Lawsuit: In Session MMiqa v. Bar Association of Redmont [2026] DCR 142

MMiqa · Aug 9, 2026

Case Filing

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION

MMiqa
Plaintiff

v.

Bar Association of Redmont
Defendant

COMPLAINT

WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF

On August 5, 2026, the Bar Association of Redmont Council passed a Motion to Censure the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff brings this action on two grounds: the censure was passed without the requisite majority, and a Councillor with a direct conflict of interest participated in the vote.

I. PARTIES

1. MMiqa, Plaintiff, Licensed Attorney of the Bar Association of Redmont.
2. Bar Association of Redmont, Defendant.

II. FACTS

1. On August 5, 2026, a Motion to Censure was filed against the Plaintiff before the BAR Council.

2. The BAR Council voted as follows: 2 in favor, 1 abstained, 1 against.

3. The Bar Association of Redmont announced that the motion passed.

4. At the time of the vote, the BAR Council consisted of 4 active members following the resignation of one Councillor.

5. Councillor CreeperTD participated in the vote. CreeperTD is a named DHS Recruit in MMiqa v. Department of Homeland Security [2026] DCR 77 — an active case in which CreeperTD's own conduct is directly at issue as evidence against the Defendant.

6. Part IV, Section 2(2) of the Bar Association of Redmont Act states: "All decisions of the Council shall be passed by a simple majority of all sitting Councillors."

7. At the time the Motion to Censure MMiqa was voted on, there were 5 sitting Councillors on the BAR Council.

8. According to the Constitution Part VIII Section 43, majority is defined as "A vote of greater than 50%".

9. Of those 5 sitting Councillors, only 2 voted Aye.

10. Out of 5 sitting Councillors, with 2 Councillors voting Aye to the motion, the Aye's in the motion was 40%.

11. Councillor CreeperTD voted Abstain on the Motion to Censure MMiqa.

12. At the time the Motion to Censure was voted on, the Bar Association of Redmont Act contained no provision addressing the role or effect of an abstain vote on the calculation of a majority.

13. On August 11 2026, 2 days after this lawsuit was filed, Representative _GreyMC has submitted a draft called BAR Rendition Act, which was co-authored by _GreyMC and BAR Chairperson CreeperTD, which included a proposition to strike Part IV, Section 2(2) in its entirety and replace it with the following: "All decisions of the Council shall pass with a simple majority, unless otherwise provided by law, of ayes out of all non-abstention votes cast, and will be rejected with a simple majority, unless otherwise provided by law, of nays out of all non-abstention votes cast."

14. On August 14, 2026, President Theory Fontaine vetoed the BAR Rendition Act, and has written "Three present, two abstaining and one aye would carry a motion of the Council on a single vote. That is a lower threshold than the Act has ever set and I do not believe it is what was intended."

15. The Bar Association of Redmont Act was signed into law on May 3, 2026, and was authored by ToadKing__, a citizen that is not seen for more than 2 months and 14 days in the Commonwealth of Redmont. Neither CreeperTD, who joined the server on May 25, 2026, nor _GreyMC, who joined on May 23, 2026, was a citizen of the Commonwealth of Redmont at the time the Bar Association of Redmont Act was drafted or signed into law.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

CLAIM I — INSUFFICIENT MAJORITY

The Redmont Bar Association Act Part V §1(4) requires sanctions to be imposed by majority vote. With 4 active Council members, a majority requires 3 votes in favor. The motion received only 2 votes in favor. An abstention is not an affirmative vote and cannot count toward a majority. The censure was passed without the requisite majority and is void.

CLAIM II — CONFLICT OF INTEREST

CreeperTD is a named officer in MMiqa v. Department of Homeland Security [2026] DCR 77 — an active case in which CreeperTD's conduct is directly at issue as evidence. CreeperTD voted to censure the attorney actively litigating that case against CreeperTD's own department. This constitutes a direct conflict of interest. CreeperTD's vote must be disregarded. The Plaintiff notes that even with CreeperTD's vote included, the required majority was not reached — 2 votes in favor out of 4 active members does not constitute a majority. With CreeperTD's vote removed, the motion fails even more decisively with only 1 vote in favor. In either scenario, the censure was not validly passed.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

1. Declare the censure issued against the Plaintiff on August 5, 2026 void and of no legal effect.
2. Order the Bar Association of Redmont to remove the censure from the Plaintiff's record.
3. Any other relief the Court finds just and proper.

REPRESENTATION

The Plaintiff, MMiqa, is a licensed Attorney of the Bar Association of Redmont and is representing themselves in this matter.

By making this submission, I agree I understand the penalties of lying in court and the fact that I am subject to perjury should I knowingly make a false statement in court.

DATED: This 10th day of August, 2026

MMiqa
Plaintiff, Self-Represented
Licensed Attorney, Bar Association of Redmont

MMiqa · Aug 10, 2026

Case Filing

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION

MMiqa
Plaintiff

v.

Bar Association of Redmont
Defendant

AMENDED COMPLAINT

WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF

On August 5, 2026, the Bar Association of Redmont Council passed a Motion to Censure the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff brings this action on the grounds that the censure was passed without the majority required by the Bar Association of Redmont Act, that the Misuse of Artificial Intelligence allegation has no basis in the Code of Conduct provision it purports to enforce, and that the conduct underlying the remaining allegations does not rise to the level the Code of Conduct reserves for censure, having in some instances already been tolerated by the Bar Association in comparable cases involving other attorneys.

I. PARTIES

1. MMiqa, Plaintiff, Licensed Attorney of the Bar Association of Redmont.
2. Bar Association of Redmont, Defendant.

II. FACTS

1. On August 5, 2026, a Motion to Censure was filed against the Plaintiff before the BAR Council by Councillor OwnedBlock.

2. The motion alleged three violations against the Plaintiff: (a) an integrity breach under the Code of Conduct's General Principles on Trust and Integrity, based on the Plaintiff's inclusion of a Wrongful Death claim in MMiqa v. Department of Homeland Security [2026] DCR 77 purportedly citing the Criminal Code Act; (b) a violation of the Code of Conduct's Court Relations — Court Rules of Conduct provision, based on allegedly argumentative objections filed in MMiqa v. rykazard [2026] DCR 69, posts numbered #9 through #12; and (c) Misuse of Artificial Intelligence.

3. The Code of Conduct's Misuse of Artificial Intelligence provision defines the signs of AI misuse it is concerned with as fabricated case names, statutes, or legal authorities; distorted or misrepresented facts, quotations, or holdings; unsupported propositions of law; falsified information about court procedures or filing requirements; and improperly blended legal concepts or standards. The provision states that legal work is investigated where it shows signs of this kind, not merely because AI was used, but because such misuse harms the parties, the courts, and the profession.

4. The motion did not allege that the Plaintiff's filings contained any fabricated authority, misrepresented fact or holding, unsupported proposition, falsified procedural claim, or blended legal standard. The sole basis offered for the Misuse of Artificial Intelligence allegation was that the Plaintiff had four cases ongoing as of June 15, 2026 — MMiqa v. rykazard [2026] DCR 69, MMiqa v. ZachOfPotatoes10 [2026] DCR 91, MMiqa v. DHS [2026] DCR 77, and MMiqa v. Ognqn [2026] DCR 72 — and that the Plaintiff posted a response exceeding 1,000 words within 11 minutes of an objection filed by Ebborsnam in MMiqa v. DHS [2026] DCR 77, post #54, the Plaintiff's response appearing across posts #55 through #57. The motion itself acknowledged that close familiarity with the case and the use of pre-drafted or templated material could partially explain the speed of the response, but dismissed that explanation as unpersuasive on the stated basis that reading the objection alone would take approximately 5 minutes and that 6 minutes was, in the Council's own words, "the minimum for human review" — a threshold that appears nowhere in the Code of Conduct, is not one of the indicators the Code identifies, and was asserted without citation to any technical standard or evidentiary support.

5. As to the first allegation, the Plaintiff's citation was based on a characterization the Plaintiff had encountered in a prior case and relied upon in good faith; it was not a fabrication, and any error in that citation was a mistake of legal research, not a breach of trust or integrity. The same error — pleading Wrongful Death under the Criminal Code Act — has been made by other Bar-licensed attorneys in cases before this Court, including AvatarNate7983, UnitedBoss v. Hincho_ [2026] DCR 85, EditVoxel v. LavBebik [2026] DCR 87, Le9endz_ v. AussieBloke25 [2026] DCR 59, and Etco v. mvchrelle [2026] DCR 102, in each of which the claim was simply dismissed without prejudice and none of the representing attorneys faced any BAR disciplinary action whatsoever. After he was warned that Wrongful Death is not a tort, he had not filed a lawsuit based on that claim. All the claims he made was before he was warned.

6. As to the second allegation, the objections at issue in MMiqa v. rykazard [2026] DCR 69 arose from the Plaintiff's unfamiliarity, at that early stage of practice, with the procedural distinction between objections and argumentation, and the conduct occurred once, during discovery, in only the Plaintiff's second case as a licensed attorney. Upon being corrected by the presiding judge, the Plaintiff conformed their conduct immediately and did not repeat the error. In one of his cases, second day of attorney career, the Plaintiff made a mistake of being argumentative in one of his cases, and the only one. This is a legal ground to censure someone, according to BAR.

7. Part IV, Section 2(2) of the Bar Association of Redmont Act provides that all decisions of the Council, including the imposition of sanctions under Part V, shall be passed by a simple majority of all sitting Councillors, not a majority of the votes cast. At the time of the vote, the BAR Council consisted of 4 active members following the resignation of one Councillor, the Council ordinarily comprising 5 seats. A simple majority of 4 sitting Councillors is 3.

8. The BAR Council voted on the motion as 2 in favor, 1 abstained, and 1 against. The Bar Association of Redmont announced that the motion passed, entering a censure on the Plaintiff's record.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

CLAIM I — INSUFFICIENT MAJORITY

Part V, Section 1(4)(c) of the Bar Association of Redmont Act requires "a majority vote of the Council" before any sanction may be imposed, but Part V does not itself define what constitutes a majority vote. That definition is supplied elsewhere in the same Act: Part IV, Section 2(2) states that all decisions of the Council shall be passed by a simple majority of all sitting Councillors. Nothing in Part V displaces or narrows that definition, and a term left undefined in one Part of a statute takes the meaning fixed for it elsewhere in the same statute rather than a separate, unstated meaning invented for the occasion. Reading Part V's majority vote requirement together with Part IV's definition, as the Act itself compels, a majority means a majority of the Council's sitting membership, not a majority of however many members happened to cast a non-abstaining vote. With 4 sitting Councillors, a majority requires 3 votes in favor. The motion received only 2 votes in favor. An interpretation that instead measures majority against only the votes cast — allowing an abstention to be silently dropped from the count — has no textual basis anywhere in the Act and cannot be reconciled with Part IV, Section 2(2). The censure was therefore passed without the majority the Act requires and is void.

CLAIM II — MISUSE OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE ALLEGATION UNSUPPORTED BY THE CODE OF CONDUCT

The Code of Conduct's Misuse of Artificial Intelligence provision defines the misconduct it addresses by reference to specific defects in the substance of a lawyer's work: fabricated authorities, misrepresented facts or holdings, unsupported legal propositions, falsified procedural claims, and improperly blended legal standards. It is these substantive defects, and the harm they cause to clients, courts, and the profession, that the provision is designed to catch. The motion identified none of them. It did not point to a single fabricated citation, misstated fact, unsupported proposition, false procedural claim, or blended standard in any of the Plaintiff's filings. Instead, the motion substituted an entirely different test of its own invention — that the Plaintiff was handling four cases at once and that a single response was filed faster than a threshold the Council set for itself without any basis in the Code, technical authority, or evidence. Caseload volume says nothing about how any particular filing was produced, and by the motion's own figures, roughly 6 of the 11 minutes remained after reading the objection for the Plaintiff, an attorney immersed in the DCR 77 record for weeks, to compose a reply from facts and arguments already prepared. An allegation resting on a standard the Code of Conduct does not contain, applied to conduct the Code's own enumerated indicators do not describe, is not merely weak but ultra vires the provision it purports to enforce, and cannot sustain a disciplinary finding.

BAR has shown speed and number of cases opened as a sign of "Misuse of AI" that was not recognized in any governing document.

CLAIM III — DISPROPORTIONATE DISCIPLINE ON THE REMAINING ALLEGATIONS

The remaining two allegations, even taken at face value, do not describe conduct warranting censure. The first concerns a citation the Plaintiff relied upon in good faith after encountering it in a prior case, at most a research error rather than a breach of trust or integrity, and one that other licensed attorneys have made in DCR 85, DCR 87, and DCR 102 without facing any BAR discipline; disciplining the Plaintiff alone for conduct the Bar Association has otherwise tolerated across multiple other cases cannot be reconciled with the even-handed application of the Code of Conduct. The second concerns conduct the Plaintiff corrected immediately upon judicial instruction, occurring only once, during discovery, in the Plaintiff's second case as a licensed attorney — the kind of early-practice mistake the Code of Conduct's own stated purpose, to guide rather than to nitpick, counsels against punishing so severely, particularly where no repetition followed the correction.

In order to have no conflict of interest whatsoever, the Plaintiff is asking for a Judge that was not server in MMiqa v. rykazard [2026] DCR 69 case.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

1. Declare the censure issued against the Plaintiff on August 5, 2026 void and of no legal effect.
2. Order the Bar Association of Redmont to remove the censure from the Plaintiff's record.
3. Any other relief the Court finds just and proper.

REPRESENTATION

The Plaintiff, MMiqa, is a licensed Attorney of the Bar Association of Redmont and is representing themselves in this matter.

By making this submission, I agree I understand the penalties of lying in court and the fact that I am subject to perjury should I knowingly make a false statement in court.

DATED: This 10th day of August, 2026

MMiqa
Plaintiff, Self-Represented
Licensed Attorney, Bar Association of Redmont

Ebborsnam · Aug 10, 2026

Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - BREACH OF PROCEDURE
Your Honor, acknowledging that the Commonwealth has not been summoned for this matter, I'd like to point out the blatant violation of procedure here, court rule 3.3 states "...
Amendments to the complaint must be declared and explained to the presiding judge. Afterwards, the plaintiff (or prosecution) may edit the post containing their complaint."
The Plaintiff did not explain their amendment to the court. I'd also like to note that the Plaintiff edited their initial complaint after it was posted without permission from the court.

The commonwealth respectfully requests the court to handle this matter appropriately and formally warn the Plaintiff accordingly.

MMiqa · Aug 10, 2026

Notice

Ebborsnam is correct, I will be amending it again. For the record, I have done the edit one minute after and before anyone replied to.

Another thing, Ebborsnam is not representing the BAR I believe, so this is the third time this week he has done objections, while not being an attorney to the case.

I advice this court to punish Ebborsnam for the ongoing breach of procedure he had done in my case against DOHS and here. I will be amending the complaint again.

MMiqa · Aug 10, 2026

Case Filing

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION

MMiqa
Plaintiff

v.

Bar Association of Redmont
Defendant

AMENDED COMPLAINT

WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF

On August 5, 2026, the Bar Association of Redmont Council passed a Motion to Censure the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff brings this action on the grounds that the censure was passed without the majority required by the Bar Association of Redmont Act, that the Misuse of Artificial Intelligence allegation has no basis in the Code of Conduct provision it purports to enforce, and that the conduct underlying the remaining allegations does not rise to the level the Code of Conduct reserves for censure, having in some instances already been tolerated by the Bar Association in comparable cases involving other attorneys.

I. PARTIES

1. MMiqa, Plaintiff, Licensed Attorney of the Bar Association of Redmont.
2. Bar Association of Redmont, Defendant.

II. FACTS

1. On August 5, 2026, a Motion to Censure was filed against the Plaintiff before the BAR Council by Councillor OwnedBlock.

2. The motion alleged three violations against the Plaintiff: (a) an integrity breach under the Code of Conduct's General Principles on Trust and Integrity, based on the Plaintiff's inclusion of a Wrongful Death claim in MMiqa v. Department of Homeland Security [2026] DCR 77 purportedly citing the Criminal Code Act; (b) a violation of the Code of Conduct's Court Relations — Court Rules of Conduct provision, based on allegedly argumentative objections filed in MMiqa v. rykazard [2026] DCR 69, posts numbered #9 through #12; and (c) Misuse of Artificial Intelligence.

3. The Code of Conduct's Misuse of Artificial Intelligence provision defines the signs of AI misuse it is concerned with as fabricated case names, statutes, or legal authorities; distorted or misrepresented facts, quotations, or holdings; unsupported propositions of law; falsified information about court procedures or filing requirements; and improperly blended legal concepts or standards. The provision states that legal work is investigated where it shows signs of this kind, not merely because AI was used, but because such misuse harms the parties, the courts, and the profession.

4. The motion did not allege that the Plaintiff's filings contained any fabricated authority, misrepresented fact or holding, unsupported proposition, falsified procedural claim, or blended legal standard. The sole basis offered for the Misuse of Artificial Intelligence allegation was that the Plaintiff had four cases ongoing as of June 15, 2026 — MMiqa v. rykazard [2026] DCR 69, MMiqa v. ZachOfPotatoes10 [2026] DCR 91, MMiqa v. DHS [2026] DCR 77, and MMiqa v. Ognqn [2026] DCR 72 — and that the Plaintiff posted a response exceeding 1,000 words within 11 minutes of an objection filed by Ebborsnam in MMiqa v. DHS [2026] DCR 77, post #54, the Plaintiff's response appearing across posts #55 through #57. The motion itself acknowledged that close familiarity with the case and the use of pre-drafted or templated material could partially explain the speed of the response, but dismissed that explanation as unpersuasive on the stated basis that reading the objection alone would take approximately 5 minutes and that 6 minutes was, in the Council's own words, "the minimum for human review" — a threshold that appears nowhere in the Code of Conduct, is not one of the indicators the Code identifies, and was asserted without citation to any technical standard or evidentiary support.

5. As to the first allegation, the Plaintiff's citation was based on a characterization the Plaintiff had encountered in a prior case and relied upon in good faith; it was not a fabrication, and any error in that citation was a mistake of legal research, not a breach of trust or integrity. The same error — pleading Wrongful Death under the Criminal Code Act — has been made by other Bar-licensed attorneys in cases before this Court, including AvatarNate7983, UnitedBoss v. Hincho_ [2026] DCR 85, EditVoxel v. LavBebik [2026] DCR 87, Le9endz_ v. AussieBloke25 [2026] DCR 59, and Etco v. mvchrelle [2026] DCR 102, in each of which the claim was simply dismissed without prejudice and none of the representing attorneys faced any BAR disciplinary action whatsoever. After he was warned that Wrongful Death is not a tort, he had not filed a lawsuit based on that claim. All the claims he made was before he was warned.

