Jun 25, 2022 10:37 pm
ECRP Forum Name:

SAJB Awards

Re: State of San Andreas v. Stelio Bathsheba

Post by Robert Winejudge »

Image



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. Stelio Bathsheba
#23-CM-0066

A Notice of Activation was entered in the above case on the 25th of June, 2023.


The case of the State of San Andreas v. Stelio Bathsheba is hereby activated by this Court under #23-CM-0066.

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.

Image
Superior Court Judge
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 372-4223 — [email protected]
Image
Image
User avatar
Robert Winejudge
Judicial Branch
Posts: 445
Joined: Sat Jun 25, 2022 10:37 pm
ECRP Forum Name:

SAJB Awards

Re: #23-CM-0066, State of San Andreas v. Stelio Bathsheba

Post by Robert Winejudge »

Image



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. Stelio Bathsheba
#23-CM-0066

A court order was entered in the above case on the 25th of June, 2023.


The case of #23-CM-0066, State of San Andreas v. Stelio Bathsheba 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.



Image
Superior Court Judge
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 372-4223 — [email protected]
Image
Image
User avatar
Hope Kant
Judicial Branch
Posts: 2669
Joined: Sat Jan 30, 2021 7:56 pm
ECRP Forum Name:

SAJB Awards

Re: #23-CM-0066, State of San Andreas v. Stelio Bathsheba

Post by Hope Kant »

Image



San Andreas Judicial Branch

Superior Court of San Andreas
"EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"

MOTION FOR DISCOVERY


IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

State of San Andreas v. Stelio Bathsheba
#23-CM-0066

A Motion for Discovery was filed in the above case on the 26th of June, 2023.


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


  • Exhibit #1: Stelio Bathsheba Arrest Report - April 21st 2023
    Eleanor Quinn wrote: Fri Apr 21, 2023 12:06 am Image
    Image

    Los Santos Police Department

    ARREST REPORT
    "TO PROTECT AND TO SERVE"


    MUGSHOT
    • SUSPECT DETAILS
      • Full Name: Stelio Bathsheba
        Phone Number: 5255342
        Licenses Suspended: No
        Officers Involved:
        • Police Lieutenant II Eleanor Quinn
        Charges:
        • GM10 - Failure to Comply / Identify
      INCIDENT NARRATIVE
      • Explain what happened, sufficient detail must be given to justify the placed charges, videos could be provided.
        • Stelio Bathsheba, alongside Ronnie Bathsheba, were crouched outside of upper Pillbox, reported by DOC as interfering with a prisoner transport. Upon arrival, an overview was given by a Correctional Officer, to which, I approached the two suspects. Multiple requests and lawful orders were made for them to vacate the area, being ignored and argued back to, not helping the case that a random Correctional Officer decided to insert himself, something to the effect of them not being involved, which was in stark contrast to the original report. Nevertheless, I made multiple polite and lawful requests for them to leave the immediate area and offered them a simple out through just parking across the street, which was not taken. The suspect (in the context of this report, Stelio Bathsheba), began arguing back, latching onto the Correctional Officers words.

          An eye was kept on them in case they made any further attempts to interfere with the loading of multiple other Bathshebas, including Wolfgang Bathsheba. After the DOC convoy left, a further investigation was instigated on the two and a lawful order was given to stand up and face a wall by upper Pillbox. To this order, the only action that was taken by the two individuals was standing up, however, the suspect especially kept arguing against any further compliance. Nevertheless, they were given ample opportunity to comply, not taking it, deciding to remain stubborn and uncompliant. After roughly five continuous requests and orders, they were placed under arrest for GM10 and successfully taken to Mission Row.
      EVIDENCE DETAILS
      • Document the possessions confiscated from the arrested suspect.
        Possessions are to be documented individually, examples of documented illegal possessions are "Pistol .50" or "12 grams of Cocaine". Legal possessions that can be categorized may be grouped, eg. "Clothing" to describe all clothing items. Body camera footage/pictures may be attached as an evidence exhibit.

