For one week in October of 2020, every maggot-sucking conservative publication under the sun was screaming bloody murder about the “Antifa Satanists” who burned an effigy of Donald Trump crying “hail to the chaos Gods” as they danced in glee. (VIDEO)
For those unfamiliar with our crew– we’re a group of artist/ filmmakers, and our latest film is called “2020: The Dumpster Fire,” which is scheduled to be out in theaters and streaming by April or May. (The release date is not set yet.) The performance side is comprised of a rotating cast of characters centering on myself, Lauren Pespisa, Embry Galen and the legendary Vermin Supreme. Rounding out the cast is Daryle Lamont Jenkins, Noam Chomsky, Jello Biafra, Michael Moore and Anthony Petrovich. Some days it was just me and Vermin Supreme getting Trumpers to chant “suck Trump’s cock.” but on the most serious of days it was just me and Niko from Unicorn Riot filming the fires and protests throughout the night after the death of George Floyd in Minneapolis.
We take protest very seriously– both when it is silly, and when it is serious. Barrett Brown said it best in the film– we are “ethical trolls.” However, based upon the court case, they seem to think I’m a violent criminal. Based on the dozens of articles they would seem to think we are blood-thirsty vampires intent on harvesting your organs to keep Joe Biden on life support.
Well, that day in October, we gave ourselves a silly name “AntifA Soros Chaos Magick” to counter-protest the even sillier “Super Happy Fun America,” a Proudboys spin-off who stormed the Capitol and who were responsible for Straight Pride the year before.
We burned a Blue Lives Matter flag, and an effigy of Trump, then ate Trump’s heart straight out from his chest, (ala Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom). But it wasn’t just spectacle– there was actually an entire script leading up to the gore which was designed to bring light to the E. Jean Carroll rape case with Lauren Pespisa playing Carroll and Embry Galen playing Trump.
Alex Jones did a lengthy segment saying, “Antifa members conduct occult ritual in Boston streets, eat bloody heart symbolic of Trump.” He then proceeded to bring on an “Illuminati Expert,” Dr. Leo Zagami who said we were “courting Satan,” while Alex pretended he was a Christian and called us “absolutely evil. INFOWARS VIDEO
Andy Ngo claimed that Antifa performed an “occult-like ceremony.”
Ian Miles Cheong wrote, “Antifa performs a Satanic ritual. Yes, that’s a heart,” evidently suggesting that he believed we had actually ate Donald Trump’s heart. Ian went on to say, “Evil is in plain sight and it walks among us.”
Gateway Pundit did an article called “Evil Among Us” with the sub-header, “Leftist Antifa Performs Satanic Ritual in Street and Eat a Heart Symbolic of President Trump.”
There are too many articles like this to list. So, imagine my surprise when the Boston Police decided to drop me a love letter in the mail over a month later telling me to get my ass to court.
I was charged with disorderly conduct. This is not a big charge– but it is criminal, and it is a felony. And if they jam you up on some trumped-up bullshit, it will make it easier to push for a harsher penalty when they “catch” you the next time.
I was made to go to a probable cause hearing. When they were done reading the charges to me, they asked what I had to say for myself. I replied, “I dunno, I came her to listen to your bullshit.” The Judge Magistrate should have dropped it then and there. However, when the cop who brought forward the complaint (Officer Robert Lundbohm) filled out the paperwork, he made it look like I was randomly setting cardboard on fire and destroying property. The two big things he left out was that we were clearly engaged in political protest, and the property was my property. And when you are politically protesting, it is no longer “disorderly conduct,” it is legitimate first amendment protected free speech.
Naturally, my attorney, Murat Erkan wrote a kick-ass motion to this effect, and the case was dismissed on arraignment via Nolle Pros.
All’s well that ends well.
If you are in need of a criminal attorney, I would strongly suggest the services of Murat Erkan of Erkan Law Firm in Boston.
