- 1 -
SUPERIOR COURT OF RIDGEWAY
COUNTY OF RIDGEWAY
THR33SIX8
Plaintiff,
v.
ALBERTWELLESLEY, et al.
Defendants.
Case No. RSC-CV-8427
DEFENDANT RASHHYYYY'S RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
I. INTRODUCTION
Defendant Rashhyyyy, appearing pro se, respectfully submits this Response to the Court's Order to Show
Cause dated September 9, 2026, and respectfully requests that the Court decline to hold Defendant in criminal
contempt.
The Plaintiff's contempt motion is based principally upon statements Defendant made in Discord
communications concerning this litigation.
Defendant does not dispute that he made the statements identified by Plaintiff. Defendant does, however,
respectfully dispute Plaintiff's characterization of those statements as criminal contempt.
Some of Defendant's language was unnecessarily aggressive and informal. Defendant acknowledges that
certain comments, including references to opposing counsel as a "Temu lawyer," references to "Claude
DEMON," and characterization of the litigation as a "clown show," were not expressed with the level of
professionalism that would ordinarily be preferable in litigation.
That does not, however, establish criminal contempt.
The relevant question is whether the conduct identified by Plaintiff constitutes the specific form of criminal
contempt Plaintiff alleges under R.C.C. § 1.08 and Rid. R. Crim. P. 43. Plaintiff has not established that it does.
II. DEFENDANT HAS NOT DISOBEYED A COURT ORDER
At no point identified in Plaintiff's motion did Defendant refuse to comply with an order of this Court.
Defendant has continued to participate in the litigation, has filed responses to motions, has complied with the
procedural requirements imposed upon him, and has continued to address the pending claims through the
judicial process.
There is no allegation that Defendant refused to file a required document, refused to appear when ordered,
disobeyed a scheduling order, destroyed evidence, refused discovery, interfered with a hearing, or otherwise
intentionally violated a command of the Court.
Instead, Plaintiff relies upon statements Defendant made concerning the litigation.
A party may be critical, frustrated, sarcastic, or even disrespectful without every such statement automatically
becoming criminal contempt.
- 2 -
III. THE ALLEGED CONDUCT WAS NOT COMMITTED IN THE IMMEDIATE VIEW AND
PRESENCE OF THE COURT
Plaintiff specifically relies upon R.C.C. § 1.08 and repeatedly characterizes the alleged conduct as direct
criminal contempt.
Plaintiff's own motion describes the challenged conduct as statements made through Discord.
The statements identified include:
"Temu lawyer";
"Claude DEMON";
"this clown show";
"STEER CLEAR OF THIS THUG";
"this case is a final cry for help";
"park your bus somewhere else";
statements criticizing Plaintiff's use of artificial intelligence.
III. THE ALLEGED CONDUCT WAS NOT COMMITTED IN THE IMMEDIATE VIEW AND
PRESENCE OF THE COURT (CONTINUED)
These statements were not statements made by Defendant to the Court during a courtroom proceeding.
They were Discord communications concerning the litigation.
Plaintiff therefore cannot simply label conduct occurring outside the courtroom as "in the immediate view and
presence of the Court" without establishing why that requirement is satisfied.
IV. THE STATEMENTS DID NOT INTERRUPT A COURT PROCEEDING
Plaintiff asserts that Defendant's statements "directly interrupted the orderly progress of the case."
But Plaintiff does not identify a hearing that Defendant interrupted, a proceeding that Defendant caused to stop,
a judicial order that Defendant refused to obey, a filing deadline that Defendant deliberately violated, a judicial
instruction that Defendant ignored, or any specific proceeding that was delayed because of the statements.
One statement Plaintiff identifies is:
V. DEFENDANT'S COMMENTS ABOUT THE PLAINTIFF AND OPPOSING COUNSEL WERE NOT
AN ATTEMPT TO IMPAIR THE COURT'S AUTHORITY
Defendant accepts that some of these statements were excessive.
However, statements such as "Temu lawyer," "Claude DEMON," and "STEER CLEAR OF THIS THUG" were
directed toward participants in the dispute rather than toward the Court itself.