        Where possible, the serial number of each firearm seized as evidence should be noted.
        • Illegal Possessions:
          Exhibit A: N/A


          Legal Possessions:
          Exhibit A: Litter
          Exhibit B: Baseball Bat
          Exhibit C: Radio
          Exhibit D: Empty Water Bottle
          Exhibit E: Clothing

          Photograph of Possessions (MANDATORY)
          Image
    Image
    Exhibit #2: Police Captain E. Quinn's Statement
    Eleanor Quinn wrote: Sat Apr 22, 2023 4:19 pm Image

    San Andreas Judicial Branch
    Official Witness Statement
    "HERE FOR YOU | SAFE FOR YOU"
    Case Information
    • Incident Date: 20/APR/2023
    Witness Information
    • Name: Eleanor Quinn
      Date of Birth: Redacted
      Phone Number: Redacted
      Occupation: Police Officer
    Witness Statement
    • Over the department radio, DOC requested units to assist them at upper Pillbox with members of the Bathsheba family interfering with their transport of Wolfgang Bathsheba and one, to me, unknown individual. As I pulled up, a member of CERT approached me and filled me in on the situation, citing that the two defendants had been attempting to pick up Wolfgang Bathsheba and generally disrupting the transport.

      As I made contact with them, another, to me unknown DOC guard, walked past and casually affirmed that they had done nothing, I will not be providing a quote as I do not recall it exactly on top of the scene being quite loud due to Wolfgang Bathsheba attempting to run. In any case, the two defendants then latched onto that line, to which, I explained to them that Correctional Officers do not dictate the law.

      In order to ensure that no further incidences happened from the two defendants, myself and Police Sergeant I Rija Luigi kept an eye on them, as they remained defiantly hunched in the arched position, even after mutliple requests and further orders from them to mount their vehicles and move across the street. The scene was allowed to wrap up and they did not interfere further, however, they remained defiant to any orders.

      Due to the circumstances and their known affiliation with the Bathsheba family, a family with a history of drug possession, most commonly cocaine, backed up by charges on multiple of their records - an investigation ensued into the two defendants, who had remained staunchly opposed to leaving. They were given multiple, clearly articulated orders, to stand up and face a wall as we had reasonable belief of them being either or both been under the influence or in possession of narcotics or other illicit substances.

      After multiple orders for us to proceed with this investigation, consisting of a simple frisk (in context as it's used far too liberally to reference a full search: to pat an indicidual down around their clothing) and based on that potential results, further investigations or release, the decision was made to place both defendants under arrest due to failing to comply after multiple chances and orders, which were clearly articulated to be lawful orders.

      The order of events, as described in the appeal, are factually incorrect as is the reasoning for their arrest, that of not leaving Pillbox and did not contribute to the charge eventually being placed. As stated, they were reported as having interfered with the transport, to that effect, a singular statement of one Correctional Officer passing by, who is not a sworn Law Enforcement Officer, did not provide enough accurate information to presume that the two defendants were not involved as the initial information provided by a CERT Officer gave more context overall. In any case, they were requested and further ordered multiple times to just vacate the immediate area and park across the street, a completely reasonable request considering that they had been reported as having interfered in the transport, attempting to pick up Wolfgang Bathsheba.

      The subsequent failure to comply with orders during an investigation from then forth constituted the arrest, both were informed that they were under investigation. To that effect, the investigation was for potential drug possession, as set forth by the reasonable suspicion above.
    Witness Affirmation
    • I, Eleanor Quinn, affirm that the above statement is true to the best of my knowledge and belief. I affirm that this statement has been made voluntarily, made without promise of reward, and made not under threat, force, or coercion. ((I affirm that all information submitted has been obtained via In-Character means.))

