IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
THE STATE OF RIDGEWAY
STATE OF RIDGEWAY,
Plaintiff,
v,
11xek,
Defendant.
OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS
Hon. Arthur_Chen
Docket Number: RSC-CM-9831
1. COMES NOW, The State of Ridgeway, by and through its counsel (hereinafter the
‘State’) and the above-named defendant (hereinafter the ‘Defendant’) respectfully asks
this court to dismiss the motion to dismiss by the defense counsel for that the state did
comply with the court's orders into present discovery and attempt to arrange a trial.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
2. Probable cause for the charges was found during a duty court hearing by Magistrate
smashcans, ref DCE-2026-0024 on July 20th, 2026.
3. A criminal information was filed on July 26th, 2026 by then State Attorney
Gamer80sStyle for the state of Ridgeway.
4. A criminal summons was issued by the court clerk on July 26th, 2026 as probable cause
had already been established during duty court.
——————————————————————————————————————————————
Opposition to Motion to Dismiss
- 1 -
5. The defense counsel, Detachment_Result, then appeared on behalf of the defendant in the
matter after then Judge Mytrius advised the defendant to seek outside counsel for the
case.
6. State Attorney Gamer80sStyle then filed his discovery finding on both the Ridgeway
Court Website and in the Case Channel on August 5th, 2026.
7. This was met with questions from the defense counsel then argued that the state
prematurely filed the discovery under a nonexistent rule.
8. The then Judge Mytruis told the defense counsel that this was standard practice and that
nothing presented in the discovery could be used because and I quote, “it’s not actually
admitted into evidence until trial. Even if I’m aware of it or have a copy of it, I can’t
consider it until a foundation has been laid by a witness and it’s been authenticated by a
witness for evidence that isn’t automatically authenticated” (Judge Mytrius on
08/06/2026).
9. The State and the defendant then worked out a deal where the defendant would plead
guilty to the charges.
10. The then judge Mytrius appointed Magistrate Vonhagen123 of the Superior court to
oversee the matters of the plea agreement.
11. Judge Vonhagen123 then attempted to find a suitable time for both parties for a
sentencing hearing. In which the defendant then spammed into the case channel, “i plea
…” twelve times, in which the case channel then reports that the defendant deleted five of
those statements and then said, “not guilty (Hand pointing finger emoji) JEW (Hand
——————————————————————————————————————————————
Opposition to Motion to Dismiss
- 2 -
pointing finger emoji)” at Judge Vonhagen123 which was out of line, uncalled for, and
completely disrespectful to this court.
12. Judge Vonhagen123 then told the defendant that he was out of line and that he should not
speak.
13. The State and Vonhagen123 tried to find a time which would work for parties however
the defense counsel was absent from those conversations.
14. On August 8th, 2026, then Judge Mytruis found the defense counsel in conflict and
appointed Mr. Rebel as the defense counsel.
15. The defense counsel then asked to then Judge Mytruis, “ can i just confirm something for
the record? the defendant signed a plea and sentencing agreement, which has been
disclosed to this court. he's since then chosen to plea not guilty?” in which then Judge
Mytruis gave no response.
16. The defense counsel then stated that he would not be available for trial Thursday through
Sunday on the Week of August 9th, 2026.
17. The state attorney then called upon then Judge Mytrius to schedule a sentencing hearing
as the defendant had signed the agreement with the previous defense counsel on August
11th.
18. The defense counsel then challenged the claim stating that the defendant had plead not
guilty.
19. The State then called upon the then Judge Mytrius and Judge Vonhagen123to schedule a
trial since the hearing was off on August 14th.
——————————————————————————————————————————————
Opposition to Motion to Dismiss
- 3 -
20. The defense counsel then claimed that his client's plea of not guilty was going
unacknowledged.
21. Then Mr. Gamer80sStyle then told the defense counsel that he was trying to arrange a
time to hold a trial.
22. Mr. Gamer80sStyle then on 08/17/2026 stated that he would be available on Friday.
23. The defendant on 08/20/2026 states that his rights to a speedy trial are being violated.
24. The defendant on 08/22/2026 then states and I quote, “yo nigga we're gonna take a
fucking year fuck this bro” (11xek, 08/22/2026)
25. The defense counsel then states on 08/26/2026, and I quote, “My client's right to a
speedy trial isn't being honored. I'd like to ask the court to help right this. I can file a
paper motion if preferred.” (Rebel, 08/26/2026)
26. The defendant then states that he is going to leave the server because we can’t do, and I
quote, “Shit” on September 4th, 2026.
27. Chief Justice Imnotrummy then assigned Senior Judge Arthur_Chen to the matters on
September 9th, 2026.
28. Senior Judge Arthur_Chen then asks for, at this point, former State Attorney,
Gamer80sStyle to present a proposed show cause order because the defendant left the
server. Mr. Gamer80sStyles then informs the court that he is no longer a member of the
Department of Justice and State Attorney.
29. I, Assistant Attorney General, Wynneboy2010, the now counsel for the State of
Ridgeway inform the Judge that I will be taking over and will file the order to show
cause.
——————————————————————————————————————————————
Opposition to Motion to Dismiss
- 4 -
30. The defense counsel then contests the motion as the defendant was present.
31. Therefore, it leads us to the motion to dismiss with prejudice presented by the defense
and this opposition to the motion by the State.
