|
|
Guests: 136
Hidden: 0
Users: 0
Recent Posts
 Supreme Court of the United States EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW | From: The Hon. Michael Cleveland, Chief Justice of the United States Address: United States Supreme Court Building, 1 First Street, Northeast D.C., U.S. Topic: "Re Jerry Swindle's Appeal To Supreme Court " Proceeding Number: VC-CR1929/2022 |
| Medium Neutral Citation: | Re Jerry Swindle's Appeal To Supreme Court [2025] SCOTUS |
| Date of Decision: | 30 December 2025 |
| Jurisdiction: | Common Law |
| Before: | Cleveland M |
| Catchwords: | APPEAL - IMPERSONATION OF A STATE OFFICIAL CRIMINAL LAW - PERJURY |
| Legislation Cited: | Constitution for the State of Vice Vice City Criminal Law Law Enforcement Code of Vice City Interim Constitution (reference/precedent) |
| Cases Cited: | United States of Argonath v. Patrol Invest Group [2025] SCOTUS United States of Argonath v. Whitney Georgia [2025] SCOTUS United States of Argonath v. [DU]Orochi [2022] AATC United States of Argonath v. Hulk Green and Andrew Davidson [2022] AATC United States of Argonath v. FBI Director Kowalski [2022] AATC United States of Argonath v. Andrew Aky [2022] AATC |
| Texts Cited: | None. |
| Parties: | Jerry Swindle (Plaintiff) United States of Argonath (Objecting Party 1) Vice City Police Department (Objecting Party 2) |
| Representation: | Jerry Swindle (P) FBI Lead Prosecutor Kowalski (OP 1) VCPD Chief of Police Gabriel Adams (OP 2) |
NOTICE OF ESCALATION
[1]. The Supreme Court of the United States notifies the plaintiff and the objecting parties that, due to administrative and bureaucratic issues within the judiciary, this case has been escalated directly to I, Justice Michael Cleveland, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States.
[2]. For the reference of all involved, in the absence of a permanent Chief Justice of the United States, I, Justice Michael Cleveland, have been confirmed in an interim capacity by the United States Government to act as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States until further notice or nomination of a permanent Chief Justice.
[3]. I note that this case has been in process since September 04, 2022. It is the opinion of this court that enough time has elapsed for any and all litigation and further submissions. Further submissions will not be accepted as the court is set to hand down its verdict.
[4]. As this case is before the United States Supreme Court, and furthermore before the Chief Justice, this court makes clear that this is a final judgment and cannot be appealed.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES (SCOTUS)
CASE BREAKDOWN AND EVALUATION - JERRY SWINDLE
[1]. I call on the plaintiff, Mr. Jerry Swindle, to rise.
[2]. The court acknowledges the request made.
[3]. I further acknowledge the character references provided, and the individuals whom have provided them.
[4]. I acknowledge the suspension appeal motion brought by the United States, the case cited as the basis for doing so, and the granting of that appeal by Sir Klaus of the Administrative Tribunal Committee.
[5]. I also acknowledge the statement of the Vice City Police Department, the request by the Chief of Police to invalidate the character testimonies in their current form, and the objection to that request by the plaintiff.
Submission by the United States
[6]. I will begin by handling the submission of the United States.
[7]. It shall be noted that in United States of Argonath v. Patrol Invest Group [2025] SCOTUS, the plaintiff, Mr. Jerry Swindle, was found guilty and convicted of Endangerment, Conspiracy, Unlawful Detainment/Arrest, and Dissuading a Witness or Victim.
[8]. It is also noted by this court that the basis for conviction in that case was evidence that showed these crimes were committed by Mr. Swindle while on active duty as a law enforcement officer. This case, as rightly indicated by the United States, directly contradicts every character reference provided, and given the current ranks of the officials who provided those references, there are serious concerns by this court regarding the VCPD Command Staff.
[9]. The concerns outlined in Paragraph 8 are compounded by the conviction of VCPD Deputy Chief Arthur Williams in United States of Argonath v. Whitney Georgia [2025] SCOTUS, who has also provided a character testimony for the plaintiff in this case. The inquiry into Deputy Chief Williams and the Vice City Police Department remains ongoing, however, this compounds the issues and, as a result, the entire command staff of the Vice City Police Department is now considered a liability in this case.
