Eclipse Government

• Detailed Explanation: As detailed in Exhibit #1 the charge in this case stems from an Internal Affairs complaint received and investigated by the San Andreas State Government (SASG), which is not a law enforcement agency. The purpose of SASG Internal Affairs is to conduct internal administrative review and enforce organizational disciplinary action, and the purpose of Internal Affairs is limited to that. The SASG lacks the proper jurisdiction to initiate charges, given their lack of law enforcement or arrest authority. Director Julia Whitehorse claims the SAAA handbook states that violations of flight regulations would result in the person doing so would "be investigated and/or prosecuted as a normal civilian would be for the same violations". However, this is false - normal citizens are investigated by a law enforcement agency resulting in an arrest or through indictment resulting from a criminal complaint by the Attorney General. Importantly, these procedures are not only the acceptable method of handling criminal charges, these methods are in place to ensure criminal defendants receive their constitutionally protected due process rights (criminal charges should be initiated through a process that is fair, legitimate, and adheres to established legal frameworks). To further the point of the important limited scope of an Internal Affairs invesigation and as is argued in the subsequent motion to suppress evidence, Internal Affairs investigation are limited in scope to administrative sanctions, not criminal ones. Persons subject to an administrative investigation do not enjoy the same Constituttional or evidentiary standards required for criminal prosecutions, as the potential risk following an administrative investigation only involves employment and disciplinary considerations, not someone's liberty. Yet, this case has been filed in this criminal court from an investigation held administratively, yet the Defendant was not provided with the applicable Constitutional protections and did have his liberty seized as a result. To permit this case to proceed on such a basis would be a major Constitutional violation and would encourage SASG (or other employers within San Andreas) to be able to skirt Constitutional requirements to infringe upon people's liberties.
  
  With previous counsel, we requested this case to be handled via criminal indictment through the Attorney General, but SASG insisted on pushing forward with criminal charges although they lack the law enforcement authority to do so. As noted in Exhibits #11 and #12, this is what occurred. In a "warrant report" submitted by the Government Security Bureau (GSB) listing the "agents" as Director Julia Whitehorse It is important to note, GSB was never involved in this investigation. This was an investigation initiated, conducted, and concluded singularly by Julia Whitehorse of SASG. In essence, GSB filed the charges (via the warrant report) without conducting their own independent investigation, or independent review of evidence -- the charges were filed purely on the "word" of Director Whitehorse. As a long standing member of the Sheriff's Department, this is equivalent of a law enforcement officer receiving a report of a crime from a citizen and immediately placing a charge on someone without further investigation or review of evidence. This is only possible when a report is received by a sworn law enforcement office. In this case, if Director Whitehorse was a sworn law enforcement officer, then why did she not place the charges herself?
  
  
  521-5004 — [email protected]

Exhibit with annotated suppressions

San Andreas Judicial Branch
Official Witness Statement
"HERE FOR YOU | SAFE FOR YOU"

Case Information

• Case Number: State of San Andreas v. Ian Walter
  Incident Date: 29/MAR/2025

Witness Information

• Name: Mike Luigi
  Date of Birth: 07/JAN/1997
  Phone Number: 381-5045
  Occupation: Peace Officer

Witness Statement

• LSPD was in a highspeed pursuit of a green 10F with multiple units, including our airship. The 10F had fled across the bridge to Cayo Perico and entered the airfield, it was immediately noted a plane was on the runway by pursuing officers. The pilot of the plane was later identified as Ian Walter, seemingly conducting duties within their capacity as a SAAA Senior Official.
  
  Police Sergeant II Saurian Logan informed the pilot to shut off the planes engine due to the ongoing pursuit. Ian Walter did comply with the directive, initially turning off the planes engine.
  
