Appeal: Accepted in re [2026] DCR 69 | [2026] FCR 76

Status
Not open for further replies.
MMiqa

MMiqa

Citizen
Oakridge Resident
Homeland Security Department
Health Department
Change Maker Popular in the Polls
MMiqa
MMiqa
Detective
Joined
Jun 1, 2026
Messages
205


Username: MMiqa

I am representing myself

What Case are you Appealing?: MMiqa v. rykazard [2026] DCR 69

Link to the Original Case: Lawsuit: Dismissed - MMiqa v. rykazard [2026] DCR 69

Basis for Appeal: I. THE GOVERNING STANDARD

The Criminal Code Act (restored), Part I, Section 5, provides:

"5 - Sentencing
(1) Where an offence in this Code provides for a list or range of penalties, including fines, imprisonment, or other sanctions, it shall be within the discretion of the judicial officer to impose any part or the whole of the prescribed penalty, subject to the limits set out in this Code.
(2) In exercising discretion, the judicial officer shall consider:
(a) the nature and seriousness of the offence;
(b) the intent and conduct of the offender;
(c) any aggravating or mitigating circumstances;
(d) the offender's criminal history or lack thereof;
(e) the protection of the community and the deterrence of future offences.
(3) A judicial officer may impose a lesser sentence than the maximum provided for the offence, or a combination of penalties, unless:
(a) the law specifically requires the imposition of a mandatory minimum penalty; or
(b) the offence expressly prohibits alternatives to the maximum sentence.
(4) Nothing in this section limits the authority of the courts to impose additional lawful remedies such as restitution, damages, or community service where such powers are established under this Code or another Act."

The Constitution of the Commonwealth of Redmont, Part IV, Section 33(13), provides:

"Every citizen is equal before and under the law and has the right to equal protection and equal benefit of the law without unfair discrimination and, in particular, without unfair discrimination based on political belief or social status."

The Judicial Standards Act, Part VII, Section 1(2), provides:

"(2) A Judicial Officer must not issue a conduct strike unless they are satisfied that the lawyer’s conduct objectively reflects adversely on the legal profession."

II. THE COMPARATIVE RECORD

The appellant was found in Contempt of Court in MMiqa v. rykazard [2026] DCR 69, a District Court proceeding in which the appellant was an actual party to the case, representing himself. This was the appellant's first punishment of this kind, after he spoke out of order, and received 60 PU, 5 minutes of imprisonment, and a Conduct Strike.

Ebborsnam did worse, and was punished for less. He was not a party to MMiqa v. Bar Association of Redmont [2026] FCR72, and was not representing anyone in that case. He nonetheless filed an objection, retracted it after the Plaintiff (also the appellant) had warned him, and spoke out of order so many times that Attorney General came and apologized for his action. He then mocked the Court, the Judge, by replying "okay" to a warning if he ever spoke out of order again, he would receive punishment.

Judge in MMiqa v. rykazard case punished the appellant for:

" - Such disobediences of a court order is a serious offense, especially when done four separate times, and;
- Such disobediences also hinder the proper administration of justice and bloat this Court with senseless filings, and;
- Such disobediences, which are repeated and interfere with the administration of justice and the sanctity of this Court's procedures, reflect negatively on the legal profession as a whole."

Ebborsnam, back then was the State Prosecutor, received 30 PU and no jailtime, with no Conduct Strike, after he was warned and he talked out of order again, he got punished again, 30 PU, 5 minutes of jail, and no Conduct Strike, then Ebborsnam did not care and openly mocked the Plaintiff (the appellant) and the Judge Superwoops, yet again, he did not receive a Conduct Strike, and got 30 PU, 5 minutes of jailtime WITHOUT Conduct Strike.

MMiqa was representing himself, he made mistakes and he does not seek to escape punishment, only to be punished justly. Ebborsnam did more disrespect to Court in multiple lawsuits that MMiqa was in, in MMiqa v. Department of Homeland Security [2026] DCR 77, where he objected the Plaintiff (the appellant in this case), filed Objections and again, talked out of order multiple times and more than 10 posts that was not in order, he was punished with 24000$, 20 minutes of Jailtime and 1 Conduct Strike by Justice Muggy21.

In MMiqa v. Department of Homeland Security [2026] DCR 77, Ebborsnam then mocked the Court again, said "I can't pay that, any possibility this could be less money?", which Justice Muggy21 responded with one more Contempt of Court charge with another 12000$ and 10 minutes in Jail.

