Eclipse Government

Posted: **03 Mar 2025, 17:51**

Defendant Name: Joe Ryan
Defendant Phone: 594-7820
(( Defendant Discord: NotMattch ))
(( Defendant Timezone: UTC ))
Type of Representation (Pick one): Public Defender

Charging Department: LSPD

Date & Time of Incident(s): 03/MAR/2025 17:30 approx
Charge(s):

VF01 - Evading an Officer

Narrative:

I surrendered myself at the first opportunity and was still charged with evading despite being the passenger, then held at DOC for an additional 10 minutes due to the failure of the officers involved to place charges.
Further details will be discussed with my defender once appointed

I, Joe Ryan, 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: **08 Mar 2025, 22:45**

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. Joe Ryan

The court has hereby received and acknowledged the above case on the 8th day of March, 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) 304-2935 — [email protected]

Posted: **25 Mar 2025, 21:23**

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

MOTION FOR CHANGE OF VENUE

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

State of San Andreas v. Joe Ryan

A Motion for Change of Venue was filed in the above case on the 25 MAR, 2025.

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

Requested Venue: Bench Trial
- Detailed Explanation: As a prosecutor, we believe this case is best suited for a bench trial, given that it involves a single charge and a straightforward description of events.

Junior Prosecutor
San Andreas Judicial Branch
514-3247 — [email protected]

Posted: **12 Apr 2025, 21:38**

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. Joe Ryan

A decision was reached in the above case on the 12th day of April, 2025.

The court will be granting the motion for change of venue as there are no objections by the defense. As such, this case will be activated as a bench trial momentarily.

Respectfully,

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

Posted: **12 Apr 2025, 21:41**

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. Joe Ryan

A Notice of Activation & Order for Discovery was entered in the above case on the 12th day of April, 2025.

The case of State of San Andreas v. Joe Ryan 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 7 days.

If at any point in time the defendant or prosecution wishes to dispute more than just misdemeanor charges or desires a more in-depth examination of the case, 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: **12 Apr 2025, 22:08**

Forgive my confusion but I'm not sure how the defense can object when I still to this day do not have a public defender assigned nor has any attempt at contact been made?

Posted: **15 Apr 2025, 18:49**

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. Joe Ryan

A Motion for Continuance was filed in the above case on the 15th of April, 2025.

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

Reasoning: Lack of response from counsel
- Detailed Explanation: As the defendant states, they have yet to get in contact with a public defender to discuss their case, including the Prosecution's Motion for Change of Venue. To avoid a mistrial on account of ineffective counsel, the Prosecution is requesting a continuance until counsel has been assigned, has had a chance to discuss the case with the defendant, and has responded on the docket regarding the venue change, despite it already being ordered by the court.

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

Posted: **01 May 2025, 05:05**

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

Parties,

As bench trials are now the standard for all criminal cases, the court will be considering the continuance period as finished. The court also heavily encourages the defendant to find representation for said bench trial. A formal notice of activation with the new standard will follow.

Respectfully,

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

Posted: **01 May 2025, 05:06**

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. Joe Ryan
#25-BT-0012

A Notice of Activation & Order for Discovery was entered in the above case on the 1st day of May, 2025.

The case of State of San Andreas v. Joe Ryan 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: **01 May 2025, 06:08**

Forgive me but I'll be blunt. I'm not wasting my time sitting in silence staring at the water feature inside city hall trying to find one of the seemingly endangered species known as "Judicial Branch".

From your own statement

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 last sentence being the key, a court appointed attorney will be assigned upon activation.

This was activated on the 12th April. It is now the 1st May.

From your own statement, where is this court assigned attorney? Why have I still had 0 contact?
Is Judicial branch that short staffed they cannot provide the service the state has charged them with?
Is it just pure incompetence?
Or is this supposed judicial branch just completely unfit for purpose?

I look forward to finally hearing from, well, someone, maybe within the next year or two.

Posted: **06 May 2025, 04:13**

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

To whom it may concern,

This is a formal notice to the courts regarding an infraction committed by Joe Ryan on the docket during the proceedings of #25-BT-0012, State of San Andreas v. Joe Ryan, and is recorded as follows:
1. Description of Infraction: While Mr. Ryan is correct that our language is out of date, accusing our public defense division of suffering from "pure incompetence" or that the branch itself is "completely unfit for purpose" is an entirely unacceptable written disrespect of the court's processes and its dockets.
  
