Case. RSC-CM-8262 Document 3 Filed 05/25/2026 Page 1 of 9
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT
FOR THE STATE OF RIDGEWAY
STATE OF RIDGEWAY
Plaintiff(s)
v.
VOXPAA
Defendant(s)
Case No. RSC-CM-8262
STATE’S MOTION TO SET STATUS
CONFERENCE, TO PROCEED
WITH CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS,
AND TO REQUIRE PROOF OF
ALLEGED PETITION FOR WRIT
OF MANDAMUS
NOW COMES the State of Ridgeway, by and through the undersigned, and respectfully
moves this Honorable Court for an Order setting a status conference, directing that this criminal
matter proceed in the ordinary course, and requiring Defendant to provide competent proof of filing
of the alleged petition for writ of mandamus purportedly submitted to the Supreme Court of
Ridgeway.
In support thereof, the State states as follows:
I. INTRODUCTION
This matter has remained stalled based solely on Defendant’s unsupported assertion that he
has submitted a petition for writ of mandamus to the Supreme Court of Ridgeway. Defendant is
proceeding pro se and is certainly free to seek extraordinary relief where the law permits it.
However, a litigant’s use of appellate terminology does not create an automatic stay, does not divest
this Court of jurisdiction, and does not suspend criminal proceedings absent an actual order from a
superior tribunal.
1
Case. RSC-CM-8262 Document 3 Filed 05/25/2026 Page 2 of 9
The State does not seek to prevent Defendant from pursuing any lawful filing before the
Supreme Court. Rather, the State seeks to prevent this criminal case from being indefinitely delayed
by an alleged filing that has not been proven, docketed, served, accepted, or accompanied by any
stay order.
Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy. It is not a procedural pause button. It is not a
substitute for trial. It is not a mechanism by which a defendant may orally represent that something
was “submitted” and thereby freeze a criminal prosecution without proof.
Approximately one and a half weeks have passed since Defendant claimed that a mandamus
petition was submitted to the Supreme Court Clerk. Since then, there has been no filed copy, no
docket number, no notice of filing, no service upon the State, no Supreme Court order, and no stay.
That is not enough.
The Court should therefore set this matter for a status conference, order Defendant to
produce competent proof of the alleged filing within a short and definite period, and direct that
proceedings continue absent proof of a perfected filing and an actual stay order.
II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
1. This criminal matter remains pending before this Court.
2. On or about May 16, 2026, Defendant represented that he intended to petition the Supreme
Court of Ridgeway for a writ of mandamus.
3. On or about May 17, 2026, Defendant further represented that the mandamus petition had
allegedly been submitted to the Supreme Court Clerk.
4. Approximately one and a half weeks have now elapsed since that representation.
2
Case. RSC-CM-8262 Document 3 Filed 05/25/2026 Page 3 of 9
5. To date, Defendant has not produced any competent proof that the alleged petition was
filed, accepted, docketed, or served.
6. The State has not received a copy of any alleged mandamus petition.
7. The State has not received any notice from the Supreme Court of Ridgeway indicating that
such a petition is pending.
8. The public case-tracking information available for Supreme Court filings does not reflect any
pending petition associated with Defendant’s alleged mandamus filing.
9. Most importantly, no order staying proceedings has been issued by the Supreme Court of
Ridgeway.
10. The only basis presently offered for continued delay is Defendant’s own unsupported
statement that a mandamus petition was allegedly submitted.
III. ARGUMENT
A. THIS COURT RETAINS JURISDICTION ABSENT AN EXPRESS STAY ORDER
The State respectfully submits that this Court retains jurisdiction over this criminal matter
unless and until the Supreme Court of Ridgeway issues an express stay or otherwise orders this
Court to suspend proceedings.
An alleged petition for extraordinary relief does not automatically stop a trial-level criminal
case. Even assuming Defendant did submit something to the Supreme Court Clerk, submission
alone is not the same as filing, filing is not the same as acceptance, acceptance is not the same as
relief, and relief is not the same as a stay.
