IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE
STATE OF RIDGEWAY
THR33SIX8,
Plaintiff,
v,
ALBERTWELLESLEY, in their official
capacity as Associate Director of the Ridgeway
State Bar,
RASHHYYY, a pseudonym,
COMPLAINTANTS, a pseudonym
Defendant.
DEFENDANT ALBERTWELLESLEY’S
MOTION TO DISMISS
Hon.
Docket Number: RSC-CV-8427
The Defendant, AlbertWellesley, through the undersigned counsel, respectfully moves
this Honorable Court to dismiss the claims against them for a multitude of grounds. The
Complaint against the Defendants arises from Plaintiff’s suspension of practice, and is a
retaliatory and frivolous complaint that bears no interest in this Court. For the following reasons,
the Defendants should be dismissed from this lawsuit.
——————————————————————————————————————————————
MOTION TO DISMISS
- 1 -
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
1. Plaintiff’s lawsuit is the product of an already confusing, and lengthy issue regarding his
status as an attorney.
2. In essence, Plaintiff argues that the complaints made against him to the State Bar were
baseless or retaliatory, and that the State Bar improperly suspended his license. Thus,
Plaintiff alleges he has been deprived of a legal career, clients, and therefore the State Bar
and anonymous complaints are liable, and should pay him money.
3. Plaintiff raises multiple different incidents, over a 3 month period, but ties them all into
one single complaint.1
Retaliation by rashhyyyy
4. Back in July, Plaintiff advertised his services to people who were subject to search
warrants, offering payouts.
5. rashhyyyy allegedly
State Bar Investigation
6. Three anonymous persons made complaints to the State Bar about Plaintiff, and the
Plaintiff was notified of the investigation. The allegations were essentially:
a. Plaintiff had committed crimes;
b. Had allegedly been arrested for murder/attempted murder; and
c. Potentially violated Rule 8.3(b) of the Professional Misconduct rules.
1 Given the complex, historical timeline of events, and confusing breakdown in the Complaint, ChatGPT
was used to summarize the complaint. The prompt can be found here:
https://chatgpt.com/share/6a9868b8-90d8-83ec-80a5-6d8d31626258. ChatGPT or other generative AI
was not used in constructing the arguments.
——————————————————————————————————————————————
MOTION TO DISMISS
- 2 -
7. Plaintiff allegedly identified one of the complaints as being made by rashhyyyy, and
claimed that rashhyyyy did not provide enough evidence of his allegations for the State
Bar to investigate. The allegation was that Plaintiff:
a. Had been arrested for attempted muder;
b. Possessed a firearm unlawfully;
c. Previously killed rashhyyyy; and,
d. Had his RFLID revoked.
e. That rashhyyyy allegedly gave his opinion that such conduct is not becoming of
an attorney.
8. Plaintiff also referenced another complaint, which in part allegedly concerned his
criminal activity. Plaintiff argues that even if they did commit a crime, it cannot constitute
professional misconduct because they were not an attorney at the time.
The Suspension
9. Following these complaints, Plaintiff says that he was placed on interim suspension,
pending a Supreme Court disbarment petition. This is where Plaintiff argues he suffered
economic injury, because he could no longer represent clients, and lost money.
10. The argument here is that the suspension from practice caused concrete economic injury,
because Plaintiff could no longer charge clients for his services.
11. Later, AlbertWellesley notified Plaintiff of yet another investigation, this time conering
that Plaintiff:
a. Had too many arrests or was currently engaged in criminal activity;
b. Had a lack of competence;
——————————————————————————————————————————————
MOTION TO DISMISS
- 3 -
c. Had filed meritless or harassing complaints;
d. Failed to obtain consent from clients before disclosing their criminality; and,
e. Violating attorney-client privileges
12. Essentially, Plaintiff was investigated by the State Bar over concerns he was filing
frivolous litigations, and mishandling confidential client information.
Count 1 - Official Misconduct against AlbertWellesley
13. Plaintiff has several theories as to how AlbertWellesley violated this tort.
a. AlbertWellesley allegedly exceeded his authority by imposing an interim
suspension;
b. Even if AlbertWellesley had authority to suspend him, he did not have sufficient
evidence to do so. More specifically, Plaintiff argues that AlbertWellesley needed
evidence “beyond a reasonable doubt” in order to suspend him.
c. Because Plaintiff was suspended, one of his client’s cases was dismissed, and
therefore, alleges a monetary injury, rather than a constitutional one.