  It is one thing to express your frustrations publicly, but I will not stand for the slander of the people and systems meant to protect you.
2. Action Taken: Applied the charge Misdemeanor Contempt of Court
So Ordered,

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

Posted: **06 May 2025, 14:13**

Hello again, Superior Court Judge Sayaka Yukimura of the San Andreas Judicial Branch.

Forgive me but there must be some confusion! In your response you state that I was:

accusing our public defense division of suffering from "pure incompetence" or that the branch itself is "completely unfit for purpose"

However, I believe you've made an error! You see I wasn't accusing you of anything! Merely asking question!

My actual comments were:

Is it just pure incompetence?
Or is this supposed judicial branch just completely unfit for purpose?

You see, I was asking IS IT just..... and OR IS this...... with the commonly understood symbol a "?" also known as a "Question mark" at the end of these sentences. I cannot accuse one of something if I am asking a question. To avoid any further confusion on either of our parts I've done some research via the bible of the internet, aka, "wikipedia" and have discover the following:

The question mark ? (also known as interrogation point, query, or eroteme in journalism) is a punctuation mark that indicates a question or interrogative clause or phrase in many languages.

Due to this, I don't believe I've breached the requirements of a "GM22 - Contempt of Court" as per the penal code which states:

Minor willful disobedience to, or disregard of, a court order or any misconduct in the presence of a court, including but not limited to:

Any act of disrespect, disobedience, defiance, or interference by any person during a legal proceeding.
Willfully failing to preform a specific act in accordance with a valid court order.

I do not believe I've been disobedient or disregarded a court order nor have I conduct any misconduct in the presence of a court as A) this is not a court, but a website and B) Does the Judicial Branch take the stance that asking a question is considered misconduct? If so, where does the line get drawn on what questions are acceptable or not?

Secondly:

Any act of disrespect, disobedience, defiance, or interference by any person during a legal proceeding.

Again, I don't believe the mere act of asking the question if disrespectful, disobedient, defiant or causing any interference; after all, actions speak louder than words!

Lastly it states

Willfully failing to preform a specific act in accordance with a valid court order.

I've no had any valid court orders to do anything! Merely waiting for a defendant to contact me!

All of that out of the way, you state that:

Mr. Ryan is correct that our language is out of date

Does this indeed mean that Judicial Branch no longer appoints defense attorneys by default and as a defendant I need to go and seek out my own defense person now? If so, I would respectfully ask for a "continuance" i believe its called to do so having just learnt of this information?

Thanks!
- Mr Joe Ryan, Civilian, Great State of San Andreas!

Posted: **08 May 2025, 03:42**

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

To whom it may concern,

This is a formal notice to the courts regarding an infraction committed by Joe Ryan on the docket during the proceedings of #25-BT-0012, State of San Andreas v. Joe Ryan, and is recorded as follows:
1. Description of Infraction: It is by the good grace of my colleague's advice that I do not charge you with felony contempt of court. You are entitled to
  State Government wrote: ↑27 Nov 2022, 21:39 "The state shall not deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
  via the constitution, and anything else is simply policy of the Judicial Branch. The docket is and always has been considered part of the court and its courtroom. Any further outburst will punished to the fullest extent of the law. You are heavily encouraged to find representation and that your communications on the docket be via lawyer.
2. Action Taken: Final Warning Given
Respectfully,

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

Posted: **08 May 2025, 21:12**

Hello again, Superior Court Judge Sayaka Yukimura of the San Andreas Judicial Branch,

I came down to your beautiful city hall, again to find there's, sadly, once more, no public defenders around! Very sad!

Out of curiosity, does the court have any way of providing me with a contact list so I could maybe e-mail one of these defenders or join a waiting list to be contacted, rather than leaving my potential defense up to pure chance of happening to stumble across the right person at the right time?

Thanks!
- Mr Joe Ryan, Amazing Outstanding Civilian, Great State of San Andreas!

