PROSECUTION'S OBJECTION TO DEFENSE'S ARGUMENT & REQUEST TO AMEND CHARGES
HEADS OF ARGUMENT
Your Honor,
The Prosecution respectfully objects the several claims of the Defense made within their unsolicited submission.
The Defense is free to challenge our evidence and argue that the charges have not been proven. However, there is a difference between challenging the case and making claims that do not accurately reflect the record before the Court.
A few matters of concern have been accordingly addressed below in the Heads of Argument, including the Court's orders and the Defendant's statements.
I. NO CONCRETE EVIDENCE
The Defense claims that the Prosecution's case is based on "unsubstantiated speculation" and "absent concrete evidence", this is simply not accurate. The Prosecution has already submitted photographs, logs, undercover agent's availability as a witness for testimony, and other records showing the Defendant's conduct and his connection to the criminal activity under investigation.
The Defense is free to argue that this evidence is insufficient. However, claiming that there is no concrete evidence when the Court has already received multiple exhibits supporting the charges is a serious misrepresentation of the case.
The Prosecution therefore asks the Court to review whether such statements from the Defendant may fall under U.S. CODE, TITLE VI, (D) Statements or entries, which prohibits knowingly and willfully making materially false statements or representations within an official judicial proceeding.
The Prosecution also asks the Court to consider whether such conduct may fall under SA-PSC § III.10., Obstruction of justice, which also covers providing false information or otherwise impeding the course of a legal action.
II. THE CLAIM THAT THE INTERROGATION WAS "CONCEALED"
The Prosecution does not deny that the interrogation took place or that it was not submitted to the Court. However, the Prosecution did not rely upon the interrogation as evidence in this case because of consolidated exhibition of evidences presented before this Court. The statements obtained during it were not considered necessary to prove the charges and, in light of the circumstances surrounding the interrogation, including the absence of a Miranda warning before questioning, the Prosecution did not intend to use it as evidence.
The Defense is therefore incorrect to suggest that the Prosecution concealed the interrogation in order to hide evidence from the Court or mislead the proceedings. There is a clear difference between not submitting an interrogation as evidence because the Prosecution does not rely upon it and deliberately concealing material evidence from the Court. No statement from the interrogation is being used to prove the Defendant's guilt. The Prosecution's case is based on evidence independently obtained during the investigation.
The Prosecution therefore respectfully asks the Court to consider whether the Defense's characterization of the interrogation as "concealed" is a materially misleading representation of the circumstances, particularly where the Defense has not established that the Prosecution intentionally withheld it for the purpose of misleading the Court.
The Prosecution further maintains that any challenge concerning the conduct of that interrogation is a
separate matter and does not invalidate independent evidence establishing the Defendant's alleged criminal conduct. Any challenge regarding the conduct or admissibility of the interrogation should be addressed through the appropriate procedural process and should not affect the independent evidence supporting the charges and this particular criminal case against the Defendant.
III. THE ACCOMPLICE CHARGE
The Accomplice charge: The Defense wants this charge dismissed because they claim the Prosecution hasn't proven Mr. McTavish is officially linked to the National Balla Association. That misinterprets what the law actually requires.
Under USC Title VI, Section (F), we only have to prove two things: that a crime happened, and that Mr. McTavish knowingly helped carry it out. We don't need to name or charge every other person in that group in this specific filing.
Exhibit D already proves the main crime happened by documenting the massive stash of guns, explosives, and drugs found at the NBA headquarters.
Exhibit C.1 proves Mr. McTavish helped. That exhibit has dated photos of the Defendant loading and moving those exact same weapons and drugs at the building on two separate days.
Whether we choose to prosecute other people in that group is part of an ongoing investigation, but that doesn't change the evidence we already have against Mr. McTavish.
The Prosecution has presented evidence showing the Defendant repeatedly at NBA-controlled locations including Glass Station 9 and the headquarters of the said criminal organization, loading and handling items connected to criminal activity, using NBA-associated vehicles and communications (frequency of walkie talkie #4444), and taking part in activities connected to the criminal operations.
The defense is trying to argue rules that simply aren't in the law. USC Title V, Section (C), Subsection (4) says word-for-word: "Any person in possession of money or items that were stolen from an ATM or a bank shall be imprisoned for no less than 5 years and no more than 15 years." The law doesn't mention a minimum dollar amount, doesn't care if it's cash or gold bars, and doesn't require him to have physically robbed the bank himself. It penalizes holding stolen money, plain and simple. We found $6,400 in marked bills inside NR 1307, so there is no debate that the cash came from a robbery. He had it in his possession, which is all the statute looks for.