MEMORANDUM OF LAW & ARGUMENT
Dismissal of a criminal prosecution with prejudice is an extraordinary remedy reserved strictly
for egregious, incurable constitutional violations. Under the standard governing speedy trial
evaluations, the Court must balance four key factors: (1) the length of the delay, (2) the reason
for the delay, (3) the defendant's assertion of the right, and (4) prejudice to the defendant. Barker
v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514, 530 (1972). Applying the Barker factors to the record demonstrates that
the Motion to Dismiss must be denied.
The Length of Delay is Minimal and Presumptively Non-Prejudicial
Under the first Barker factor, the length of delay serves as a triggering mechanism; until there is
some delay which is presumptively prejudicial, there is no necessity for inquiry into the other
factors. Barker, 407 U.S. at 530. Courts generally find delay presumptively prejudicial only
when it approaches or exceeds one year. Doggett v. United States, 505 U.S. 647, 652 n.1 (1992).
Here, fewer than 50 days have elapsed since the filing of the Criminal Information on July 26,
2026. During this brief timeframe, the Court processed preliminary matters, discovery
disclosures, plea discussions, and judicial reassignment. A period under two months falls far
short of establishing presumptively prejudicial delay.
A Delay is Partially Attributable to the Defendant’s Misconduct and Bad Faith
——————————————————————————————————————————————
Opposition to Motion to Dismiss
- 5 -
The second Barker factor requires the court to examine the reason for the delay. Delays caused,
invited, or requested by the defendant are weighed against the defendant, not the prosecution.
Vermont v. Brillon, 556 U.S. 81, 90 (2009) (stating that "delay caused by the defense weighs
against the defendant"). Furthermore, bad-faith tactics or intentional avoidance of judicial
process forfeit speedy trial claims:
● On September 4, 2026, the Defendant voluntarily absented himself from the jurisdiction
of this Court by leaving the server. Time resulting from a defendant's voluntary absence
or refusal to submit to court jurisdiction is completely chargeable to the defense. See
Rayborn v. Scully, 858 F.2d 84, 91 (2d Cir. 1988). The Defendant's departure directly
forced the Court to issue an Order to Show Cause, pausing standard trial scheduling.
B. The State Has Actively Pursued Resolution in Good Faith
A trial court must distinguish between deliberate delay by the prosecution to hamper the defense
and neutral administrative delays or good-faith efforts to proceed. Barker, 407 U.S. at 531. At no
point did the State abandon prosecution or engage in dilatory tactics:
● The State timely filed the Criminal Information on July 26, 2026, and submitted discovery
disclosures on August 5, 2026.
● State Attorney Gamer80sStyle actively attempted to coordinate trial dates in mid-August.
● Following judicial reassignment on September 9, 2026, and a transition in prosecutorial
personnel, Assistant Attorney General Wynneboy2010 promptly appeared to maintain
continuity and comply with the Court's directives.
——————————————————————————————————————————————
Opposition to Motion to Dismiss
- 6 -
C. The Defendant Has Suffered No Legitimate Prejudice
The final Barker factor assesses prejudice to the defendant in light of three interests: (1)
preventing oppressive pretrial incarceration, (2) minimizing anxiety and concern, and (3)
limiting the possibility that the defense will be impaired. Barker, 407 U.S. at 532. Impairment of
the defense is the most serious form of prejudice. Doggett, 505 U.S. at 654. Here, the Defendant
is not incarcerated, discovery was fully provided on August 5, 2026, and no evidence or defense
strategy has been impaired. Any minor scheduling friction was the direct product of ordinary
pre-trial practice, administrative reassignments, and the Defendant's intentional non-cooperation.
D. The Delay is Directly Attributable to the Courts Inactivity and Mishandling of the
Matter.
The Superior Court of Ridgeway has been absent in the proceeding for over a month today as the
last time anything was stated by any court official was August 14th, 2026, by then Judge Mytrius
and was an attempt to convene for trial. The Superior Court of Ridgeway has been the cause for
this delay as the then Judge Mytruis had become inactive, leaving discord, roblox, and Ridgeway
all together. This delay was not, and has not been caused by the State of Ridgeway, but instead
by the courts.
CONCLUSION & PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The record demonstrates that the State of Ridgeway has acted with diligence and good faith at
every stage. Conversely, the Defendant has expressed open contempt for the process, and
——————————————————————————————————————————————
Opposition to Motion to Dismiss
- 7 -
voluntarily absented himself from the jurisdiction. As well, the Superior Court's mishandling of
the case is the main attributor to this lengthy delay. Dismissing these charges with prejudice
would reward intentional bad-faith manipulation of the judicial system. Barker v. Wingo, 407
U.S. 514 (1972).
WHEREFORE, the State of Ridgeway respectfully requests that this Honorable Court:
1. DENY the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice in its entirety; and
2. Schedule this matter for a Status Conference or Trial at the Court’s earliest convenience.
Date: September 14th, 2026
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Wynneboy2010
Assistant Attorney General
Major Crimes Division
Public Integrity Division
R. Bar No. 19204
1100 Lakeside Drive
Annex Building
Palmer Ridgeway 80013
Counsel for the State of Ridgeway
——————————————————————————————————————————————
Opposition to Motion to Dismiss
- 8 -
