[GUILTY] United States of Argonath vs [SS]Lederhos. / Roy_Mustang

[Kessu]

From: Vice City Police Department Headquarters
VCPD Headquarters, 231 Washington Beach Road, Vice City, Florida
To: Honorable Criminal Court Judge
143 Downtown State Street, The Court House, Vice City, Florida
Topic: United States of Argonath vs. Roy_Mustang


I. Opening Statement

The VCPD and the Federal Bureau of Investigations were apprehending a common criminal and the chase lead up to the Private Property owned by [SS]Lederhos. (name at the time, now Roy_Mustang) where the criminal was caught storing items within the property right before he was killed by the law enforcement. The criminal in question was identified as "Roy_Earle".

The F.B.I acted quickly based on this, but was not able to get anything illegal from the storage, just weaponry.

II. Case Breakdown

Criminal acts committed by the Defendant
We, the FBI, declare the criminal violations committed by the defendant to be listed herein:

• Allowing his property to be used by a common criminal during illegal activities

• After approval of the search warrant, the following buildings were searched and weaponry was seized from them:

      Private Property #86, Phil's Place, Little Haiti

  The property is under Roy_Mustang's ownership. There was no illegal weapons found stored inside the property.

III. Evidence

Exhibit I

Evidence of the criminal storing weapons within the property

Specifics of warrant issued by FBI:

Federal warrant #12 - [SS]Lederhos. / Roy_Mustang
Evidence given to the FBI on July 28th, 2017
Warrant filed on July 29th, 2017
Warrant approved by Judge Alexander Treblin (PulseEffect) on July 29th, 2017
Executed on July 31st, 2017

IV. Charges & Demands

Charges

One count - Allowing property to be used for illegal activity.

Demands

• Defendant to be issued a fine of $10.000 as a penalty for allowing his property to be used with illegal activities.
• Defendants to serve 6 months (45 seconds) in federal prison.

V. Settlement Offer

If the defendants plead guilty to all charges in court then the FBI & VCPD is willing to lower its demands to $7.500 financial penalty and 3 months (30 seconds) in federal prison.

Signed,

F.B.I Director Kim Purp Lee

F.B.I Special Agent Nylez Straccione

VCPD Deputy Chief Hynek Lydell Pershing

[Marcell]

((posting for Lederhos as he's unable to register an account))
** Ray Mustang steps into the courtroom **

Hello your honour my name is Ray Mustang, and I'd like to answer regarding said accusations.

I'd like to request evidence regarding the said charge: 'allowing property to be used for illegal activity'. Dear Judge, in the evidence presented, I am not present during the scenario whatsoever and there's no proof I had connections to the man. If I give a friend keys to my car and he decides to be batshit insane and use it to drive into a shopping mall, how would I be responsible for that? every human has his own will, and unless there's evidence that I was aware of such conspiracy, I don't see how I could be punished for the charge presented. I was not even present in town at the moment thus I do not see how could I be associated with such crime. Until any evidence regarding this is presented, I'd like to a) Plead not guilty b) Request 25,000$ reimbursement for the fact all of my legal weapons are missing now. (((or respawn them through a manager given how the raid script works))).

Signed,
Ray Mustang

[Kessu]

Your honor, there is a precedent warrant request made on the same Defendant and his old cartel, which also clearly states he was already connected to the criminal "Roy_Earle" previously.

Warrant request

((The ingame names were since changed from [SS]krystianoo to Roy_Earle and [SS]Lederhos. to Roy_Mustang))

[Marcell]

Your honor, there is a precedent warrant request made on the same Defendant and his old cartel, which also clearly states he was already connected to the criminal "Roy_Earle" previously.

Warrant request

((The ingame names were since changed from [SS]krystianoo to Roy_Earle and [SS]Lederhos. to Roy_Mustang))

**An old grisly looking man steps inside**
My name is Joe Becker and I'm ex-SWAT Commander who served VCPD for a few years, I'd just like to notice that Mr. Krystianoo's deportation was documented and that Mr. Roy Earle isn't connected to him to the best of my knowledge.
http://www.argonathrpg.eu/index.php?topic=120284.0
**the man leaves a dossier on the Judge's desk and leaves the courtroom**.