      Signed,

      Image
      Police Lieutenant II Eleanor Quinn
      Commanding Officer, Gang and Narcotics Division
      Los Santos Police Department

      Date: 22/APR/2023
    Image
    Exhibit #3: Police Sergeant R. Luigi's Statement
    Rija Luigi wrote: Sat Apr 22, 2023 4:26 pm Image

    San Andreas Judicial Branch
    Official Witness Statement
    "HERE FOR YOU | SAFE FOR YOU"
    Case Information
    • Incident Date: [21/APR/2023]
    Witness Information
    • Name: [Rija Luigi]
      Date of Birth: [27/OCT/2023]
      Phone Number: [557-9409]
      Occupation: [Sergeant I for the Los Santos Police Department]
    Witness Statement
    • [Lieutenant Quinn wanted both individuals that were at Pillbox trying to interfere with a DOC transport to stand against the wall to speak to them, both individuals ignored it fully and continued to clown around even as far as walking away, i tazed Ronnie once before Lieuteant Quinn placed the appropriate charges on him for the incident.]
    Witness Affirmation
    • I, [Rija Luigi], affirm that the above statement is true to the best of my knowledge and belief. I affirm that this statement has been made voluntarily, made without promise of reward, and made not under threat, force, or coercion. ((I affirm that all information submitted has been obtained via In-Character means.))

      Signed,

      Image
      [Rija Luigi]
      [Sergeant I]
      [Los Santos Police Department]

      Date: [22/04/2023]
    Image
    Exhibit #4: Lieutenant Quinn Bodycam Footage - April 21st 2023
    Image

    ((
    Image
    ))

  • Image
    A Notary Public
    Prosecuting Attorney
    San Andreas Judicial Branch
    (909) 321-2132 — [email protected]
    Image
    Image
    User avatar
    Hope Kant
    Judicial Branch
    Posts: 2669
    Joined: Sat Jan 30, 2021 7:56 pm
    ECRP Forum Name:

    SAJB Awards

    Re: #23-CM-0066, State of San Andreas v. Stelio Bathsheba

    Post by Hope Kant »

    Image



    San Andreas Judicial Branch

    Superior Court of San Andreas
    "EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"

    MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGEMENT


    IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

    State of San Andreas v. Stelio Bathsheba
    #23-CM-0066

    A Motion for Summary Judgement was filed in the above case on the 26th of June, 2023.


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


    • Reasoning: Indisputable Facts
      • Detailed Explanation: Neither the prosecution nor defense in their own narrative disagree with the events that happened on the 21st of April, 2023. Both sides agree the defendant was in fact at an SADOC transport at central MD. Both sides agree the defendant did not leave after being asked to by law enforcement. At this point, the only matter left to determine is the letter of the law.


      • Image
        A Notary Public
        Prosecuting Attorney
        San Andreas Judicial Branch
        (909) 321-2132 — [email protected]
      Image
      Image
      User avatar
      Hope Kant
      Judicial Branch
      Posts: 2669
      Joined: Sat Jan 30, 2021 7:56 pm
      ECRP Forum Name:

      SAJB Awards

      Re: #23-CM-0066, State of San Andreas v. Stelio Bathsheba

      Post by Hope Kant »

      Image

      San Andreas Judicial Branch

      Docket Notice
      "HERE FOR YOU | SAFE FOR YOU"

      • Honorable Judge Winejudge and pertaining parties,

        The Prosecution requires no further time to present discovery, and is fine with turning over the discovery to that of the Defense.

        Respectfully,

        Image
        Senior Prosecuting Attorney
        Notary Public
        San Andreas Judicial Branch
        (909) 321-2132 — [email protected]
      Image
      Image
      User avatar
      Robert Winejudge
      Judicial Branch
      Posts: 445
      Joined: Sat Jun 25, 2022 10:37 pm
      ECRP Forum Name:

      SAJB Awards

      Re: #23-CM-0066, State of San Andreas v. Stelio Bathsheba

      Post by Robert Winejudge »

      Image

      San Andreas Judicial Branch

      "EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"

      • Parties,

        As I see no Active Leave of Absences granted for any of the defense counsel, the court awaits a response from the Defense on the Motion for Summary Judgement unless they don't wish to provide a response or the defense requires a motion for continuance, in which case, please file that accordingly.