We're also asking the Court for leave to add SA-PSC § VI.3 for the same $6,400. This isn't double-charging the same thing twice, it's two different laws with two different elements: the federal charge is about money specifically traced to a bank or ATM robbery, the state charge is about possessing of any kind of marked currency above the legal threshold, period, regardless of where it came from.
V. THE PROPERTY SEIZURE ARGUMENT
The Defense claims seizing the two properties requires Congressional approval and calls it unconstitutional. We looked at the provision they're relying on, and it doesn't say what they claim, yet another misinterpretation from their side. The Prosecution respectfully requests the Court to reconsider its interpretation of the cited Bill of Rights provision.
The provision relied upon by the Defense concerns the nationalization of private property for public use, including the requirement to compensate the owner. It does not address the seizure of property connected to violations of federal law. This is a criminal seizure, not the nationalization of private property for public use.
The applicable federal authority expressly permits the FBI "to seize the properties of others if pertaining to a
violation of federal law or
an order of the court." The properties in question are being sought for seizure due to their connection to alleged criminal violations, not because the government intends to nationalize them for the benefit of surrounding citizens.
Furthermore, in light of the Court's order, the Prosecution respectfully revises its requested relief regarding NR 1307 and NR 236. Rather than seeking permanent condemnation at this stage, the Prosecution requests that the properties remain seized pursuant to the applicable federal authority, and based on the previous precedents of this Court, as both properties are connected to alleged violations of federal law. The Prosecution reserves any request for permanent forfeiture or condemnation for the appropriate authority and procedure.
The Prosecution therefore respectfully maintains that the cited Bill of Rights provision is not applicable to the present matter, what we're relying on is U.S. CODE TITLE IV, SECTION (F) SUBSECTION (1) PARAGRAPH (E): "To seize the properties of others if pertaining to a violation of federal law or an order of the court." This Court has upheld that exact authority before:
The precedents of this Honorable Court should be taken into account.
VI. NEW EVIDENCE: OCEAN DOCKS, JULY 2ND, 2026
While reviewing footage for this case, we found something worth bringing to the Court's attention. On July 2nd, 2026, two days before the search warrant was executed, Mr. Mctavish was recorded flying a Maverick helicopter into the airspace of the National Guard's Ocean Docks facility and landing inside its fenced premises. The same footage also documents him personally handing over two RPG cases to an individual identified as Pawel Walaszek.
We're requesting leave to add the following charges based on this evidence:
USC Title XIV, Section (C)(2)(A) - No Fly Zone Violation
Ocean Docks Base is a military installation under permanent no-fly-zone restriction under this subsection. The Defendant flew directly into that restricted airspace.
USC Title VII, Section (F)(2) - Trespassing in a Restricted Federal Area
The Defendant landed and remained within the fenced premises of the Ocean Docks facility, a restricted federal area, without authorization.
SA-PSC § VII.14 - Illegal Parking of an Aircraft [F]
The Defendant landed the aircraft outside of any recognized airstrip or helipad.
SA-PSC § III.20 - Trespassing in a Restricted Area [F]
Ocean Docks is a secured government-managed facility restricted to non-authorized personnel. The Defendant's presence there, without authorization, independently violates this state provision alongside the federal trespassing charge above.
- The Prosecution is also attaching this letter of security concern from the General of the National Guard U.S. Army for the sake of consolidation and to bring attention to the gravity of the case:
Damien Taylor wrote: ↑Thu Jul 30, 2026 7:25 pm
Good evening,
My name is Damien Taylor, I am the General of the US Army National Guard and I speak in regard to our San Andreas division.
I am writing to file a formal complaint against the persons bearing responsibility for a black colored Maverick helicopter. On the 2nd of July, 2026 the military base "Fort Howard" which is located in Ocean Docks, Los Santos was negligently infiltrated by this aircraft, who entered a restricted airspace with no due regard, touched down without permission, and exited the aircraft, stepping foot onto the base without authorization, or security clearance. Furthermore, the occupants of the helicopter also displayed RPG cases, and were passing them around amongst each other.
