Eclipse Government

Posted: **22 Feb 2025, 11:29**

Defendant Name: Ricardo Carmello
Defendant Phone: ###-####
(( Defendant Discord: omw2fyb313 ))
(( Defendant Timezone: EST ))
Type of Representation (Pick one): Public Defender

Charging Department: SD

Date & Time of Incident(s): 22/02/2025
Charge(s):

2x possession of class 1 firearm
Criminal use of modifications 2x
Possession of a class 2 firearm

Narrative:
I believe I was wrongfully charged

I, Ricardo Carmello, 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. ))

Posted: **23 Feb 2025, 09:54**

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. Ricardo Carmello

The court has hereby received and acknowledged the above case on the 23rd day of February, 2025.

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) 274-4300 - [email protected]

Posted: **24 Feb 2025, 21:15**

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

Honorable Judge McCulloch,

The Prosecution would like to note, prior to activation, that multiple of the charges contested by the defendant were applied last month, and as such are not able to be contested in this case. In fact, only two (2) of the charges in contention are applicable to be heard with this case.

Regards,

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

Posted: **25 Feb 2025, 05:03**

Honorable Judge McCulloch and Prosecution,

I want to start by apologizing for the lack of formatting. It seems I am unable to find the self-representation forms. Along with this, my attorney has not been assigned.

The prosecution claims that these charges were placed a month ago. When discovery is posted you will notice that I was never notified of any sort of charges that were placed on my record. I was only told to come in for questioning. I was never notified about a warrant or any sort of charges. I also was never placed under arrest until the day this case file was submitted. I may have had a warrant out for my arrest a month ago but there is no way to contest these charges if I was never notified about them.

To disregard the previous charges would be unjust, as these are the same charges that made the officers pull me over in the first place. Additionally, I will not be going with a public attorney as I have decided to switch to a private attorney. You will hear from him soon.

Thank you,

Ricardo Carmello
A.K.A Lil Ricky

Posted: **25 Feb 2025, 06:32**

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

Mr. Carmello & Mr. Williams,

I will permit all the charges listed to move forward in this case. If through discovery it is found that the Defendant provided inaccurate information, they will be held in contempt of court.

So we don't deviate from the listed charges, they are as follows:
- WM02 - Possession of a Class 1 Firearm (2 Counts)
- WM03 - Criminal Use of Weapon Modifications (2 Counts)
- WF03 - Possession of a Class 2 Firearm
During discovery, I expect to see what is claimed by the Defendant
"When discovery is posted you will notice that I was never notified of any sort of charges that were placed on my record. I was only told to come in for questioning. I was never notified about a warrant or any sort of charges. I also was never placed under arrest until the day this case file was submitted. I may have had a warrant out for my arrest a month ago but there is no way to contest these charges if I was never notified about them."
If this is not proven then as mentioned above, Contempt of Court will be added to the list of charges for wasting the courts time.

Respectfully,

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

Posted: **25 Feb 2025, 23:26**

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

Honorable Judge McCulloch,

The Prosecution will recognize the court's decision and proceed accordingly but still want to note an informal objection on the docket. Permitting all charges mentioned to be tried in this case is directly against established court principles and regulations, namely "In order to ensure that justice is administered properly and in a timely manner, we require that any criminal case be submitted within seven (7) days from the alleged incident." Allowing older charges to be tried in this case will set an undue burden on the Prosecution and law enforcement, and will potentially open up the court for similar filings that break years of court precedent.

Regards,

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

Posted: **03 Mar 2025, 22:35**

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. Ricardo Carmello

A Notification of Counsel was filed in the above case on the 3rd of March, 2025.

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

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

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

Posted: **03 Mar 2025, 22:44**

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

Honorable Judge McCulloch and pertaining parties,

The Prosecution asks that the defendant make their chosen counsel known, as we would like to enter into discussions with the defendant regarding their case.

Regards,

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

Posted: **06 Apr 2025, 19:56**

To whom is may concern,

I have spoken with attorneys from Assured Law. All communications will be going through Izaak Scott for this case.

Thank you,

Ricardo Carmello

Posted: **07 Apr 2025, 21:18**

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. Ricardo Carmello

A Motion for Summary Judgment was filed in the above case on the 7th of March, 2025.

