Eclipse Government

Defendant Name: Jamie Jo
Defendant Phone: 204-1618
(( Defendant Discord: jlor3nte ))
(( Defendant Timezone: EU ))
Type of Representation (Pick one): Private Defense Attorney - Rockford Law

Charging Department: PD/GOV

Date & Time of Incident(s): 17/JAN/2026
Charge(s):

• All charges placed on 17/JAN/2026

Narrative:
My client believes they are wrongfully charged.

---

I, Audrey Hartwell, 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. ))

---

---

The Superior Court Bench Trial system runs off of defendant responsiveness. If defendants are interacting with the court or their attorney, a Notice to Schedule will be posted with all parties being able note their availablity. A Judge will then pick the most suitable time for trial. Once a trial has been scheduled, the court will consider most submissions to be final.

Prior to scheduling, 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. Jamie Jo is hereby activated and opened by this Court.

The Superior Court Bench Trial system runs off of defendant responsiveness. If defendants are interacting with the court or their attorney, a Notice to Schedule will be posted with all parties being able note their availablity. A Judge will then pick the most suitable time for trial. Once a trial has been scheduled, the court will consider most submissions to be final.

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]

---

---

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 until a decision is made in regard to the dismissal of 26-BT-0008. Strategy on this case is dependent on the outcome of the pending motions.

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

---

Good Morning All involved parties,

The defence respectfully objects to the state's Motion for Continuance filed above.

Reasoning:
The prosecution seeks delay pending a decision in case 26-BT-0008, an entirely separate matter involving a different defendant. The outcome of another individual’s case is not a legally sufficient basis to suspend proceedings in this one. Each case must stand on its own evidence, its own procedural posture, and its own merits.

The State’s reasoning makes clear that the request is strategic in nature. A continuance is not intended to allow a party to wait for a potentially favorable ruling in unrelated litigation in order to adjust trial tactics. Strategic preference does not constitute good cause.

Granting this continuance would unnecessarily delay these proceedings and directly impact the Defendant’s right to a speedy trial. The Defendant should not be made to wait while the prosecution determines whether another court’s ruling may strengthen its position. If the State believes it has sufficient evidence, it should proceed. If it does not, that is not a justification to postpone this matter indefinitely.

The defence also sees no legitimate reason why the outcome of a separate case can be reasonable explanation for the delay of simple motions such as discovery to allow this case to move along.

For these reasons, the Defence respectfully requests that the Court deny the Motion for Continuance and allow this matter to proceed as scheduled.

---

Thanks,
Managing Partner Audrey Hartwell

---

• Prosecution and defense counsel,
  
  Prosecution, can you please explain the reason behind the Motion for Continuance in more detail? Specifically, how does the result of the Motion on the other case impact this case?
  
  Respectfully,
  
  Associate Justice
  San Andreas Judicial Branch
  274-6959 - [email protected]

---

• Justice Horton,
  
  The matters of Jamie Jo 26-BT-0012, Meleri Fox 26-BT-0007, and Lewis Langly 26-BT-0008 arise from the same incident and involve mutual participation by all three defendants. The evidence provided to the Prosecution is interconnected and establishes distinct charges against each defendant based on their individual conduct during that shared event.
  
  Although each defendant faces separate charges, all three were arrested in connection with the same incident, and there is overlapping evidence across the cases. The resolution of the pending motion in 26-BT-0008 will have a direct impact on the proceedings in 26-BT-0012 and 26-BT-0007. Accordingly, due to the shared relations between these three cases, the Prosecution respectfully requests that the continuance remain in effect pending the Court’s ruling on the aforementioned motion.
  
  Respectfully,
  
  Rowin Lawson
  Deputy Attorney General
  San Andreas Judicial Branch
  451-9939 - [email protected]

---

---

Given the explanation provided by the Prosecution, the Court will accept the Motion for Continuance. The Court acknowledges the arguments made by the Defense; however, given the relatively short-nature of the timeline left on the other case, the Court does not find that this Continuance violates the Defendant's rights to a speedy trial.

The Court will respond onto this Docket once a decision has been made in the other Docket to indicate that the Continuance has been concluded.

So Ordered,


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

---

• Prosecution and defense counsel,
  
  Following the Court Order issued on the Docket of #26-BT-0008 State of San Andreas v. Lewis Langley, Prosecution was afforded the opportunity to resume this particular case under an indictment, as long as this was filed within fourteen (14) days.
  
  Prosecution appropriately filed the indictments on the 29th of March, 2026, and has since been activated on the Docket:
  #26-CM-0007 State of San Andreas v. Jamie Jo
  #26-CM-0008 State of San Andreas v. Meleri Fox
  #26-CM-0009 State of San Andreas v. Lewis Langley
  
  As such, this Docket will resume under the appropriate indictment and this will be archived.
  
  Respectfully,
  
  Associate Justice
  San Andreas Judicial Branch
  274-6959 - [email protected]