This violates many standards, displays full irresponsibility and neglect for passenger and aircraft safety by willingly violating a No Fly Zone, touching down on restricted U.S Government property, and displaying explosives. This situation compromised the security of Fort Howard, posed an imminent threat to members of the service, and could have immediately escalated to a very dangerous consequence for the occupants of that aircraft.
This is unacceptable behavior demonstrated by civilians, disregard for federal aviation rules, disregard for safety and personal well being, and disrespect towards members of the service. I demand actions in place to prevent this from occurring again, as the next time there may be a different outcome, thank you for your attention to this matter.
We're asking the Court for leave to amend the charges to add the state currency charge covered in SA-PSC § VI.3. Miscellaneous Illegal Items and Surveillance Equipment, and the four counts of new charges covered in U.S. CODE Title VII, Section (E), Subsection (A) and (B), all supported by evidence already or newly submitted.
VIII. COMPLIANCE WITH THE COURT'S ORDER ON THE INTERROGATION
Pursuant to the Court’s order, the Prosecution confirms that the interrogation referenced in Section II took place on July 20, 2026, and submits the full recording below for the Court's review.
Code: Select all
[12:31:26] * Mask_11053 Turns on the camera
[12:31:37] * it is now recording audio and video footage (Mask_11053)
[12:31:57] * Mask_11053 shows their FBI badge: FBI Agent Thomas_Buckley.
[12:32:35] Mask_11053 says [Afro-American accent]: I Agent Thomas Buckley Conducting this interrogation the date is 20th july , 2026 and the time is..
[12:32:41] Mask_11053 says [Afro-American accent]: State your full name
[12:32:50] Charles Mctavish says: Charles Mctavish
[12:32:54] Mask_11053 says [Afro-American accent]: Well
[12:33:06] Charles Mctavish says: Some people call me skinny boy.
[12:33:25] Mask_11053 says [Afro-American accent]: Are you aware of your charges?
[12:33:53] Charles Mctavish says: Nah, u just told me i got warrant and put me behind bars, thats not very cool of you.
[12:34:08] Mask_11053 says [Afro-American accent]: i showed you the warrant but okay
[12:34:16] Mask_11053 says [Afro-American accent]: You have been charged with
[12:34:18] Mask_11053 says [Afro-American accent]: (E) Controlled Items . (2) Controlled substances . (3) Controlled weapons
[12:34:38] Mask_11053 says [Afro-American accent]: Charles
[12:34:42] Charles Mctavish says: substances? that's crazy? never heard of that.
[12:34:59] Charles Mctavish says: Do u have proof of it?
[12:34:59] Mask_11053 says [Afro-American accent]: You are so generous
[12:35:22] Mask_11053 says [Afro-American accent]: You have been sharing Illegal susbtances to People infront of the HQ
[12:35:27] Mask_11053 says [Afro-American accent]: even in the HQ
[12:35:37] Mask_11053 says [Afro-American accent]: You have been Loading
[12:35:47] Mask_11053 says [Afro-American accent]: inside the NBA HQ
[12:35:49] Charles Mctavish says: Was the ammount i was sharing was illegal?
[12:36:03] Mask_11053 says [Afro-American accent]: Ha-ha
[12:36:07] Mask_11053 says [Afro-American accent]: Do you know Pawel?
[12:36:12] Charles Mctavish says: No.
[12:36:16] Mask_11053 says [Afro-American accent]: Pawel Wazalek
[12:36:24] Charles Mctavish says: I don't know nobody.
[12:36:38] Mask_11053 says [Afro-American accent]: You are just getting yourself in trouble
[12:36:43] Mask_11053 says [Afro-American accent]: Who supply those items to you?
[12:36:46] Charles Mctavish says: If u think so.
[12:37:11] Mask_11053 says [Afro-American accent]: And Also we have Found Weed in your property
[12:37:13] Charles Mctavish says: What? Someone is supplying me? Naaah. that's cap. - I've found these items inside storage.
[12:37:16] Mask_11053 says [Afro-American accent]: All was seized
[12:37:24] Charles Mctavish says: Yeah, i saw it, can i get my pots back?
[12:37:39] Mask_11053 says [Afro-American accent]: Comply with me
[12:37:44] Charles Mctavish says: Im trying.
[12:37:51] Mask_11053 says [Afro-American accent]: Help me and i will help you
[12:38:17] Mask_11053 says [Afro-American accent]: Do you want to spend the rest of your life in a jail?