Count 2 - Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law
14. Plaintiff argues that AlbertWellesley had acted under law as the State Bar, and deprived
him of his due process right under the Fourteenth Amendment by suspending his license
without sufficient evidence.
Count 3 - Abuse of Process against rashhyyyy
15. Plaintiff argues that rashhyyyy weaponized the anonymous complaint system as a way to
retaliate against Plaintiff.
——————————————————————————————————————————————
MOTION TO DISMISS
- 4 -
16. More specifically, Plaintiff argues rashhyyyy unfairly reported him because he would be
sued by Plaintiff.
17. So Plaintiff sues rashhyyyy for frivolous use of the bar system, allegedly because it could
prevent a lawsuit against him.
Count 4 - Tortious Interference
18. Plaintiff argues that rashhyyyy’s anonymous complaint caused Plaintiff:
a. His suspension;
b. Inability to represent clients;
c. Loss of cases, therefore losing money he charged from them.
Count 5 - Fraud
19. Plaintiff argues that rashhyyyy allegedly knew the evidence was insufficient, and
therefore misled the Bar.
Counts 6-8
20. These are essentially second versions of counts 3-5.
The issues of this matter
21. From Defendant’s perspective, the issues that are before this Court are:
a. Did AlbertWellesley have authority to suspend Plaintiff;
b. Was the suspension made constitutionally? Was Plaintiff entitled to fair notice and
an opportunity to be heard before the suspension?;
c. Were the complaints protected?;
d. Did the State Bar investigate actual professional misconduct? Plaintiff argues all
of his complaints were retaliatory, and not actually worth an investigation.
——————————————————————————————————————————————
MOTION TO DISMISS
- 5 -
ARGUMENT
A. FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM
22. In order to properly sue someone in the State of Ridgeway, the complaint must (1) state a
claim and demonstrate they are entitled to relief; and (2) make a demand for judgement
for the relief which they deem entitled to. The guiding principal of stating a claim is
under Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) and Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550
U.S. 544 (2007).
23. Twombly requires that the complaint must have sufficient facts to state a claim that is
plausible on its face in order to avoid dismissal for failing to state a claim. The
allegations must “raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Here, the complaint
is mere speculations, and is so full of jargon and confusing statements that a court cannot
possibly believe it plausible without having to make legal conclusions.
24. That is where Iqbal comes in, holding that a court cannot accept legal conclusions, and
can only accept factual allegations that are plausible on its face. Here, the factual
allegations would be that Plaintiff was suspended by Defendant. The allegations that
complaints made against him were retaliatory are legal conclusions.
25. More specifically, the complaint repeatedly alleges that AlbertWellesley lacked authority
to investigate him, lacked authority to take interim action, and acted fraudulently.
However, the complaint does not properly plead facts to establish these conclusions.
In-fact, the complaint actually demonstrates that the State Bar received multiple
complaints which prompted an investigation, that it reviewed evidence and interviewed
Plaintiff, and that it identified several possible ethical violations.
——————————————————————————————————————————————
MOTION TO DISMISS
- 6 -
26. The complaint therefore fails under Iqbal and Twombly standards, because instead of
actually demonstrating facts to show possible torts, it narrates a long, complex story
across a 3 month period. The court could not have plausibly made its finding without
having to come up with legal conclusions, or listen to the legal conclusions in the
complaint.
B. COUNT ONE FAILS BECAUSE PLAINTIFF HAS NOT PROPERLY PLEADED
IT
27. Count one, which alleges that AlbertWellesley engaged in Official Misconduct, contrary
to 7. R. Stat. § 121.404 by suspending Plaintiff’s license without authority, was
improperly pleaded.
28. In order to plead official misconduct, a plaintiff must demonstrate that the act caused
concrete injury to himself. Here, the complaint only alleges that AlbertWellesley acted
without authority, but does not even demonstrate a concrete injury.
