THE STATE OF RIDGEWAY
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT FOR RIDGEWAY
TheThumper65,
Plaintiff,
v.
smartabity1,
Defendants.
Hon. Arthur_Chen
Case No. RSC-CV-8267
TheThumper65
Plaintiff Pro Se
No address of record
@rothschild.banking
takosull0 (RW-S3332)
Department of Justice
Palmer, RW
@ii_freewifi
DEFENDANT'S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFF'S
COMPLAINT
NOW COMES Defendant, smartabity1, by and through its attorney, the Department of
Justice, takosull0, Assistant Solicitor General and attorney of record, and for its Answer and
Affirmative Defenses to Plaintiff’s Complaint, states as follows:
The Defendant notes that while the Plaintiff's initial pleading is titled "Civil complaint,"
it will be referred to simply as the "Complaint" throughout the remainder of this response.
Defendant answers the numbered paragraphs of the Complaint below. Headings,
unnumbered text, and the Relief Requested section of the Complaint are not allegations
requiring a response; to the extent a response is required, they are denied. Except as expressly
admitted, every allegation of the Complaint is denied. Where Defendant states that it lacks
knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of an allegation, that
statement has the effect of a denial, and Defendant leaves Plaintiff to his proofs.
RESPONSES TO “STATEMENT OF FACTS’
1. Defendant denies the allegations for lack of sufficient knowledge or information.
2. Defendant admits that he is a Corporal in the 164th Military Police Battalion of the
Ridgeway National Guard. Defendant denies the allegation that he struck Plaintiff with a patrol
vehicle. Defendant further denies the allegation that he failed to operate the patrol vehicle with
reasonable care. Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge or information to admit or deny whether
he was even operating a motor vehicle on September 20, 2026 and therefore leaves Plaintiff to
his proof. Defendant does however, admit that 7 R. Stat. § 121.301 states any individual who
owes a duty of care to another, and causes injury to that person as a result of a breach of that
duty, commits negligence and shall be liable for both compensatory damages and punitive
damages of an amount not exceeding $5,000.00.
3. Defendant admits that he detained Plaintiff with proper probable cause established for
the detention, but denies the allegation of issuing Plaintiff a citation for a violation of R.V.C. §
6.02, impeding traffic.
4. Defendant admits that Plaintiff’s cited provision in the Complaint, not the true
provision as a matter of fact, does state under R.V.C. § 6.02 what Plaintiff alleges.
5. Defendant denies that Ridgeway law defines a motor vehicle as “a self-propelled
vehicle designed for operation upon a public roadway” because the cited statute, 8 R. Stat. §
211.003, is narrowly constructed to be applicable only to Title VIII (8), Chapter II (2) of the
Ridgeway Code of Statutes; not Title XI (11), Chapter VI (6), where R.V.C. § 6.02 lives – being
the impeding traffic provision that Plaintiff alleged to have been cited for. This is supported by
unambiguous language of the Legislature within the statute: “For the purposes of this Subtitle,
[A.K.A Chapter,] the term “Motor Vehicle” means any vehicle that is self-propelled and
designed for operation upon a public roadway.” 8 R. Stat. § 211.003. The key element of this
statute is where it states “[f]or the purposes of this Subtitle,” which provides that the purpose of
this definition is to be applied only to the subtitle it is in. While the statute states ‘subtitle’ in
lieu of ‘chapter,’ it is essential to note that this statute was written when the current Ridgeway
Code of Statutes chapters were referred to as ‘subtitles,’ and the true intent of the Legislature
can thus be reasonably implied. Even if the reasonable implication of this language is not used
by this Court, any reasonable person knows that a ‘subtitle’ is inferior to a ‘title’ and when you
consider the fact that 8 R. Stat. § 211.003 and R.V.C. § 6.02 are under completely separate titles,
you come to the conclusion that 8 R. Stat. § 211.003 does not apply, and therefore, the
application of its definition, as Plaintiff used in the Complaint, is prohibited. Defendant denies
the allegation that a lawnmower’s use on a side street does not, by itself, establish that it was
designed for roadway operation, as Plaintiff’s cited authorities, 8 R. Stat. § 211.003 and R.V.C.
§ 6.02, expressly use the term “public roadway.” Plaintiff admitted in paragraph 1 of his
Complaint that he was within the jurisdiction of Sterling Heights; and the private roads within
said jurisdiction are near zero; therefore leaving Plaintiff to his proof. Defendant admits that
“failing to pull over to allow vehicles behind to pass” is a required element to have violated
R.V.C. § 6.02. Defendant also admits that a citation under R.V.C. § 6.02 would require the
issuing officer to establish probable cause in order to issue a citation under that statute.
6. Defendant admits that he detained Plaintiff with proper probable cause established for
the detention, but denies the allegation of confining him in a holding cell within the Ridgeway
County Sheriff’s Office in order to issue Plaintiff a citation for Defendant lacks sufficient
knowledge or information to admit or deny the allegation, and leaves Plaintiff to his proof.
7. Defendant denies Plaintiff’s allegation of any detention nor confinement being
unnecessary or otherwise lacking legal justification for reason that it is untrue. Defendant
admits that 7 R. Stat. § 121.003 applies when an individual who, without legal authority or
justification, restrains or restricts a person's movement within an area, or restrains the person’s
permission commits false imprisonment and shall therefore be liable for punitive damages of
not more than $6,000.00 due to such violation of 7 R. Stat. § 121.003.
8. Defendant admits that the Ridgeway National Guard Military Police retain statewide
law enforcement powers pursuant to R. Stat. § 132.206. Defendant denies the allegation that
Plaintiff’s claim turns on the justification for the custody and holding-cell confinement
prescribed in the Complaint for reason that it is untrue. If this Court were to find that Defendant
detained Plaintiff unjustly, the remainder of the claim aside from the unlawful imprisonment
claim under 7 R. Stat. § 121.003 would remain unaffected.
RESPONSE TO “PRAYER FOR RELIEF”
Defendant denies that Plaintiff is entitled to any of the relief requested in paragraphs 1
through 5 under the Prayer For Relief section of the Complaint, or to any relief, and specifically
denies that Plaintiff is entitled to any form of compensatory damages, punitive damages, and
recoverable court costs and further relief.
DEFENDANT’S AFFIRMATIVE AND OTHER DEFENSES
1. Defendant incorporates its responses to the number paragraphs as set forth herein.
2. Plaintiff has failed to state a cause of action action upon which relief can be granted;
Defendant acted in good faith and full compliance with the law.
3. Defendant reserves the right to set forth additional affirmative defenses as may
become known.
DEFENDANT’S RELIEF REQUESTED
WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully requests that this Court enter an order:
A. Dismissing Plaintiff's Complaint, in whole or in part, with prejudice and entering
judgment in favor of Defendant;
B. Deny Plaintiff's requested compensatory damages, punitive damages, court costs, and
all other relief requested in the Complaint;
C. Grant such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
10/2/2026
Date takosull0
Department of Justice
Assistant Solicitor General
Attorney for Defendant