[12:38:25] Mask_11053 says [Afro-American accent]: Come on.
[12:38:39] Charles Mctavish says: I swear to god, i don't think so i've did so much that my sentnce will be lifetime..
[12:38:51] Mask_11053 says [Afro-American accent]: You are part of the NBA?
[12:39:05] Charles Mctavish says: \
[12:39:07] Charles Mctavish says: Don'
[12:39:13] Charles Mctavish says: Don't you see my logo at my shirt?
[12:39:16] Mask_11053 says [Afro-American accent]: Yes or no
[12:39:28] Charles Mctavish says: We're basketball association, we're very well know at los santos.
[12:39:34] Mask_11053 says [Afro-American accent]: Well
[12:40:01] Mask_11053 says [Afro-American accent]: What are you feeling like right now there is a way out
[12:40:34] Charles Mctavish says: I don't think u got enough proof on me.
[12:40:40] Charles Mctavish says: Thats what im thinking.
[12:40:41] Mask_11053 says [Afro-American accent]: Tell me the name of Everybody Who use to supply you illegal Stuffs.
[12:41:01] Mask_11053 says [Afro-American accent]: If i did not have enough proof
[12:41:08] Mask_11053 says [Afro-American accent]: your pots would not be seized
[12:41:11] Mask_11053 says [Afro-American accent]: come on
[12:41:27] Mask_11053 says [Afro-American accent]: You are just making it worse Charles
[12:42:04] Mask_11053 says [Afro-American accent]: Charles Look at me
[12:42:07] Charles Mctavish says: Im complying bro.. Listen - i got no supplyer, why would i have one? Im not taking any drugs im non-alcoholic and..
[12:42:19] Mask_11053 says [Afro-American accent]: You do
[12:42:26] Mask_11053 says [Afro-American accent]: You would not be arrested after all
[12:42:48] Mask_11053 says [Afro-American accent]: Do you want to sign a paper
[12:42:50] Charles Mctavish says: I dont trust and i dont belive you.
[12:43:06] Mask_11053 says [Afro-American accent]: You will get a better setlement in the court
[12:43:06] Charles Mctavish says: I hope i made that part clear.
[12:43:25] Charles Mctavish says: I dont need that papper.
[12:43:29] Mask_11053 says [Afro-American accent]: You do not beleive me
[12:43:32] Mask_11053 says [Afro-American accent]: haha
[12:43:39] Mask_11053 says [Afro-American accent]: Im the only one who can help you
[12:44:12] Charles Mctavish says: But im gonna lsiten what court got to say
[12:44:12] Charles Mctavish says: you are not peak of moutain my nigga.
[12:44:21] Charles Mctavish says: There's a bigger line in front of you.
[12:44:22] Mask_11053 says [Afro-American accent]: Mh-m
[12:44:49] Mask_11053 says [Afro-American accent]: I Thomas Buckley ending this interrogation
[12:44:55] * Mask_11053 Turns camera off
In response to the Defense's claim that Mr. Charles was not informed of his rights, the Prosecution submits that this assertion is factually inaccurate and entirely contradicted by the evidence on record.
As demonstrated in Exhibit C (C.3), the handling Agent explicitly read Mr. Charles his Miranda rights following his arrest, after which Mr. Charles verbally acknowledged and agreed to them. The Prosecution respectfully requests that the Court disregard the Defense’s statement, as it is completely unfounded and serves only to misrepresent the facts established in the evidence.
As stated in Section II, no statement or signed document was obtained during this interrogation and nothing from it has been relied upon to support any charge in this case. This is totally a separate matter of concern by the Defense.
IX. RESPECTFUL REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION OF PROPERTY SEIZURE OR CONDEMNATION
The Prosecution respectfully asks the Court to reconsider its decision to deny the seizure and condemnation.
The Court's order noted that this request falls under Congress's authority for nationalization. Respectfully, we are not asking to nationalize the property. As explained in Section V, nationalization under Article I, Section III happens when the government takes property for the public good, regardless of any crime. What we are asking for is criminal forfeiture, a completely separate process granted to the FBI under U.S. CODE TITLE IV, Section (F), SUBSECTION (1), PARAGRAPH (E), which this Court has approved in past cases (also cited in Section V of the HEADS OF ARGUMENT).
We ask the Court to review this distinction and the cited precedents before making a final decision. If the Court still finds our request improper after reviewing these points we will file an appeal.