Submission by the Vice City Police Department
[10]. This court notes the submission of Chief of Police Gabriel Adams.
[11]. This court acknowledges the official stance of the Vice City Police Department as being in complete unison with the Federal Bureau of Investigation, per Chief of Police Adams.
[12]. I also acknowledge the request by the Chief to invalidate the character testimonies in their current form, and for those providing them to do so without their rank or any insignia of the Vice City Police Department.
[13]. I do agree with the Chief of Police that members of the department should not be liberally attaching departmental logos and titles in such a way that one may construe their submission to be official or otherwise representative of the Vice City Police Department more broadly.
[14]. However, I also note the objection by the plaintiff and their indication that the ranks of the witnesses are proof of relevant backgrounds and demonstrate competence to provide testimony. I am inclined to agree with the plaintiff.
[15]. That said, neither Chief Adams nor Mr. Swindle are wrong. The officers providing their testimony should be allowed to provide proof of relevant backgrounds, and at the same time, should not make statements that could be considered representative of the Vice City Police Department, without authorisation.
[16]. I counsel the Chief that simply stating or signing with a rank does not necessarily constitute a de facto representation of the department, and is an appropriate demonstration of relevant background. However, it is also true that these statements should make clear, as you have stated, that these are personal opinions and not representative of the department overall.
[17]. I therefore allow the character references to stand and this court will acknowledge the ranks of the Vice City Police Department personnel providing these references. However, this court will not consider these stances to be representative of the Vice City Police Department in any way, and recognises the official stance of the department to be as earlier stated by Chief of Police Gabriel Adams.
Addressing the character references by Vice City Police Department personnel
[18]. This court notes the submissions of Deputy Chief of Police Arthur Williams and his rank of Police Captain at the time of submission.
[19]. This court notes the submissions of Captain Rafael Johnson and his rank of Senior Officer at the time of submission.
[20]. This court notes the submissions of Officer Hazard.
[21]. As the presiding Justice over not only this appeal, but also the prosecution of the Patrol Invest Group and the prosecution of Whitney Georgia, I am truly stunned at the character references provided and their stark contrast to the reality of the situation at hand.
[22]. I also note the official stance of the Vice City Police Department and wonder why its own Command Staff are proceeding to contradict that stance in defence of a now-convicted criminal.
[23]. There is an insane lack of good judgment and common sense by the individuals providing these references. None of these references stands to reason in the face of hard evidence and the convictions based on that evidence.
[24]. I acknowledge that an individual is innocent until proven guilty, as was indeed stated by Mr. Williams in his reference. However, even prior to the convictions in the prosecution against the Patrol Invest Group, Mr. Swindle was a convicted criminal, as a result of impersonating a state official. Making a decision as to whether one could provide a character reference, certainly of the sorts made in this case, would not violate Mr. Swindle's right to remain innocent until proven guilty, but only show an opinion and judgment by those making the reference. It is evident that those who have written these glowing references are completely detached from reality and have made unbelievable assertions based on completely misguided and flawed judgment.
[25]. The truly baffling aspect of this case is the complete ineptitude of the entire VCPD Command Staff. This also raises serious questions as to whether the Command Staff are simply incompetent or if there is something more sinister at play, such as a protection racket among senior police, shielding individuals such as Jerry Swindle.
[26]. Although unusual for a court to question the internal workings of an agency or department, given the circumstances and the incredible lack of good judgment shown by senior law enforcement personnel in this case, I also call into question the judgment of Chief Gabriel Adams and his appointments of these individuals in the department's top ranks.
[27]. It is certainly my opinion that the Vice City Police Department's Command Staff needs to face serious scrutiny, and that this Command is not fit for purpose until such scrutiny has been appropriately applied. I state this opinion per precedent from the cases United States of Argonath v. Hulk Green and Andrew Davidson [2022] AATC, United States of Argonath v. FBI Director Kowalski [2022] AATC and United States of Argonath v. Andrew Aky [2022] AATC.
