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

[San Andreas Governor]

Your Honor,
The state provides the following evidence:

The employment policy presented by the plantiff just prevents officers to hold another government job, whereas followig statements are made by the plantiff:
"This law directly conflicts with SAPD’s employment policies, which prevent officers from holding outside jobs to avoid corruption, conflicts of interest, and security risks."
" The law forces SAPD to allow officers to hold private jobs, including in security, business, or legal sectors, creating divided loyalties and corruption risks."
"It forces us to allow officers to take outside jobs, even in private businesses."

The employment policy does not restrict private jobs. The plantiff has made false statements in court that falls under SA-PSC § III.8. Perjury and SA-PSC § III.10. Obstruction of justice.

The first sentence of employment policy "The San Andreas Police Departments restricts its employees from becoming employees of the State Government" only gives an impression that SAPD is a private department and is restricting its employees to become employees of the State Government.
SAPD is employed by State Government. This sentence is self contradictory.

The second sentence of employment policy states "If any employee wishes to be employed by the State Government, the said member must resign from San Andreas Police Department to pursue their career in the State Government".

This employment policy is unconstitutional because Article I, Section V of Constitution clearly states " Citizens may be granted additional rights by the State. However, no citizen can be stripped off their rights granted by this Constitution. These are undismissable rights granted to all citizens. A citizen is a person who possesses a citizenship authorization or a passport in the United States. All federal and state laws must be in accordance with the constitution and may not breach the constitutional articles."

If the state is giving additional right, which in this case is second employment, to an officer, who is also a citizen, how can SAPD's employment policy force them to choose between first and second job. The first job is protected by constitution because section V clealry mentions that no citizen can be stripped off their rights granted by this Constitution and they are undismissable rights.

The employment policy direclty violates civil rights of SAPD officers that are protected by Constitution.

SA-PSC § XI protects and grants citizens right to employment under Article I, Section V of Constitution.


Chuck Clayton
Governor of San Andreas

[Kacper Kowalski]

Objection your honour,

The state’s argument is baseless. SAPD’s policy restricts officers from holding government jobs, not private jobs, there’s no false statement here. The state’s claim of perjury is laughable and desperate.

The Constitution protects fundamental rights, not the right to work multiple government jobs. SAPD’s policy is a reasonable condition of employment, not a constitutional violation. Preventing conflicts of interest and protecting integrity is standard practice in law enforcement.

The idea that SAPD’s policy suggests it’s a private department is absurd. SAPD is a public agency enforcing reasonable employment standards to prevent corruption and maintain public trust.

The state’s claims are weak and misguided. SAPD’s policy is lawful, necessary, and essential for protecting public confidence. The court should reject this nonsense outright.

Kacper Kowalski
Legal Representative for the SAPD

[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

The objection is sustained, the Defendant may not progress with the claims against the Department's policy. The objective of this trial is whether the law in question is constitutional or not.
The Plaintiff shall refrain from submitting comments such as "Laughable" or "Desperate" in their statement.

Moving on. May the Defendant call out his witness and begin questioning. Plaintiff may wait their turn until the permission is given to proceed cross-examine.

To the Defendant:
You have forty eight (48) hours to call your witness, otherwise we'll move on to closing statements if the timeframe is not respected.

Signed,

Kira Hernandez
Hon. District Judge
District of San Andreas

Marko Vanhanen
Hon. District Judge
District of San Andreas

[San Andreas Governor]

Your Honor,

The state respectfully requests the court to issue subpoenas for the following officers to provide their statements:

• Steve Lloyds

• Tanner Flores

• Sarah Martinez

• Klido Walker

• Nan Ting

Chuck Clayton
Governor of San Andreas

[Kira Hernandez]

((As requested in Discord. You have 24h to show me why this list is relevant to the case and why shall it be granted considering the legal basis, do they serve to clarify any legal issues relevant to the case? Any delaying will result in denial of this request. ))

[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

The provided list has been denied except for Mr. Steve Lloyd seeing the relevance of the case regarding his testimony.

The Court summons Mr. Steve Lloyd to the witness stand and reminds Mr. Lloyd that he is under the oath. If you fail to appear before this court in the deadline of forty eight (48) hours, you'll be held in contempt of court.

Violation of oath & perjury

U.S. CODE TITLE VI
CRIMES INVOLVING PERSONS

(C) Violation of oath and perjury

• (1) Any person which fraudulently and knowingly violates an oath, whether it is an oath to speak the truth or an oath of office, shall be imprisoned for no less than 5 years and no more than 10 years;

The Defendant may begin their questioning. Thirty Two (32) hours to do so.


