|
|
Guests: 132
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 (interim) Address: United States Supreme Court Building, 1 First Street, Northeast D.C., U.S. Topic: "Re United States of Argonath vs. Allison Leonard" Proceeding Number: VC-CR2112/25 |
| Medium Neutral Citation: | Re United States of Argonath vs. Allison Leonard [2025] |
| Date of Decision: | 21 December 2025 |
| Jurisdiction: | Common Law |
| Before: | Cleveland M |
| Catchwords: | CRIMINAL LAW - ASSAULT WITH A DEADLY WEAPON CRIMINAL LAW - ENDANGERMENT CRIMINAL LAW - VANDALISM |
| Legislation Cited: | Constitution for the State of Vice Vice City Criminal Law |
| Cases Cited: | United States of Argonath v. Whitney Georgia [2025] SCOTUS |
| Texts Cited: | None. |
| Parties: | United States of Argonath (Prosecution) Allison Leonard (Defendant) |
| Representation: | Kowalski (P) Allison Leonard (D) |
NOTICE OF ESCALATION
[1]. The Supreme Court of the United States notifies the defendant and the prosecution that, due to administrative and bureaucratic issues within the judiciary, this case has been escalated directly to I, Justice Michael Cleveland, Interim 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
[1]. I call on the defendant, Mr. Allison Leonard, to rise.
Assault with a Deadly Weapon - Count One
[2]. Per the Vice City Criminal Law 2021:
Quote from: Vice City Criminal Law
Section 5: Crimes against Person(s)[Emphasis original]
Article 9: Assault with a deadly weapon - An assault that is committed with any type of deadly weapon, such as a firearm, or using force that is likely to cause great bodily injury to another.
[3]. There is no evident lawful purpose behind the brandishing of a firearm or other weapon, as clearly demonstrated in the evidence. It is evident that Agent Aiden Harris posed no threat; rather this court sees Mr. Harris being confronted by two individuals, one of whom (Mr. Leonard) is brandishing a katana.
[4]. Despite Agent Harris clearly stating that Mr. Leonard was scaring him with the katana, Mr. Leonard continued to do so, showing signs of aggression over Mr. Harris refusing to indulge his deluded fantasies.
[5]. I note that Mr. Leonard then labelled Agent Harris as a "son of a bitch shit eater" before proceeding to assault the Agent by attacking him using the barrel of his MP5 sub-machine gun.
[6]. Given that the barrel of such a firearm is made of metal and the rest of the weapon is generally a hard polymer, as well as the risk of discharging the firearm through its reckless use and the definition of such per the Criminal Code, I accept the notion of the prosecution that this constitutes Assault with a Deadly Weapon.
[7]. As such, this court sets a precedent that Assault with a Deadly Weapon does not necessarily require severe injury, or for that matter, any injury, to be caused, nor the discharge of a firearm or use of a melee weapon capable of, and causing, significant injury. Attacking someone using a deadly weapon, per the definition of this crime, is in itself able to be considered Assault with a Deadly Weapon. It is for a competent court to determine the extent of injuries caused, the way in which the said deadly weapon was used, and the intent behind the crime in question, and judge accordingly.
Assault with a Deadly Weapon - Count Two
[8]. This court notes that Mr. Leonard has discharged an MP5 submachine gun, the same used in the first count of Assault with a Deadly Weapon, towards Mr. Harris' vehicle, in which he was seated.
[9]. It is the opinion of this court that an individual does not necessarily have to be physically harmed in order to constitute assault. For instance, were one to throw a punch and miss, it would still be considered an act of battery.
[10]. Per the definition cited in the Criminal Code:
Quote from: Vice City Criminal Law
Section 5: Crimes against Person(s)[Emphasis original]
Article 7: Battery - Willfully and unlawfully using force or violence upon another.
[11]. An act of Battery is defined as the willful and unlawful use of force or violence upon another, however, there is no legal requirement of injury to occur for such a use of violence or force to constitute Battery.
[12]. This court's interpretation of Article 9, as it pertains to Assault with a Deadly Weapon, is noted in the precedent set in Paragraph 7.
[13]. It is my opinion that this act, just as stated in the aforementioned precedent, does not necessarily require injury to be caused to constitute Assault with a Deadly Weapon. Furthermore, in this case, the discharge of the firearm towards Mr. Harris poses a significant risk of injury, anyway, which only reinforces the case made by the prosecution.
[14]. I therefore consider the second count of Assault with a Deadly Weapon to be valid.
Endangerment
[15]. Per the Vice City Criminal Law 2021:
Quote from: Vice City Criminal Code
Section 5: Crimes against Person(s)
Article 12: Endangerment - Knowingly engaging in conduct that creates a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury to another.
[16]. The evidence submissions by Agent Harris clearly show, not just in one but both counts of Assault with a Deadly Weapon, that there is indeed a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.
[17]. Mr. Leonard assaulted Agent Harris inside of the Downtown AmmuNation using his weapon, striking him in the face. This court does believe that the way in which Mr. Leonard assaulted Agent Harris plausibly risked a head injury and/or neurological damage to the Agent.
[18]. It is also clear to this court that when Mr. Leonard opened fire on the Agent's vehicle, with the Agent inside, that there was a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury to the Agent, were he to be wounded by the gunfire. Irrespective of whether or not this occurred, there was a substantial risk of such an occurrence.
[19]. It is also evident that Mr. Leonard committed both of these acts willfully and knowingly. Whether he was doing so with full mental capacity, and whether or not Mr. Leonard can be considered sane, however, is another matter.
Vandalism
[20]. Per the Vice City Criminal Law 2021:
Quote from: Vice City Criminal Law
Section 9: Crimes against Property
Article 11: Vandalism - A person that defaces, damages, or destroys property that belongs to another.
[21]. It is noted by this court that Mr. Leonard opened fire on Agent Harris' vehicle. This would have resulted in bullet holes to the doors and fenders of the car, judging by the angle and direction at which Mr. Leonard fired from.
[22]. It is also noted by this court that two of Agent Harris' tires were visibly punctured, deflated and damaged as a result of the gunfire. It is also further noted that Mr. Harris, in fear of his life, was forced to drive his vehicle despite the flattened tires, resulting in the bare metal of the wheels making contact with the asphalt as he drove. It is plausible to this court that this could've caused further damage, and it is the opinion of this court that Mr. Leonard, having caused the circumstances for such, should be held liable.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES (SCOTUS)
JUDGEMENT AND RULING - ALLISON LEONARD
Sentencing
[23]. I find the defendant GUILTY of two counts of Assault with a Deadly Weapon.