Addressing the character references by civilian Affanster
[28]. This court notes the submissions of civilian Affanster.
[29]. In this situation, Mr. Affanster is a civilian, and it is plausible to this court that he may be speaking purely from a personal point of view, which does not involve relevant information. Mr. Affanster is also not expected to be as accurate in his judgment, as he is not a law enforcement official, and thus shouldn't be held to the same standard or expectation as senior law enforcement personnel, where judgment calls are concerned.
[30]. However, based on the evidence, it is also evident that Mr. Affanster's character reference is also at odds with reality.
Addressing the assertions of Mr. Swindle
[31]. Mr. Swindle, you have stated that you acknowledge the mistake you made, impersonating a state official. While this could be a plausible reason, on its own, for this court to consider lowering your penalties, this is all in stark contrast to your convictions in the case against the Patrol Invest Group.
[32]. Given your convictions, there is no plausibility to your assertions that you had good intentions and wished simply to serve and protect. You are a convicted criminal, and it is evident that you have used law enforcement equipment and authority to break the law in a most deplorable fashion.
[33]. Accounting for that, I cannot see any good reason for any court to show you leniency, especially when it is all too evident that you are attempting to lie to this court, claiming to have had the best of intentions while flagrantly disregarding and breaking the law. This has to be the most infuriating case I've handled as interim Chief Justice thus far, and you are really testing my patience.
[34]. You have asserted before this court that "my case in this appeal is to prove that my intentions were good", "my intentions, as I said, were nothing but good, and had not an ounce of malice", and that "As I hope the supreme court can see, I possess a portfolio of service as a police officer, which can be seen by the people on the field as positive. My only goal is to protect Vice City and it's people to the best of my ability."
[35]. Not an ounce of malice... really? You make that claim after being convicted of crimes involving abuse of law enforcement power on your part? Not to mention, you claim people see your service as positive - that means nothing in the face of hard evidence. All it shows is that the people are unaware of the reality of the situation. It is beyond evident to this court that your goal is not to protect Vice City and its people, for if it was, you would not be a convicted criminal, nor, based on your conduct showcased in the Patrol Invest Group trial, an unprofessional, unstable and incoherent fool.
[36]. If anything, I question how you have the absolute temerity to even attempt to appeal your conviction before this court by lying to our faces. How stupid do you think we are?
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES (SCOTUS)
JUDGEMENT AND RULING - JERRY SWINDLE APPEAL
Verdict
[37]. The plaintiff's appeal is DENIED. All penalties previously issued to Mr. Swindle stand.
[38]. The plaintiff is also found GUILTY of a further three counts of Perjury.
Fines and Imprisonment
[39]. I sentence the plaintiff to a further two (2) years imprisonment.
[40]. I issue the plaintiff a further monetary penalty of $25,000 ARD. I order that, should the defendant be unable to pay the total penalty, any property, businesses, vehicles or other assets in the possession of the defendant be liquidised to pay the penalty. Any remaining funds from the liquidation of assets should be sent to the Treasury.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES (SCOTUS)
JUDGEMENT AND RULING - VCPD COMMAND STAFF
[41]. Per United States of Argonath v. Hulk Green and Andrew Davidson [2022] AATC, United States of Argonath v. FBI Director Kowalski [2022] AATC and United States of Argonath v. Andrew Aky [2022] AATC, there is precedent for this court to order dismissals, suspensions and reviews into relevant involved agencies.
[42]. It is evident to this court that the VCPD Command Staff is severely lacking in the ability to apply competent judgment. Their backing of a convicted criminal raises very serious concerns, and this issue must be thoroughly investigated. However, this Command is not fit for purpose until an investigation and independent assessments are conducted. It is also the opinion of this court that a Commissioner, of a higher rank than the Chief of Police, should be tasked with supervision of the department on an interim basis.
[43]. As no wrongdoing has been observed by this court on his part, I see no reason to suspend or issue other unilateral disciplinary action against Chief of Police Gabriel Adams. However, the court does order that Chief Gabriel Adams shall undergo an independent investigation regarding the actions of his appointed command staff and be reassessed for his fitness for the position of Chief of Police. Further action against Mr. Adams or the appointment of an interim Chief of Police is to the discretion of the investigating authorities appointed by the relevant municipal authorities.
