[GUILTY] United States of Argonath vs. Silent

[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. Silent


I. Opening Statement

The Vice City Division of the Federal Bureau of Investigations, in the name of the United States of Argonath, are hereby suing the following citizen of the State of Vice City;

• Simon Silford (Silent)
• Ingame name during gathering of the evidence was [MKt]Silent, current ingame name is [EAF]Silent

II. Case Breakdown

The Vice City Division of the Federal Bureau of Investigations were conducting a larger scale undercover operation using it's own Agent with an undercover identity to infiltrate known criminal organizations. The FBI asset, with a Rond_Field alias, contacted a man called Simon Silford ([MKt]Silent), a former VCPD official who was dishonorably discharged for poor attitude.
The FBI asset asked the defendant if he could provide weapons for him and the defendant gave the FBI asset keys to his property which was used as a massive storage of both legal and illegal weaponry and items. The raid was done 3 weeks after the evidence was gathered due to the larger scale operation not proving to be working and so the FBI decided to press charges for what evidence was gathered and could be used in court.

The FBI will not reveal the true identity of the undercover asset.

III. Evidence

Exhibit I
Warrant request made on 26th of November, 2017 against the defendant Silford (then known as [MKt]Silent).

Spoiler for Warrant Request:

Federal Bureau of Investigation Vice City Division RAID CASE 2017-11-26 From: Federal Bureau of Investigations Headquarters, Ocean Beach, Vice City To: Court of Vice City SUBJECTS: 1) Silent CHARGES: 1) Posession of illegal items in their property (evidence sent by an informer). Property: Private Property #282, Vice Point Apartment, Vice Point Situation: An undercover FBI asset had gained access to the subject's storage. As seen in the evidence, taken on 11-05. the subject has access to heavy firepower in his armory. The evidence was being withheld at the time due to an another FBI operation related to the subject going on. Now that this operation is over, we've decided to take action. The goal of the raid is to gather evidence for an upcoming court case. Evidence: https://imgur.com/a/PFh6p Signed, Director Gabriel Adams, Federal Bureau of Investigations, VC HQ

Exhibit II
Approval of said warrant on 26th of November, 2017

Spoiler for Approval:

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: "Raid against Private Property #282 (Owner: Silent.)"

EX TEMPORE ORDERS

[1].        That a warrant be granted to to the Federal Bureau of Investigation and/or Vice City Police Department to search and seize any and all illegal items at Private Property #282.

[2].        That a warrant be granted to the Federal Bureau of Investigation and/or Vice City Police Department to stop any individual present at premises during execution of the warrant and to search and seize any and all illegal items on their persons.

ORDERED, on this 26th day of November, 2017.

Signed,

Alexander Treblin
Alexander Treblin
Judge

Exhibit III
Execution of said warrant on 26th of November, 2017

Spoiler for Raid execution:

Album of the raid execution

Exhibit IV
The defendant's continued gathering of illegal items since the initial evidence for the raid was gathered over the period of 3 weeks (21 days) as proven by two pictures posted in Exhibit I and III and to be quoted here.
List of added illegal items are as follows;

• Explosives; 40 kilograms
• Kurz MP5; 540 ammo
• Molotov Cocktails; 32 units

Spoiler for Storage on 5/11/2017:

Spoiler for Storage on 26/11/2017:

IV. Charges & Demands

Charges

• 4 counts of possession of illegal items
• 120 kilograms of explosives
• Semi-automatic Bulldog Shotgun with 500 ammo
• 32 units of Molotov Cocktails
• Kurz MP5 submachinegun with 1254 ammo

Demands

• Defendant to be issued a fine of $150,000.
• Defendant to be jailed for 15 years (15 minutes).
• Defendant's property to be seized by the state.

V. Settlement Offer

Should the defendant plead guilty to all charges, the state is willing to lower the demands to the following;

• Defendant to be issued a fine of $95,000.
• Defendant's property to be seized by the state
• Defendant to not serve jail time

Signed,

F.B.I Special Agent Kim Purp Lee

[Kessu]

Your honor, the prosecution has issued summons for the defendant to appear in court over a discord discussion.

Spoiler for Court summon:

OFF-TOPIC

The plea of guilt shown in the discord chat is not to be taken as an official statement from the defendant as it is not posted here.

