Case Closed CRIMINAL APPEAL - Rolf Lions - Case Closed

Status
Not open for further replies.
P

PlatypusOnTop

New member
DOJ
Sep 16, 2023
3
0
1
Username: PlatypusOnTop

Select the type of case you wish to file with the court:
CRIMINAL APPEAL

Defendant:
Bill Brook (Vol5)

I. Statement of Claim
1. The defense claims that the accused Bill Brook did in fact break no laws.

2. The defense will show that the accused received a warning about this charge and was then issued a warrant on the same charge a day later.

3. The governor was on scene and had to take the situation up to the heads of the San Andres Aviation Administration. She felt that the law as it currently is, needed to be clarified on even further and that the situation needed to be voted on by the heads of the SAAA. The helicopter used in the alleged crime was never towed away by the police or state. It was deemed safe enough to be able to take off from its position. As the law is currently stated in the SOP, my client followed every part of the guidelines and broke no laws.

4. The defense claims that the two officers involved in this situation acted to try and interpret the law instead of enforcing what is actually the written law. There is no evidence that shows my client breaking the law except for the word of the two officers involved. The governor, who witnessed the situation could not say that the law was broken
per the current SOP guidelines. Even though the situation is being voted on by the heads of the SAAA, the police decided to interpret the law themselves and charge my client on a matter that requires more clarification. A CFI instructor came in during the questioning of my client and detailed that my client had broken no laws. There are multiple instances that show my client broke no current laws and that the police have charged my client with their interpretation of the law and not what the law actually is.

5. The defense would like to file a motion to dismiss based on the above claims

II. Charge(s)
1x P.C. 815 Reckless Operations of an Aircraft

III. Representative
Andres Lobo Brook Phoenix Gunn (PlatypusOnTop)

IV. Officers Involved
J. Sausage
J.Goff (brundoggy)

V. Evidence
No evidence presented yet

VI. Actions Taken
25 months, $2,500 fine

VII. Witnesses
Emma Johnson (ioverthink)
Moouwu (mooouwu)
Ruby June Lawson (Kay.32)
 
Motion in Opposition

The defense countless times brings up the San Andreas Aviation Authority SOPs, and while those are standard operating procedures they can be used to assist in situations, they are not legally binding, so when the defense says based on the law in the SOPs, that is incorrect. The defense also states that a CFI came in and said they have broken no laws, however that point is moot because the CFI has no standing to say what and was in not the law in this matter. The charge that Mr. Brook was charged for is "Reckless Operation of an Aircraft" which by the definition in our penal code states "Operating an aircraft with disregard of public safety". The defense has declared that Mr. Brook was in fact operating an aircraft, and we are ready and able to prosecute that Mr. Brook was not doing so in regards for public safety.

The officers in question are not interpreting the law in any manor, they are simply charging based on the definition in our current Penal Code.

We will be glad to take this to trial and present this to the court.

Thanks,
Holden Steele
 
Any word on this? The defense stated a motion to dismiss the charges, so we can most likely have a case to discuss the motion vs a trial but the State is prepared for either at this time.
 
Your Honor,

I appreciate the quick response from the opposing counsel, and I'd like to address some key points raised in their opposition to our motion to dismiss.

Firstly, it's essential to clarify the role of the San Andreas Aviation Authority SOPs (Standard Operating Procedures) in this case. While they may not be legally binding, they are crucial in establishing industry standards and practices, which can inform the interpretation of relevant laws. The defense's argument is not solely based on the SOPs but rather on how they demonstrate my client's compliance with industry standards, which should be considered when assessing whether my client's actions constituted "Reckless Operation of an Aircraft" as defined in the penal code.

Regarding the CFI (Certified Flight Instructor), I understand the opposing counsel's point about their standing to interpret the law. However, it's important to note that the CFI's input is relevant because it speaks to my client's adherence to safe and accepted aviation practices. Their professional opinion can provide valuable context to assess whether my client's actions truly disregarded public safety, as charged. It is not a moot point, but rather an imperative piece of evidence that highlights my client's commitment to safe operation.

Furthermore, the opposing counsel argues that the officers are not interpreting the law but simply charging based on the definition in the current Penal Code. While this is their perspective, it is not uncommon for law enforcement to exercise discretion in interpreting and applying the law in specific situations. Our argument is that their interpretation in this case was flawed, given the circumstances and industry practices.

In conclusion, Your Honor, we believe that the evidence and arguments we have presented warrant the consideration of our motion to dismiss. We are confident that a fair examination of the facts will reveal that my client did not engage in reckless operation of an aircraft. We are ready to proceed with a trial and present our case to the court to seek a just resolution in case our motion to dismiss is denied. I am still in the process of meeting up with Holden so that I can make sure that all the evidence is provided to the court so that it can make an informed decision on the motion to dismiss.

Thank you,
Andres Lobo Brook Phoenix Gunn
 
The criminal appeal itself is a motion to dismiss the charges he has been charged with, so the state is ready to go to trial for the appeal, however if you want to accept his motion to dismiss this criminal appeal I wouldn’t be opposed 😂
 
The court will rule in favour of the appeal and the one count of P.C. 815 Reckless Operations of an Aircraft should be expunged from the defendant's record.
While I appreciate the steps taken by law enforcement to ensure every pilot is operating in a lawful and safe manor, it's clear multiple trained pilots and certified instructors do not think there was a disregard for safety in this instance.

 
The court has accepted a motion to appeal based on multiple instances of misunderstanding. Scheduling has started and hence so has discovery.

Apologies for any confusion,

Rolf Lions
 
docs.google.com

Bill Brooks Criminal Appeal - Discovery Document

Discovery Document Bill Brooks Criminal Appeal Filed October 8th, 2023 Witness List Name Occupation Relevance Affidavit (If Needed) Quinton Johnson SASP Officer Gave previous warning for illegal landings TBD James Goff Jr SASP Officer Arresting Officer TBD Jugginton Sausage ...
docs.google.com docs.google.com
 
What is the status of this? It has been over 2 weeks since Discovery started and no documents have been submitted.
 
Court has reached out numerous times to the attorney representing Mr Brook. We have attempted a stern final time, if no update soon, we will make a ruling.
 
Nolan is that you? If it is, we have talked about this case when you were a police officer. You were in utmost agreement that my client had done nothing wrong. We can talk about the prosecution dropping the case if you would like. I was actually going to call you as a witness if for some reason these sham charges proceeded to go to trial. I have a lot of new information that I will be delivering to the judge in the next couple of days and by the end of the week. I have been held up by a family emergency in liberty. I will be gone for the next five days but most of the new information will be delivered to the judge sooner than later. I am still waiting on some important information but I should have that by the end of this week. I am sure once I deliver all the new information, the court will be able to make a decision on the future of this case, unless the prosecution would like to go a different route.
 
Sorry to hear about your issues in liberty. I have no recollection of the supposed conversation about this case that we have had prior. Not saying it didn't happen as it very well could have in the almost four months this case predated. Prosecution would love to hear about any new information that has come to light regarding charges against your client when allowed and available.
 
After more then sufficient time by the defence, the court will be ruling in favour of the State, Bill Brook will be found guilty of all charges.
@Eyrii @PlatypusOnTop
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom Back