6. As to the second allegation, the objections at issue in MMiqa v. rykazard [2026] DCR 69 arose from the Plaintiff's unfamiliarity, at that early stage of practice, with the procedural distinction between objections and argumentation, and the conduct occurred once, during discovery, in only the Plaintiff's second case as a licensed attorney. Upon being corrected by the presiding judge, the Plaintiff conformed their conduct immediately and did not repeat the error. In one of his cases, second day of attorney career, the Plaintiff made a mistake of being argumentative in one of his cases, and the only one. This is a legal ground to censure someone, according to BAR.

7. Part IV, Section 2(2) of the Bar Association of Redmont Act provides that all decisions of the Council, including the imposition of sanctions under Part V, shall be passed by a simple majority of all sitting Councillors, not a majority of the votes cast. At the time of the vote, the BAR Council consisted of 4 active members following the resignation of one Councillor, the Council ordinarily comprising 5 seats. A simple majority of 4 sitting Councillors is 3.

8. The BAR Council voted on the motion as 2 in favor, 1 abstained, and 1 against. The Bar Association of Redmont announced that the motion passed, entering a censure on the Plaintiff's record.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

CLAIM I — INSUFFICIENT MAJORITY

Part V, Section 1(4)(c) of the Bar Association of Redmont Act requires "a majority vote of the Council" before any sanction may be imposed, but Part V does not itself define what constitutes a majority vote. That definition is supplied elsewhere in the same Act: Part IV, Section 2(2) states that all decisions of the Council shall be passed by a simple majority of all sitting Councillors. Nothing in Part V displaces or narrows that definition, and a term left undefined in one Part of a statute takes the meaning fixed for it elsewhere in the same statute rather than a separate, unstated meaning invented for the occasion. Reading Part V's majority vote requirement together with Part IV's definition, as the Act itself compels, a majority means a majority of the Council's sitting membership, not a majority of however many members happened to cast a non-abstaining vote. With 4 sitting Councillors, a majority requires 3 votes in favor. The motion received only 2 votes in favor. An interpretation that instead measures majority against only the votes cast — allowing an abstention to be silently dropped from the count — has no textual basis anywhere in the Act and cannot be reconciled with Part IV, Section 2(2). The censure was therefore passed without the majority the Act requires and is void.

CLAIM II — MISUSE OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE ALLEGATION UNSUPPORTED BY THE CODE OF CONDUCT

The Code of Conduct's Misuse of Artificial Intelligence provision defines the misconduct it addresses by reference to specific defects in the substance of a lawyer's work: fabricated authorities, misrepresented facts or holdings, unsupported legal propositions, falsified procedural claims, and improperly blended legal standards. It is these substantive defects, and the harm they cause to clients, courts, and the profession, that the provision is designed to catch. The motion identified none of them. It did not point to a single fabricated citation, misstated fact, unsupported proposition, false procedural claim, or blended standard in any of the Plaintiff's filings. Instead, the motion substituted an entirely different test of its own invention — that the Plaintiff was handling four cases at once and that a single response was filed faster than a threshold the Council set for itself without any basis in the Code, technical authority, or evidence. Caseload volume says nothing about how any particular filing was produced, and by the motion's own figures, roughly 6 of the 11 minutes remained after reading the objection for the Plaintiff, an attorney immersed in the DCR 77 record for weeks, to compose a reply from facts and arguments already prepared. An allegation resting on a standard the Code of Conduct does not contain, applied to conduct the Code's own enumerated indicators do not describe, is not merely weak but ultra vires the provision it purports to enforce, and cannot sustain a disciplinary finding.

BAR has shown speed and number of cases opened as a sign of "Misuse of AI" that was not recognized in any governing document.

CLAIM III — DISPROPORTIONATE DISCIPLINE ON THE REMAINING ALLEGATIONS

The remaining two allegations, even taken at face value, do not describe conduct warranting censure. The first concerns a citation the Plaintiff relied upon in good faith after encountering it in a prior case, at most a research error rather than a breach of trust or integrity, and one that other licensed attorneys have made in DCR 85, DCR 87, and DCR 102 without facing any BAR discipline; disciplining the Plaintiff alone for conduct the Bar Association has otherwise tolerated across multiple other cases cannot be reconciled with the even-handed application of the Code of Conduct. The second concerns conduct the Plaintiff corrected immediately upon judicial instruction, occurring only once, during discovery, in the Plaintiff's second case as a licensed attorney — the kind of early-practice mistake the Code of Conduct's own stated purpose, to guide rather than to nitpick, counsels against punishing so severely, particularly where no repetition followed the correction.

In order to have no conflict of interest whatsoever, the Plaintiff is asking for a Judge that was not server in MMiqa v. rykazard [2026] DCR 69 case.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

1. Declare the censure issued against the Plaintiff on August 5, 2026 void and of no legal effect.
2. Order the Bar Association of Redmont to remove the censure from the Plaintiff's record.
3. Any other relief the Court finds just and proper.

REPRESENTATION

The Plaintiff, MMiqa, is a licensed Attorney of the Bar Association of Redmont and is representing themselves in this matter.

By making this submission, I agree I understand the penalties of lying in court and the fact that I am subject to perjury should I knowingly make a false statement in court.

DATED: This 10th day of August, 2026

MMiqa
Plaintiff, Self-Represented
Licensed Attorney, Bar Association of Redmont

Ebborsnam · Aug 10, 2026

MMiqa said:
Notice

Ebborsnam is correct, I will be amending it again. For the record, I have done the edit one minute after and before anyone replied to.

Another thing, Ebborsnam is not representing the BAR I believe, so this is the third time this week he has done objections, while not being an attorney to the case.

I advice this court to punish Ebborsnam for the ongoing breach of procedure he had done in my case against DOHS and here. I will be amending the complaint again.

~~Your Honor~~

Ebborsnam said:
Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - BREACH OF PROCEDURE
Your Honor, acknowledging that the Commonwealth has not been summoned for this matter, I'd like to point out the blatant violation of procedure here, court rule 3.3 states "...
Amendments to the complaint must be declared and explained to the presiding judge. Afterwards, the plaintiff (or prosecution) may edit the post containing their complaint."
The Plaintiff did not explain their amendment to the court. I'd also like to note that the Plaintiff edited their initial complaint after it was posted without permission from the court.

The commonwealth respectfully requests the court to handle this matter appropriately and formally warn the Plaintiff accordingly.

~~I retract my objection as I've been made aware that the BAR themself might be handling this case instead of the Department of Justice.~~

MMiqa · Aug 10, 2026

Ebborsnam said:
Your Honor

I retract my objection as I've been made aware that the BAR themself might be handling this case instead of the Department of Justice.

Objection

OBJECTION - Breach of Procedure

Ebborsnam, since MMiqa v. Department of Homeland Security [2026] DCR 77, has acted like a representative when he was not, showing lack of respect to Court despite being State Representative, as shown in Post 54, Post 58, and in Post 59, confirming he was not representing the Commonwealth, but still acted on his own, also in Post 65, he was fined 1000$ for:

Muggy21 said:
The use of profane language in court is distateful and grossly inappropriate.

after that, in Post 73, after he was warned multiple times already in one lawsuit alone, he has done "Reply to Objection" again, and warned by the Judge once again.

I have shown these incidences to point out that he is doing the same thing after he was warned about it multiple times and yet does it here again, disregarding the previous warnings.

Now, he is here objecting without showing proof that he was representing the BAR and without waiting a Judge to take over the case, now retracts his "objection" after I pointed out what he did wrong.

In my case, where I was warned once and never done the same mistake again, was the basis for BAR censure, on top of my speed and opening 4 cases in couple days was the basis for the Misuse of AI. I wish to present Ebborsnam as not learning from his mistakes and interferes with Court multiple times despite being warned more than three times in one week that he was breaching the procedure. I wish to see this Court punish him accordingly.

MMiqa

MMiqa · Aug 10, 2026

Notice,

I wish to correct, State Prosecutor, not representative, since he was not representing the State here, but he acted like he was in the MMiqa v. Department of Homeland Security [2026] DCR 77 up until he realized his mistake, I wished to clearify.

Matthew100x · Aug 10, 2026

Your honor, the Commonwealth does not represent the BAR in this matter. I apologize for my prosecutor's outburst in Court.

Ebborsnam · Aug 10, 2026

Matthew100x said:
Your honor, the Commonwealth does not represent the BAR in this matter. I apologize for my prosecutor's outburst in Court.

~~Yeah, we got it after I retracted my objection.~~

Ebborsnam · Aug 10, 2026

~~Oh yeah Your Honor. Mmiqa in fact uses chatgpt. He even uses the signature chatgpt — all the time.~~

Superwoops · Aug 10, 2026

I am your presiding officer.
Attorney @Ebborsnam is warned that one more uncalled-for post from you will result in a hefty contempt charge

Superwoops · Aug 10, 2026

Ebborsnam said:
Oh yeah Your Honor. Mmiqa in fact uses chatgpt. He even uses the signature chatgpt — all the time.

Ebborsnam said:
Yeah, we got it after I retracted my objection.

Struck from the record.

Ebborsnam · Aug 10, 2026

Superwoops said:
I am your presiding officer.
Attorney @Ebborsnam is warned that one more uncalled-for post from you will result in a hefty contempt charge

~~Me personally then, matthew shouldn't suffer consequences~~

Superwoops · Aug 10, 2026

Ebborsnam said:
Me personally then, matthew shouldn't suffer consequences

I did warn you. Attorney @Ebborsnam is found GUILTY of Contempt of Court. They shall be fined 30 Penalty Units.

Ebborsnam · Aug 10, 2026

Superwoops said:
I did warn you. Attorney @Ebborsnam is found GUILTY of Contempt of Court. They shall be fined 30 Penalty Units.

~~Okay~~

Superwoops · Aug 10, 2026

Ebborsnam said:
Okay

Attorney @Ebborsnam is again found GUILTY of Contempt of Court. They shall be fined 30 Penalty Units and serve 5 minutes imprisonment.

MMiqa · Aug 10, 2026

Motion to Recuse

@Smallfries

Judge Superwoops made a convicted me with contempt without a fact, a human mistake I made on my second day of work was framed as AI error just because I use AI, the error was using an amended law. I talked publicly I will be appealing it and I refused to continue with him being my Judge. I specifically asked anyone but @Superwoops to take the case based on Conflict of interest. I specifically asked any Judge besides Superwoops, it is public knowledge that I refuse to continue with him as him being my presiding officer. This open conflict of interest was brought up to you in #legal Honourable @Smallfries

Ebborsnam · Aug 10, 2026

MMiqa said:
Motion to Recuse

@Smallfries

Judge Superwoops made a convicted me with contempt without a fact, a human mistake I made on my second day of work was framed as AI error just because I use AI, the error was using an amended law. I talked publicly I will be appealing it and I refused to continue with him being my Judge. I specifically asked anyone but @Superwoops to take the case based on Conflict of interest. I specifically asked any Judge besides Superwoops, it is public knowledge that I refuse to continue with him as him being my presiding officer. This open conflict of interest was brought up to you in #legal Honourable @Smallfries

~~Maybe don't use AI~~

MMiqa · Aug 10, 2026

Objection

Breach of Procedure

Ebborsnam is not stopping the disrespect and the damage to the court, however:

Judge Superwoops is giving half the sentence what he was given me for more crime Ebborsnam committed. I wish to see a fair sentencing comparing to what I have got for a basic human mistake I made as a new lawyer.

Ebborsnam · Aug 10, 2026

MMiqa said:
Objection

Breach of Procedure

Ebborsnam is not stopping the disrespect and the damage to the court, however:

Judge Superwoops is giving half the sentence what he was given me for more crime Ebborsnam committed. I wish to see a fair sentencing comparing to what I have got for a basic human mistake I made as a new lawyer.

~~This might be the first objection you ever made without AI lol~~

Superwoops · Aug 10, 2026

MMiqa said:
Motion to Recuse

@Smallfries

Judge Superwoops made a convicted me with contempt without a fact, a human mistake I made on my second day of work was framed as AI error just because I use AI, the error was using an amended law. I talked publicly I will be appealing it and I refused to continue with him being my Judge. I specifically asked anyone but @Superwoops to take the case based on Conflict of interest. I specifically asked any Judge besides Superwoops, it is public knowledge that I refuse to continue with him as him being my presiding officer. This open conflict of interest was brought up to you in #legal Honourable @Smallfries

Plaintiff moves to recuse based on bias, or the appearance of bias, against the Plaintiff due to a recent conviction of Contempt of Court, and that I decided to take the case based on these recent events. This last allegation is unfounded, my docket was left with one case less and so I looked inside my original court (Federal) and came across this case.
As for bias, the Court fails to see how a prior conviction of Contempt of Court can create bias on a presiding officer.

For the reasons above, the motion is denied. This matter is referred to Judge @ko531 or any other JO that is available and is either a Judge or a Justice.

On a final note, the brief from which the contempt charge is derived was posted last week, not in June as the Plaintiff suggests. This last bit of my ruling is nothing more than a correction based on the facts.

MMiqa · Aug 10, 2026

Motion

Motion To Reconsider

I wish to see @Smallfries to answer this, otherwise I will escalate this further. Superwoops is a part of the case that I will be talking and I specifically asked any Judge but him. I am ok to wait for a while until another Judge is fit to serve in this case.

Judge I wish to quote you on this:

The hallucinations were the following, as is stated in my order: - Claim that the following section was in the CCA on June 2, 2026: "In civil lawsuits, crimes may be used to seek damages, although damages are not presumed" - Claim that the Redmont Civil Code Amendments Act amended CCA Part I to add the following provision at §6(1)(a): "In civil lawsuits, crimes may be used to seek damages, although damages are not presumed."

Tell me Your Honor, did you or did you not punish me on AI ınterference? This was the "hallucination" you came up with. It was a red marked law I used on accident, is this an hallucination?

AI hallucination means :"An AI hallucination is a response generated by an artificial intelligence—most often a large language model—that contains false, fabricated, or misleading information presented as absolute fact."

In the same website, it gives us a difference between mistake vs AI hallucinations, which is important for your order and why you are biased or wrong.

Hallucinations vs. mistakesAI mistakes are a broader category that includes any kind of incorrect or suboptimal output from an AI model. AI hallucinations are a specific type of mistake where the system confidently generates false or fabricated information.Mistakes include simple inaccuracies, such as mislabeling an image or providing an outdated fact. They also cover biased recommendations, overly generic answers and subtle logical errors that don’t necessarily involve inventing facts but still lead to poor or incorrect outcomes.With ordinary mistakes, the issue is usually that some detail or assumption is incorrect. These issues are typically traceable, so AI engineers can focus on supplying better context or improving training data to correct the error.Hallucinations generally involve AI models producing fabricated content that has no grounding in real data. They can be harder to spot than other mistakes because their adherence to real patterns makes them seem authoritative. Hallucinations can “sound right” even when they are fundamentally wrong or unverifiable.

Did you see the part where it said, that mistakes are sometimes "Mistakes include simple inaccuracies, such as mislabeling an image or providing an outdated fact", outdated facts, such as using an amended law?

On Thursday I wrote:

"The Redmont Civil Code Amendments Act amended CCA Part I to add the following provision at §6(1)(a):

"In civil lawsuits, crimes may be used to seek damages, although damages are not presumed.""

This was in red, and in my mistake that I did not know it was red, you have told without any proof that this was "AI interference", then you claimed.

"On interference
This Court does not wish to address the question of whether any reliance on AI LLMs constitutes interference with the proper administration of justice. However, the hallucinations that the model produced in this case, and moreover, my suspicion that these were AI hallucinations, made it so I had to manually check if the Plaintiff's claims were true (they were not). This constitutes an interference with this Court's procedures and the administration of justice as a whole."

I used an amended law, this was not fabrication, this was a human mistake, and your mistake was to frame this as AI hallucination, which was false.

You found one alleged "AI hallucination", which was a human mistake.

Respectfully Submitted
MMiqa
AN ATTORNEY

MMiqa · Aug 10, 2026

Notice to Court

The Plaintiff wishes to give some context. Superwoops does not have a bias for me because of the contempt, his refusal to reconsider on basic human mistakes was illegally framed as "MISUSE OF AI" and I made public that I will be pursuing this further. This case is about their illegal usage of "Misuse of AI", a Judge who does not know AI hallucinations, Misuse of AI or human mistakes are not to fit to serve in this case. Superwoops showed Anti-AI bias and reflected this on me without warning, and gave me a fine that was double to Ebborsnam's "hefty" fine for a human mistake, and when I spoke out of turn, he again, gave me double the "hefty" fine what Ebborsnam received. He openly gave different amount of contempt charges and punishments, where in Federal Court Ebborsnam received half of the punishment I received for less of a crime.

MMiqa · Aug 10, 2026

Objection

OBJECTION - BREACH OF PROCEDURE

Ebborsnam said:
This might be the first objection you ever made without AI lol

Ebborsnam said:
Maybe don't use AI

Ebborsnam said:
Okay

The Plaintiff wishes to have these messages strike from the record, since Ebborsnam is not a party in this case, as stated earlier.

Respectfully submitted
MMiqa
AN ATTORNEY

MMiqa · Aug 10, 2026

MMiqa said:
where in Federal Court Ebborsnam received half of the punishment I received for less of a crime.

Plaintiff wishes to correct, where in Federal Court, Ebborsnam received half of the punishment I received for bigger crime.

Superwoops · Aug 10, 2026

MMiqa said:
Objection

OBJECTION - BREACH OF PROCEDURE

The Plaintiff wishes to have these messages strike from the record, since Ebborsnam is not a party in this case, as stated earlier.

Respectfully submitted
MMiqa
AN ATTORNEY

Sustained. I will rule on the motion to reconsider after another JO responds to the Motion to Recuse.

