[#CV-0163]Lilith Blackroot vs San Andreas Sheriff's Department

[Chuck Clayton]

CIVIL LAWSUIT

Lilith Blackroot vs San Andreas Sheriff's Department

---

I. Opening Statement
I, Lilith Blackroot, a law abiding citizen, will be representing myself in this lawsuit against San Andreas Sheriff's Department and Inspector Aaron Reeve.

II. Jurisdiction
This court has jurisdiction over this matter as it involves:

• Interpretation and enforcement of Article I, Section II of Constitution

• Application of SA PSC II.13 (Self Defense)

• Alleged misuse of legal authority by SASD Inspector Aaron

III. Statement of Facts

• On February 21, 2026 I was present opposite to Market Ammunition road where SAFD Fiodor Dostoveiski and SAPD Thaddeus Thornbridge were looking into conduct of SAFD Volunteer Johnson Hobbs. I was lawfully present as I was assaulted by the volunteer.

• During this time, a vehicle arrived and opened fire on me, SAFD and SAPD officials present there. My life was placed under direct and immediate threat due to active gunfire.

• In accordance to rights granted under Section II of Constitution and SA PSC II.13, I drew my lawfully posessed firearm and returned fire in self defense in response to the life threatening attack. Once the vehicle fled the scene, I returned back to the investigation area. I remained on scene and did not evade law enforcement.

• SASD Aaron arrived and detained me. I did inform that I acted in self defense. I was transported to DSD where the arresting inspector, Aaron, stated that he did not care who shot first and based his decision solely on observing me shooting. I was arrested and charged with illegal brandishing of weapon.

• I later filed a complaint with SASD to which they responded:
  "The allegation cannot be sustained. After careful examination and interviewing of the individuals present at the time of the incident, it is found that the allegation cannot be supported by the available evidence."

• SASD did not disclose who was interviewed, what evidence was reviewed or what legal standard was applied

IV. Legal Basis

• I. Violation of Section II of Constitution
  Section II gurantees citizens right to bear arm and make lawful use of it and prohibits the use when there is no threat to one's life. I was directly in line of active gunfire at the time when I acted in self defense. The use of force was only directed towards the armed aggressor posing lethal threat. Under such circumstance inspector Aaron arrest penalised the lawful exercise of constitutionally protected right and by disregarding the existence of lethal threat, he not only narrowed the constitutional right beyond what constitution permits but also exceeded executive authority and intruded upon judicial interpretation.

• II. Improper use of SA PSC II.13
  SA PSC II.13 permits citizens, whose life is under direct threat, to use equivalent or lesser force necessary to fend off the attack. The base element of SA PSC II.13 is existence of a direct threat.
  Inspector Aaron explicitly stated that he did not care who initiated the gunfire and failed to determine the existence of direct threat. By disregarding the base element of SA PSC II.13, the inspector failed to apply the governing law properly and such arrest based on incomplete and ignored analysis depicts abuse of discretion.

• III. Constitutional overreach and exceeding statutory authority
  Law enforcement possesses authority to investigate and arrest based on probable cause. They do not possess authority to nullify self defense protections through disregard of required element; existence of direct threat. By stating that the origin of gunfire was irrelevant, inspector Aaron substituted personal judgement for criteria. This conduct transformed a lawful defensive act into a criminal act without any proper legal basis, hence exceeding lawful enforcement authority and infringing upon rights reserved to citizens under Section II.

• IV. Lack of transparency and failure of accountability
  SASD responded that the allegation could not be sustained after inverviewing unspecified individuals. They have failed to disclose identities of those interviewed, whether all individuals present on scene were questioned and the legal reasoning to support the conclusion. In complaint concerning statutory protections tranparency is necessary to ensure accountability and failing to disclose invesigatory basis undermines public trust and prevents meaningful review.
  V. Damages
  As a direct resulf of inspector Aarons action, I suffered:
  • Loss of liberty due to incarceration
  • Emotional distress and reputational harm
  • Interference with constitutional rights
  VI. Relief requested
  I respectfully request that the Court:
  • Declare that my actions fell within lawful self-defense under SA PSC II.13
  • Declare that the arrest and charge were inconsistent with protections under Section II of Constitution
  • Expunge the charge of Illegal brandish of weapon
  • Reimbruse financial losses
  • Award compensatory damages in the amount of $500,000
  • Order SASD to disclose:
    • The identities of all individuals interviewed.
    • The evidence reviewed.
    • The legal reasoning applied in closing complaint.
  • Order remedial training for inspector Aaron regarding proper application of SA PSC II.13 and constitutional protections
  • Grant any additional relief Court deems just and proper.
  