[PulseEffect]

Vice City Law Courts Argonath Federal Court

From: The desk of the Honorable Alexander Treblin Address: 143 Downtown State Street, Downtown Vice City, Florida Topic: "United States of Argonath v [SS]Lederhos/Roy Mustang" Proceeding Number: VC-CR0003/2017

COURT MINUTE

Firstly the Court has taken notice of the criminal case filed and will proceed with such case unless there is a substantial rebuttal to it. This rebuttal has come by the defendant submitting an interesting question to the Court regarding if he is criminally responsible for illegal property being stored at his property without his knowledge. I would like submissions from both sides about this question, with a interlocutory judgement regarding the matter to be handed down within two days.

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

[1].        That submissions regarding criminal responsibility of the defendant (Roy Mustang) in regards to illegal weaponry being stored at his property be submitted to the Court within two days.

ORDERED, on this 1st day of August, 2017.

Signed,

Alexander Treblin
Alexander Treblin
Judge

[Kessu]

Your honor, there is a precedent warrant request made on the same Defendant and his old cartel, which also clearly states he was already connected to the criminal "Roy_Earle" previously.

Warrant request

((The ingame names were since changed from [SS]krystianoo to Roy_Earle and [SS]Lederhos. to Roy_Mustang))

Your honor, I would like you to go through the evidence listed in my previous statement. This connects the defendant to the criminal who was killed in action, where as both of them did crimes together.

Clarification; The F.B.I would like to submit one more evidence file from the previous warrant request to the public evidence of this case, so that the defendants can go over the evidence themselves as well.

Evidence file

In this evidence file, the defendant was caught using the property of now deceased Roy_Earle (under different identification called krystianoo) and committing crimes with it, tying up any doubt of their connection and knowledge of how they use each others properties.


While krystianoo might have been deported, it is in no way impossible that he was smuggled back to the city under false identification.


United States of Argonath vs Monty Singh

The F.B.I would also like to point out that in this case, the defendant was charged with a conspiracy charge but it was dropped because there was no evidence to support connection between the defendant and his tenant(s).

In this case however, there is a precedent raid based on the same individuals, thus proving that he has acknowledged who uses his property and what for, regardless of if he is in town or not.

That is all.

[Marcell]

*Roy Mustang steps in*
Your honour, the Prosecution claims that Roy Earle is, or rather was krystianoo but under a false identity.
 
First of all, krystianoo was handed over to San Escobar's authorities and deported there, as per this, where he remains in custody.
 
Which raises a question; how could he be smuggled back to Vice City under a false identification if he remains in prison?
 
How would he cross the border?
 
Even if he succeeded at that, how would he manage to own Leaf Links and the Vercetti Estate with legit papers? Properties worth over 3 million?
 
How would Mr. Earle's be known as a detective from Los Santos? (as per this)
 
But that is not all.
 
Mr. Earle is an ex-VCPD Officer and an ex-SWAT Operative.
 
How would he be accepted into the VCPD Academy, pass it, become a VCPD Officer and a SWAT Operative all while being a criminal who's meant to be in San Escobar prison?
 
Is the F.B.I really suggesting that our border protection, law systems are so flawed that this would be possible?
 
The Prosecution's statement revolves around claims that Mr. Earle is in fact krystianoo - which in the Defence's opinion - have been refuted in our statement.

[PulseEffect]

Vice City Law Courts Argonath Federal Court

From: The desk of the Honorable Alexander Treblin Address: 143 Downtown State Street, Downtown Vice City, Florida Topic: "United States of Argonath v [SS]Lederhos/Roy Mustang" Proceeding Number: VC-CR0003/2017

COURT MINUTE

This is to notify all parties that an interlocutory judgement around the question of criminal responsibility of the defendant will be issued tomorrow.

DATED, on this 2st day of August, 2017.

Signed,

Alexander Treblin
Alexander Treblin
Judge

[PulseEffect]

Vice City Law Courts Argonath Federal Court

From: The desk of the Honorable Alexander Treblin Address: 143 Downtown State Street, Downtown Vice City, Florida Topic: "United States of Argonath v [SS]Lederhos/Roy Mustang" Proceeding Number: VC-CR0003/2017

Medium Neutral Citation:	United States of Argonath v Mustang [2017] AFCR 1
Date of Decision:	3 August 2017
Jurisdiction:	Common Law
Before:	Treblin J
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Criminal responsibility of property owners who have illegal property stored at their property.
Legislation Cited:	Interim Constitution
Cases Cited:	United States of Argonath v Gvardia [2016] AFCR 12 United States of Argonath v Singh [2016] AFCR 8
Texts Cited:	None.
Parties:	United States of Argonath (Prosecution) Roy Mustang (Defendant)
Representation:	Kim Purp Lee (P) The defendant appeared in person.