MMiqa · Aug 10, 2026

MMiqa said:
Motion to Recuse

@Smallfries

Judge Superwoops made a convicted me with contempt without a fact, a human mistake I made on my second day of work was framed as AI error just because I use AI, the error was using an amended law. I talked publicly I will be appealing it and I refused to continue with him being my Judge. I specifically asked anyone but @Superwoops to take the case based on Conflict of interest. I specifically asked any Judge besides Superwoops, it is public knowledge that I refuse to continue with him as him being my presiding officer. This open conflict of interest was brought up to you in #legal Honourable @Smallfries

Your Honour @Superwoops , I wish to correct my motion to recuse and file it again, and make changes accordingly including the facts I learned after your statement so the motion of recuse is more precise. I apologize for the inconvenience

Superwoops · Aug 10, 2026

MMiqa said:
Your Honour @Superwoops , I wish to correct my motion to recuse and file it again, and make changes accordingly including the facts I learned after your statement so the motion of recuse is more precise. I apologize for the inconvenience

The motion was already ruled upon by myself and is under review by another JO so I’m afraid I cannot allow that

ko531 · Aug 11, 2026

MMiqa said:
Motion to Recuse

@Smallfries

Judge Superwoops made a convicted me with contempt without a fact, a human mistake I made on my second day of work was framed as AI error just because I use AI, the error was using an amended law. I talked publicly I will be appealing it and I refused to continue with him being my Judge. I specifically asked anyone but @Superwoops to take the case based on Conflict of interest. I specifically asked any Judge besides Superwoops, it is public knowledge that I refuse to continue with him as him being my presiding officer. This open conflict of interest was brought up to you in #legal Honourable @Smallfries

Court Order

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
On Recusal of Judge Superwoops - Mmiqa v. Bar Association of Redmont [2026] FCR 72

Comments included in this poorly written motion to recuse, like "I refused to continue with him being my Judge," and "I refuse to continue with him as him being my presiding officer," show a lack of understanding of how the justice system works. You do not get to choose who presides over your case. And you do not get to choose who rules on your motion to recuse, no matter how many times you ping them.

You are stuck with the Judicial officer who is on the case, no matter how much disdain you have for them. If you have a real reason to recuse, that can be addressed. This motion does not seem to include one. It includes events and facts from a different case and a different recusal that was already denied. The rest seems to be the plaintiff's anger at the current presiding officer.

If you truly do not want to practice in front of Judge Superwoops, you have two options. Find a real and valid reason for recusal or ask that this case be dismissed. Motion to recuse is denied.

So Adjudicated
Judge Ko

MMiqa · Aug 11, 2026

For now, Plaintiff wishes to continue. But Judge @ko531 misses a point, I can get another lawyer to take my case.

The Plaintiff talked out of order, received a strike, 60 penalty units and 5 minutes of jail. In this case, Ebborsnam, not a party to this case, talked jibberish and openly disrespected the court, two times he got the punishment half of what I got, third time he did not even get one, got no jailtime. I asked his comments to be struck from the record, Judge sustained, but I still see his comments.

Nitpicking what I have said is not the way to go Your Honour.

I have shown open bias on AI, the reason of it and how he openly stuck behind that decision. The reason for not asking that Judge was openly giving two different punishments, more punishment for less of a crime in my case, around the same time Ebborsnam less and not a strike at all. This open double standard is here for all to see, you answered there as well, and it is funny for how two recuse motions answered by the same Judge across both of my cases, like there are not enough Judges in Redmont. Judge ko531 never adressed what I have talked after this, of course they are only required to look at the Motion. But this is on record. ko531 and Superwoops Judge duo is refusing to address:

Open double standard given to me and Ebborsnam, while he disrespected the Court multiple times, and got half the punishment I got without a strike, where he was not even a party to the case.

Openly going after a hunch and punishing me for something I have not done despite the proof I have shown.

The Court can continue, I will not ask to dismiss your Honour, I wish to see how Justice system work. I wished to see that Judge ko531 stated I have a right to find another lawyer for my case, this is refusal of my right, or what you don't want.

ko531 said:
Court Order

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
On Recusal of Judge Superwoops - Mmiqa v. Bar Association of Redmont [2026] FCR 72

Comments included in this poorly written motion to recuse, like "I refused to continue with him being my Judge," and "I refuse to continue with him as him being my presiding officer," show a lack of understanding of how the justice system works. You do not get to choose who presides over your case. And you do not get to choose who rules on your motion to recuse, no matter how many times you ping them.

You are stuck with the Judicial officer who is on the case, no matter how much disdain you have for them. If you have a real reason to recuse, that can be addressed. This motion does not seem to include one. It includes events and facts from a different case and a different recusal that was already denied. The rest seems to be the plaintiff's anger at the current presiding officer.

If you truly do not want to practice in front of Judge Superwoops, you have two options. Find a real and valid reason for recusal or ask that this case be dismissed. Motion to recuse is denied.

So Adjudicated
Judge Ko

Superwoops · Aug 11, 2026

MMiqa said:
Notice to Court

The Plaintiff wishes to give some context. Superwoops does not have a bias for me because of the contempt, his refusal to reconsider on basic human mistakes was illegally framed as "MISUSE OF AI" and I made public that I will be pursuing this further. This case is about their illegal usage of "Misuse of AI", a Judge who does not know AI hallucinations, Misuse of AI or human mistakes are not to fit to serve in this case. Superwoops showed Anti-AI bias and reflected this on me without warning, and gave me a fine that was double to Ebborsnam's "hefty" fine for a human mistake, and when I spoke out of turn, he again, gave me double the "hefty" fine what Ebborsnam received. He openly gave different amount of contempt charges and punishments, where in Federal Court Ebborsnam received half of the punishment I received for less of a crime.

MMiqa said:
For now, Plaintiff wishes to continue. But Judge @ko531 misses a point, I can get another lawyer to take my case.

The Plaintiff talked out of order, received a strike, 60 penalty units and 5 minutes of jail. In this case, Ebborsnam, not a party to this case, talked jibberish and openly disrespected the court, two times he got the punishment half of what I got, third time he did not even get one, got no jailtime. I asked his comments to be struck from the record, Judge sustained, but I still see his comments.

Nitpicking what I have said is not the way to go Your Honour.

I have shown open bias on AI, the reason of it and how he openly stuck behind that decision. The reason for not asking that Judge was openly giving two different punishments, more punishment for less of a crime in my case, around the same time Ebborsnam less and not a strike at all. This open double standard is here for all to see, you answered there as well, and it is funny for how two recuse motions answered by the same Judge across both of my cases, like there are not enough Judges in Redmont. Judge ko531 never adressed what I have talked after this, of course they are only required to look at the Motion. But this is on record. ko531 and Superwoops Judge duo is refusing to address:

Open double standard given to me and Ebborsnam, while he disrespected the Court multiple times, and got half the punishment I got without a strike, where he was not even a party to the case.

Openly going after a hunch and punishing me for something I have not done despite the prove I have shown.

The Court can continue, I will not ask to dismiss your Honour, I wish to see how Justice system work. I wished to see that Judge ko531 stated I have a right to find another lawyer for my case, this is refusal of my right, or what you don't want.

You are hereby warned not to make unprompted statements in open Court. Failure to abide by this order may result in Contempt charges. This is not a conversation.

Superwoops · Aug 11, 2026

MMiqa said:
Objection

Breach of Procedure

Ebborsnam is not stopping the disrespect and the damage to the court, however:

Judge Superwoops is giving half the sentence what he was given me for more crime Ebborsnam committed. I wish to see a fair sentencing comparing to what I have got for a basic human mistake I made as a new lawyer.

Overruled. There is little similarity between both situations.

Superwoops · Aug 11, 2026

Ebborsnam said:
This might be the first objection you ever made without AI lol

I find @Ebborsnam GUILTY of Contempt of Court. They shall be fined 30 Penalty Units and be imprisoned for 5 minutes.

Superwoops · Aug 11, 2026

MMiqa said:
Motion

Motion To Reconsider

I wish to see @Smallfries to answer this, otherwise I will escalate this further. Superwoops is a part of the case that I will be talking and I specifically asked any Judge but him. I am ok to wait for a while until another Judge is fit to serve in this case.

Judge I wish to quote you on this:

The hallucinations were the following, as is stated in my order: - Claim that the following section was in the CCA on June 2, 2026: "In civil lawsuits, crimes may be used to seek damages, although damages are not presumed" - Claim that the Redmont Civil Code Amendments Act amended CCA Part I to add the following provision at §6(1)(a): "In civil lawsuits, crimes may be used to seek damages, although damages are not presumed."

Tell me Your Honor, did you or did you not punish me on AI ınterference? This was the "hallucination" you came up with. It was a red marked law I used on accident, is this an hallucination?

AI hallucination means :"An AI hallucination is a response generated by an artificial intelligence—most often a large language model—that contains false, fabricated, or misleading information presented as absolute fact."

In the same website, it gives us a difference between mistake vs AI hallucinations, which is important for your order and why you are biased or wrong.

Hallucinations vs. mistakesAI mistakes are a broader category that includes any kind of incorrect or suboptimal output from an AI model. AI hallucinations are a specific type of mistake where the system confidently generates false or fabricated information.Mistakes include simple inaccuracies, such as mislabeling an image or providing an outdated fact. They also cover biased recommendations, overly generic answers and subtle logical errors that don’t necessarily involve inventing facts but still lead to poor or incorrect outcomes.With ordinary mistakes, the issue is usually that some detail or assumption is incorrect. These issues are typically traceable, so AI engineers can focus on supplying better context or improving training data to correct the error.Hallucinations generally involve AI models producing fabricated content that has no grounding in real data. They can be harder to spot than other mistakes because their adherence to real patterns makes them seem authoritative. Hallucinations can “sound right” even when they are fundamentally wrong or unverifiable.

Did you see the part where it said, that mistakes are sometimes "Mistakes include simple inaccuracies, such as mislabeling an image or providing an outdated fact", outdated facts, such as using an amended law?

On Thursday I wrote:

"The Redmont Civil Code Amendments Act amended CCA Part I to add the following provision at §6(1)(a):

"In civil lawsuits, crimes may be used to seek damages, although damages are not presumed.""

This was in red, and in my mistake that I did not know it was red, you have told without any proof that this was "AI interference", then you claimed.

"On interference
This Court does not wish to address the question of whether any reliance on AI LLMs constitutes interference with the proper administration of justice. However, the hallucinations that the model produced in this case, and moreover, my suspicion that these were AI hallucinations, made it so I had to manually check if the Plaintiff's claims were true (they were not). This constitutes an interference with this Court's procedures and the administration of justice as a whole."

I used an amended law, this was not fabrication, this was a human mistake, and your mistake was to frame this as AI hallucination, which was false.

You found one alleged "AI hallucination", which was a human mistake.

Respectfully Submitted
MMiqa
AN ATTORNEY

Motion denied. You seem to be trying to move for me to reconsider the Contempt of Court charge in Lawsuit: Dismissed - MMiqa v. rykazard [2026] DCR 69. This is a different case, and your motion to reconsider does not add any substance to your original motion.

Judge shopping is not allowed in Redmont. We are all officers of the Court tasked with upholding the principles of justice and fairness. To imply otherwise is to question the impartiality and undermine the integrity of this Court, especially after review of your motion to recuse by two different Judicial Officers.

MMiqa · Aug 11, 2026

Motion

Motion To Strike

Superwoops said:
You seem to be trying to move for me to reconsider the Contempt of Court charge in Lawsuit: Dismissed - MMiqa v. rykazard [2026] DCR 69

No Your Honour, if you looked at the Appeals, I already filed an appeal, so respectfully, I would not ask it from you here. This is not the place, The Plaintiff would like to continue defend this point but he was warned that this was not a conversation so he wishes to strike instinces where it is immaterial, impertinent.

Superwoops said:
Judge shopping

Respectfully, wrong term. Shopping means going out and deciding what to buy, I just know, what to stay away from, with valid reasons shown but not adressed in the responses.

Superwoops said:
There is little similarity between both situations.

Ebborsnam spoke out of turn in Federal Court on three separate occasions, was not representing any party at the time, and was punished three times for multiple reasons, each punishment being half of what the Plaintiff received, which came for speaking out of turn only. The Plaintiff, by contrast, was punished in a District Court case for speaking out of turn while representing himself, and received a Conduct Strike in addition to that punishment., where Ebborsnam received none across all 3 times he was punished. As you know since these incidences happened in the span of few days and all punishments were given by you, the situation is similar; the punishment is not.

The Plaintiff moves to strike the comparison drawn between Ebborsnam and the Plaintiff, as immaterial, impertinent, and inaccurate.
The Plaintiff moves to strike the comparison drawn to Ebborsnam's Contempt of Court finding, and the characterization of "judge shopping," and accusing the Plaintiff of something that he was not planning or thinking, from the record of this thread, as immaterial, and impertinent to the matters properly before this Court.

Strike

A request to remove something from the court record, usually due to inadmissible evidence or language. This can include redundant, vague, scandalous, immaterial, or impertinent information. Evidence submitted with this motion must be relevant and is at the discretion of the Presiding Officer.

Superwoops · Aug 11, 2026

MMiqa said:
Motion

Motion To Strike

No Your Honour, if you looked at the Appeals, I already filed an appeal, so respectfully, I would not ask it from you here. This is not the place, The Plaintiff would like to continue defend this point but he was warned that this was not a conversation so he wishes to strike instinces where it is immaterial, impertinent.

Respectfully, wrong term. Shopping means going out and deciding what to buy, I just know, what to stay away from, with valid reasons shown but not adressed in the responses.

Ebborsnam spoke out of turn in Federal Court on three separate occasions, was not representing any party at the time, and was punished three times for multiple reasons, each punishment being half of what the Plaintiff received, which came for speaking out of turn only. The Plaintiff, by contrast, was punished in a District Court case for speaking out of turn while representing himself, and received a Conduct Strike in addition to that punishment., where Ebborsnam received none across all 3 times he was punished. As you know since these incidences happened in the span of few days and all punishments were given by you, the situation is similar; the punishment is not.

The Plaintiff moves to strike the comparison drawn between Ebborsnam and the Plaintiff, as immaterial, impertinent, and inaccurate.
The Plaintiff moves to strike the comparison drawn to Ebborsnam's Contempt of Court finding, and the characterization of "judge shopping," and accusing the Plaintiff of something that he was not planning or thinking, from the record of this thread, as immaterial, and impertinent to the matters properly before this Court.

Strike A request to remove something from the court record, usually due to inadmissible evidence or language. This can include redundant, vague, scandalous, immaterial, or impertinent information. Evidence submitted with this motion must be relevant and is at the discretion of the Presiding Officer.

Motion denied. The first quote is pertinent to the case, as it is part of your Judge's ruling. Plaintiff only offers a disagreement with the language used in the second quote, not a legal argument in favour of striking said section. The third quote is part of my ruling; ergo, it is pertinent to the case.

Counselor, you will not strike my rulings from the record.

Superwoops · Aug 11, 2026

Court Order

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CONTEMPT

MMiqa said:
No Your Honour, if you looked at the Appeals, I already filed an appeal, so respectfully, I would not ask it from you here. This is not the place, The Plaintiff would like to continue defend this point but he was warned that this was not a conversation so he wishes to strike instinces where it is immaterial, impertinent.

MMiqa said:
Respectfully, wrong term. Shopping means going out and deciding what to buy, I just know, what to stay away from, with valid reasons shown but not adressed in the responses.

Attorney @MMiqa has previously been expressly warned not to treat this as a conversation. Rather than desist, they frame their responses as a motion to strike and acknowledge that:

MMiqa said:
he was warned that this was not a conversation so he wishes to strike instinces where it is immaterial, impertinent.

Mere filing of a Motion to Strike is fine. However, this reframing merely serves for the Attorney to further the objective of their argument and present unprompted statements. Should the Plaintiff have a grievance about judicial misconduct or have an issue with the legal interpretation of any matter, they should follow then-Judge Muggy21's words in Appeal: Accepted - [2025] DCR 106 - Appeal:

If a judicial officer gets it wrong, always take it on appeal. You gain nothing by arguing with the person who is meant to eventually adjudicate your case.

Because the Attorney acknowledged the lawful Court order, then proceeded to try and find an unsuccessful workaround to the order, they have disobeyed the order in two sections within their motion to strike.

For disobeying a lawful order of the Court, I find Attorney @MMiqa GUILTY of Contempt of Court. They shall be fined 30 Penalty Units.

Counselor @MMiqa is warned against making further unprovoked statements and continuing to treat this as a conversation.

Superwoops · Aug 11, 2026

MMiqa said:
The Plaintiff moves to strike the comparison drawn between Ebborsnam and the Plaintiff, as immaterial, impertinent, and inaccurate.

Additionally, I find this sentence to be nonsensical. The comparison was drawn by you, counselor. In your objection.
If there was something else you meant by this, then please proofread your work. Otherwise please treat this Court with respect under Rule 1.4.2.1 of the Information - Court Rules and Procedures.

Superwoops · Aug 11, 2026

Writ of Summons

@BAR Association of Redmont (cc: Chairperson @CreeperTD) is hereby commanded to appear in the Federal Court in the case of MMiqa v. Bar Association of Redmont [2026] FCR 72.

Failure to appear within 72 hours of this summons will result in a default judgement based on the known facts of the case.

Both parties should make themselves aware of the Court Rules and Procedures, including the option of an in-game trial should both parties request one.

MMiqa · Aug 11, 2026

Superwoops said:
Court Order

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CONTEMPT

Attorney @MMiqa has previously been expressly warned not to treat this as a conversation. Rather than desist, they frame their responses as a motion to strike and acknowledge that:

Mere filing of a Motion to Strike is fine. However, this reframing merely serves for the Attorney to further the objective of their argument and present unprompted statements. Should the Plaintiff have a grievance about judicial misconduct or have an issue with the legal interpretation of any matter, they should follow then-Judge Muggy21's words in Appeal: Accepted - [2025] DCR 106 - Appeal:

Because the Attorney acknowledged the lawful Court order, then proceeded to try and find an unsuccessful workaround to the order, they have disobeyed the order in two sections within their motion to strike.

For disobeying a lawful order of the Court, I find Attorney @MMiqa GUILTY of Contempt of Court. They shall be fined 30 Penalty Units.

Counselor @MMiqa is warned against making further unprovoked statements and continuing to treat this as a conversation.

Motion

Motion To Reconsider

For the Term "Judge shopping", it first arised in the server forum from rykazard case couple days ago by AmityBlamity, where Superwoops was the Judge, which at this point after informed by the Judge no longer wishes to strike it out, the Plaintiff wishes to explain the reasoning after it, nothing more.

The Plaintiff explains the reasoning behind the motion of strike in this motion of reconsider and does not wish to disrespect this Court, he just uses his rights.

