All dates and times are in ISO 8601 format unless otherwise specified.
Filed on 2026-09-04 (UTC+00:00)
THE STATE OF RIDGEWAY
RIDGEWAY SUPERIOR COURT
THR33SIX8, an individual,
Plaintiff,
-against-
ALBERTWELLESLEY, in his official capacity as
associate director of the Ridgeway State Bar,
RASHHYYYY, and COMPLAINAINTS, who are
defendants under a pseudonym.
Defendants.
RSC-CV-8427
AMENDED COMPLAINT
Presiding Judge: Hon. N/A
Plaintiff thr33six8 hereby files this amended complaint.
PARTIES
1. Defendant AlbertWellesley is a resident of the State of Ridgeway. He is the associate
director of the Ridgeway State Bar, established by 3 R. Stat. § 151.002, and he is the
chairman of the Board of Legal Ethics, established by Id., at § 151.201. He has also held
his license from the Ridgeway State Bar since 2026-03-03. His timezone is UTC–06:00.
2. Plaintiff thr33six8 is a resident of the State of Ridgeway. His timezone is UTC–05:00.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
1. This court, which is the Superior Court of the State of Ridgeway, shall "shall exercise
original jurisdiction for all civil and criminal cases or controversies under the rules as set
by the Supreme Court", Rid. Const., Art. Ⅴ, § Ⅳ, and it shall have original jurisdiction
over, among other things, "any controversy not otherwise falling within the jurisdiction of
the Supreme Court, Administrative Court, or Magistrate Court as set forth by law". See
generally The Judiciary Act of 2026 § 302, S.B. 002, 11th Sen. (2026); 3 R. Stat. §
131.104(a–e). As the controversy is actionable here, jurisidiction is proper.
2. This court is the proper venue because civil actions shall only take place in the county
where the controversy occurs. See 7 R. Stat. §§ 131.001–131.003. Since this takes place
within the County of Ridgeway, a county of the State of Ridgeway pursuant to 9 R. Stat.
§ 321.001, venue is proper.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
1. On 2026-07-21, Plaintiff did not get a petition for admission to the Ridgeway State Bar
after he applied. He was denied by Ridgeway State Bar Director CharlesLXV for having
a criminal record.
2. When Plaintiff confronted CharlesLXV about his denial, he adamantly denied to release
Plaintiff's USBE score and told Plaintiff to get expunged.
3. Later, Plaintiff told Associate Justice Techiey about the denial.
4. On 2026-07-23, Dir. CharlesLXV said, "Due to a mistake on my end, certain bar
applications were marked incorrectly, please view the updated bar results," pinging
Techiey and Chief Justice imnotRummy. It was there when Plaintiff became an attorney.
5. Dir. CharlesLXV knows that both justices are okay with Plaintiff's criminal background.
6. On 2026-07-24, at 9:27 p.m. (UTC–05:00), Plaintiff said in the #general-chatroom
channel of the State of Ridgeway's Discord server, "have you been the victim of a
CERTAIN search warrant RASH bY [sic] someone recently? DM me and you can get
paid doubly. let this licensed attorney represent surely."
7. Defendant rashhyyyy said in response, "...."
8. He then said, "@Nicklaus_s IM GONNA NEED CIVIL COUNSEL" and "I AM BEING
SUED FOR MY SW."
9. On 2026-07-25, Icecoldwateryes, whose attorney was Plaintiff, filed a civil action against
WGT05 for actions done in his official capacity.
10. On 2026-07-28, he also said, "Trying to build a heinous class action and legal cases for
leos doing there job. WE ARE NOT STOPPING we are going keep coming" in response
to Plaintiff's statements about the senate attempting to disbar him through legislation.
11. Furthermore, he said, "Yeah 36 is a turd guy trying to class action in ridgeway for crims
getting a search warrant" and "silly claude lawyer."
12. On 2026-07-26, at 10:58 p.m. (UTC–05:00), largeTitanic2 commented that the Bar
Integrity Act passed 5-1-0.
13. The Bar Integrity Act imposed a duty on "the body responsible for attorney discipline and
ethics" to designate inactive an attorney's bar certification if some prongs are met. See
Bar Integrity Act, 12th Sen., S12-19, §§ Ⅲ–Ⅳ.
