IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF RIDGEWAY COUNTY
STATE OF RIDGEWAY,
Plaintiff,
v.
BRANDONNLUV,
ROYALTYSYN,
MATRIX_OC,
Defendants.
Case No. RSC-CM-2455
Presiding Judge: Hon. koala4life
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS
Defendants jointly, proceeding by and through the undersigned counsel, request that this
court dismiss the above-mentioned matter since the case was unconstitutionally brought and the
prosecution is vindictive in nature. Attached below is a memorandum of law in support of the
Defendant’s motion to dismiss.
DATED: March 26, 2024 Respectfully submitted,
DavidLClarke, Esq.
R. Bar No. 17134
Clarke & Associates, LLP
Counsel of Record
notsfeelings, Esq.
R. Bar No. 21101
Clarke & Associates, LLP
turntable5000, Esq.
R. Bar No. 17111
totoro987123, Esq.
R. Bar No. 17148
Attorneys for the Defendant
——————————————————————————————————————————————
MOTION TO DISMISS
- 1 -
MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS
ARGUMENT
I. CASE MUST BE DISMISSED BECAUSE IT WAS BROUGHT THROUGH THE
SPECIAL COUNSEL’S UNCONSTITUTIONAL EXERCISE OF THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL’S SOLE PROSECUTORIAL POWER
A. Special Counsel Violated the Constitution When He Brought This Case
Under Section 6.4(c) of the Judiciary Act
The Constitution of the State of Ridgeway provides that “There shall be an Attorney
General who is the Chief Prosecutor and Chief Attorney of the State; and shall have the sole
power to prosecute; and to enact other duties as prescribed by law.” Rid. Const., Art. IV, § V.
(emphasis added). As this court explained recently in Matrix_oc v. Techiey, et al., “Sole power to
prosecute means that no person other than the Attorney General may exercise the power to
prosecute except when that power is derived from the Attorney General.” Matrix_oc v. Techiey,
et al., RSC-CV-2461 (2024).
Certainly, our Constitution expects that the Attorney General will have subordinate
officers who assist in carrying out his lofty duties. However, the prosecutorial power must
ultimately belong to the Attorney General alone. Analogizing to the President of the United
States, “These lesser officers must remain accountable to the President, whose authority they
wield. As [James] Madison explained, ‘[I]f any power whatsoever is in its nature Executive, it is
the power of appointing, overseeing, and controlling those who execute the laws.’” Seila Law
LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, 591 U.S. ___, 140 S. Ct. 2183, 2197 (2020)
(citing 1 Annals of Cong. 463 (1789)).
Section 6.4(c) of the Judiciary Act, which permits the Attorney General to appoint
unaccountable and wholly independent Special Counsels with the power to prosecute as if he
were the Attorney General, violates Article IV, Section V, of the Constitution of the State of
Ridgeway. The provision meaningfully dilutes the Attorney General’s “sole power to prosecute.”
Rid. Const., Art. IV, § V. For this reason, the court entered an injunction against the Attorney
——————————————————————————————————————————————
MOTION TO DISMISS
- 2 -
General and Special Counsel from enforcing this provision of the judiciary act. Matrix_oc v.
Techiey, et al., supra.
This injunction, however, does not change the fact that when this case was brought, the
Special Counsel was acting unconstitutionally — he was independently wielding the
prosecutorial power of the Attorney General in violation of our state’s constitution. The act of
bringing this case was in and of itself unconstitutional.
B. The Grand Jury Indictment Must Be Dismissed
Since the Special Counsel was, prior to being enjoined, unconstitutionally wielding
prosecutorial power that was not his, this case must be dismissed. Indeed, the grand jury
indictment must be rendered void and null since it was unlawfully and unconstitutionally
procured.
New York’s highest court recently dealt with a very similar case, one which demonstrates
the necessity of dismissal in this matter. New York’s Protection of People with Special Needs
Act permitted the Governor to appoint special prosecutors empowered to investigate and
prosecute crimes of abuse or neglect of vulnerable victims in facilities operated, licensed, or
certified by the State. In People v. Viviani, the defendant challenged their indictment on the basis
that the statute is an unconstitutional delegation of core prosecutorial authority away from the
County District Attorneys—elected constitutional officers—to an unelected appointee of the
Governor. People v. Viviani, 36 N.Y.3d 564, 572, 2021 N.Y. Slip Op. 01934 (2021). New York’s
highest court agreed. The appropriate remedy, the Court then concluded, was to affirm dismissal
of the grand jury indictment. Viviani, 36 N.Y.3d at 572.
The facts and legal posture of Viviani are almost identical to the instant case; there is no
reason that the remedy should deviate. Grand jury proceedings instituted, argued, and ultimately
prosecuted by an official who lacked constitutional authority to any of the foregoing must be
dismissed. Those actions are indistinguishable from the Attorney General’s sole power to
prosecute — indeed, they are its very core. The ongoing injunction against the prosecutor and the
Attorney General does not remedy the invalidity of the grand jury’s indictment since it was
obtained before the injunction’s issuance. Put simply, the indictment was procured by an official
——————————————————————————————————————————————
MOTION TO DISMISS
- 3 -
who lacked the authority to pursue one. The fruits of such an unconstitutional exercise are
inherently corrupt. This court must dismiss the grand jury indictment.