        Respectfully,

        Image
        Superior Court Judge
        San Andreas Judicial Branch
        (909) 372-4223 — [email protected]
      Image
      Image
      User avatar
      Ruwin Korbel
      Posts: 95
      Joined: Tue Dec 06, 2022 8:00 am
      ECRP Forum Name: Ruwin Korbel

      SAJB Awards

      Re: #23-CM-0066, State of San Andreas v. Stelio Bathsheba

      Post by Ruwin Korbel »

      Image


      San Andreas Judicial Branch
      Personal Email

      "EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"

      • To all parties,

        The Defence is in agreement with the prosecution that the facts of this case are undisputed and therefore is happy to move towards summary judgement on the courts interpretation of the law. unfortunately at this time the defendant is out of town on an emergency and is unlikely to be back any time soon and therefore is unavailable at this time.

        Respectfully,

        Image

        Ruwin "Quiet" Korbel
        Public Defence Attourney
        San Andreas Judicial Branch
        (909) 556-2848 — [email protected]
      Image
      User avatar
      Robert Winejudge
      Judicial Branch
      Posts: 445
      Joined: Sat Jun 25, 2022 10:37 pm
      ECRP Forum Name:

      SAJB Awards

      Re: #23-CM-0066, State of San Andreas v. Stelio Bathsheba

      Post by Robert Winejudge »

      Image


      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. Stelio Bathsheba
      #23-CM-0066

      A decision was reached in the above case on the 13th day of July, 2023.


      As there are no objections for the motion for summary judgement, the court will be granting the motion. At this time the prosecution is hereby invited to submit their initial written argument as to why the court should rule in their favor. Following, the defense will submit a written argument as well, once both have been received and acknowledged, both parties will be given one final counter argument in response to the initial statements before a verdict is issued.

      Image
      Superior Court Judge
      San Andreas Judicial Branch
      (909) 372-4223 — [email protected]
      Image
      Image
      User avatar
      Hope Kant
      Judicial Branch
      Posts: 2669
      Joined: Sat Jan 30, 2021 7:56 pm
      ECRP Forum Name:

      SAJB Awards

      Re: #23-CM-0066, State of San Andreas v. Stelio Bathsheba

      Post by Hope Kant »

      Image


      San Andreas Judicial Branch

      Prosecution Case Logs
      "EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"

      SUMMARY JUDGEMENT ARGUMENTS

      The prosecution asserts that on the 21st of April, 2023, the defendant did knowingly approach a scene that was being held and managed by SADOC. Due to actions of the defendant on the scene, SADOC requested backup from the LSPD. We see this narrative illustrated in the witness statements from a Sergeant and Lieutenant. Upon arriving at the scene, the officers attempt to contain the individuals.

      As stated in the defendants appeal, "At this point one of the officers instructed the Bathsheba's to go back even further away from their current position as she felt they posed a threat." To explain, an officer of the law felt threatened by known and habitual criminals crowding a scene. In order to further secure the scene and other officers safety the officer in question made a request for the defendant to once again back away from the scene. Police Sergeant R. Luigi even stated she had to taze Ronnie Bathsheba in order to calm down the situation.

      As stated in their own narrative, "Stelio asked the officer why they needed to leave MD as they were just checking on a family member and both gentlemen were unarmed. In response, the officer replied, "Because I said so." At this moment the prosecution feels it necessary to review the law in question: GM10 - Failure to Comply / Identify. As stated in the penal code, "Failure to comply with a lawful command by a law enforcement officer, including when he requests you to identify who you are during the course of an investigation". Whether or not the officer gave a lawful command is the only question up for debate in this case. In both statements from the officers on scene as well as the bodycam evidence provided, it would appear the defendants did in fact defy the orders at a Police Scene.

