SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF RIDGEWAY
STATE OF RIDGEWAY
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
DOCKET NO. RSC-CM762
RESPONSE TO MOTION TO DISMISS
Plaintiff
v.
PIRATEHOOKTAIL
Defendant
SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT
On November 6th, 2022, former Ridgeway Department of Justice Prosecutor DavidLClarke allegedly
struck an agreement with Defendant PirateHookTail tasking the Defendant to testify in the Ridgeway Superior
Court case State of Ridgeway v. BattalionGavin in exchange for granting the Defendant immunity from
prosecution, an immunity deal which has not been shown to even exist by any evidence submitted to this court.
It should also be noted that the State of Ridgeway does not have an immunity statute, making any claim by the
Defendant to prosecutorial immunity null and void. Even if the Defendant’s alleged immunity is legally
permissible, there are many other issues with such a deal that make it unenforceable and without legal basis.
ARGUMENT
I. THE DEFENDANT DID NOT PROVIDE ADEQUATE INFORMATION TO SATISFY ANY
ALLEGED IMMUNITY DEAL
The Defense throughout their motion to dismiss this matter cited many cases, however, none of them are
binding precedent on this jurisdiction and the cases they do cite are either not applicable or do not support the
Defense’s argument. One case cited is United States v. Nersesian, 824 F.2d 1294, 1320 (2d Cir. 1987), opining
"However, Annabi does not point to, and we are unaware of, any disclosures made by Annabi during his period
of purported cooperation that actually were placed before the jury… we cannot say that any of Anna-bi's
statements, or evidence derived from those statements were admitted against him in violation of his cooperation
agreement"(Ibid). Defendant PirateHookTail never provided any evidence or testimony in the Superior Court
case State of Ridgeway v. BattalionGavin to the prosecution or to the case as a whole, rendering any immunity
deal unenforceable due to the Defendant’s noncompliance.
II. THE STATE OF RIDGEWAY HAS NO IMMUNITY STATUTE
As previously mentioned, the State of Ridgeway has no immunity statute or similar analog. The United
States Supreme Court in Kastigar v. United States, 406 U.S. 441 (1972) has permitted such immunity deals to
be previously admitted in a court of law, however such immunity is not legally possible or permissible in this
state because of that lack of statute. Accordingly, this court cannot accept any form of immunity deal as binding
on the prosecution’s ability to bring a case against the Defendant. Every case that the Defendant has cited in
support of their argument and every state that those cases took place in have immunity statutes in play, thereby
rendering their decisions irrelevant to these proceedings.
III. THE RIDGEWAY DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE DOES NOT PERMIT IMMUNITY DEALS
TO BE STRUCK
Furthermore, disregarding that any alleged immunity deal is legally unenforceable in this jurisdiction,
even if said immunity deal existed, the Defendant did not provide any information to satisfy the potential terms
of said deal, DavidLClarke did not have unilateral authority to grant such a deal to the Defendant and no formal
approval from the Department of Justice administration was written down and noted as applicable, again
making any alleged immunity deal null and void if we rely on the United States Department of Justice policy on
immunity deals because the State of Ridgeway Department of Justice does not have such a policy owing to the
fact that the State of Ridgeway has no immunity statute1.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, this Court should deny the Defendant’s motion to dismiss and permit this
case to continue to trial.
/s/ARTHUR SPRINGS
ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
COUNSEL OF RECORD
Date: November 27th, 2022
1 https://www.justice.gov/jm/jm-9-23000-witness-immunity