II. THE CASE MUST BE DISMISSED AS THE SPECIAL COUNSEL HAS A
PERSONAL ANIMUS AGAINST DEFENDANTS
A. Standard of Review
Ordinarily, federal courts recognize that where a prosecutor has a “personal animus”
against a defendant, the prosecution is vindictive. See United States v. DeMichael, 692 F.2d
1059, 1061 (7th Cir. 1982). Specifically, courts apply the following test to determine whether a
prosecution is vindictive: 1) “that the prosecutor acted with genuine animus toward the defendant
and 2) the defendant would not have been prosecuted but for that animus.” United States v.
Wilson, 262 F.3d 305, 314 (4th Cir. 2001), cert. denied, 535 U.S. 1053 (2002)
However, where a defendant lacks direct evidence to prove an improper motive,
defendants are able to seek a presumption of vindictiveness by presenting “evidence of
circumstances where an improper vindictive motive may be presumed.” Ibid., at 315. To prevail
on a finding of presumptiveness, a defendant must show that the circumstances “pose a realistic
likelihood of ‘vindictiveness.’” Blackledge v. Perry, 417 U.S. 21, 27 (1974).
When the court makes a finding of presumptiveness, the burden then falls upon the
government to prove their conduct was not vindictive, and they must prove through objective
evidence that their conduct was justified. This burden-shifting deters vindictive prosecution:
criminal defendants are “freed of apprehension of such a retaliatory motivation.” United States v.
Goodwin, 457 U.S. 368, 374 (1982).
B. Defendants Satisfy the Test For Vindictive Prosecution
The special prosecutor appointed by the Attorney General has, on numerous occasions,
made direct attacks against Defendant Matrix_oc and his character. At one occasion, attached
hereto as Appendix A, he referred to him as “sleepy matrix” and as “dementia-ridden.” At
another, attached hereto as Appendix B, he said that “if i wanted to kill myself i could jump off
of matrix’s ego… i would fall so damn hard[.]”
During a RO-SPAN stream, attached hereto as Appendix C, the special prosecutor
referred to Defendant Matrix_oc as being part of a “torture ring” (19:20). Later, he referred to
——————————————————————————————————————————————
MOTION TO DISMISS
- 4 -
him again as “dementia-ridden” three times in less than 20 seconds, advising him to “seek help”
numerous times. (22:35-22:55). In the special prosecutor’s book, titled Ro-Law: My Story,
attached hereto as Appendix D, the special prosecutor describes Defendant Matrix_oc in a
variety of ways. At one time, he considers him ingenuine, “egotistical,” accuses him of power
trips, and other not very nice things about Defendant Matrix_oc. Nearly all of chapter five in this
book describes his disdainful relationship with Defendant Matrix_oc.
In an administrative proceeding filed against the Defendant BrandonnLUV and Guard,
the Special Counsel (prosecutor in this case) represented Just_Dapper, who is a key witness in
this matter. Just_Dapper v. Ridgeway Nat’l. Guard, et al., RSC-AD-2429 (Rid. Adm. Ct. 2024).
Mere days later, the Attorney General appointed Stickza to criminally investigate the very same
incident for which he had just sued the government. Given he had just sued the very defendants
whom he now attempts to prosecute, the Special Counsel was already prejudiced against the
National Guard and BrandonnLUV. The circumstances suggest that the Special Counsel is more
interested in furthering the interests of his client, Just_Dapper This is a major conflict of interest,
and not once in the course of these indictments was it declared.
Because the Special Counsel was already predisposed to the facts and inclined towards
Jusr_Dapper’s opinion in the matter, coupled with the fact that he had determined the case had
enough merit to warrant a claim in the administrative court, the decision to prosecute was already
clearly made in his mind. This is directly contrary to the very point of a special counsel—to be
an impartial, fair, and neutral individual.
For these reasons, there is sufficient evidence to pose a “realistic likelihood of
vindictiveness,” as such, we ask this court to make a presumption of vindictiveness and dismiss
this matter. Blackledge, 417 U.S. at 27.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, we urge the court to protect defendants from a manifest
constitutional injustice and to preclude the use of criminal proceedings to further the personal
animus of prosecutors.
——————————————————————————————————————————————
MOTION TO DISMISS
- 5 -
DATED: March 26, 2024 Respectfully submitted,
DavidLClarke, Esq.
R. Bar No. 17134
Clarke & Associates, LLP
Counsel of Record
notsfeelings, Esq.
R. Bar No. 21101
Clarke & Associates, LLP
turntable5000, Esq.
R. Bar No. 17111
turntable5000, Esq.
R. Bar No. 17148
Attorneys for the Defendant
——————————————————————————————————————————————
MOTION TO DISMISS
- 6 -
RIDGEWAY STATE SUPERIOR COURT
FOR THE
COUNTY OF RIDGEWAY
STATE OF RIDGEWAY,
Plaintiff,
v.
BRANDONNLUV,
ROYALTYSYN,
MATRIX_OC,
Defendants.
Case No. RSC-CM-2455
Presiding Judge: Hon. koala4life
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this March 26th, 2024, a copy of the foregoing motion was
submitted to the Department of Justice via electronic submission. I further certify that an attempt
was made to contact the Department of Justice via smoke signals to notify them of said
submission.
turntable5000, Esq.
R. Bar No. 17111
Attorney for the Defendant
——————————————————————————————————————————————
MOTION TO DISMISS
- 7 -
