RESPONSE TO DEFENSE MOTION TO DISMISS - 1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
insertreality
Assistant Attorney General
Ridgeway Department of Justice
Ammunition, Tasers, & Firearms
RIDGEWAY SUPERIOR COURT
STATE OF RIDGEWAY,
Plaintiff,
vs.
BATTALIONGAVIN,
Defendant
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No.: No. RSC-CM-750
RESPONSE TO DEFENSE MOTION TO DISMISS
INTRODUCTION
On November 3rd, 2022, the Ridgeway County Sheriff's Office (hereinafter “RCSO”)
received a complaint against Lieutenant BattalionGavin (hereinafter “Defendant”). The
complainant stated that they had been killed by Defendant, with no legal justification
or reason. Defendant who was at the time of the incident acting in his official
capacity as a law enforcement officer.
The complainant produced a clip of themselves (Appendix F) driving toward
Defendant, who was at the time the driver of a marked RCSO armored vehicle, which was
sunk and stuck in the water at Small Bridge, in the City of Palmer. The clip showed
that the complainant exited their vehicle, and walked toward Defendant’s vehicle,
holding a coffee cup. Defendant then exited the RCSO bearcat, slightly struggled, then
began to swim southbound toward the complainant. At this time the complainant was
walking northbound on the bridge, in the opposite direction of Defendant. Defendant
then drew his department-issued Para 17, jumped out of the water, and shot at
complainant, striking him without saying anything, before getting back in the water.
Complainant after being shot, ran in the opposite direction of Defendant, and
Defendant swam in the same direction of complainant, assumingly giving chase.
RESPONSE TO DEFENSE MOTION TO DISMISS - 2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Complainant then reached the end of the bridge, which is when the complainant stood
still and looked toward defendant. Defendant then jumped out of the water again and
discharged his department-issued firearm at complainant until he was dead, and rag
dolled, face first, onto the cement road, and left complainant for dead.
As a result of seeing this clip, and considering all testimony given, the RCSO
Internal Affairs Unit declared that the Defendant did in fact violate RCSO Handbook
Section 303.5 and Section 504.1B. See Appendix B. As a result, Defendant was suspended
from RCSO for five-days, issued three-days of desk duty, and one-week of probation.
After this judgement, RCSO’s General Counsel evaluated the matter, and in a
memorandum sent to the Department of Justice (Appendix A) on or about the 5th of
November 2022, which is when DavidLClarke began his work in evaluating the matter
presented by RCSO’s General Counsel. Over the next 5 days, on and off, DavidLClarke
conducted research, further questioning, and eventually crafted and presented an
indictment against Defendant for his role in the incident.
ARGUMENT
The Defense first argues and claims that “[THE STATE] charged him [DEFENDANT]
and singled him out for prosecution in retaliation of his candidacy in the State
Senate race.”, however this is quite the contrary. The registration for the senatorial
election was announced on the 4th day of November 2022, an entire day after the
original complaint was submitted. During this time, the investigation by RCSO Internal
Affairs was on-going. On the 11th day of November 2022, the Senatorial ballot was
announced, and by this time, the investigation by RCSO Internal Affairs was over and
an indictment was already in the writing. Between the 4th and the 11th, RCSO had
completed their investigation and sent a memorandum to the Department of Justice,
which in turn began the investigation & writing of the indictment.
RESPONSE TO DEFENSE MOTION TO DISMISS - 3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
NOT SELECTIVE PROSECUTION:
To support a defense of selective or discriminatory prosecution, a defendant
bears the heavy burden of establishing, at least prima facie, (1) that, while others
similarly situated have not generally been proceeded against because of conduct of the
type forming the basis of the charge against him, he has been singled out for
prosecution, and (2) that the government's discriminatory selection of him for
prosecution has been invidious or in bad faith, i. e., based upon such impermissible
considerations as race, religion, or the desire to prevent his exercise of
constitutional rights. These two essential elements are sometimes referred to as
"intentional and purposeful discrimination." See United States v. Berrios, 501 F. 2d
1207 (1974); Snowden v. Hughes, 321 U.S. 1, 8, 64 S.Ct. 397, 88 L.Ed. 497 (1943); Moss
v. Hornig, 314 F.2d 89, 92-93 (2d Cir. 1963); United States v. Ahmad, 347 F.Supp. 912
(M.D.Pa.1972), aff'd sub nom., United States v. Berrigan, 482 F.2d 171 (3rd Cir.
1973); United States v. Falk, 479 F.2d 616 (7th Cir. 1973) (en banc); United States v.
Crowthers, 456 F.2d 1074 (4th Cir. 1972); United States v. Steele, 461 F.2d 1148 (9th
Cir. 1972), See Comment, "The Right to Nondiscriminatory Enforcement of State Penal
Laws," 61 Colum.L.Rev. 1103 (1961). Mere "conscious exercise of some selectivity in
enforcement is not in itself a federal constitutional violation." Oyler v. Boles, 368
U.S. 448, 456, 82 S.Ct. 501, 506, 7 L.Ed.2d 446 (1962).
The ruling in Berrios requires that for a selective prosecution claim to
contain merit, it requires that “similarly situated have not generally been proceeded
against because of conduct of the type forming the basis of the charge against him, he
has been singled out for prosecution […]” United States v. Berrios. In this matter,
the Defense has not mentioned nor proven that there are similarly situation people who
have not been proceeded against by the state, thereby nullifying, and preventing any
sort of selective or discriminatory claims to be burdened against the state.
RESPONSE TO DEFENSE MOTION TO DISMISS - 4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
DEFENDANT’S 5th AMENDMENT RIGHTS ARE IN-TACT:
The Defense alongside claiming selective prosecution claim that as a result of
the alleged “selective prosecution”, Defendant’s 5th Amendment rights have been
violated. This is abundantly false and has been disproven by my previous de-bunking’s
of the facade that is the Defense’s arguments. Furthermore, the Defense claims that
the Defendant was indicted solely for his participation in the senatorial race is
unfounded, false, and absolutely meritless. The normal avenues of investigation,
indictment, and prosecution have been followed to the letter, and for the Defense to
attempt to pull the wool over the court’s eyes is misleading and borderline unethical.
The Defendant was investigated and charged just like any other citizen, and for the
Defense to attempt to get this alleged murdering public official off the hook of
justice by spewing blatant lies and spreading speculatory arguments is saddening to
see.
APPENDIX
Appendix A - https://drive.google.com/file/d/1NPhbdXOSqYKzAK-
RLooXR7LXoaeyxoNC/view
Appendix B - https://drive.google.com/file/d/1jUiUq2Lyb-
qmVfZCO0tMg0eiFL6aSW9V/view
Appendix C - https://imgur.com/a/Fhvz3wc
Appendix D - https://imgur.com/Jvh8YtV
Appendix E - https://imgur.com/52eL2Rd
Appendix F - REDACTEDREDACTEDREDACTEDREDACTEDREDACTEDREDACTEDREDACTED
RESPONSE TO DEFENSE MOTION TO DISMISS - 5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Dated this 14th day of November 2022
/s/ insertreality
Ridgeway Department of
Justice
insertreality