[44]. Deputy Chief Arthur Williams and Captain Rafael Johnson are both suspended from active duty, effective immediately.
[45]. I order an independent and immediate investigation into the VCPD Command Staff.
[46]. I order the appointment by relevant municipal authorities of an interim Police Commissioner, and other interim VCPD Command Staff where necessary, to oversee the Vice City Police Department for the duration of all investigations and inquiries taking place.
I certify that the preceding fourty-six (46) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Chief Justice Michael Cleveland.
ORDERED, on this 30th day of December, 2025.
Signed,
Michael Cleveland
The Hon. Michael Cleveland
Chief Justice of the United States
_______________________
Footnotes:
1 OOC: Appointment as interim Chief Justice by the United States Government - assigned to close all active cases by VC:MP Leadership.
2 OOC: Per direction of VC:MP Leadership, cases are non-appealable and therefore judged by the Supreme Court of the United States.
3 OOC: As Chief Justice, my authority has been vested in me by the VC:MP Leadership. As such, all actions taken have been approved by VC:MP Leadership.
4 OOC: For all my disagreements with the bloke, Huntsman was completely correct in saying that the Patrol Invest Group was nothing more than a nuisance and troll RP, and we obviously weren't going to stand back as you try to chicken your way out of the RP consequences. You made your bed, now you can lie in it. I'm pretty sure Argonath's meant to be a roleplay server (albeit not a hardcore one), not a clown show where everybody has some shits and giggles for the funnies.
5 OOC: Aky, with respect, I'm not sure why you even posted here. This is a totally separate case to the PIG trial in which your deceased character was involved. Given your reply is OOC, you're not gonna be found in contempt, but I'm not sure what point you were trying to make. It only stands to reason that an appeal against a conviction/penalty should be suspended if they're facing yet another one. Thank you.
JUDGEMENT SUMMARY
Today, the Supreme Court of the United States heard an appeal by Jerry Swindle. This appeal was denied and Mr. Swindle was also found to have committed a further three acts of perjury and was fined accordingly. Furthermore, the Command Staff of the Vice City Police Department has been suspended pending a full independent investigation. The appointment of an interim command has been ordered.
- This statement is not intended to be a substitute for the reasons of the Court or to be used in any later consideration of the Court’s reasons.
~Distributed by authority of the Supreme Court of the United States~
10
VC:MP Courts / Re: United States of Argonath vs. Patrol Invest Group
« Last post by Kowalski. on December 28, 2025, 08:15:21 pm »Supreme Court of the United States EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW | From: The Hon. Michael Cleveland, Chief Justice of the United States Address: United States Supreme Court Building, 1 First Street, Northeast D.C., U.S. Topic: "Re United States of Argonath vs. Patrol Invest Group" Proceeding Number: VC-CR0012/2025 |
| Medium Neutral Citation: | Re United States of Argonath vs. Patrol Invest Group [2025] |
| Date of Decision: | 29 December 2025 |
| Jurisdiction: | Common Law |
| Before: | Cleveland M |
| Catchwords: | CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - RACIAL PROFILING CRIMINAL LAW - UNLAWFUL DETAINMENT/ARREST CRIMINAL LAW - ENDANGERMENT CRIMINAL LAW - CONSPIRACY |
| Legislation Cited: | Constitution for the State of Vice Vice City Criminal Law Law Enforcement Code of Vice City Interim Constitution (reference/precedent) |
| Cases Cited: | United States of Argonath v. Whitney Georgia [2025] SCOTUS United States of Argonath v. The Gonzales Mafia [PENDING] United States of Argonath v. [DU]Orochi [2022] AATC United States of Argonath v. Hulk Green and Andrew Davidson [2022] AATC United States of Argonath v. FBI Director Kowalski [2022] AATC United States of Argonath v. Andrew Aky [2022] AATC |
| Texts Cited: | None. |
| Parties: | United States of Argonath (Prosecution) Jerry Swindle (Defendant) Buster Nutt (Defendant posthumous) David Brand (Criminal Liability) |
| Representation: | Kowalski (P) Michael Collin (D) |
NOTICE OF ESCALATION
[1]. The Supreme Court of the United States notifies the defense and the prosecution that, due to administrative and bureaucratic issues within the judiciary, this case has been escalated directly to I, Justice Michael Cleveland, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States.
