1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PAGE - 1 -
EMERGENCY NONPARTY MOTION FOR LEAVE AND TO EXCLUDE OR LIMIT TESTIMONY
imnotRummy — self-represented nonparty proposed witness
Filing username: imnotRummy
SUPERIOR COURT OF RIDGEWAY
COUNTY OF RIDGEWAY
thr33six8, Case No. RSC-CV-8427
Plaintiff,
vs. EMERGENCY NONPARTY
AlbertWellesley, in his official capacity, MOTION FOR LEAVE AND TO
rashhyyyy, EXCLUDE OR LIMIT
Complainants (pseudonymous defendants), TESTIMONY
Defendants.
Dated September 9, 2026, at 11:51:29 UTC. Judge: Arthur_Chen.
Relief requested and limited appearance
Emergency consideration is requested under Rid. R. Civ. P. 7.1(7), with an initial
protective and scheduling determination within twenty-four (24) hours after clerk
acceptance, to protect judicial impartiality by promptly resolving Plaintiff’s designation of
the Chief Justice as an admitted legal-expert witness and preventing inquiry into
protected judicial deliberations before an independent ruling.
Nonparty imnotRummy (Movant), Chief Justice of Ridgeway and the proposed
witness identified by Roblox user ID 52812279, requests leave to appear solely to
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PAGE - 2 -
EMERGENCY NONPARTY MOTION FOR LEAVE AND TO EXCLUDE OR LIMIT TESTIMONY
protect his own judicial privilege and obtain a preliminary ruling on the use of his
proposed testimony. He seeks no adjudication of a claim or defense and supports
neither side on the merits.
Movant asks the Court to exclude him from Plaintiff’s witness presentation on the
disclosure as presently framed, subject to a later, specific proffer of admissible,
nonprivileged factual testimony. Alternatively, he asks the Court to exclude legal-opinion
testimony, protect judicial deliberations within Rule 510, and require Plaintiff to identify
the remaining factual testimony before calling him. Pending that determination, he
requests that no party call him without a preliminary ruling. The relief concerns the use
of the designation, not deletion or alteration of an accepted filing.
No subpoena is presented for quashing. Movant requests a preliminary ruling
under Rid. R. Evid. 103(6), 104(1), 501(6)(4), 510, and 702(4)(6), through a motion
under Rid. R. Civ. P. 7(2) and 7.1. He invokes the Court’s discretion to permit this limited
nonparty application. He does not claim a party’s independent right to move under Rule
702(4)(1).
Governing law and timeliness
Rid. R. Evid. 702(9)(1)–(2) excludes witness opinions about the meaning of
Ridgeway law and whether conduct satisfies a legal standard. Rule 701(7)(3) applies the
same restriction to lay opinions. The Court may address expert admissibility on its own
initiative after notice and an opportunity to be heard, Rule 702(4)(6), and must exclude
prohibited legal opinions under Rule 702(9)(4).
Rid. R. Evid. 510(1)–(3), (5)–(7) protects a judicial officer’s adjudicative reasoning
and internal deliberations. Rule 605(7) directs parties to use the court record for matters
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PAGE - 3 -
EMERGENCY NONPARTY MOTION FOR LEAVE AND TO EXCLUDE OR LIMIT TESTIMONY
it establishes. Rule 602 requires a personal-knowledge foundation for factual testimony.
Rule 501(7)–(8) requires a specific, supported privilege claim; confidentiality or judicial
office alone does not establish one.
To the extent the ordinary pretrial period under Civil Rule 6(1) has expired,
Movant expressly requests leave under Evidence Rule 103(6)(1) and consideration in
the interests of justice under Rule 702(4)(2). No trial date appears in the docket
reviewed on September 9, 2026. The Court may also address admissibility on its own
initiative under Rule 702(4)(6).
The emergency asserted is the need for a prompt, independent boundary
protecting impartial judicial administration, Const. art. V, § 1, and judicial deliberations
under Rule 510. Movant candidly discloses that no subpoena or deposition notice has
been received and no imminent compulsory appearance is identified. He asks the Court
to determine whether this stated concern warrants expedited treatment; he asserts no
additional emergency fact. If it does not, he requests consideration on the ordinary
schedule rather than denial of the underlying evidentiary application.
Consultation and party positions
The positions of Plaintiff, through TonyBlony492, and Defendants AlbertWellesley,
rashhyyyy, and the pseudonymous Complainants are unknown. Advance consultation
has not been completed. No consent, opposition, unsuccessful contact attempt, or
waiver is represented.
Movant seeks leave to present the application immediately, without awaiting
advance consultation, because he requests an independent protective determination on
the stated emergency schedule to protect judicial impartiality. This is the explanation
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PAGE - 4 -
EMERGENCY NONPARTY MOTION FOR LEAVE AND TO EXCLUDE OR LIMIT TESTIMONY
offered under Rid. R. Civ. P. 7.1(2)(3) for not awaiting consultation; it is not a certification
of completed conferral. All parties should receive ordinary system service and a
meaningful opportunity to respond.
Movant will supplement the known positions after consultation or a response. If
the Court finds this explanation insufficient for immediate presentation, he requests
directions for prompt consultation and supplementation, with the evidentiary issues
preserved for decision. He makes no Rule 19(7)(1) certification and requests no present
discovery protective order without the necessary demand and factual showing.