      In the defendants own statement they do not disagree that there was a police scene ongoing and they do not disagree that they were given an order to back away from the scene. The Prosecution believes the officer lawfully asked them to leave a scene due to the safety of themselves as well as the other officers. Lieutentant Quinn even expressed her knowledge of their family and the history of crime associated with it. To note, LSPD were only called there in the first place as back-up was requested initially by the SADOC. They arrived and behaved as backup would on scene: they contained the scene and try to detain any that may pose a threat to that containment.

      The prosecution asks the courts to uphold the officers need to feel safe on scene and maintain order. We ask that the courts affirm the decision made by the officers to not only detain, but also place charges on the defendant. There is no question that the defendant did knowing defy a lawful order given to them by police on the 21st of May, 2023.

      Image
      A Notary Public
      Prosecuting Attorney
      San Andreas Judicial Branch
      (909) 321-2132 — [email protected]
        Image
        Image
        User avatar
        Shaun Harper
        Judicial Branch
        Posts: 1064
        Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2022 6:33 pm
        ECRP Forum Name:

        SAJB Awards

        Re: #23-CM-0066, State of San Andreas v. Stelio Bathsheba

        Post by Shaun Harper »

        Image



        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. Stelio Bathsheba

        A Notification of Counsel was filed in the above case on the 17 of July, 2023.


        I, Shaun Harper, Chief Public Defender with the San Andreas Judicial Branch, will be representing the Defendant, Stelio Bathsheba in the underlying case. Due to the primary counsel transferring to the paralegal division I'll be taking over as primary counsel and will await further instruction from the Presiding Judge.

        Image
        Chief Public Defender
        San Andreas Judicial Branch
        (909) 308-7889 — [email protected]
        Image
        Image
        Image
        User avatar
        Shaun Harper
        Judicial Branch
        Posts: 1064
        Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2022 6:33 pm
        ECRP Forum Name:

        SAJB Awards

        Re: #23-CM-0066, State of San Andreas v. Stelio Bathsheba

        Post by Shaun Harper »

        Image

        San Andreas Judicial Branch

        Personal Email
        "EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"

        • Honorable Judge Winejudge,

          The defense strongly contends that for the charges of GM10-Failure to Comply against the defendant, Stelio Bathsheba, should be found not guilty. The prosecution failed to provide substantial evidence to support the charges and misinterpret the events that transpired on April 20, 2023.

          The defense's narrative, supported by the witness statements and the defendant's own account, presents a different perspective of the incident. According to the defense, Stelio Bathsheba and Ronnie Bathsheba were present at the upper Pillbox to check on the well-being of their family member, Wolfgang Bathsheba, who had been tased during a previous trial. They parked their vehicle in a public parking space and remained in close proximity.

          The officers on the scene instructed the Bathsheba's to move further away, claiming they posed a threat. Stelio Bathsheba questioned the officer's reasoning, as both men were unarmed and had displayed no aggression or hostility. A DOC agent on the scene even supported their non-aggressive behavior. Despite this, the officers proceeded to tase Ronnie Bathsheba, escalating the situation unnecessarily.

          The defense highlights the absence of any valid reason for the officers' demands and subsequent use of force. We argue that the officers actions were disproportionate and (again) escalated the situation unnecessarily.

          The code GM-10 specifically requires compliance with a "lawful command" by a law enforcement officer. In this case, the defense contends that the officers' commands lacked justification and therefore cannot be deemed lawful. The officers' orders were based on unsubstantiated assumptions and personal judgments, rather than on any legitimate threat or legal grounds.

