United States of Argonath vs. Whitney Georgia

[Kowalski.]

U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation
Vice City - Miami Division

CASE NO 3009221728

UNITED STATES OF ARGONATH VS. WHITNEY GEORGIA

I. Introduction

Greetings to the Vice City Supreme Courts,

On April 01, 2019, an investigation into numerous people was initiated. In the course of this investigation, the Bureau has uncovered evidence of Ms. Whitney Georgia involved in criminal activity. As such, we are now prosecuting this individual for a number of breaches of the Constitution.

II. Case Breakdown

On August 02, 2019, Ms. Georgia was seen threatening an FBI Agent with a shotgun. She clearly brandishes a firearm without a lawful reason to do so and intimidates the Agent into leaving the area, constituting an act of endangerment [1].

On August 03, 2019, Ms. Georgia was recorded unloading stolen bearer bonds and also as an accessory to the murder of multiple police officers [2].

Lastly, on February 14 2020, Ms. Georgia was seen teaching an undercover FBI Agent how to illegally smuggle vehicles [3].

III. Intelligence Dissemination and Case Evidence

Brandishing a Firearm [1]:

Spoiler for Agent Templeton Peck 2019:

Unloading stolen bearer bonds (Robbery & Theft) + Accessory to Murder [2]:

Spoiler for Director Klaus Meine 2019:

https://imgur.com/a/jXqHpsm

Smuggling [3]:

Spoiler for Agent Kowalski 2020:

https://imgur.com/a/VDv4oA9

IV. Charges and Demands

The United States of Argonath, represented by the Federal Bureau of Investigation disseminates the following charges and monetary penalties demanded:

1.) One (1) count of Brandishing a Firearm and Intimidation. // $25,000 ARD.

2.) One (1) count of Robbery/Theft. // $50,000 ARD.

3.) Two (2) counts of accessory to murder. // $100,000 ARD.

4.) One (1) count of smuggling. // $10,000 ARD.

We demand that the defendant is fined a monetary penalty of $185,000‬ ARD. We demand that should the defendants be unable to pay the amount, their assets are liquidized and sold to pay the penalty. The state also demands that the defendant be issued the following prison sentencing:

1.) 1 count of Brandishing a Firearm and Intimidation - we demand 5 years (5 minutes) of imprisonment.

2.) 1 count of robbery - as per the case by the United States of Argonath against the Gonzales Mafia, we demand 10 years (10 minutes) of imprisonment.

3.) 2 counts of accessory to murder - as per the case by the United States of Argonath against the Gonzales Mafia, we demand 20 years (20 minutes) of imprisonment.

4.) 1 count of smuggling - as per the case by the United States of Argonath against [VU_T]EazY, we demand 2 years (2 minutes) of imprisonment.

We hereby demand an accumulated total of 37 years (37 minutes) of imprisonment for the breaches of the State's Constitution.

V. Charges Index and Further Justification

1.) Brandishing a Firearm (Endangerment and Intimidation):

    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.

2.) Unloading Stolen Bearer Bonds (Robbery and Theft) + Accessory to Murder:

    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.

3.) Smuggling:

    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.

Signed,



FBI Lead Prosecutor Kowalski

[Kowalski.]

U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation Vice City - Miami Division TO: VICE CITY SUPREME COURT, 196 HAVANA HIGHWAY, VICE CITY, MIAMI. FROM: THE DESK OF FBI LEAD PROSECUTOR KOWALSKI, FBI HEADQUARTERS, OCEAN BEACH, VICE CITY, MIAMI. Your honour, The United States has summoned the defendant. Attached below is a copy of the summons sent. Spoiler for Whitney Georgia - Summons:       U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation Legal Affairs Division TO: WHITNEY GEORGIA. FROM: KOWALSKI - FBI LEAD PROSECUTOR. Whitney Georgia, This is a notice of summons to the Vice City Supreme Court where you are currently being prosecuted within the case "United States of Argonath vs. Whitney Georgia". Signed, Kowalski FBI Lead Prosecutor Signed, Kowalski FBI Lead Prosecutor

[danigold1]

*Whitney enters the courtroom with a calendar in hand*
Honorable judge(s), considering most of the evidence the prosecution provided is dated to over 3 years ago, with the exception of exhibit 3, dating to only almost 3 years ago, I request the counsel of judges to put up a statute of limitations on this court case.