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

Reasoning: Undisputable evidence
- Detailed Explanation: The evidence to be provided by the Prosecution will show how the defendant entered into an agreement with the Property and Housing Bureau on a housing request; the defendant, by signing the provided rental contract, agreed to inspections laid out by the contract, as well as to be held liable for any and all illegal items found during such an inspection; during an inspection, an amount of unregistered firearms and weapon modifications were found stored within the apartment; as per the terms of the contract signed by the defendant, they wer held liable for the possessions and charged accordingly; as the defendant was not present at the time of the inspection, a warrant was filed for their arrest. On the 22nd of February, the defendant was spotted driving around by a deputy with the LSSD, who performed a stop on the defendant's vehicle due to the active arrest warrant. During the stop, the defendant was identified as the individual with the active warrant and was arrested. Searching the vehicle as incident to arrest, the arresting deputy found an amount of chemicals and cannabis, as well as an unregistered firearms and weapon modifications.
  
  The evidence presented in this case is clear and leaves no doubt about the defendant's guilt of the contested charges, and the Prosecution requests this Summary Judgment as such.

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

Posted: **07 Apr 2025, 21:18**

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. Ricardo Carmello

A Motion for Discovery was filed in the above case on the 7th of April, 2025.

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

Exhibit #1: Arrest report - Ricardo Carmello, 22/FEB/2025
ARREST REPORT

MUGSHOT
SUSPECT 1 DETAILS
- Full Name: Ricardo Carmello
  Telephone Number: 3606494
  Licenses Suspended: No
  Charges:
  WM02 - Possession of a Class 1 Firearm
  
  WF03 - Possession of a Class 2 Firearm
  
  WM03 - Criminal Use of Weapon Modifications
  
  WM02 - Possession of a Class 1 Firearm
  
  WM03 - Criminal Use of Weapon Modifications
  
  GC06 - Possession of Cannabis
  
  Additional Details (Suspect's vehicle, etc.) :
VEHICLES INVOLVED
- Vehicle A: Pink | Brioso R/A | LP: I01NWIU4 (1) | VIN: YCVEJY5ACS78HA000 | RO: Ricardo Carmello
DEPUTY DETAILS
- Full Name: Hans Waltz
  Badge Number: 19302
  Callsign: 2-D-27
INCIDENT DETAILS
- Date of Arrest: 2025-02-22
  Deputies Involved: Thomas Lugo
  
  Provide details of the incident leading up to the arrest
  While on a speed trap on Senora Fwy, just passed the DOC bridge on the East side going North. While sitting there my MDC picked up a vehicle going around 198KM/H north on Senora Fwy. The first thing I canned the plate and saw that there were multiple warrants on the RO's record. I turned on my lights and sirens and started going after the vehicle. After going all the way to Bayview I dropped to CODE 4 as I didn't see the vehicle anywhere. As I had the plate I created a BOLO for the vehicle
  Spoiler
  (( ))
  . While driving back to the speed trap location I decided to check Humaine. While on the road I saw the same vehicle driving North on Chianski Passage. As soon as I saw the vehicle I turned around and turned on my light pulling the vehicle over. The driver pulled over as soon as he heard the lights. As the RO had warrants for his arrest I conducted a 10-66. Due to low units on shift, ROMEO-4 arrived to help me. He stood in a 10-55 formation as I told him to do so. As soon as he arrived I initiated the 10-66. I asked the driver through the megaphone to drop his keys on the ground and step out. He did everything and didn't resist. As soon as he was in cuffs and his right were read I patted him down for his ID. After confirming that he had warrants on his record I patted him down and placed him in the back of the cruiser. After that, I checked his vehicle. In the car, I found a pistol with modifications. On his person, I found some Marijuana, ammonia, and Phosphorus. He was charged with GC06, WM02, WM03.
  
