State of San Andreas V Chad Thundercock

Chad Thundercock

Writ of Habeas Corpus

Now before the court comes Chad Thundercock, pro se, to challenge his continuing detention in Bolingbroke Penitentiary.

On or about 8 October 25, Chad Thundercock was arrested and sent to Bolingbroke on two counts of Murder in the 1st Degree of a Government Employee.

To writ, the arresting agency has not submitted the Hold Until Trial charges on the docket as required by law.

Chad Thundercock further alleges that he has not been provided legal counsel despite several attempts to contact one.

Chad further alleges that he has been in prison for longer than the charges warrant without trial.

Chad further alleges that he has been imprisoned for longer than he would have been sentenced for the crimes in which he is charged, in violation of the 8th Amendment

Petitioner request the court intervene in this matter and order his immediate release. Furthermore, the petitioner request that all charges be dropped for failure to prosecute.

Chad Thundercock

Its been 48 hours and my continuing detention is an immediate and correctable constitutional rights violation that the court can address and rectify by my release, without ruling on the core issues of the case and determining liability or sentencing. Furthermore, there is an ADA on staff who can immediately address this issue, and further delays compound the gross infringement of my rights.

Victoria Kazetti

I, Judge Victoria Kazetti, have reviewed the petition and its follow up.
The petitioner's core allegation is that he is being held in Bolingbroke without a docketed order authorizing his pre trial detention.

The Court is aware that the State's pre trial detention procedures for major felonies are currently in a state of administrative transition. However, this does not, and cannot, suspend a citizens fundamental right to due process.

So regardless of if Mr Thundercock is being held under the "Hold Until Trial" protocol or the "Minimum Sentence & Automatic Remand" protocol, the State still must have a formal, docketed order justifying the pre trial imprisonment of an individual. The petitioners allegation is that no such order exists under either protocol.

Therefore, it is ORDERED as follows:

The State (represented by the LSMPD and the DAO) has 24 hours from this posting to file its formal response on this docket.
This response MUST include the specific, docketed legal instrument that authorises Mr. Thundercocks continued detention. This could be either a "Hold until Trial" charge, OR a "Minimum Sentence" order that includes the terms for his remand/bond.
The State must also explain what, if any, procedural path to trial has been afforded to the petitioner.

Failure to provide a lawful, docketed basis for the petitioner's detention will be interpreted as a concession that his imprisonment is unconstitutional, and the Court will be forced to act to correct it immediately.

Judge Victoria Kazetti

@DAO Office @LSPD Officers @LSPD Legal

Ty Ryder

I, Officer Ty Ryder, is responding to the petition on behalf of the State.

The petition causes into question due process, and if the Defendant's rights have been violated.

Here are the facts;

In arrest report #759, Officer Alfie Fumble stated an attempt to reach a public defender went on for 45 minutes while Mr. Thundercock was in the cells at Tom Ford PD. That goes well above the scope of department standard of 15 minutes to contact a public defender.
Officer Ty Ryder spent 45 minutes trying to contact a Judge or Justice from the DOJ to inform and advise Officers the process moving forward.
Officer Ty Ryder informed Justice Lone Dark within 48 hours of Mr. Thundercock being processed and sent up in his plea of NOT GUILTY to Boilingbroke that there was a defendant at Boilingbroke on Held Until Trial charges. Officer Ty Ryder was seeking advisory on the process moving forward which was not given at the time.
Any citizen of the state who gets processed on a NOT GUILTY plea has 14 days to file an appeal either by themselves, or with legal representation to the Court to have their case heard.
Officers of the Los Santos Metropolitan Police Department are not trained on specific Hold Until Trial processes. Yet LSMPD still did their due diligence to preserve the rights of the Defendant, Mr. Thundercock.

The next facts to be considered is are the charges serious enough to warrant a Hold Until Trial for Mr. Thundercock. It is alleged and charged by the state that Mr. Thundercock not only imprisoned two government officials, but committed first degree murder of one government employee, and second degree murder of a second government employee. Mr. Thundercock does not posses a valid firearms license but was able to posses one on the 8th of October to commit such actions. All of this, along with other evidence is shown in investigation report #226.

If, Mr. Thundercock had received a trial the same day the alleged offenses took place, and was found GUILTY, Mr. Thundercock would still be imprisoned in Boilingbroke. Furthermore, as with any person sent on a NOT GUILTY plea to Boilingbroke, they are advised of the 14 day response time to get their case on the docket. Mr. Thundercock shows clear aptitude to contact the Court by filing a Writ of Habeas Corpus. As of today, it is still within the 14 day mark to file a notice of appeal of charges, which is the appropriate motion, not a Writ of Habeas Corpus.

Officer Ty Ryder, acting on behalf of the State, did attempt to respond to this motion earlier. Officer Ty Ryder did not have the correct permissions to respond to this motion. So, like before, Officer Ty Ryder reached out to DOJ to request a meeting. Judge Victoria Kazetti met with Officer Ty Ryder in her office.