14. On 2026-07-29, at 6:36 p.m., Rathuzen published his statements on the signing of some
bills, which included the Bar Integrity Act.
15. On 2026-07-28, around 6:40 p.m., Plaintiff thr33six8 saw that a ticket was opened in the
Ridgeway State Bar's Discord server. The channel/ticket's name was
"#thr33six8-disciplinary-investigation," and the ticket was opened by Associtate Director
of the Ridgeway State Bar tobyrulles4568.
16. There, the associate director said, "This shall serve as official notice that you are under
investigation by the Bar's Ethics Committee for alleged violations of the Rules of
Professional Conduct. Specifically, allegations have been made that you participated in
criminal activity, including your reported arrest for murder and attempted murder."
17. The associate director accused Plaintiff of violating Rule 8.3(b) of the Rules of
Professional Misconduct, which states, "[It is professional misconduct for an attorney to]
commit a criminal act that reflects adversely on the attorney’s honesty, trustworthiness, or
fitness as an attorney in other respects."
18. The associate director provided evidence that came from three complaints, each with
their own complainaint.
19. The associate director forwarded messages from the complainaints. The first
complainaint, who was Defendant rashhyyy, wrote to the Ridgeway State Bar, "User was
arrested on charges of attempted murder today and unlawful possession of a firearm, by
me. They jumped out [of] a car. Opened fire with a para 17 pistol shooting at multiple
leos before being tazed and detained. Prior to this they also killed me and got there [sic]
rflid revoked by RSP. there are numerous witnesses that can attest to this statement."
20. Defendant wrote in another message that the associate director forwarded, "In my opinion
a certified attorney, actively representing clients in court should not be committing such
crimes. it paints a dark light on the bar and also the court system as a whole. If
themselves are comfortable committing a crime, how the hell can clients and judges trust
them in a court room."
21. Defendant rashhyyyy provided no evidence to show that Plaintiff's relationships with his
clients were harmed from the alleged events.
22. The second complainant wrote, "Attorney thr33six8 Bar No. 19302 has records dating up
to 9 days ago including a Felony, Attempted Murder charge."
23. The third complainaint ("Complainaint #1") provided the summons in thr33six8, et al. v.
Ridgeway County Sheriff's Office, et al., Rid Superior Ct. RSC-CV-3576 and wrote that
Plaintiff admitted to criminal activity in the complaint that was attached to the summons.
24. The facts of that civil action took place through May and June, which was before Plaintiff
was an attorney.
25. Complainaint #1 knew that the facts of the civil action took place through May and June.
26. Complainaint #1 knew that the facts of the civil action did not take place when Plaintiff
was an attorney.
27. During the interim suspension, he could not continue his work as the counsel of record i
nthe civil actions Tripiafer23 v. JE9SE, RSC-CV-8563 (2026), noahbadnolie v.
robloxagone13, RSC-CV-9831 (2026), and Icecoldwateryes v. WGT05, RSC-CV-8006.
He could also not continue his work as the counsel of record for the defendants in State v.
Ampli, RSC-CM-7105 (2026) and aspenfun v. masterqv, RSC-CV-8952 (2026).
28. After the interview, the associate director told Plaintiff that the Ridgeway State Bar
would petition the Supreme Court of the State of Ridgeway ("SCOR") to disbar him.
29. Later that day, the associate director told Plaintiff that his license was no longer on an
interim suspension.
30. On 2026-08-10, Associate Director of the Ridgeway State Bar and Defendant
AlbertWellesley sent a DM to Plaintiff, which read in the form of an email, "Thr33six8:
This is official notice that you are being investigated by the State Bar. You should read
the letter here."
31. The letter accused Plaintiff of violating 3 R. Stat. § 411.101 because "the Board [of
Lethal Ethics] has reason to suspect you may be in violation of this statute because you
have more than 15 arrests on record or that you are currently a person engaged in
criminal activity."
32. The letter accused Plaintiff of violating Rule of Professional Conduct 1.1 because "the
Board has reason to suspect you may not have the necessary competence to perform legal
services on behalf of a client, and that you may knowingly be performing legal services
while not possessing the necessary competence in the law."