[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 Silent" Proceeding Number: VC-CR0009/2017

COURT MINUTE

The Court accepts the criminal case and will require the defendant to enter a plea of either guilty or not guilty. Failure to enter a plea within three days will result in a not guilty plea and the matter will proceed to trial. The defendant's property is also not to be sold or have its ownership changed until the conclusion of the case.

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

[1].        That a formal plea (guilty/not guilty) must be entered into by the Defendant within three days, if there are no substantial procedural issues raised by either party. If no plea is entered into, the Court will note a plea of "not guilty" has been entered into, by the Defendant.

[2].        That the Defendant is restrained from selling or changing the ownership of property #282 until the conclusion of these matters. Breaching such an order is contempt of court and the penalty may be in excess of $100,000 ARD.

ORDERED, on this 7th day of December, 2017.

Signed,

Alexander Treblin
Alexander Treblin
Judge

[Silent]

I appoint [EAF]Alarba as my legal representative 

[Alarba]

On behalf of my Representee,


General Statements

• I would like it to be stated that my Representee acknowleges Exhibit I (Warrant Request), to be valid and in accordance with the evidence presented by the FBI in Exhibit I, and will not dispute the issuing of such warrant.
• My Representee assures the Court that the imposed restriction regarding the ownership of property #282 will be thoroughly respected.
• My Representee acknowledges that he has no other criminal charges, besides possession of illegal weapons, and he is not being associated to any other type of criminal activity.
• My Representee would like to, without any accusatory remarks, but instead to assure that a fair trial takes place, state there is indeed an underlying substancial procedural issue and thus the following has to be stated (Read Direct Statements)

Direct Statements

• According to Exhibit II, Point 1. The FBI/SWAT/VCPD, that I shall be calling as "Entities", were given the permission to SEIZE any and all ILLEGAL items stored in Private Property #282.
• According to Exhibit II, Point 1. No permission was given to SEIZE any and all LEGAL items stored in Private Property #282
• According to Exhibit III and Exhibit IV. The Court has been let known that LEGAL items were SEIZED.
• It follows that the Entities reponsible for carrying out the Warrant went beyond the powers granted by the Court in Exihibit II, Point 1.
• My Representee does not wish to infer as to why such abuse of power took place.
• It also follows that the Court should have been aware of such discrepancy from the moment the Evidence was submitted.
• The execution of the raid is thus perceived, by my Representee, to have been ILLEGAL and UNLAWFUL in manners regarding the SEIZE of LEGAL items.
• This issue is to be clarified first and foremost, before my Representee can make statements regarding IV. Charges & Demands and V. Settlement Offer.

[Kessu]

Your honor, prosecution would like to point out that while raiding illegal items from a storage, any other item stored along with them are taken as well because they are evidence and regardless of the defendant being found guilty or not the evidence will not be given back.

This is a normal procedure made in the previous cases such as;

• United States of Argonath vs VU.Amal
• United States of Argonath vs Edgepool
• United States of Argonath vs [VU]Monty_Singh

EDIT: Better wording (typed the post few minutes after waking up)

[Alarba]

The Prosecution has determined the legal items, that were takem away during the raid, to be evidence. We would like to know what are they evidence of, considering my Representee is only standing in trial for 4 counts of possession of illegal items.

Furthermore the Prosecution makes reference to three previous cases, and claims the execution of the warrant to have been "normal procedure". However in:

• United States of Argonath vs VU.Amal

The specifics of the warrant issued to FBI do not include explicit details about what items are to be SEIZED, unlike Exhibit II, Point 1

• United States of Argonath vs Edgepool

The specifics of the warrant issued to FBI do not include explicit details about what items are to be SEIZED, unlike Exhibit II, Point 1

• United States of Argonath vs [VU]Monty_Singh

The specifics of the warrant issued to FBI do not include explicit details about what items are to be SEIZED, unlike Exhibit II, Point 1

I ask the Court to dismiss the points raised by the Prosecution.

The SEIZE of LEGAL items is to be perceived as being UNLAWFUL and ILLEGAL and so I ask for the Court to consider it as being a case of Ex turpi causa non oritur actio.

