THE STATE OF RIDGEWAY
RIDGEWAY SUPERIOR COURT
THR33SIX8, an individual,
Plaintiff,
-against-
ALBERTWELLESLEY, et al.,
Defendants.
RSC-CV-8427
DEFENDANT RASHHYYYY'S
MOTION TO DISMISS AMENDED
COMPLAINT
Presiding Judge: Hon. N/A
Defendant rashhyyyy ('Defendant') moves to dismiss the Amended Complaint's claims against him —
Tort #3 (Abuse of Process), Tort #4 (Tortious Interference), and Tort #5 (Fraud) — with prejudice. The
amendments add case citations and a new fraud theory, but neither cures the defects previously
identified.
I. THE NEWLY ADDED CASE LIST DOES NOT CURE THE PROXIMATE-CAUSE
DEFECT
1. The Amended Complaint now identifies, for the first time, nine specific civil actions allegedly
disrupted by the interim suspension. Am. Compl. Statement of Facts ¶ 40. This amendment answers
Defendant's prior argument that Plaintiff pled only 'undifferentiated, aggregate' damages — but it does
so by confirming, rather than curing, the underlying causation problem.
2. Every one of the named disruptions flows from a single common cause pled in Plaintiff's own
Amended Complaint: the interim suspension itself, imposed by the Board. Am. Compl. Statement of
Facts ¶¶ 27, 40, 44, 47–48. Plaintiff's own pleading shows that Judge xXBoomblast339Xx's rulings, the
dismissal for failure to prosecute in RSC-CV-1141, and the dismissals in r_zuelius v. WGT05 and
TheUnknownSavagx v. ShadowCulture were all caused by the fact of the suspension being in place —
a status the Board imposed based on its own independent review, which by Plaintiff's own account
included a separate letter charging five distinct violations wholly apart from Defendant's complaint.
Am. Compl. Statement of Facts ¶¶ 31–35.
3. Naming more downstream cases affected by the same suspension does not identify a single
additional fact tying that suspension, specifically and exclusively, to Defendant's complaint rather than
to the Board's own five-charge letter or its independent investigatory decision. A longer list of
consequences flowing from one unapportioned cause remains unapportioned.
II. THE NEW FRAUD-BY-OMISSION THEORY FAILS AS A MATTER OF LAW
4. The Amended Complaint adds a new theory that Defendant committed fraud by 'omitting' the fact
that the Bar Integrity Act was not yet in effect when he submitted his complaint, citing SEC v. Capital
Gains Research Bureau, 375 U.S. 180, 193 (1963), for the proposition that omissions can constitute
fraud. Am. Compl. Tort #5, ¶ 3.
5. Capital Gains Research Bureau does not assist Plaintiff. That case addressed the fiduciary obligations
of a registered investment adviser under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 — a relationship of trust
and confidence specifically created by statute between an adviser and client. Defendant, a private
citizen submitting a complaint to a disciplinary body, owed no analogous fiduciary or confidential duty
to the Ridgeway State Bar. Fraud by omission requires a duty to disclose; the Amended Complaint
identifies none.
6. The 'omitted' fact — the Act's effective date — is not even a fact within Defendant's superior or
exclusive knowledge. It is a matter of public legislative record, equally available to the Board that
received the complaint. A private citizen reporting an arrest he personally witnessed has no obligation
to brief the recipient disciplinary body on the effective date of pending legislation, particularly where,
as here, the Board is the body charged with knowing and applying its own governing statutes.
7. The Amended Complaint's related new theory — that Defendant's opinion statement was 'analogous
to' the elements of Rule 8.3(b) and therefore constituted a deceptive legal conclusion, Am. Compl. Tort
#5, ¶ 4 — does not convert opinion into fact. Recognizing that certain conduct might implicate a known
professional-conduct standard is the ordinary, expected function of a complaint to a disciplinary body;
it is not a false representation. If anything, the resemblance Plaintiff now identifies between
Defendant's language and Rule 8.3(b)'s own text confirms that Defendant's complaint was directed at
the legitimate purpose for which the Bar's complaint process exists.
III. THE ABUSE OF PROCESS AND FRAUD CLAIMS STILL REST ON A REPORT OF A
TRUE ARREST
8. Nothing in the Amended Complaint alleges that the underlying arrest Defendant reported was false.
The new paragraphs elaborate on downstream consequences and add a legal theory about omission, but
the operative facts — that Defendant personally arrested Plaintiff for attempted murder and unlawful
firearm possession — remain unchallenged and are independently corroborated by video evidence
already before the Bar. Truth remains a complete defense.
IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Defendant rashhyyyy respectfully requests that this Court:
1. DISMISS with prejudice all claims asserted against Defendant in the Amended Complaint, including
Tort #3 (Abuse of Process), Tort #4 (Tortious Interference), and Tort #5 (Fraud);
2. DENY Plaintiff's request for $18,000 in punitive damages against Defendant;
3. AWARD Defendant his costs incurred in defending this action; and
4. GRANT such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ rashhyyyy
Defendant, pro se