[Kowalski.]

U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation Vice City - Miami Division TO: UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT, 196 HAVANA HIGHWAY, VICE CITY, MIAMI. FROM: THE DESK OF LEAD PROSECUTOR KOWALSKI, FBI HEADQUARTERS, OCEAN BEACH, VICE CITY, MIAMI. RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT: The United States wishes to respond to the defendant. *Whitney enters the courtroom with a calendar in hand* Honorable judge(s), considering most of the evidence the prosecution provided is dated to over 3 years ago, with the exception of exhibit 3, dating to only almost 3 years ago, I request the counsel of judges to put up a statute of limitations on this court case. Investigations take time and it is not unusual for them to take lengthy periods of time, as is observed in the cases United States of Argonath vs. The Gonzales Mafia, United States of Argonath vs. Andrew Aky and United States of Argonath vs. Nylez. As far as the Constitution and any other legislation are concerned, there is no legal statute of limitations and the imposing of one would be unlawful for any case before such a law is passed. A crime is a crime, no matter how long ago it was committed. Regards, FBI Lead Prosecutor Kowalski

[Nylez]

Investigations take time and it is not unusual for them to take lengthy periods of time, as is observed in the cases United States of Argonath vs. The Gonzales Mafia, United States of Argonath vs. Andrew Aky and United States of Argonath vs. Nylez. As far as the Constitution and any other legislation are concerned, there is no legal statute of limitations and the imposing of one would be unlawful for any case before such a law is passed.

A crime is a crime, no matter how long ago it was committed.

Regards,



FBI Lead Prosecutor Kowalski

Surpreme court, my apologies for my interruption as this is an ongoing case but I feel the need to interfere on this matter. I, Arthur "Nylez" Williams, am supporting the defendant in this case regarding the argument of this evidence to be deemed invalid due to a prolonged time of delay. The prosecution has had plenty of time in these 3 years to prepare this court case and post it. The constitution might allow this, but we need to seriously consider the humane aspect of this.

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

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

[Kowalski.]

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:

*Whitney enters the courtroom with a calendar in hand*
Honorable judge(s), considering most of the evidence the prosecution provided is dated to over 3 years ago, with the exception of exhibit 3, dating to only almost 3 years ago, I request the counsel of judges to put up a statute of limitations on this court case.

[Emphasis original]

Spoiler for Prosecution: Response:

U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation Vice City - Miami Division TO: UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT, 196 HAVANA HIGHWAY, VICE CITY, MIAMI. FROM: THE DESK OF LEAD PROSECUTOR KOWALSKI, FBI HEADQUARTERS, OCEAN BEACH, VICE CITY, MIAMI. RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT: The United States wishes to respond to the defendant. *Whitney enters the courtroom with a calendar in hand* Honorable judge(s), considering most of the evidence the prosecution provided is dated to over 3 years ago, with the exception of exhibit 3, dating to only almost 3 years ago, I request the counsel of judges to put up a statute of limitations on this court case. Investigations take time and it is not unusual for them to take lengthy periods of time, as is observed in the cases United States of Argonath vs. The Gonzales Mafia, United States of Argonath vs. Andrew Aky and United States of Argonath vs. Nylez. As far as the Constitution and any other legislation are concerned, there is no legal statute of limitations and the imposing of one would be unlawful for any case before such a law is passed. A crime is a crime, no matter how long ago it was committed. Regards, FBI Lead Prosecutor Kowalski

[Emphasis original]

[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

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

[Emphasis original]

[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.

[11].   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.

[12].  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.

[13].  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.

[14].  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:

    Ordinance II
    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.

[Emphasis original]

[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:

    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:

    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.

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, my judgment shall reflect that.

[21].      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.

[22].      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 (22) 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:

    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.

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.

[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 of 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 citeed 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 that Deputy Chief Williams be independently reassessed and approved fit for his position.

I certify that the preceding twenty (11) 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~