Here it is:
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
SUFFOLK, ss. BMC CENTRAL
DOCKET NO: 2001CR003596
COMMONWEALTH )
)
v. )
)
RODERICK WEBBER, )
Defendant )
MOTION TO DISMISS (McCARTHY; O’DELL)
Now comes the Defendant and respectfully requests, pursuant to Mass. R. Crim. P. 13, that this Honorable Court dismiss the instant complaint. As reasons therefor:
- The complaint application fails to set forth probable cause. Commonwealth v. McCarthy, 385 Mass. 160, 163 (1982); Commonwealth v. DiBennadetto, 436 Mass. 310, 313 (2002).
- The complaint affiant knowingly and intentionally concealed exculpatory evidence from the clerk magistrate, which was material to a determination of probable cause, and thereby impaired the integrity of the clerk magistrate hearing. Commonwealth v. O’Dell, 392 Mass. 445, 450 (1984); Commonwealth v. Bell, 83 Mass. App. Ct. 61, 62 (2013).
The Defendant requests an evidentiary hearing on this motion.
Respectfully submitted,
Roderick Webber,
By and through his Attorney,
/s/ Murat Erkan
Murat Erkan, BBO# 637507
Erkan & Associates, LLC
300 High Street
Andover, MA 01810
Date: March 3, 2021 (978) 474-0054
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
SUFFOLK, ss. BMC CENTRAL
DOCKET NO: 2001CR003596
COMMONWEALTH )
)
v. )
)
RODERICK WEBBER, )
Defendant )
MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPPORT OF
MOTION TO DISMISS (McCARTHY; O’DELL)
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On December 14, 2020, the Boston Municipal Court issued a complaint against the Defendant charging a single count of disorderly conduct, based on the sworn complaint application which Officer Robert Lundbohm submitted. Officer Lundbohm submitted police report no. 202076836 in support of his complaint.
THE COMPLAINT APPLICATION
In his complaint application, Officer Lundbohm stated that on October 18, 2020, during a political protest, the Defendant “used accelerant” to set “a card board cut out [sic] on fire … in the middle of a public way, creating a dangerous and hazardous situation” for “dozens of protestors as well as the police officers” at the intersection of Dartmouth Street and Huntington Avenue, which “served no legitimate purpose.”
THE INTENTIONAL OMISSION OF MATERIAL,
EXCULPATORY INFORMATION
In his report, Officer Lundbohm asserted that he watched video footage from several sources, which “clearly” showed the Defendant’s actions in setting the “card board cut out [sic]” on fire.
That same footage[1] reveals that the Defendant did not set fire to a mere piece of cardboard. Rather, the Defendant set fire to an eight-foot cardboard effigy of then-president Donald Trump.[2]
The footage reveals that the burning of the effigy was accompanied by various comments from participants and protesters including:
- “I am here on behalf of all the women [Donald Trump’s] filthy hands have groped, in order to do a ritual, to make sure his filthy paws don’t touch our beautiful country anymore.”
- “I am Donald Trump, and while I am evil I am no more evil than these bootlicking politicians out here today. All these cocksuckers over here worship me like a god. So I stand here as a sacrifice for what is right.”
[1] See Attachment A, DVD-ROM depicting the performance.
[2] Mr. Webber is a well-known activist, satirist, actor and director. The burning of the effigy was performed for inclusion in a screenplay entitled, 2020: the Dumpster Fire, a political satire / documentary planned for 2021 release to studio audiences. Footage and trailers related to this feature film were widely disseminated online and the open-source social media outlets, which Officer Lundbohm admits he relied upon in identifying and charging Mr. Webber.
[1] See Attachment A, DVD-ROM depicting the performance. [1] Mr. Webber is a well-known activist, satirist, actor and director. The burning of the effigy was performed for inclusion in a screenplay entitled, 2020: the Dumpster Fire, a political satire / documentary planned for 2021 release to studio audiences. Footage and trailers related to this feature film were widely disseminated online and the open-source social media outlets, which Officer Lundbohm admits he relied upon in identifying and charging Mr. Webber.
- “Fuck Donald Trump, and fuck all these alt-right white nationalists that keep coming here.”
“Fuck the Nazis.”
