Rendered from the court's authenticated repository
Searchable full text
1,692 characters extracted
—
Citation: RSC-CV-270 Date: 2022-04-14
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF RIDGEWAY
LX1NAS
Plaintif,
v.
State of Ridgeway
Defendant.
RULING ON MOTION TO DISMISS
BY THE
HONOURABLE JUDGE DANNLABS
Counsel for the Plaintiff: Mytrus & Partners
Counsel for the Defendant: Solicitor General Clifford2
Place of Hearing: N/A
Date of Hearing: N/A
Date of Judgement: April 14th, 2022
IN THE CASE OF LX1NAS V. STATE OF RIDGWAY
On motion from the Defence to dismiss this case, I will deny this motion.
[1] STATE IS CORRECTLY NAMED AS THE DEFENDANT
Despite claims by the defence that the state should not be named in this case, the state had produced the first set of
laws and acts, of which the wildlife act falls under and is being challenged by the plaintiff.
[2] PLAINTIFF IS NOT SEEKING PRE-ENFORCEMENT CHALLENGE
The plaintiff had correctly asserted that LX1NAS had in fact been persecuted by members of the Ridgeway Parks
Service (RPS) under the provisions of the Wildlife Conservation Act; subsequently being arrested for unlawful
possession of a firearm, therefore making this a post-enforcement case.
[3] PLAINTIFF IS ENTITLED TO FILE SUIT & SEEK RELIEF
The plaintiff is undeniably human, albeit with poor fashion taste. I have no idea why the defence would try and class
the plaintiff as an “animal” dispite said animals being fully capable of operating a motor vehicle, firearm, and
communicating in English. This also raises the notation of a constitutional issue in the plaintiff’s response,
referencing the fact that all citizens of the state of ridgeway are entitled to find recourse and remedy for any laws,
injuries and wrongs committed against them.
It is so ordered,
/s/ Dannlabs
Document record
File size
100.4 KB
Uploaded
Apr 12, 2022 12:00 PM
Filed
Apr 12, 2022 12:00 PM
Filing code
COMPLAINT
Uploaded by
lx1nas
Notes
Archived from the Trello docket (https://trello.com/c/K8BASDJw)