Posted: **17 May 2025, 21:31**

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. Joe Ryan
#25-BT-0012

A Motion for Discovery was filed in the above case on the 13th 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: Joe Ryan 03/MAR/2025
Los Santos Police Department
ARREST REPORT
"TO PROTECT AND TO SERVE"

MUGSHOT
- SUSPECT DETAILS
  
  Full Name: Joe Ryan
  Phone Number: 5947820
  Licenses Suspended: Yes
  Officers Involved:
  
  Police Cadet Max Finnegan
  
  Deputy Chief Victor Einhart
  
  Police Sergeant I Aiden Beta
  
  Police Detective I Zero Hunter
  
  Charges:
  
  VF01 - Evading an Officer
  
  INCIDENT NARRATIVE
  
  Incident Date: 03/MAR/2025
  
  Explain what happened, sufficient detail must be given to justify the placed charges, videos could be provided.
  
  Officer Jayson Powell operating under the callsign 3-U-13 with Cadet Finnegan responded to a pursuit of a black Dominator who was fleeing at high speeds through the downtown area. The pursuit took place throughout the city boundaries and stopped once to shit-talk Sergeant Beta, before the suspect resumed fleeing away and eventually dropped the passenger, Joe Ryan (hereinafter as "the suspect") at High End where he was detained by 3-U-13. Officer Jayson Powell asked Sergeant Beta through the radio if Joe Ryan had a chance to step out of the vehicle during the pursuit and Deputy Chief Einhart stated that he did. Therefore Cadet Finnegan suspended his license and an Evading charge was placed on his record and he was subsequently taken to DOC's facility to please his sentence.
  
  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:
  
  Legal Possessions:
  Exhibit A: Gloves
  Exhibit B: Mask
  Exhibit C: Radio
  Exhibit D: License Plate
  
  Photograph of Possessions (MANDATORY)

Exhibit #2:Witness Statement: Officer Max Finnegan
San Andreas Judicial Branch
Official Witness Statement
"HERE FOR YOU | SAFE FOR YOU"

Case Information
- Incident Date: 03/MAR/2025
Witness Information
- Name: Max Finnegan
  Date of Birth: 02/JUL/1996
  Phone Number: 2115436
  Occupation: Police Cadet, Los Santos Police Department
Witness Statement
- I was patrolling under 3-U-13 with Officer Jayson Powell and we responded to a pursuit of a Black Dominator, whilst we were about to reach high end, coming from GOH, I code 0'ed, so I didn't witness anything that happened during that moment at high end. Once I manage to get back I walked all the way from the highway till highend, that's were I saw Mr.Joe Ryan sitting in the back of the cruiser. After that, Officer Powell asked to Chief Einhart through radio if we were gonna apply charges on the passenger as well and if he had any chance to get out of the vehicle and he responded that Mr.Ryan had the chance to get out when the Dominator stopped to talk shit to them before resuming the pursuit.
Witness Affirmation
- I, Max Finnegan, 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,
  
  Max Finnegan
  Police Cadet
  Los Santos Police Department
  
  Date: 05/MAR/2025

Exhibit #3:Witness Statement: Deputy Chief Victor Einhart
San Andreas Judicial Branch
Official Witness Statement
"HERE FOR YOU | SAFE FOR YOU"

Case Information
- Incident Date: 3/MAR/2025
Witness Information
- Name: Victor Einhart
  Date of Birth: 7/JUN/1990
  Phone Number: 3256988
  Occupation: Deputy Chief, Los Santos Police Department
Witness Statement
- I was behind for most of this pursuit attempting to catch up to the vehicle in question. I was monitoring communications looking for an avenue to attempt to get ahead of the pursuit when the lead unit reported the vehicle was stationary, and the driver was speaking to them through the window. There was then a period of silence, and then the lead unit reported the vehicle was moving again. The driver of the vehicle chose to stop in order to stroke his own ego, and this was an opportunity for the passenger to disengage. Per this radio report from units that were observing the vehicle, the passenger chose to stay in the vehicle and align himself with the egotistical gesture the driver was participating in rather than disengaging when it was abundantly clear the driver was attempting to flee officers given this pursuit was already in progress.
  
  Per the penal code, which suggests: "All occupants of a vehicle are liable to be charged with VF01 if they willfully partake in the act." I gave guidance to officers that the passenger would also be charged, given that he chose to remain in the vehicle while the driver was stationary and engaging in antagonizing the pursuing officers.
  
