General Jack
VS
Paul Snowden, Simon Riley, San Andreas Police Department
I. OPENING STATEMENT
Fast Logistics Delivery
Your Honor,
my name is Blake Pendora, representing Mr. General Jack. We are filing this action against the SAPD Detective Bureau for the illegal detainment of my client.
The defense hereby formally contests the arrest and detention of the defendant, Mr. General Jack which took place on March 31st, 2026, at the Detective Bureau Headquarters, San Andreas.
Mr. Jack was drew into a sting operation conducted by the San Andreas Police Department's Detective Bureau following an advertisement he had placed. At no point during the encounter was any illegal item produced or displayed or transferred or exchanged. Despite talks still being actively underway an officer intervened prematurely and deployed a taser on Mr. Jack without any lawful justification without the defendant posing any physical threat and also without any contraband being in plain sight or in his possession at the time of this whole encounter.
Following this unlawful use of force, Mr. Jack was subsequently frisked by the officers present on the scene in which 12 grams of methamphetamine were recovered. We believe this evidence shouldn't be allowed because the arrest was illegal. You can't use evidence found during a wrongful arrest. Just posting an ad isn't a crime and my client wasn't doing anything wrong that justified the officers tasing or arresting him.
We are asking the Court to look at whether the use of force was legal and if the evidence they found can even be used. We want to see if these charges actually make sense given what really happened, whether the charges as filed hold any merit given the sequence of events.
Your Honor,
my name is Blake Pendora, representing Mr. General Jack. We are filing this action against the SAPD Detective Bureau for the illegal detainment of my client.
The defense hereby formally contests the arrest and detention of the defendant, Mr. General Jack which took place on March 31st, 2026, at the Detective Bureau Headquarters, San Andreas.
Mr. Jack was drew into a sting operation conducted by the San Andreas Police Department's Detective Bureau following an advertisement he had placed. At no point during the encounter was any illegal item produced or displayed or transferred or exchanged. Despite talks still being actively underway an officer intervened prematurely and deployed a taser on Mr. Jack without any lawful justification without the defendant posing any physical threat and also without any contraband being in plain sight or in his possession at the time of this whole encounter.
Following this unlawful use of force, Mr. Jack was subsequently frisked by the officers present on the scene in which 12 grams of methamphetamine were recovered. We believe this evidence shouldn't be allowed because the arrest was illegal. You can't use evidence found during a wrongful arrest. Just posting an ad isn't a crime and my client wasn't doing anything wrong that justified the officers tasing or arresting him.
We are asking the Court to look at whether the use of force was legal and if the evidence they found can even be used. We want to see if these charges actually make sense given what really happened, whether the charges as filed hold any merit given the sequence of events.
II. CHARGES
[1x] SAPSC VI Section 2: Weapons, Explosives and Military Equipment (Intent to Sell)
[1x] Possession of a Controlled Substance: Methamphetamine (12 grams)
III. EVIDENCE
Exhibit A
Statement of the defendant, Mr. General Jack, recorded during consultation with defense counsel Blake Pendora at DB Headquarters on March 31st, 2026. Defendant confirmed he had placed an advertisement for the sale of weapon cases but stated clearly that no cases were on him in person and no cases were produced or shown and no exchange of any kind had taken place at the time he was tased.
Exhibit B
Confirmation by defense counsel that no weapon cases were located on the defendant's person, in his vehicle or in his immediate vicinity at the time of the arrest. The frisk conducted post tasing him yielded only 12 grams of methamphetamine and no weapon cases of any kind were seized.
Exhibit C
Confirmation by Detective Paul Snowden that the DB Headquarters, including the room where the consultation and interrogation took place is under full 24 hour CCTV surveillance and whole interrogation was recorded as confirmed by Mr. Paul Snowden at the end. The defense hereby requests that the Court to order the release of the CCTV footage from DB Headquarters covering the time of the interrogation and when I was there just to verify the sequence of events and confirm that no exchange or display of any weapon cases occurred prior to the use of the taser.
Exhibit D
The defendant confirmed that he was contacted by the Detective Bureau via the phone number listed in his advertisement (640449). The DB initiated contact, arranged the meeting location and set the terms of the encounter. The police planned and set up this entire operation from start to finish. My client didn't start anything he was just responding to what they were doing.