[Alarba]

I would also like to add:

In State v. Gvardia's court ruling :

• The VCPD and cooperating agencies must be more deliberate in inspecting the property of raid targets in the future to ensure that seized materials are either illegal by themselves or can be connected to other crimes beyond a reasonable doubt.

[Kessu]

Warrant approval from United States of Argonath vs VU.Amal

Spoiler for Hiden:

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: "Raid against Private Property #150 [No. 2]"

PRIVATE COURT COMMUNICATION

Once the raid has been carried out, any additional charges against the owner should be added in the current criminal case against the owner.

EX TEMPORE ORDERS

[1].        That a warrant be granted to to the Federal Bureau of Investigation and/or Vice City Police Department to search and seize any and all illegal items at Private Property #150.

[2].        That a warrant be granted to the Federal Bureau of Investigation and/or Vice City Police Department to stop any individual present at premises during execution of the warrant and to search and seize any and all illegal items on their persons.

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

Signed,

Alexander Treblin
Alexander Treblin
Judge

As you can see, the warrant does state "seize of any illegal items" and yet everything was raided as per correct procedure.


The United States of Argonath vs Gvardia case is a poor example to use since procedures were not followed even remotely close to the warrant itself (Mr. Gvardia was not even part of the warrant, while in this case the Defendant is). The quote used by the defense I believe is thus taken out of context to gain an advantage in this case on false grounds.


Every item tied to a crime is considered evidence and possession of illegal items is no exception to that. Prosecution stands by the raid being lawful and committed as per procedures and the base line set by precedent cases.

[Alarba]

The Prosecution has stated that per correct procedure, everything is raided, despite what the details within the warrant actually are.

It is my opinion that this is a serious statement that goes beyond the scope of this case and puts into question the legality of the raids conducted so far. I'll leave the Court to deliberate on this matter.

The Prosecution has stated that The United States of Argonath vs Gvardia case "is a poor example to use since procedures were not followed even remotely close to the warrant itself".
By doing so the Prosecution has now implied that the procedures during a raid, that do not closely follow the issued warrant, are "poor examples" to use.
The raid conducted on my Representee's property had a procedure that did not closely follow the details within the issued warrant, and I would agree with the Prosecution's logic and label the raid on my Representee's property to be a poor example of how a raid should be carried out.

The Prosecution has stated that every item tied to a crime is considered evidence.
By doing so the Prosecution has now implied every legal item within the property of my Representee is "tied to a crime", without in any way, shape or form, explaining or presenting proof that said legal items are tied to a crime (in this case 4 counts of possession of illegal items).

I do not change my appeal to the Court that this is a case of Ex turpi causa non oritur actio.

[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 Silent" Proceeding Number: VC-CR0009/2017

Medium Neutral Citation:	United States of Argonath v Silent [2017] AFCR 10
Date of Decision:	10 December 2017
Jurisdiction:	Common Law
Before:	Treblin J
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW - Interlocutory questions of law - warrant execution - whether police seizure of legal firearms valid.
Legislation Cited:	Interim Constitution
Cases Cited:	United States of Argonath v Gvardia [2016] AFCR 12 United States of Argonath v Ninith Avenue Razors [2017] AFCR 5
Texts Cited:	None.
Parties:	United States of Argonath (Prosecution) Silent (Defendant)
Representation:	Kim Purp Lee (P) Alarba (D)

INTERLOCUTORY JUDGEMENT

[1].        This is an interlocutory judgement regarding a question of law from the defence stating that the seizure of legal firearms was invalid.¹ The prosecution has rebutted stating that taking of legal firearms is a standard and common procedure as seen in previous cases.² The defence rebutted by citing United States of Argonath v Gvardia³ Stormeus CJ’s judgement at [1]:

1. The VCPD and cooperating agencies must be more deliberate in inspecting the property of raid targets in the future to ensure that seized materials are either illegal by themselves or can be connected to other crimes beyond a reasonable doubt.

[Emphasis added]

[2].        The key points are that the defence is contending whether or not the seizure of legal firearms should be allowed in the execution of the warrant.

What the Law Says

[3].        Defence counsel is partially correct in stating that legal firearms do not form part of general standard warrants. However what both parties fail to cite is the Interim Constitution:

A law enforcement officer can search and seize any illegal material only if justified by reasonable doubts and reasons ...