There is a difference between a litigant asking a higher court to act and a higher court
actually acting.
3
Case. RSC-CM-8262 Document 3 Filed 05/25/2026 Page 4 of 9
That distinction matters here. Defendant has not shown that the Supreme Court has
accepted jurisdiction, issued a writ, entered a stay, or otherwise restrained this Court from
proceeding. In the absence of such an order, this Court should continue exercising its ordinary
authority over the case.
To allow otherwise would permit a criminal defendant to unilaterally delay prosecution
merely by saying the word “mandamus.” That would invite abuse, undermine docket control, and
reward procedural gamesmanship.
B. DEFENDANT’S UNSUPPORTED ASSERTION IS NOT COMPETENT PROOF
OF A FILING
The State is not required to accept Defendant’s statement at face value when that statement
is being used to delay criminal proceedings.
Ridgeway precedent disfavors legal conclusions built on conjecture. In Removelungs v. ethhaqn,
2 R. Supp. 5 (2022), the court rejected reliance upon speculative assertions and declined to give
weight to statements that exceeded the speaker’s actual knowledge. The same principle applies here.
Defendant’s statement that a petition was “submitted” does not establish that:
1. the petition was actually filed;
2. the filing complied with Supreme Court rules;
3. the Clerk accepted it;
4. a docket number was assigned;
5. the State was properly served;
6. the petition remains pending; or
7. any stay order exists.
4
Case. RSC-CM-8262 Document 3 Filed 05/25/2026 Page 5 of 9
Those are separate procedural facts. Defendant has proven none of them.
If Defendant wants this Court to delay a criminal prosecution because of an alleged Supreme
Court filing, Defendant must do more than make a bare assertion. He must produce proof.
C. COURTS SHOULD NOT CREATE INFERENCES TO CURE A PARTY’S
PROCEDURAL SHORTCOMINGS
Ridgeway courts have made clear that a court should not strain its own resources to make up
for a party’s shortcomings. In State v. SaintFactors, 3 R. Supp. 5 (2022), the court explained that it
could not create inferences to fill gaps in a party’s presentation.
That principle is directly applicable here.
The Court should not infer a valid mandamus petition from silence. It should not infer
docketing from Defendant’s word. It should not infer acceptance by the Clerk from an alleged
submission. And it should not infer a stay where no stay order exists.
If Defendant’s position depends upon the existence of a Supreme Court filing, then
Defendant bears the burden of producing evidence of that filing. If he cannot do so, then the alleged
petition should be treated as abandoned, unperfected, rejected, or otherwise insufficient to justify
any continued delay.
D. MANDAMUS IS EXTRAORDINARY RELIEF, NOT A SUBSTITUTE FOR
TRIAL
Defendant appears to be attempting to use an alleged mandamus petition as a substitute for
ordinary trial-level litigation. That is improper.
5
Case. RSC-CM-8262 Document 3 Filed 05/25/2026 Page 6 of 9
Mandamus exists to address extraordinary circumstances where a lower tribunal or official
has failed to perform a clear legal duty. It is not designed to interrupt every disputed ruling,
scheduling issue, or procedural disagreement in a pending criminal case.
Ridgeway precedent recognizes that legal and factual disputes should generally be resolved in
the proper venue. In BattalionGavin v. GlenMcDeer, 3 R. Supp. 7 (2022), the court emphasized that
certain disputes should be advanced at trial rather than improperly resolved through premature
procedural maneuvering.
That same reasoning applies here. Defendant may raise appropriate objections, defenses,
motions, and legal arguments before this Court. But unless the Supreme Court has actually issued a
stay, Defendant cannot use an alleged extraordinary writ petition to avoid the normal progression of
this case.