  Had the passenger gotten out of the vehicle while the driver was doing this, he would have been searched in order to ascertain if he was carrying illicit items that the driver may be attempting to conceal. If he was not carrying such items, he would have been let go. The passenger chose instead to remain in the vehicle and align himself with the driver's illegal intentions to evade police, and was therefore charged with VF01.
Witness Affirmation
- I, Victor Einhart, 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,
  
  Victor Einhart
  Deputy Chief
  Los Santos Police Department
  
  Date: 5/MAR/2025

Exhibit #4:Witness Statement: Sergeant Aiden Beta
San Andreas Judicial Branch
Official Witness Statement
"HERE FOR YOU | SAFE FOR YOU"

Case Information
- Incident Date: 03/MARCH/2025
Witness Information
- Name: Aiden Beta
  Date of Birth: 02/DEC/2000
  Phone Number: 2493121
  Occupation: Police Sergeant I, Los Santos Police Department
Witness Statement
- A pursuit of a Vigero Zx was called in on the 3rd of March, after the driver started evading a traffic stop. The passenger was Joe Ryan. I swapped out of my Buffalo STX and switched into a D10 so I could keep up. Since I was the only unit keeping up, the driver decided to slow down and even come to a complete standstill just to talk to me. This gave Joe plenty of time to manage to get out if they truly wished to not want to evade. The driver evaded towards highend, where he stopped and let Joe out. The driver then evaded. To conclude the driver stopped for a good 5 seconds, giving Joe ample time to get out if the really wished.
Witness Affirmation
- I, Aiden Beta, 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,
  
  Aiden Beta
  Police Sergeant I
  Los Santos Police Department
  
  Date: 05/MARCH/2025

Exhibit #5: Witness Statement: Detective Zero Hunter
San Andreas Judicial Branch
Official Witness Statement
"HERE FOR YOU | SAFE FOR YOU"

Case Information
- Incident Date: 03/MAR/2025
Witness Information
- Name: Zero Hunter
  Date of Birth: 08/JAN/1995
  Phone Number: Redacted
  Occupation: Detective, Los Santos Police Department
Witness Statement
- Hello,
  
  This witness statement will most probably be useless as I was in AIR-1 giving callouts for the vehicle evading. I do remember being on a pursuit of the vehicle but it seemed perfectly normal, all procedures and policies were followed on PDs side. The suspect vehicle was two times occupied and the passenger eventually did hop out. The issue is that the passenger hopped out after having prior chances to do so, which is why they were still charged. After they hopped out with me being AIR I did not stick above or focus on their conversation over TAC/Radio as I was too busy giving callouts and focussing on the main vehicle still evading. Unless there are any specific questions I do not believe I have anything else important to add.
Witness Affirmation
- I, Zero Hunter, 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,
  
  Detective I Zero Hunter
  Los Santos Police Department
  [/b]
  Date: 06/MAR/2025

Exhibit #6: Witness Statement: Officer Jayson Powell
San Andreas Judicial Branch
Official Witness Statement
"HERE FOR YOU | SAFE FOR YOU"

Case Information
- Incident Date: 03/MAR/2025
Witness Information
- Name: Jayson Powell
  Date of Birth: 15/JAN/1992
  Phone Number: 395-2051
  Occupation: Police Officer II, Los Santos Police Department
Witness Statement
- As I already mentioned in my arrest report of Joe Ryan, we were pursuing a Black Dominator, R/O Lilliana Howell, and had AIR-1 and a High-speed unit deployed due to the vehicle's high-speed capability. During the pursuit I was kinda behind the pursuit line as I could not catch up with my cruiser and the speed of the pursued vehicle and at some point when I got near High End, The passenger of the vehicle was "dropped" there and I called my unit 3-U-13 (Myself and Cadet Finnegan) to take care of the passenger and detain him while the pursuit is still going. I have managed to frisk Joe Ryan for illegal belongings and could not find any. I have asked over the radio if at any point he had a chance to step out of the vehicle or was forced to stay inside due to the situation where Deputy Chief Einhart clearly claimed he had a chance to step out while they were stopped at some point to shit-talk Sergeant Beta who was on them the entire pursuit. Therefore, Joe Ryan was charged with Evading an Officer with license suspended and taken to DOC.
  