[Emphasis added]

[4].        What is illegal material depends on what is being alleged, in this circumstance, it is alleged that the defendant was gathering a huge armoury as stated in the information.⁴ Whilst there is a constitutional protection on the right to ‘bear arms’,⁵ this protection is quite vague and the Court will not look for any liberal extension on such. What is the correct interpretation in such a provision is that citizens have the right to possess a reasonable quantity of firearms. In this case, that does not appear to be the case, in the prosecution’s evidence, there is a significant quantity of firearms.

[5].        However, that does not mean that law enforcement can go around looking for significant armouries of legal firearms to seize. Any warrants for such will be denied, in this case, the defendant had a significant sum of illegal firearms too. What the defendant was planning to do with such a significant amount of weapons is beyond the Court’s imagination but may have led to criminal acts, as the defendant was recently discharged by the Vice City Police Department for poor attitude.

[6].        For that reason, law enforcement officials were correct in seizing the legal firearms because those firearms did constitute illegal materials as law enforcement had ‘reasonable reasons’ to believe that the defendant was going to commit criminal acts with such an arsenal.

[7].        Stormeus CJ’s statements in Gvardia⁶ are incorrect as they do not reflect the actual reading of the Constitution, what his honour should have stated was that: ‘The VCPD and cooperating agencies must be more deliberate in inspecting the property of raid targets in the future to ensure that seized materials are either illegal by themselves or can be connected to other crimes by reasonable reasons.

[8].        Because searches of such nature, whether by warrant or without are conducted on the balance of probabilities,⁷ the prosecution is allowed to seize such weaponry and I am satisfied that law enforcement had reasonable reasons to seize such materials because they were likely to be involved in crimes, thus making them illegal. However what is not on the table is for prosecutors to increase charges or demands regarding the amount of legal firearms, as such the current status quo is to remain.

Other Matters

[9].        With regards to whether or not the cases cited by both sides are good law, all cases are good law unless exceptionally stated so by the Court.

Conclusion

[10].      Despite my ruling, I will be reducing the defendant’s final monetary fine by $5,000 ARD to remedy the defendant’s claims as to the seizure of the legal firearms.

I certify that the preceding ten (10) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Treblin.

Register

DATED, on this 10th day of December, 2017.

Signed,

Alexander Treblin
Alexander Treblin
Judge

_______________________
Footnotes
¹ Defence, ‘First Submission’, Submission in United States of Argonath v Silent, VC-CR0009/2017, 9 December 2017.
² Prosecution, ‘Reply to First Submission’, Submission in United States of Argonath v Silent, VC-CR0009/2017, 10 December 2017.
³ [2016] AFCR 12.
⁴ Prosecution, ‘Information’, Submission in United States of Argonath v Silent, VC-CR0009/2017, 7 December 2017
⁵ See Interim Constitution s II ord II.
⁶ United States of Argonath v Gvardia [2016] AFCR 12 [1] (Stormeus CJ).
⁷ See United States of Argonath v Ninith Avenue Razors [2017] AFCR 5 [9]-[10] (Treblin J).


Amendment

10/12/2017 - Paragraph 8 was modified.

JUDGEMENT SUMMARY
Today, the Argonath Federal Court today justified the seizure of a significant sum of legal firearms in a warrant execution despite the contention of the defence.
 

• 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.

[Alarba]

I would like to file an appeal against the Court's interlocutory judgement.

The appeal is based on the following:

By Point 6 and Point 8


• "For that reason, law enforcement officials were correct in seizing the legal firearms because those firearms did constitute illegal materials as law enforcement had ‘reasonable reasons’ to believe that the defendant was going to commit criminal acts with such an arsenal."
• "...the prosecution is allowed to seize such weaponry and I am satisfied that law enforcement had reasonable reasons to seize such materials because they were likely to be involved in crimes, thus making them illegal."

The Defence understands that the VCPD would be inclined to think that way and that the Court would understand the VCPD would act accordingly, however, isn't the Court the correct place to evaluate whether or not such materials were used in illegal activities?