HEADNOTE
 
[This headnote is not to be read as part of the judgement]
 
This is a mid-case ruling on the criminal responsibility of the defendant in regards to his property whereby he claims that he did not know that a deceased person used his property for illegal purposes. The Court ruled against the defendant in this interlocutory judgement.

The Court also ruled that any person who allows their property to be used by others can be held criminally responsible when other parties use their property for illegal purposes such as storing of illegal weapons and narcotics.

In this judgement: United States of Argonath v Gvardia [2016] AFCR 12 and United States of Argonath v Singh [2016] AFCR 8 CITED.

INTERLOCUTORY JUDGEMENT

[1].        The defendant in this matter is charged with one count of allowing his property to be used in illegal activity.¹ The defendant contests this charge on the basis that he did not know that the property was being used for illegal purposes, specifically storing of weapons that were used in the commission of a criminal offence, and thus he cannot be held criminally responsible for the offence laid against him.

[2].        The defendant also raises the fact that he was not in the state at the time and provides evidence of a court submission that says he was deported for “terrorism, drug distribution and leading a criminal organisation”.²

[3].        Finally, there is the suggestion that the deceased and the defendant are not connected because they have different names. For the purposes of this judgement and the case, the Court rules that using a change name does not grant you immunity, exclusion or any special consideration for offences committed under old names unless a death certificate can be provided. ((Administration may wish to overrule this part of the judgement if they wish to do so.))

Prosecution Response

[4].        The prosecution countered by putting forward evidence¹ that connected both the defendant and the deceased who stored illegal items at the defendant’s property. For the purposes of this judgement, that exhibit will be called “Exhibit I1”.

[5].        Furthermore they brought caselaw from United States of Argonath v Singh [2016] AFCR 8 to support their argument by saying that by demonstrating a relationship between the deceased and defendant, this means that the defendant is criminally responsible.

[6].        They also contend that whilst there may be documentation of the defendant having left the state, there is no certainty that the defendant did not return.

Ruling

[7].        Consistent with Stormeus CJ’s position in Singh and in Gvardia,⁴ there is an onus on the prosecution to demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant is linked to anyone using their property for illegal purposes in order to continue the case.

[8].        I am satisfied that the prosecution has done this, the defendant and the deceased previous engaged in criminal acts and were associated enough to trust one another that they both could freely use each other’s property for illegal purposes. This is demonstrated in Exhibit I1, specifically Exhibit I1-A and the list of owned properties which the state provided in that warrant request.

[9].        With regards to the deportation issue, I find it of no relevance to the matter, as there was never any judicial approval of that deportation and whilst the 'deceased' may have been incarcerated in another state’s jurisdiction. I am satisfied that regardless, he may of returned to the state via false name, identification, etc. And as outlined in paragraph three of this judgement, it would appear that the deceased did return to Vice City. As such this does not preclude or shield the defendant. Moreover, the Interim Constitution’s s III act VI states: ‘Anyone encouraging, helping or preparing or to commit that offence is guilty of that offence.’ In these matters, it should be held that owners allowing usage of their property to others may be held liable for criminal offences (specifically abetting and aiding a criminal) which involve illegal weapons, narcotics or otherwise which are stored at the owner’s property.

DECISION

[1].        That the defendant can be held criminally responsible for the crime alleged by the prosecution.

ORDERED, on this 3rd day of August, 2017.

Signed,

Alexander Treblin
Alexander Treblin
Judge

_______________________
Footnotes
¹ Indictment at para IV.
² Defendant’s Filings #1 and #2.
³ Exhibit I1.
⁴ See United States of Argonath v Gvardia [2016] AFCR 12 [2]-[4] (Stormeus CJ)

AMENDMENTS

3 August 2017 - Significant amendment to paragraph nine to bring it in line with defence submissions.

JUDGEMENT SUMMARY
Today, the Argonath Federal Court was asked if a defendant could be held criminally liable for allowing their property to be used for illegal purposes without their knowledge. The Court held that defendants can be held criminally responsible if a link can be established between any criminals who used the property and the owner, and the demonstration of illegal items which are seized from that property. The Court further relied upon Act VI of the Criminal Law to support this ruling.
 

• 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.

