Lawsuit: Dismissed MMiqa v. rykazard [2026] DCR 69

Status
Not open for further replies.
Notice to Court,

The mistake I made is framed as misuse of AI, where a problem with the amended law I have done is being framed as "Misuse of AI" since I use AI drafting tool and it is public knowledge, the Court is trying to frame every mistake I made as Misuse of AI.

The opposing counsel, AmityBlamity, who was once Judge of the Comonwealth of Redmont, Magistrate of the Commonwealth of Redmont, Prosecutor for the DOJ, Lawyer at Dragon Law, committed multiple procedural and substantive errors in this case — without any warning, without any contempt finding, and without any conduct strike:

AmityBlamity filed a Motion to Dismiss after the opening statement had already been filed — a clear and fundamental procedural violation acknowledged and rejected by this Court.

Multiple objections filed by AmityBlamity were overruled by this Court.

AmityBlamity cited DCR 67, DCR 59, and DCR 100 as controlling precedent — none of which involve Assault under CCA, the actual claim in this case. This is a substantive legal error of precisely the same nature as the Plaintiff's citation error.

No warning was issued to opposing counsel. No contempt finding was issued. No conduct strike was issued. To punish the Plaintiff for a citation error while opposing counsel's comparable errors go entirely unremarked is to apply a plainly unequal standard. This Court cannot hold one party to a contempt standard it does not apply to the other.

But since she does not use AI to draft and perfect the filing, she is not found guilty for it like I was.

Every mistake I did, which was not fabricated out of nothing or it was not quoted from the US Constitution or any other government other than Commonwealth, is now treated unjustly and I refuse to take part in this case.

The usage of AI is no secret, and you have no proof the mistakes I made were result of AI.

I refuse to take part in this Court.

I refused to answer to the motion before the decision not to see as Judge shopping, I have seen not a good faith from the Judge, which was a heavy punishment without warning, based on a hunch and not a fact that the mistake I did was an AI mistake. If I acted careful and hid that I use AI, this wouldn't had happen, but I would be lying to the Court. I do not wish to continue in this case based on this.
 

Court Order


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CONTEMPT CONVICTION

Disobedience of a lawful order of the Court​

Attorney @MMiqa has failed to abide by a lawful court order not to make out of turn statements in the following instances:
MMiqa said:
I want to be plain and simple here Your Honour, did you, or did you not use LLM's in your court order?
Click to expand...
MMiqa said:
Your Honour,

In order the clear the confusion if there is one, The Plaintiff is asking for an answer from Judge @ko531 for his Motion first before dismissal.
Click to expand...
MMiqa said:
Notice to Court,

I have always stayed open in my AI usage in my drafts, but never to generate ideas, claims, proof, or any other fabrication. The evidence given is not sufficient, thats why the Court Order did not punish me for misuse of AI, The Defendant need to read the court order correctly before making a narrative.
Click to expand...
MMiqa said:
Notice to Court,

The mistake I made is framed as misuse of AI, where a problem with the amended law I have done is being framed as "Misuse of AI" since I use AI drafting tool and it is public knowledge, the Court is trying to frame every mistake I made as Misuse of AI.

The opposing counsel, AmityBlamity, who was once Judge of the Comonwealth of Redmont, Magistrate of the Commonwealth of Redmont, Prosecutor for the DOJ, Lawyer at Dragon Law, committed multiple procedural and substantive errors in this case — without any warning, without any contempt finding, and without any conduct strike:

AmityBlamity filed a Motion to Dismiss after the opening statement had already been filed — a clear and fundamental procedural violation acknowledged and rejected by this Court.

Multiple objections filed by AmityBlamity were overruled by this Court.

AmityBlamity cited DCR 67, DCR 59, and DCR 100 as controlling precedent — none of which involve Assault under CCA, the actual claim in this case. This is a substantive legal error of precisely the same nature as the Plaintiff's citation error.

No warning was issued to opposing counsel. No contempt finding was issued. No conduct strike was issued. To punish the Plaintiff for a citation error while opposing counsel's comparable errors go entirely unremarked is to apply a plainly unequal standard. This Court cannot hold one party to a contempt standard it does not apply to the other.

But since she does not use AI to draft and perfect the filing, she is not found guilty for it like I was.

Every mistake I did, which was not fabricated out of nothing or it was not quoted from the US Constitution or any other government other than Commonwealth, is now treated unjustly and I refuse to take part in this case.

The usage of AI is no secret, and you have no proof the mistakes I made were result of AI.

I refuse to take part in this Court.

I refused to answer to the motion before the decision not to see as Judge shopping, I have seen not a good faith from the Judge, which was a heavy punishment without warning, based on a hunch and not a fact that the mistake I did was an AI mistake. If I acted careful and hid that I use AI, this wouldn't had happen, but I would be lying to the Court. I do not wish to continue in this case based on this.
Click to expand...
The Plaintiff was previously warned by this Court that making such unprovoked statements may be cause for a Contempt finding.

As such, I find Attorney @MMiqa GUILTY of Contempt of Court. They shall be fined 60 Penalty Units and serve 5 minutes in prison.

I additionally find that these breaches of an order from the Court are grave enough to warrant a conduct strike as:
- Such disobediences of a court order is a serious offense, especially when done four separate times, and;
- Such disobediences also hinder the proper administration of justice and bloat this Court with senseless filings, and;
- Such disobediences, which are repeated and interfere with the administration of justice and the sanctity of this Court's procedures, reflect negatively on the legal profession as a whole.

Accordingly, Attorney @MMiqa is given a conduct strike as per the Act of Congress - Judicial Standards Act. I also refer this matter to the Redmont Bar Association for further investigation.

So ordered,
Judge Superwoops
Superwoops 2.png

 
AmityBlamity said:
Your Honour,

It's clear that the only reason the Plaintiff wishes to dismiss this case is so he can participate in a bit of "judge shopping". He literally admits he does not wish to continue these proceedings "before the current presiding officer". While I am fine with this case being dismissed, I ask that it be done with prejudice. We cannot set a precedent where, if a Plaintiff's case has gone poorly, they can just toss it aside and start all over again. It's a waste of judicial and legal resources.
Click to expand...
The Court agrees with this interpretation, and precedent does as well.

Plaintiff @MMiqa, if you do not retract your motion to nolle prosequi, I will dismiss this case with prejudice as set forth by then-Judge Multiman155 in https://www.democracycraft.net/thre...o-defendant-mjl-2026-fcr-21.36234/post-144647.
Please inform the Court if you wish to move ahead with dismissal.
 

Motion



Motion To Nolle Prosequi

The Plaintiff wishes to dismiss the case with prejudice

 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top