[24]. I find the defendant GUILTY of two counts of Endangerment.
[25]. I find the defendant GUILTY of one count of Vandalism.
Fines and Imprisonment
[26]. I accept the demands of the prosecution and consider them well-founded and appropriate, given the gravity of the offences. However, as the prosecution has stated, the defendant's sanity must be called into question, given the circumstances.
[27]. I also note that the prosecution has demanded a penalty of $20,000 ARD for one count of Endangerment. I consider this an appropriate demand, however, as the defendant has been found guilty of two counts, this penalty will be doubled.
[28]. In the event that the defendant be declared sane, I issue the defendant a total monetary penalty of $90,000 ARD. I order, that should the defendant be unable to pay the total penalty, that any property, businesses, vehicles or other assets in the possession of the defendant, be liquidized to pay the penalty. Any remaining funds from the liquidation of assets should be sent to the Treasury. I order that should the defendant be declared insane, no monetary penalty shall be imposed.
[29]. I order the defendant, Allison Leonard, to be immediately submitted to a psychiatric hospital for examination and a mental assessment. I order the United States Marshals to take the defendant into custody and arrange immediate transport back to Vice City for admission to a psychiatric facility.
[30]. I order that should the defendant be declared insane by a qualified psychiatric institution, that they be sentenced to treatment in a psychiatric hospital for a minimum of 12 months (1 minute), including solitary confinement where deemed appropriate by a psychiatric institution. I order that this sentence is eligible for extension if advised by medical professionals responsible for the defendant's evaluation in any further request and deposition submitted by the facility, under penalty of perjury.
[31]. I order that should the defendant be declared sane by a qualified psychiatric institution, that they be sentenced to 8 years (8 minutes) imprisonment.
[32]. Per the Constitution for the State of Vice:
Quote from: Constitution for the State of Vice
Section 3: Rights and Freedoms
Article 1: All persons that fall under the scope and authority of this constitution are entitled to the following rights, of which they can not be deprived;
K. Freedom to possess certain weapons, however not to openly hold or wield such weapons in public spaces.
Article 2: The following rights; Section 3; Art 1A, 1B, 1G, 1J and 1K may be limited and/or deprived in matters of national security.
Article 3: The following rights; Section 3; Art 1A, 1B, 1E, 1J, and 1K may be limited and/or deprived in cases where it is provided as a penalty by law.
[33]. Under Articles 2 and 3 of Section 3 of the Constitution, I order the imposition of an interim weapons prohibition order on the defendant, Mr. Allison Leonard.
[34]. I order that the terms of this prohibition order are that the defendant, Mr. Allison Leonard, may not legally possess any firearm or weapon for the duration of this order.
[35]. I order that the terms of this prohibition order may be enforced by all municipal, state and federal authorities. I order that any relevant law enforcement authority must, in the event of a sighting of the defendant, Allison Leonard, in possession of a firearm or weapon during the imposition of this prohibition order, arrest Mr. Leonard, charge him with Endangerment, and bring him to trial immediately. I further order that should the defendant be found guilty of such, that a presiding judge must also further charge the defendant with Contempt of Court under Section 10, Article 3 of the Criminal Code.
[36]. I order that this interim prohibition order shall be cancelled in the event that a psychiatric institution finds the defendant to be sane, in which case, the defendant will be imprisoned in a correctional facility.
[37]. I order that this interim prohibition order shall be imposed permanently in the event that Mr. Leonard is declared insane by a psychiatric institution, on grounds of penalty by law and in the interests of both public safety and national security.
[38]. I order that a permanent prohibition order shall be cancelled in the event that the defendant, Mr. Allison Leonard, submits a cancellation request to the court after appropriate treatment. The requirements of this request are that he provides a sworn affidavit by a qualified psychiatrist, containing a declaration under penalty of perjury, that the defendant, Mr. Allison Leonard, is of sound mental capacity to possess a firearm or weapon in public. I further order that the said psychiatrist is to be subpoenaed before the court for a deposition in this cancellation request, under penalty of perjury, to validate and confirm the authenticity of, and information contained within, the affidavit.
I certify that the preceding thirty-eight (38) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Chief Justice Michael Cleveland.
ORDERED, on this 21st day of December, 2025.
Signed,
Michael Cleveland
The Hon. Michael Cleveland
Chief Justice of the United States (interim)
_______________________
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: Psychiatric assessment to be roleplayed, as well as any further depositions within this court pertaining to this case.
JUDGEMENT SUMMARY
Today, the Supreme Court of the United States heard a case against defendant Allison Leonard in which he was found guilty. The Supreme Court ordered immediate evaluation of the defendant by a psychiatric facility to determine the terms of sentencing. The Supreme Court also found Mr. Leonard to pose a danger to himself and the public, and therefore, per the Constitution, issued an interim weapons prohibition order, with further conditions.
- 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~
12
VC:MP Courts / Re: Klaus vs Weazel News
« Last post by Kowalski. on December 19, 2025, 11:51:11 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 Klaus vs Weazel News" Proceeding Number: VC-CIVIL2012/25 |
| Medium Neutral Citation: | Re Klaus vs. Weazel News [2025] |
| Date of Decision: | 20 December 2025 |
| Jurisdiction: | Common Law |
| Before: | Cleveland M |
| Catchwords: | CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - DEFAMATION CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - LIBEL CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - SLANDER |
| Legislation Cited: | Interim Constitution |
| Cases Cited: | None. |
| Texts Cited: | Cambridge Dictionary |
| Parties: | Klaus Meine (Plaintiff) Weazel News (Defendant) |
| Representation: | David A. Jagolinzer (P) Jack Williams (D) |
NOTICE OF ESCALATION
[1]. The Supreme Court of the United States notifies the defendant and the plaintiff 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 July 30, 2019. 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.
[5]. As per submissions by the prosecution dated prior to the adoption of the current Constitution, this case will be judged as per the Interim Constitution.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES (SCOTUS)
RESPONSE AND RULING ON FMR. CHIEF JUSTICE STORMEUS
[1]. This court notes the orders and questions of the former Chief Justice of Florida, Stormeus.
Spoiler for Stormeus: Response Dated August 09, 2019:
[2]. I acknowledge that no further submissions have been made after the response of the former Chief Justice.
[3]. As such, where further evidence has been requested and is lacking, this court will rule based on available information and decide on legal interpretation per the Interim Constitution and submissions already made to the court.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES (SCOTUS)
CASE BREAKDOWN AND EVALUATION
[1]. I call on all parties to rise.