  Warrant for his arrest with other charges: viewtopic.php?p=950034#p950034
EVIDENCE DETAILS
- Location of Evidence Locker: Sandy Station
  Exhibit A: Illegal AP pistol | SN: 1732072876565
  Exhibit B: Light Suppressor
  Exhibit C: Extended Clip
  Exhibit D: 11x Marijuana Plants
  Exhibit E: 25x Phosphorus
  Exhibit F: 25x Ammonia
  
  Photo of the evidence in the locker (if applicable)
ARRESTING DEPUTY SIGNATURE

Exhibit #2: Warrant report - Ricardo Carmello, 30/JAN/2025
Los Santos Police Department
WARRANT REPORT
"TO PROTECT AND TO SERVE"
- SUSPECT DETAILS
  
  Full Name: Ricardo Carmello
  Phone Number: 3606494
  Officers Involved:
  
  Police Officer III Mohamed Abdullah
  
  Charges:
  
  WM02 - Possession of a Class 1 Firearm
  
  WF03 - Possession of a Class 2 Firearm
  
  WM03 - Criminal Use of Weapon Modifications
  
  INCIDENT NARRATIVE
  
  Explain what happened, sufficient detail must be given to validate the justify the placed charges, videos could be provided.
  
  Conclusion of DSU Casefile #193578.
  
  Method of Identification
  
  Licenses
  
  EVIDENCE DETAILS
  
  Document the possessions confiscated from the arrested suspect.
  Illegal evidence must be documented individually, examples of documented illegal evidence are "Pistol .50" or "12 grams of Cocaine". 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 Evidence:
  
  Photograph of possessions in evidence locker (if applicable)

Exhibit #3: Witness statement - Police Officer Mohamed Abdullah
San Andreas Judicial Branch
Official Witness Statement
"HERE FOR YOU | SAFE FOR YOU"

Case Information
- Incident Date: 24/JAN/2025
Witness Information
- Name: Mohamed Abdullah
  Date of Birth: 25/OCT/1999
  Phone Number: 3743648
  Occupation: Police Officer III, Los Santos Police Department
Witness Statement
- On the 24th of January, 2025, I was on duty when I received a radio call from a Government Official requesting a unit to respond. I acknowledged the call and made my way to the given location. Upon arrival, I met with the Government Official, who informed me that during a routine inspection of an apartment they rent out, they discovered that the tenant had stored illegal firearms inside the property.
  
  Following their report, I proceeded to document the scene and gather evidence. The firearms were secured and stored in the suspect’s illegal locker. As part of the investigation, I attempted to retrieve fingerprints from the firearms; however, the results came back as null, indicating no identifiable prints were found.
  
  All evidence was logged accordingly, and the tenant was charged of the possesions per the contract regulations.
Witness Affirmation
- I, Mohamed Abdullah, 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,
  
  Mohamed Abdullah
  Police Officer III
  Los Santos Police Department
  
  Date: 02/MAR/2025

Exhibit #4: Physical evidence - firearms confiscated from the defendant's rented apartment

Exhibit #5: Document - Defendant's rental contract
- - - - -

San Andreas State Government
Property and Housing Bureau
Property Request - Rental Contract

Party 1- "Landlord"
- Name: Property & Housing Bureau, San Andreas State Government
- Mailing Address: Rockford Hills City Hall, Carcer Way, Los Santos.
Party 2- "Tenant"
- Name: Ricardo Carmello
- Mailing Address: 213 Tinsel Towers
- Contact Information: 360-6494
Property
- Address: 213 Tinsel Towers
- Additional Belongings: Storage, safe
Terms of Agreement
1. Terms of Tenancy:
  
  The LANDLORD agrees to rent the PROPERTY to the TENANT. The tenancy shall begin on the 10th of October 2024 and shall automatically renew on the 1st of each MONTH up to a 6 month period.
2. Viewing:
  
  The TENANT may request to inspect the PROPERTY before any payment is made and may inspect any furniture, fittings, and ADDITIONAL BELONGINGS, and to confirm any amenities offered by the LANDLORD are present in the PROPERTY. The LANDLORD shall comply with this request and make reasonable efforts to accommodate the scheduling of the viewing.
  
  The TENANT may waive the right to view the PROPERTY prior to payment and may do so by giving notice to the LANDLORD.
3. Payment Plan:
  
  The TENANT agrees to pay the LANDLORD WEEKLY payments of $1,000, which will occur every WEEK until the contract is TERMINATED.
  
