ADM F. 500 (Rev. 03/22) Order and Judgment
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF RIDGEWAY
STATE OF RIDGEWAY )
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
DOCKET NO. RSC-CM-401
Plaintiff
v.
DRACONICLAW, ARTY1835,
FRANKIEDOMENICI, AND QUIETOUS
Defendants
BACKGROUND
On the 29th of May 2022, the Ridgeway Justice Department filed an information against the defendants
alleging violations of 3 R.C.C § 09, 5 R.C.C § 08, and 5 R.C.C § 04. All defendants failed to appear, therefore
the matter was held in absentia. Trial began on the 27th of June and concluded on the 10th of July.
State’s Exhibit A, a 1 minute clip, depicts the acts in which the defendants are allegedly liable for.
State’s Exhibit B depicts a SBI interview with one of the defendants.
The state’s argument is summarized through their examination of Arvantise, who testified under oath
that they were 1) killed by all four of the defendants 2) using police grade weaponry that they obtained
unlawfully.
The defense’s argument is summarized by their argument that the murders were made in self defense
under the Vehicular Assault Act, as well as their argument that the state failed to prove that the defendants were
either civilians of off-duty and lacking proper privilege to carry that type of weaponry, absolving liability of
counts one and three, and that the statutory definition of unlawful possession of police-grade equipment is
unconstitutionally vague.
JUDGMENT
This court rejects all of the defense’s arguments. For their first argument, that the killings were made in
self defense, this court references Section 3 of the Vehicular Assault Act-the statutory grounds for which the
defense bases their self-defense argument- “Any attempts to use/uses of lethal force on an on-duty member
of a government agency shall not be protected under this Act.” It is evident that the complainant and his partner
were on-duty and clearly identifiable as peace officers at the time of the incident.
For the second argument, this court is not satisfied that the defense has presented a compelling argument
as to why the defendants should not reasonably be expected to know their conduct-allegedly purchasing or
obtaining police-grade weaponry- was in violation of the law. This court is also not convinced that the definition
of “dispense” needs to be explicitly described in the statute itself; the definition of “dispense” is common
knowledge.
For the third argument, this court holds that the state need not necessarily prove beyond a reasonable
doubt that the defendants did not meet the criteria in which a person can be absolved of liability for possession
of police-grade equipment. The argument of the defense, in this aspect, is an affirmative defense and therefore
must be substantiated by the defense; the argument is only assumed to be true when proven by the defense.
For these reasons it would be obvious that a guilty verdict for all defendants on all counts would be in
order. However, this is not the case. This court is satisfied that the state has met the burden of proof for counts
one and three, but this is not necessarily evident for count two. Upon examination of state’s Exhibit A, it is
immediately obvious that defendants arty1835 and FrankieDomenici are not carrying police-grade rifles.
In the case of arty1835, it is clear that they are carrying a pistol, not a rifle as alleged by the state. In the
case of FrankieDomenici, it appears they are carrying a shotgun, not a rifle as alleged by the state. In both cases,
it could be possible that these weapons are police-grade equipment and thus the two defendants are guilty,
however the state has completely failed to account for this clear discrepancy between their argument and what
their evidence shows.
CONCLUSION
For the aforementioned stated reasons, this court finds all defendants;
- GUILTY ON COUNT ONE - 3 R.C.C § 09 - FIRST-DEGREE MURDER
- GUILTY ON COUNT THREE - 5 R.C.C § 04 - BRANDISHING
For the aforementioned stated reasons, this court finds defendant arty1835;
- NOT GUILTY ON COUNT TWO - 5 R.C.C § 08 - UNLAWFUL POSSESSION OF
POLICE-GRADE EQUIPMENT
For the aforementioned stated reasons, this court finds defendant FrankieDomenici;
- NOT GUILTY ON COUNT TWO - 5 R.C.C § 08 - UNLAWFUL POSSESSION OF
POLICE-GRADE EQUIPMENT
For the aforementioned stated reasons, this court finds defendant Quietous;
- GUILTY ON COUNT TWO - 5 R.C.C § 08 - UNLAWFUL POSSESSION OF
POLICE-GRADE EQUIPMENT
For the aforementioned stated reasons, this court finds defendant DraconicLaw;
- GUILTY ON COUNT TWO - 5 R.C.C § 08 - UNLAWFUL POSSESSION OF
POLICE-GRADE EQUIPMENT
IT IS SO ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED.
At Palmer, Ridgeway, this 9th day of June, 2022.
/s/ Hecxtro
SUPERIOR COURT JUDGE