33. The letter accused Plaintiff of violating Rule of Professional Conduct 3.1 because "the
Board has reason to suspect you may have asserted a legal position which is against the
interests of your client, for the purpose of harassing a person in an action, and presenting
a meritless claim which was proven meritless."
34. The letter accused Plaintiff of violating Rule of Professional Conduct 1.4 because "the
Board has reason to suspect you may not have communicated and received your client’s
consent to make a statement disclosing his or her criminal activity in an initial pleading."
35. Finally, the letter accused Plaintiff of violating Rule of Professional Conduct 1.6 because
"the Board has reason to suspect you may have broken attorney-client privilege by
disclosing information about your client’s criminal activities in an initial pleading without
his or her consent, contrary to the purpose of the privilege."
36. Plaintiff was then brought into an interview with the Ridgeway State Bar, where
Defendant AlbertWellesley and Ethics Officer AlexJCabot, who was hired on
2026-08-11, interviewed Plaintiff.
37. AlexJCabot interviewed Plaintiff on whether or not he committed a crime; Plaintiff
pleaded the fifth and refused to answer on whether or not he committed said crimes.
38. As evidence, AlexJCabot provided clips of Plaintiff that show him committing crimes as
well as the summons for thr33six8 v. Ridgeway County Sheriff's Office, RSC-CV-3576
(2026). All of the clips were taken before the Bar Integrity Act was passed, and the
complaint attached to the summons alleged facts that took place before Plaintiff had his
license.
39. Plaintiff invoked his Fifth Amendment right and did not respond to any questions of his
criminality.
40. During the interim suspension, Plaintiff could not continue his work as the counsel of
record for the plaintiffs in the civil actions Tripiafer23 v. JE9SE, RSC-CV-8563 (2026),
Tripiafer23, et al., v. smashcans, et al., RSC-CV-1141 (2026), RA4ZERR v. djnisnn,
RSC-CV-6755 (2026), rawequals v. CephalGPT, RSC-CV-1389 (2026), MurkenDawg v.
dev_Typ, RSC-CV-5829 (2026), noahbadnolie v. robloxagone13, RSC-CV-9831 (2026),
TheUnknownSavagx v. ShadowCulture, et al., RSC-CV-3946 (2026), r_zuelius v.
WGT05, RSC-CV-1716 (2026), and Icecoldwateryes v. WGT05, RSC-CV-8006 (2026).
He could also not continue his work as the counsel of record for the defendant in the civil
action aspenfun v. masterqv, RSC-CV-8952 (2026).
41. In the civil action Tripiafer23, et al., v. smashcans, et al., RSC-CV-1141 (2026),
Defendant smashcans' counsel of record, who was Solicitor General Detachment_Result,
filed a motion to dismiss on 2026-08-10.
42. The judge presiding over that civil action, who was Hon. xXBoomblast339Xx, ordered
that "proceedings in this matter" be stayed "or a period reasonably necessary to permit
Plaintiff to obtain successor counsel or otherwise enter an appearance."
43. On 2026-08-15, Plaintiff filed a 15-page memo in opposition to the motion to dismiss.
44. On 2026-08-19, the presiding judge said, "I cannot consider a motion filed by a
suspended attorney, regarding which I already made an order," and he would later dismiss
the case for failure to prosecute.
45. On the same day, Hon. xXBoomBlast339Xx also denied Plaintiff's 2026-08-18 request
for default judgment in noahbadnolie v. robloxagone13, RSC-CV-9831 (2026). He
brusquely denied the request for default judgment pursuant to Rid. Rule Civ. Proc. 11(6)
despite the fact that the defendant never filed any responsive pleading.
46. As of 2026-09-03, no new developments have occurred in the civil action.
47. Because of Plaintiff's unavailability to continue his career from the interim
suspensionHon. EffortlessBrit, who presides over r_zuelius v. WGT05, said that the civil
action would be dismissed for failure to prosecute.
48. Worse, the civil action TheUnknownSavagx v. ShadowCulture, et al., RSC-CV-3946
(2026) was dismissed because Plaintiff could not have filed a response in opposition to
Defendant's motion to dismiss.
