IN THE SUPERIOR COURT
OF THE STATE OF RIDGEWAY
STATE OF RIDGEWAY,
Plaintiff,
v.
BRANDONNLUV; ROYALTYSYN;
MATRIX_OC
Defendants.
Case No. RSC-CM-2642
MOTION TO DISMISS
Hon. Judge koala4life
Defendants jointly, proceeding by and through their undersigned counsel, request that this
court dismiss, with prejudice, all charges presented in above-mentioned matter in order to protect
the due process rights of the defendants. Attached below is a memorandum of law in support of
the defendants’ motion.
Dated: April 17, 2024 Respectfully submitted:
DavidLClarke
Clarke, Feelings & Associates, LLP.
R. Bar No. 17134
D: @aczero0
Counsel of Record
_______________________________
notsfeelings
Clarke, Feelings & Associates, LLP.
R. Bar No. 21101
D: @wisenheimerr
Counsel for the Defendants
LAW OFFICES OF CLARKE, FEELINGS & ASSOCIATES, LLP.
1
MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS
Defendants jointly submit this memorandum of law in support of the motion to dismiss
made on April 17, 2024. Defendant Matrix_oc furthermore submits this memorandum severally
from the other defendants with respect to argument two.
I. The charges presented against the defendants are the result of a previous indictment
(all counts).
On March 12, 2024, a grand jury returned a true bill of indictment, charging the
defendants with criminal offenses. Three days later, the Superior Court delivered the required
grand jury disclosures that led to the true bill being returned. Those charges were dismissed by
this court upon the State’s failure to act appropriately within the deadline set to respond to a
motion made by the defense. On April 12, 2024, an identical true bill of indictment was returned
and accompanied by the very same grand jury disclosures that were presented in the first
iteration of these charges.
As the defendants are public officials, they undoubtedly enjoy the right to only face
criminal charges upon indictment by a grand jury. Article I, Section VII, Ridgeway State
Constitution. The true bill which presents seven charges against three defendants in this matter
was dismissed by this Court on April 12, 2024. Regardless of whether jeopardy had previously
attached, the dismissal of the charges by this court has bound “finality” to the matter because it
terminated the action, such that would be subject to appeal under Rid. R. Sup. Ct. 11(1)(a)(iii)
supported by 1 R. Stat. § 2203(i). See Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541
(1949); see also Swift & Co. v. Compania Caribe, 339 U.S. 684 (1950). With this finality in
mind, charges for these offenses cannot be brought under the same grand jury indictment that
authorized and began the first iteration because that first indictment (and the consent of the grand
jury to which is attached) are no longer operative.
LAW OFFICES OF CLARKE, FEELINGS & ASSOCIATES, LLP.
2
It is clear that, because the current true bill presented has only been endorsed by the first
grand jury and the charges contained therein were dismissed, the charges here cannot proceed
against the defendants on the authority of that bill. This is analogous to two informations
presented against a defendant. Where one is dismissed, with or without prejudice, that same
document cannot be resubmitted to the court with the effect of properly reinstating proceedings
under law. A second, separate, legal document is necessary to reinstate proceedings.
II. The prosecutor has an “axe to grind” against Defendant Matrix_oc (count 6).
The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit made a clear and precise
definition for someone who is not a disinterested prosecutor—that the prosecutor in question
“has, or is under the influence of others who have, an axe to grind against the defendant, as
distinguished from the appropriate interest that members of society have in bringing a defendant
to justice…” Wright v. United States, 723 F.2d 1048, 1056 (2nd Cir. 1984). The court should
adopt the standard identified in Wright which specifies that a “reasonable potential for prejudice”
is sufficient to trigger this test. Id. at 1056. There is plentiful evidence that identifies the
prosecutor, Ryan J. Syndicate, as having an axe to grind against Defendant Matrix_oc. The
prosecutor has made multiple attacks to the character of the defendant, especially as a prominent
government official. See appendix A to this memorandum.
In the Ridgeway Discord server #general-chatroom, the prosecutor has made many
statements that indicate his destain for Defendant Matrix_oc. This stems from engaging taking
part in furthering political attacks against the defendant like “hashtag matrix gate✊” (see
appendix A-1) to direct attacks on the personal character of the defendant like “you a pussy bitch
who don’t stand for shit” (see appendix A-2). Mr. Syndicate has further made comments in the
Ridgeway Discord server and Ridgeway Senate Discord server amounting to criticism of
LAW OFFICES OF CLARKE, FEELINGS & ASSOCIATES, LLP.
3
Defendant Matrix_oc’s ability to “control the senate he presides over” (see appendix A-4) and
blaming senatorial problems on Matrix’s leadership (see appendix A-5).