  As for the delayment of his processing due to a missing charge. I was the one operating the vehicle and I asked Cadet Finnegan who was right next to me in the cruiser to suspend Joe Ryan's driving license and apply an Evading charge on his record. Apparently, he only heard to suspend his license which is why the charge was missing still. I am not sure what Joe Ryan is trying to achieve but the procedure was delayed for roughly five minutes and not ten minutes and the reasoning for that is that we were actively busy with another police scene which DOC reached us over the department radio.
Witness Affirmation
- I, Jayson Powell, 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,
  
  Jayson Powell
  Police Officer II
  Los Santos Police Department
  
  Date: 06/MAR/2025

Junior Prosecutor
San Andreas Judicial Branch
514-3247 — [email protected]

Posted: **12 Jun 2025, 18:50**

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

MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

State of San Andreas v. Joe Ryan
#25-BT-0012

A Motion to Compel Discovery was filed in the above case on the 12th of June, 2025.

The Defendant, by and through the undersigned attorney, filed this Motion to Compel Discovery, and requests as follows;

Requested Discovery: All available bodycam, dashcam (or CCTV footage if applicable) from the following officers involved in the pursuit, stop, and arrest of Joe Ryan on March 3, 2025, specifically from:
- Officer Jayson Powell
- Police Cadet Max Finnegan
- Deputy Chief Victor Einhart
- Sergeant Aiden Beta
- Detective Zero Hunter
- Detailed Reasoning: The Defense seeks to obtain bodycam, dashcam, and/or CCTV footage from all law enforcement officers involved to establish the actual conduct and awareness of Mr. Ryan during the events of March 3, 2025. VF01 - Evading an Officer requires willful participation in flight from law enforcement. The evidence provided thus far consists exclusively of retrospective narrative statements based on inference - that Mr. Ryan "had the chance" to leave the vehicle during a brief stop.
  No direct evidence confirms Mr. Ryan's state of mind or intent, which is a necessary element of the offense.
  Furthermore, multiple witness statements rely on secondhand radio communications or speculative assessments of what Mr. Ryan "could have done." Without visual recordings from the scene, the Defense cannot fairly assess whether Mr. Ryan was provided a safe or reasonable opportunity to exit the vehicle, or whether remaining inside constituted "willful" evasion. Therefore, the requested footage is essential to ensure a complete and fair evidentiary review consistent with due process under the 5th and 14th Amendments.
  
  The Defense again sincerely apologizes for the delayed submission of this motion. Due to an overwhelming volume of active cases, it has been challenging to meet every filing deadline in a timely manner. We understand the importance of procedural efficiency and respect the time of both the Court and the Prosecution. We ask for the Court's understanding and assure all parties that this delay was not due to negligence, but to workload constraints that we are actively working to improve.
  
  Lead Defense Attorney
  San Andreas Judicial Branch
  (909) 480-1442 — [email protected]

Posted: **15 Jun 2025, 16:30**

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. Joe Ryan
#25-BT-0012

A decision was reached in the above case on the 15th day of June, 2025.

We appreciate the Motion of the Defense, however the court will be denying the motion. The prosecution has provided 5 witness statements from officers and an arrest report. We understand the want to be thorough, but believe this puts an undue burden on the prosecution and would not yield more information than what is stated in the provided statements.

So Ordered,

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

Posted: **25 Jun 2025, 04:19**

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

Parties,

This is to serve as a FIRST notice to the defendant that bench trials are currently scheduled on multiple days throughout the week. Please notify the court if these times do not work for you. The expectation of the court is that each defendant file a notice for availability in the next 7 days. Date, times, and formatting shown here. The courts will only provide the defendant three notices prior to involuntarily dismissing the case in favor of prosecution due to lack of response from the defendant.

Please note there is the possibility of a trial happening if defendants show up to City Hall and both a judge and defense attorney are available.

Respectfully,

Associate Justice
Branch Administrator
San Andreas Judicial Branch
505-9925 — [email protected]

Posted: **28 Jun 2025, 20:59**

Would there be the potential for looking at running this case back-to-back, providing my defense attorney is able to attend as well, in conjunction with my current availability notice posted Here? Else unfortunately the comment of "No other slots are matching my schedule this time around." would still stand and I'll be unable to schedule a time within the 7 day timeframe until further dates are released.

Failing that; I may have to investigate the potential of seeing if this can be held in my absence at a time suitable for both the Judge and my Defense attorney.