          Respectfully,

          Image
          Chief Public Defender
          Director of Training & Hiring
          San Andreas Judicial Branch
          (909) 308-7889 — [email protected]
        Image
        Image
        Image
        User avatar
        Jacob Schmidtt
        Posts: 115
        Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2021 3:01 pm
        ECRP Forum Name: Bronnen

        Re: #23-CM-0066, State of San Andreas v. Stelio Bathsheba

        Post by Jacob Schmidtt »

        Image



        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. Stelio Bathsheba

        A Notification of Counsel was filed in the above case on the 17 of July, 2023.


        I, Jacob Schmidtt, Public Defender with the San Andreas Judicial Branch, will be representing the Defendant, Stelio Bathsheba in the underlying case.

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

        Image
        Junior Defense Attorney
        San Andreas Judicial Branch
        (909) 309-8976 — [email protected]
        User avatar
        Robert Winejudge
        Judicial Branch
        Posts: 445
        Joined: Sat Jun 25, 2022 10:37 pm
        ECRP Forum Name:

        SAJB Awards

        Re: #23-CM-0066, State of San Andreas v. Stelio Bathsheba

        Post by Robert Winejudge »

        Image

        San Andreas Judicial Branch

        "EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"

        • Parties,

          At this time, the court has formally acknowledged initial statement's from both parties. The Prosecutor on this case is on an LOA currently, which means the rebuttal arguments will most likely be made later on from their side. Thank you for your patience.

          Respectfully,

          Image
          Superior Court Judge
          San Andreas Judicial Branch
          (909) 372-4223 — [email protected]
        Image
        Image
        User avatar
        Hope Kant
        Judicial Branch
        Posts: 2669
        Joined: Sat Jan 30, 2021 7:56 pm
        ECRP Forum Name:

        SAJB Awards

        Re: #23-CM-0066, State of San Andreas v. Stelio Bathsheba

        Post by Hope Kant »

        Image

        San Andreas Judicial Branch

        Docket Notice
        "HERE FOR YOU | SAFE FOR YOU"

        • Honorable Judge Winejudge and pertaining parties,

          The Prosecution wants to review several items stated by the defense.

          "The officers on the scene instructed the Bathsheba's to move further away, claiming they posed a threat. Stelio Bathsheba questioned the officer's reasoning, as both men were unarmed and had displayed no aggression or hostility. A DOC agent on the scene even supported their non-aggressive behavior."

          While the Prosecution respects the viewpoint of the defendant and his questions, it is unfortunately not a reason to defy a lawful order given by a Law Enforcement officer. The defendant may feel as if he posed no threat. Consider the question: how do officers know the defendant is without weapon, if he is not first frisked and searched? The officer treated a known felon as a threat until he was detained, searched, and found not to be a threat. Exhibit 4 shows the officers requesting for the defendant and friend to go to the wall, so they could be detained.

          The claims that one singular SADOC officer stated the defendant and friend could stay have no bearing on the fact that SADOC was the ones who initially made the call to the LSPD for backup due to the presence of the defendant and Ronnie Bathsheba. As confirmed in Exhibits 1 and 2, SADOC had made the initial call to the LSPD for backup due to the behavior of the defendant and friend on scene. The officers specifically showed up to help SADOC, to contain the scene.

          The Prosecution believes it is without question that the officers acted in a lawful manner as is within their rights as a Law Enforcement Officer to detain individuals reported to be interfering with a scene. To quote the LSPD on what it means to be detained under their Firearms License Division "During the investigation, you will almost certainly be placed in handcuffs and in the back of a cruiser, this does not mean you are under arrest or being charged..." All the defendant had to do was comply with a lawful command. If he had allowed himself to be detained and searched, if he had listened to Police, the officer would not have charged him with anything, instead he failed to comply.

