[CV-0127] San Andreas Police Department v. State of San Andreas

[San Andreas Governor]

(( There is no such restriction by Server management regarding the use of AI, nor it is defined in Court rules. You can't make your own rule in mid of this case and use it to restart the case. Marko should have stopped it when first statement was given. I have given my statements they know what my next move is. And now you want to restart it so it goes in their favor? Their statements will change and case will go in a different direction. AI generated text or human generated text ENGLISH IS ENGLISH do you lack braincells to understand it?
What AI text detector are you going to use? Turnitin is the most authentic detector for that and is used irl in educational institutions and even when a research paper is published in a journal it goes through it. Are you going to provide reports from Turnitin?
))

[Kira Hernandez]

(( You have been given a review, and the statement is updated, read it again ))

[Kira Hernandez]

State of San Andreas
First Judicial District Court
United States Courthouse
3321 Downtown Avenue, Los Santos, San Andreas

---

San Andreas Police Department
v.
State of San Andreas

CASE # CV-0127
HONORABLE JUDGES PRESIDING:
Marko Vanhanen, Kira Hernandez, Martin Winchester

The plaintiff has requested an additional twenty four (24) hours and has been granted the additional period before submitting their follow-up statement.
May the Defendant stand by and refrain from any statements until the Plaintiff has submitted theirs.

Signed,

Martin Winchester
Hon. District Judge
District of San Andreas

Kira Hernandez
Hon. District Judge
District of San Andreas

Marko Vanhanen
Hon. District Judge
District of San Andreas

[Kacper Kowalski]

Your honour,

The Governor's argument is not just wrong, it’s dangerous. He’s defending a law that opens the door to corruption and conflicts of interest, all while trying to paint SAPD as the problem. Let’s be clear: the real threat to this state is letting law enforcement hold political power. That’s not just risky, it’s an invitation to corruption.

SAPD's policy against officers holding government positions isn’t about power, it's about protecting the integrity of our institutions. An officer who’s also a politician can’t serve both roles honestly. The conflict is obvious to anyone with common sense.

The Governor's argument that this law is safe is ridiculous. By the time any wrongdoing is discovered, the damage will already be done. The only way to stop corruption is to prevent these conflicts of interest from happening in the first place - exactly what SAPD's policy is designed to do.

This isn’t about SAPD trying to override state law. It’s about stopping a blatantly unconstitutional law that undermines the entire justice system. If this law stands, we might as well hand the keys to the state over to corruption and call it a day.

For these reasons, SAPD respectfully asks for this law be struck down immediately.

Thank you.

Kacper Kowalski
Legal Representative for the SAPD

[San Andreas Governor]

Your Honor,

Before I proceed to submit the follow up statement, I would respectfully request the court to grant me permission to address some concerns that I have regarding the court proceedings. I feel it is important to rasie the concerns to ensure the trail remains fair and just.


Chuck Clayton
Governor of San Andreas

[Kira Hernandez]

State of San Andreas
First Judicial District Court
United States Courthouse
3321 Downtown Avenue, Los Santos, San Andreas

---

San Andreas Police Department
v.
State of San Andreas

CASE # CV-0127
HONORABLE JUDGES PRESIDING:
Marko Vanhanen, Kira Hernandez, Martin Winchester

The request is denied. If you wish to bargain something, it shall be the case you are at. The panel will not address anything currently, rather order to follow what stated before, you have few more hours to submit your follow-up statement.

(( Please forum PM or discord PM me if there's a particular reason why you are unable to do so ))

The Court reminds both parties to stick to the trial plan and refrain from addressing irrelevant matters from this court case. If they wish to appeal this case, they may do so after the case is over, otherwise, the only option is filing a motion to the Court about this case addressing your concerns, the case will not wait until then. The Court will not tolerate any stalling nor pause proceedings, since the case CV-0127 has been on going for over 10 days now.


Updated: The Defendant has requested an additional 24 hours, in which he's granted to submit their follow-up. Expires on 07/03/2025 - 22:00 CET

Signed,

Martin Winchester
Hon. District Judge
District of San Andreas

Kira Hernandez
Hon. District Judge
District of San Andreas

Marko Vanhanen
Hon. District Judge
District of San Andreas

[Martin Winchester]

State of San Andreas
First Judicial District Court
United States Courthouse
3321 Downtown Avenue, Los Santos, San Andreas

---

San Andreas Police Department
v.
State of San Andreas

CASE # CV-0127
HONORABLE JUDGES PRESIDING:
Marko Vanhanen, Kira Hernandez, Martin Winchester

---

SUSPENSION ORDER OF "ARTICLE XI. PROTECTION OF EMPLOYMENT RIGHTS AND FREEDOM" ACT

---

I. PREAMBLE

Before the Court is the matter concerning the admissibility and applicability of the ARTICLE XI. PROTECTION OF EMPLOYMENT RIGHTS AND FREEDOM as enacted in the laws of the State of San Andreas on the 21st of February, 2025. Upon thorough consideration of the presented arguments, judicial procedures, and the potential undue delays of the trial which may lead to mismanagement of employment matters in the public and private sectors of the state, as it pertains to the Court's evaluation of the legality of this Act and the pending adjudication of this matter at hand, the Court finds it necessary and appropriate to issue the following order until further clarification upon the submission of the verdict.

