State of San Andreas v. Marc Ericsson

[Terence Williams]

Appellant Name: Prosecution for the State of San Andreas
Appellant Attorney(s): Attorney General Terence Williams

Trial Docket Number: #25-BT-0121
Presiding Trial Judge: Judge Joseph Horton
Notice of Appeal Filed:

• [X] Before Verdict
  [ ] After Verdict

Reason for Notice of Appeal:

• [X] Motion to be overturned
  [X] Errors in the trials procedure
  [ ] Errors in the judge's interpretation of the law
  [ ] New evidence proving appellants innocence

Grounds for Appeal: (Maximum 150 words)

• The court decision issued by Branch Administrator Hope Kant was filed less than an hour after the motion it was related to, expediting it in an untimely manner withtout possibility for the Prosecution to object, such as the defendant was permitted. Additionally, the order is issued based on hearsay and speculation; no credible evidence has been presented that the contested topic is fact rather than fiction, and the motion is so far nothing but speculative in nature.
  
  Further, the Branch Administrator has no jurisdicton to issue court orders or act in any judiciary capacity. Constitutionally and legally, even by the Judicial Branch's own internal regulations, the Branch Administrator does not possess the capability to act as a judge or justice, or take on any other position with the Judiciary; it is a wholly administrative position. While the current Branch Administrator has previously served as a Supreme Court Justice, they recently stepped away from the position to serve fully as the Branch Administrator; and while the notice of their reassignment stated they could step into other positions within the Judicial Branch "when needed", no such authority exists.

[Marc Ericsson]

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

---

RESPONSE

---

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

State of San Andreas v. Marc Ericsson

• The Defence respectfully submits this response to the Prosecution’s appeal of the recent court order issued by Branch Administrator Hope Kant.
  
  To begin, it must be noted that the prosecution’s entire reason for this appeal is because they are being asked to provide a document they have already submitted, it is the same arrest report, only this time with the inclusion of a timestamp and it being unredacted. They have submitted arrest reports with time stamps plenty of times in the past. It is difficult to understand how such a minimal and routine request would warrant an appeal to overturn an otherwise straightforward order. One could almost believe the State has something to hide, seeing how much time and energy is being spent to avoid compliance with such a simple court order. The Defence would humbly suggest that this time and effort might have been better spent asking the sheriff's department for and providing the unredacted and timestamped arrest report.
  
  As for the Prosecution’s assertion that Branch Administrator Kant lacks the authority to issue court orders, that claim is not only misleading and false but comical. Administrator Kant has acted in a judicial capacity on over thirty separate occasions since assuming her current role. She has issued rulings in both the Superior Court and the Court of Appeals, including this decision in the Court of Appeals and this ruling in the Superior Court. The Prosecution’s sudden concern about her jurisdiction only now, after receiving an unfavorable order, appears more opportunistic than principled.
  
  Ultimately, this appeal does not raise any genuine procedural or constitutional issue. Instead, it represents an unnecessary attempt to delay discovery, as there are maybe no judges who will be able to take this appeal case in a timely manner, and the prosecution knows this... , obscure transparency, and waste the court’s valuable time over a request that any good-faith party would have simply complied with. The Defence therefore respectfully requests that the appeal be dismissed in its entirety and that the prosecution be reminded of its obligation to cooperate with discovery in an efficient and honest manner, and that they cannot choose to not provide documents because it hurts their case.

Marc Ericsson
Defendant, Pro Se
Licensed Attorney

[Joseph Horton]

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

---

SUMMARY DISMISSAL

---

IN THE SAN ANDREAS COURT OF APPEALS

State of San Andreas v. Marc Ericsson

A Summary Dismissal was entered in the above appeal on the 17th day of November, 2025.

The Court of Appeals has reviewed the specific circumstances of #25-BT-0121, State of San Andreas v. Marc Ericsson. The prosecution has highlighted multiple issues in their initial brief: the inability of both sides to voice objections, the timing of the order, and the jurisdictional capacity of the ruling Judge.

When considering whether or not a motion requires a response from both parties, a judge may consider several factors, including the complexity of the request, the time/ability needed to comply with the order, and the potential impact it may have on the case. In consideration of the time the prosecution would need to comply and the complexity of the request, the Court of Appeals has found that it would be a minimal intrusion into the state's resources to provide a quoted copy of the original arrest report.

The Judge identified that the prosecution had redacted information that could be pertinent to the case, specifically the redacted vehicle information: "Vehicle A: REDACTED". Given the Civil Code expressly states that "No public document, record, or report issued by any government agency shall include the personal phone number or home address of any civilian, including government employees..." As vehicle information has been specifically left off of the given list, the Superior Court correctly noted the error, and requested the proper, original quoted, documentation from the prosecution.

The prosecution noted "the current Branch Administrator has previously served as a Supreme Court Justice," but the Branch Administrator was never dismissed from that position. Internal policies expanded the Branch Administrator position to provide greater coverage of the different divisions. The internal policy change in no way lessens the authority of the ruling, nor the jurisdictional capacity of the ruling Judge.

The Court of Appeals has determined that, due to the lack of burden placed on the State to comply with the order, in addition to the jurisdictional capacity of the presiding judge, the order was made lawfully and within the authority of the court. It is with the above considerations that the Court of Appeals will be dismissing the appeal from the State.

So ordered,


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