All dates and times are in ISO 8601 format unless otherwise specified.
Filed on 2026-08-08 (UTC+0:00)
THE STATE OF RIDGEWAY
RIDGEWAY SUPERIOR COURT
TRIPIAFER23, an individual
Plaintiff,
-against-
JE9SE, an individual in his official capacity
as a Deputy First Class of the Ridgeway
County Sheriff's Office pursuant to 7 R. Stat.
§ 121.404
Defendant.
RSC-CV-8563
PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RECUSAL
Presiding Judge: Hon. AlbertWellesley
Plaintiff moves for the recusal of the presiding judge in this civil action. I have not
conferred with any party for this motion.
PROCEDURAL GROUNDS
Plaintiff cites Rid. Rule Civ. Proc. 12(1)(7) as the procedural ground for this motion. If it
is automatic disqualification for a judge to preside on a case in which the judge holds stakes in,
then it could be said that the judge does not have jurisdiction over the biased party. Bias like this
goes against the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. It would also invoke the
judge's Rid. Const. Art. Ⅴ, § 1 limitation of only being able to deliver justice impartially. Cf.
Withrow v. Larkin, 421 U.S. 35, 46–47 (1975) (White, J.) ("Concededly, a 'fair trial in a fair
tribunal is a basic requirement of due process [under the Due Process Clause].' In re Murchison,
349 U. S. 133, 136 (1955). This applies to administrative agencies which adjudicate as well as to
courts. Gibson v. Berryhill, 411 U.S. 564, 579 (1973).")
The test here is "whether, considering all the circumstances alleged, the average judge in
[the same] position is likely to be neutral, or whether there is an unconstitutional potential for
bias." Isom v. Arkanas, 589 U.S. ____, ____ (2019) (Sotomayor, J.) (cert. denied) (internal
citations omitted); see generally Rippo v. Baker, 580 U.S. 285 (2017) (holding that the recusal
test follows the one set in Larkin, 421 U.S. 35, 47).
GROUNDS
1. Hon. AlbertWellesley cannot rule on any immunity or benefit given to Defendant
from syntaxsyntaxsyntax because the presiding judge and syntaxsyntaxsyntax have
a conflict of interest, therefore establishing a potential Rid. Code of Judicial
Conduct 2(B) violation and a Larkin position of bias.
There is a social work-related conflict of interest between Hon. AlbertWellesley and
syntaxsyntaxsyntax.
Hon. AlbertWellesley is a contractor for SDI Studios, which is the development studio
behind the State of Ridgeway. syntaxsyntaxsyntax is a project manager there. AlbertWellesley is
expected to listen to the project manager because he is a contractor, and, of course, both have an
interest in working with each other. In addition, this hints that the presiding judge and
syntaxsyntaxsyntax is more inclined to listen to syntaxsyntaxsyntax, who I believe to be a biased
source in this civil action. See generally post.
In Clark County, Hon. AlbertWellesley is also a community moderator and community
developer for unionWARE, which is the business behind Clark County. syntaxsyntaxsyntax also1
holds the same roles there. So, both parties have interest in working with each other there. In
addition, syntaxsyntaxsyntax is friends with Lame_Memes, who is seen as the head of
unionWARE.
Finally, Hon. AlbertWellesley has said on the record that he discussed this civil action
and the issue of "immunity" between syntaxsyntaxsyntax. Why was this discussion not shared in
the case channel? Is it because the presiding judge is bound by the work-related and social
expectation of privacy between himself and syntaxsyntaxsyntax? I will dive into this at post.
Since (1) Hon. AlbertWellesley and syntaxsyntaxsyntax share multiple conflicts of
interest, it would go against Rid. Code of Judicial Conduct 2(B) ("canon(s)"), and clearly having
such positions would not establish neutrality between both syntaxsyntaxsyntax and the presiding
judge.
Back to Larkin (more accurately Isom since it's a new restatement of the test), would the
average judge in this position be neutral? I rely on the canons' definition of impartiality, which is
basically the expectations of every judge in the State of Ridgeway. The canons say:
"A judge shall not allow family, social, political or other relationships to
influence the judge's judicial conduct or judgment. A judge shall not lend the
prestige of judicial office to advance the private interests of the judge or others;
nor shall a judge convey or permit others to convey the impression that they are in
a special position to influence the judge."
