Eclipse Government

Defendant Name: Gaven Montasser
Defendant Phone: 4053247
(( Defendant Discord: itschubby ))
(( Defendant Timezone: AEDT ))
Type of Representation (Pick one): Public Defender

Charging Department: LSPD

Date & Time of Incident(s): 07/JAN/2026 05:32:06 Aprox

Charge(s):

• Kidnaping

Narrative:
I was wrongfully charged

---

I, Gaven Montasser, 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. ))

---

---

Be advised that the bench trial court system operates off a time-slot scheduling system. Please look out for notifications from either the courts or your attorney in regards to scheduling your bench trial. As long as the defendant or their counsel makes an attempt to schedule the trial either on the docket or within the time-slot area, the court will do their best to accommodate with a Notice of Scheduling.

During this time, the defendant is encouraged to reach out to a licensed defense attorney in order to prepare a proper defense. 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.

Respectfully,


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

---

---

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

Be advised that the bench-trial court system runs on a weekly time-slot system. As long as the defendant makes an attempt to schedule the trial either on the docket or within the time-slot area, the court will do their best to accommodate with a Notice of Scheduling.

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 defense or prosecution wishes set precedence or desire a formal criminal trial, they are welcome to file a Motion for a Change in Venue

Respectfully,


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

---

---

I, Audrey Hartwell, a Private Defense Attorney with Rockford Law, will be representing the Defendant(s), Name in the underlying case.

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



Managing Partner
Rockford Law
377-1669 — [email protected]

---

---

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

• Reasoning: The Prosecution would like to request a continuance, one week should be all the time needed. The Prosecution requests this continuance due to the need for additional correspondence from the arresting department prior to Proceeding.

Rowin Lawson
Deputy Attorney General
San Andreas Judicial Branch
451-9939 - [email protected]

---

---

I, Rowin Lawson, a Prosecutor of 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.

Rowin Lawson
Deputy Attorney General
San Andreas Judicial Branch
451-9939 - [email protected]

---

---

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

  

  

  Los Santos Police Department ARREST REPORT "TO PROTECT AND TO SERVE"

  
  

  ---

  • ARREST DETAILS
    • Arresting Officer: Jason Steel
      Callsign: STAFF-30
      
      Date of Arrest: 07/JAN/2026
      Officers Involved:
      • Police Detective II Grace Steel
      Narrative: Explain what happened in detail, provide sufficient detail to justify the charges. Video and image evidence can be provided. Specifically state why each charge listed was placed.
      
      Mr. Montasser (hereinafter 'the suspect') evaded from lights and sirens which ordered him to stop for a long period of time, cca. twenty-five minutes; throughout the pursuit the suspect lost control of his vehicle at multiple points, and was even boxed in unsuccessfully once, however he managed to regain traction and continued in his pursuit until the very end when he attempted to flee his vehicle and transfer to a boat near the pier. Inside his vehicle, a woman, Louise Hurst was found in the passenger seat with her hands ziptied together; after being read her rights, the woman stated that she did not participate willingly in the pursuit, but she was unable to leave due to the active pursuit. Gang Detectives theorized that the woman participated in the pursuit voluntarily but concocted this plan so as to avoid being fired from Benny's. Based on the physical evidence present, and the pursuit being a decision made by the suspect, even with an unwilling passenger, he was charged with Kidnapping; he pled guilty to all the other charges, but contested Kidnapping on the notion that the woman initially entered the vehicle willingly.

  ---

  • MUGSHOT
    SUSPECT #1 DETAILS
    • 
      Full Name: Gaven Montasser
      Phone Number: 4053247
      License(s) Suspended: Driver Trucker Firearms Pilot
      Charge(s):
      • Kidnapping
      Evidence: Include a photo of the evidence items; it is optional to document the items in writing when including a photo. Always provide the serial number of any seized firearm. Mark where the possessions were stored.
      