[2]. For the reference of all involved, in the absence of a permanent Chief Justice of the United States, I, Justice Michael Cleveland, have been confirmed in an interim capacity by the United States Government to act as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States until further notice or nomination of a permanent Chief Justice.
[3]. I note that this case has been in process since September 04, 2022. It is the opinion of this court that enough time has elapsed for any and all litigation and further submissions. Further submissions will not be accepted as the court is set to hand down its verdict.
[4]. As this case is before the United States Supreme Court, and furthermore before the Chief Justice, this court makes clear that this is a final judgment and cannot be appealed.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES (SCOTUS)
CASE BREAKDOWN AND EVALUATION - JERRY SWINDLE
[1]. I call on the defendant, Mr. Jerry Swindle, to rise.
Endangerment
[2]. Per the Vice City Criminal Law 2021:
Quote from: Vice City Criminal Code
Section 5: Crimes against Person(s)[Emphasis original]
Article 12: Endangerment - Knowingly engaging in conduct that creates a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury to another.
[3]. It is evident that both Buster Nutt and Jerry Swindle were unnecessarily aggressive towards FBI Director Kowalski, brandishing a weapon against him during a frisk search in which he was visibly complying.
[4]. Mr. Swindle proceeded to accuse the Director of possessing an incendiary device while Mr. Nutt was aiming a weapon towards him, and in the presence of other armed law enforcement personnel.
[5]. I note the response by the defense counsel.
[6]. I am inclined to agree with the prosecution that it is absurd to question whether or not an individual could tell the difference between a Global Positioning Device (GPS) and a bomb. I also consider the citation of the case "United States of Argonath v. The Gonzales Mafia" to be directly relevant, for it is evident within the case that incendiary devices can come in different forms, however, are at least somewhat distinguishable. I accept the notion that a covert incendiary explosive device (IED) of sorts could exist or be assembled, however, I find it utterly implausible that one would confuse a legitimate GPS device for such.
[7]. I am also inclined to agree with the prosecution's assertion that Mr. Swindle should not be on the force if he is unable to handle the stress and pressures of the job.
[8]. It is also stated by the prosecution that competent law enforcement would not hesitate to act in a situation where they are faced with an armed terrorist. Mr. Swindle's actions suggested FBI Director Kowalski was one, for no reason other than possessing a GPS device.
[9]. Mr. Swindle's actions are highly unprofessional, and in the view of this court, bring himself and the Patrol Invest Group, a supposed de facto law enforcement organisation he represents, into disrepute.
Conspiracy + Unlawful Detainment/Arrest
[10]. This court notes that Mr. Swindle was not the arresting officer in this circumstance.
[11]. This court also notes that it was Senior Officer David Brand who ordered an arrest warrant to be issued, under seemingly unlawful circumstances, and that it was Mr. Buster Nutt who ultimately issued the warrant.
[12]. Per the Criminal Code and the Law Enforcement Code of Vice City:
Quote from: Vice City Law Enforcement Code
Section 4: Custody and Detention
Article II: A person may be arrested for any crime outlined in the Criminal Code. The person must be informed promptly of the reason for their arrest. The person must also be informed of their full list of miranda rights as listed in the Constitution.
Quote from: Vice City Criminal Law
Section 5: Crimes against Person(s)[Emphasis original]
Article 10: Conspiracy - An agreement between two or more persons to break the law in the future.
Section 10: Crimes against Justice
Article 5: Dissuading A Witness Or Victim - A person who knowingly and maliciously prevents or encourages any witness or victim from attending or giving testimony at any trial, proceeding, or inquiry authorized by law with the use of bribery, fear, or other tactics.
[13]. Section 10, Article 5 of the Criminal Code, though usually used in the context of legal proceedings, this court considers a warrant execution to be such. Furthermore, it is clear to this court that FBI Director Kowalski was threatened with arrest and was ultimately arrested under false pretences. I also find that all parties neglected to read Mr. Kowalski his miranda rights, thus breaching the Constitution.
