ADM F. 500 (Rev. 03/22) Order and Judgment
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF RIDGEWAY
LUISANTONIOSANTIAGO
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
DOCKET NO. RSC-CV-403
Plaintiff
v.
AVIXSZ
Defendant
RULING ON THE PETITION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
BACKGROUND
On the 30th of May, 2022, the plaintiff sought a writ of habeas corpus, alleging tortious false arrest and
requesting the expungement of the plaintiff’s arrest record from the 14th of May, 2022, as described herein;
On the 14th of May, 2022, the plaintiff is standing on the left end of the alley behind the National Guard
Palmer Recruiting Office. TrumpTheBuilder (‘assailant’) approaches the plaintiff from the adjoining road and
draws a fire axe. The assailant follows the plaintiff and swings their axe several times without striking the
plaintiff. The plaintiff draws their Cline handgun and fires one shot which strikes the assailant.
No less than a second after this shot lands, the assailant strikes the plaintiff with their axe. The assailant
continues swinging as the plaintiff moves away from the assailant, increasing the distance between the two by
about ten studs. Despite the 10 or so stud gap between the two, the plaintiff continues firing at the assailant. The
assailant enters a residential complex and is no longer in the line of sight of the plaintiff.
The plaintiff walks towards the door the assailant entered through, looks through its glass window, and
holsters their firearm. It is at this point a National Guard vehicle and guardsmen enter the plaintiff’s line of
sight. The assailant then smashes a second story window and jumps out, standing about five studs away from
the plaintiff. The plaintiff fires another shot at the assailant, killing them. The plaintiff fires twice more at the
assailant’s corpse.
The plaintiff argues that all exercises of force on their part constituted self-defense under the Ridgeway
Vehicular Assault Act, ironically, despite the fact that no vehicles were involved. The defense challenges this
contention, arguing (1) there was probable cause for the arrest because the plaintiff was ‘not engaged in lawful
self-defense’ and (2) a reasonable jury would find that the plaintiff was not acting entirely in self-defense. It is
important to note that the defendant reviewed plaintiff’s Exhibit A prior to arresting the plaintiff.
JUDGMENT
Unfortunately, this court cannot rule on the merits of the plaintiff’s argument. After the presentation of
the defendant’s brief and affidavit, it was discovered that the plaintiff’s Exhibit A was trimmed to exclude
portions of the video after it was viewed by the defendant at the time of the incident. The defendant was able to
produce material evidence to this effect. Plaintiff’s Exhibit A, in its current form, therefore does not fully
encapsulate all material evidence that was made available to the defendant by the plaintiff prior to the arrest.
In order for a court to justly scrutinize exercises of executive authority, specifically in habeas cases, a
plaintiff must present all material evidence of which they know, or reasonably should be expected to know, were
important in contributing to a defendant’s decision to issue an arrest.
This court holds that the events depicted in the edited-out seconds of plaintiff’s Exhibit A were
important in contributing to the defendant’s decision to issue an arrest. The plaintiff, by sending the video of the
incident to the defendant, should reasonably be expected to know that and, therefore, by failing to present the
full video to this court in the same form as originally provided to the plaintiff, is failing to present all material
evidence herein required.
The plaintiff’s failure to, at the very least, allow the court to review all facts the plaintiff directly
presented to the defendant prevents this court from granting any relief because any such grant would
significantly violate the substantial right of the defendant to due process.
CONCLUSION
For the aforementioned stated reasons, this court;
- DENIES the petition for a writ of habeas corpus and
- REFUSES all requested habeas relief
IT IS SO ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED.
At Palmer, Ridgeway, this 12th day of June, 2022.
/s/ Hecxtro
SUPERIOR COURT JUDGE
