SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF RIDGEWAY
THE STATE OF RIDGEWAY
DOCKET NO. RSC-CM-2362
v.
ImagineBeingRatioed
Defendant
MOTION TO DISMISS AND STRIKE
Comes now the Defendant, ImagineBeingRatioed, by and through his Counsel to move to Dismiss the matter and
strike Exhibit A, C, D and E. The matter violates the defendant’s rights to speedy trial as protected by the sixth
amendment, which means that it should be dismissed. Moreover, the aforementioned exhibits are inadmissible
due to inconsistent statements made (Rid. R. Evid 39(a)(1)) and the character of Arthur_Chen ( Rid. R. Evid
13(b)(2)), which means the court should not accept this evidence.
ARGUMENT
SIXTH AMENDMENT RIGHT TO A SPEEDY TRIAL
The Sixth Amendment of the constitution states that “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the
right to a speedy and public trial”. In the case Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (1972), the Supreme Court set out a
four part test to determine if this sixth amendment right has been violated:
1. the length of delay
2. the reason for the delay,
3. the time and manner in which the defendant has asserted his right, and
4. the degree of prejudice to the defendant which the delay has caused.
5.
1) This matter was filed one month ago this Monday, during which not even arraignment has taken place. The last
attempt to set a date for arraignment was on the 27th of March.
2) This delay is due to the limited availability of the prosecution and the court to find a suitable time. While the
defense appreciates that real-life matters take precedence, to take more than one month proves that there has not
been a concerted effort by the prosecution to schedule, with the burden being on them to do so. The 27th of
March date was rejected once again by the prosecution due to real-life work.
3) While the defendant may not have always been gentlemanly in his words, he made an attempt on the 10th,
17th, 25th and 27th of march to expedite the case. The attempts on the 10th and 27th of march fell on deaf ears
for the prosecution, which proves that the defendant has been asserting his right.
4) The defendant now has a continuous warrant out for his arrest during his pre-trial detention, that stops the
defendant from properly enjoying all that ridgeway has to offer. Even if the case hadn’t gone his way, he would
have completed his sentence by now and been able to enjoy ridgeway once again.
Therefore, the defense argues that the case should be dismissed on the grounds of the sixth amendment right to a
speedy trial.
STATEMENT OF PROBABLE CAUSE DOES NOT CORROBORATE WITH EXHIBIT B
Pursuant to Rid. R. Evid 39(a)(1), the defendant has made an inconsistent statement between the alleged video
evidence (exhibit B) and his interview (exhibit D). The statement of probable cause by affiant Special Agent
UnKnownHooman sixth fact states that the defendant “admitted to killing the complainant with an illegal firearm
because they thought the complainant was going to arrest them for the Stetson M2A.”. Yet, in the fifth fact
presented in this statement, the affiant states that the defendant allegedly “stated that they had to kill them because
they thought they had a warrant.”. This presents an inconsistency in the defendant’s statements. Did he allegedly
murder Arthur_Chen due to his belief that he had a warrant or because he thought he was going to be arrested?
This inconsistency leads me to believe that Exhibit D and Exhibit A are not admissible.
ARTHUR_CHEN’S CHARACTER RENDERS HIS INTERVIEW AND TIP INADMISSIBLE
Pursuant to Rid. R. Evid 13(b)(2), Arthur_Chen has made statements that prove he has a plan to cause disruptions
for the court. In discord correspondence with the defendant on 02/29/2024 , Arthur_Chen stated “Come on just
troll the court dude”, “I mean it’s up to you // But like it’s more fun when you show up and cause a ruckus ngl”,
“Honestly that would be hilarious // First degree murder” and “I mean you’re still gonna get tried either way so
might as well make the most of it”. These statements can be found here. This is damning evidence. The
complainant is attempting to get the defendant to commit a crime, which is not only solicitation, but proof that the
complainant has a motive in distorting facts in order to render this trial more likely.
CONCLUSION
Overall, this matter must be dismissed due to the speedy trial concerns, as well as the admissibility of evidence
which renders the probable cause null and void. If the case is not dismissed however, Exhibits A, B, D and E must
be struck due to their inadmissibility.
Dated: Saturday, 30st of March 2024.
Respectfully Submitted,
/s/ Louis Montagu
Ridgeway Bar No. 11107
Assistant Public Defender,
Prosecutions Section
Discord: LouisWCWG