E. THE COURT SHOULD REQUIRE DEFENDANT TO PRODUCE PROOF OR
DEEM THE ALLEGED PETITION UNPERFECTED
The State respectfully requests that the Court order Defendant to produce competent proof
of the alleged mandamus filing within twenty-four (24) hours, or within such other time as the Court
deems reasonable.
Acceptable proof may include:
1. a file-stamped copy of the petition;
2. a docket number;
3. confirmation from the Supreme Court Clerk;
4. proof of service upon the State;
5. a notice of filing;
6
Case. RSC-CM-8262 Document 3 Filed 05/25/2026 Page 7 of 9
6. a Supreme Court order; or
7. any other competent evidence showing that the petition was actually filed and accepted.
If Defendant fails to provide such proof, the Court should deem the alleged petition
abandoned, unperfected, rejected, or otherwise insufficient to justify any further delay.
This request is narrow and reasonable. If the petition exists, Defendant should be able to
prove it. If Defendant cannot prove it, then the case should proceed.
F. PRO SE STATUS DOES NOT EXCUSE DEFENDANT FROM BASIC
PROCEDURAL COMPLIANCE
The State recognizes that Defendant is proceeding pro se. However, pro se status does not
authorize Defendant to disregard procedure, delay proceedings indefinitely, or rely upon
unsupported claims as a substitute for evidence.
A self-represented litigant may be afforded reasonable latitude in formatting and
presentation, but he remains bound by the same basic obligations imposed on all parties: to support
factual assertions, comply with court orders, and proceed in good faith.
Defendant cannot invoke federal case law, constitutional language, or extraordinary writ
terminology while refusing to satisfy the basic procedural requirement of proving the filing he claims
exists.
If Defendant wishes to rely on a Supreme Court petition as the basis for delay, he must
produce it.
7
Case. RSC-CM-8262 Document 3 Filed 05/25/2026 Page 8 of 9
G. CONTINUED DELAY UNDERMINES THE PURPOSE OF CRIMINAL
PROCEDURE AND THE RIGHT TO A SPEEDY TRIAL
The Ridgeway Rules of Criminal Procedure are intended to secure the just determination of
criminal proceedings, fairness in administration, simplicity in procedure, and the elimination of
unnecessary delay.
The Ridgeway Constitution likewise protects the right to a speedy public trial in criminal
prosecutions.
Those principles are not served by allowing a pending criminal matter to sit idle based on an
unverified claim of collateral litigation. The public has an interest in the timely administration of
criminal justice. The State has an interest in prosecuting its case without improper obstruction. The
Court has an interest in managing its docket. And Defendant, despite his present delay tactics, has a
constitutional interest in having the matter resolved promptly.
This case should not remain suspended unless there is an actual legal basis for suspension.
At present, there is none.
IV. REQUESTED RELIEF
WHEREFORE, the State respectfully requests that this Honorable Court enter an Order:
A. Setting this matter for a status conference at the earliest practicable date;
B. Directing that this criminal matter proceed in the ordinary course absent an express stay
from the Supreme Court of Ridgeway;
8
Case. RSC-CM-8262 Document 3 Filed 05/25/2026 Page 9 of 9
C. Ordering Defendant to provide competent proof of filing of the alleged petition for writ of
mandamus within twenty-four (24) hours, or within such other time as the Court deems
proper;
D. Requiring that such proof include, if available, a filed copy, docket number, filing
confirmation, proof of service, Clerk correspondence, or any Supreme Court order relating
to the alleged petition;
E. Deeming the alleged petition abandoned, unperfected, rejected, or otherwise insufficient to
justify continued delay if Defendant fails to provide competent proof within the time
ordered;
F. Finding that Defendant’s unsupported representation of an alleged mandamus filing does
not, by itself, divest this Court of jurisdiction or stay these proceedings; and
G. Granting such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper.
* * * * *
Dated: May 25, 2026
Palmer, Ridgeway
Respectfully Submitted,
luhvcouture
State Attorney
Office of Government & Corruption
Ridgeway Department of Justice
9