29. Not too long ago, Plaintiff tried to sue a police officer for official misconduct. In this
case, Plaintiff argued that he was never given a copy of a search warrant. The Court ruled
that although it seemed plausible that the officer failed to perform a duty imposed on him
by law, the Plaintiff could not demonstrate “the existence of injury in this matter.” See
TheUnknownSavagx v. ShadowCulture, et al. RSC-CV-3946. The Court held that official
misconduct requires concrete injury to have happened in order for the claim to succeed.
——————————————————————————————————————————————
MOTION TO DISMISS
- 7 -
30. Here, it is the exact same thing. Even assuming AlbertWellesley acted outside his
authority, which he did not, Plaintiff has not demonstrated a concrete injury. Accordingly,
Count One should be dismissed because Plaintiff cannot prove concrete injury.
31. However, AlbertWellesley did in-fact act within his authority. The Bar Integrity Act gives
AlbertWellesley the authority to disqualify a license “upon receiving sufficient evidence”
that an attorney has 15 arrests on their record. Plaintiff even admits in their complaint that
AlbertWellesley received multiple complaints, and sent him a letter informing him that it
had reason to suspect he was in violation. AlbertWellesley did not randomly suspend
Plaintiff’s license, he acted only when a complaint was filed, performed his due
diligence, and determined based on the evidence that Plaintiff had 15 or more arrests.
32. The facts which Plaintiff has pleaded are against him when it comes to official
misconduct, because it demonstrates AlbertWellesley had authority to suspend his
license.
33. Plaintiff argues that he should have received a hearing before the Supreme Court under 3
R. Stat. § 151.204, but fails to acknowledge that an interim suspension is different from a
complete disbarment. The facts show that AlbertWellesley temporarily suspended
Plaintiff’s license based on sufficient evidence, but it does not show that Plaintiff’s
license was indefinitely suspended. Repeatedly calling it an “interim” suspension does
not help the argument here.
34. All in all, Plaintiff has failed to even attempt proving the second element of official
misconduct: concrete injury. They share a long story of how they got suspended after
repeated complaints, but fail to show how this caused concrete injury to them.
——————————————————————————————————————————————
MOTION TO DISMISS
- 8 -
C. PLAINTIFF HAS NOT PLEADED A VIOLATION OF DUE PROCESS
35. Most interestingly, Plaintiff alleges a violation of Deprivation of Rights under Color of
Law, contrary to 7. R. Stat. § 121.403, stating that his Fourteenth Amendment has been
violated, but makes no comment on his rights under the Constitution of the State.
36. In essence, Plaintiff gives a single sentence on how his rights were violated, by alleging
that AlbertWellesley suspended his license “without any evidence”. However, the rest of
the complaint talks about how AlbertWellesley actually did receive evidence.
37. On one page, Plaintiff says AlbertWellesley did not have evidence, but on the next page,
he says AlbertWellesley did have evidence:
a. “When [AlbertWellesley] put Plaintiff’s license on an interim suspension without
any evidence…” Compl ¶ 2 (P.g. 9);
b. “Defendant rashhyyy did submit evidence with the complaint…” Compl ¶ 9 (P.g.
10).
38. The argument already fails here, because Plaintiff is saying two different facts that go
against each other. It cannot be plausible on its face.
39. However, Plaintiff was afforded his due process right, and demonstrated this in his own
complaint, because:
a. AlbertWellesley received complaints, prompting a disciplinary investigation;
b. Plaintiff was notified that he was under investigation;
c. Plaintiff was interviewed, presented with evidence, and given the opportunity to
speak, but chose to invoke the Fifth Amendment;
d. AlbertWellesley made his determination based on the evidence;
——————————————————————————————————————————————
MOTION TO DISMISS
- 9 -
e. The interim suspension was subsequently lifted.
40. Plaintiff cannot reasonably argue their due process right was violated, when they were
given the opportunity to speak and chose not to.
41. Additionally, Plaintiff asserts a real-life U.S. Constitutional right, rather than the State
constitution, as defined in 7 R. Stat. § 121.403.
42. Plaintiff also argues that he thinks the evidence AlbertWellesley relied upon was
insufficient, because it was not beyond a reasonable doubt. Plaintiff is incorrect to state
that the burden is this high, when in-fact, it is much lower. AlbertWellesley assessed the
evidence based on the “preponderance of the evidence” See 3 R. Stat. § 411.102.