49. After the interview, Defendant AlbertWellesley sent Plaintiff a letter stating that Plaintiff
would face disciplinary proceedings with the Supreme Court of the State of Ridgeway for
a Rule 8.3 violation.
TORTS
#1: Official Misconduct (7 R. Stat. § 121.404)
Tortfeasor: Defendant AlbertWellesley
1. Defendant AlbertWellesley is the associate director of the Ridgeway State Bar and
chairman of the Board of Legal Ethics, the former being under the Supreme Court of the
State of Ridgeway and therefore a government office. See Compl. Parties ¶ 2; 3 R. Stat. §
151.002. He is therefore a public servant.
2. Defendant AlbertWellesley did commit an unauthorized act of his authority/office when
he put Plaintiff's license on an interim suspension, which is a power not given to the
Ridgeway State Bar because their "enforcement" power does not extend to interim
enforcement. They rather act as an investigatory branch of the Ridgeway State Bar, not
the Ridgeway State Bar's ICE to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. 3 R. Stat. §
151.003 ("The Ridgeway State Bar shall establish ethical and professional conduct rules
to which all licensed attorneys must remain in compliance with, and shall raise
disciplinary hearings before the Supreme Court against any licensed attorney found in
violation of such rules"); Cf. Id., at § 151.205 ("A member of the bar may only be
disciplined before the Supreme Court when found to be in violation of the state rules of
professional conduct, or when found to be in violation of a state statute); Id., at § 151.204
("Prior to disciplinary action involving disbarment, suspension for cause, public
reprimand, monetary sanction, or admonition by the Board of Legal Ethics, the Board of
Legal Ethics shall submit a disciplinary hearing before the Supreme Court where the
attorney may present a defense. The Supreme Court shall promulgate rules of procedure
for the management of attorney disciplinary action."); Contra Id., at § 151.201 ("The
Board of Legal Ethics shall establish ethical codes, conduct regulations, and enforce
ethical standards").
3. Even if it was in Defendant AlbertWellesley's office/authority to intermittently suspend
Plaintiff's license because of § 151.201, when Plaintiff was given his license, he was
given a right. See Id., at § 151.006 ("Every attorney duly admitted or authorized to
practice law in this state shall have the right to appear before any court of the state, or
any public board, committee, or office in the interest of any client, and may appear as
amicus curiae when so permitted") (emphasis added). To take this right away would
invoke Plaintiff's Fourteenth Amendment right to due process. It would also invoke
Plaintiff's right to due process under Rid. Const., Art. Ⅰ, § Ⅴ.
4. Furthermore, Defendant justified the interim suspension with that "because of the
[aforementioned violations], the Board has determined that [Plaintiff] pose[s] a risk to the
public." However, because Plaintiff has a statutory right to hold the license, and the
action is interim, the burden of proof for this is very high under case law—most likely
through the standard of clear and convincing evidence. See E.M.D. Sales, Inc. v. Carerra,
604 U.S. 45, 50–51 (2025) (due process clause invokes at least the clear and convincing
evidence standard); Cf. Fiore v. White, 531 U.S. 225, 228–229 (2001) (per curiam) ("We
have held that the Due Process Clause of the Fourtheenth Amendment forbids a State to
convict a person of a crime without proving the elements of that crime beyond a
reasonable doubt").
5. Finally, if Plaintiff committed a crime, and Defendant wants to trigger an ethical violation
for the crime, it invokes the evidentiary standard of beyond a reasonable doubt under the
Due Process Clause. See Fiore, 531 U.S., at 228-229; see, e.g., Garcia v. Noem, No.
8:25-cv-00951 (D Md.) (defendant failed to meet the burden of proof that plaintiff was a1
part of a criminal gang for their estoppel defense to oppose plaintiff's motion for TRO).
1 Also titled Abrego Garcia v. Noem. The civil action Kilmar Abrego Garcia commenced against the government of
the United States.
6. Plaintiff had a case of his client dismissed for failure to prosecute because of his license's
interim suspension: he has therefore suffered injury.
