STATE OF RIDGEWAY
SPECIALKOMRADE
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
DOCKET NO. RSC-CV-923
Plaintiff
v.
ECTOPIEX
Defendant
MOTION TO DISMISS
The Defendant, through their attorney, is hereby submitting this motion to dismiss the case of SpecialKomrade
v. Ectopiex. The grounds on which this motion is built will be explained in more detail below. The defense
urges the court to grant this motion to preserve the integrity of evidence in cases as a whole.
EVIDENCE WAS ALTERED
It has been established that the evidence submitted for this trial was altered by the Plaintiff, in more precise
terms: it was trimmed, meaning the video had parts removed from it. While it can be said that editing a video in
itself is not harmful, it does beg the question whether the pieces of evidence can be relied upon to uncover and
tell the whole truth.
PLAINTIFF SPOLIATED EVIDENCE BY ALTERING AND THEN REMOVING THE FULL
LENGTH VIDEOS
Upon requesting the full length clips, the attorney for the Plaintiff stated the following: “don’t waste your time
on a bill (of particulars) we don't have the video” which was then followed up by “client clears his medal every
5 (five) days”. This is a clear admission, albeit not directly from the plaintiff, that vital evidence, which could
have very well proven to be of importance to this case, was negligently destroyed.
A PRIOR COURT RULING HAS STATED THAT TRIMMED EVIDENCE WITHOUT THE FULL
CLIP VIOLATES A DEFENDANT’S CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS TO DUE PROCESS
A superior court ruling regarding a writ of Habeas Corpus by now Chief Justice Hecxtro has shown that altered
evidence, without the full clip to support it, is in direct violation of a defendant’s rights of due process. (See
RSC-CV-403)
The court noted that: “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 (…) is failing to present all
material evidence herein required.”
Furthermore, the court noted: “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”.
Finally: “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”.
In short, Judge Hecxtro ruled that the plaintiff should have been aware that the full video would be considered
evidence in this trial. By failing to provide the full video, the court was unable to ascertain all the facts in the
case in order to render an accurate and fair verdict. Furthermore, the judge ruled that the edited out seconds
were of importance regarding the outcome of this writ.
CONCLUSION
The court should GRANT this motion to dismiss on the grounds that:
I. Plaintiff was negligent and destroyed evidence, although it is impossible to say this was done
deliberately, which could have been of vital importance to the case.
II. Plaintiff failed to present the complete sequence of events before the court, due to the original
footage now being lost.
III. Without the complete and unedited footage, this court can not accurately grant a ruling to
ascertain the merit to these events. It could have very well painted a different picture if we
possessed the full videos, but this will likely never be known.
IV. Rendering a verdict based on incomplete, altered evidence, is a direct violation of the defendant’s
right to due process.
Respectfully Submitted,
Plaintiffs Ectopiex
By their Attorney,
/s/ bommes
bommes, RSB#11104
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A:
Attorney for the Plaintiff stating that the Plaintiff does not possess the full length videos and they were cleared out.
Appendix B:
First paragraph of the ruling in the case of LuisAntonioSantiago v. avixsz where the court ruled on incompletion of
the evidence.
Appendix C:
Paragraph of the ruling in the case of “” where the court ruled on the requirement to have any and all evidence
fully available.
Appendix D:
Paragraph of the ruling in the case of “” where the court ruled on the fact that the edited out footage was indeed of
importance and should have presented the full video before the court
Appendix E:
Paragraph of the ruling in the case of “” where the court ruled that the plaintiff should have allowed the court to
review the full sequence of events and, because of the failure to do so, has directly violated the defendant’s right of
due process.
