IN THE
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF RIDGEWAY
STATE OF RIDGEWAY,
Plaintiff,
v.
BADASS14K,
Defendant.
Case No. RSC-CM-3203
MOTION TO DISMISS
MOTION TO DISMISS
Defendant badass14k, by and through the undersigned counsel, hereby submits this
motion to dismiss the criminal case against the defendant in full.
ARGUMENT
I. THIS COURT HOLDS NO PERSONAL JURISDICTION OVER THE
DEFENDANT
The State and the Court–by serving by publication–has failed to properly summon the
defendant. Because the State was not able to locate the defendant, this Court opted to serve by
publication, but did so erroneously. Indeed, it is required that a defendant “be notified of the
criminal proceedings against him and of the date of the return day by means of a summons. A
copy of the criminal information or indictment shall accompany the summons.” Rid. R. Crim. P.
6(a)(1). The summons document itself for the defendant does not contain any copy of the
criminal information against the defendant,1 nor does the service that Magistrate bommes did by
publication.2 This renders the service of the defendant erroneous.
This court does not have any ability to conduct proceedings without proper personal
jurisdiction. Indeed, personal jurisdiction over a defendant is an essential element of jurisdiction,
without which the Court may not proceed to an adjudication. See Ruhrgas AG v. Marathon Oil
Co., 526 U.S. 583, 584 (1999). This Court’s “requirement that a court have personal jurisdiction
2 https://gyazo.com/271a21ada471b483d3dc17f642d6bef0
1 https://gyazo.com/61ba63ead2c15704139bafe9c9f5fe19
flows [...] from the Due Process Clause.” Insurance Corp. of Ireland v. Compagnie Des Bauxites
De Guinee, 456 U.S., at 702. A Court “may” only “exercise personal jurisdiction over a
defendant” when “the procedural requirement of service of summons” is “satisfied.” Omni
Capital Int'l v. Rudolf Wolff Co., 484 U.S. 97, 104 (1987). “[S]ervice of summons is the
procedure by which a court having venue and jurisdiction of the subject matter of the suit asserts
jurisdiction over the person of the party served." Mississippi Publishing Corp. v. Murphree, 326
U.S. 438, 444-445 (1946). Without a proper service, this Court has violated the Due Process
Clause by operating on the defendant without first obtaining personal jurisdiction over him. As
such, it must dismiss this criminal case against him.
II. THE CRIMINAL INFORMATION IS INSUFFICIENT
It is a well regarded right that “[i]n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the
right [...] to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation.” U.S. Const. amend VI. This
right is essential for all criminal prosecutions, and yet it is a right that the prosecution has failed
to entertain. It is a common principle that criminal pleadings must contain “with reasonable
certainty, of the nature of the accusation against him,” Russell v. United States, 369 U.S. 749,
765 (1962) (quoting United States v. Simmons, 96 U.S. 360, 362 (1877). A charging document
may contain the general terms of the statute, See Simmons, supra, but it must contain the
specific language that creates reasonable certainty to the charges levied upon the defendant. See
United States v. Carll, 162 U.S. 611, 612 (1881). Indeed, the accusations against the defendant
must be “sufficiently definite to enable him to make his defense and avail himself of the record
of conviction or acquittal.” Armour Packing Co. v. United States, 209 U.S. 56, 83 (1908). If the
charging document does not contain specific language that creates reasonable certainty or
accusations that are sufficiently definite, then it is insufficient. Simmons, at 362; see also United
States v. Hess, 124 U.S. 483, 487 (1888); Russell, supra at 765, collecting cases. The Supreme
Court of the United States has consistently ruled over the years, that a charging document “may
incorporate the words of the statute to set forth the offense”, but the statutory language “must be
accompanied by such a statement of facts and circumstances as will inform the accused of the
specific offense, coming under the general description, with which he is charged.” Hamling v.
United States, 418 U.S. 117, 118 (1974) (quoting United States v. Hess, 124 U.S. 483, 487
(1888) (internal quotations omitted)). “An indictment that tracks the words of the statute
violated is generally sufficient, but implied, necessary elements, not presented in the statutory
language, must be included…” United States v. Jackson, 72 F.3d 1370, 1380 (9th Cir. 1995), cert
denied, 116 S.Ct 1546 (1996). It is an elementary principle of criminal pleading, that where the
definition of the offense, whether it be at common law or by statute, “includes generic terms, it
is not sufficient that the indictment shall charge the offense in the same generic terms as in the
definition; but [...] it must descend to particulars.” United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 558
(1875).
On July 22nd, 2024, the State of Ridgeway filed a criminal information against the
defendant, charging him with four counts–three misdemeanors and one felony–in violation of
the Ridgeway Criminal Code. For each and every single one of the charges, the State plainly
recites the statutory language, not including–or not including enough–general language and
language which descends to the particular actions conducted to support it. See, e.g., Count 4 -
Brandishing (“On or about the date of June 25th, 2024, bassass14k did draw and exhibit a
firearm in a rude, angry, and threatening manner towards RedTriumph.”) This language is not
sufficient. This Court ought to stay in line with other Courts who have ruled the same on these
exact issues and dismiss the information. See State of Ridgeway v. Njthan (Rid. Supr. Ct.)
RSC-CM-2413 (2024).
III. DISMISSAL IS THE ONLY PROPER REMEDY
Filing a criminal case against a person is no matter to be treated lightly; serious
accusations are being levied. The “commencement of criminal proceedings itself infringes on
liberty interests.” Albright v. Oliver, 510 U.S. 266, 297 (1994) (Stevens, J., dissenting).When
this happens, the State ought to be held at a high standard because after all, “[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 v. BattalionGavin 1. Rid __
(2022) (slip op.). This Court also “holds the power to dismiss with prejudice as a sanction
intended to prevent undue and unnecessary delays within the judicial process.” Id. Without a
proper criminal information and proper summons, the criminal case against the defendant has no
legs to stand with. This Court cannot allow the State to hold the defendant hostage and allow
another filing of summons or criminal information. When “a defendant’s rights have been
violated or [...] the integrity of judicial proceedings has otherwise been compromised”, this
Court must dismiss. United States v. Chavez-Tello, 510 F. App'x 506, 3 (9th Cir. 2013). The
State cannot proceed as though this entire case was untouched and left to its original form. This
would effectively refile this case, except illegitimately. The State should not be allowed to
circumvent the procedures of this court by being granted leave to fix the errors mentioned in the
motion. As such, the only available and proper remedy for these errors is dismissal.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, this Court should dismiss the criminal case against the
defendant in its entirety.
Date: 08/06/2024
_________________________________
JamesGardai, Esq.
Assistant Public Defender
RID. PUBLIC DEFENDER’S OFFICE
Ridgeway Bar No. 24101
1100 Lakeside Drive
Palmer, Ridgeway 80013
fishfromocean
Counsel of Record