All of these sentences, the appellant's sentence in DCR 69, the appellant's second sentence in FCR 72, and all three of Ebborsnam's sentences in FCR 72, were handed down by the same presiding officer, Judge Superwoops, within the span of one to two days.

A sentence that treats a first-time party more harshly than a repeat non-party offender, imposed by the same Judge within the same one-to-two day period, is not the ordinary exercise of sentencing discretion contemplated by Section 5. It is the unequal treatment Section 33(13) of the Constitution exists to prevent.

Ebborsnam, then the sitting State Prosecutor, showed far greater disrespect to this Court while not even being a party to the case, and his conduct was serious enough that Attorney General Matthew100x personally appeared before the Court to apologize for it, yet he received no Conduct Strike at all.

Is this the Court's understanding of justice?

In MMiqa v. Bar Association of Redmont [2026] FCR 72, he made eight messages and filings, twice the four which appellant received the Strike for, in a Federal Court case where he was not representing anyone and openly mocked the Plaintiff, Judge and the Courtroom in that case.

III. RELIEF REQUESTED

The appellant respectfully requests that this Court reduce the sentence imposed in MMiqa v. rykazard [2026] DCR 69 to bring it into line with the sentence consistently imposed for this category of conduct in every comparable instance on the record: 30 Penalty Units, 5 minutes of jailtime with no Conduct Strike.

Supporting Evidence:
 
MMiqa said:
Username: MMiqa

I am representing myself

What Case are you Appealing?: MMiqa v. rykazard [2026] DCR 69

Link to the Original Case: Lawsuit: Dismissed - MMiqa v. rykazard [2026] DCR 69

Basis for Appeal: I. THE GOVERNING STANDARD

The Criminal Code Act (restored), Part I, Section 5, provides:

"5 - Sentencing
(1) Where an offence in this Code provides for a list or range of penalties, including fines, imprisonment, or other sanctions, it shall be within the discretion of the judicial officer to impose any part or the whole of the prescribed penalty, subject to the limits set out in this Code.
(2) In exercising discretion, the judicial officer shall consider:
(a) the nature and seriousness of the offence;
(b) the intent and conduct of the offender;
(c) any aggravating or mitigating circumstances;
(d) the offender's criminal history or lack thereof;
(e) the protection of the community and the deterrence of future offences.
(3) A judicial officer may impose a lesser sentence than the maximum provided for the offence, or a combination of penalties, unless:
(a) the law specifically requires the imposition of a mandatory minimum penalty; or
(b) the offence expressly prohibits alternatives to the maximum sentence.
(4) Nothing in this section limits the authority of the courts to impose additional lawful remedies such as restitution, damages, or community service where such powers are established under this Code or another Act."

The Constitution of the Commonwealth of Redmont, Part IV, Section 33(13), provides:

"Every citizen is equal before and under the law and has the right to equal protection and equal benefit of the law without unfair discrimination and, in particular, without unfair discrimination based on political belief or social status."

The Judicial Standards Act, Part VII, Section 1(2), provides:

"(2) A Judicial Officer must not issue a conduct strike unless they are satisfied that the lawyer’s conduct objectively reflects adversely on the legal profession."

II. THE COMPARATIVE RECORD

The appellant was found in Contempt of Court in MMiqa v. rykazard [2026] DCR 69, a District Court proceeding in which the appellant was an actual party to the case, representing himself. This was the appellant's first punishment of this kind, after he spoke out of order, and received 60 PU, 5 minutes of imprisonment, and a Conduct Strike.

Ebborsnam did worse, and was punished for less. He was not a party to MMiqa v. Bar Association of Redmont [2026] FCR72, and was not representing anyone in that case. He nonetheless filed an objection, retracted it after the Plaintiff (also the appellant) had warned him, and spoke out of order so many times that Attorney General came and apologized for his action. He then mocked the Court, the Judge, by replying "okay" to a warning if he ever spoke out of order again, he would receive punishment.

Judge in MMiqa v. rykazard case punished the appellant for:

" - Such disobediences of a court order is a serious offense, especially when done four separate times, and;
- Such disobediences also hinder the proper administration of justice and bloat this Court with senseless filings, and;
- Such disobediences, which are repeated and interfere with the administration of justice and the sanctity of this Court's procedures, reflect negatively on the legal profession as a whole."

Ebborsnam, back then was the State Prosecutor, received 30 PU and no jailtime, with no Conduct Strike, after he was warned and he talked out of order again, he got punished again, 30 PU, 5 minutes of jail, and no Conduct Strike, then Ebborsnam did not care and openly mocked the Plaintiff (the appellant) and the Judge Superwoops, yet again, he did not receive a Conduct Strike, and got 30 PU, 5 minutes of jailtime WITHOUT Conduct Strike.