There's a work (and potentially a social) relationship between syntaxsyntaxsyntax and
Hon. AlbertWellesley. See supra. This relationship is private, so it fits with the above-mentioned
canon. Should the presiding judge rule on this issue of "immunity" in favor of the defendant,
then that ruling would be in favor of syntaxsyntaxsyntax on multiple fronts, especially
considering that this "content creator immunity" thing is borrowed from Clark County, which is
where both syntaxsyntaxsyntax and the presiding judge work. There is no way two co-workers
can be neutral with each other: they work on the same side, and that goes against the whole
concept of neutrality and impartiality.
1 Because of unionWARE situations (ex. "Martha's Market"), I believe that members of unionWARE have accepted
profit (regardless of its source), so I therefore declare it as a business because it is for-profit and not as another,
nonprofit-esque label (e.g., "team", "studio").
Through the lens of this theory of friendship and worksmanship (that friends/co-workers
do not want to wrong each other), applied to this civil action, I can see it clear as day, 20/20
vision: friendship and workmanship is in the way.
In conclusion, Hon. AlbertWellesley is in a Larkin position of bias because (1) the
average judge in his position(s) holds social and work-related conflicts of interest. He cannot rule
on this issue of "immuntiy" because it comes from his friend and co-worker, who is
syntaxsyntaxsyntax.
Plaintiff supplements the motion for recusal with the evidence relied upon the motion.
EVIDENCE RELIED UPON PURSUANT TO RID. RULE CIV. PROC. 7.1(2)(5)
# PREVIEW + URL DESCRIPTION
1. A screenshot of the presiding judge's roles in Clark County's
discord server.
2. A carbon copy of the document from Clark County's Central
Authority (equivalent to Ridgeway's Developer Oversight) saving
"meta content" (e.g., a content creator's videos on Clark County)
from criminal and disciplinary liability.
Original is at
https://docs.google.com/document/d/14SMbQRgdhbE82hHudfT8
THu8kQij5RDHO77bS-5AiFE.
3. The message (not a screenshot thereof, it only serves as a
preview) publishing the above-mentioned document.
4. A screenshot of syntaxsyntaxsyntax' roles in Clark County's
Discord server.
5. A screenshot of syntaxsyntaxsyntax' roles in unionWARE's
Discord server.
6. The friends webpage of syntaxsyntaxsyntax.
7. A message (not a screenshot thereof, it only serves as a preview)
of syntaxsyntaxsyntax saying: "no, we have contacts with clark?
our development teams are pretty close" in response to whether or
not a certain individual's attack on Ridgeway's backend was for
benefiting Clark County.
8. A message of syntaxsyntaxsyntax saying: "[I] am currently being
paid by clark county to work on their game so".
9. A screenshot of who holds the "Developer Oversight" role in the
State of Ridgeway's Roblox Community.
10. A screenshot of who holds the "Project Manager" role in the SDI
Studios' Roblox Community. SDI Studios is the name for the
group of developers behind the State of Ridgeway.
11. A screenshot of who holds the "Community Developer" role in
the unionWARE Roblox Community. Note how both the
presiding judge and syntaxsyntaxsyntax hold this role.
Preview URL jumps to the community itself.
12. A screenshot of the presiding judge's roles in Ridgeway's Discord
server. Note that he holds the "Contractor" role.
RELIEF
Pursuant to Rid. Rule Civ. Proc. 7.1(2)(2), Plaintiff requests the following relief:
1. That the presiding judge of this civil action, who is Hon. AlbertWellesley, be
DISQUALIFIED ruling on the issue of "immunity" brought up by the defendant, OR that
his RECUSAL from this civil action happen, AND;
2. that it be DECLARED that a ruling from the judge on the aforementioned issue goes
against certain canons of the Ridgeway Code of Judicial Conduct.
/s/ thr33six8
Timezone UTC–5:00;
The Attorney of Plaintiff/Client Tripiafer23;
Licensed Attorney in the State of Ridgeway
since July 23rd, 2026 (R.S.B. License
#19302).