[Roy Earle]

This is the text answer for Kessu:

Thanks for showing what an unprofesional idiot is Mr. Alexander Treblin from Vice City Court - but let's take the bull by the horns. Women earn less because they ARE shorter, they ARE weaker, they ARE less aggresive – and they ARE less inteligent. On the average, of course. It was (before the political correctness times) in every manual of psychology, it is invariantly demonstrated in American SAT tests, after my speach the scientists from the Netherlands repeated the IQ tests with the same result. Yet stereotypes are very resistant to the facts...

Women are less inteligent – but they are more clever. Why in the majority of couples a man is taller, stronger, more aggressive and more inteligent than his woman? Because great majority of women want their men to be taller, stronger, more aggressive and more intelligent than they are! It proves they are wiser: I haven't seen a single girl chasing a man because of his beautiful legs...

An illustration of the gender gap.

If the court decides that a name change has no value in RP despite it happening a few months before this raid and court case, I don't see why name changes exist at all.

There are men and women working for the European Parliament (working – not sitting at the desk and getting equal payment for doing nothing!) Men earn much more. Why? Because all the drivers are men – and almost all sweepers are women. One must be more intelligent to be a driver than to be a sweeper ...

And one strange fact. I often say (which is actually also true) that women have (on the average!) much better memory, than men. And I NEVER met a men who got angry at me for such a statement!

[PulseEffect]

Vice City Law Courts Argonath Federal Court

From: The desk of the Honorable Alexander Treblin Address: 143 Downtown State Street, Downtown Vice City, Florida Topic: "United States of Argonath v [SS]Lederhos/Roy Mustang" Proceeding Number: VC-CR0003/2017

COURT MINUTE

The defence and prosecution have two days to submit any final submissions regarding their case, after which the Court will deliver its verdict.

DATED, on this 5th day of October, 2017.

Signed,

Alexander Treblin
Alexander Treblin
Judge

[PulseEffect]

Vice City Law Courts Argonath Federal Court

From: The desk of the Honorable Alexander Treblin Address: 143 Downtown State Street, Downtown Vice City, Florida Topic: "United States of Argonath v [SS]Lederhos/Roy Mustang" Proceeding Number: VC-CR0003/2017

Medium Neutral Citation:	United States of Argonath v Mustang [No. 2] [2017] AFCR 3
Date of Decision:	10 October 2017
Jurisdiction:	Common Law
Before:	Treblin J
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW - Judge alone trial - trial verdict. CRIMINAL LAW - Defendant charged with allowing his property to be used by a criminal.
Legislation Cited:	Interim Constitution
Cases Cited:	United States of Argonath v Mustang [2017] AFCR 1 United States of Argonath v Singh [2016] AFCR 8
Texts Cited:	None.
Parties:	United States of Argonath (Prosecution) Roy Mustang (Defendant)
Representation:	Kim Purp Lee (P) The defendant appeared in person.

JUDGEMENT

[1].        Roy Mustang (the 'Defendant') stands charged with 'allowing property to be used for illegal activity'.¹ The question of whether he could be held criminally liable for such a crime was dealt with in United States of Argonath v Mustang [2017] AFCR 1. The question now is whether evidence would support a conviction at law.

The Facts

[2].        The primary video evidence provided ('Exhibit P1') initially depicts a helicopter pursuit between law enforcement officials and two armed suspects.² Those suspects then initiate a gunfight in which law enforcement officials then managed to neutralise the suspects.³ During that fight, one of the suspects stores an item at the property in question⁴ ('Property #86').

[3].        Law enforcement officials quickly approached the Court for a warrant to be executed at the premises to discover what was stored at the property. That warranted was granted and the raid was executed. Between the time of the warrant being requested and the warrant being executed, there was an eleven hour difference in which items that were stored at the property then disappeared.

The Parties' Submissions

[4].        The prosecution provided an evidence file ('Exhibit P2') to acknowledge that there was a potential criminal link between the two parties. On interpretation of the evidence, it is clear that the defendant did commit numerous crimes when he was in the state. And on consideration, having knowledge of where to put proceeds of crime or items used in crime in a person's property meant that the deceased did somehow know the defendant.

[5].        The defence only offered the proposition that if he had given his car keys to his friend, and his friend went and did crimes with that car, he would not be punished for such crimes. This proposition is wrong because, to know or have specific knowledge of where to store items of crime or proceeds of crime in a person's property means that the property owner must have told them of such. You would not tell your friend where you store your illicit narcotics, illegal firearms and proceeds of crime were unless you were engaged in a criminal conspiracy.

