Rendered from the court's authenticated repository
Searchable full text
1,834 characters extracted
—
IN THE
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF RIDGEWAY
DARIEL_POWELL,
Plaintiff-Petitioner,
v.
AZAP634; RATHUZEN,
Defendant-Respondent.
Case No. RSC-CV-7098
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE
AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF
The undersigned amicus hereby moves for leave of this Court to file a brief in support of
Respondent Azap634 and Defendant Rathuzen in the above-entitled matter.
Courts have wide latitude to allow—or, conversely, to not allow—a non-party’s
participation as amicus curiae. See, e.g., United States v. Michigan, 940 F.2d 143, 165 (6th Cir.
1991). Indeed, “[s]ince an amicus does not represent the parties but participates only for the
benefit of the court, it is solely within the discretion of the court to determine the fact, extent,
and manner of participation by the amicus.” ME v. TJ, 854 S.E.2d 74 (2020).
Amicus holds knowledge on the matter and is extensively experienced as the Chief
Public Defender of the State of Mayflower, Partner of Clarke, Feelings, Sandringham, LLP.,
former Chief Public Defender of the State of Ridgeway, and avid criminal and administrative
defense attorney. He is also a pioneer in modern Ridgeway statutory construction. Amicus also
advocates daily for the rights of criminal defendants and is positioned to provide this Court with
“a unique perspective that can supplement the parties’ arguments.” United States ex rel.
Guardiola v. Renown Health, No. 3:12-cv-00295-LRH-VPC (D. Nev. 2016). Such participation
is particularly appropriate in “a case of general public interest.” Miller-Wohl Co. v.
Commissioner of Labor and Industry, 694 F.2d 203 (1982).
Respectfully submitted.
Date: 04/16/2026
_________________________________
JamesGardai, Esq.
Newfounding Father
HOUSE OF GARDAI
Rid. Bar No. 24101
Gardai Island
United States Virgin Islands
D: fishfromocean