Exhibit E
Detective III Simon Riley, badge #250, arrived at DB Headquarters on March 31st, 2026 at the request of Detective Snowden following a direct request from defense counsel. During the discussion, Detective Riley cited SA-PSC VI Section 2 - Weapons, Explosives and Military Equipment as the basis for primary charges against the defendant applying it solely on the grounds that Mr. Jack posted an advertisement. Detective Riley further stated on record that probable cause was valid even before the meeting with the defendant took place meaning the DB believed the act of posting an advertisement alone was sufficient legal justification for detainment and use of force. This is a misapplication of the law. SA-PSC VI Section 2 addresses the actual sale, transfer, or possession of prohibited weapons and military equipment. It does not criminalise the expression of intent through an advertisement nor does it authorise use of force on a citizen before any transaction or exchange has occurred. The defense contends that Detective Riley's interpretation of the statute is factually incorrect and legally unsound.
Exhibit F
Notes documented by defense counsel Blake Pendora during the consultation and subsequent conversation with Detective Paul Snowden at DB Headquarters, March 31st, 2026. Detective Snowden verbally acknowledged the basis of the charge as the advertisement placed by the defendant and confirmed the DB's position that the phone call confirmation was used as probable cause while no physical contraband was in evidence at the time of the tasing. Furthermore the defense wants that Detective Snowden must surrender to the Court all recordings of the telephonic communications involving the defendant.
IV. LEGAL ARGUMENTS
1. The Advertisement Does Not Constitute a Criminal Act
Posting an advertisement regardless of its content represents an expression of intent and nothing more.
Under SAPSC VI Section 2, the offense requires the actual sale, transfer, or possession of prohibited items. An advertisement is a not a transaction. No weapon cases were found on the defendant's person or nearby and no exchange of any kind was initiated or completed.
2. The Sting Operation Was Incomplete at the Time of the Tasing
The Detective Bureau themselves acknowledged that a meeting was arranged following the advertisement, confirming that the advertisement alone was insufficient to establish an active offense. The sting had not reached any actionable or conclusive stage negotiations were still ongoing and no illegal item had materialized. The officer who deployed the taser did so prematurely before the operation had produced any evidence of an actual crime being committed.
3. Unlawful Use of Force
At the moment the taser was deployed, the defendant was engaged in conversation. He had made no threatening movements and produced no weapon and no contraband was visible. The use of a taser under these circumstances constitutes excessive and unlawful use of force against a civilian mid negotiation.
4. Meth Evidence is Inadmissible
The 12 grams of methamphetamine were discovered solely as a result of a frisk that followed the unlawful tasing. If the initial use of force and resultant detainment is found to be unlawful all evidence obtained as a direct consequence including the methamphetamine they found cannot be used as evidence in this case.
V. DEMANDS
- The immediate and unconditional release of Mr. Jonathan Anderson pending a full judicial review.
- Full CCTV footage from DB Headquarters covering interrogation and talks to be submitted to the Court as evidence as confirmed available by Detective Snowden himself.
- All charges under SAPSC VI Section 2 to be dismissed given the complete absence of any physical contraband, exchange, or transaction at the time of arrest.
- The methamphetamine evidence to be ruled inadmissible as it was obtained directly as a result of an unlawful detainment and use of force.
- A formal misconduct investigation to be opened against the Detective Bureau officer who deployed the taser on Mr. Jack without legal justification with disciplinary proceedings to follow if footage confirms the use of force was premature and unwarranted.
- A formal misconduct investigation to be opened against Detective Paul Snowden, badge #360.
- A formal review and disciplinary inquiry into Detective III Simon Riley, badge #250, for the deliberate or negligent misapplication of SA-PSC VI Section 2 during proceedings with defense counsel citing it as grounds for primary charges based solely on an advertisement, which falls entirely outside the scope and intent of that statute.
- Badge numbers, bodycam footage and dashcam recordings from all Detective Bureau personnel present at the scene and at DB Headquarters on March 31st, 2026 to be submitted to the Court without delay.
- A written explanation from the Detective Bureau chain of command justifying the decision to deploy a taser on a civilian who was mid conversation, unarmed and had produced no illegal item at any point during the encounter.
Off TopicI have all the chatlog [OOC] to prove my claims and I can only present them as valid once the court gets the camera/bodycams/spycams footage from the detectives.
VI. SETTLEMENT OFFER
- No settlement offer at the moment.
VII. SIGNATORY
Dated: March 31st, 2026
Respectfully Submitted,
Blake "Collin" Pendora
State Licensed Attorney