[2]. I will begin by addressing the points of the former Chief Justice and determining the basis for the judgment of this case.
Plaintiff
[3]. Mr. Jagolinzer, you have stated that Weazel News is liable for defamation under the Interim Constitution. In your submissions, you have indicated that the sale of your Squalo was not an auction. However, as the former Chief Justice rightly pointed out, the posting was advertised in the City Hall, and as a result of your accepting bids, silent or otherwise, such could be considered a de facto auction. A silent one, perhaps, but an auction nonetheless. Furthermore, no refutation or submissions were presented in response to the question posed by the former Chief Justice as to how such a posting should be legally interpreted.
[4]. The court notes that it was stated by the staff responsible for the City Hall's auctions that this was not an official auction, per the following:
Quote from: Kessu
Not required, this is not an official auction.[Emphasis - secondary transcript]
[5]. I do accept the plaintiff's suggestion that he did not hold an official auction and that he is within his rights to do so. However, I deny the assertion of the plaintiff that in no way did Mr. Meine advertise the sale of his Squalo as an auction. My basis for doing so is that the plaintiff accepted bids and sold to the highest bidder, as one would in an auction.
[6]. Per the reasons set out in Paragraph 5, the sale of the Squalo will be considered a de facto auction by this court, and will be judged accordingly.
Compensation: Emergency Flights to Washington D.C.
[7]. The plaintiff has made demands for reimbursement of $2,000 ARD for emergency flights to Washington D.C., to address issues brought up in the published article, pertaining to his position at the time as Director of the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation.
[8]. The court understands that official flights are covered by the federal government. This court believes that either the Bureau itself would have a jet plane for the Director, or another government plane used for the Director's transportation, so as to comply with operational safety requirements. It seems improbable to this court that Director Meine would be required to fly commercially, much less at his own expense.
[9]. The court does acknowledge that the possibility does exist that Mr. Meine may have opted against the use of taxpayer funds and may indeed have opted to fly commercially, perhaps waiving certain operational safety requirements or instating different safety standards, given the circumstances. However, no submissions have been made to support this possibility.
[10]. By virtue of allowances and resources at the behest of the federal government, and a lack of supporting evidence thereof, this court dismisses the plaintiff's demand for reimbursement of expenditure on flights from Vice City to Washington D.C.
Compensation: Anxiety and/or Sleep Disturbance
[11]. The plaintiff has submitted demands for compensation of $10,000 for anxiety and sleep deprivation.
[12]. This court acknowledges the response of the defendant to this demand and the timeframe between the publishing of the article and the submission of this civil suit.
[13]. I also consider the response of the defendant and the eyewitness account of Director Klaus Meine on FBI duty within a timespan of one week after this suit was filed, as relevant to this determination.
[14]. This court considers it plausible that Mr. Meine would have been anxious and stressed. It is also plausible in the view of this court that Mr. Meine may have lost sleep as a result of the article and what followed. However, no medical references or information have been provided to support the claims made, nor to justify the demand of $10,000.
[15]. I find that ordering reimbursement to Mr. Meine, regarding compensation for anxiety and sleep deprivation, if awarded, must be proportional to the timeframe, the evidence provided, and is contingent on whether or not Weazel News has, in fact, defamed Mr. Meine.
[16]. I therefore reserve judgment on compensation for anxiety and sleep deprivation until I hand down my final ruling.
Compensation: Emotional Distress
[17]. It is plausible to the court that emotional distress to Mr. Meine and his family may have occurred. However, once again, no medical references or information have been provided to support the claims made, nor to justify the demand of $25,000.
[18]. I find that ordering reimbursement to Mr. Meine, regarding compensation for emotional distress, if awarded, must be proportional to the timeframe, the evidence provided, and is contingent on whether or not Weazel News has, in fact, defamed Mr. Meine.
[19]. I therefore reserve judgment on compensation for emotional distress until I hand down my final ruling.
Compensation: Lost Income
[20]. I consider the response of the defendant and the eyewitness account of Director Klaus Meine on FBI duty within a timespan of one week after this suit was filed, as relevant to this determination.
[21]. It is not plausible to this court that Mr. Meine lost income within the timespan of one week to such an extent that it justifies $50,000 in reimbursement.
[22]. Mr. Meine has also not provided any record of suspension without pay. Once again, no references or information have been provided to support the claims made, nor to justify the demand.
[23]. I also counsel the plaintiff that, in a situation where a loss of income is demonstrable, a court could order full backpay to the individual. Loss of income can generally be reimbursed. This does not negate the possibilty of additional damages from the court, however, awarding additional damages would need to be proportional, and is not necessarily a total reimbursement.
[24]. By virtue of a lack of supporting evidence thereof, I dismiss the plaintiff's demand for reimbursement of lost income.
Compensation: Mental Health Treatment
[25]. I consider the response of the defendant and the eyewitness account of Director Klaus Meine on FBI duty within a timespan of one week after this suit was filed, as relevant to this determination.
[26]. It is not plausible to this court that Mr. Meine suffered a mental health episode or psychological injury that justifies $50,000 in reimbursement, only to be back on active duty within one week.
[27]. Mr. Meine has also not provided any record of suspension from duty nor a report from a qualified psychologist or psychiatrist. Once again, no references or information have been provided to support the claims made, nor to justify the demand.
[28]. By virtue of a lack of supporting evidence thereof, I dismiss the plaintiff's demand for reimbursement for mental health treatment.
Demand: Reporter Firing and Ban
[29]. I note that former Chief Justice Storrmeus has summarily dismissed this demand as unconstitutional. The Supreme Court of the United States is in agreement with the former Chief Justice's interpretation that such a demand would be in contravention to Section II, Ordinance I of the Interim Constitution.
[30]. This court acknowledges that a reporter could be fired from a news agency, however, it is not for this court to take unilateral action against an employee of a business entity.
[31]. Furthermore, this court recognizes the submission of the defense counsel, stating that this article was commissioned and was not written by an official employee of Weazel News. However, this, in itself, would not clear Weazel News of wrongdoing, as they are responsible for the publishing and distribution of the article in question.
[32]. By virtue of overreach, unconstitutionality and infringement on the right to free speech, I dismiss the plaintiff's demand to fire and ban the reporter in question.
Demand: Article Destruction
[33]. It may be reasonable to request destruction of any copies not distributed, though it would be unreasonable to suggest that all distributed copies could be taken back from their recipients and destroyed. Therefore, I cannot necessarily accept this exact demand, per se.