  
  In respectful submission,
  Lilith Blackroot
  March 1, 2026

[Steve Lloyd]

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

---

Lilith Blackroot
v.
San Andreas Sheriff’s Department

CASE # CV-163
HONORABLE TRIAL JUDGE PRESIDING:
Steve Anderson

* Hon. Trial Judge Steve Anderson enters the Court room, people will stand if seated, he takes a seat followed by the rest of the people in the court room. He then grabs from his pocket a glasses case, opens it and takes his glasses out & then puts them on. He proceeds to grab the case file in front of him.*

*Hon. Trial Judge Steve Anderson starts looking at the case carefully and proceeds with the following;*


The First Judicial District Court recognises this Civil Lawsuit as submitted by Ms. Lilith Blackroot, henceforth the Plaintiff. We do not recognise her Legal Counsel as she claims to represent herself. Let it be recognised that the court has assigned this case ID # CV-163.

To the Defendant:
You have forty-eight (48) hours to confirm whether you will be represented by a legal counsel or intend to defend yourself in this case. If you have hired legal counsel, please have them reply to this court communique with their details. Failure to confirm these details within the 48 hour window will result in this court issuing a summons for your appearance. Failure to appear before this court does not invalidate this case and we will proceed without you if we need to.

(( Please forum PM me if there's a particular reason as to why this timeframe is unreasonable ))

To the Plaintiff:
You have the next 48 hours to provide this court with a witness list that you intend to call upon.

(( Please forum PM me with any supporting evidence that confirms the IC validity of your evidence ))

Signed,
Honorable Trial District Judge Steve Anderson

[Chuck Clayton]

Recusal Request

---

The plantiff, Lilith Blackroot, respectfully moves for recusal of the currently assigned honorable presiding judge and states as following:

• The lawsuit is against San Andreas Sheriff's Department and the assigned judge is also affiliated with SASD which creates a conflict of interest.

Plaintiff respectfully seeks reassignment to another judge to ensure neutrality and preserve public confidence in the judicial process.

In humble submission,
Lilith Blackroot

[Marcus Fernandes]

Since the previous judge has been recused, I the Honorable Trial Judge, Marcus Fernandes will handle this case, the defendant and a new legal counsel has still 48 hours to respond.

[Franklin Grey]

I. Introduction

To the Honorable Court, San Andreas Sheriff's Department represented by Legal Consuel Franklin Grey, respectfully says that the allegations made by Lilith Blackroot are not true.
The department believes that Inspector Reeve acted within lawful authority to enstablish statutory standards.

II. The Main Problem

The legal question is wether the Plaintiff was under a direct threat as required by SA PSC II.13 (Self-Defense) at the moment she used her firearm.
The evidence shows she was not.

CCTV((logs))

III. The evidence shows the Plaintiff was not shot

1.No direct threat existed. The CCTV shows that Lilith Blackroot was not hit by any bullets. Theres is no record of any bullets hitting her. There is not proof she was targeted.
To use self defense you need to be in danger of being hurt. Because there are gun being fired in the area doesn't mean everyone is in danger.
Since there is no proof she was targeted it means she was not the one being aimed at. Her life was not in danger. The usage of the firearm was not needed.

2. Police was already there.
During the shooting police was already at the scene. The police were actively trying to control the situation. According to "SA-PSC § VIII.8 – Providing Aid to a Peace Officer" only off duty officers can help on duty officers. The Plaintiff is not an officer of the law. She did not ask for permission. She was not allowed to help.
What she did was not self defense, it was a civilian interfering wit the police doing their job.

IV.Probable cause of arrest

Inspector Reeve saw a civilian using a gun during a police operation. The Plaintiff did not have a permission to use the gun. There is no proof that she was hurt or targeted.
At the time the inspector had the reason to believe that Lilith Blackroot had used their gun illegally.

His statement regarding not determining who fired first is legally irrelevant to probable cause.
He observed a civilian discharging a fire weapon is sufficient for arrest.