I'll reinforce my statement that the Prosecution has not given any proof regarding said weapons that could link them to any criminal activity nor has the Prosecution given any proof that my Representee has used said weapons to obtain/possess/store the illegal items represented in the 4 counts of possession of illegal items. The Prosecution simply cannot pin any wrongdoings on my Representee.

By Point 5

• "What the defendant was planning to do with such a significant amount of weapons is beyond the Court’s imagination but may have led to criminal acts, as the defendant was recently discharged by the Vice City Police Department for poor attitude."

Once again, is the Court settling for "may" and "may nots"? The Court states it is beyond it's imagination. We are here, spending the taxpayer's money, to settle for facts and the truth, not decisions based upon imagination or lack thereof.

Once again, isn't the Court the correct place to evaluate whether or not such materials were used in illegal activities?

It is of my opinion that the Court should now rule in regards to whether or not said weapons were used in criminal activities considering all the facts and arguments presented.

The Defence considers that if the Court does rule that said weapons can not be linked to any criminal activity then the appropriate amount of compensation falls in the region of $30,000 to $60,000, which is a low ballpark figure according to the current prices in Vice City.

While the Defence waits for the result of the appeal previously mentioned,

The Defence is ready to enter a Plea Bargain with the Prosecution.

My representee will PLEAD GUILTY to all 4 counts of possession of illegal items if the Prosecution is willing to meet the following:

• My Representee is to be issued a fine of $95,000.
• My Representee is to be compensated in moneraty terms, according to the Court's ruling after the appeal previously mentioned.
• My Representee to serve 5 years (5 minutes) in jail, with the possibility of parole, to be granted for good behavior, up to the Court.
• My Representee not to have his property (Private Property #282) expropriated by the State.
• For this last offer the Defence would like to argue with the following:
• By Point 20 of United States of Argonath vs VU.Amal's ruling : "The reason for such is that the property has or was become a known premises for illegal activity and the reputation of such a property should be changed.
• My Representee's property is not known to be a premise used for illegal activities.
• My Representee does not stand in trial for 'allowing property to be used in/for illegal activities'.
• The Defence would like the Prosecution to have it demonstrated how properties used in storing of illegal items, and storing of illegal items ONLY, have lost their reputation and value.
• The Defence would like to point out that Private Property #233, expropriated by the State from [NAR]Klaus, who was sentenced with a considerable number of different charges on him, unlike my Representee, by the United States of Argonath v. NAR ruling, is being auctioned by a value that exceeds it's own base value.
• My Representee's property is in a 20 meter range of a diamond store that is known to have been a target of several heists this year. The Defence considers the properties in the vicinity of said diamond store are already a nightmare for real estate agents to sell and that for potential buyers, living near a property targeted by constant robberies, far outweights living near, or residing, in a property that has had illegal items stored within.

The Defence awaits for both the Prosecution and the Court.

[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 Silent" Proceeding Number: VC-CR0009/2017

COURT MINUTE

The Court will reserve judgement to reconsider the original decision and notes the plea offer made by the defence.

DATED, on this 7th day of December, 2017.

Signed,

Alexander Treblin
Alexander Treblin
Judge

[Kessu]

Prosecution is ready to meet the plea bargain offered by the defense.

[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 Silent" Proceeding Number: VC-CR0009/2017

Medium Neutral Citation:	United States of Argonath v Silent [No. 2] [2017] AFCR 11
Date of Decision:	11 December 2017
Jurisdiction:	Common Law
Before:	Treblin J
Catchwords:	APPEAL - Judgement to reconsider a decision made by the Court earlier. CRIMINAL LAW - Whether Court erred in declaring seizure of weapons legal in warrant execution - where warrant execution only targeted seizure of illegal items.
Legislation Cited:	Crimes (Further Offences) Ordinance 2017 Interim Constitution
Cases Cited:	Klaus v Vice City Police Department (V City, VC-CIVIL0001/2017, 7 December 2017) Re Federal Bureau of Investigation Director’s Reference (2012) USASC 2 United States of Argonath v Amal [2017] AFCR 2 United States of Argonath v Escotta Family (V City, VC-CR0007/2017, 4 November 2017) United States of Argonath v Gvardia [2016] AFCR 12 United States of Argonath v Ninith Avenue Razors [2017] AFCR 5 United States of Argonath v Silent [2017] AFCR 10
Texts Cited:	Constitutional Proposal Discussions
Parties:	United States of Argonath (Prosecution) Silent (Defendant)
Representation:	Kim Purp Lee (P) Alarba (D)

INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL JUDGEMENT

[1].        This is a further interlocutory judgement made by the Court in response to the defence’s request¹ for the Court to set aside its decision² made on the 10th of December 2017.