7. Therefore, there is a cause of action for the tort of Official Misconduct, of which
Defendant AlbertWellesley is the tortfeasor.
#2: Deprivation of Rights under Color of Law (7 R. Stat. § 121.403)
Tortfeasor: Defendant AlbertWellesley
1. Defendant AlbertWellesley was acting under the law, as he used his authority as the
assocaite director of the Ridgeway State Bar and chairman of the Board of Legal Ethics.
Compl. Parties ¶ 2.
2. Defendant AlbertWellesley did deprive Plaintiff of his Fourteeth Amendment right to due
process when he put Plaintiff's license on an interim suspension without any evidence
3. Therefore, there is a cause of action for the tort of Deprivation of Rights under Color of
Law, of which Defendant AlbertWellesley
#3: Abuse of Process (7 R. Stat. § 121.402)
Tortfeasor: Defendant rashhyyyy
4. Defendant rashhyyyy did know that he would be the defendant of a class action civil
action where Plaintiff would be the plaintiffs' counsel of record.
5. Defendant rashhyyyy did worry about the class action.
6. Defendant rashhyyyy did submit to the Ridgeway State Bar that Plaintiff committed a
crime.
7. Defendant rashhyyyy did know that submitting the complaint would lead to the
Ridgeway State Bar issuing preliminary, adverse action against Plaintiff under the Bar
Integrity Act.
8. Defendant rashhyyyy did know that the Bar Integrity Act was not in effect when the
alleged crimes occurred.
9. Defendant rashhyyyy did know that the Bar Integrity Act was not in efffect when he
submitted the complaint to the Ridgeway State Bar.
10. Defendant rashhyyyy did submit evidence with the complaint, and the evidence did not
prove that Plaintiff committed a crime that "reflects adversely on the attorney’s honesty,
trustworthiness, or fitness as an attorney in other respects" pursuant to Rule of
Professional Conduct 8.3(b).
11. Since the complaint (1) was made in order to prevent civil reprecussions for Defendant's
misconduct and (2) was made with evidence that does not prove any statutory or rule
violation whatsoever, the complaint was "vexatious" per 7 R. Stat. § 121.402 and
synonymously frivolous (Neitzke defintion not used).
12. Therefore, there is a cause of action for the tort of Abuse of Process, of which Defendant
rashhyyyy is the tortfeasor.
#4: Tortious Interference (7 R. Stat. § 121.203)
Tortfeasor: Defendant rashhyyyy
1. By submitting the vexatious, frivolous complaint to the Ridgeway State Bar, it caused
Plaintiff's license to be put on an interim suspension as well as the possibility of
disbarment.
2. This cause has stopped Plaintiff from continuing his work as the counsel of record for his
clients, who were the plaintiffs in their civil actions: he could not continue his work in
Tripiafer23 v. JE9SE, RSC-CV-8563 (2026), noahbadnolie v. robloxagone13,
RSC-CV-9831 (2026), and Icecoldwateryes v. WGT05, RSC-CV-8006. He could also not
continue his work as the counsel of record for the defendants in State v. Ampli,
RSC-CM-7105 (2026) and aspenfun v. masterqv, RSC-CV-8952 (2026). This effect is
injurious as Plaintiff was deprived of his continued work as an attorney, therefore
damaging his "career" per 7 R. Stat. § 121.203.
3. Therefore, there is a cause of aciton for the tort of Tortious Interference, of which
Defendant rashhyyyy is the tortfeasor.
#5: Fraud (7 R. Stat. § 121.202)
Tortfeasor: Defendant rashhyyyy
1. Defendant rashhyyyy did know that the evidence with the complaint did not show
Plaintiff committing a crime punishable under Rule 8.3.
2. Defendant rashhyyyy did know that the complaint would not result in punishment under
the Bar Integrity Act since it was not in effect.
3. Defendant rashhyyyy did omit the fact that the Bar Integrity Act was not in effect in the
evidence, which is a misrepresentation by omission, an element of fraud under case law.
See S.E.C. v. Capital Gains Bureau, 375 U.S. 180, 193 (1963) ("Fraud, indeed, in the
sense of a court of equity properly includes all acts, omissions and concealments which
involve a breach of legal or equitable duty, trust, or confidence, justly reposed, and are
injurious to another, or by which an undue and unconscientious advantage is taken of
another.") (emphasis added).