The Plaintiff expressed his wish to continue this lawsuit with Judge Superwoops before he filed Motion to Strike, he expressed his wish to continue the lawsuit and does not wish to argue with the Judge, as he appealed officially and not wish to debate whether punishments were just or not here, he only talked about it to show bias between Ebborsnam and himself as bias for Motion to Recuse.

CreeperTD · Aug 11, 2026

Present on behalf of the BAR, your honor.

Superwoops · Aug 11, 2026

CreeperTD said:
Present on behalf of the BAR, your honor.

Please present your answer to complaint within 48 hours.

CreeperTD · Aug 11, 2026

MMiqa said:
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION

MMiqa
Plaintiff

v.

Bar Association of Redmont
Defendant

COMPLAINT

WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF

On August 5, 2026, the Bar Association of Redmont Council passed a Motion to Censure the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff brings this action on two grounds: the censure was passed without the requisite majority, and a Councillor with a direct conflict of interest participated in the vote.

I. PARTIES

1. MMiqa, Plaintiff, Licensed Attorney of the Bar Association of Redmont.
2. Bar Association of Redmont, Defendant.

II. FACTS

1. On August 5, 2026, a Motion to Censure was filed against the Plaintiff before the BAR Council.

2. The BAR Council voted as follows: 2 in favor, 1 abstained, 1 against.

3. The Bar Association of Redmont announced that the motion passed.

4. At the time of the vote, the BAR Council consisted of 4 active members following the resignation of one Councillor.

5. Councillor CreeperTD participated in the vote. CreeperTD is a named DHS Recruit in MMiqa v. Department of Homeland Security [2026] DCR 77 — an active case in which CreeperTD's own conduct is directly at issue as evidence against the Defendant.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

CLAIM I — INSUFFICIENT MAJORITY

The Redmont Bar Association Act Part V §1(4) requires sanctions to be imposed by majority vote. With 4 active Council members, a majority requires 3 votes in favor. The motion received only 2 votes in favor. An abstention is not an affirmative vote and cannot count toward a majority. The censure was passed without the requisite majority and is void.

CLAIM II — CONFLICT OF INTEREST

CreeperTD is a named officer in MMiqa v. Department of Homeland Security [2026] DCR 77 — an active case in which CreeperTD's conduct is directly at issue as evidence. CreeperTD voted to censure the attorney actively litigating that case against CreeperTD's own department. This constitutes a direct conflict of interest. CreeperTD's vote must be disregarded. The Plaintiff notes that even with CreeperTD's vote included, the required majority was not reached — 2 votes in favor out of 4 active members does not constitute a majority. With CreeperTD's vote removed, the motion fails even more decisively with only 1 vote in favor. In either scenario, the censure was not validly passed.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

1. Declare the censure issued against the Plaintiff on August 5, 2026 void and of no legal effect.
2. Order the Bar Association of Redmont to remove the censure from the Plaintiff's record.
3. Any other relief the Court finds just and proper.

REPRESENTATION

The Plaintiff, MMiqa, is a licensed Attorney of the Bar Association of Redmont and is representing themselves in this matter.

By making this submission, I agree I understand the penalties of lying in court and the fact that I am subject to perjury should I knowingly make a false statement in court.

DATED: This 10th day of August, 2026

MMiqa
Plaintiff, Self-Represented
Licensed Attorney, Bar Association of Redmont

Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - BREACH OF PROCEDURE
Your honor, the Plaintiff edited this complaint before their motion to amend was accepted. The record of what they originally sent is now lost, but the Defense believes that multiple core parts of the case were amended, breaking Rule 3.5 of the Court Rules and procedures by changing information that was already submitted. The Defense humbly requests that the plaintiff be required to revert the original complaint back to its original form, and that they, in the future, mark any changes to their filings once amendments are allowed by the Presiding Officer.

CreeperTD · Aug 11, 2026

Your honor, the Defense requests that all posts in this thread made by Ebborsnam be struck from the record (struck through in formatting as well, please) as the DOJ was never asked to represent the BAR in this matter, nor are any of their filings allowable in this court room as they were made out of turn.

Superwoops · Aug 11, 2026

MMiqa said:
Motion

Motion To Reconsider

For the Term "Judge shopping", it first arised in the server forum from rykazard case couple days ago by AmityBlamity, where Superwoops was the Judge, which at this point after informed by the Judge no longer wishes to strike it out, the Plaintiff wishes to explain the reasoning after it, nothing more.

The Plaintiff explains the reasoning behind the motion of strike in this motion of reconsider and does not wish to disrespect this Court, he just uses his rights.

The Plaintiff expressed his wish to continue this lawsuit with Judge Superwoops before he filed Motion to Strike, he expressed his wish to continue the lawsuit and does not wish to argue with the Judge, as he appealed officially and not wish to debate whether punishments were just or not here, he only talked about it to show bias between Ebborsnam and himself as bias for Motion to Recuse.

Your motion (Docket #23) said: "I specifically asked any Judge but him. I am ok to wait for a while until another Judge is fit to serve in this case." That is the statement I'm referring to when using the term Judge shopping.

Motion denied.

Superwoops · Aug 11, 2026

CreeperTD said:
Your honor, the Defense requests that all posts in this thread made by Ebborsnam be struck from the record (struck through in formatting as well, please) as the DOJ was never asked to represent the BAR in this matter, nor are any of their filings allowable in this court room as they were made out of turn.

I was under the impression I had struck all of them, thank you for letting me know. All of Ebborsnam's posts are struck from the record.

MMiqa · Aug 11, 2026

CreeperTD said:
Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - BREACH OF PROCEDURE
Your honor, the Plaintiff edited this complaint before their motion to amend was accepted. The record of what they originally sent is now lost, but the Defense believes that multiple core parts of the case were amended, breaking Rule 3.5 of the Court Rules and procedures by changing information that was already submitted. The Defense humbly requests that the plaintiff be required to revert the original complaint back to its original form, and that they, in the future, mark any changes to their filings once amendments are allowed by the Presiding Officer.

RESPONSE TO OBJECTION

I have amended the first filing before a Judge took over the case, if needed, I request permission from Judge @Superwoops to post it again in this post.

Superwoops · Aug 11, 2026

CreeperTD said:
Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - BREACH OF PROCEDURE
Your honor, the Plaintiff edited this complaint before their motion to amend was accepted. The record of what they originally sent is now lost, but the Defense believes that multiple core parts of the case were amended, breaking Rule 3.5 of the Court Rules and procedures by changing information that was already submitted. The Defense humbly requests that the plaintiff be required to revert the original complaint back to its original form, and that they, in the future, mark any changes to their filings once amendments are allowed by the Presiding Officer.

Change was one minor clerical edit to change a section number. Objection overruled.

That being said, the following filing:

MMiqa said:
Case Filing

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION

MMiqa
Plaintiff

v.

Bar Association of Redmont
Defendant

AMENDED COMPLAINT

WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF

On August 5, 2026, the Bar Association of Redmont Council passed a Motion to Censure the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff brings this action on the grounds that the censure was passed without the majority required by the Bar Association of Redmont Act, that the Misuse of Artificial Intelligence allegation has no basis in the Code of Conduct provision it purports to enforce, and that the conduct underlying the remaining allegations does not rise to the level the Code of Conduct reserves for censure, having in some instances already been tolerated by the Bar Association in comparable cases involving other attorneys.

I. PARTIES

1. MMiqa, Plaintiff, Licensed Attorney of the Bar Association of Redmont.
2. Bar Association of Redmont, Defendant.

II. FACTS

1. On August 5, 2026, a Motion to Censure was filed against the Plaintiff before the BAR Council by Councillor OwnedBlock.

2. The motion alleged three violations against the Plaintiff: (a) an integrity breach under the Code of Conduct's General Principles on Trust and Integrity, based on the Plaintiff's inclusion of a Wrongful Death claim in MMiqa v. Department of Homeland Security [2026] DCR 77 purportedly citing the Criminal Code Act; (b) a violation of the Code of Conduct's Court Relations — Court Rules of Conduct provision, based on allegedly argumentative objections filed in MMiqa v. rykazard [2026] DCR 69, posts numbered #9 through #12; and (c) Misuse of Artificial Intelligence.

3. The Code of Conduct's Misuse of Artificial Intelligence provision defines the signs of AI misuse it is concerned with as fabricated case names, statutes, or legal authorities; distorted or misrepresented facts, quotations, or holdings; unsupported propositions of law; falsified information about court procedures or filing requirements; and improperly blended legal concepts or standards. The provision states that legal work is investigated where it shows signs of this kind, not merely because AI was used, but because such misuse harms the parties, the courts, and the profession.

4. The motion did not allege that the Plaintiff's filings contained any fabricated authority, misrepresented fact or holding, unsupported proposition, falsified procedural claim, or blended legal standard. The sole basis offered for the Misuse of Artificial Intelligence allegation was that the Plaintiff had four cases ongoing as of June 15, 2026 — MMiqa v. rykazard [2026] DCR 69, MMiqa v. ZachOfPotatoes10 [2026] DCR 91, MMiqa v. DHS [2026] DCR 77, and MMiqa v. Ognqn [2026] DCR 72 — and that the Plaintiff posted a response exceeding 1,000 words within 11 minutes of an objection filed by Ebborsnam in MMiqa v. DHS [2026] DCR 77, post #54, the Plaintiff's response appearing across posts #55 through #57. The motion itself acknowledged that close familiarity with the case and the use of pre-drafted or templated material could partially explain the speed of the response, but dismissed that explanation as unpersuasive on the stated basis that reading the objection alone would take approximately 5 minutes and that 6 minutes was, in the Council's own words, "the minimum for human review" — a threshold that appears nowhere in the Code of Conduct, is not one of the indicators the Code identifies, and was asserted without citation to any technical standard or evidentiary support.

5. As to the first allegation, the Plaintiff's citation was based on a characterization the Plaintiff had encountered in a prior case and relied upon in good faith; it was not a fabrication, and any error in that citation was a mistake of legal research, not a breach of trust or integrity. The same error — pleading Wrongful Death under the Criminal Code Act — has been made by other Bar-licensed attorneys in cases before this Court, including AvatarNate7983, UnitedBoss v. Hincho_ [2026] DCR 85, EditVoxel v. LavBebik [2026] DCR 87, Le9endz_ v. AussieBloke25 [2026] DCR 59, and Etco v. mvchrelle [2026] DCR 102, in each of which the claim was simply dismissed without prejudice and none of the representing attorneys faced any BAR disciplinary action whatsoever. After he was warned that Wrongful Death is not a tort, he had not filed a lawsuit based on that claim. All the claims he made was before he was warned.

6. As to the second allegation, the objections at issue in MMiqa v. rykazard [2026] DCR 69 arose from the Plaintiff's unfamiliarity, at that early stage of practice, with the procedural distinction between objections and argumentation, and the conduct occurred once, during discovery, in only the Plaintiff's second case as a licensed attorney. Upon being corrected by the presiding judge, the Plaintiff conformed their conduct immediately and did not repeat the error. In one of his cases, second day of attorney career, the Plaintiff made a mistake of being argumentative in one of his cases, and the only one. This is a legal ground to censure someone, according to BAR.

7. Part IV, Section 2(2) of the Bar Association of Redmont Act provides that all decisions of the Council, including the imposition of sanctions under Part V, shall be passed by a simple majority of all sitting Councillors, not a majority of the votes cast. At the time of the vote, the BAR Council consisted of 4 active members following the resignation of one Councillor, the Council ordinarily comprising 5 seats. A simple majority of 4 sitting Councillors is 3.

8. The BAR Council voted on the motion as 2 in favor, 1 abstained, and 1 against. The Bar Association of Redmont announced that the motion passed, entering a censure on the Plaintiff's record.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

CLAIM I — INSUFFICIENT MAJORITY

Part V, Section 1(4)(c) of the Bar Association of Redmont Act requires "a majority vote of the Council" before any sanction may be imposed, but Part V does not itself define what constitutes a majority vote. That definition is supplied elsewhere in the same Act: Part IV, Section 2(2) states that all decisions of the Council shall be passed by a simple majority of all sitting Councillors. Nothing in Part V displaces or narrows that definition, and a term left undefined in one Part of a statute takes the meaning fixed for it elsewhere in the same statute rather than a separate, unstated meaning invented for the occasion. Reading Part V's majority vote requirement together with Part IV's definition, as the Act itself compels, a majority means a majority of the Council's sitting membership, not a majority of however many members happened to cast a non-abstaining vote. With 4 sitting Councillors, a majority requires 3 votes in favor. The motion received only 2 votes in favor. An interpretation that instead measures majority against only the votes cast — allowing an abstention to be silently dropped from the count — has no textual basis anywhere in the Act and cannot be reconciled with Part IV, Section 2(2). The censure was therefore passed without the majority the Act requires and is void.

CLAIM II — MISUSE OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE ALLEGATION UNSUPPORTED BY THE CODE OF CONDUCT

The Code of Conduct's Misuse of Artificial Intelligence provision defines the misconduct it addresses by reference to specific defects in the substance of a lawyer's work: fabricated authorities, misrepresented facts or holdings, unsupported legal propositions, falsified procedural claims, and improperly blended legal standards. It is these substantive defects, and the harm they cause to clients, courts, and the profession, that the provision is designed to catch. The motion identified none of them. It did not point to a single fabricated citation, misstated fact, unsupported proposition, false procedural claim, or blended standard in any of the Plaintiff's filings. Instead, the motion substituted an entirely different test of its own invention — that the Plaintiff was handling four cases at once and that a single response was filed faster than a threshold the Council set for itself without any basis in the Code, technical authority, or evidence. Caseload volume says nothing about how any particular filing was produced, and by the motion's own figures, roughly 6 of the 11 minutes remained after reading the objection for the Plaintiff, an attorney immersed in the DCR 77 record for weeks, to compose a reply from facts and arguments already prepared. An allegation resting on a standard the Code of Conduct does not contain, applied to conduct the Code's own enumerated indicators do not describe, is not merely weak but ultra vires the provision it purports to enforce, and cannot sustain a disciplinary finding.

BAR has shown speed and number of cases opened as a sign of "Misuse of AI" that was not recognized in any governing document.

CLAIM III — DISPROPORTIONATE DISCIPLINE ON THE REMAINING ALLEGATIONS

The remaining two allegations, even taken at face value, do not describe conduct warranting censure. The first concerns a citation the Plaintiff relied upon in good faith after encountering it in a prior case, at most a research error rather than a breach of trust or integrity, and one that other licensed attorneys have made in DCR 85, DCR 87, and DCR 102 without facing any BAR discipline; disciplining the Plaintiff alone for conduct the Bar Association has otherwise tolerated across multiple other cases cannot be reconciled with the even-handed application of the Code of Conduct. The second concerns conduct the Plaintiff corrected immediately upon judicial instruction, occurring only once, during discovery, in the Plaintiff's second case as a licensed attorney — the kind of early-practice mistake the Code of Conduct's own stated purpose, to guide rather than to nitpick, counsels against punishing so severely, particularly where no repetition followed the correction.

In order to have no conflict of interest whatsoever, the Plaintiff is asking for a Judge that was not server in MMiqa v. rykazard [2026] DCR 69 case.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

1. Declare the censure issued against the Plaintiff on August 5, 2026 void and of no legal effect.
2. Order the Bar Association of Redmont to remove the censure from the Plaintiff's record.
3. Any other relief the Court finds just and proper.

REPRESENTATION

The Plaintiff, MMiqa, is a licensed Attorney of the Bar Association of Redmont and is representing themselves in this matter.

By making this submission, I agree I understand the penalties of lying in court and the fact that I am subject to perjury should I knowingly make a false statement in court.

DATED: This 10th day of August, 2026

MMiqa
Plaintiff, Self-Represented
Licensed Attorney, Bar Association of Redmont

is struck from the record.
Plaintiff is free to amend their complaint in accordance with the Court Rules of Procedure.

Superwoops · Aug 11, 2026

MMiqa said:
Case Filing

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION

MMiqa
Plaintiff

v.

Bar Association of Redmont
Defendant

AMENDED COMPLAINT

WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF

On August 5, 2026, the Bar Association of Redmont Council passed a Motion to Censure the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff brings this action on the grounds that the censure was passed without the majority required by the Bar Association of Redmont Act, that the Misuse of Artificial Intelligence allegation has no basis in the Code of Conduct provision it purports to enforce, and that the conduct underlying the remaining allegations does not rise to the level the Code of Conduct reserves for censure, having in some instances already been tolerated by the Bar Association in comparable cases involving other attorneys.

I. PARTIES

1. MMiqa, Plaintiff, Licensed Attorney of the Bar Association of Redmont.
2. Bar Association of Redmont, Defendant.

II. FACTS

1. On August 5, 2026, a Motion to Censure was filed against the Plaintiff before the BAR Council by Councillor OwnedBlock.

2. The motion alleged three violations against the Plaintiff: (a) an integrity breach under the Code of Conduct's General Principles on Trust and Integrity, based on the Plaintiff's inclusion of a Wrongful Death claim in MMiqa v. Department of Homeland Security [2026] DCR 77 purportedly citing the Criminal Code Act; (b) a violation of the Code of Conduct's Court Relations — Court Rules of Conduct provision, based on allegedly argumentative objections filed in MMiqa v. rykazard [2026] DCR 69, posts numbered #9 through #12; and (c) Misuse of Artificial Intelligence.

3. The Code of Conduct's Misuse of Artificial Intelligence provision defines the signs of AI misuse it is concerned with as fabricated case names, statutes, or legal authorities; distorted or misrepresented facts, quotations, or holdings; unsupported propositions of law; falsified information about court procedures or filing requirements; and improperly blended legal concepts or standards. The provision states that legal work is investigated where it shows signs of this kind, not merely because AI was used, but because such misuse harms the parties, the courts, and the profession.

4. The motion did not allege that the Plaintiff's filings contained any fabricated authority, misrepresented fact or holding, unsupported proposition, falsified procedural claim, or blended legal standard. The sole basis offered for the Misuse of Artificial Intelligence allegation was that the Plaintiff had four cases ongoing as of June 15, 2026 — MMiqa v. rykazard [2026] DCR 69, MMiqa v. ZachOfPotatoes10 [2026] DCR 91, MMiqa v. DHS [2026] DCR 77, and MMiqa v. Ognqn [2026] DCR 72 — and that the Plaintiff posted a response exceeding 1,000 words within 11 minutes of an objection filed by Ebborsnam in MMiqa v. DHS [2026] DCR 77, post #54, the Plaintiff's response appearing across posts #55 through #57. The motion itself acknowledged that close familiarity with the case and the use of pre-drafted or templated material could partially explain the speed of the response, but dismissed that explanation as unpersuasive on the stated basis that reading the objection alone would take approximately 5 minutes and that 6 minutes was, in the Council's own words, "the minimum for human review" — a threshold that appears nowhere in the Code of Conduct, is not one of the indicators the Code identifies, and was asserted without citation to any technical standard or evidentiary support.