  Missing a payment will result in notice being issued to the TENANT by the LANDLORD of their failure to pay, and it is the duty of the TENANT to pay the LANDLORD the outstanding amount before the time of the next due payment. Failing to pay for a second consecutive time will result in the TENANT being declared in DEFAULT as outlined in Section IV. DEFAULT.
  
  If agreed to by both parties, the TENANT may pay in advance.
4. Default:
  
  If the TENANT fails to make TWO consecutive payments, they will be placed in DEFAULT. After being placed in DEFAULT, the LANDLORD has the right to seize the PROPERTY, along with any items inside.
  
  While the TENANT is still in DEFAULT, the LANDLORD retains the right to hold the seized PROPERTY and any belongings inside. The TENANT will no longer be in DEFAULT when they are able to reduce their number of outstanding missing payments to one or less, or if this contract becomes TERMINATED as outlined in Section V. TERMINATION.
  
  If, after 60 days, the TENANT has not made any attempts to pay back the defaulted amount, the LANDLORD may sell the items inside the property in order to recoup any lost payments.
5. Termination:
  
  Either party may terminate this contract with a written notice of 1 WEEK, The TENANT shall vacate the PROPERTY on or before the termination date.
  
  This contract will also terminate upon the TENANT being in DEFAULT for 7 DAYS.
  
  Finally, if either party breaches the terms of this agreement, this contract will be terminated effective immediately after notice is given to the opposing party.
6. Liability:
  
  The TENANT will assume full responsibility for any activities conducted on or within the premises and shall also be liable for any injuries sustained and any damage caused to the PROPERTY. The TENANT shall also be liable for any illegal items found within the property during the period of this agreement and while the TENANT is in use of the PROPERTY.
7. Anti-Social Behaviour:
  
  The TENANT may not partake in any "Anti-Social" or "Illegal" activities, and any guests must also abide by these rules.
8. Inspections:
  
  The LANDLORD retains the right to conduct random inspections on the property up until this contract is TERMINATED. This is to ensure all requirements of this contract are maintained and no violations are committed. If the TENANT is found to be in breach of this contract, the LANDLORD has the right to permanently seize the PROPERTY without a refund. The property and this contract shall then immediately be TERMINATED after notice is sent to the BUYER. If any illegal acts are found to be happening or if any illegal items are found within the property, it will again be subject to permanent seizure with no refund and an immediate TERMINATION of this contract after notice is sent to the TENANT.
9. Record Checks:
  The San Andreas State Government reserves the right to conduct random record checks on the TENANT and any listed employees until the TERMINATION of this contract in order to ensure all requirements are maintained and that there is no involvement in criminal activity. If found to have any of the disqualifying felonies, misdemeanors, or Business Licensing Bureau Charges of AF-XX, SF-XX, GF-XX, WF-XX, DF-XX, VF-XX, GM-XX, NM-XX, VM-XX, DM-XX, VM-XX, AM-XX, or BLB-XX, the PROPERTY may be seized without a refund, and this contract may be immediately TERMINATED after notice is sent to the BUYER.
10. Jurisdiction:
  
  This contract was drafted following the Penal Code and guidelines of the State of San Andreas, whose courts shall have sole jurisdiction over any and all disputes that may arise, subject to the Dispute Resolution Clause of this contract.
Response
- Please use the following format found here to agree to the contract terms and to include the receipt of payment.
Signature:

Sampson Jones
San Andreas State Government
LANDLORD
Date: 10/OCT/2024

Exhibit #6: Document - Defendant's signing of government rental contract
San Andreas State Government
Property and Housing Bureau
Property Request - Contract Agreement
- I, Ricardo Carmello, hereby agree to uphold the above-written contract including all the terms and clauses that are contained herein.
  
  Please find attached the digital copy of the receipt for the payment provided And the Proof of Registration
  Payment Receipt
  Signature: Ricardo Carmello
  Date: 11/13/2002

Exhibit #7: Document - Official contract termination notice
San Andreas State Government
Property & Housing Bureau
Housing Request - Expired
- @Ricardo Carmello,
  
  We would like to inform you that your housing is EXPIRED. Your housing has been expired for the following reason(s):
  
  Failed Housing inspection - Termination of contract.
  Please return any and all SASG property to a member of the Department of Economical Development at your earliest convenience.
- Sincerely,
  
  San Andreas State Government
  Government Senior Official
  Rockford Hills City Hall
  Carcer Way, Los Santos.

