Appeal: Denied In re FCR 4 [2026] | SCR 6

Status
Not open for further replies.
M

Muggy21

Citizen
Judge
State Department
Supporter
Aventura Resident
Homeland Security Department
Interior Department
Health Department
Change Maker Popular in the Polls Legal Eagle
Muggy21
Muggy21
Judge
Joined
Jul 1, 2022
Messages
882

Brief


IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Brief - Basis for Appeal, Interlocutory Review


The above appeal appliation is taken from the order of Judge Ko, Federal Court, in denying interlocutory review in Muggy21 v. Riverardd [2025] DCR 96, which held that the appellant failed to satisfy conditions (b) and (c) of §13 of the Subversion of Appeals Act.

The Federal Court committed reversible legal error by mischaracterizing the appellant’s brief and applying an unduly narrow construction of of the SAA.

Specifically, the Federal Court erroneously concluded that the appeal alleged only unlawful conduct, and failed to demonstrate:

2) impact on fairness or accuracy of proceedings, and
3) irreparable harm absent immediate review.

That conclusion is contradicted by the record.


The Federal Court overlooked that the Magistrate’s actions materially distorted the proceedings including the unauthorized dismissal and reassignment of a public defender and adjudication judicially created delay attributable solely to overreach rather than party conduct which undermined procedural fairness and equality before the law and the refusal to consider a valid settlement agreement. Further, the Magistrate also refused to consider a valid settlement agreement without any finding of illegality, coercion, or procedural defect, contrary to settled precedent favoring finality once no live controversy remains.

These are not abstract harms, but defects that strike at the structural fairness and reliability of the ongoing case. The Federal Court further erred by treating this harm as remediable on final appeal. Speedy trial violations cannot be cured retroactively, as time lost to unauthorized judicial delay is irretrievable. Continued proceedings under an ultra vires order impose non recoverable costs, strategic prejudice, and constitutional injury. Section 13 of the Subversion of Appeals Act does not require proof of ultimate outcome reversal, but only that the error materially biases the proceedings and that delay causes irreparable harm. By imposing a higher and incorrect threshold, the Federal Court abused its discretion.

 

Verdict


Associate Justice Smallfries4 writes the unanimous opinion of the Court.

Appellant files an appeal regarding the denied interlocutory appeal in re Mugg21 v. Riverardd [2025] DCR 96 from the Federal Court. There, the appellate court held that Appellant failed to meet two of the three conditions required by law to file an interlocutory appeal. Muggy21 v. Hon Magistrate Vennefly [2026] FCR 4.

An interlocutory appeal is one that is filed before the conclusion of a case to a higher court when an error of law occurs that would materially bias the outcome of the original case. See Subversion of Appeals Act § 3(1)(d) (Redundant) [sic]; See also Judicial Standards Act (“JSA”) § 15.

However, there is no valid basis of law for interlocutory appeals, nor has there ever been. See In re SCR 5 [2023] | SCR 4 [2026] (holding that the JSA is a constitutional law, and that “any change to the Constitution must be done properly and in accordance with the law”); See also id. (Smallfries4, J., dissenting) (“the Subversion of Appeals Act . . . [is] now (and has always been) unconstitutionally passed, as an act/statute cannot amend the Constitution or a constitutional [law]”). The Subversion of Appeals Act was unconstitutionally passed, and thus does not provide a basis for interlocutory appeals. Therefore, either interlocutory appeals simply do not exist, or they can exist, but only as to the discretion of a presiding officer. We do not seek to overrule the discretion of judicial officers when said discretion is appropriate. [2025] FCR 128 Appeal (appeal granted) (“Reviewing courts should not undermine the authority or discretion of trial courts, nor should they seek to supplant the judgment of trial courts for their own”).

Therefore, we find no reversible legal error. Contentions that we should apply the law as it existed at the time of the appeal, or even the initial case filing, are moot, as the underlying structure that gave the appeal potential merit was unconstitutional from the start.

 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top