43. The argument fails here because Plaintiff cannot establish that the State Bar was required
to use a burden higher than what is used. It is also a legal conclusion to simply call the
evidence against him “insufficient”, without actually demonstrating why.
44. A single sentence alleging an incredibly complex tort cannot reasonably state a claim,
especially when the facts are against them.
D. COUNT TWO ALSO FAILS BECAUSE IT DOES NOT ALLEGE DEFENDANT
CAUSED IT HIMSELF
45. Plaintiff targets AlbertWellesley as causing his deprivation of right because the evidence
was insufficient. However, the facts which Plaintiff laid out demonstrate that
AlbertWellesley did not personally fabricate the investigation, personally manufacture the
evidence, or unilaterally deprived his license.
46. AlbertWellesley received multiple complaints, and multiple sources of evidence. Ethics
Officer AlexJCabot also participated in the investigation.
——————————————————————————————————————————————
MOTION TO DISMISS
- 10 -
47. Yet, Plaintiff asks this Court to infer all liability onto AlbertWellesley. Plaintiff cannot
hold one role within a disciplinary body liable. If he wanted to, he must demonstrate that
AlbertWellesley acted alone, and on his own conduct, not that of the State Bar. Funny
enough, AlbertWellesley is sued as the State Bar, not as an individual.
E. PLAINTIFF’S OFFICIAL-CAPACITY CLAIM CANNOT SUPPORT THE
DAMAGES HE SEEKS
48. Indeed, the caption of a case matters, especially how a plaintiff labels a defendant. Here,
Plaintiff sues AlbertWellesley in an official capacity, yet asks the Court to make
AlbertWellesley pay $368 in his own individual capacity.
49. No where does Plaintiff demonstrate why AlbertWellesley should have to pay out of his
own pocket in an official role. Plaintiff has failed to identify any statute which would
authorize such.
F. PLAINTIFF DOES NOT PLEAD CAUSATION
50. As part of its lengthy set of allegations, Plaintiff states that one of his client’s cases was
dismissed, and that he lost six other clients due to his suspension. That doesn’t prove
AlbertWellesley himself caused it.
51. Instead, Plaintiff lost his license due to multiple Bar complaints. Thus, the causation for
his losses is a disciplinary process, not AlbertWellesley himself.
——————————————————————————————————————————————
MOTION TO DISMISS
- 11 -
52. If a police officer arrests someone, and they miss work, the officer himself cannot be
liable for causing that person to miss work. That is caused by an investigatory process,
just like this case.
53. Without properly demonstrating how AlbertWellesley is individually responsible for
causing his client’s losses, and not the disciplinary system itself, the claims should be
dismissed.
G. THE COMPLAINT IS FULL OF INCONSISTENCIES, UNABLE TO STATE A
COGNIZABLE CLAIM
54. The Complaint is 90% of a story spanning 3 months long, and its so full of inconsistent
statements that go against each other, that it fails to state an understandable claim.
License Suspension and Supreme Court Argument
55. Plaintiff argues the State Bar unlawfully suspended his license without the required
Supreme Court hearing, but also acknowledges the suspension was only temporarily, and
later lifted. A SCOR hearing is only required for complete suspension or disbarment, not
a temporary suspension pending investigation.
Twisting Evidence
56. Plaintiff argues that AlbertWellesley acted without evidence, but also saying that
AlbertWellesley received multiple pieces of evidence.
57. Plaintiff also argues that the evidence was insufficient, but also says it shows proof of
fraud. Clearly, Plaintiff is choosing when to acknowledge the evidence, only when it
benefits his argument.
——————————————————————————————————————————————
MOTION TO DISMISS
- 12 -
CONCLUSION
58. The reality is that Plaintiff compiles 3 months of different incidents into one singular
complaint.
59. An attorney who was found to probably be in more violations than I have fingers on my
hand has alleged every possible tort he can think of, without properly demonstrating
them.
60. To summarize it all, the case should be dismissed because:
a. The process was insufficient. They lied in a sworn affidavit as to who was
summoned, and that they had authority to do so, when they did not; and,
b. The facts which Plaintiff argues go against each other. They are inconsistent or
misstate the law.
Date: September 13, 2026
Respectfully submitted,
Counsel for the Defendant
——————————————————————————————————————————————
MOTION TO DISMISS
- 13 -