[34]. Furthermore, it could be a more practical solution for, as the next demand requests, which was accepted by the defendant, an apology and/or retraction to be included on the front page of the next publication.
[35]. It does, however, remain to be determined as to whether Weazel News is found to have defamed Mr. Meine. This demand is also contingent on whether or not Weazel News has, in fact, defamed Mr. Meine.
[36]. I therefore reserve judgment on destruction of undistributed copies until I hand down my final ruling.
Demand: Public Apology
[37]. I note that the defendant has accepted this demand already. I do not consider this as a de-facto admission of guilt, given the context, however, the court observes some goodwill on the defendant's part. Though this does not negate the issue at hand, it does demonstrate an effort by Weazel News to rectify the situation.
[38]. However, once again, this court finds that ordering a public apology to Mr. Meine is also contingent on whether or not Weazel News has, in fact, defamed Mr. Meine.
[39]. I therefore reserve judgment on the demand for a court-ordered public apology until I hand down my final ruling.
ANALYSIS: Defamation Claims
Headline: "BIG REVEAL! FBI DIRECTOR SCAM!"
[40]. This court has reviewed the article in question, and the submissions of both the plaintiff and the defendant.
[41]. I note that the first alleged act of defamation took place through the use of the headline "Big reveal! FBI Director scam!".
[42]. I further note the lack of refutation by the defendant to this specific claim, and their claim of "clickbait".
[43]. As no response was provided to the former Chief Justice's inquiry as to what Weazel News considers "clickbait", this court will use the definition of the Cambridge Dictionary.
[44]. This court accepts that the headline would constitute a form of clickbait. However, clickbait does not excuse the defendant from making invalid, untrue or libelous accusations, statements or suggestions. No law provides for any sort of "clickbait protection".
[45]. This court acknowledges the right to free speech. However, the right to free speech also does not simply allow anyone to make any claim, certainly where another's livelihood is affected. Free speech exists, and Weazel News is not legally prevented from exercising that right. However, the right to free speech does not provide immunity from legal action against libel or slander.
[46]. I note that the headline does directly imply that the then-FBI Director was perpetrating a scam, and that Weazel News had somehow exposed such a scam in their article. Though a valid form of clickbait, it also does falsely suggest that Mr. Meine was behind a scam.
[47]. Therefore, per the implications, I find that this headline is libelous and does defame Mr. Meine.
Defamation Claim: Second Citation
[48]. I note that the second allegation of defamation cites the statement "The Director, Klaus, probably was not satisfied with these reasonable offers".
[49]. I further note the refutation by the defendant to this specific claim.
[50]. It is evident by Mr. Meine's bulletin that he was indeed not satisfied with the offers made, as he'd already received one much higher. This court does not imply that there is anything wrong with Mr. Meine's lack of satisfaction with those offers, as it is only natural that one would accept a higher offer, if made.
[51]. However, with that said, this court cannot necessarily comment on what one would consider a "reasonable offer". A "reasonable offer" is subjective to both the individual making the offer, and the seller, as well as accounting for market value, average prices, new and used. Weazel News may consider the offers made to have been reasonable, and such is hardly an act of libel or defamation.
[52]. As such, this statement is an observation at best, and mere speculation at worst.
[53]. I therefore find that this statement is not libelous and does not defame Mr. Meine.
Defamation Claim: Third Citation
[54]. I note that the third allegation of defamation cites the statement "calling Klaus out on playing a dirty trick to artificially raise the price".
[55]. I further note the refutation by the defendant to this specific claim, as well as the defendant's submission of the quoted statement in full.
[56]. The statement in full reads "This tickled the potential buyers and other people's curiousity, as they asked who is the bidder, to which Klaus claimed he asked to remain anonymous; yet many people were very suspicious, calling Klaus out on playing a dirty trick to artificially raise the price for his boat."
[57]. I note that the plaintiff's allegation of defamation by this statement was somewhat contingent on an excerpt of the full statement.
[58]. The defendant raises a valid point that this statement was an observation of sentiments expressed by other people. It is visible on the bulletin that numerous inquiries were made as to the identity of the bidder.
[59]. It is not libelous or slanderous to observe the suspicion of the people within that bulletin, however, this court does not see any example of anyone calling out Mr. Meine for any kind of "dirty trick" or any supposed attempt to artificially raise the price of his boat.
[60]. Furthermore, as this is not an official auction, it is not legally required to be conducted like one. This court sees no reason Mr. Meine would have any reason to attempt to artificially raise the price of his boat, as he can simply deny any offers he considers inadequate.
[61]. The issue with this statement is that Weazel News implies the occurrence of something that did not happen. Mr. Meine was not accused of any wrongdoing by any member of the public within his sale bulletin. Weazel News has falsely suggested that to be the case.
[62]. Furthermore, this statement also reaffirms the falsehood of the headline. The only allegations of wrongdoing by Mr. Meine appear to only have been made by Weazel News, and not by any member of the public.
[63]. As such, I find this statement to be libelous and that it does defame Mr. Meine.
Defamation Claim: Fourth Citation
[64]. I note that the fourth allegation of defamation cites the statement "our FBI Director has been doing us dirty".
[65]. I further note that this citation is an excerpt, and not the statement in full.
[66]. The statement in full reads "People were still very suspicious of the whole ordeal, but let it go due to no way of proving for sure that our FBI Director has been doing us dirty".
[67]. Weazel News has suggested in this statement that there was public suspicion around the ordeal, which this court, based on the transcripts of the sale bulletin, considers a factual observation.
[68]. Weazel News has also further asserted that the public dismissed the matter as there was no evidence of any wrongdoing. Such hardly constitutes an act of libel or defamation. This statement is an observation at best, and speculation at worst.
[69]. As a result, I find that this statement is not libelous and does not defame Mr. Meine.
Defamation Claim: Fifth Citation
[70]. I note that the fourth allegation of defamation cites the statement "our FBI Director, a man in such a high profile public position in Law Enforcement, who among his other duties, is supposed to make sure the police is not corrupt, would lie to everyone for personal gain. Shame!".
[71]. I further note the refutation by the defendant to this specific claim.
[72]. I also further note that this citation is an excerpt, and not the statement in full.
[73]. The statement in full reads "It is very disappointing to find out that our FBI Director, a man in such a high profile public position in Law Enforcement, who among his other duties, is supposed to make sure the police is not corrupt, would lie to everyone for personal gain. Shame!".