[14]. It is evident to this court that Senior Officer David Brand issued the order for the arrest. This court agrees with the prosecution that a "Nuremberg defence" does not excuse the defendant from punishment for his actions, whether he was aiding Mr. Nutt or following the instructions of Senior Officer Brand. It only means that Senior Officer Brand, by virtue of having given the order, is also liable for the same.
[15]. This court does agree with the prosecution that anyone involved in a criminal act should be held accountable for that act. Precedent for this exists under the former Interim Constitution and cases previously judged on those grounds - notably United States of Argonath v. Whitney Georgia [2025] SCOTUS.
[16]. I therefore consider Mr. Swindle liable for any criminal acts in which he took part, whether those acts were initiated by him or not.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES (SCOTUS)
CASE BREAKDOWN AND EVALUATION - BUSTER NUTT
Racial Discrimination
[17]. It is evident that the defendant, Mr. Buster Nutt, called a suspect a terrorist and then mentioned that he is black.
[18]. It is arguable that Mr. Nutt was simply describing the suspect. However, it is also obvious that Mr. Nutt was being deliberately provocative and unprofessional, as is evidently the typical behaviour and conduct of the Patrol Invest Group.
[19]. The prosecution argues that a suspect wanted for a battery charge was racially profiled and labelled a terrorist based on their skin colour.
[20]. It is, by law, the right of every individual to be considered innocent until proven guilty. The suspect being pursued was not necessarily proven guilty, and one could hardly be considered a terrorist simply for allegedly committing an act of battery.
[21]. It is also evident that Mr. Nutt's intentions were more than just a mere description, based on the unhinged way he was screaming and conducting himself over the police radio. It's evident that the Patrol Invest Group have bent the rules on numerous occasions and even gone so far as to break the law. Furthermore, a description would be clear - law enforcement would typically communicate a description in a more professional way. For instance, "Male, adult, Black, blue shirt, black jeans". This seemed to be nothing other than an incompetent and unstable individual screaming over the police radio, with no useful information other than "TERRORISTS HE'S BLACK".
[22]. Based on the context of Mr. Nutt's communications and his overall conduct, I consider there to be sufficient grounds to believe that Mr. Nutt did racially profile the suspect, thus violating the Constitution.
Endangerment
[23]. I am inclined to agree with the prosecution that FBI Director Kowalski was unnecessarily endangered by Mr. Nutt's actions. There is no evident reason for Mr. Kowalski to have been held at gunpoint during a routine frisk search. This court does acknowledge that police personnel would be armed, and for security purposes, may even have had those weapons in view. However, there was no reason for Mr. Nutt to hold the Director at gunpoint.
[24]. The issue began when Mr. Nutt aimed his weapon at Mr. Kowalski. I accept the notion that there was an excessive show of force, though I will not characterise it as a "use of force" per se, as the prosecution has done, as no force was used. This does not negate the crime nor the seriousness of the situation; however, to constitute use of force would require the actual deployment of a weapon, melee or otherwise.
[25]. I do accept that FBI Director Kowalski was a civilian, and an unarmed one at that, at the time. It is the opinion of this court that the conduct of Buster Nutt and Jerry Swindle did pose a threat to Mr. Kowalski's life and safety, given the environment and the circumstances.
Conspiracy + Unlawful Detainment/Arrest
[26]. Per the Criminal Code and the Law Enforcement Code of Vice City:
Quote from: Vice City Law Enforcement Code
Section 4: Custody and Detention
Article II: A person may be arrested for any crime outlined in the Criminal Code. The person must be informed promptly of the reason for their arrest. The person must also be informed of their full list of miranda rights as listed in the Constitution.
Quote from: Vice City Criminal Law
Section 5: Crimes against Person(s)[Emphasis original]
Article 10: Conspiracy - An agreement between two or more persons to break the law in the future.
Section 10: Crimes against Justice
Article 5: Dissuading A Witness Or Victim - A person who knowingly and maliciously prevents or encourages any witness or victim from attending or giving testimony at any trial, proceeding, or inquiry authorized by law with the use of bribery, fear, or other tactics.