[2].        The defence’s argument consists of the notion that the judgement contradicts itself and certain aspects of the law, reinforces the argument that the prosecution and law enforcement agencies have the responsibility to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant is using legal firearms in criminal activities. The defence also makes an application for civil remedies for the seizure of the legal firearms if the seizure was not valid.

Reconsidering the Original Decision

[3].        Courts should always have the ability to be petitioned to reconsider their decisions in the original court before moving to a higher appellate court, however this option should be avoided at the conclusion of a case. In this circumstance, as the decision being reconsidered is an interlocutory one, the Court will reconsider the decision without the unnecessary need to remit the matter to the Argonath Federal Supreme Court.

What is Wrong With the Original Decision?

[4].        The Court accepts the arguments made by the defence and does accept that the original decision does conflict with itself, in [5] admits that the prosecution did not provide enough evidence to suggest that the legal firearms were going to be used in a crime. From this standpoint, the Court in reconsidering the original decision cannot justify the original decision’s suggestion.

[5].        From this, the Court will reverse its conclusion of facts to suggest that the legal firearms were illegal in nature and thus lawfully seized as there was no suggestion or evidence adduced by the prosecution suggesting that they were used in criminal activities. The Court also draws upon its remarks made in the original decision:³

[T]he defendant had a significant sum of illegal firearms too. What the defendant was planning to do with such a significant amount of weapons is beyond the Court’s imagination but may have led to criminal acts, as the defendant was recently discharged by the Vice City Police Department for poor attitude.

[Emphasis added]

[6].        The Court also finds that the ‘mixing’ of the warrant’s standard of proof and warrant-less searching and seizing standard of proof incorrect in law and state that both are clearly two separate distinctions. However as the Court stated in United States of Argonath v Ninth Avenue Razors⁵ at [35], the Court may look to the Proposal Discussions of the Interim Constitution for interpretation assistance, it was clear that the s III ord II was intended to be interpreted with also regards to property:⁶

In plain English.

Your rights

• If you own a place, you can ask a person to leave unless it's a business or an officer has reasonable cause to be there.

Criminal Law, aka YOU DUN GOOF'D

• Police can only search property with reasonable suspicion.

[Emphasis original]

[7].        What is the distinction then if both warrant-less and warrant search and seize operations can both be conducted and are recognised in law?

Warrant-less Search and Seizure Operations

[8].        Warrant-less search and seizure operations are intended to be operations to secure items from properties and persons that in the circumstances, an application to the Court would hinder the justice system from acting in a swift and effective manner to seize illegal items and contraband, or more simply, time is essential.

[9].        In such circumstances, law enforcement officials must have evidence of an illegal item, contraband or item used in the commission of a crime being stored in a property or on a person. With respect to the commission of a crime, there must be evidence of that crime being committed. Once there is evidence of one or in the latter case; both, law enforcement officials are then permitted to search the individual or property. There must be evidence of what items the individual possesses or what the property contains.

[10].      Law enforcement officials are then permitted to seize the items in nature; items prohibited by law⁷, contraband (smuggled items) or items used in the commission of a crime. There then must be evidence of what the individual possesses or what the property contains, after the seizure has been made.

[11].      The standard of proof for such warrant-less search and seizure operations is complicated, for the commission of a crime, that crime must be proven beyond reasonable doubt by evidence.⁸ For storage of illegal items or the possession of contraband, law enforcement officials must have evidence that justifies reasonable reasons to suggest that an individual stored illegal items at a property or has the items on their person.

[12].      Warrant-less search and seizure operations have significant strings attached, if law enforcement officials fail to retain evidence of their justifications for such a search, aka seizing items off property that were used in the commission of a crime but had no evidence of that crime, then the State is liable to civil litigation due to the government acting contrary to the rights contained within s II of the Interim Constitution.