      Evidence Description and/or Photo

      
      Evidence Location: Mission Row Station Vinewood Police Headquarters Department of Corrections

  

Rowin Lawson
Deputy Attorney General
San Andreas Judicial Branch
451-9939 - [email protected]

---

---

All parties in this case are encouraged to complete the following Scheduling Tool in an attempt to schedule a trial on the above case. When the scheduling tool has been completed by either party, please post on the docket stating as such.

In the event all parties have overlapping availability the Presiding Judge will determine the best date and time to have a trial take place and post a Notice of Trial informing all of the upcoming proceeding.

In the event some or all parties do not have overlapping availability, the Presiding Judge will continue to attempt to schedule the proceeding or seek alternative avenues to conclude the case.

If either party has the intentions of calling a witness to the stand during the proceeding they must inform the court by filing a Witness List at the time of filing their availability. If no Witness List is filed before the Notice of Trial is filed you will be unable to call a witness during the proceeding.


Respectfully,

Superior Court Judge
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 227-6646 — [email protected]

---

• Parties,
  
  This is a notice that I will be taking over this court case preceding from here on out. A new scheduling motion will be sent out within the next day.
  
  Respectfully,
  
  Magistrate Judge
  San Andreas Judicial Branch
  495-1265 — [email protected]

---

---

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

• Requested Discovery: Bodycam Footage
  • Detailed Reasoning: The prosecution has, at present, disclosed only an Arrest Report prepared after the incident in question. As this report reflects a retrospective account that may be subject to interpretation or omission, the defence respectfully requests the production of any and all unedited body-worn camera footage capturing the incident. Such footage is material to establishing an accurate and complete account of the events, including the context, conduct of all parties, and any factors not reflected in the written report.

• Requested Discovery: Witness Statements
  • Detailed Reasoning: The current disclosure consists solely of the narrative provided by the arresting officer. In the interest of ensuring a fair and balanced evidentiary record, the defence requests the production of all witness statements, including those of any attending officers and civilian witnesses. These statements are necessary to corroborate or challenge the arresting officer’s account and to mitigate the risk of undue reliance on a single perspective.

Managing Partner
Rockford Law
377-1669 — [email protected]

---

• Prosecution,
  
  Do you have any objections to this motion before the court begins to deliberate for a decision?
  
  Respectfully,
  
  Magistrate Judge
  San Andreas Judicial Branch
  495-1265 — [email protected]

---

---

In response to the Defense’s Motion to Compel Discovery, the Defense has failed to demonstrate any deficiency in the State’s discovery disclosures. The arrest report provides a sufficient factual basis outlining the events relevant to the charges at issue. In its motion, the Defense attempts to characterize the provided evidence as speculative in nature. The Defense claims that the arrest report is a retrospective document subject to interpretation and omission. Additionally, the Defense asserts, without factual support, that additional materials are necessary to create a "fair and balanced" evidentiary record.

The Defense raises this request two months after discovery was submitted, and after scheduling has been attempted. Requesting that officers produce witness statements almost three months after the events occurred will not produce more accurate evidentiary records. Additionally, there was no body camera footage to be provided when it was requested of the arresting department. The Defense implies that the arrest report is speculative or prejudicial yet provides no factual basis to support that claim. Additionally granting the request will only delay this trial further.

For these reasons, the State respectfully requests that the Court deny the Defense’s Motion to Compel Discovery.

Rowin Lawson
Attorney General
San Andreas Judicial Branch
451-9939 - [email protected]

---

---

The Defendant requests the production of any and all body-worn camera footage related to the incident in question. The State has represented that no such footage exists. The Court cannot compel the production of evidence that does not exist. However, to ensure the integrity of the discovery process, the court will request the prosecution to provide reasoning as to why there was no body camera footage from the scene of the crime? This will still be taken into consideration when determining if the prosecution have provided sufficient evidence for the burden of proof.

Accordingly, the request for body-worn camera footage is DENIED, subject to the above certification requirement.

---

The Defendant further requests the production of all witness statements, including those from law enforcement officers and any civilian witnesses.

The Court finds that such materials are relevant and material to the preparation of the defense, particularly where the contested charge of kidnapping turns on issues of intent, consent, and the credibility of the parties involved. The current discovery, consisting primarily of an arrest report, does not sufficiently encompass all potentially exculpatory or corroborative evidence.

