Eclipse Government

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

Charging Department: LSPD

Date & Time of Incident(s): I was told it was approx 20/APR/2026
Charge(s):

• GF03 - Armed Robbery
• VF01 - Evading an Officer

Narrative:

I was arrested on the 11th May after being out of town for a while and they said I was charged on the 20th April but had no information to provide and I wasn't even around on the 20th April?

---

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. ))

---

---

Please note that while this case surpasses the 14 day submission period, the defendant was arrested based on a warrant report placed on the 20th of April, and arrested on the 12th of May. This falls within the 30 day exigent circumstances rule, which allows the court to accept the submission.

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 availability. 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,


Chief Justice
San Andreas Judicial Branch
505-9925 - [email protected]

---

---

The case of State of San Andreas v. Joe Ryan 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 availability. 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,


Chief Justice
San Andreas Judicial Branch
505-9925 - [email protected]

---

---

I, Hugh R. Allgood, Chief Public Defender of the San Andreas Judicial Branch, will be representing the Defendant, Joe Ryan, in the underlying case.

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


Chief Public Defender
San Andreas Judicial Branch
235-6076 - [email protected]

---

• Prosecution and defense counsel,
  
  The court requests the defense to provide their response to the prosecutions Motion to Consolidate Cases. The defense has 7 days to respond.
  
  Respectfully,
  
  Chief Justice
  San Andreas Judicial Branch
  505-9925 - [email protected]

---

• Honorable Justice Kant and pertaining parties,
  
  In regards to the motion to consolidate cases, the Defense does wish to oppose the motion in the interest of ensuring the Defendant in this case is able to enjoy a fair trial.
  
  After reviewing the case to be considered for consolidation, Counsel notes the Defendant in the case in question is self-representing, which is within their rights to do. However, Counsel does not fully agree with the strategy currently employed by this Defendant/Pro se counsel, such as the motions which have been filed and ruled upon already. The concern with Counsel rests in the fact that by consolidating the cases, this Defendant has to accept at some level the strategy of the Counsel in the previous case, even where that strategy does not benefit the Defendant, as is the case here.
  
  Even with this Court making the assurance of each Defendant being evaluated separately, it does appear the cases are not 1:1, and Counsel does not believe consolidation is appropriate for this reason as well.
  
  While we understand the judicial efficiency aspect which comes from consolidating cases, we simply do not believe consolidate is in Mr. Ryan's best interests, and comes with the risk of negatively affecting Mr. Ryan's ability to have a fair trial and due to differences in the cases against both Defendants.
  
  
  Chief Public Defender
  San Andreas Judicial Branch
  235-6076 - [email protected]

---

---

The Court notes the response from both defense attorneys/representatives on each docket. While we sympathize with the prosecution in the fact that these exhibits do appear to overlap with one another in time/location, we cannot in good faith move forward with the Motion to Consolidate.

Both the representative and defense attorney on these cases have cited various reasons requesting it be denied: differing plans of execution, allegedly unrelated charges, etc. That being said, the court is denying the prosecutions Motion to Consolidate Cases

So Ordered,


Chief Justice
San Andreas Judicial Branch
505-9925 - [email protected]

---

• Honorable Justice Kant and pertaining parties,
  
  On the 16/May/2026, this Court ordered the State to provide discovery, which would have been due on 15/Jun/2026, which has come and gone and discovery has not been provided by the State.
  
  On 14/June/2026 (a day before the deadline), the Defense became aware of the failed effort to consolidate (filed on 9/Jun/2026) this case with #26-BT-0042 State of San Andreas v. Lilliana Hirano. At this time, the Defense was given 7 days to respond. The Defense responded on 17/June/2026, and this Court ruled on the motion on 18/June/2026.
  
  Assuming the 30 day discovery would have been paused on either 9/Jun/2026, when the motion to consolidate was filed, or 14/June/2026 when Defense became aware of it (as the motion was not made by the State on this case, and the Defense does not represent the Defendant in 26-BT-0042, and was not aware of the motion), this moves the deadline to either 19/Jun (tomorrow) or 24/Jun, depending where the Court marks any pause beginning. The Defense would champion the deadline of 19/Jun, as a penalty to the State for not posting that motion on this case.
  
  Additionally, from the Defense perspective, the Defense believes based on the Prosecution's motion to consolidate and claim the cases are similar, and the fact discovery had been published on the other case 10 days ago, the Defense believes the State should be able to provide discovery in this case without delay.
  
  As described above, there are 5 days in between 19/Jun and 24/Jun, and the Defense respectfully requests the Court to either order discovery by 19/Jun, or would be content with "meeting in the middle" of the two dates to ensure fairness to both sides, and make discovery due by 21/Jun.
  
  
  Chief Public Defender
  San Andreas Judicial Branch
  235-6076 - [email protected]