[27]. Once again, this court notes that the arrest order was given by VCPD Senior Officer David Brand.
[28]. However, as aforementioned, a "Nuremberg defense" would not acquit Mr. Nutt of his crimes. It is also noted by the court that Mr. Nutt issued the warrant for FBI Director Kowalski's arrest, albeit on the order of Senior Officer Brand.
[29]. Once again, this court notes that the order was given by VCPD Senior Officer David Brand. It is the findings of this court that FBI Director Kowalski was arrested under false pretences, and that this was done at the behest of Buster Nutt and Jerry Swindle, irrespective of David Brand's involvement. Both individuals did indeed conspire to break the law. It is evident that the two were in agreement in their decisions to unlawfully arrest FBI Director Kowalski. As aforementioned, all parties neglected to read Mr. Kowalski his miranda rights, thus breaching the Constitution.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES (SCOTUS)
CASE BREAKDOWN AND EVALUATION - DAVID BRAND
Conspiracy + Unlawful Detainment/Arrest
[30]. Senior Officer David Brand of the Vice City Police Department has been deemed a criminal liability in this case, due to his involvement.
[31]. The conduct of the Patrol Invest Group as it pertains to the charges of conspiracy and unlawful detainment/arrest visibly originates from the order given by Mr. Brand to arrest the off-duty FBI Director. No valid reason is given, only an unlawful direction for Mr. Kowalski to leave the scene within 15 seconds.
[32]. This, legally, means that Senior Officer Brand is also liable for the charge of Dissuading a Witness or Victim, as he unlawfully threatened Mr. Kowalski, despite it being the listed defendants from the Patrol Invest Group who acted on that threat. Senior Officer David Brand clearly ordered the Patrol Invest Group to undertake an unlawful arrest - this does constitute Conspiracy as well, for the Patrol Invest Group agreed to cooperate with Senior Officer Brand's unlawful instructions. Multiple individuals were involved in this breach of the law - Senior Officer Brand ordering it, with Buster Nutt and Jerry Swindle taking action.
[33]. However, the court also notes that this appears to be due to incompetence on the Senior Officer's part, as opposed to malicious or criminal intent. Though this does not clear Mr. Brand, the court will take this into account. It is the opinion of this court that the Senior Officer was doing what he perceived to be his job. While unacceptable for an officer to display such ineptitude, it shows a lack of, or gaps in, Officer Brand's training, and a lack of understanding on his part as well.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES (SCOTUS)
JUDGEMENT AND RULING - JERRY SWINDLE
Sentencing
[34]. The defendant is found GUILTY of one count of Endangerment.
[35]. The defendant is found GUILTY of one count of Conspiracy.
[36]. The defendant is found GUILTY of one count of Unlawful Detainment/Arrest.
[37]. The defendant is found GUILTY of one count of Dissuading a Witness or Victim.
Fines and Imprisonment
[38]. I accept the demands of the prosecution and consider them well-founded and appropriate, given the gravity of the offences.
[39]. I sentence the defendant to twenty (20) years imprisonment.
[40]. The defendant is ordered to pay damages of $10,000 ARD as compensation to FBI Director Kowalski.
[41]. I therefore issue the defendant a total monetary penalty of $145,000 ARD. I order that, should the defendant be unable to pay the total penalty, any property, businesses, vehicles or other assets in the possession of the defendant be liquidised to pay the penalty. Any remaining funds from the liquidation of assets should be sent to the Treasury.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES (SCOTUS)
JUDGEMENT AND RULING - BUSTER NUTT
Sentencing
[42]. The defendant is posthumously found GUILTY of one count of Racial Profiling.
[43]. The defendant is posthumously found GUILTY of one count of Endangerment.
[44]. The defendant is posthumously found GUILTY of one count of Unlawful Detainment/Arrest.
[45]. The defendant is posthumously found GUILTY of one count of Dissuading a Witness or Victim.
Fines and Imprisonment
[46]. I accept the demands of the prosecution and consider them well-founded and appropriate, given the gravity of the offences.
[47]. The defendant would've been sentenced to twenty (20) years imprisonment, were he alive to stand trial. As such, I will reflect the lack of jail time in monetary penalties.