In discussions with Judge Victoria Kazetti the rights of the accused, and due process was placed into question. Officer Ryder did confirm efforts to bring the case before the Court and the fact Mr. Thundercock was held until trial in Boilingbroke. It calls into question three things;

Is the petition of Writ of Habeas Corpus frivolous and without merit,
Was Mr. Thundercock's due process violated,
If the case was heard before the court, would it be a waist of resources of the Court's and State's time

It is the belief of the State that the Writ of Habeas Corpus is frivolous and without merit. The State made every possible attempt to bring the matter before the Court. Lastly, based on Arrest Report #759 and Investigation Report #226, the evidence is overwhelming. In short, Mr. Thundercock was caught red handed of the alleged offenses.

The State formally requests the Writ of Habeas Corpus be denied. The State is requesting a trial to be scheduled, or at the very least, a meeting with Mr. Thundercock to discuss a plea deal.

Thank you for your time,

Officer Ty Ryder

Victoria Kazetti

FINAL RULING

The Court has reviewed the petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus, the petitioner's follow up, as well as the formal response from the LSMPD on behalf of the state. This review has uncovered a complex and multi-faceted failure of due process in which both the State and the Petitioner share responsibility.

The States Failure: The State's response, filed by Officer Ty Ryder, confirms the petitioners central claim. The Petitioner is currently being held in Bolingbroke Penitentiary without a lawful docketed judicial order.

The Petitioner's Failure: However, the State's response also credibly alleges that the petitioner is not a helpless victim. The Petitioner had a 14-day right to appeal and took no action. He instead waited out that time to file this writ, demonstrating an attempt to weaponise the State's failure to file the charges to the docket to get his murder charges dismissed on a technicality. The state also attempted to get the petitioner council at the time of the arrest, but it is no longer their duty and falls to the petitioner once the charges have been filed.

The Court must acknowledge the significant administrative and clerical disarray surrounding the State's transition away from the "Hold Until Trial" protocol. It is clear that the arresting agency's failure to file the correct paperwork stemmed from this systemic confusion, rather than from a place of specific, targeted malice.

However, clerical errors are not a license for unconstitutional detention.
Conversely, the petitioner is not an unwitting victim of the error either. He had a responsibility to pursue his own appeal as well, by contacting a court clerk or counsel and failed to do so. He appears to have silently allowed the State's administrative error to fester, hoping to leverage it into a "get out of jail free" card.

The petitioner's request for a full dismissal is therefore wholly disproportionate to the harm caused. The Court's duty is to correct the error and enforce the due process that both parties seemingly abandoned (maliciously or not).

Therefore, it is ORDERED as follows:

The petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus is GRANTED IN PART. The court finds that the petitioner's detention since October 8th has been partially unconstitutional (the part over and above the time for the charges that were not marked as HUT), due to the lack of a docketed hold until trial order, or no minimum sentencing guidelines.
The petitioner's request for a full dismissal of all charges is DENIED.
The Court hereby orders the State to correct its procedural failure by retroactively placing this case onto the "Minimum Sentencing / Automatic Remand" protocol as of the original arrest date.
The 14 days that the petitioner has already served (October 8th to October 23rd) are deemed to have satisfied the pre-trial remand requirement of the Minimum Sentencing protocol. As a direct remedy for the State's clerical errors, any monetary bond associated with his bail is hereby WAIVED.
Consequently, the LSMPD is ORDERED to IMMEDIATELY RELEASE Mr. Thundercock on bail, pending his trial.
The time Mr. Thundercock has already served will be considered at the outcome of his trial.
Mr Thundercock will need to contact a Court Clerk immediately upon his release who will provide necessary assistance in securing legal council. The Court Clerk will also start the process of scheduling an expedited Trial for State v. Chad Thundercock at the earliest possible date.

Both parties created this procedural mess. This order cleans it up by forcing the trial that the petitioner is entitled to.

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge V. Kazetti

Victoria Kazetti

PROCEDURAL AMENDMENT TO FINAL RULING

The Court issues a procedural clarification regarding its previous order.

Ordering point 5, which directs the "IMMEDIATE RELEASE" of Mr. Thundercock, remains in full effect.

To administratively effectuate this release, the petitioner, Mr. Chad Thundercock, is required to contact the LSMPD to be formally processed out of custody, and so his release can be documented correctly.