Furthermore, in the most recent gubernatorial election, the prosecutor was the forefront
opposition candidate to the defendant. Prosecutor RyanJSyndicate had publicly stated that if he
was to lose the election, he would leave the Roblox platform entirely. Upon actually losing the
election, he did in fact leave the Ridgeway Discord server and seemingly take leave from the
Roblox platform as a whole. However, this has not lasted, and he has returned to the State since
March 7, 2024. Mr. Syndicate is also no stranger to political campaigns and crafted billboard ads
to be displayed prominently across the State. These billboards range from catchy slogans such as
“keep em’ in your sights or he’ll take your rights” to ad hominem attacks at the morale character
of the defendant such as “corrupt, incompetent, power hungry” and “no control, poor leadership”
(see appendix A-3). Also viewable in that appendix A-3 is further comment from the prosecutor
indicating that he believes Defendant Matrix_oc has lived up to these characteristics that were
prominently displayed on billboards.
It is clear that under the “reasonable potential for prejudice” standard established in
Wright, the current prosecutor should be barred from bringing these charges himself.
III. Selective prosecution (with respect to counts 2 and 5) is a violation of due process.
“[T]he decision whether or not to prosecute, and what charge to file or bring before a
grand jury, generally rests entirely in [the prosecutor’s] discretion.” Bordenkircher v. Hayes, 434
U.S. 357, 364 (1978). Despite the indictment being made and presented by a grand jury, the
discretion of the prosecutor is a key element for how such charges came to be and is subject to
challenge on the grounds of selective prosecution. Selective prosecution occurs primarily when
the discretionary decision made is based on “an unjustifiable standard such as race, religion, or
other arbitrary classification, including the exercise of protected statutory and constitutional
LAW OFFICES OF CLARKE, FEELINGS & ASSOCIATES, LLP.
4
rights.” Reno v. American-Arab Anti Discrimination Com., 525 U.S. 471, 498 (1999). The
provisions set forth in Reno provide for politically discriminative action by way of the
constitutional rights which protect engagement in the democratic processes of government.
Defendants must also demonstrate that “(1) similarly situated individuals . . . were not
prosecuted, and (2) that the decision to prosecute was invidious or in bad faith.” United States v.
Hastings, 126 F.3d 310, 313 (4th Cir. 1997).
Counts two and five pertain to the placement of two alleged victims on administrative
leave pending their later discharge from the agency in question when there was allegedly not an
investigation proceeding against them at that time. In satisfying the first element of the Hastings
test, defendants highlight nine separate occasions assembled from a preliminary search of
departmental records which indicate that a person was put on administrative leave pending or
immediately prior to their discharge that was not due to an investigation. See appendix B. The
alleged misconduct has been perpetrated and repeated by many residents of the State, yet only
the defendants in this action have been indicted on those grounds. Similarly situated individuals
were not prosecuted.
In satisfying the second element of the Hastings test, defendants identify their political
affiliation as the element considered in bad faith. Defendant Matrix_oc is a political figure and
current Governor of the State of Ridgeway, and both other defendants are political allies with
Matrix_oc, including campaigning for him. As evidenced by this motion and the second motion
for dismissal (see appendix C) in the first iteration of these charges, both Special Counsel stickza
(who brought the charges before the grand jury) and now Assistant Attorney General
RyanJSyndicate exhibit significantly biased behavior towards Defendant Matrix_oc on account
LAW OFFICES OF CLARKE, FEELINGS & ASSOCIATES, LLP.
5
of his political views and the exercise of his constitutional rights to take part in democratic
processes of the State of Ridgeway. This satisfies the second element of Hastings.
This court must act to stop the “resulting violation of due process,” United States v.
Armstrong, 517 U.S. 456, 464-465 (1996), that would occur from allowing selective prosecution
to proceed, given the selection was “based upon an unjustifiable standard.” Bordenkircher, supra
at 380.
IV. The charges should be dismissed with prejudice.
This is the second time that the State has attempted to bring these charges against the
defendants. The first being dismissed by reason of the State’s negligence and inability to proceed
on the charges, this second iteration is insufficient for the reasons argued above. In such cases, it
is within the court’s authority to dismiss the charges with prejudice. Indeed, “[a] plaintiff is
required to conduct their due diligence in pursuing an action before the court, and because of this
pursuit, there may be a prejudice against the defendant.” State of Ridgeway v. BattalionGavin, 2
Rid. ___, ___ (22-15) (2022). The due process rights of the defendants are subject to violation if
this court dismisses without prejudice. The fair administration of justice demands that the State
not be permitted to prosecute defendants repeatedly with the goal of having one sustainable
attempt and securing a conviction in that one attempt. See State of Ridgway v. BattalionGavin, 4
R. Supp. 14 (2023). “The continued ability of the State ‘with all its resources and powers’ should
not be encouraged nor permitted to refile their cases until they can get ‘their food to stick to the
wall.’” Id. at 15.