Defendant did not threaten the judge, threaten the Court, instruct the Court to disregard its authority, attempt to
prevent the Court from exercising jurisdiction, or refuse to recognize the Court's orders.
To the contrary, Defendant continued to participate in the case and sought rulings on the pending motions.
VI. DEFENDANT ACKNOWLEDGES THE TONE OF SOME COMMENTS WITHOUT ADMITTING
CONTEMPT
- 3 -
Defendant does not seek to excuse every word used.
In hindsight, Defendant recognizes that certain comments should have been expressed more professionally.
Defendant respectfully apologizes to the Court for any language that may have been perceived as disrespectful
or unnecessarily inflammatory.
That acknowledgment should not be construed as an admission that Defendant committed criminal contempt.
Defendant's intention was to comment upon and defend himself against litigation that he considers unfounded,
not to obstruct the administration of justice or impair the Court's authority.
VII. PLAINTIFF HAS NOT ESTABLISHED CRIMINAL CONTEMPT
Plaintiff requests the extraordinary remedy of criminal contempt and asks that Defendant receive the maximum
penalties authorized by the statute.
That requires more than showing that Defendant made statements Plaintiff disliked.
Here, Plaintiff's motion does not identify an order that Defendant violated, a hearing Defendant disrupted, a
proceeding Defendant prevented the Court from conducting, or a command of the Court that Defendant refused
to obey.
Instead, it identifies Discord commentary concerning the litigation. That is insufficient, without more, to establish
the criminal contempt alleged.
VIII. THE REQUEST FOR SUMMARY DIRECT CONTEMPT IS INAPPROPRIATE ON THESE
FACTS
Plaintiff alternatively asks the Court to proceed summarily under Rid. R. Crim. P. 43.
But Plaintiff's own evidence demonstrates why this is not an obvious instance of direct contempt. The alleged
conduct must be established through Discord records and interpretation of statements made outside the
courtroom.
This is fundamentally different from conduct occurring openly before the judge during a proceeding. Defendant
respectfully requests that the Court reject Plaintiff's request for summary punishment.
IX. DEFENDANT HAS CONTINUED TO PARTICIPATE IN THE CASE
The broader record demonstrates that Defendant has not attempted to abandon or obstruct these proceedings.
Defendant has continued filing responses and motions, addressed Plaintiff's allegations through the Court's
procedures, and specifically sought rulings on the pending motions.
Defendant's position has consistently been that the claims against him should be dismissed. That is litigation
advocacy, however forcefully expressed. It is not evidence that Defendant intended to bring the Court's
proceedings to a halt.
"Please can we speed this up so this clown show can be over"
That statement was plainly frustrated and unnecessarily inflammatory. However, it was also a request for the
pending motions to be resolved. Defendant specifically referenced the existence of the two pending motions
and asked Judge Arthur_Chen to address them. It was not an instruction to stop the proceedings, prevent the
Court from acting, or disregard the Court's authority. The Court should distinguish between criticism of litigation
and actual obstruction of a judicial proceeding.
X. REQUEST FOR RELIEF
- 4 -
1. Find that Plaintiff has failed to establish grounds for criminal contempt under R.C.C. § 1.08;
2. Find that the Discord statements identified by Plaintiff do not constitute criminal contempt under the
circumstances presented;
3. Decline Plaintiff's request for summary proceedings under Rid. R. Crim. P. 43;
4. Decline to impose the requested imprisonment or fine;
5. Discharge the September 9, 2026 Order to Show Cause as to Defendant Rashhyyyy; and
6. Grant such other relief as the Court considers just and proper.
Defendant respectfully acknowledges that some of his language was unnecessarily inflammatory and
apologizes to the Court for that aspect of his conduct. Defendant nevertheless respectfully maintains that his
statements did not constitute criminal contempt, did not violate an order of this Court, and did not interrupt or
obstruct a judicial proceeding.
Respectfully submitted,
Rashhyyyy
Defendant, Pro Se
Case No. RSC-CV-8427