Warrant Search and Seizure Operations

[13].      Warrants were intended to be used for long-term law enforcement investigations to gather evidence and build stronger cases against defendants. Warrants must be used when a significant time has elapsed between collection of the evidence and the time that law enforcement intends to search and seize items at properties or on individuals.

[14].      Warrants can also prevent the State from being liable to civil litigation as a judge has more than often, reviewed the evidence and come to a conclusion about whether or not the warrant should be granted.

[15].      For warrants, evidence after the fact of what was seized from properties or individual’s person (aka showing what is in the property’s or individual’s invent) should always be included in court documents.

[16].      WIth regards to standard of proof, warrants are based on the balance of probabilities as stated in Ninth Avenue Razors.⁹

What is not Wrong With the Original Decision?

[17].      The Court stands by the constitutional interpretation¹⁰ of the right to bear arms clause contained in the Constitution and states that individuals are not entitled to favourable assumptions made for them if they have significant quantities of firearms. However in this case, it does have any bearing.

[18].      The Court however rejects [5] and states that law enforcement officials may apply to the Court to seize legal firearms if a criminal plot can be suggested by evidence beyond a reasonable doubt will be carried out using firearms or other items.

Outcome

[19].      For that reason I find that the seizure of legal firearms was unlawful, however it does not impact the current criminal charges against the defendant.

With Regards to Remedies

[20].      I am moved to say that the government this year has had a number of decisions ruled against them in the criminal jurisdiction because it has conducted itself incorrectly whether by their fault or not. In United States of Argonath v Amal,¹¹ I stated that Courts can consider decisions made by other jurisdictions, it must be stated as a principle by the President himself, that the Courts cannot allow judgements against the state that would put it in unrecoverable bankruptcy or hamper its functioning: Re Federal Bureau of Investigation Director’s Reference.¹²

[21].      Considering the disastrous criminal litigation in Ninth Avenue Razors and other cases: Klaus v Vice City Police Department¹³ and potentially United States of Argonath v Escotta Family¹⁴, I have been informed that the amounts paid by the State in litigation is already quite significant and thus I will not be awarding any monetary damages to the defendant rather reducing the final monetary fine imposed. This amount will be $35,000 ARD. The final judgement for this case is reserved to be handed down within three days.

I certify that the preceding twenty-one (21) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Treblin.

Register

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

[1].        That the application to set aside the judgement be granted.

[2].        That the appeal be allowed.

[3].        That the judgement of this Court made on 10 December 2017 in proceedings VC-CR0009/2017 be set aside.

[4].        In lieu thereof, substitute this judgement and orders of this Court made on 11 December 2017 in proceedings VC-CR0009/2017.

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

Signed,

Alexander Treblin
Alexander Treblin
Judge

_______________________
Footnotes
¹ Defence, ‘Application to set aside Interlocutory Judgement’, Submission in United States of Argonath v Silent, VC-CR0009/2017, 10 December 2017.
² United States of Argonath v Silent [2017] AFCR 10.
³ Ibid [5] (Treblin J).
⁴ Ibid [4].
⁵ [2017] AFCR 5.
⁶ Constitutional Proposal Discussions, 20 March 2012, In Plain English (Stormeus)
⁷ See Crimes (Further Offences) Ordinance 2017 s 5.
⁸ See United States of Argonath v Gvardia [2016] AFCR 12 [1] (Stormeus CJ).
⁹ See United States of Argonath v Ninth Avenue Razors [2017] AFCR 5 [9]-[10] (Treblin J).
¹⁰ United States of Argonath v Silent [2017] AFCR 10 [4] (Treblin J).
¹¹ [2017] AFCR 2.
¹² (2012) USASC 2.
¹³ Klaus v Vice City Police Department (V City, VC-CIVIL0001/2017, 7 December 2017).
¹⁴ United States of Argonath v Escotta Family (V City, VC-CR0007/2017, 4 November 2017).


JUDGEMENT SUMMARY
Today, the Argonath Federal Court reversed a decision it previously made and set aside the conclusion of the judgement made earlier and found that the seizure of legal firearms was not lawful, however it denied civil compensation to the defendant and instead would reduce the monetary fine, adopting the reasons of President Gandalf in an advisory opinion of the San Andreas Supreme Court in 2012.
 

• 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.