[74]. This court acknowledges the defendant's claims of the statement's purpose to challenge the integrity of law enforcement and its necessity to hold law enforcement officers and agencies accountable.
[75]. While this court does agree that law enforcement is, and should be, subject to appropriate scrutiny, this statement does not merely scrutinize, but does in fact suggest a proven or provable act of wrongdoing.
[76]. Weazel News has suggested that Mr. Meine, a senior federal law enforcement official, has misled the public for his own benefit. It does not merely suggest it as a possibility or as a belief or sentiment held by the organization or the broader general public, but as a provable fact.
[77]. It is evident to this court that Weazel News has failed to comprehend the difference between proven facts and observations. The issues this court has observed on Weazel News' part throughout this suit is that it has made allegations, perhaps with the intent of writing from the point of view of the citizens, however, it suggests certain matters to be factual, where they are not.
[78]. For future reference and the setting of precedent, a statement could be considered libelous, slanderous or defaming where it falsely and directly accuses an individual of wrongdoing without evidence and/or opportunity for refutation. A statement would not necessarily be considered such where it suggests a possibility but does not make any accusation of wrongdoing. Section III, Ordinance III of the Interim Constitution states that all citizens and individuals are innocent until proven and declared guilty. This is where Weazel News has failed to communicate accurately and truthfully with the public. Weazel News has made unfounded suggestions of proven wrongdoing, with no opportunity for Mr. Meine to refute those suggestions.
[79]. I find this statement to be libelous and that it does defame Mr. Meine.
Request - Buyer Anonymity
[80]. The plaintiff has requested that the buyer of the Squalo remain anonymous.
[81]. I note that former Chief Justice Stormeus has ruled against this request, due to lack of visibility to the defendant, in the interest of a fair trial.
[82]. This court considers the aforementioned ruling to be correct and necessary to uphold a fair trial.
[83]. This court does also consider the buyer of no relevance to this trial, as their identity ultimately makes no difference to the facts of the case.
[84]. As the buyer's identity has not been disclosed, this request is summarily dismissed. Furthermore, the buyer will have no bearing on this trial.
Determination
[85]. The plaintiff has made a total of five (5) claims of libel and defamation under Act I, Section III of the Interim Constitution.
[86]. I find Weazel News liable for three counts of libel and defamation under Act I, Section III of the Interim Constitution.
[87]. I find Weazel News not liable for two counts of libel and defamation under Act I, Section III of the Interim Constitution.
Orders, Awards and Damages
[88]. This court considers that Weazel News' defamation of Mr. Meine could reasonably have caused anxiety and sleep deprivation.
[89]. However, the plaintiff has failed to submit appropriate supporting evidence and justification for the requested damages.
[90]. Furthermore, per the eyewitness accounts of FBI Director Meine visibly cleared for active duty within the timespan of a week, I do not consider there to be reasonable grounds to award the plaintiff the requested damages in full.
[91]. I award the plaintiff, Klaus Meine, $3,750 in damages for anxiety and sleep deprivation.
[92]. This court considers that Weazel News' defamation of Mr. Meine could reasonably have caused emotional distress to himself and his family.
[93]. However, once again, the plaintiff has failed to submit appropriate supporting evidence and justification for the requested damages.
[94]. Furthermore, once again, per the eyewitness accounts of FBI Director Meine visibly cleared for active duty within the timespan of a week, I do not consider there to be reasonable grounds to award the plaintiff the requested damages in full.
[95]. I award the plaintiff, Klaus Meine, $3,750 in damages for emotional distress.
[96]. I therefore award the plaintiff, Klaus Meine, a grand total of $7,500 in damages, to be paid by Weazel News.
[97]. This court orders that all existing copies of the defaming article that have not yet been distributed are to be destroyed immediately.
[98]. This court orders Weazel News to print a public apology directed to the plaintiff, Mr. Klaus Meine, on the front page of their next publication.
[99]. All other damage claims are dismissed due to a lack of supporting evidence and lack of plausibility.
[100]. This court acknowledges the offer by Weazel News to provide five (5) advertisement vouchers as compensation. This court will not order this provision, and I leave it to the discretion of Weazel News' management to decide if they wish to provide any further compensatory or complimentary measures to the plaintiff.
I certify that the preceding one-hundred (100) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Chief Justice Michael Cleveland.
ORDERED, on this 20th 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 an internet story, title, image, etc. that is intended to attract attention and encourage people to click on a link: - Definition of "clickbait"; Cambridge Dictionary.
JUDGEMENT SUMMARY
Today, the Supreme Court of the United States heard a civil suit by plaintiff Klaus Meine, represented by Attorney David A. Jagolinzer, alleging a total of five (5) counts of libel and defamation. The court heard a defense by Weazel News, represented by its Chief Executive Officer (CEO) Jack Williams. This court found that Weazel News had published observations and speculative statements as if they were fact, which ultimately led to a determination by this court that three (3) out of five (5) counts of libel and defamation had indeed occurred. The Supreme Court awarded proportional damages, accounting for a lack of evidence, plausibility and reasonable judgment.
- 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~
13
VC:MP Courts / Re: United States of Argonath vs. Whitney Georgia
« Last post by Kowalski. on December 17, 2025, 09:34:33 pm »Supreme Court of the United States EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW | From: The Hon. Michael Cleveland, Interim 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. Whitney Georgia" Proceeding Number: VC-CR1812/25 |
| Medium Neutral Citation: | Re United States of Argonath vs. Whitney Georgia [2025] |
| Date of Decision: | 18 December 2025 |
| Jurisdiction: | Common Law |
| Before: | Cleveland M |
| Catchwords: | CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - ROBBERY CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - MURDER CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - THREAT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - INTERRUPTION CRIMINAL LAW - CONTEMPT OF COURT CRIMINAL LAW - SMUGGLING |
| Legislation Cited: | Interim Constitution Crimes (Further Offences) Ordinance 2017 Vice City Criminal Law |
| Cases Cited: | United States of Argonath v. The Leone Family [2019] AATC United States of Argonath v. [DU]Orochi [2022] AATC Andrew Aky's Appeal To Supreme Court [2022] AATC |
| Texts Cited: | None. |
| Parties: | United States of Argonath (Prosecution) Whitney Georgia (Defendant) |
| Representation: | Kowalski (P) Whitney Georgia (D) |
NOTICE OF ESCALATION
[1]. The Supreme Court of the United States notifies the defendant and the prosecution that, due to administrative and bureaucratic issues within the judiciary, this case has been escalated directly to I, Justice Michael Cleveland, Interim 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 October 01, 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.