IV.Internal complaint response

Administrative reviews are not criminal trials. SASD is not obligated to disclose:
The interviewed witnesses.
Internal investigative methodology
Internal legal analysis.
The department will follow the law making sure everyones rights are protected.

V. Conclusion

The Plaintiff has not shown that she was in danger. She has not shown she needed to use her gun.
The Inspector acted within legal authority and the arrest was supported by the probable cause.

SASD is respectfully requesting the dismisaal of all claims.

Signed,

Franklin Grey
Legal Consuel of the San Andreas Sheriff's Department
Union Representative of San Andreas Sheriff's Department Deputies Association

[Chuck Clayton]

Rebuttal to Defendant's Response

---

Your honor, I respecfully submit the following rebuttal to the San Andreas Sheriff's Department's response.


I. CCTV Evidence
I, PD officer Thaddeous, FD official Fiodor and Volunteer Johnson were standing next to each other where they were looking into the conduct of Johnson.
The CCTV shows the following(14:25:25 - 14:25:47):
(CCTV before 14:25:35 is invalid because Fiodor showed up at 14:18:16 and not valid after 14:25:56 because thats when I was arrested))

• Shooter initiated the shootout by opening fire on us and Officer Thaddeous was hit

• I returned fire, equal force, after shooters initiation

• CCTV shows FD official Fiodor brandishing and pointing his weapon

The CCTV shows a lethal attack, which put my life, and others present, in danger.


II. Defendant mis-states the legal standard for self defense
The defendant presents a baseless argument that since I was not struck by a bullet that means I was not targetted and not under threat. This interpretation is legally incorrect.
I was standing next to officer Thaddeous, the shooter pointed the firearm in our direction and discharged.
Under the reasoning provided by defendant, I would be required in the middle of an active shooting, to calculate the trajectory, elevation and precise point of impact of each bullet before determining whether it would struck me and put my life in danger.
SA PSC II.13 requires life to be under threat. It does not require the civilian to be physically injured or get struck by a bullet. The defendant is attempting to redefine direct threat to mean personally struck buy gunfire, which is not supported by statutory language.
The CCTV establishes that a lethal attack was active when I returned fire in self defense.


III. Reference to SA PSC VIII.8
The defendant has presented another irrelevant and baseless argument stating that I was assisting law enforcement.This case is about self defense and has nothing to do with SA PSC VIII.8. CCTV confirms that lethal threat was present and I acted in self defense.
Neither SA PSC II.13 or Article I Section II states that presence of police extinguishes constitutional protection of self defense.

Where the defendant claims that police was already there and were actively trying to control the situation, the CCTV shows otherwise. The defendant here is trying to confuse the court.
Yes police officer Thaddeous was there, but he was talking to FD official Fiodor regarding the conduct of Johnson, who also assaulted me. There was no so called situation at that time that was being controlled by Thaddeus.
Later a vehicle showed up and opened fire on us. These are two different situations and the defendant is portraying it as one situation that police was trying to control.
If police was actively trying to control the situation, why does the cctv not show police engaging with the shooter.

IV. Probable cause of arrest based on incomplete legal analysis
The defendant presents the argument that inspector Reeve saw civilian using gun during operation and had no permission to use gun.
The CCTV shows officer Thaddeous was part of investigation standing alongside Fiodor, Johnson and me and not in any operation.
The defendant states that inspector Reeve observed a civilian discharging a fire weapon is sufficient for arrest but this statement is not supported by the CCTV as it clearly shows why the weapon was discharged.
Hence disregarding a core statutory element of SA PSC II.13, the arrest decision was made without proper application of governing law.

V. Outcome of Administrative review
The internal finding that the allegation “cannot be sustained” does not substitute for judicial review of the legality of the arrest.

VI. Witness list
I respectfully request the honorable court to call upon the following as witness:

• Theodeus Thornbridge

• Fiodor Dostoveiski

• Larry Ozaak

VII. Conclusion
CCTV confirms evidence that a lethal attack occured, multiple individuals perceived same threat and I responded only after shots fired by the shooter. SA PSC II.13 requires only that the life be under direct threat not that injury occur. I respectfully request the Court to deny the defendants request for dismissal and allow this matter to proceed to full adjudication.