Judge V. Kazetti

Chad Thundercock

Motion for Recusal and Remand to the Supreme Court

The defendant moves to recuse Judge Victoria Kazetti on this matter for implied bias and ex parte communication with the state. In the docket post by Ty Ryder, Officer LSPD, stated “In discussions with Judge Victoria Kazetti the rights of the accused, and due process was placed into question.” This is an ex parte communication in which the Defendant has a right to be present for and continue the discussion. Substantive matters were discussed, such as the circumstances of the defendant's detention, his access to legal counsel, and the state’s failure to follow the law on these charges. The Defendant was not afford the opportunity to exercise his right to be present in matters involving his case.
The defendant also alleges that Judge Kazetti has established through her docket posting an implied bias against the defendant. Including the ex parte communications with the state listed above, Jude Kazetti states “ He instead waited out that time to file this writ, demonstrating an attempt to weaponise the State's failure to file the charges to the docket to get his murder charges dismissed on a technicality. The state also attempted to get the petitioner council at the time of the arrest, but it is no longer their duty and falls to the petitioner once the charges have been filed. “ This is an opinion that has no evidentiary support, grossly misstated the circumstance of the defendant’s position, and if the defendant was provided and permitted to exercise his rights to be present during the state and judge’s ex parte communication, could have informed the Court of his attempts to seek counsel.
Further bias is established by Judge Kazetti shifting the blame from the state’s failure to follow the law and court procedure to the defendant. The defendant is not a legal professional. The defendant relied on the state to perform their statutory and lawful duty. The burden is not on the defendant to ensure the state does its job. Once it became clear to a layman such as the defendant that the state did not do its legal duty, I sought out legal counsel to the best of my availability. I did not weaponize the court, the state played on my lack of legal knowledge and the states general incompetence in the performance of its duties to hope that my continued ignorance would keep me confined indefinitely.
It is clear from the ex parte communications between Jude Kazetti and her comments on the docket that I cannot get a fair and impartial hearing on this. I request the Recusal of Jude Kazetti and for this matter to be remanded to the State Supreme Court.

DIRECT STATEMENT: I have been released from remand, several attempts to contact law enforcement were unsuccesful.

Victoria Kazetti

The Court is in receipt of the petitioner's motion. Having carefully reviewed the arguments presented, the motion is DENIED. The Court finds no legal or factual basis for recusal.

The petitioner's central argument rests on a misunderstanding of the Court's procedures regarding his previous Writ of Habeas Corpus.

A Writ of Habeas Corpus is a distinct civil action challenging the legality of detention. This Court has an affirmative duty to swiftly investigate such claims. The meeting with Officer Ryder was precisely that: an essential fact finding inquiry necessary to adjudicate the petitioner's own Writ. It focused exclusively on the procedural basis and legal authority for the petitioner's detention- the very issues raised by the petitioner himself. This inquiry was required to assess the claims and ultimately led to the discovery of the procedural failures, which led to the order of his release.
The limited and specific scope of the Habeas inquiry, focused solely on the legality of the detention process, does not impact this Court's impartiality regarding the separate criminal matter still pending. The petitioner fails to demonstrate how this necessary procedural investigation creates any bias concerning the distinct factual questions of the criminal charges.
This Court's ruling on the Habeas writ granted the petitioner's central claim, found his detention pending trial unconstitutional, and ordered his immediate release. The petitioner appears to object not to bias against him, but to the Court's refusal to grant his request for a full dismissal of the serious criminal charges.. a remedy deemed disproportionate given the finding that both the State (through negligence) and the Petitioner (through inaction on his appeal) contributed to the procedural delay. The ruling achieved a balanced outcome, correcting the constitutional violation while ensuring the underlying criminal matter proceeds.
The petitioner now argues the State exploited his "lack of legal knowledge." This claim is difficult to reconcile with his demonstrated ability to file complex pro se legal motions (both the initial Writ and this Motion for Recusal). While the State clearly failed in its procedural duties, the petitioner also had a responsibility, having pleaded "Not Guilty" (a request for trial), to take reasonable steps to pursue his appeal or seek assistance from the Court Clerk or counsel.

Conclusion: The motion fails to establish any grounds for recusal based on bias or improper procedure. The Court acted within its authority and duty to investigate the Habeas petition, the inquiry was appropriately limited in scope to address the petitioner's claims, and the resulting ruling provided the correct constitutional remedy while preserving the integrity of the separate criminal case.

The Motion for Recusal is DENIED. The Court's prior order stands. The expedited trial will proceed as it gets scheduled by the Clerk.

REGARDING THE PETITIONER'S "DIRECT STATEMENT":

The Court notes the petitioner's final statement claiming difficulty in contacting law enforcement to effectuate his release.

A judicial order for release is a mandate, but its physical execution requires the petitioner to engage with the State's administrative processes and account for operational availability. Law enforcement agencies in the state operate not solely at the convenience of any single individual.

This Court's release order stands and must be executed. However, the petitioner is advised that patience and cooperation with the established procedures are required. Attempts to manufacture new legal grievances from predictable administrative delays will not be viewed favorably. The petitioner has received his remedy; he must now allow the administrative process its necessary course.

Judge V. Kazetti

Chad Thundercock

Noted. I will continue to try and get intouch with one of the two cops still working at LSPD.