[5]. As per submissions by the prosecution dated prior to the adoption of the current Constitution, this case will be judged as per the Interim Constitution.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES (SCOTUS)
RESPONSE AND RULING ON THE MATTER OF A STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS
[1]. This court notes the following plea of the defendant and the response of the prosecution to the mentioned plea:
Spoiler for Defense: Plea:
Spoiler for Prosecution: Response:
[2]. I acknowledge that the defendant has pleaded for the imposition of a statute of limitations in the judgment of this case.
[3]. I acknowledge that the prosecution has made a point of suggesting that the investigative methods of the Federal Bureau of Investigation result in time elapsing, and such does not negate a crime.
[4]. I further acknowledge that the prosecution has stated the lack of a statute of limitations within the Interim Constitution or relevant legislation, and the unlawfulness of an imposition of one prior to an official passing and codifying of such a statute in law.
[5]. This court can only issue rulings according to law. I note, in my capacity as Chief Justice, that a sense of procedural fairness and a "spirit of the law" is lacking. This court understands that this suit was brought three years after the first offence was recorded. It is the opinion of this court that a statute of limitations provides for fairness and strengthens the spirit of the law.
[6]. I counsel the United States and parties representing it in its capacity as the prosecution that a case, while determined by law, is also subject to the interpretation of fairness by a court, as reflected in its ruling. It is the view of this court that this case, though valid and submitted on meritorious grounds, has also been submitted with delay. It is not for this court to question the internal workings of the Federal Bureau of Investigation or other involved agencies; however, it is the view of the court that, where possible, lawsuits should be submitted without delay.
[7]. While this court, and I, as Chief Justice, appreciate the intention and spirit in which the plea for the imposition of a statute of limitations has been made by the defence, I must rule according to law. My opinion bears weight in setting legal precedent and interpretation; however, it cannot possibly overrule or ignore the law of the land.
[8]. I therefore dismiss the defence's plea for a statute of limitations. All evidence will be considered valid, with no expiry or limitations imposed.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES (SCOTUS)
IN RESPONSE TO MR. ARTHUR WILLIAMS
[1]. The Supreme Court notes that VCPD Deputy Chief Arthur Williams is in no way involved with this case. Mr. Williams, as a then-Captain and now Deputy Chief of the Vice City Police Department, has not been summoned by any Judge, the defense nor the prosecution. This court will address the statements made and rule on their validity and bearing on the final judgement of the Supreme Court.
[2]. I note the following statement by Deputy Chief Williams:
Surpreme court, my apologies for my interruption as this is an ongoing case but I feel the need to interfere on this matter.[Emphasis original]
[3]. I question, Deputy Chief Williams, your interruption of a court case you've no involvement in. I further question your complete disregard for the rules of the court and your unauthorised intervention in a federal lawsuit. I note to you, Deputy Chief, that this case is entitled "United States of Argonath vs. Whitney Georgia". Your capacity as a Deputy Chief of a metropolitan police department in a singular city does not give you federal jurisdiction of any kind. I therefore question why you feel any need to interfere in any matter pertaining to this case.
[4]. I also note the following further statements by Deputy Chief Williams:
https://www.argonathrpg.eu/index.php?topic=130002.0 is already ongoing, while there is also a complaint ongoing by the defendant facing the prosecution in this case: https://arpd.argonathrpg.com/forum/index.php?topic=42691[Emphasis original]
Personal feuds when it comes to the law need to be put to a halt as early as possible, I feel responsible to interfere as a member of Law Enforcement. Evidence needs to have an expiration date regarding the validity of it since a lot has changed since the moment this has occurred (3 YEARS AGO!).
I hope all this is handled accordingly without any party getting into immediate trouble, nobody gains from situations like these.
Signed,
VCPD Captain Arthur "Nylez" Williams
[5]. I note that Mr. Williams has cited a court case and an internal complaint in his first statement.
[6]. The case cited by Mr. Williams (United States of Argonath v. Patrol Invest Group) lists Kowalski as representing the United States of Argonath (Prosecution). It also lists Jerry Swindle and Buster Nutt as the Defendants. Outside of the FBI Lead Prosecutor, there is no common denominator between these two cases. Whitney Georgia is a different individual and has no involvement with the Patrol Invest Group. I therefore fail to see any relevance of the cited case.
[7]. I note that Mr. Williams has cited a complaint by yet another individual, Homero Sanchez, represented by Sally Slaughter, against an FBI Special Agent. Internal policy matters and separate incidents, whether in breach of any law or not, have no bearing or relevance to this case. I therefore fail to see any relevance of the cited complaint and dismiss the statement in its entirety.
[8]. This court notes that Mr. Williams has implied the presence of a personal feud as a motive behind this lawsuit, and that he considers himself an arbiter of such, with no regard for the actual arbiter of the case - the court and the presiding judge(s). There is no evidence to support the assertion made by Mr. Williams regarding the existence of a personal feud, nor any basis within legislation or court regulations for his self-appointed arbitration of personal feuds within this court. I therefore dismiss both assertions in their entirety.
[9]. While this court agrees with the codification of a statute of limitations, this is not the time nor the place to petition for such. This court also agrees with Mr. Williams that nobody gains from situations like these and also agrees that everything should be handled accordingly, as it will. However, this court states, Mr. Williams, that there is one party in immediate trouble - you.
[10]. I absolutely will not allow for the regulations of this court to be disregarded and for this chamber to descend into a circus of clownery and smartassery. As a Deputy Chief of Police within the Vice City Police Department, a reasonable individual would expect that Mr. Williams would understand, appreciate and abide by the rules and regulations of the court. I fail to understand why Mr. Williams, as he stated, feels the need to interfere in a federal lawsuit over the top of the presiding judge.
[11]. I further cannot fathom your mere presence here, Mr. Williams. I wonder, did you seriously come from Vice City to Washington D.C., just to interrupt a federal lawsuit? This, in your official capacity, making statements on behalf of the Vice City Police Department in the United States Supreme Court, where it has no jurisdiction nor involvement in this case. I can only wonder how much taxpayers' money was abused by your unnecessary, irresponsible and unwelcome travel to, and interruption of, this chamber.
[12]. Furthermore, Mr. Williams, your position means that your actions here are highly unacceptable. You know better, and you know full well that your actions are unacceptable. You know this court has rules and regulations, yet, in your official capacity no less, you proceeded to disregard them entirely and disrespect the presiding judge, the parties involved and the judiciary in its entirety as an institution.