CONCLUSION
Because the prosecutor has an axe to grind against Defendant Matrix_oc and the state has
failed to properly bring charges against all three defendants, dismissal is warranted and required
LAW OFFICES OF CLARKE, FEELINGS & ASSOCIATES, LLP.
6
to protect the due process rights of the defendants. Dismissal should be with prejudice in
accordance with the standards set in Gavin, 4 R. Supp. 14 (2023).
Dated: April 17, 2024 Respectfully submitted:
DavidLClarke
R. Bar No. 17134
Counsel of Record
notsfeelings
R. Bar No. 21101
Counsel for the Defendants
LAW OFFICES OF CLARKE, FEELINGS & ASSOCIATES, LLP.
7
APPENDIX A
EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF ARGUMENT TWO
A-1—Engaging in the MatrixGate scandal.
A-2—Making hostile remarks against the character of the defendant.
LAW OFFICES OF CLARKE, FEELINGS & ASSOCIATES, LLP.
8
APPENDIX A
EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF ARGUMENT TWO
A-3—Evidence from a gubernatorial campaign attacking Matrix_oc’s credibility & character.
LAW OFFICES OF CLARKE, FEELINGS & ASSOCIATES, LLP.
9
APPENDIX A
EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF ARGUMENT TWO
A-4—Further political campaign messages attacking and criticizing defendant Matrix_oc.
A-5—Political campaign messages attacking and criticizing defendant Matrix_oc. (Senate Disc.)
LAW OFFICES OF CLARKE, FEELINGS & ASSOCIATES, LLP.
10
APPENDIX B
TABLE IN SUPPORT OF ARGUMENT THREE
Agency Subject Date Notes
Ridgeway SO NaydenVeteran Feb. 26, 2024 “Pending tool collection”
Ridgeway SO TheNamesCool08 Feb. 5, 2024 “Pending discharge for receiving
3 recorded warnings”
Ridgeway SO CoastBreeze Jan. 26, 2024 “Pending termination”
Palmer PD milexbricks Aug. 25, 2023 “Pending termination”
Ridgeway SO AimyInfernal Aug. 12, 2023 “Resignation, pending tool
search”
Palmer PD Dan_Enforcement Jun. 19, 2023 “Pending termination”
Ridgeway SO GlowRevelation Mar. 14, 2023 “Resignation, pending tool
search”
Ridgeway FD OmniGalaxy January 19, 2023 “Opting to resign from academy,
pending search and discharge”
Palmer PD AviatorCxxl Nov. 14, 2022 “Pending termination”
LAW OFFICES OF CLARKE, FEELINGS & ASSOCIATES, LLP.
11
APPENDIX C
SECOND DEFENSE MOTION TO DISMISS
IN CRIMINAL MATTER STATE V. BRANDONNLUV ET AL.
RSC-CM-2455
LAW OFFICES OF CLARKE, FEELINGS & ASSOCIATES, LLP.
12
STATE OF RIDGEWAY
Plaintiff,
v.
BRANDONNLUV
ROYALTYSYN
MATRIX_OC
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
RIDGEWAY COUNTY
Criminal Action No. 2455
Defendants jointly, by and through the undersigned counsel, now submit their motion to
dismiss the above-styled matter:
I. The indictment should be set aside because the prosecutor is not disinterested.
a. The prosecutor represents a party to the matter.
Shortly prior to the indictments of the defendants, prosecutor Stickza levied an administrative
lawsuit against Defendant BrandonnLUV and the Ridgeway National Guard. He represented
Just_Dapper, who is a party to these proceedings and considered a key witness. In the lawsuit, the
Ridgeway National Guard was accused of engaging in unlawful practices—the exact same
allegations in this indictment.
New York State’s highest court dealt with a situation similar to here—in People v. Zimmer,
the New York Court of Appeals held that the conflict was “plain” in a situation where a prosecutor
had indicted Zimmer for white collar crimes. 51 N.Y.2d 390, 395 (1980). Here, the prosecutor was
counsel to the corporations that Zimmer was alleged to have committed the crimes against. The
situation is the exact same as here—a prosecutor prosecuting a crime in which his client is a victim.
The prosecutor has a genuine and material interest in furthering the interests of his client,
Just_Dapper. He is ethically bound to represent his interests—at the same time, as the state’s
prosecutor, he is meant to be a nonpartisan person. At no point can he serve his two masters and
continue to be fair, objective, and impartial. Id. See also Ganger v. Payton, 379 F.2d 709 (4th Cir.
1967) (holding that prosecutorial conflict of interest constituted reversible constitutional error,
using the “two masters” analogy). Even if there was no actual prejudice, “[n]o matter the good
faith and integrity of the [prosecutor]… what impression could the defendant have had of the
fairness of a prosecution instituted by one with the personal… attachments of this prosecutor?” Id.