          Respectfully,

          Image
          Senior Prosecuting Attorney
          Director of Public Notary
          San Andreas Judicial Branch
          (909) 321-2132 — [email protected]
        Image
        Image
        User avatar
        Jacob Schmidtt
        Posts: 115
        Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2021 3:01 pm
        ECRP Forum Name: Bronnen

        Re: #23-CM-0066, State of San Andreas v. Stelio Bathsheba

        Post by Jacob Schmidtt »

        Image

        San Andreas Judicial Branch

        Docket Notice
        "HERE FOR YOU | SAFE FOR YOU"

        • Honorable Judge Winejudge and pertaining parties,

          The prosecution contends that the defendant's questioning of the officer's reasoning should not be considered a valid reason to defy a lawful order. However, we firmly believe that seeking clarification on a command is not only a natural response for any law-abiding citizen but also a fundamental right guaranteed by our constitution. The defendant had every right to seek an explanation for why he and Ronnie Bathsheba were being asked to move further away from the scene.

          Secondly, the prosecution's claim that the defendant's non-aggressive behavior does not guarantee the absence of a threat is purely speculative and lacks concrete evidence to justify the officers' actions. We must stress that a lawful command should be grounded in factual evidence or a reasonable belief of potential danger, not mere assumptions or subjective judgments.

          Furthermore, the prosecution attempts to tie the defendant's actions to SADOC's initial call to the LSPD, but we maintain that these two events should be evaluated independently. The defendant's behavior and compliance with the officers' commands at the scene cannot be influenced by prior events that may not directly relate to his actions.

          Moreover, the documentation provided by the prosecution does not convincingly demonstrate that the defendant and Ronnie Bathsheba were interfering with the scene or posed any legitimate threat. The officers' decision to detain the defendant seems to be based more on their subjective judgment than on any objective evidence of wrongdoing.

          Lastly, the prosecution argues that temporary detainment without arrest is standard procedure. While we acknowledge this fact, we firmly contest that the detainment in this specific case was unjustified and could be viewed as an unlawful arrest due to the lack of reasonable suspicion or probable cause for such action.


          Respectfully,

          Image
          Junior Defense Attorney
          San Andreas Judicial Branch
          (909) 309-8976 — [email protected]
        User avatar
        Hope Kant
        Judicial Branch
        Posts: 2669
        Joined: Sat Jan 30, 2021 7:56 pm
        ECRP Forum Name:

        SAJB Awards

        Re: #23-CM-0066, State of San Andreas v. Stelio Bathsheba

        Post by Hope Kant »

        Image

        San Andreas Judicial Branch

        Docket Notice
        "HERE FOR YOU | SAFE FOR YOU"

        • Honorable Judge Winejudge and pertaining parties,

          To claim something and for something to be true are two different things. You may say "we firmly believe that seeking clarification on a command is not only a natural response for any law-abiding citizen but also a fundamental right guaranteed by our constitution." However, as someone who has read the entire constitution, I am concerned as to where the defense has found this clause that they are allowed to seek clarification at the moment of detainment. What a citizen is allowed is due process, they are allowed to remain silent, comply with lawful orders and be released upon the finishing of an investigation, if they have been found to have done no wrong.

          The defense does not disagree that detainment is a standard procedure. The investigation started with the call from DOC, to quote exhibit 1, "Stelio Bathsheba, alongside Ronnie Bathsheba, were crouched outside of upper Pillbox, reported by DOC as interfering with a prisoner transport." To say the instances are unlinked and that the Police operated outside of normal procedures would be disingenuous as one would not have happened without the other. The defenses argument simply defies logical principals.

          The Judge needs to determine what a reasonable person would believe in this case. The Prosecution hopes that the Judge can see through all the nonsense to the truth of the matter. Police were called to a scene after there was a reported disturbance by the defendant and friend. They made it to the scene and attempted to detain the individuals. The individuals not only resisted, but continued to troll Police. A civilian may say what they would like, but the moment they choose to stay on an active Law Enforcement scene managed by both the LSPD and DOC, a civilian puts themself at the risk of being detained for the purpose of an investigation.