[13]. The Supreme Court considers Mr. Williams to have violated the decorum of the court. As such, I will disregard this individual's statements in their entirety and strike them completely from the record. Mr. Williams shall have no bearing on the ruling or verdict of this case whatsoever.
[14]. I note that the actions of Deputy Chief Williams occurred after the adoption of the current Constitution and Criminal Law. As such, Mr. Williams will be judged according to those and the former Interim Constitution and/or Crimes Ordinance where appropriate.
[15]. Pending my final judgment and ruling, I therefore order the Marshal of the United States Supreme Court to detain Mr. Williams, and that Mr. Williams is taken into custody by and of the United States Supreme Court Police. I further order the Marshal and the Supreme Court Police under the Marshal's command to await my ruling on Mr. Williams for charges and further instructions.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES (SCOTUS)
CASE BREAKDOWN AND EVALUATION
[1]. I call on the defendant, Ms. Whitney Georgia, to rise.
Brandishing a Firearm
[2]. Per the Interim Constitution:
Quote from: Interim Constitution for the State of Vice (Exp. 03/04/2021)
Ordinance II[Emphasis original]
The government shall not restrict a citizen's right to bear arms. However, weapons must not be in public
sight without lawful purpose. This does not apply to appointed law enforcement agencies unless directed
otherwise by proper law enforcement officials.
Act I
Under punishment by law enforcement, no individual may commit murder, acts of thievery or burglary,
assault, vandalism, rape, abduction, fraud, or any act of harming one's wealth, property, or health.
Act IV
Threats or plotting a criminal act, or encouraging a criminal act is a crime.
[3]. There is no evident lawful purpose behind the brandishing of a firearm, as clearly demonstrated in Agent Templeton Peck's submissions. I see no immediate threat to Ms. Georgia's life; rather, an innocent Agent Peck being confronted by two individuals, one of whom (that being Ms. Georgia) is brandishing a high-powered 12-gauge shotgun.
[4]. It is evident that Ms. Georgia has threatened Mr. Peck with violence and death to leave the area in which he is lawfully present, with no legal basis. This is further proven by Mr. Peck pleading to her not to shoot, to which she responds "then fuck off, now". This is a clear indicator that Ms. Georgia intended to, and would, shoot Mr. Peck if he did not comply with her unlawful instructions.
Unloading Stolen Bearer Bonds + Accessory to Murder
[5]. Per the Interim Constitution:
Quote from: Interim Constitution for the State of Vice (Exp. 03/04/2021)
Act I
Under punishment by law enforcement, no individual may commit murder, acts of thievery or burglary,
assault, vandalism, rape, abduction, fraud, or any act of harming one's wealth, property, or health.
Act VI
Anyone taking part in an offense is guilty of that offense. Anyone encouraging, helping to prepare or
to commit that offense is guilty of that offense.
[6]. The court notes, per Director Klaus Meine's evidence, that Ms. Georgia drove and unloaded bearer bonds from the stolen truck in which they were stored.
[7]. The court also notes, per the same evidence, that Ms. Georgia did so as a result of the murder of law enforcement officials by those aiding her, and by murdering the law enforcement officers present, removing the impediment to her crimes.
[8]. By virtue of taking part in this criminal enterprise, Ms. Georgia has encouraged the murder of the slain law enforcement officials in her quest to unload and traffick stolen bearer bonds for monetary gain. It is the view of this court that Ms. Georgia's actions equate to committing the murders herself.
Smuggling
[13]. Per the Interim Constitution and the Crimes (Further Offences) Ordinance 2017:
Quote from: Interim Constitution for the State of Vice (Exp. 03/04/2021)
Act IV
Threats or plotting a criminal act, or encouraging a criminal act is a crime.
Act VI
Anyone taking part in an offense is guilty of that offense. Anyone encouraging, helping to prepare or
to commit that offense is guilty of that offense.
Quote from: Crimes (Further Offences) Ordinance 2017
Section 9: Smuggling Offence
It is a criminal offence for any person to help traffic or bring in any contraband that is not being transported by legal means such as shipping or business delivery to Vice City.
Minimum Penalty per Count: $16,000 ARD and/or 5 years (5 minutes) imprisonment
[14]. The evidence submissions by Agent Kowalski clearly show Ms. Georgia is assisting an undercover informant with smuggling, a criminal offence.
[15]. Ms. Georgia has shown a clear interest in assisting the informant by introducing them to illicit means of monetary gain. The evidence indicates her counsel and guidance in this illegal enterprise.
[16]. Having assisted and taken part in the crime, per the Interim Constitution, Ms. Georgia has therefore also committed that crime and is legally liable for the same.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES (SCOTUS)
JUDGEMENT AND RULING - WHITNEY GEORGIA
Sentencing
[18]. On the charge of Unlawfully Brandishing a Firearm, the defendant is found GUILTY. Furthermore, the defendant is also found GUILTY of one count of making criminal threats.
[19]. On the charges of robbery, theft, and accessory to two counts of murder, the defendant is found GUILTY.
[20]. On the charge of accessory to smuggling, the defendant is found GUILTY.
Fines and Imprisonment
[20]. I accept the demands of the prosecution and consider them well-founded and appropriate, given the gravity of the offences. However, as smuggling carries a minimum fine of $16,000 and a minimum sentence of five (5) years imprisonment per the Crimes (Further Offences) Ordinance 2017, my judgment shall reflect that.
[21]. Where appropriate and supported by evidence, this court, per the Interim Constitution, considers Ms. Georgia to be guilty of the offences to which she is an accessory. As such, sentencing will reflect that, and she will be liable for the same offences, per the law.
[22]. I sentence the defendant, Whitney Georgia, to 40 years imprisonment. I order the United States Marshals to take the defendant into custody and arrange immediate transport back to Vice City to begin serving her sentence.
[23]. I issue the defendant a monetary penalty of $191,000 ARD, to be seized from the defendant's bank account(s). Should the defendant be unable to pay the sum, I further order the liquidation of any property, businesses, vehicles or other assets to cover the penalty ordered, with any remaining liquidation funds to be sent to the Treasury.
I certify that the preceding twenty-three (23) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Chief Justice Michael Cleveland.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES (SCOTUS)
BREAKDOWN, JUDGEMENT AND RULING - ARTHUR WILLIAMS
[1]. Per the Interim Constitution and Criminal Law 2021:
Quote from: Interim Constitution for the State of Vice (Exp. 03/04/2021)
Ordinance V
Anyone disturbing court processes may be removed from the court by any necessary means.