In sum, the footage reveals that the Defendant burned an effigy of Donald Trump as an act of political expression and social commentary, as evidenced by the effigy itself and his words and actions, as well as the words and actions of those who participated in the demonstration.
By omitting this information, the affiant concealed the unquestionably “legitimate purpose” of his conduct: the exercise of his 1st Amendment right to political dissent and discourse, which “legitimate purpose” negates liability under the disorderly conduct statute.
ARGUMENT
- The Complaint Application Fails to Establish Probable Cause.
A complaint application which fails to set forth “facts sufficient to establish probable cause as to each element of the offense charged,” must be dismissed. Commonwealth v. Ilya I., 470 Mass. 625, 627 (2015) (emphasis added); Commonwealth v. DiBennadetto, 436 Mass. 310, 312 (2002), citing Commonwealth v. McCarthy, 385 Mass. 160 (1982).
As applied to the Defendant’s conduct, the affiant was required to set forth probable cause that the Defendant “created a hazardous or physically offensive condition by an act that served no legitimate purpose of the defendant’s.” Mass. Model Jury Inst. 7.160 (2009 ed.) (emphasis added); citing, inter alia, Alegata v. Commonwealth, 353 Mass. 287, 302-304 (1967) (incorporating elements set forth in Model Penal Code § 250.2(a) & (c) (1962).
The “no legitimate purpose” element is the most crucial element of the charged offense. This is so because it is precisely this limitation which stands as a bulwark against the use of a disorderly charge to suppress free speech, in violation of the 1st amendment to the United States Constitution and art. 16 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights. Absent proof on this element, the statute as applied to expressive conduct is per se overbroad and unconstitutional. Commonwealth v. a Juvenile, 368 Mass. 580 (1975). Stated simply, the disorderly statute reaches only conduct “which involves no lawful exercise of a First Amendment right.” Id., at 599.
The complaint application contained no evidence, let alone “sufficient evidence,” on the “legitimate purpose” element of the charged offense. Consequently, the complaint should never have issued and must be dismissed.
2 The Affiant Intentionally Omitted Material, Exculpatory Information from the Complaint Application.
“After the issuance of a [criminal] complaint, a motion to dismiss will lie for … a violation of the integrity of the proceeding[.]” Commonwealth v. DiBennadetto, 436 Mass. 310 , 313 (2002), citing Commonwealth v. O’Dell, 392 Mass. 445 (1984).
In O’Dell, the SJC held that dismissal was appropriate where “the integrity of the grand jury proceeding was impaired by an unfair and misleading presentation to the grand jury of a portion of a statement attributed to the defendant without revealing that an exculpatory portion of the purported statement had been excised.” Id., at 446-447.
In O’Dell, a witness placed O’Dell as the getaway driver in a robbery committed by one Gordon Preston. At the grand jury presentment, an officer testified that O’Dell admitted he was the driver of the van, and that, when Preston hopped in the passenger seat and said, “let’s get the hell out of here,” he obliged. The officer failed to testify that O’Dell denied any knowledge that Preston had committed a robbery. The Court held the omission distorted the evidence presented to the grand jury, warranting dismissal. Id. at 447-449. The concealed evidence in this case was even more direct: here, the affiant reported that the Defendant set fire to a “card board cut out [sic],” for “no legitimate purpose.” In
fact, he well knew that the Defendant had a legitimate purpose – indeed, the most legitimate purpose in a free and democratic society – the purpose of free political speech and dissent.
By concealing indisputable evidence that the Defendant had a “legitimate purpose,” Officer Lundbohm grossly distorted the evidence and assailed the fundamental integrity of the proceeding.
The complaint must be dismissed.
CONCLUSION
The Defendant respectfully requests that this Honorable Court allow his Motion to Dismiss.
Respectfully submitted,
Roderick Webber,
By and through his attorney,
/s/ Murat Erkan
Murat Erkan, BBO 637507
Erkan & Associates, LLC
300 High Street
Andover, MA 01810
Date: March 3, 2021 (978) 474-0054
Rod Webber 
Pingback: Directors of New Film in Consideration for an Oscar - and a Federal Indictment – Idavox