The State’s argument regarding the timing of the request does not outweigh the Defendant’s right to a fair trial and access to material evidence. Discovery obligations are continuing in nature.

Accordingly, the request for witness statements is GRANTED.

The State is hereby ORDERED to produce all available witness statements, including but not limited to:

• Statements from all officers involved in the incident
• Statements from any civilian witnesses, including Louise Hurst

Such materials shall be produced within five (5) days. We understand that the witnesses may not have the best memory, yet the court finds it imperative that all information is relayed to the best of their ability.

Respectfully,

Magistrate Judge
San Andreas Judicial Branch
495-1265 — [email protected]

---

---

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

• Reasoning: The prosecution would request a continuance for one week; we are still in the process of collecting the requested evidence.

Rowin Lawson
Attorney General
San Andreas Judicial Branch
451-9939 - [email protected]

---

---

The Court recognized the short time period initially granted and the prosecution's workload at the moment. That being noted, it urges the prosecution and arresting departments to act with the utmost urgency to avoid further delay in this case.

The Motion for Continuance is hereby granted for one week from the filing date.


So Ordered,


Magistrate Judge
San Andreas Judicial Branch
298-3863 - [email protected]

---

• Honorable Judge Patrone ,
  
  After communication with the arresting department, there is no additional witness statements to be provided. The Prosecution would like to make note that the request to provide additional witness statements was made Three months after the arrest and two months after discovery was submitted.
  
  Additionally, the Prosecution understands the weight of submitting a singular exhibit for the case and we have not done so lightly. The narrative presented in the arrest report provides a complete narrative for the details surrounding the singular charge placed. There is no foundational evidence that is missing from this report.
  
  Out of consideration for the defendant and his right for a reasonable timeline for a trial, The Prosecution would like to avoid submitting a motion to stay pending appeal. The Prosecution requests that we move forward with scheduling the trial. Additionally, as a consideration we will attempt to contact and compel Ms. Hurst appear as a witness in order to testify to the events of the 7th of January if that would help alleviate the evidentiary concerns.
  
  Respectfully,
  
  Rowin Lawson
  Attorney General
  San Andreas Judicial Branch
  451-9939 - [email protected]

---

---

The Court finds that the Prosecution has made a good faith effort to comply with the Court’s prior Order, as evidenced by the time elapsed since discovery, efforts to establish contact, and willingness to secure the appearance of a key witness.

Accordingly, the Court has issued an order requesting Ms. Hurst to file a witness statement. Therefore, should contact be established, a sworn statement shall be accepted and afforded equal evidentiary weight by both parties.

The Court has further requested that this statement be returned within three (3) days, to avoid further delay in scheduling.


So Ordered,


Magistrate Judge
San Andreas Judicial Branch
298-3863 - [email protected]

---

• Prosecution and defense counsel,
  
  The Court notes that no response from Ms. Hurst has been received and declines to further compel her testimony. In lieu of this, the decision shall not inhibit the defense from independently contacting the witness to obtain a statement or her appearance, should they elect to do so.
  
  To prevent further delay in these proceedings, the Court shall proceed with scheduling.
  
  Respectfully,
  
  Magistrate Judge
  San Andreas Judicial Branch
  298-3863 - [email protected]

---

---

All parties in this case are encouraged to complete the following Scheduling Tool in an attempt to schedule a trial on the above case. When the scheduling tool has been completed by either party, please post on the docket stating as such.

In the event all parties have overlapping availability the Presiding Judge will determine the best date and time to have a trial take place and post a Notice of Trial informing all of the upcoming proceeding.

In the event some or all parties do not have overlapping availability, the Presiding Judge will continue to attempt to schedule the proceeding or seek alternative avenues to conclude the case.

If either party has the intentions of calling a witness to the stand during the proceeding they must inform the court by filing a Witness List at the time of filing their availability. If no Witness List is filed before the Notice of Trial is filed you will be unable to call a witness during the proceeding.


Respectfully,


Magistrate Judge
San Andreas Judicial Branch
298-3863 - [email protected]