Ordinance VI
No one may speak in a court of law unless authorized by a presiding judge. Only a party's attorney or a member
of one of the involved parties may speak in a court case.
Quote from: Criminal Law 2021
Section 3: Trial
Article 2: During all proceedings, courthouse rules and regulations must be observed. Failing to do so shall result in being in contempt of court and liable to a fine of $10000.
Section 10: Crimes against Justice
Article 3: Contempt of Court - A person who willfully disobeys the verbal or written order of court authority, disrespects the decorum of the court or otherwise infringes upon due process. (This charge can only be issued by a Judge)
[2]. Deputy Chief Williams has disrespected the decorum of the court and infringed upon due process through his unnecessary, unauthorized and disrespectful interference. Mr. Williams was, at no point, authorised by a presiding judge to speak within this case. Though Mr. Williams is entitled to his opinion, this trial is not the place for it. The interruption was disrespectful to the court as it provided no real facts or legal basis, but was merely a matter of opinion regarding a matter outside of his jurisdiction. This behavior is not appreciated by the court, and the statements made by Deputy Chief Williams are an insult to the experience, intelligence and authority of the presiding judge(s). It may be that Mr. Williams considers himself to be smarter than the Judges of this court or the prosecution; however, that does not make it so. That may be his opinion of himself, however, it is certainly not the opinion of this court.
[3]. It is the opinion of this court that Mr. Williams has also brought the Vice City Police Department into disrepute as a result of his actions. I question if this action was sanctioned by his superiors, of which there is only one, the Chief of Police, or if this was a rogue act. I consider it worthy of further action.
[4]. Per United States of Argonath v. FBI Director Kowalski, United States of Argonath v. Hulk Green and Andrew Davidson, and United States of Argonath v. Andrew Aky, there is precedent for this court to order dismissals, suspensions and reviews into relevant involved agencies.
[5]. As the Chief Justice, it is my opinion that it would be a significant overreach by this court to intervene and issue unilateral disciplinary action or terminate employment, on the basis of these actions alone. However, it is also the opinion of this court that questions must be answered as to why this was allowed to occur, if it was sanctioned, and if the Deputy Chief is suitable for his position. This court retains, per precedent cited in Paragraph 4, the authority to take necessary action.
Sentencing - Fines and Imprisonment
[6]. I find VCPD Deputy Chief Arthur Williams in contempt of court.
[7]. I therefore find Deputy Chief Arthur Williams GUILTY of one count of Contempt of Court.
[8]. I order the Marshal of the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court Police under the Marshal's command to charge Mr. Williams accordingly. I order the United States Marshals Service to extradite Mr. Williams back to Vice City, with his combined detainment and transport to Vice City not to exceed a period of 48 hours.
[9]. I order Mr. Williams' detainment and extradition timeframe of 48 hours to constitute imprisonment. I therefore sentence Mr. Williams to 48 hours' imprisonment, during which he shall be extradited to Vice City by United States Marshals.
((OOC NOTE: This does not need to occur in-game, as 48 hours roleplay time is probably a few seconds at most.)
[10]. I issue Mr. Williams a monetary penalty of $17,500 ARD, accounting for a defined liability of $10,000 in the Criminal Code, with a 75% increase in account of his position. I further impose an additional 25% increase to the base $10,000 liability as reimbursement of taxpayer funds to be immediately sent to the Treasury. I therefore impose upon Mr. Williams a total $20,000 fine for his actions and reimbursement of government funds abused in its facilitation.
[11]. I order, per precedent, an independent government inquiry into the VCPD Command Staff to determine if this was sanctioned or a rogue action, and to take appropriate action against any parties determined to be involved or to have sanctioned this contempt of court.
[12]. I order, per precedent, that Deputy Chief Williams be independently reassessed and approved fit for his position.
I certify that the preceding twelve (12) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Chief Justice Michael Cleveland.
ORDERED, on this 18th day of December, 2025.
Signed,
Michael Cleveland
The Hon. Michael Cleveland
Chief Justice of the United States
_______________________
Footnotes (OOC):
1 Appointment as interim Chief Justice by the United States Government - assigned to close all active cases by VC:MP Leadership.
2 Per direction of VC:MP Leadership, cases are non-appealable and therefore judged by the Supreme Court of the United States.
3 Independent reassessment - completely at the discretion of the VC:MP Leadership.
JUDGEMENT SUMMARY
Today, the Supreme Court of the United States heard a case against defendant Whitney Georgia in which she was found guilty, imprisoned and fined. The Supreme Court also found an unauthorised intrusion by VCPD Deputy Chief Arthur Williams to be in contempt of court and charged appropriately, taking into account his position and the official signature on the statement.
- 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~
14
Groups & Families / Re: The Gvardia Family || San Fierro's Main Power || Best criminal group of 09/10/11
« Last post by Sarmed on December 03, 2025, 09:30:57 pm »yooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
15
News and Announcements / Re: New Ownership of Argonath RPG
« Last post by Traser on December 01, 2025, 11:46:59 pm »Sad too see argonath like this, no-one around.
16
SA:MP Account Problems / Re: Forgot my password - [WS]Michael
« Last post by Huntsman on November 07, 2025, 06:30:16 pm »hey man. The forums are largely abandoned. Please go to Argonath Discord, you'll have better luck there.
17
SA:MP Account Problems / Forgot my password - [WS]Michael
« Last post by Perfect_Knight on October 18, 2025, 02:20:09 pm »Hello Team,
It seems like i have forgotten my password for the SAMP server. I would love to reset it.
Thank you
It seems like i have forgotten my password for the SAMP server. I would love to reset it.
Thank you
18
Groups & Families / Re: The Gvardia Family || San Fierro's Main Power || Best criminal group of 09/10/11
« Last post by Kenji on October 06, 2025, 12:55:59 pm »ah mfker edit it and put me in the video
19
Groups & Families / Re: [SA:MP] The Continental Network - Fort Carson Chapter
« Last post by Sawyer on September 21, 2025, 09:01:07 pm »continental freecop squadHas it really been 4 years since that?
20
Groups & Families / Re: The Gvardia Family || San Fierro's Main Power || Best criminal group of 09/10/11
« Last post by Leon. on September 20, 2025, 05:04:23 pm »goood ollld times..strakki*
stracci, corleone, cems, BaLLaS, i9, gvardia, luciano, keep em going man. good times.
corleon*
kems*
BaLLS*
i9*
gavarida*
lukkiano*