II. ORDERS

• EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY, the provisions of the ARTICLE XI. Act are hereby suspended in their entirety, pending the final resolution of the case at trial and legal determinations that may arise.

• To ensure clarity, the public and private sectors within the state of San Andreas are directed to proceed with their previous framework routine in terms of employment management and policies as if the ARTICLE XI. had not yet been enacted, until further clarification.

• This Court order shall remain in effect until the Court issues another order to clarify the admissibility and enforceability of the ARTICLE XI. Act. Any conflicting regulation or policy that relies on the ARTICLE XI. Act are hereby deemed inoperative for the duration of this issued order. Consequently, failure to adhere to this Court order shall result in legal consequences per SA-PSC § II.9. Failure to abide a court order.

---

IT IS SO ORDERED.
07/03/2025

Martin Winchester
Hon. District Judge
District of San Andreas

Kira Hernandez
Hon. District Judge
District of San Andreas

Marko Vanhanen
Hon. District Judge
District of San Andreas

[San Andreas Governor]

Your Honor,

The statements made by plantiff suggests a pessimistic view that the law will only lead to corruption and only reflects the worst possible outcome without presenting any supporting evidence. Law enforcing agencies respond either intelligence based or when a crime is being or has been committed. Such pessimistic views gives an impression that action should be taken before a crime has been committed just because an individual fears that someone is going to commit a crime in future. The plantiffs concerns regarding corruption are already addressed in SA-PSC § III.1.

Your honor, the plantiff initially complained regarding outside job and stated that the law is forcing officers to take private jobs and now they are targetting officers who hold position in government. Yet they have failed to present in this court what their employment policy is, which is only creating a confusion that does their policy restrict holding private jobs or government jobs or both of them.

Your honor, the plantiff stresses on stopping a blatantly unconstitutional law but yet fails to provide any sufficient evidence that proves that the law is unconstitutional.

Your honor, the plantiffs assertion that their policy prevents officers from holding positions in government is self contradictory given the fact that Steve Lloyds was simultaneously part of the previous government and the SAPD.

Your honor, where the plantiff stresses and I quote " Let’s be clear: the real threat to this state is letting law enforcement hold political power. That’s not just risky, it’s an invitation to corruption"
Your honor, this law didn't exist when Steve Lloyd held both positions and plantiffs statement only suggests that it was SAPD who invited corruption and a threat to this state.

Your honor, where the plantiff stresses and I quote "SAPD's policy against officers holding government positions isn’t about power, it's about protecting the integrity of our institutions"
Your honor, this law didn't exist when Steve Lloyd held both positions and plantiffs statement gives the impressions that it was SAPD who failed to protect the integrity of their institution.

Your honor, where the plantiff stresses and I quote "The only way to stop corruption is to prevent these conflicts of interest from happening in the first place - exactly what SAPD's policy is designed to do."
Your honor, this law didn't exist when Steve Lloyd held both positions and plantiffs statement gives the impressions that their policy failed and didn't do what it was designed to do.

Your honor, for clarification, the state in any manner does not contend that Steve Lloyd was corrupt, unless he was trialed and charged with it.

Your honor, the plantiff's pessimisctic views are just based on thier opinion and lacks sufficient evidence. The state respectfully requests the honorable court to dismiss the case on the basis of lack of evidence.

In the event that this Court does not grant this dismissal, I respectfully request the Court with the following requests :

• Direct SAPD to provide a copy of their employment policy that is in conflict with SA-PSC § XI.

• Direct SAPD to provide evidence that SA-PSC § XI has violated Constitution.

• Issue a subpoena for Steve Lloyd to testify regarding holding both government and law enforcement positions simultaneously, it is relevant to the concerns raised by SAPD.

Chuck Clayton
Governor of San Andreas

[Kira Hernandez]

State of San Andreas
First Judicial District Court
United States Courthouse
3321 Downtown Avenue, Los Santos, San Andreas

---

San Andreas Police Department
v.
State of San Andreas

CASE # CV-0127
HONORABLE JUDGES PRESIDING:
Marko Vanhanen, Kira Hernandez, Martin Winchester

The honorable District Court considers the importance of the evidence to evaluate the claims fairly for the Plaintiff & the Defendant, therefore, both parties hereby ordered the following;

• Submit any evidence that is relevant to the case only. You have 48 hours to do so from the issuance of this order.
• A witness list to be sent as well to the Lead Judge's email that they intend to call for testimony. ((Forum PM me the list))
  
  
  
  
  
  Signed,
  

  
  Martin Winchester
  Hon. District Judge
  District of San Andreas

  
  Kira Hernandez
  Hon. District Judge
  District of San Andreas

  
  Marko Vanhanen
  Hon. District Judge
  District of San Andreas

  
  
  
  
  
  
  

[Kacper Kowalski]

Your honour,

The SAPD presents the following evidence;

Spoiler

---

Thank you,
Kacper Kowalski
Legal Representative for the SAPD