Because the prosecutor has a fiduciary duty of loyalty to his client, the same one who is
victimized in this matter, he is legally bound to take account of his interests. And again, even if
there was no actual misconduct, there is an intolerable danger that the public interest will be
compromised and the conduct will at least produce the appearance of impropriety. See Young v.
United States ex rel Vuitton et Fils, 481 U.S. 787, 802-809 (1987). This risk continues to be present
as the prosecutor makes discretionary decisions related to the case but outside of the supervision
of the court, such as what investigative methods to employ, whom to investigate and prosecute, or
even whether to plea bargain.
This conduct on its own warranted recusal from the New York prosecutor, and because he
failed to do so, the court should set aside the indictment. Zimmer, supra at 396. Indeed, “[w]here
the conflict is irreconcilable, an unfair trial cannot be tolerated.” R v. Ahmad, 2011 SCC 6, [2011]
1 S.C.R. 110.
b. The prosecutor had an “axe to grind” against the defendant and was under the
influence of an individual who also did.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit made a clear and precise definition
for someone who is not a disinterested prosecutor—that the prosecutor in question “has, or is under
the influence of others who have, an axe to grind against the defendant, as distinguished from the
appropriate interest that members of society have in bringing a defendant to justice…” Wright v.
United States, 732 F.2d 1048, 1056 (2nd Cir. 1984).
There is an abundance of evidence suggesting that the prosecutor had a dislike for Defendant
Matrix_oc, and it is reasonable to say his client, Just_Dapper, had influence over the prosecutor as
well. The prosecutor has made an abundance of personal attacks against Matrix’s character. At
one occasion, attached hereto as Appendix A, he referred to him as “sleepy matrix” and “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 prosecutor referred to
Defendant Matrix_oc as a member of a “torture ring.” (19:20). Later, he referred to him again as
“dementia-ridden” three times in less than twenty seconds, advising him to “seek help” numerous
times. (22:35-22:55). In the prosecutor’s book, Ro-Law: My Story, attached hereto as Appendix
D, he considers Defendant Matrix_oc as ingenuine, “egotistical,” accuses him of power trips, and
more. Nearly all of chapter five is dedicated to him discussing Defendant Matrix.
In private direct message conversations with Defendant Matrix_oc, attached hereto as
Appendix E, the prosecutor calls Defendant Matrix_oc “fucking stupid,” “DUMB,” and even
“gross[ly] incompeten[t].”
Just_Dapper, who has “virtually certain[ly]” influenced the prosecutor through their
professional relationship and work with the administrative lawsuit, has made many claims against
Defendants as well. Young, supra at 802-809. At one time, attached hereto as Appendix F, he calls
Defendant Matrix_oc “mentally ill asf [sic],” just like his counselor. He attached a photograph,
attached hereto as Appendix G, with the Discord message. The photograph is a collage of pictures,
with the header being “Most Sane Governor:[.]” The collage contains a picture of Defendant
Matrix_oc’s Discord profile, and informative posters on psychological disorders.
At another time, attached hereto as Appendix H, Just_Dapper accuses Defendant
Matrix_oc of revoking his free speech access. On another, attached hereto as Appendix I,
Just_Dapper pings Defendants Matrix_oc and BrandonnLUV and says “NO JUSTICE, NO
PEACE, PROSECUTE THE DEEPS[.]” Upon information and belief, “the deeps” refers to the
“deep state,” a political conspiracy theory. He, at another time attached hereto as Appendix J, says
that Defendant Matrix_oc engaged in an abuse of power.
CONCLUSION
Because the prosecutor has a glaring conflict of interest against Defendants and has failed to
rectify the conflict by recusal, dismissal is warranted. Even if the court does not find that the facts
are sufficient to constitute actual prejudice, this court should adopt standards under which “a
reasonable potential for prejudice will suffice.” Wright, at 1056.
Respectfully submitted.
Dated: April 4, 2024
David Clarke, Esq.
Ridgeway Bar No. 17134
Counsel of Record
Clarke and Associates, LLP
/s/ Turntable5000
Ridgeway Bar No. 17111
/s/ notsfeelings
Ridgeway Bar No. 21101
Clarke and Associates, LLP
/s/ Totoro987123
Ridgeway Bar No. 17148
APPENDICES
Appendix A
IMG_5138.png (1170×2532) (discordapp.net)
Appendix B
IMG_5143.png (1170×2532) (discordapp.net)
Appendix C
Lander Journal | Recall Shenanigans AND THE STATE IS ABOUT TO FUCKING EXPLODE
🔥💣💥 - YouTube
Appendix D
Stickza biography - Google Drive
Appendix E
Appendix F
Appendix G
Appendix H
Appendix I
Appendix J