5. As to the first allegation, the Plaintiff's citation was based on a characterization the Plaintiff had encountered in a prior case and relied upon in good faith; it was not a fabrication, and any error in that citation was a mistake of legal research, not a breach of trust or integrity. The same error — pleading Wrongful Death under the Criminal Code Act — has been made by other Bar-licensed attorneys in cases before this Court, including AvatarNate7983, UnitedBoss v. Hincho_ [2026] DCR 85, EditVoxel v. LavBebik [2026] DCR 87, Le9endz_ v. AussieBloke25 [2026] DCR 59, and Etco v. mvchrelle [2026] DCR 102, in each of which the claim was simply dismissed without prejudice and none of the representing attorneys faced any BAR disciplinary action whatsoever. After he was warned that Wrongful Death is not a tort, he had not filed a lawsuit based on that claim. All the claims he made was before he was warned.

6. As to the second allegation, the objections at issue in MMiqa v. rykazard [2026] DCR 69 arose from the Plaintiff's unfamiliarity, at that early stage of practice, with the procedural distinction between objections and argumentation, and the conduct occurred once, during discovery, in only the Plaintiff's second case as a licensed attorney. Upon being corrected by the presiding judge, the Plaintiff conformed their conduct immediately and did not repeat the error. In one of his cases, second day of attorney career, the Plaintiff made a mistake of being argumentative in one of his cases, and the only one. This is a legal ground to censure someone, according to BAR.

7. Part IV, Section 2(2) of the Bar Association of Redmont Act provides that all decisions of the Council, including the imposition of sanctions under Part V, shall be passed by a simple majority of all sitting Councillors, not a majority of the votes cast. At the time of the vote, the BAR Council consisted of 4 active members following the resignation of one Councillor, the Council ordinarily comprising 5 seats. A simple majority of 4 sitting Councillors is 3.

8. The BAR Council voted on the motion as 2 in favor, 1 abstained, and 1 against. The Bar Association of Redmont announced that the motion passed, entering a censure on the Plaintiff's record.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

CLAIM I — INSUFFICIENT MAJORITY

Part V, Section 1(4)(c) of the Bar Association of Redmont Act requires "a majority vote of the Council" before any sanction may be imposed, but Part V does not itself define what constitutes a majority vote. That definition is supplied elsewhere in the same Act: Part IV, Section 2(2) states that all decisions of the Council shall be passed by a simple majority of all sitting Councillors. Nothing in Part V displaces or narrows that definition, and a term left undefined in one Part of a statute takes the meaning fixed for it elsewhere in the same statute rather than a separate, unstated meaning invented for the occasion. Reading Part V's majority vote requirement together with Part IV's definition, as the Act itself compels, a majority means a majority of the Council's sitting membership, not a majority of however many members happened to cast a non-abstaining vote. With 4 sitting Councillors, a majority requires 3 votes in favor. The motion received only 2 votes in favor. An interpretation that instead measures majority against only the votes cast — allowing an abstention to be silently dropped from the count — has no textual basis anywhere in the Act and cannot be reconciled with Part IV, Section 2(2). The censure was therefore passed without the majority the Act requires and is void.

CLAIM II — MISUSE OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE ALLEGATION UNSUPPORTED BY THE CODE OF CONDUCT

The Code of Conduct's Misuse of Artificial Intelligence provision defines the misconduct it addresses by reference to specific defects in the substance of a lawyer's work: fabricated authorities, misrepresented facts or holdings, unsupported legal propositions, falsified procedural claims, and improperly blended legal standards. It is these substantive defects, and the harm they cause to clients, courts, and the profession, that the provision is designed to catch. The motion identified none of them. It did not point to a single fabricated citation, misstated fact, unsupported proposition, false procedural claim, or blended standard in any of the Plaintiff's filings. Instead, the motion substituted an entirely different test of its own invention — that the Plaintiff was handling four cases at once and that a single response was filed faster than a threshold the Council set for itself without any basis in the Code, technical authority, or evidence. Caseload volume says nothing about how any particular filing was produced, and by the motion's own figures, roughly 6 of the 11 minutes remained after reading the objection for the Plaintiff, an attorney immersed in the DCR 77 record for weeks, to compose a reply from facts and arguments already prepared. An allegation resting on a standard the Code of Conduct does not contain, applied to conduct the Code's own enumerated indicators do not describe, is not merely weak but ultra vires the provision it purports to enforce, and cannot sustain a disciplinary finding.

BAR has shown speed and number of cases opened as a sign of "Misuse of AI" that was not recognized in any governing document.

CLAIM III — DISPROPORTIONATE DISCIPLINE ON THE REMAINING ALLEGATIONS

The remaining two allegations, even taken at face value, do not describe conduct warranting censure. The first concerns a citation the Plaintiff relied upon in good faith after encountering it in a prior case, at most a research error rather than a breach of trust or integrity, and one that other licensed attorneys have made in DCR 85, DCR 87, and DCR 102 without facing any BAR discipline; disciplining the Plaintiff alone for conduct the Bar Association has otherwise tolerated across multiple other cases cannot be reconciled with the even-handed application of the Code of Conduct. The second concerns conduct the Plaintiff corrected immediately upon judicial instruction, occurring only once, during discovery, in the Plaintiff's second case as a licensed attorney — the kind of early-practice mistake the Code of Conduct's own stated purpose, to guide rather than to nitpick, counsels against punishing so severely, particularly where no repetition followed the correction.

In order to have no conflict of interest whatsoever, the Plaintiff is asking for a Judge that was not server in MMiqa v. rykazard [2026] DCR 69 case.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

1. Declare the censure issued against the Plaintiff on August 5, 2026 void and of no legal effect.
2. Order the Bar Association of Redmont to remove the censure from the Plaintiff's record.
3. Any other relief the Court finds just and proper.

REPRESENTATION

The Plaintiff, MMiqa, is a licensed Attorney of the Bar Association of Redmont and is representing themselves in this matter.

By making this submission, I agree I understand the penalties of lying in court and the fact that I am subject to perjury should I knowingly make a false statement in court.

DATED: This 10th day of August, 2026

MMiqa
Plaintiff, Self-Represented
Licensed Attorney, Bar Association of Redmont

This is similarly struck.

CreeperTD · Aug 12, 2026

MMiqa said:
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION

MMiqa
Plaintiff

v.

Bar Association of Redmont
Defendant

COMPLAINT

WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF

On August 5, 2026, the Bar Association of Redmont Council passed a Motion to Censure the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff brings this action on two grounds: the censure was passed without the requisite majority, and a Councillor with a direct conflict of interest participated in the vote.

I. PARTIES

1. MMiqa, Plaintiff, Licensed Attorney of the Bar Association of Redmont.
2. Bar Association of Redmont, Defendant.

II. FACTS

1. On August 5, 2026, a Motion to Censure was filed against the Plaintiff before the BAR Council.

2. The BAR Council voted as follows: 2 in favor, 1 abstained, 1 against.

3. The Bar Association of Redmont announced that the motion passed.

4. At the time of the vote, the BAR Council consisted of 4 active members following the resignation of one Councillor.

5. Councillor CreeperTD participated in the vote. CreeperTD is a named DHS Recruit in MMiqa v. Department of Homeland Security [2026] DCR 77 — an active case in which CreeperTD's own conduct is directly at issue as evidence against the Defendant.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

CLAIM I — INSUFFICIENT MAJORITY

The Redmont Bar Association Act Part V §1(4) requires sanctions to be imposed by majority vote. With 4 active Council members, a majority requires 3 votes in favor. The motion received only 2 votes in favor. An abstention is not an affirmative vote and cannot count toward a majority. The censure was passed without the requisite majority and is void.

CLAIM II — CONFLICT OF INTEREST

CreeperTD is a named officer in MMiqa v. Department of Homeland Security [2026] DCR 77 — an active case in which CreeperTD's conduct is directly at issue as evidence. CreeperTD voted to censure the attorney actively litigating that case against CreeperTD's own department. This constitutes a direct conflict of interest. CreeperTD's vote must be disregarded. The Plaintiff notes that even with CreeperTD's vote included, the required majority was not reached — 2 votes in favor out of 4 active members does not constitute a majority. With CreeperTD's vote removed, the motion fails even more decisively with only 1 vote in favor. In either scenario, the censure was not validly passed.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

1. Declare the censure issued against the Plaintiff on August 5, 2026 void and of no legal effect.
2. Order the Bar Association of Redmont to remove the censure from the Plaintiff's record.
3. Any other relief the Court finds just and proper.

REPRESENTATION

The Plaintiff, MMiqa, is a licensed Attorney of the Bar Association of Redmont and is representing themselves in this matter.

By making this submission, I agree I understand the penalties of lying in court and the fact that I am subject to perjury should I knowingly make a false statement in court.

DATED: This 10th day of August, 2026

MMiqa
Plaintiff, Self-Represented
Licensed Attorney, Bar Association of Redmont

Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - PERJURY
Your honor, the Plaintiff has made three assertions as fact that are entirely false, those being that 1) The Motion to Censure failed to reach the requisite majority, 2) That then Councillor CreeperTD voted to censure the Plaintiff, and 3) that the Council consisted of only 4 councillors when the Plaintiff was censured. The Defense will now address each of these individually.

1) In Claim 1 of the Plaintiff’s Claims for Relief, it was asserted that:

The Redmont Bar Association Act Part V §1(4) requires sanctions to be imposed by majority vote. With 4 active Council members, a majority requires 3 votes in favor. The motion received only 2 votes in favor. An abstention is not an affirmative vote and cannot count toward a majority. The censure was passed without the requisite majority and is void.

Bar Association of Redmont Act Part IV §2(2) states that “All decisions of the Council shall be passed by a simple majority of all sitting Councillors.” As registered by then Councillor CreeperTD, the Motion to Censure MMiqa (also labeled BAR 1 - 07) passed with 2 members voting in favor, 1 member voting against, and 1 member abstaining. (D-001) As defined by the BAR act, the motion had received a simple majority of votes, as a councillor voting abstain means that their vote will count towards the quorum, but not count as either an Aye or a Nay. This should be well known by the Plaintiff, which is why it is so confusing as to why they have made this obviously false assertion. Quorum was also reached, meaning that then Chairperson Dr_Eksplosive’s failure to vote did not affect whether or not the motion passed. The assertion that the motion didn’t pass with the requisite majority is frankly ridiculous, and the Plaintiff should know this.
2) In Claim II, the Plaintiff states that, “CreeperTD voted to censure the attorney actively litigating that case against CreeperTD's own department.” Then Councillor CreeperTD did not vote to censure the Plaintiff, rather they voted abstain. (D-001) This information is publicly available to anyone who has joined the BAR discord server, which the Plaintiff was entirely able to do, but instead, they made the assertion that the councillor voted in favor of censuring them without any evidence of them having done so. In addition, the Plaintiff asserts that “With CreeperTD's vote removed, the motion fails even more decisively with only 1 vote in favor.” This is also entirely false. The two members who voted Aye on the Motion to Censure were Councillors OwnedBlock and xVoltrix. Quorum would have been reached for the motion with or without then Councillor CreeperTD’s vote to abstain, which once again shows that the Plaintiff’s assertion was factually incorrect.
3) Former Chairperson Dr_Eksplosive resigned on 8th August, 2026 at approximately 3:01 AM CDT. (D-002) The vote on the motion to censure MMiqa was finalized on 4th August, 2026 at approximately 9:40 AM CDT. (D-003) At the time of the events in question, there was no vacancy on the BAR council, unlike what the Plaintiff has asserted. Again, this information is publicly available, and yet the Plaintiff has seemingly ignored reality and made their own assertions based on what they felt was correct.

The Defense humbly requests the court charge MMiqa with perjury, as all of these statements made by the Plaintiff were entirely false and supported by neither evidence nor reality.

Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO DISMISS

The Defence moves that the complaint in this case be dismissed in its entirety under Rule 5.14 (Factual Error), as the Plaintiff has made multiple key factual errors in their initial complaint. In support thereof, the Defense respectfully alleges:

As stated above in the Defense’s motion to dismiss, the Plaintiff has made 3 false assertions, namely:
1) The Motion to Censure failed to reach the requisite majority,
2) That then Councillor CreeperTD voted to censure the Plaintiff, and
3) that the Council consisted of only 4 councillors when the Plaintiff was censured.

What is most important for the purposes of this case are assertions 1 and 2. The Plaintiff’s claims for relief and their standing entirely relies on those two facts being true, as it’s the only illegal action that the Plaintiff is alleging that the Defendant undertook. Given the fact that neither of these facts are true, the Plaintiff no longer has a cause of action to pursue this case, meaning that their factual error results in the Plaintiff having no standing to pursue this civil action.

The Defense humbly requests that the complaint be dismissed with prejudice, as no illegal action has occurred, and the Plaintiff’s arguments that an illegal action did occur are manifestly false.

CreeperTD · Aug 12, 2026

Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - BREACH OF PROCEDURE

Your Honor,

The Defense humbly requests that this case be remanded to the District Court, as this case does not follow under the Federal Court's jurisdiction as stated in Information - Creating a Lawsuit in the Federal Court:

These are the limitations of the Federal Court:

Questions of constitutionality

The‌ ‌Federal Court‌ can issue ‌judgments‌ ‌on‌ all ‌criminal‌ ‌prosecutions‌ ‌that‌ may ‌result‌ in jail time exceeding 60 minutes or $10,000 in fines.

The‌ ‌Federal Court‌ ‌can issue ‌judgments‌ ‌on‌ ‌all civil‌ ‌cases‌ ‌whose‌ ‌value‌ is ‌above $120,000.

The Federal Court can issue judgements on appeals from the District Court.

Any cases of significance that do not fit within the established bounds of court jurisdictions.

This case does not meet any of those requirements, as there is no constitutional issue at stake here, nor is any money judgment being sought. The only prayer for relief in this lawsuit is for a retraction of a censure, or returning to the status quo from before the case. There is no reason for this case to be in the Federal Court.

MMiqa · Aug 12, 2026

CreeperTD said:
Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - PERJURY
Your honor, the Plaintiff has made three assertions as fact that are entirely false, those being that 1) The Motion to Censure failed to reach the requisite majority, 2) That then Councillor CreeperTD voted to censure the Plaintiff, and 3) that the Council consisted of only 4 councillors when the Plaintiff was censured. The Defense will now address each of these individually.

1) In Claim 1 of the Plaintiff’s Claims for Relief, it was asserted that:
Bar Association of Redmont Act Part IV §2(2) states that “All decisions of the Council shall be passed by a simple majority of all sitting Councillors.” As registered by then Councillor CreeperTD, the Motion to Censure MMiqa (also labeled BAR 1 - 07) passed with 2 members voting in favor, 1 member voting against, and 1 member abstaining. (D-001) As defined by the BAR act, the motion had received a simple majority of votes, as a councillor voting abstain means that their vote will count towards the quorum, but not count as either an Aye or a Nay. This should be well known by the Plaintiff, which is why it is so confusing as to why they have made this obviously false assertion. Quorum was also reached, meaning that then Chairperson Dr_Eksplosive’s failure to vote did not affect whether or not the motion passed. The assertion that the motion didn’t pass with the requisite majority is frankly ridiculous, and the Plaintiff should know this.
2) In Claim II, the Plaintiff states that, “CreeperTD voted to censure the attorney actively litigating that case against CreeperTD's own department.” Then Councillor CreeperTD did not vote to censure the Plaintiff, rather they voted abstain. (D-001) This information is publicly available to anyone who has joined the BAR discord server, which the Plaintiff was entirely able to do, but instead, they made the assertion that the councillor voted in favor of censuring them without any evidence of them having done so. In addition, the Plaintiff asserts that “With CreeperTD's vote removed, the motion fails even more decisively with only 1 vote in favor.” This is also entirely false. The two members who voted Aye on the Motion to Censure were Councillors OwnedBlock and xVoltrix. Quorum would have been reached for the motion with or without then Councillor CreeperTD’s vote to abstain, which once again shows that the Plaintiff’s assertion was factually incorrect.
3) Former Chairperson Dr_Eksplosive resigned on 8th August, 2026 at approximately 3:01 AM CDT. (D-002) The vote on the motion to censure MMiqa was finalized on 4th August, 2026 at approximately 9:40 AM CDT. (D-003) At the time of the events in question, there was no vacancy on the BAR council, unlike what the Plaintiff has asserted. Again, this information is publicly available, and yet the Plaintiff has seemingly ignored reality and made their own assertions based on what they felt was correct.

The Defense humbly requests the court charge MMiqa with perjury, as all of these statements made by the Plaintiff were entirely false and supported by neither evidence nor reality.

Response to Objection

The Defendant cannot submit evidence before discovery, especially before we see answer to complaint from the Defendant. I am requesting Judge Superwoops to strike these evidences. It is a shame that Spokesperson of BAR does not know this fact. The Plaintiff wishes not to pursue Perjury, since he simply made a mistake.

Court Rule & Procedures 4.6
Evidence entered in during discovery will be required to be labeled appropriately following the mentioned naming conventions (plaintiff/p-### / defense/d-###). Evidence that is not properly formatted can be motioned to be struck for improper formatting. Evidence which are 'cdn.discord.com' links are INADMISSIBLE... Images must be uploaded DIRECTLY TO THE FORUMS to be submitted as evidence.

ON CLAIM I

Bar Association of Redmont Act does not have a clause that includes anything related to abstaining, it only states that

In Part IV
2(2)"All decisions of the Council shall be passed by a simple majority of all sitting Councillors."

Out of 5 sitting council members only 2 of them voted "aye", The Plaintiff wishes to see how 40% is majority.

It does not speak about anything related to abstaining, as you can Control+F and check for "abstain" as a word, you only find two matches, for Congress voting only, nothing in the text itself. The Plaintiff wishes to advice CreeperTD before checking the law that is related to his/her/their job and this file. It seems like "hallucination" to me, something that does not exist.

The argument he wishes to find is here, funny enough, it is an "amended" law that he used, I think that Judge Superwoops agrees that Defendant CreeperTD did not to that knowingly. If that is not the case, why did the Defendent referenced an act where it is actually somewhere else? In other cases this was explained as "AI hallucinations", which fits this case.