[48]. The defendant would've been fined a total of $145,000 ARD, were he alive to stand trial. As aforementioned, I will reflect the lack of jail time in monetary penalties.
[49]. The defendant is posthumously ordered to pay damages of $10,000 ARD as compensation to FBI Director Kowalski.
[50]. The defendant is posthumously issued a total monetary penalty of $200,000 ARD. I order that, should the defendant be unable to pay the total penalty, any property, businesses, vehicles or other assets in the possession of the defendant be liquidised to pay the penalty. Any remaining funds from the liquidation of assets should be sent to the Treasury.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES (SCOTUS)
JUDGEMENT AND RULING - DAVID BRAND
[51]. Senior Officer David Brand is found GUILTY of one count of Unlawful Detainment/Arrest.
[52]. Senior Officer David Brand is found GUILTY of one count of Conspiracy.
[53]. Senior Officer David Brand is found GUILTY of one count of Dissuading a Witness or Victim.
Fines and Imprisonment
[54]. This court orders, per precedent, that Senior Officer David Brand be dismissed from their position as a Senior Officer of the Vice City Police Department, with immediate effect. Mr. Brand is not prohibited from re-applying to the Vice City Police Department; however, the court orders that Mr. Brand is ineligible for reinstatement, and the Vice City Police Department must start Mr. Brand over in the Academy as a Cadet, should he wish to return to the department.
[55]. Senior Officer David Brand is ordered to pay damages of $5,000 ARD as compensation to FBI Director Kowalski.
[56]. Senior Officer David Brand is issued a monetary penalty of $5,000 ARD. Should Mr. Brand be unable to pay the fine, this court orders the liquidation of any assets required to pay the fine, and for remaining liquidation funds to be sent to the Treasury.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES (SCOTUS)
JUDGEMENT AND RULING - MISCELLANEOUS DEMANDS
[57]. I accept the demands of the prosecution, for the most part.
[58]. The collective known as the Patrol Invest Group is declared a criminal entity. The Patrol Invest Group in its current formation is forcefully disbanded, liquidized and declared to be illegal in any and all capacities.
[59]. Identification of any person working on law enforcement duty as, or leadership of, a collective under the same name "Patrol Invest Group" is prohibited, and that "Patrol Invest Group" is restricted as a patent, copyright, or trademark. However, this shall not be instituted permanently.
[60]. The imposition of demands by the prosecution as cited in Paragraph 59 may be lifted at the discretion of a lower court, should a formal plea be made.
I certify that the preceding sixty (60) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Chief Justice Michael Cleveland.
ORDERED, on this 29th day of December, 2025.
Signed,
Michael Cleveland
The Hon. Michael Cleveland
Chief Justice of the United States
_______________________
Footnotes:
1 OOC: Appointment as interim Chief Justice by the United States Government - assigned to close all active cases by VC:MP Leadership.
2 OOC: Per direction of VC:MP Leadership, cases are non-appealable and therefore judged by the Supreme Court of the United States.
3 OOC: As Chief Justice, my authority has been vested in me by the VC:MP Leadership. As such, all actions taken, including David Brand's dismissal, have been approved by VC:MP Leadership.
4 OOC: Per VC:MP Leadership, posthumous financial penalties are approved against defendant Buster Nutt (Aky).
JUDGEMENT SUMMARY
Today, the Supreme Court of the United States heard a case against the Patrol Invest Group in which the defendants were found guilty, fined and sentenced. The Supreme Court also found VCPD Senior Officer David Brand to be criminally liable and ordered his dismissal from the Vice City Police Department, along with damages awarded and monetary penalties imposed. Due to Buster Nutt being posthumously tried, additional penalties were imposed to compensate for the lack of jail time. The Patrol Invest Group was also declared an illegal entity, with interim restrictions imposed on patents, copyright and trademarks for the Patrol Invest Group. These restrictions may be lifted by a Judge, should a plea be made to a lower court.
- This statement is not intended to be a substitute for the reasons of the Court or to be used in any later consideration of the Court’s reasons.
~Distributed by authority of the Supreme Court of the United States~