[6].         As such on this basis, I find there is no reasonable doubt as to offer any explanation as to why the criminals were able to place items at the defendant's property. Thus there is a basis for conviction of a crime at law.

The Actual Crime

[7].         Under the Interim Constitution, s III act VI provides the basis for the charge on which the defendant was indicted.⁵

Sentencing

[8].         On the issue of sentencing, there are three factors to consider: firstly is the State's demands, secondly is the sentencing patterns of previous court decisions and thirdly is the consideration of the various sentencing principles.

The State's Demands

[9].        The State demands a fine of $10,000 ARD and 6 months (45 seconds) imprisonment for the defendant. This is proportional in consideration to the sentencing patterns of the previous court decision.

Previous Court Decisions

[10].      In United States of Argonath v Singh,⁶ the Court sentenced the defendant on the charges of possession of a controlled substance and possession of a restricted firearm to 5 years (15 minutes) and fined the defendant $10,000. In considering the sentencing of this defendant, the monetary fine is standard, as both are indictable criminal offences and both should carry standard monetary fines which may be increased or decreased depending on the sentencing principles the Court wishes to apply. In terms of the imprisonment time, the Court sees that the proposed demands are proportionate.

Sentencing Principles

[11].      There are a number of sentencing principles which I will simply state: deterrence (general and specific), retribution, rehabilitation, denunciation, incapacitation, accountability of the offender and to recognise the harm of the crime done to society. In this case, general and specific deterrence, denunciation and accountability of the offender are relevant.

[12].      In considering general deterrence, there needs to be more done to deter the general public from committing the crime. As such I increase the monetary fine by 10%.

[13].      In considering specific deterrence, the offender plead not guilty which means that the offender does not recognise nor believe he was responsible for his actions. This is troubling to the Court and as such I increase the monetary fine further by 10% and increase the imprisonment time by 3 months (23 seconds, rounded up, 45 divided by 6 is 7.5, x 3 = 22.5).

[14].      In considering denunciation, the offender should be publicly condemned for his actions and criminal links as such I increase the monetary fine by 20% and his imprisonment time by 1 month (8 seconds, using the above method).

[15].      In considering accountability, the offender should be held ultimately accountable for his actions, that is the purpose of the Criminal Justice System. In this case I will increase the monetary fine by 50%.

[16].      In calculation of the monetary fine, the Court has used the following method: 10,000 ARD x 1.10 (general deterrence) = 11,000 ARD. 11,000 ARD x 1.10 (specific deterrence) = 12,100 ARD. 12,100 ARD x 1.20 (denunciation) = 14,520 ARD. 14,520 ARD x 1.50 (accountability) = 21,780 ARD. The final monetary penalty that will be imposed is $21,780 ARD.

[17].      The total imprisonment time to be served by the defendant is 6 months (45 seconds) (base) + 3 months (23 seconds) (specific deterrence) + 1 month (8 seconds) (denunciation) = 10 months (69 seconds).

[18].      In considering the defendant's counter demands, the Court will dismiss them as it will serve as a proper deterrent to the defendant to break off criminal links.

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

[1].        That the defendant: Roy Mustang, be found guilty on the charge of 'allowing property to be used for illegal activity.'

[2].        That the defendant is to be convicted of that crime.

[3].        That the defendant is sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 10 months, (69 seconds) to commence at the earliest date possible when the defendant is taken into custody.

[4].        That the defendant be issued a monetary penalty of $21,780 ARD, to be stripped from the defendant's bank accounts and/or if the defendant cannot pay the sum, for the liquidation of any property, businesses, vehicles or other assets to cover such fine with the rest of the liquidation funds to go to the State.

[5].        That the defendant's counter demands be dismissed.

ORDERED, on this 10th day of October, 2017.

Signed,

Alexander Treblin
Alexander Treblin
Judge

_______________________
Footnotes
¹ Prosecution, 'Indictment', Submission in United States of Argonath v Mustang, VC-CR0003/2017, 31 July 2017.
² Exhibit P1 at [00:07].
³ Ibid at [00:39].
⁴ Ibid at [00:11].
⁵ See also United States of Argonath v Mustang [2017] AFCR 1 [9] (Treblin J).
⁶ [2016] AFCR 8.

JUDGEMENT SUMMARY
Today, the Argonath Federal Court sentenced Roy Mustang to 10 months imprisonment and issued a $21,780 ARD fine for the charge of allowing his property to be issued in illegal activities. The Court also expanded the sentencing discretion of future Courts.
 

• 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.