Without CLAIM II, this fact is easily a proof that this was done improperly. open like a book. Even with 5 members, the votes cast for aye is two, and with one abstain, it is 2 aye, 1 against, and one did not vote. This is not "majority" when there is 5 members in a Council and 2 members votes "aye".

ON CLAIM II

Plaintiff is not in the BAR discord, normally for every Censure vote, they publish who voted for what, in the case of MMiqa, they did not. MMiqa did not see on WIKI that who voted for what and how many currently sitting Council members out there.

Again, CLAIM I is alone enough to prove that this process was not followed by the proper procedure.

Court Proceedings

MMiqa · Aug 12, 2026

CreeperTD said:
Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO DISMISS

The Defence moves that the complaint in this case be dismissed in its entirety under Rule 5.14 (Factual Error), as the Plaintiff has made multiple key factual errors in their initial complaint. In support thereof, the Defense respectfully alleges:

As stated above in the Defense’s motion to dismiss, the Plaintiff has made 3 false assertions, namely:
1) The Motion to Censure failed to reach the requisite majority,
2) That then Councillor CreeperTD voted to censure the Plaintiff, and
3) that the Council consisted of only 4 councillors when the Plaintiff was censured.

What is most important for the purposes of this case are assertions 1 and 2. The Plaintiff’s claims for relief and their standing entirely relies on those two facts being true, as it’s the only illegal action that the Plaintiff is alleging that the Defendant undertook. Given the fact that neither of these facts are true, the Plaintiff no longer has a cause of action to pursue this case, meaning that their factual error results in the Plaintiff having no standing to pursue this civil action.

The Defense humbly requests that the complaint be dismissed with prejudice, as no illegal action has occurred, and the Plaintiff’s arguments that an illegal action did occur are manifestly false.

Response to Motion to Dismiss

As The Plaintiff stated before, without FACT II, Fact I is easily the proof that this was done improperly. With 5 sitting council members, only 2 votes were casted "aye", this is not simple majority, even if we don't count abstain, which we shouldn't do, but for the sake of the argument even if we do, the FACT still exist and The Plaintiff wishes to show proof to his claim.

Proof on Plaintiff's side:

Bar Association of Redmont Act Part IV
"2(2) - All decisions of the Council shall be passed by a simple majority of all sitting Councillors."

In Part V - Discipline as a whole

"PART V — DISCIPLINE
1. Disciplinary Powers

(1) The Council of the BAR may investigate any member of the BAR for conduct that:
(a) Breaches the ethical, professional, or legal standards of the BAR; or
(b) Brings the legal profession into disrepute; or
(c) Constitutes a legal offence under any other law.

(2) Investigations shall be:
(a) Conducted in a fair and impartial manner;
(b) Fact-finding in nature, limited to gathering and assessing evidence related to the alleged conduct; and
(c) Concluded with a written summary of findings, including all evidence gathered, which shall be provided to the subject of the investigation and may be published publicly.

(3) Following an investigation, the Council may impose any of the following sanctions by majority vote:
(a) A private warning; or
(b) A public censure or reprimand.

(4) No sanction under subsection (3) may be imposed without:
(a) Written notice to the member of the alleged conduct and the evidence supporting it;
(b) A reasonable opportunity for the member to respond to the evidence; and
(c) A majority vote of the Council in favour of the sanction."

The Plaintiff wishes to show that the Defendent, a BAR spokesperson did not follow through basic procedure to punish someone.

We wish to see from the Defendent in this document where it says that abstain votes are not count.

MMiqa · Aug 12, 2026

CreeperTD said:
Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - PERJURY
Your honor, the Plaintiff has made three assertions as fact that are entirely false, those being that 1) The Motion to Censure failed to reach the requisite majority, 2) That then Councillor CreeperTD voted to censure the Plaintiff, and 3) that the Council consisted of only 4 councillors when the Plaintiff was censured. The Defense will now address each of these individually.

1) In Claim 1 of the Plaintiff’s Claims for Relief, it was asserted that:
Bar Association of Redmont Act Part IV §2(2) states that “All decisions of the Council shall be passed by a simple majority of all sitting Councillors.” As registered by then Councillor CreeperTD, the Motion to Censure MMiqa (also labeled BAR 1 - 07) passed with 2 members voting in favor, 1 member voting against, and 1 member abstaining. (D-001) As defined by the BAR act, the motion had received a simple majority of votes, as a councillor voting abstain means that their vote will count towards the quorum, but not count as either an Aye or a Nay. This should be well known by the Plaintiff, which is why it is so confusing as to why they have made this obviously false assertion. Quorum was also reached, meaning that then Chairperson Dr_Eksplosive’s failure to vote did not affect whether or not the motion passed. The assertion that the motion didn’t pass with the requisite majority is frankly ridiculous, and the Plaintiff should know this.
2) In Claim II, the Plaintiff states that, “CreeperTD voted to censure the attorney actively litigating that case against CreeperTD's own department.” Then Councillor CreeperTD did not vote to censure the Plaintiff, rather they voted abstain. (D-001) This information is publicly available to anyone who has joined the BAR discord server, which the Plaintiff was entirely able to do, but instead, they made the assertion that the councillor voted in favor of censuring them without any evidence of them having done so. In addition, the Plaintiff asserts that “With CreeperTD's vote removed, the motion fails even more decisively with only 1 vote in favor.” This is also entirely false. The two members who voted Aye on the Motion to Censure were Councillors OwnedBlock and xVoltrix. Quorum would have been reached for the motion with or without then Councillor CreeperTD’s vote to abstain, which once again shows that the Plaintiff’s assertion was factually incorrect.
3) Former Chairperson Dr_Eksplosive resigned on 8th August, 2026 at approximately 3:01 AM CDT. (D-002) The vote on the motion to censure MMiqa was finalized on 4th August, 2026 at approximately 9:40 AM CDT. (D-003) At the time of the events in question, there was no vacancy on the BAR council, unlike what the Plaintiff has asserted. Again, this information is publicly available, and yet the Plaintiff has seemingly ignored reality and made their own assertions based on what they felt was correct.

The Defense humbly requests the court charge MMiqa with perjury, as all of these statements made by the Plaintiff were entirely false and supported by neither evidence nor reality.

Motion

Motion to Strike

The Defendant is not permitted to send evidence before Discovery, The Plaintiff wishes to see the parts that refers to the "evidences" struck from record.

Evidence is shown here in Court Proceedings.

MMiqa · Aug 12, 2026

CreeperTD said:
Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - BREACH OF PROCEDURE

Your Honor,

The Defense humbly requests that this case be remanded to the District Court, as this case does not follow under the Federal Court's jurisdiction as stated in Information - Creating a Lawsuit in the Federal Court:

This case does not meet any of those requirements, as there is no constitutional issue at stake here, nor is any money judgment being sought. The only prayer for relief in this lawsuit is for a retraction of a censure, or returning to the status quo from before the case. There is no reason for this case to be in the Federal Court.

Response to Objection

The Plaintiff wishes to send the full, uncut version of the section:

FEDERAL COURT JURISIDICTION
The‌ ‌Federal Court‌ ‌of‌ ‌Redmont‌ ‌hears‌ ‌all‌ ‌major‌ ‌civil‌ ‌and‌ ‌criminal‌ ‌disputes‌ ‌in‌ ‌the‌ ‌first‌ ‌instance, presided over by a Judge. ‌If you are unsure as to whether you should file the case in the Federal Court, please seek the advice of a lawyer. These are the limitations of the Federal Court:

Questions of constitutionality
The‌ ‌Federal Court‌ can issue ‌judgments‌ ‌on‌ all ‌criminal‌ ‌prosecutions‌ ‌that‌ may ‌result‌ in jail time exceeding 60 minutes or $10,000 in fines.
The‌ ‌Federal Court‌ ‌can issue ‌judgments‌ ‌on‌ ‌all civil‌ ‌cases‌ ‌whose‌ ‌value‌ is ‌above $120,000.
The Federal Court can issue judgements on appeals from the District Court.
Any cases of significance that do not fit within the established bounds of court jurisdictions.
The‌ ‌Federal Court‌ ‌can‌ ‌request‌ ‌that‌ ‌a‌ ‌plaintiff‌ ‌have‌ ‌a‌ ‌lawyer‌ ‌in‌ ‌order‌ ‌to‌ ‌proceed‌ ‌with‌ ‌their‌ ‌case.‌ ‌

If your case is of a smaller dispute, you may consider seeking litigation in the District Court. If you case involves anything of the latter, you may consider seeking litigation in the Supreme Court.

If needed, there is a predecent that happened to the Plaintiff here, the Defendant is trying to exaggerate to dismiss this case with prejudice to deny his right to find justice.

There is no need to push it for dismiss, it can be moved there as it happened before, and definetely if not with prejudice, this is not fair and just in Court standards. In the same time the Plaintiff wishes not to file a perjury for basic mistakes the Defendant made about the BAR that he is a spokeperson of, people make mistakes, we are all looking for justice here.

CreeperTD · Aug 12, 2026

MMiqa said:
Motion

Motion to Strike

The Defendant is not permitted to send evidence before Discovery, The Plaintiff wishes to see the parts that refers to the "evidences" struck from record.

Evidence is shown below.

Criminal Proceedings
Civil Proceedings
Expungement
Proceedings
Appeal Proceedings
Pre-Trial
Pre-Trial
CHARGES LAID
Prosecution
LAWSUIT FILED
Plaintiff
EXPUNGEMENT REQUEST FILED
Petitioner
APPEAL FILED
Appellant
|
|
|
|
PLEA
Defendant
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
Defendant
ELIGIBILITY
CONFIRMED
Attorney General
VERDICT TO
GIVE APPEAL
Judges
|
|
|
|
DISCOVERY
EVIDENCE FILING +
WITNESS LIST
DISCOVERY
EVIDENCE FILING +
WITNESS LISTS
VERDICT
Judge
(If Accepted)
APPELLATE TRIAL
Trial Commences
Trial Commences
|
|
OPENING STATEMENT
Prosecution
OPENING STATEMENT
Plaintiff
(If Accepted)
EXPUNGEMENT ORDER
Judge
APPELLANT BRIEF
(Appellant)
|
|
|
OPENING STATEMENT
Defendant
OPENING STATEMENT
Defendant
APPELLEE BRIEF
(Appellee)
|
|
|
WITNESS TESTIMONY &
CROSS-EXAMINATION
WITNESS TESTIMONY &
CROSS- EXAMINATION
OPPORTUNITY FOR APPELLANT
RESPONSE
(Appellant)
|
|
CLOSING STATEMENT
Prosecution
CLOSING STATEMENT
Plaintiff
IN-GAME ORAL ARGUMENTS
(If requested)
|
|
CLOSING STATEMENT
Defendant
CLOSING STATEMENT
Defendant
|
|
Punishment Phase of Trial
Damages Phase of Trial
(If requested)

Pursuant to §4(4) of the Regulations of the Federal Court, the Defense responds to this motion:

Your Honor,
It is explicitly stated in Guide - Objections that "Proof of perjury should be presented with the objection," meaning that even if the Plaintiff's assertion were true, the Defense's submission of evidence with an objection for perjury would be allowed. In addition, the Plaintiff's assertion that the Defense cannot submit evidence before discovery is absurd! In the Guide - Templates, Answer to Complaints have a section for submitting evidence as part of the answer, and evidence submissions for answers, which occur before discovery, have been submitted in the past (see MJL_ v. LegoMasterW472 [2026] DCR 118). The Defense respectfully requests that the Plaintiff's motion to strike be denied.

CreeperTD · Aug 12, 2026

CreeperTD said:
Pursuant to §4(4) the Regulations of the Federal Court, the Defense responds to this motion:

Your Honor,
It is explicitly stated in Guide - Objections that "Proof of perjury should be presented with the objection," meaning that even if the Plaintiff's assertion were true, the Defense's submission of evidence with an objection for perjury would be allowed. In addition, the Plaintiff's assertion that the Defense cannot submit evidence before discovery is absurd! In the Guide - Templates, Answer to Complaints have a section for submitting evidence as part of the answer, and evidence submissions for answers, which occur before discovery, have been submitted in the past (see MJL_ v. LegoMasterW472 [2026] DCR 118). The Defense respectfully requests that the Plaintiff's motion to strike be denied.

Edited to fix a minor error:
Pursuant to §4(4) of the Regulations of the Federal Court, the Defense responds to this motion:

CreeperTD · Aug 12, 2026

MMiqa said:
Response to Objection

The Plaintiff wishes to send the full, uncut version of the section:

FEDERAL COURT JURISIDICTION
The‌ ‌Federal Court‌ ‌of‌ ‌Redmont‌ ‌hears‌ ‌all‌ ‌major‌ ‌civil‌ ‌and‌ ‌criminal‌ ‌disputes‌ ‌in‌ ‌the‌ ‌first‌ ‌instance, presided over by a Judge. ‌If you are unsure as to whether you should file the case in the Federal Court, please seek the advice of a lawyer. These are the limitations of the Federal Court:

Questions of constitutionality

The‌ ‌Federal Court‌ can issue ‌judgments‌ ‌on‌ all ‌criminal‌ ‌prosecutions‌ ‌that‌ may ‌result‌ in jail time exceeding 60 minutes or $10,000 in fines.

The‌ ‌Federal Court‌ ‌can issue ‌judgments‌ ‌on‌ ‌all civil‌ ‌cases‌ ‌whose‌ ‌value‌ is ‌above $120,000.

The Federal Court can issue judgements on appeals from the District Court.

Any cases of significance that do not fit within the established bounds of court jurisdictions.

The‌ ‌Federal Court‌ ‌can‌ ‌request‌ ‌that‌ ‌a‌ ‌plaintiff‌ ‌have‌ ‌a‌ ‌lawyer‌ ‌in‌ ‌order‌ ‌to‌ ‌proceed‌ ‌with‌ ‌their‌ ‌case.‌ ‌

If your case is of a smaller dispute, you may consider seeking litigation in the District Court. If you case involves anything of the latter, you may consider seeking litigation in the Supreme Court.

If needed, there is a predecent that happened to the Plaintiff here, the Defendant is trying to exaggerate to dismiss this case with prejudice to deny his right to find justice.

There is no need to push it for dismiss, it can be moved there as it happened before, and definetely if not with prejudice, this is not fair and just in Court standards. In the same time the Plaintiff wishes not to file a perjury for basic mistakes the Defendant made about the BAR that he is a spokeperson of, people make mistakes, we are all looking for justice here.

Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - PERJURY

Your honor,

The Plaintiff has falsely claimed that the objection to which they are responding to is asking to dismiss the case. This is not the case, as the court can easily see. The Plaintiff appears to be claiming this in an attempt to address other filings that are unrelated to this one, and thus the Defense humbly asks for this response to be struck and for the Plaintiff to be charged with Perjury.

MMiqa · Aug 12, 2026

CreeperTD said:
Pursuant to §4(4) of the Regulations of the Federal Court, the Defense responds to this motion:

Your Honor,
It is explicitly stated in Guide - Objections that "Proof of perjury should be presented with the objection," meaning that even if the Plaintiff's assertion were true, the Defense's submission of evidence with an objection for perjury would be allowed. In addition, the Plaintiff's assertion that the Defense cannot submit evidence before discovery is absurd! In the Guide - Templates, Answer to Complaints have a section for submitting evidence as part of the answer, and evidence submissions for answers, which occur before discovery, have been submitted in the past (see MJL_ v. LegoMasterW472 [2026] DCR 118). The Defense respectfully requests that the Plaintiff's motion to strike be denied.

Objection

OBJECTION - BREACH OF PROCEDURE

The Defense's own precedent, MJL_ v. LegoMasterW472 [2026] DCR 118, actually supports the Plaintiff's position. In that case, evidence was submitted through a properly filed Answer to Complaint, which Rule 4 permits. The Defense here has not filed an Answer at all. Evidence cannot be submitted before an Answer to Complaint is filed, and the precedent the Defense cites shows exactly that requirement being followed, not an exception to it.

On top of that, the Defendant replied to a Motion to Strike before asking for permission from Judge.

MMiqa · Aug 12, 2026

CreeperTD said:
Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - PERJURY

Your honor,

The Plaintiff has falsely claimed that the objection to which they are responding to is asking to dismiss the case. This is not the case, as the court can easily see. The Plaintiff appears to be claiming this in an attempt to address other filings that are unrelated to this one, and thus the Defense humbly asks for this response to be struck and for the Plaintiff to be charged with Perjury.

Response to Objection

The Plaintiff ask that how with 5 sitting councillors, a motion to censure passed with 2 aye votes.

If the Defendant has no answer to this claim factually, rather than answering with amended laws from different Acts and making up claims the Plaintiff wishes to continue this case.

The Plaintiff shows good faith for every mistake the Defendant has done as mistakes rather than perjury, but the way that the chairperson of the BAR is punishing people without majority and underestimates the right to look for justice should be on this record.

CreeperTD · Aug 12, 2026

MMiqa said:
Response to Objection

The Plaintiff ask that how with 5 sitting councillors, a motion to censure passed with 2 aye votes.

If the Defendant has no answer to this claim factually, rather than answering with amended laws from different Acts and making up claims the Plaintiff wishes to continue this case.

The Plaintiff shows good faith for every mistake the Defendant has done as mistakes rather than perjury, but the way that the chairperson of the BAR is punishing people without majority and underestimates the right to look for justice should be on this record.

Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - BREACH OF PROCEDURE

The Plaintiff is using a response to objection to make legal arguments unrelated to the content of that objection. The Defense humbly requests that the Plaintiff's legal commentary be struck.

MMiqa · Aug 12, 2026

Response to Objection

The Plaintiff showed the mistake the Defendant made, and filed for Breach of Procedure he could have filed for a perjury, if the Defendant wishes. This is a sign of good faith that he wishes not to punish people for basic human mistakes the Defendant did, if the Defendant becomes more agressive with false claims, the Plaintiff will change their position respectively.

CreeperTD · Aug 12, 2026

MMiqa said:
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION

MMiqa
Plaintiff

v.

Bar Association of Redmont
Defendant

COMPLAINT

WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF

On August 5, 2026, the Bar Association of Redmont Council passed a Motion to Censure the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff brings this action on two grounds: the censure was passed without the requisite majority, and a Councillor with a direct conflict of interest participated in the vote.