To the Plaintff:
You have forty eight (48) hours to cross-examine the witness after the Defendant's finish their questioning and have their witness answer all their questions. Shall rise any objection regarding the questions within the timeframe in the process is your call.

Signed,

Kira Hernandez
Hon. District Judge
District of San Andreas

Marko Vanhanen
Hon. District Judge
District of San Andreas

[San Andreas Governor]

*Approaches witness stand and begins questioning*

Are you aware of any policy that restricts SAPD officers from holding outside jobs, including private jobs?
Apart from working for the Police, prior to this law, did/do you work anywhere else?
Did you work for the Police and government cabinet simultaneously?
Were you approached and informed about the employment policy?

[Steve Anderson]

*Steve gets up and starts to talk.*
Firstly hello to everyone.
1)Answering to the first question yes I am informed of the policy that restricts Law Enforcement Officers to hold private jobs.
2)Before I joined SAPD on the start of September I used to work for Mark Garrick on his business called NewsSeek Agency,then after I joined back to SAPD on 31st of October I got a request to join Renaissance High School as one of the owners,requested by Sloane Whittaker and that’s the only jobs I hold-ed on as private and outside jobs.
3)Well yes I’ve worked before when Dave Fernandes was governor and I was Press Secretary.
4)Yes of course since our supervisors and commanders have been notifying us time by time.


SAPD Lead Officer

[Kacper Kowalski]

Relevance, your honour?

The SAPD does not restrict people from holding jobs in the private sector

Question two is completely unrelated to this case as we’ve already established and proved that we do not restrict officers from working in the private sector

As for question four, if the witness was informed then he’d know that there’s no mention for working for private companies such as the news organisation mentioned

[San Andreas Governor]

Objection Your Honor,

The questions are completely relevant to the case.
Where the plantiff stressed and I will quote again:
"This law directly conflicts with SAPD’s employment policies, which prevent officers from holding outside jobs to avoid corruption, conflicts of interest, and security risks."
" The law forces SAPD to allow officers to hold private jobs, including in security, business, or legal sectors, creating divided loyalties and corruption risks."
"It forces us to allow officers to take outside jobs, even in private businesses."

Your honor those statements by plantiff are on the record and echoed in this court room.
If SAPD does not restrict officers working in private sector then why the content of complaint raises concern regarding private jobs and how is that conflict of interest and how does that conflict with the law?
Legal Challenges - A
" The law forces SAPD to allow officers to hold private jobs, including in security, business, or legal sectors, creating divided loyalties and corruption risks."

Your honor, their statements are self contradictory with their actual employment policy. The plantiff has misguided the court in this matter.

Your honor, the complaint inititated by plantiff just mentions private job. The plantiffs complaint contains false statement and that can be clearly validated by the evidence provided by plantiff.

Your honor Steve Lloyds statement proves that he was working under previous government. The question remains the same. How is that conflict of interest?

*Raising objection on the following*
"Question two is completely unrelated to this case as we’ve already established and proved that we do not restrict officers from working in the private sector"
Your honor it is plantiffs statement and I quote "This law directly conflicts with SAPD’s employment policies, which prevent officers from holding outside jobs to avoid corruption, conflicts of interest, and security risks."
Your honor, outside job for a government employee is private job not another government job.
Your honor it only raises a question how can plantiff hide behind their actual employment policy whereas they were previously providing false statements in court.
Your honor the way plantiff mentions we've already established and proved only gives an impression that a person can file a complaint in court saying he was shot in left leg and then provides medical evidence that shows being shot in right hand and saying we've already established and proved that i was shot in right hand. The only thing established and proved is that the plantiff has provided false statements in court.

Your honor that is perjury and also falls under contempt of court.

Your honor, the only concern raised by the plantiff is unconstitutional overreach into private businesses and the plantiff has accepted and I quote "SAPD is a public agency...." which directly invalidates Legal Challenges - B since SAPD is not private entity and the concern is out of scope. The state will request again to strike down Legal Challenges - B

Your honor, the complaint only raises irrelevant concerns as SAPD is not private entity and misinterprets their own employment policy as it does not restrict private jobs.

Your honor, I respectfully request the court to lift suspension of the law and dismiss the case as the plantiff has failed to provide any sufficient evidence on how the law is forcing officers to hold private job and the unconstitutional overreach into private business and hold accountable, the plantiff, for providing false statements in court.

Chuck Clayton
Governor of San Andreas