Record relevant to the designation
1. Plaintiff’s original complaint and accompanying Document of Disclosures
were filed on September 1, 2026, as BATES-20260901-7094449086. On
PDF page 19, the row identifying imnotRummy:52812279 states:
“Admitted as an eyewitness and expert witness. Per the rules, I admit he is
qualified to testify on the Rules of Professional Conduct.” This is Plaintiff’s
designation, not a ruling admitting testimony.
2. The original complaint’s Statement of Facts, paragraphs 4–5, at PDF page
2, alleges involvement in Plaintiff’s admission to the State Bar and
attributes a view about Plaintiff’s criminal background to the justices.
These are allegations; Movant does not adopt, dispute, or supply evidence
concerning their merits in this motion. The amended complaint, filed
September 4, 2026, is BATES-20260904-8267642991.
3. The witness-table entry does not identify a particular event Movant
perceived, a specific opinion, or an item of judicial deliberative material.
His accompanying declaration addresses his identity, the absence of a
subpoena or deposition notice received as of its stated date and time, the
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PAGE - 5 -
EMERGENCY NONPARTY MOTION FOR LEAVE AND TO EXCLUDE OR LIMIT TESTIMONY
status of consultation, and his limited purpose in presenting this
application.
Memorandum in support
A. The proposed testimony must be identified and screened.
The disclosed Rules of Professional Conduct subject cannot authorize Plaintiff to
elicit Movant’s interpretation of a rule, his opinion whether Plaintiff committed a violation,
or a legal conclusion about the authority for suspension or discipline. Such questions
belong to the deciding court. The requested exclusion reaches those opinions, not every
possible statement about professional practice. Rule 702(9)(3) preserves specified
practice, terminology, and other factual evidence when otherwise admissible.
The existing designation supplies no developed factual proffer independent of the
proposed expert role. Movant therefore asks the Court to preclude calling him on that
designation unless Plaintiff first identifies the specific events, expected testimony,
relevance, basis for personal knowledge, and reason a court record cannot supply the
proof. A sufficient proffer may warrant limited testimony; an unsupported label should not
determine admissibility. Rid. R. Evid. 104(1), 602, 605(7), 702(2)(3), (4)(4), and (7).
B. Judicial deliberations require protection, with their stated limits.
To the extent Plaintiff proposes to ask why Movant reached a judicial decision
concerning admission, discipline, or another adjudicated matter, Movant invokes Rule
510 as the holder of his own privilege. The same protection applies to qualifying private
judicial drafts and internal deliberative communications. Its application depends on the
judicial function and the particular testimony or material sought.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PAGE - 6 -
EMERGENCY NONPARTY MOTION FOR LEAVE AND TO EXCLUDE OR LIMIT TESTIMONY
Movant does not assert that all State Bar administration is privileged. Rule 510(4)
leaves public acts and records, communications from persons outside the court,
specified misconduct communications, and firsthand observations outside the judicial
function beyond its protection. The Court should distinguish these matters from
protected deliberations. If a specific item or question is later identified, Movant must
establish the claim with the particularity Rule 501 requires; this motion is not a privilege
log or a blanket withholding of unspecified documents.
A statement already in the public record remains subject to the ordinary
evidentiary rules. The request concerns compelled testimony and use, not alteration of
that record. Any necessary review of genuinely privileged material should follow Rule
501(9)–(10), without placing that material in the public filing system.
C. The decision should remain with an independent judicial officer.
Movant requests determination by the assigned judge, or another eligible judicial
officer, rather than by Movant. This follows the separation recognized by Rule 510(7). He
invokes no personal exemption based solely on a wish to remain impartial. His
emergency application takes no position on credibility, liability, the disputed suspension,
or any disciplinary outcome, and requests no ruling about his eligibility to adjudicate
another proceeding.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PAGE - 7 -
EMERGENCY NONPARTY MOTION FOR LEAVE AND TO EXCLUDE OR LIMIT TESTIMONY
D. The relief should fit the present procedural posture.
Because no subpoena or deposition notice has been received, Rule 32’s
quashing procedure is reserved for any later compulsory process. Civil Rule 19(7)
expressly permits protection for a person from whom discovery is sought, but no present
discovery demand is asserted here. If the Court considers discovery protection
premature, it should decide the available evidentiary questions and deny that portion
without prejudice to a later, properly supported application.
Requested disposition
Movant respectfully requests: (1) an initial protective and scheduling
determination within twenty-four (24) hours after clerk acceptance, including a direction
that no party call him before a preliminary ruling; (2) leave for this limited nonparty
appearance and, if required, consideration outside the ordinary pretrial period; (3) a
specific factual proffer and, after the parties are heard, exclusion under the existing
designation unless that proffer is adequate; alternatively, exclusion of prohibited legal
opinions and protection of established judicial deliberations; and (4) determination by
another judicial officer.
Movant proposes opposition within twelve (12) hours after service of a scheduling
order and a reply within six (6) hours after service of opposition, subject to the Court’s
determination that the schedule affords a fair opportunity to respond. These shorter
periods take effect only if ordered. Ordinary consideration is requested as the alternative
if emergency treatment is declined.
Respectfully submitted, /s/ imnotRummy — Nonparty Movant.