I. PARTIES

1. MMiqa, Plaintiff, Licensed Attorney of the Bar Association of Redmont.
2. Bar Association of Redmont, Defendant.

II. FACTS

1. On August 5, 2026, a Motion to Censure was filed against the Plaintiff before the BAR Council.

2. The BAR Council voted as follows: 2 in favor, 1 abstained, 1 against.

3. The Bar Association of Redmont announced that the motion passed.

4. At the time of the vote, the BAR Council consisted of 4 active members following the resignation of one Councillor.

5. Councillor CreeperTD participated in the vote. CreeperTD is a named DHS Recruit in MMiqa v. Department of Homeland Security [2026] DCR 77 — an active case in which CreeperTD's own conduct is directly at issue as evidence against the Defendant.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

CLAIM I — INSUFFICIENT MAJORITY

The Redmont Bar Association Act Part V §1(4) requires sanctions to be imposed by majority vote. With 4 active Council members, a majority requires 3 votes in favor. The motion received only 2 votes in favor. An abstention is not an affirmative vote and cannot count toward a majority. The censure was passed without the requisite majority and is void.

CLAIM II — CONFLICT OF INTEREST

CreeperTD is a named officer in MMiqa v. Department of Homeland Security [2026] DCR 77 — an active case in which CreeperTD's conduct is directly at issue as evidence. CreeperTD voted to censure the attorney actively litigating that case against CreeperTD's own department. This constitutes a direct conflict of interest. CreeperTD's vote must be disregarded. The Plaintiff notes that even with CreeperTD's vote included, the required majority was not reached — 2 votes in favor out of 4 active members does not constitute a majority. With CreeperTD's vote removed, the motion fails even more decisively with only 1 vote in favor. In either scenario, the censure was not validly passed.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

1. Declare the censure issued against the Plaintiff on August 5, 2026 void and of no legal effect.
2. Order the Bar Association of Redmont to remove the censure from the Plaintiff's record.
3. Any other relief the Court finds just and proper.

REPRESENTATION

The Plaintiff, MMiqa, is a licensed Attorney of the Bar Association of Redmont and is representing themselves in this matter.

By making this submission, I agree I understand the penalties of lying in court and the fact that I am subject to perjury should I knowingly make a false statement in court.

DATED: This 10th day of August, 2026

MMiqa
Plaintiff, Self-Represented
Licensed Attorney, Bar Association of Redmont

MMiqa said:
Objection

OBJECTION - BREACH OF PROCEDURE

The Defense's own precedent, MJL_ v. LegoMasterW472 [2026] DCR 118, actually supports the Plaintiff's position. In that case, evidence was submitted through a properly filed Answer to Complaint, which Rule 4 permits. The Defense here has not filed an Answer at all. Evidence cannot be submitted before an Answer to Complaint is filed, and the precedent the Defense cites shows exactly that requirement being followed, not an exception to it.

On top of that, the Defendant replied to a Motion to Strike before asking for permission from Judge.

Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - BREACH OF PROCEDURE

Your Honor,
In both of these filings, the Plaintiff has failed to properly hyperlink their sources as required by Rule 1.10. In their initial complaint, the Plaintiff has also failed to properly format their post in line with Guide - Templates, which requires its templates to be used in cases, and as is required by Rule 3.1. with relation to the requirements set out in Information - Creating a Lawsuit in the Federal Court. The Defense humbly requests the court to require the Plaintiff to amend their filings or to have them be struck.

MMiqa · Aug 12, 2026

CreeperTD said:
Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - BREACH OF PROCEDURE

Your Honor,
In both of these filings, the Plaintiff has failed to properly hyperlink their sources as required by Rule 1.10. In their initial complaint, the Plaintiff has also failed to properly format their post in line with Guide - Templates, which requires its templates to be used in cases, and as is required by Rule 3.1. with relation to the requirements set out in Information - Creating a Lawsuit in the Federal Court. The Defense humbly requests the court to require the Plaintiff to amend their filings or to have them be struck.

Response to Objection

As stated before, in the case of a file is wrongfull opened in a different court, Judge can easily move this case to District Court.

If The Judge sees it fit, The Plaintiff would like to make the changes as the Court requires.

CreeperTD · Aug 12, 2026

Your honor,

The defense humbly requests that the deadline for the answer be tolled until the ruling on the motion to dismiss and, preferably, all objections. What is being answered may substantially change as a result of the objections that were filed.

MMiqa · Aug 12, 2026

Objection

OBJECTION - BREACH OF PROCEDURE

Your Honor,

The Plaintiff objects to the Defendant's request to toll the Answer deadline until rulings on the Motion to Dismiss and all objections. No provision of the Court Rules and Procedures tolls or suspends the Answer deadline pending a Motion to Dismiss or any objection. Rule 6.6 sets the standard response time for an Answer to Complaint at 48 hours, with extensions available only by request and a 24 hour minimum.

What the Defendant has requested is not an extension. An extension asks for more time within the existing framework of Rule 6.6. The Defense instead asks the Court to withhold the Answer indefinitely, conditioned on the resolution of every objection and the Motion to Dismiss, an open-ended condition with no basis anywhere in the Court Rules.

The Plaintiff respectfully requests that this request be denied, and that the Answer deadline proceed under Rule 6.6 as written.

In the past, the Judge in Plura72 v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] FCR 69 did not toll the time for Defence and warned them, that the time was passing by even before the Motion to Dismiss was answered, and the Defendant's request for extension was denied, since possibly the Defendant waited on purpose for an answer to complaint until the Motion to Dismiss was answered.

In this case, CreeperTD used all of their time on filing motions and objections that some references laws and facts that don't exist, with this time they could have prepared an answer. On top of that, they have not produced a valid reason for the untimed extension for the answer to complaint

Superwoops · Aug 12, 2026

CreeperTD said:
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - PERJURY
Your honor, the Plaintiff has made three assertions as fact that are entirely false, those being that 1) The Motion to Censure failed to reach the requisite majority, 2) That then Councillor CreeperTD voted to censure the Plaintiff, and 3) that the Council consisted of only 4 councillors when the Plaintiff was censured. The Defense will now address each of these individually.

1) In Claim 1 of the Plaintiff’s Claims for Relief, it was asserted that:
Bar Association of Redmont Act Part IV §2(2) states that “All decisions of the Council shall be passed by a simple majority of all sitting Councillors.” As registered by then Councillor CreeperTD, the Motion to Censure MMiqa (also labeled BAR 1 - 07) passed with 2 members voting in favor, 1 member voting against, and 1 member abstaining. (D-001) As defined by the BAR act, the motion had received a simple majority of votes, as a councillor voting abstain means that their vote will count towards the quorum, but not count as either an Aye or a Nay. This should be well known by the Plaintiff, which is why it is so confusing as to why they have made this obviously false assertion. Quorum was also reached, meaning that then Chairperson Dr_Eksplosive’s failure to vote did not affect whether or not the motion passed. The assertion that the motion didn’t pass with the requisite majority is frankly ridiculous, and the Plaintiff should know this.
2) In Claim II, the Plaintiff states that, “CreeperTD voted to censure the attorney actively litigating that case against CreeperTD's own department.” Then Councillor CreeperTD did not vote to censure the Plaintiff, rather they voted abstain. (D-001) This information is publicly available to anyone who has joined the BAR discord server, which the Plaintiff was entirely able to do, but instead, they made the assertion that the councillor voted in favor of censuring them without any evidence of them having done so. In addition, the Plaintiff asserts that “With CreeperTD's vote removed, the motion fails even more decisively with only 1 vote in favor.” This is also entirely false. The two members who voted Aye on the Motion to Censure were Councillors OwnedBlock and xVoltrix. Quorum would have been reached for the motion with or without then Councillor CreeperTD’s vote to abstain, which once again shows that the Plaintiff’s assertion was factually incorrect.
3) Former Chairperson Dr_Eksplosive resigned on 8th August, 2026 at approximately 3:01 AM CDT. (D-002) The vote on the motion to censure MMiqa was finalized on 4th August, 2026 at approximately 9:40 AM CDT. (D-003) At the time of the events in question, there was no vacancy on the BAR council, unlike what the Plaintiff has asserted. Again, this information is publicly available, and yet the Plaintiff has seemingly ignored reality and made their own assertions based on what they felt was correct.

The Defense humbly requests the court charge MMiqa with perjury, as all of these statements made by the Plaintiff were entirely false and supported by neither evidence nor reality.

Objection overruled. There is not enough evidence to affirm that the statements were made knowingly, nor that some of these statements are unequivocally false (they are under contention and will be resolved within the trial).

Superwoops · Aug 12, 2026

CreeperTD said:
Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - BREACH OF PROCEDURE

Your Honor,

The Defense humbly requests that this case be remanded to the District Court, as this case does not follow under the Federal Court's jurisdiction as stated in Information - Creating a Lawsuit in the Federal Court:

This case does not meet any of those requirements, as there is no constitutional issue at stake here, nor is any money judgment being sought. The only prayer for relief in this lawsuit is for a retraction of a censure, or returning to the status quo from before the case. There is no reason for this case to be in the Federal Court.

Case is remanded to the District Court and will be renumbered accordingly.

Superwoops · Aug 12, 2026

MMiqa said:
Motion

Motion to Strike

The Defendant is not permitted to send evidence before Discovery, The Plaintiff wishes to see the parts that refers to the "evidences" struck from record.

Evidence is shown below.

Criminal Proceedings
Civil Proceedings
Expungement
Proceedings
Appeal Proceedings
Pre-Trial
Pre-Trial
CHARGES LAID
Prosecution
LAWSUIT FILED
Plaintiff
EXPUNGEMENT REQUEST FILED
Petitioner
APPEAL FILED
Appellant
|
|
|
|
PLEA
Defendant
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
Defendant
ELIGIBILITY
CONFIRMED
Attorney General
VERDICT TO
GIVE APPEAL
Judges
|
|
|
|
DISCOVERY
EVIDENCE FILING +
WITNESS LIST
DISCOVERY
EVIDENCE FILING +
WITNESS LISTS
VERDICT
Judge
(If Accepted)
APPELLATE TRIAL
Trial Commences
Trial Commences
|
|
OPENING STATEMENT
Prosecution
OPENING STATEMENT
Plaintiff
(If Accepted)
EXPUNGEMENT ORDER
Judge
APPELLANT BRIEF
(Appellant)
|
|
|
OPENING STATEMENT
Defendant
OPENING STATEMENT
Defendant
APPELLEE BRIEF
(Appellee)
|
|
|
WITNESS TESTIMONY &
CROSS-EXAMINATION
WITNESS TESTIMONY &
CROSS- EXAMINATION
OPPORTUNITY FOR APPELLANT
RESPONSE
(Appellant)
|
|
CLOSING STATEMENT
Prosecution
CLOSING STATEMENT
Plaintiff
IN-GAME ORAL ARGUMENTS
(If requested)
|
|
CLOSING STATEMENT
Defendant
CLOSING STATEMENT
Defendant
|
|
Punishment Phase of Trial
Damages Phase of Trial
(If requested)

Evidence served as proof for the purposes of the Defendant's perjury objection. Motion denied.

Superwoops · Aug 12, 2026

CreeperTD said:
Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - PERJURY

Your honor,

The Plaintiff has falsely claimed that the objection to which they are responding to is asking to dismiss the case. This is not the case, as the court can easily see. The Plaintiff appears to be claiming this in an attempt to address other filings that are unrelated to this one, and thus the Defense humbly asks for this response to be struck and for the Plaintiff to be charged with Perjury.

Proof of mens rea is not sufficient, objection overruled.

Superwoops · Aug 12, 2026

MMiqa said:
Objection

OBJECTION - BREACH OF PROCEDURE

The Defense's own precedent, MJL_ v. LegoMasterW472 [2026] DCR 118, actually supports the Plaintiff's position. In that case, evidence was submitted through a properly filed Answer to Complaint, which Rule 4 permits. The Defense here has not filed an Answer at all. Evidence cannot be submitted before an Answer to Complaint is filed, and the precedent the Defense cites shows exactly that requirement being followed, not an exception to it.

On top of that, the Defendant replied to a Motion to Strike before asking for permission from Judge.

Objection overruled, Plaintiff seems to be misusing the objection to argue against the original conduct, not the linked response to the objection.
Plaintiff is warned that further attempts of abuse of process will not be tolerated.

Superwoops · Aug 12, 2026

CreeperTD said:
Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - BREACH OF PROCEDURE

The Plaintiff is using a response to objection to make legal arguments unrelated to the content of that objection. The Defense humbly requests that the Plaintiff's legal commentary be struck.

Objection overruled, I will not strike it as it serves no legal purpose anyways.

Superwoops · Aug 12, 2026

CreeperTD said:
Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - BREACH OF PROCEDURE

Your Honor,
In both of these filings, the Plaintiff has failed to properly hyperlink their sources as required by Rule 1.10. In their initial complaint, the Plaintiff has also failed to properly format their post in line with Guide - Templates, which requires its templates to be used in cases, and as is required by Rule 3.1. with relation to the requirements set out in Information - Creating a Lawsuit in the Federal Court. The Defense humbly requests the court to require the Plaintiff to amend their filings or to have them be struck.

Sustained. Plaintiff @MMiqa please make the necessary changes.

Superwoops · Aug 12, 2026

CreeperTD said:
Your honor,

The defense humbly requests that the deadline for the answer be tolled until the ruling on the motion to dismiss and, preferably, all objections. What is being answered may substantially change as a result of the objections that were filed.

Deadline extended by 8 hours.

CreeperTD · Aug 12, 2026

Superwoops said:
Deadline extended by 8 hours.

Your honor, the motion to dismiss is still pending a ruling.

MMiqa · Aug 12, 2026

CreeperTD said:
Pursuant to §4(4) of the Regulations of the Federal Court, the Defense responds to this motion:

Your Honor,
It is explicitly stated in Guide - Objections that "Proof of perjury should be presented with the objection," meaning that even if the Plaintiff's assertion were true, the Defense's submission of evidence with an objection for perjury would be allowed. In addition, the Plaintiff's assertion that the Defense cannot submit evidence before discovery is absurd! In the Guide - Templates, Answer to Complaints have a section for submitting evidence as part of the answer, and evidence submissions for answers, which occur before discovery, have been submitted in the past (see MJL_ v. LegoMasterW472 [2026] DCR 118). The Defense respectfully requests that the Plaintiff's motion to strike be denied.

Objection

Your Honor,

The Defendant is answering a motion to strike without asking permission from the Judge.

Superwoops · Aug 12, 2026

MMiqa said:
Objection

Your Honor,

The Defendant is answering a motion to strike without asking permission from the Judge.

Overruled, the venue was the Federal Court at that time (see Information - Regulations of the Federal Court)

MMiqa · Aug 12, 2026

CreeperTD said:
As defined by the BAR act, the motion had received a simple majority of votes, as a councillor voting abstain means that their vote will count towards the quorum, but not count as either an Aye or a Nay.

Objection

OBJECTION - PERJURY

Your Honor, in the Bar Assocation of Redmont Act, it is not defined that abstain means that their vote will count towards the quorum, but not count as either an Aye or a Nay. In the stated Act, there are no mention to "abstain" as a vote, it just states in Part IV 2(2):

"All decisions of the Council shall be passed by a simple majority of all sitting Councillors."

During the voting procedure there were 5 sitting council members, and 2 of them voted Aye to suspend MMiqa, these are also stated by the Defendent themselves.

Since there is no mentioning in "abstain" vote, and in Bar Association in Redmont Act, Part V 1(3) and Part V 1(4) openly states that majority vote is required to sanction BAR members. This was also not reached.

The Plaintiff respectfully asks the Judge to charge the Defendant with perjury.

CreeperTD · Aug 12, 2026

Answer to Complaint

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

MMiqa
Plaintiff

v.

Bar Association of Redmont
Defendant

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
1. The Defense affirms that a Motion to Censure was filed against the Plaintiff before the BAR Council, but denies that motion was made on August 5th, 2026.
2. The Defense affirms that the result of the vote was 2 in favor, 1 abstained, and 1 against.
3. The Defense affirms that the Bar Association of Redmont announced that the motion passed.
4. The Defense denies that at the time of the vote, the BAR Council consisted of 4 active members following the resignation of one Councillor.
5. The Defense affirms that [then] Councillor CreeperTD participated in the vote, but notes that they voted abstain. The defense affirms CreeperTD is a named DHS Recruit in MMiqa v. Department of Homeland Security [2026] DCR 77, but denies that CreeperTD's conduct is directly at issue in the case.

II. DEFENCES
1. The Plaintiff alleges that a simple majority was not achieved. This is entirely false. As stated by the Defense in a previous filing, Bar Association of Redmont Act Part IV §2(2) states that “All decisions of the Council shall be passed by a simple majority of all sitting Councillors.” As registered by then Councillor CreeperTD, the Motion to Censure MMiqa (also labeled BAR 1 - 07) passed with 2 members voting in favor, 1 member voting against, and 1 member abstaining. (D-001) As defined by the BAR act, the motion had received a simple majority of votes, as a councillor voting abstain means that their vote will count towards the quorum, but not count as either an Aye or a Nay. In other words, the Plaintiff’s claim that there was an insufficient majority is manifestly false, and should be disregarded. The motion to censure passed according to the BAR Act, the only piece of legislation which governs the actions of the BAR Council, and is therefore entirely lawful with regards to the Plaintiff’s claims.
2. The Plaintiff has falsely asserted not only that CreeperTD voted to censure them (CreeperTD voted abstain on that motion), but also that in MMiqa v. Department of Homeland Security [2026] DCR 77, CreeperTD’s conduct is directly at issue. CreeperTD can be shown in evidence submitted by the Plaintiff in that lawsuit to be entirely uninvolved in the core events involved in that lawsuit, which is the Plaintiff’s self defense appeal, not their arrest, which is not used to make any claims in that case. Not only that, but whether or not CreeperTD voted on the motion would not have affected whether or not it passed. The motion was voted on with 2 ayes from Councillors OwnedBlock and xVoltrix, one abstention from Councillor CreeperTD, and one nay from Councillor ASexualDinosaur. Unlike what the Plaintiff asserted, even if CreeperTD hadn’t voted, the motion would’ve still passed with 2 ayes and one nay, still a clear majority, and meeting the required quorum of 3 councillors.

III. EVIDENCE
This evidence was previously submitted, but the Defense will submit it along with the complaint to make it easier to reference back to.

By making this submission, I agree I understand the penalties of lying in court and the fact that I am subject to perjury should I knowingly make a false statement in court.

