Rendered from the court's authenticated repository
Searchable full text
4,774 characters extracted
—
RIDGEWAY SUPERIOR COURT
FOR THE STATE OF RIDGEWAY
TOPFLOORGEEK69,
Petitioner,
v.
TACTICALDANKPATRIOT in their
official capacity as an Officer of the
Ridgeway State Police,
Respondent.
Civil Action No.
TBD
PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS
CORPUS
Petitioner topfloorgeek69 (“Petitioner”), by and through the undersigned counsel,
seeking all available relief, in their petition for writ of habeas corpus against Respondent
TacticalDankPatriot (“Respondent”), alleges the following:
INTRODUCTION
1. The right to contest an unlawful arrest by the state is vital for the function
of society, and is enshrined by this Court’s ability to hear petitions for writ of habeas
corpus.
JURISDICTION
2. The court has jurisdiction to provide “writ of habeas corpus” Ridgeway
State Constitution Article V, Section IV.
3. Venue is proper as the improper detention alleged herein took place in the
State of Ridgeway.
PARTIES
4. topfloorgeek69 (“Petitioner”) is an individual, resident, and citizen of the
State of Ridgeway.
5. TacticalDankPatriot (“Respondent”) is an individual, resident, and citizen
of the State of Ridgeway. Defendant is a Police Officer in the Ridgeway State Police
Department. Defendant is asked to respond in her official capacity.
FACTS
6. On or about July 22 2025, Petitioner was working as a Security Officer for
Ridgeway Credit Union, performing his duties to the best of his ability.
1
7. Petitioner heard the sounds of a vehicle backing up, leading him to go
outside to investigate.
8. Petitioner upon leaving the Ridgeway Credit Union building noticed
Twitchlly brandishing a firearm in front of his colleagues’ vehicle.
9. Petitioner observed his colleagues stating “he’s going to kill us I think”,
along with claiming that Twitchlly was following them.
10. Petitioner, acting in defense of his colleagues who claimed they were in
fear of their lives, shot and killed Twitchlly.
11. In the fifteen to twenty minutes after this event, Petitioner traveled with his
colleagues to Bloxmart.
12. Upon arriving at Bloxmart, Respondent removed Petitioner from his
vehicle, arresting him for Voluntary Manslaughter R.C.C. § 3.07.
ARGUMENTS
13. The court has previously made clear that in order to grant a petition for writ
of habeas corpus, two questions must be answered: “whether the police were entitled to
make that arrest”, and “whether the petitioner was innocent of the charge” In re
ZachCasisbeast, RSC-CV-367 (2022).
14. As long as the answer to even one of the questions is in Petitioner’s favor,
the court must grant the petition.
I: Was Respondent Entitled to Make The Arrest?
15. There is currently no contest in whether or not Respondent had probable
cause to make the arrest due to little information in regard to why Respondent made the
arrest.
II: Could a Reasonable Jury Find Petitioner Guilty of the Offense?
16. In answering the question of the petitioner’s innocence, the court lays out
the standard of whether a “reasonable and well-informed jury could not convict the
petitioner in a hypothetical trial if they were aware of those facts, and those facts were
admissible evidence” In re ZachCasisbeast, RSC-CV-367 (2022).
2
17. “Defense of Others” as an extension of self defense as an affirmative
defense to Voluntary Manslaughter arises from the stipulations set out from “Self
Defense” as an affirmative defense.
18. In applying the idea that “he reasonably believes that he is in immediate
danger of death or grievous bodily harm from his assailant” Brown v. United States, 256
U.S. 335 (1921) to a “Defense of Others”, instead of personally identifying an immediate
danger toward himself, he must identify an immediate danger toward others.
19. In the Twitchlly affidavit, it is affirmed by the individual shot that he was
“acting in an unsafe manner” and that Petitioner’s colleagues were “in fear for their
lives”, leading Petitioner to fire at a perceived “immediate threat”.
20. In the hypothetical trial, a jury aware of the aforementioned facts would be
forced to find Petitioner “Not Guilty” due to the affirmative defense of “Defense of
Others”.
21. Thus, by the standards set by the court previously In re ZachCasisbeast,
RSC-CV-367 (2022), the petition must be granted in full.
RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Petitioner prays that the court enter judgment in their favor and
provides a writ of habeas corpus granting an expungement of the relevant record pursuant
to 1 R. Stat. § 2212.
Dated: July 28th, 2025
Palmer, Ridgeway Respectfully submitted,
/s/
v1oletelo1v (State Bar No. 11104)
Counsel of Record
CartelEnthusiast (State Bar No. 11107)
Nicklaus, Popplewell & Associates LLP
Palmer Civic Center, Suite 324
Palmer, Ridgeway 19000
Tel: (212) 558-4000
Fax: (212) 558-3588
Email: [email protected]
Attorneys for Petitioner
3