          The bodycam footage clearly shows the officers trying to manage an active scene. It clearly shows the DOC officers telling LSPD that the defendant was interfering. This establishes more than enough probable cause for the LSPD to detain said individuals to make sure they no longer pose a threat until the scene has been concluded. Detainment can be for officer safety as much as it is for civilian safety.

          Respectfully,

          Image
          Senior Prosecuting Attorney
          Director of Public Notary
          San Andreas Judicial Branch
          (909) 321-2132 — [email protected]
        Image
        Image
        User avatar
        Robert Winejudge
        Judicial Branch
        Posts: 445
        Joined: Sat Jun 25, 2022 10:37 pm
        ECRP Forum Name:

        SAJB Awards

        Re: #23-CM-0066, State of San Andreas v. Stelio Bathsheba

        Post by Robert Winejudge »

        Image

        San Andreas Judicial Branch

        "EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"

        • Parties,

          I would just like to remind everyone, that only 2 responses are granted to each the prosecution and the defense initially, to avoid a back and forth argument, however, I'm going to allow the prosecution's latest rebuttal, and I will give the defense one more rebuttal to the recent response. No further rebuttals after are granted, and will not be acknowledged by the court unless for a very specific reason.

          Respectfully,

          Image
          Superior Court Judge
          San Andreas Judicial Branch
          (909) 372-4223 — [email protected]
        Image
        Image
        User avatar
        Jacob Schmidtt
        Posts: 115
        Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2021 3:01 pm
        ECRP Forum Name: Bronnen

        Re: #23-CM-0066, State of San Andreas v. Stelio Bathsheba

        Post by Jacob Schmidtt »

        Image

        San Andreas Judicial Branch

        Docket Notice
        "HERE FOR YOU | SAFE FOR YOU"

        • Honorable Judge Winejudge and pertaining parties,

          The prosecution states that seeking clarification on a command during detainment is not a constitutional right, but protection against unreasonable search and seizure is. While we acknowledge that detainees must comply with lawful orders, we assert that the officer's orders were not lawful. We contend that without any sort of probable cause, the officer violated our clients 4th amendment rights.

          The officer's actions and the events leading up to the detainment must be assessed separately. The initial call by the DOC may have prompted the presence of the LSPD officers, but the defendants actions at the scene must not be judged solely based upon that one call. The officers must have reasonable grounds and suspicion to justify their commands and detainment.

          The prosecution additionally claims that the defendant and Ronnie Bathsheba resisted and trolled the police. These statements do not have any support in the evidence. The evidence shows that there was no intent to resist or obstruct law enforcement. The defense has remains steadfast that the defendants' actions were non-aggressive and non-threatening and completely in line with his constitutional rights.

          We stand by our argument that the officers' commands lacked justification and that the detainment was not based on lawful grounds and violated the protections offered by our constitution. The prosecution has not met the burden of proof in this case and the court must find our client (Stelio Bathsheba) not guilty.


          Respectfully,

          Image
          Junior Defense Attorney
          San Andreas Judicial Branch
          (909) 309-8976 — [email protected]
        User avatar
        Hope Kant
        Judicial Branch
        Posts: 2669
        Joined: Sat Jan 30, 2021 7:56 pm
        ECRP Forum Name:

        SAJB Awards

        Re: #23-CM-0066, State of San Andreas v. Stelio Bathsheba

        Post by Hope Kant »

        Image

        San Andreas Judicial Branch

        Docket Notice
        "HERE FOR YOU | SAFE FOR YOU"

        • Honorable Judge Winejudge and pertaining parties,

          The Prosecution and defense have given their arguments respectively. It is reaching almost 2 weeks since the latest post by the defense. If it pleases the courts, we are looking for a ruling sometime soon.

          Respectfully,

          Image
          Senior Prosecuting Attorney
          Director of Public Notary
          San Andreas Judicial Branch
          (909) 321-2132 — [email protected]
        Image
        Image
        Locked

        Return to “SAJB - Archived Criminal Cases”

        Who is online

        Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 5 guests