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

Posted: **09 Apr 2025, 20:50**

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

Rebuttal

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

State of San Andreas v. Ricardo Carmello

A Rebuttal was filed in the above case on the 9th of April, 2025.

The Defendant filed this Rebuttal;

There is dashcam footage showing that I was only at Humane for about 60 seconds; this would prove the arrest report to be wrong as the officer did not "head all the way to Bayview" and back in this short amount of time. The dashcam footage will also show my speed as I was going the speed limit, and there were no officers near me, raising the question of the probable cause for the original stop. The defense should have the time to collect their evidence and show this to the court. The reason there is a trial is to prove that I am not guilty of these charges. To rush to a conclusion without allowing us to post our evidence would be unjust, which is why we request that this motion be denied as you give us time to build our case before jumping to a verdict.

Thank you,

Ricardo Carmello

Posted: **11 Apr 2025, 15:16**

- - - - -

To all parties,

Please take notice that the undersigned attorney, Izaak Scott of Assured Law, enters an appearance as counsel for the defendant, Ricardo Carmello, in this matter.

Respectfully submitted on the 11th day of April, 2025.

Sincerely,

Izaak Scott
Assured Services
Managing Attorney, Assured Law
Bluff Tower, 72 Bay City Avenue

- - - - -

Posted: **11 Apr 2025, 15:47**

- - - - -

To all parties,

I, Izaak Scott of Assured Law, attorney for the defendant, Ricardo Carmello, respectfully submit this reply in response to the Motion for Summary Judgment filed by the State of San Andreas.

Firstly, please ignore the defendants response to this motion as he was under the influence he had to reply to these. He has been educated on the matter and now with that knowledge I will be replying.

There are significant factual discrepancies that preclude ruling in favor of summary judgment at this time. The evidence is not clear and will undoubtedly be disputed once the case is activated and the discovery order is posted. I am perplexed as to why the prosecutor has chosen to single out my client by posting evidence before a Judge issues an order for discovery, let alone before the case is officially activated.

Sincerely,

Izaak Scott
Assured Services
Managing Attorney, Assured Law
Bluff Tower, 72 Bay City Avenue

- - - - -

Posted: **13 Apr 2025, 21:23**

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

Honorable Judge McCulloch and pertaining parties,

Neither activation nor discovery orders are necessary for a Motion for Summary Judgment to be posted. However, posting such a motion is in itself a discovery request, as evidence cannot be judged summarily without it.

As to the Defense's inferred objection to the Prosecution's motion, the facts of the case are as laid out in the evidence. Any potential disagreements between counsel, the defendant, and their charges, are exactly the topic to discuss on the docket through a Summary Judgment.

Regards,

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

Posted: **15 Apr 2025, 18:27**

- - - - -

To all parties,

A summary judgment should never be treated as the default approach, especially not in a case where the facts are clearly in dispute. For a summary judgment to even be considered, there must be no genuine issue of material fact; only questions of law should remain. That is not the situation here.

The evidence in this case will be actively contested. The defense has a different interpretation of the events, and these conflicting views will be presented and examined through proper trial procedure. This is a felony case that has not even been activated by the court, yet the Prosecution has chosen to file multiple motions prematurely, before a judge has taken oversight of the matter.

The defense counsel was assigned to this case just one day before the Prosecution began filing these motions. Attempting to shortcut the process through a summary judgment at this early stage risks violating my client’s constitutional rights and suggests an improper rush to judgment.

My client is entitled to a full and fair trial, one that is impartial and conducted in accordance with due process. What they do not deserve is to have their rights steamrolled by an overzealous Attorney General attempting to bypass procedure through premature and inappropriate filings of motions.

The courtroom is not a place for theater or shortcuts. If the Attorney General is more interested in rushing to a conclusion than allowing the facts to be properly litigated, perhaps they’ve forgotten that justice is served through process, not pressuring the court to skip it.