4. Defendant rashhyyyy's statement that "if [attorneys like Plaintiff] themselves are
comfortable committing a crime, how the hell can clients and judges trust them in a court
room," Compl. Statement of Facts ¶ 20, was analogous to the element of Rule of
Professional Conduct 8.3(b), which is that it is professional misconduct for an attorney to
commit a criminal act that "reflects adversley on the attorney's honesty, trustworthiness,
or fitness as an attorney in other respects;" he was referring to Plaintiff's conduct as a
Rule 8.3(b) violation, which was the rule that tobyrulles4568 used against Plaintiff. See
Ex. 1.
5. Since Defendant rashhyyyy statements were used as evidence in the July 28th
investigation, which concerned a Rule 8.3(b) violation, he successfully deceived the
Ridgeway State Bar.
6. Although not necessary for this tort, Plaintiff was injured as a result: he could not
continue his career as the counsel of record for many cases. Compl. Statement of Facts ¶
27.
7. Therefore, there is a cause of action for the tort of Fraud, of which Defendant rashhyyyy
is the tortfeasor.
#6: Abuse of Process (7 R. Stat. § 121.402)
Tortfeasor: Defendant Complainaint #2
1. Defendant Complainaint #2 did know that the summons, which was used as evidence in
the complaint they sent to the Ridgeway State Bar, alleged facts. The facts also took
place when Plaintiff was not an attorney, therefore being unpunishable under Rule 8.3 ("It
is professional misconduct for an attorney…") (emphasis added).
2. Defendant Complainaint #2 did know that the evidence was not enough for Plaintiff to
get in trouble, yet Defendant sent the complaint to the Ridgeway State Bar.
3. Since Complainaint #2 sent a complaint with weak evidence to the Ridgeway State Bar,
and they knew the complaint would not go very far, they submitted it to solely get
Plaintiff in trouble with the Ridgeway State Bar.
4. Therefore, there is a cause of action for the tort of Abuse of Process, of which Defendant
Complainaint #2 is the tortfeasor.
#7: Tortious Interference (7 R. Stat. § 121.203)
Tortfeasor: Defendant Complainaint #2
5. Since Complainaint #2 is the tortfeasor of Abuse of Process, the elements of that cause of
action are similiar enough for tortious interference, minus the requirement for injury.
6. Plaintiff's license was put on an interim suspension since 2026-08-10 as a result of the
complaint/tortious interference. He was unable to continue his career and work with his
clients.
7. Therefore, there is a cause of action for tortious interference, of which Defendant
Complainaint #2 is the tortfeasor.
#8: Fraud (7 R. Stat. § 121.202)
Tortfeasor: Defendant Complainaint #2
1. When Defendant Complainaint #2 made their complaint with the Ridgeway State bar,
Defendant Complainaint #2 did use the summons and said Plaintiff admitted to
committing crimes in it, which Plaintiff did not do: Defendant deceived the Ridgeway
State Bar in order to get plaintiff into trouble, which would deprive him of his statutory
right given to him as an attorney.
2. Therefore, there is a cause of action for the tort of Fraud, of which Defendant
Complainaint #2 is the tortfeasor.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
Plaintiff is entitled to and requests the following:
1. $368 in punitive damages from Defendant AlbertWellesley in his individual capacity;
2. an injunction ordering Defendant AlbertWellesley to unsuspend Plaintiff's license;
3. $18,000 in punitive damages from Defendant rashhyyyy, and;
4. $18,000 in punitive damages from Complainaint #2.
Respectfully submitted,
———————————————
/s/ thr33six8
Filer of this document and Plaintiff of the
above-titled civil action;
Licensed Attorney in the State of Ridgeway
since July 23rd, 2026 (R.S.B. License
#19302).
Timezone UTC–05:00.
/s/ TonyBlony492
The attorney of Plaintiff/Client thr33six8;
Licensed Attorney in the State of Ridgeway
since August 18th, 2026 (R.S.B. License
#19309)
Timezone UTC+02:00.