Posted: **06 Jul 2025, 02:06**

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

NOTICE OF TRIAL

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

State of San Andreas v. Joe Ryan
#25-BT-0012

A trial date was set on the above case on 6th of July, 2025.

In accordance with the availability reported by both parties in response to the Notice of Scheduling, this trial shall take place at 08:00 PM on 13th of July, 2025 at Rockford Hills City Hall, Carcer Way, Metro Los Santos, SA.

Both parties are ordered to be present in the Judges Chambers no later than 15 minutes prior to the above listed date for pretrial arrangements. If complications occur that must result in a delay or cancellation of the trial, you are ordered to inform the court no later than 12 hours prior to the above listed date.

So ordered,

Court Clerk
San Andreas Judicial Branch
274-6959 — [email protected]

On behalf of

Associate Justice
Branch Administrator
San Andreas Judicial Branch
505-9925 — [email protected]

Posted: **13 Jul 2025, 18:51**

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. Joe Ryan
#25-BT-0012

A Notification of Counsel was filed in the above case on the 13th of July, 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: **13 Jul 2025, 22:09**

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. Joe Ryan
#25-BT-0012

A decision was reached in the above case on the 13th day of July, 2025.

The fact of the case is as follows; the defendant was viewed and stayed in a vehicle for an extended period of time when the driver was evading. The disputed fact is the willingness of the passenger to remain in the vehicle.

The court finds there to be multiple mitigating factors that apply to their final decision on the case. To being we will begin by reviewing the multiple precedence that exists for VF01 cases. To begin, #23-CM-0001, State of San Andreas v. Lennox Jet sees the defendant complying with the police and no designated time to exit the vehicle. #22-CM-0013, State of San Andreas v. Summer Valentine speaks of 3 seconds not being enough to exit a vehicle safely and comply with police. #22-CM-0054, State of San Andreas v. Joey Seretov and #23-CM-0029, State of San Andreas v. Scoobie Bathsheba give context to a situation where the defendant was found guilty due to fleeing after the vehicle stopped, and was subsequently found guilty of VF01.

The court finds the lack of radio frequency observed, lack of affiliation, lack of length of time to exit the vehicle (noted in exhibit 4 as 5 seconds), and compliance upon exiting the vehicle to result in enough reasonable doubt for the court.

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

On the count of VF01 - Evading an Officer, I find the defendant, Joe Ryan, not guilty.

The defendant should make their way to City Hall at their earliest convenience to have the change to their record noted as well as the payment of $25,000 returned to them for fines, time, and other expenses/inconveniences incurred from the contested charges.

Associate Justice
Branch Administrator
San Andreas Judicial Branch
505-9925 — [email protected]

Eclipse Government

#25-BT-0012 State of San Andreas v. Joe Ryan

#25-BT-0012 State of San Andreas v. Joe Ryan

Re: State of San Andreas v. Joe Ryan

Re: State of San Andreas v. Joe Ryan

Re: State of San Andreas v. Joe Ryan

Re: State of San Andreas v. Joe Ryan

Re: State of San Andreas v. Joe Ryan

Re: State of San Andreas v. Joe Ryan

Re: #25-BT-0012 State of San Andreas v. Joe Ryan

Re: #25-BT-0012 State of San Andreas v. Joe Ryan

Re: #25-BT-0012 State of San Andreas v. Joe Ryan

Re: #25-BT-0012 State of San Andreas v. Joe Ryan

Re: #25-BT-0012 State of San Andreas v. Joe Ryan

Re: #25-BT-0012 State of San Andreas v. Joe Ryan

Re: #25-BT-0012 State of San Andreas v. Joe Ryan

Re: #25-BT-0012 State of San Andreas v. Joe Ryan

Re: #25-BT-0012 State of San Andreas v. Joe Ryan

Re: #25-BT-0012 State of San Andreas v. Joe Ryan

Re: #25-BT-0012 State of San Andreas v. Joe Ryan

Re: #25-BT-0012 State of San Andreas v. Joe Ryan

Re: #25-BT-0012 State of San Andreas v. Joe Ryan

Re: #25-BT-0012 State of San Andreas v. Joe Ryan

Re: #25-BT-0012 State of San Andreas v. Joe Ryan