X. REQUEST FOR REVIEW OF DEFENSE CONDUCT
Finally, the Prosecution asks the Court to review the Defense's conduct during these proceedings.
The Defense has claimed that there is no concrete evidence despite the numerous exhibits already submitted. It has also accused the Prosecution of "concealing" an interrogation without providing evidence that the Prosecution intentionally concealed anything.
The Prosecution respects the Defense's right to challenge the case. However, there is a difference between challenging evidence and knowingly making materially false statements or representations to the Court.
The Prosecution therefore respectfully asks the Court to review whether the Defense's conduct may fall under:
U.S. CODE TITLE VI, Statement and entries (D), if the Court finds that the Defense knowingly and willfully made materially false statements or representations within this judicial proceeding;
SA-PSC § III.10. Obstruction of justice, if the Court finds that the Defense knowingly provided false information or otherwise attempted to impede the course of justice; and
SA-PSC § III.7. Contempt of court, if the Court finds that the Defense's conduct demonstrated disrespect or disobedience toward the Court.
The Prosecution is not asking the Court to punish the Defense simply for disagreeing with our case. The Defense is free to challenge the evidence, but there is a difference between challenging the evidence and claiming that evidence does not exist when it has already been submitted to the Court. There is also a difference between questioning an interrogation and accusing the Prosecution of coercion and deliberately concealing it without providing a factual basis for that accusation. Finally, the Defense has disregarded proper court decorum by submitting an argument without being asked or authorized by the Court to do so. This Court has punished individuals in previously for similar violations of its procedures. The Prosecution therefore asks the Court to consider whether the Defense's conduct should be treated in the same manner.
The Prosecution therefore respectfully requests that the Court:
1. Reject the Defense's claim that the Prosecution's case is based on an absence of concrete evidence;
2. Require the Defense to explain the basis for claiming that the interrogation was "concealed";
3. Grant the Prosecution leave to amend the charges as requested above which has been initially evidentiary supported and submitted;
4. Review the Defense's statements under the applicable law concerning materially false statements made during judicial proceedings;
5. Accept Exhibit I as full compliance with the Court's disclosure order regarding the July 20th interrogation;
6. Reconsider the ruling on property forfeiture in light of the distinction between criminal forfeiture and nationalization set out in Section V and Section X above.
The Prosecution respectfully submits that this case should be decided on the evidence actually presented to the Court, not on claims that the evidence does not exist.
XI. CLAIMS OF ILLEGAL FIREARM SEIZURE
Regarding the Desert Eagle, the weapon was taken directly from the Defendant's person while he was being placed into a custody holding cell as mentioned by the prosecution in Exhibit F.
The Prosecution asks the Court: how could a person be permitted to enter a custody cell while carrying an equipped firearm? The seizure was a necessary custodial safety measure to ensure that the Defendant was disarmed before being placed into custody. It was not an unlawful seizure of evidence, but a basic requirement of maintaining the safety and security of the holding facility.
XII. LIST OF NEW DEMANDS PURSUANT TO SECTION VI OF THE HEADS OF ARGUMENT
DEMANDS:
- In accordance with the U.S. CODE TITLE VII, SECTION (F), SUBSECTION (2), The Defendant to remit a monetary fine of $50,000 and to be sentenced to one year of imprisonment
- In accordance with the U.S. CODE TITLE XIV, SECTOIN (C), SUBSECTION (3), The Defendant to remit a monetary fine of $10,000,000.
- In accordance with the U.S. CODE TITLE XIV SECTION (C), SUBSECTION (3), The Defendant to be sentenced to ten years of imprisonment.
- In accordance with the U.S. CODE TITLE XIV, SECTION (E), SUBSECTION (1), PARAGRAPH (A), The helicopter (Model: Maverick) to be seized for 2 months.
- In accordance with the U.S. CODE TITLE VII, SECTION (E), SUBSECTION (7), The Defendant to be sentenced to two years of imprisonment per count of the charge provisioned in SUBSECTION (E), (3) (four counts).
- In accordance with the U.S. CODE TITLE VII, SECTION (E), SUBSECTION (7), The Defendant to be sentenced to two years of imprisonment per count of the charge provisioned in SUBSECTION (E), (2) (3 counts).
Thank you, Your Honor.
Signed,
Steven Collin
Federal Prosecutor