DATED: This 12th day of August 2026

MMiqa · Aug 12, 2026

CreeperTD said:
1) The Motion to Censure failed to reach the requisite majority,

Objection

OBJECTION - PERJURY

There were 5 sitting Councillors in the time of Motion to Censure MMiqa, as also confirmed by the Defendant. The voting was 2 aye, 1 against and 1 abstain.

This does not fulfill the Bar Association of Redmont Act, Part V 4(c), that "A majority vote of the Council in favour of the sanction."

Bar Association of Redmont Act Part IV 2(2) states that: "All decisions of the Council shall be passed by a simple majority of all sitting Councillors."

Both need to be satisfied, without fulfilling 4(c) a Council may not sanction a member.

The Plaintiff respectfully asks the Judge to charge the Defendant with perjury.

MMiqa · Aug 12, 2026

CreeperTD said:
As defined by the BAR act, the motion had received a simple majority of votes, as a councillor voting abstain means that their vote will count towards the quorum, but not count as either an Aye or a Nay. In other words, the Plaintiff’s claim that there was an insufficient majority is manifestly false, and should be disregarded.

Objection

OBJECTION - PERJURY

The word "abstain" itself does not exist in the Bar Association of Redmont Act. The Defendant must be confusing with the Act with Legislative Standards Act.

With 2 aye, 1 abstain and 1 against vote does not fulfill majority vote where there were 5 sitting council members, and I would like to back these up with with these two sections:

Bar Association of Redmont Act, Part V 4(c): "A majority vote of the Council in favour of the sanction."

Bar Association of Redmont Act Part IV 2(2): "All decisions of the Council shall be passed by a simple majority of all sitting Councillors."

Both needs to be satisfied in order to sanction a member.

The Plaintiff respectfully asks the Judge to charge the Defendant with perjury.

CreeperTD · Aug 12, 2026

MMiqa said:
Objection

OBJECTION - PERJURY

The word "abstain" itself does not exist in the Bar Association of Redmont Act. The Defendant must be confusing with the Act with Legislative Standards Act.

With 2 aye, 1 abstain and 1 perjury vote does not fulfill majority vote where there were 5 sitting council members, and I would like to back these up with with these two sections:

Bar Association of Redmont Act, Part V 4(c): "A majority vote of the Council in favour of the sanction."

Bar Association of Redmont Act Part IV 2(2): "All decisions of the Council shall be passed by a simple majority of all sitting Councillors."

Both needs to be satisfied in order to sanction a member.

The Plaintiff respectfully asks the Judge to charge the Defendant with perjury.

The Defense would like the opportunity to respond to this Objection, your honor (seeing as we're now in the District Court).

CreeperTD · Aug 12, 2026

MMiqa said:
Objection

OBJECTION - PERJURY

There were 5 sitting Councillors in the time of Motion to Censure MMiqa, as also confirmed by the Defendant. The voting was 2 aye, 1 against and 1 abstain.

This does not fulfill the Bar Association of Redmont Act, Part V 4(c), that "A majority vote of the Council in favour of the sanction."

Bar Association of Redmont Act Part IV 2(2) states that: "All decisions of the Council shall be passed by a simple majority of all sitting Councillors."

Both need to be satisfied, without fulfilling 4(c) a Council may not sanction a member.

The Plaintiff respectfully asks the Judge to charge the Defendant with perjury.

Objection

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - BREACH OF PROCEDURE

The Plaintiff has made two objections with essentially the same reasoning on the same exact words in two filings. This only serves to flood the docket, therefore the Defense asks that one of these objections be struck, and the Plaintiff be warned to avoid making superfluous filings in the court.

MMiqa · Aug 12, 2026

CreeperTD said:
Objection

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - BREACH OF PROCEDURE

The Plaintiff has made two objections with essentially the same reasoning on the same exact words in two filings. This only serves to flood the docket, therefore the Defense asks that one of these objections be struck, and the Plaintiff be warned to avoid making superfluous filings in the court.

May I respond, Your Honor

MMiqa · Aug 12, 2026

CreeperTD said:
Objection

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - BREACH OF PROCEDURE

The Plaintiff has made two objections with essentially the same reasoning on the same exact words in two filings. This only serves to flood the docket, therefore the Defense asks that one of these objections be struck, and the Plaintiff be warned to avoid making superfluous filings in the court.

Answer to Objection

As stated in the Guide - OBJECTIONS, I am using my right to answer to Objection without asking permission.

One of the objections is about the claim "abstain" is not counted towards the vote. This may exist in Legislative Standards Act, but not in Bar Association of Redmont Act. This does not exist in the act, and the word "abstain" does not exist as a whole, and the Plaintiff talked about what the voting procedure requires for deciding a matter, as it does not include the word "abstain" at all.

The other objection is about the claimed perjury done by the Defendant, claiming that the sufficient majority was reached, the Plaintiff responded with proof, which happened to be the same sections, since these are two different claimed perjuries, one about the role of abstain vote, other about the requirements for Council decisions.

However, respectfully, the Plaintiff is completely open to submit a new objection that fulfills what the Judge sees it fit.

CreeperTD · Aug 13, 2026

MMiqa said:
As stated in the Guide - OBJECTIONS, I am using my right to answer to Objection without asking permission.

Answer to Objection

One of the objections is about the claim "abstain" is not counted towards the vote. This may exist in Judicial Standards Act, but not in Bar Association of Redmont Act. This does not exist in the act, and the word "abstain" does not exist as a whole, and the Plaintiff talked about what the voting procedure requires for deciding a matter, as it does not include the word "abstain" at all.

The other objection is about the claimed perjury done by the Defendant, claiming that the sufficient majority was reached, the Plaintiff responded with proof, which happened to be the same sections, since these are two different claimed perjuries, one about the role of abstain vote, other about the requirements for Council decisions.

However, respectfully, the Plaintiff is completely open to submit a new objection that fulfills what the Judge sees it fit.

Objection

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - BREACH OF PROCEDURE

The Plaintiff has spoken out of turn, therefore the Defense requests this response to be struck.

MMiqa · Aug 13, 2026

Response to Objection

The Plaintiff already gave proof that they can response the objection. As stated in the Guide:

"The opposing party may answer the objection within 24 HOURS. The opposing party may answer to the objection without asking for permission from the presiding Judge."

Plaintiff's previous response included, proof that they have a right to answer objections without asking for permissions:

MMiqa said:
As stated in the Guide - OBJECTIONS, I am using my right to answer to Objection without asking permission.

Plaintiff respectfully requests this objection to be overruled.

CreeperTD · Aug 13, 2026

MMiqa said:
Response to Objection

The Plaintiff already gave proof that they can response the objection. As stated in the Guide:

"The opposing party may answer the objection within 24 HOURS. The opposing party may answer to the objection without asking for permission from the presiding Judge."

Defendant CreeperTD seems to have failed to read the basis for the Plaintiff's response, which proves that they have a right to answer objections without asking for permissions:

They have made a baseless objection, making a claim that this was breach of procedure, the Plaintiff respectfully requests this objection to be overruled.

Objection

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - BREACH OF PROCEDURE

The Plaintiff has spoken out of turn, therefore the Defense requests this response to be struck.

MMiqa · Aug 13, 2026

CreeperTD said:
Objection

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - BREACH OF PROCEDURE

The Plaintiff has spoken out of turn, therefore the Defense requests this response to be struck.

Response to Objection

The Plaintiff used his right to response to objection that was stated in Guide - Objections:

"The opposing party may answer the objection within 24 HOURS. The opposing party may answer to the objection without asking for permission from the presiding Judge."

The Plaintiff respectfully requests this objection to be overruled.

Superwoops · Aug 13, 2026

CreeperTD said:
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO DISMISS

The Defence moves that the complaint in this case be dismissed in its entirety under Rule 5.14 (Factual Error), as the Plaintiff has made multiple key factual errors in their initial complaint. In support thereof, the Defense respectfully alleges:

As stated above in the Defense’s motion to dismiss, the Plaintiff has made 3 false assertions, namely:
1) The Motion to Censure failed to reach the requisite majority,
2) That then Councillor CreeperTD voted to censure the Plaintiff, and
3) that the Council consisted of only 4 councillors when the Plaintiff was censured.

What is most important for the purposes of this case are assertions 1 and 2. The Plaintiff’s claims for relief and their standing entirely relies on those two facts being true, as it’s the only illegal action that the Plaintiff is alleging that the Defendant undertook. Given the fact that neither of these facts are true, the Plaintiff no longer has a cause of action to pursue this case, meaning that their factual error results in the Plaintiff having no standing to pursue this civil action.

The Defense humbly requests that the complaint be dismissed with prejudice, as no illegal action has occurred, and the Plaintiff’s arguments that an illegal action did occur are manifestly false.

Motion denied. We still have all of Discovery.

Superwoops · Aug 13, 2026

All objections may be replied to without permission from the PO.

CreeperTD · Aug 13, 2026

MMiqa said:
Objection

OBJECTION - PERJURY

The word "abstain" itself does not exist in the Bar Association of Redmont Act. The Defendant must be confusing with the Act with Legislative Standards Act.

With 2 aye, 1 abstain and 1 against vote does not fulfill majority vote where there were 5 sitting council members, and I would like to back these up with with these two sections:

Bar Association of Redmont Act, Part V 4(c): "A majority vote of the Council in favour of the sanction."

Bar Association of Redmont Act Part IV 2(2): "All decisions of the Council shall be passed by a simple majority of all sitting Councillors."

Both needs to be satisfied in order to sanction a member.

The Plaintiff respectfully asks the Judge to charge the Defendant with perjury.

Your Honor,

This objection is frankly ridiculous. The concept of an abstain vote need not exist in the BAR act in order for it to be used in council voting. The assertion that one cannot vote abstain on a motion because abstain isn't mentioned in the law is absurd; abstain isn't mentioned in the Constitution either, and yet Congresspeople are allowed to vote abstain on motions, which do not count against the voting at hand. One may also note that the Redmont Constitution in Part VII §43 also defines a majority as "a vote of greater than 50%", while also noting in Part I §10(2) the concept of a Dynamic Majority, stating that "The majority will be decided based on the total number of those who have voted, either in favour or against." Is it not within reason to assume that the same concepts would be applied to BAR voting unless it was specifically stated otherwise within the BAR act? This objection should be overruled as an attempt by the Plaintiff to misinterpret the text to serve their own purposes.

MMiqa · Aug 14, 2026

Objection

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

OBJECTION - BREACH OF PROCEDURE

The Defendant has spoken out of turn, therefore the Plaintiff requests their response to be struck from the record.

MMiqa · Aug 14, 2026

MMiqa said:
Objection

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

OBJECTION - BREACH OF PROCEDURE

The Defendant has spoken out of turn, therefore the Plaintiff requests their response to be struck from the record.

Edit:

The Plaintiff wishes to apologize, he has not seen the Defendant replying to the Plaintiff's objection, since they have not stated in their response as "Answer/Response to Objection". They wish not to disrupt the Court and withdraws this objection.

MMiqa · Aug 14, 2026

Objection

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - PERJURY

Your Honour,

The Defense's argument does not support its position.

First, the Defense stated that 'The assertion that one cannot vote abstain on a motion because abstain isn't mentioned in the law is absurd' but the Plaintiff never said an abstain vote is invalid or cannot be cast; the Plaintiff's argument has always been that the Act does not define abstention's effect on the calculation of a majority, not that abstention itself is invalid.

Second, the Defense characterized the Plaintiff's argument as an attempt to 'misinterpret the text to serve their own purposes,' but every proposition the Plaintiff has advanced rests directly on the text of Part IV, Section 2(2) itself, quotation rather than interpretation.

Third, the Defense presented the Constitution's Dynamic Majority provision, Part I, Section 10(2), as though it were a general rule, when the provision appears under the heading 'THE CONGRESS,' immediately following Section 10(1), which expressly limits it to 'all voting conducted in Congress,' meaning the text itself confines this rule to Congress.

The Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court charge the Defense with perjury for these three statements, each made in a filing before this Court.

DATED: This 14th day of August, 2026

MMiqa
Plaintiff, Self-Represented

MMiqa · Aug 14, 2026

Objection

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

OBJECTION - BREACH OF PROCEDURE

Your Honor,

The Defendant's own response, currently on the record, contains argumentative language starting from the first sentece of their response, including the following statements:

CreeperTD said:
This objection is frankly ridiculous.

CreeperTD said:
The assertion that one cannot vote abstain on a motion because abstain isn't mentioned in the law is absurd

CreeperTD said:
Is it not within reason to assume that the same concepts would be applied to BAR voting unless it was specifically stated otherwise within the BAR act?

These are not neutral statements of fact. They are characterizations offered to persuade the Court, made by the Defendant, in this case.

Superwoops · Aug 23, 2026

MMiqa said:
Objection

OBJECTION - PERJURY

Your Honor, in the Bar Assocation of Redmont Act, it is not defined that abstain means that their vote will count towards the quorum, but not count as either an Aye or a Nay. In the stated Act, there are no mention to "abstain" as a vote, it just states in Part IV 2(2):

"All decisions of the Council shall be passed by a simple majority of all sitting Councillors."

During the voting procedure there were 5 sitting council members, and 2 of them voted Aye to suspend MMiqa, these are also stated by the Defendent themselves.

Since there is no mentioning in "abstain" vote, and in Bar Association in Redmont Act, Part V 1(3) and Part V 1(4) openly states that majority vote is required to sanction BAR members. This was also not reached.

The Plaintiff respectfully asks the Judge to charge the Defendant with perjury.

Overruled, this point is under contention and will be resolved at the conclusion of this case.

Superwoops · Aug 23, 2026

Objection overruled, this is essentially the same objection. Plaintiff is warned against boating this docket.
(referring to Docket #82)

Superwoops · Aug 23, 2026

CreeperTD said:
Objection

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - BREACH OF PROCEDURE

The Plaintiff has made two objections with essentially the same reasoning on the same exact words in two filings. This only serves to flood the docket, therefore the Defense asks that one of these objections be struck, and the Plaintiff be warned to avoid making superfluous filings in the court.

Sustained. Plaintiff has been warned. No content will be struck.

Criminal Proceedings	Civil Proceedings	Expungement Proceedings	Appeal Proceedings
Pre-Trial	Pre-Trial
CHARGES LAID Prosecution	LAWSUIT FILED Plaintiff	EXPUNGEMENT REQUEST FILED Petitioner	APPEAL FILED Appellant
\|	\|	\|	\|
PLEA Defendant	ANSWER TO COMPLAINT Defendant	ELIGIBILITY CONFIRMED Attorney General	VERDICT TO GIVE APPEAL Judges
\|	\|	\|	\|
DISCOVERY EVIDENCE FILING + WITNESS LIST	DISCOVERY EVIDENCE FILING + WITNESS LISTS	VERDICT Judge	(If Accepted) APPELLATE TRIAL
Trial Commences	Trial Commences	\|	\|
OPENING STATEMENT Prosecution	OPENING STATEMENT Plaintiff	(If Accepted) EXPUNGEMENT ORDER Judge	APPELLANT BRIEF (Appellant)
\|	\|	\|
OPENING STATEMENT Defendant	OPENING STATEMENT Defendant	APPELLEE BRIEF (Appellee)
\|	\|	\|
WITNESS TESTIMONY & CROSS-EXAMINATION	WITNESS TESTIMONY & CROSS- EXAMINATION	OPPORTUNITY FOR APPELLANT RESPONSE (Appellant)
\|	\|
CLOSING STATEMENT Prosecution	CLOSING STATEMENT Plaintiff	IN-GAME ORAL ARGUMENTS (If requested)
\|	\|
CLOSING STATEMENT Defendant	CLOSING STATEMENT Defendant
\|	\|
Punishment Phase of Trial	Damages Phase of Trial (If requested)

Criminal Proceedings	Civil Proceedings	Expungement Proceedings	Appeal Proceedings
Pre-Trial	Pre-Trial
CHARGES LAID Prosecution	LAWSUIT FILED Plaintiff	EXPUNGEMENT REQUEST FILED Petitioner	APPEAL FILED Appellant
\|	\|	\|	\|
PLEA Defendant	ANSWER TO COMPLAINT Defendant	ELIGIBILITY CONFIRMED Attorney General	VERDICT TO GIVE APPEAL Judges
\|	\|	\|	\|
DISCOVERY EVIDENCE FILING + WITNESS LIST	DISCOVERY EVIDENCE FILING + WITNESS LISTS	VERDICT Judge	(If Accepted) APPELLATE TRIAL
Trial Commences	Trial Commences	\|	\|
OPENING STATEMENT Prosecution	OPENING STATEMENT Plaintiff	(If Accepted) EXPUNGEMENT ORDER Judge	APPELLANT BRIEF (Appellant)
\|	\|	\|
OPENING STATEMENT Defendant	OPENING STATEMENT Defendant	APPELLEE BRIEF (Appellee)
\|	\|	\|
WITNESS TESTIMONY & CROSS-EXAMINATION	WITNESS TESTIMONY & CROSS- EXAMINATION	OPPORTUNITY FOR APPELLANT RESPONSE (Appellant)
\|	\|
CLOSING STATEMENT Prosecution	CLOSING STATEMENT Plaintiff	IN-GAME ORAL ARGUMENTS (If requested)
\|	\|
CLOSING STATEMENT Defendant	CLOSING STATEMENT Defendant
\|	\|
Punishment Phase of Trial	Damages Phase of Trial (If requested)

Lawsuit: In Session MMiqa v. Bar Association of Redmont [2026] DCR 142

Citizen

Case Filing

Citizen

Case Filing

Citizen

Objection

Attachments

Citizen

Citizen

Case Filing

Citizen

Objection

Citizen

Objection

Citizen

Citizen

Citizen

Citizen

Citizen

Citizen

Citizen

Citizen

Citizen

Citizen

Citizen

Citizen

Citizen

Objection

Citizen

Objection

Citizen

Citizen

Motion

Citizen

Citizen

Objection

Citizen

Citizen

Objection

Citizen

Citizen

Citizen

Court Order

Citizen

Court Order

Citizen

Citizen

Objection

Citizen

Citizen

Motion

Citizen

Motion

Citizen

Motion

Citizen

Court Order

Citizen

Citizen

Writ of Summons

Citizen

Court Order

Motion

Citizen

Citizen

Citizen

Objection

Citizen

Citizen

Motion

Citizen

Citizen

Objection

Citizen

Objection

Case Filing

Citizen

Case Filing

Citizen

Objection

Court Proceedings

Motion