  Whilst units continued to pursue the suspect around the airfield, Ian Walter turned the planes engine back on and began to immediately speed up down the runway as cruisers were still pursuing the suspect whilst in front, alongside and behind the plane. In their haste to takeoff the plane's tail struck the ground multiple times before lifting off and making a sharp left turn. Notably, the aircrafts flight path was heading dangerously close to our airship, with our pilot being made to pullback to avoid a potential collision.

Witness Affirmation

• I, Mike 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,
  
  
  Mike Luigi
  Commander
  Los Santos Police Department
  
  Date: 10/APR/2025

• Detailed Reasoning: The entire statement is an interpretation of the Defendant's state of mind and resulting action by standing the take off was done in "haste". The statement regarding the aircraft being dangerously close to the PD airship is also a subjective opinion and was not experienced firsthand by Commander Luigi. As you will find in further exhibits, the pilot of said airship will later provide some details on the level of danger posed to their aircraft from the Defendant's actions.

Exhibit with annotated suppressions

San Andreas Judicial Branch
Official Witness Statement
"HERE FOR YOU | SAFE FOR YOU"

Case Information

• Incident Date: 29/MAR/2025

Witness Information

• Name: Jamie Lockwood
  Date of Birth: 21/MAY/1998
  Phone Number: 400-1995
  Occupation: Sergeant II, Los Santos Police Department

Witness Statement

• While in pursuit of a 10F wide body driven by Griffin Harris, the pursuit took a turn onto the CAYO island bridge, as the pursuit entered Cayo, AIR-1 was able to gain visual, the 10F drove around the island and ultimately ended up going onto an Airfield on the westside of the island.
  
  A government fixed winged aircraft, operated by Ian Walter, was stationary ready for take off at the start of the runway. The 10F was doing circles driving up and down the runway with roughly 6-7 units in pursuit and AIR-1 directly above. In our tactical channel someone said tht they had asked the pilot to turn off the engine, I cannot confirm if this was done, however someone said the pilor had been informed and asked to not take off and to turn of the engine.
  
  AIR-1 had their government GPS aswell as their ATC tracker active, so the pilot was aware of the AIR-1 presense on scene.
  
  AIR-1 was informed in our tactical channel that the aircraft was taking off, I looked down to orient myself of the Aircraft and the aircraft was gaining altitude rapidly in the direction of AIR-1. I made a call to pull away from the trajectory of the aircraft as i was not certain if they had even seen AIR-1.
  
  The Aircraft made a sudden turn at a lower altitude and ultimately would have likely not collided with AIR-1, however, AIR-1 was near the center of the runway operating at roughly 700ft. the Airplane was taking of down the center of the strip. It was enough to cause me as a pilot doubt as to whether they were aware of AIR-1s presence, given they had not followed the direction to turn of their engine.
  
  I apologize if i left out any detail, please feel free to let me know if you need additional response.
  
  My co-pilot was Robin Long.

Witness Affirmation

• I, Jamie Lockwood, 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,
  
  
  Jamie Lockwood
  Sergeant II
  Los Santos Police Department
  
  Date: 29/MAR/2025

• Detailed Reasoning: The section highlighted in Green: This statement is hearsay. The witness claims something was said to me (that I was told to a) turn off the engine and b) not take off. This statement is presented for the truth of the matter as an out of court statement. Not to mention, it is not entirely correct. No where will you find in the evidence was I told to not take off. This just further demonstrates the problematic nature of the inclusion of this statement.
  
  The statement in Yellow: This is speculation. What I was aware of or not is not something this witness can reliably comment on. It's pure speculation, presented from the assumption of guilt. It's prejudicial.
  
  The statement in Red: This is false. As you can see within other exhibits, the engine was in-fact turned off. This Officer should be charged with perjury for this statement.

The entire exhibit

• Detailed Reasoning: Filed under seal

The entire exhibit

• Detailed Reasoning: Same reasoning above

Filed under seal

• Detailed Reasoning: Filed under seal

The entire exhibit (see reasoning filed under seal) OR partial suppressions (filed under seal)

• Detailed Reasoning: Filed under seal