In respectful submission,
Lilith Blacroot

[Marcus Fernandes]

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

---

Lilith Blackroot
v.
San Andreas Sherrif's Department

CASE # CV-0143
HONORABLE TRIAL JUDGE PRESIDING:
Marcus Fernandes

The First Judicial District Court recognises this Civil Lawsuit as submitted by Civil Plaintiff Mr. Lilith Blackroot henceforth the Plaintiff. Let it be recognised that the court has assigned this case ID # CV-0163. The evidence provided in the initial documentation provided by the civil lawsuit against SASD henceforth the Defendants, are deemed as sufficient and removes any possibility for summary dismissal.


I. ORDERS

To the plaintiff :

• Plaintiff can present his witnesses within 48 hours.

Signed,

[Chuck Clayton]

Witness Questioning

---

The plantiff would request the presence of aformentioned witnesses, and would like to ask the following questions:
Theodeus Thornbridge

• Were you present with me, FD volunteer, and FD official Fiodor during the incident?

• Defendant mentions about a police operation, please describe what police operation was going on at that time.

• What were we doing at that location before the shooting occurred?

• While we were standing together, did an individual exit vehicle and begin firing at us?

• Who fired the first shots? Were the shots fired in direction where we were standing?

• Defendant states "Because there are gun being fired in the area doesn't mean everyone is in danger." Was I randomly present in the vicinity where the shootout took place?

• At the moment the shots were fired, where was I standing in relation to you?

• Did you observe me draw my weapon only after the shooter began firing? Did I fire in the direction of the attacker?

• From what you personally witnessed, did my actions appear to be a response to the shooter attacking us?

Fiodor Dostoveiski

• Were you present with me Officer Thaddeous and FD volunteer during the incident?

• What were we doing at that location before the shooting occurred?

• While we were standing together, did an individual exit vehicle and begin firing at us?

• Who fired the first shots ?Were the shots fired in direction where we were standing?

• At the moment the shots were fired, where was I standing in relation to Officer Thaddeous?

• CCTV shows you brandishing and pointing your weapon, please describe what made you do that.

• Did you observe me draw my weapon only after the shooter began firing? Did I fire in the direction of the attacker?

Larry Ozaak

• Were you observing me, FD volunteer, Officer Thaddeous and FD official Fiodor during the incident?

• Defendant mentions about a police operation, did you observe police operation going on at that time?

• At the moment the shots were fired, where was I standing in relation to Officer Thaddeous?

In humble submission,

Lilith Blackroot

[Fiodor Dostoveiski]

• Were you present with me Officer Thaddeous and FD volunteer during the incident?

-Yes

• What were we doing at that location before the shooting occurred?

-Investigating the FD volunteer regarding hitting a granny and his bad obediance to traffic laws which appeared to be vehicular manslaughter felony.

• While we were standing together, did an individual exit vehicle and begin firing at us?

-Yes

• Who fired the first shots ?Were the shots fired in direction where we were standing?

-A suspect on car occupied twice. Yes

• At the moment the shots were fired, where was I standing in relation to Officer Thaddeous?

-Not sure, if my memory is right behind him about 5 meters

• CCTV shows you brandishing and pointing your weapon, please describe what made you do that.

-I was present as FD official i had no legal weapons on me but my FD regulation materials.

• Did you observe me draw my weapon only after the shooter began firing? Did I fire in the direction of the attacker?

-Yes only after the suspect on the car started shooting. Yes indeed.

[Thaddeus Thornbridge]

Were you present with me, FD volunteer, and FD official Fiodor during the incident?
Yes.
Defendant mentions about a police operation, please describe what police operation was going on at that time.
Yes, FD Volunteer was comitting a crime so I was waiting with his supervisory to get him suspended and to arrest him.
What were we doing at that location before the shooting occurred?
He was staying with us, watching the situation.
While we were standing together, did an individual exit vehicle and begin firing at us?
Yes, that’s true.
Who fired the first shots? Were the shots fired in direction where we were standing?
Yes that’s true.
Defendant states "Because there are gun being fired in the area doesn't mean everyone is in danger." Was I randomly present in the vicinity where the shootout took place?
No.
At the moment the shots were fired, where was I standing in relation to you?
Near me.
Did you observe me draw my weapon only after the shooter began firing? Did I fire in the direction of the attacker?
Yes, after the shooter began firing and fired in the direction of attacker.
From what you personally witnessed, did my actions appear to be a response to the shooter attacking us?
Yes.