Sincerely,

Izaak Scott
Assured Services
Managing Attorney, Assured Law
Bluff Tower, 72 Bay City Avenue

- - - - -

Posted: **29 Apr 2025, 05:21**

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

NOTICE OF ACTIVATION & ORDER FOR DISCOVERY

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

State of San Andreas v. Ricardo Carmello
#25-BT-0085

A Notice of Activation & Order for Discovery was entered in the above case on the 29th day of April, 2025.

The case of State of San Andreas v. Ricardo Carmello is hereby activated and opened by this Court.

Be advised that the bench-trial court system runs on a weekly time-slot system. The prosecution and defense are hereby ordered to provide their evidence to the Court via Motion for Discovery within the next 30 days or file a Motion for Continuance.

If at any point in time the defendant or prosecution wishes set precedence or desire a formal criminal trial, they are welcome to file a Motion for a Change in Venue.

Superior Court Judge
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 304-2935 — [email protected]

Posted: **29 Apr 2025, 05:36**

San Andreas Judicial Branch
Docket Notice
"EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"

Parties,

The court will still accept the prosecution's motion for discovery and motion for summary judgement as providing them early does not discredit them in any way shape or format. As the defendant has appropriate representation in the form of Mr. Izaak Scott, the court will allow 72 hours from this activation order for the defense to provide any further evidence or rebuttal to the motion of summary judgement before the court rules upon it. If additional time is needed, the defense can file a Motion for Continuance.

Respectfully,

Superior Court Judge
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 304-2935 — [email protected]

Posted: **01 May 2025, 11:56**

- - - - -

To all parties,

Primary counsel in this case is currently on LOA and is unable to respond to the docket. I will he joining this case as Co-Counsel. At this time we ask the court for a motion for continuance of 1 Week, so I can familiarize myself with this case and request or provide any needed discovery. I do apologize for this later notice as we were just informed that he is on LOA.

Sincerely,

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

- - - - -

Posted: **16 May 2025, 17:44**

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

ISSUANCE OF VERDICT

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

State of San Andreas v. Ricardo Carmello
#25-BT-0085

A decision was reached in the above case on the 16th day of May, 2025.

The court has granted the prosecution's request for summary judgment. The court finds that there are no meaningful disputes over the facts of this case, and the court finds all charges have been correctly placed by the relevant law enforcement agencies.

It is with the above considerations that I issue the following verdict:

On the two counts of WM02 - Possession of a Class 1 Firearm, I find the defendant, Ricardo Carmello, guilty.
On the two counts of WM03 - Criminal Use of Weapon Modifications, I find the defendant, Ricardo Carmello, guilty.
On the count of WF03 - Possession of a Class 2 Firearm, I find the defendant, Ricardo Carmello, guilty.

Superior Court Judge
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 304-2935 — [email protected]

Eclipse Government

#25-BT-0085 State of San Andreas v. Ricardo Carmello

#25-BT-0085 State of San Andreas v. Ricardo Carmello

Re: State of San Andreas v. Ricardo Carmello

Re: State of San Andreas v. Ricardo Carmello

Re: State of San Andreas v. Ricardo Carmello

Re: State of San Andreas v. Ricardo Carmello

Re: State of San Andreas v. Ricardo Carmello

Re: State of San Andreas v. Ricardo Carmello

Re: State of San Andreas v. Ricardo Carmello

Re: State of San Andreas v. Ricardo Carmello

Re: State of San Andreas v. Ricardo Carmello

Re: State of San Andreas v. Ricardo Carmello

Re: State of San Andreas v. Ricardo Carmello

Re: State of San Andreas v. Ricardo Carmello

Re: State of San Andreas v. Ricardo Carmello

Re: State of San Andreas v. Ricardo Carmello

Re: State of San Andreas v. Ricardo Carmello

Re: #25-BT-0085 State of San Andreas v. Ricardo Carmello

Re: #25-BT-0085 State of San Andreas v. Ricardo Carmello

Re: #25-BT-0085 State of San Andreas v. Ricardo Carmello

Re: #25-BT-0085 State of San Andreas v. Ricardo Carmello