MMiqa was representing himself, he made mistakes and he does not seek to escape punishment, only to be punished justly. Ebborsnam did more disrespect to Court in multiple lawsuits that MMiqa was in, in MMiqa v. Department of Homeland Security [2026] DCR 77, where he objected the Plaintiff (the appellant in this case), filed Objections and again, talked out of order multiple times and more than 10 posts that was not in order, he was punished with 24000$, 20 minutes of Jailtime and 1 Conduct Strike by Justice Muggy21.

In MMiqa v. Department of Homeland Security [2026] DCR 77, Ebborsnam then mocked the Court again, said "I can't pay that, any possibility this could be less money?", which Justice Muggy21 responded with one more Contempt of Court charge with another 12000$ and 10 minutes in Jail.

All of these sentences, the appellant's sentence in DCR 69, the appellant's second sentence in FCR 72, and all three of Ebborsnam's sentences in FCR 72, were handed down by the same presiding officer, Judge Superwoops, within the span of one to two days.

A sentence that treats a first-time party more harshly than a repeat non-party offender, imposed by the same Judge within the same one-to-two day period, is not the ordinary exercise of sentencing discretion contemplated by Section 5. It is the unequal treatment Section 33(13) of the Constitution exists to prevent.

Ebborsnam, then the sitting State Prosecutor, showed far greater disrespect to this Court while not even being a party to the case, and his conduct was serious enough that Attorney General Matthew100x personally appeared before the Court to apologize for it, yet he received no Conduct Strike at all.

Is this the Court's understanding of justice?

In MMiqa v. Bar Association of Redmont [2026] FCR 72, he made eight messages and filings, twice the four which appellant received the Strike for, in a Federal Court case where he was not representing anyone and openly mocked the Plaintiff, Judge and the Courtroom in that case.

III. RELIEF REQUESTED

The appellant respectfully requests that this Court reduce the sentence imposed in MMiqa v. rykazard [2026] DCR 69 to bring it into line with the sentence consistently imposed for this category of conduct in every comparable instance on the record: 30 Penalty Units, 5 minutes of jailtime with no Conduct Strike.

Supporting Evidence:
Click to expand...

I'm honestly lost what you're appealing here. Can you take 72 Hours to concisely state what's wrong. I see a few questions directed at the Federal Court here...
 
I have stated:

Unfair punishment: I have received a strike and hefty punishment for speaking out of turn, in my own case, where I represent myself. Ebborsnam multiple times did that in rykazard case while you, Justice Muggy21, was the PO. Superwoops was and still is my PO in MMiqa v. Bar Association of Redmont case, I have received harder punishment, days apart, compared to Ebborsnam when he made worse conduct than I did. He himself openly mocked the Court, made objections and withdrawn these so-called objections when he was not representing anyone in this case. In this post, I have received a strike and hefty fine for out of order statements, with "empty" filings as a reason, in my own lawsuit where I represent myself. When Ebborsnam did talk disrespectful towards me, to this court and to the Judge, he received 30 PU, but what I got was 60 PU, with a conduct strike. These incidences happened days apart, and the punishment for a worse crime was punished less from the Judge Superwoops.

Ebborsnam's charge, when he made out of order statements, filings, objections in a case where he did not represent anyone in a case at all, including posts #3, post #6, post #10, post #11.

After that, he had received the contempt charge in post #12 from the Judge Superwoops, which was 30 PU. Ebborsnam did not stop, and continued out of order statements in post #14, post #16 which he answered "ok" to the Judge Superwoops to his contempt charge he received in post 12, then he got another contempt charge in post #17 from the Judge Superwoops again, repeated offence from Ebborsnam, the charge was 30PU and 5 minutes in jail.

After that, Ebborsnam made another out of order statements in post #19, and in post #21.

I have made 4 out of order statements in a lawsuit where I represent myself, the charge was 60 PU, 5 minutes of jail with a conduct strike, when Ebborsnam did a worse act, where he openly mocked the Judge, the Court, the Plaintiff and made 8 filings with some mockery, some objection, some just comments in a lawsuit where he represents no one, and "fills the docket", he receives 30 PU with no jail time for the first 4 comments he made.

This was my first contempt for making out of order statements, and my second contempt, while my first contempt I have received is also in appeals. I wish to draw attention that ALL of my contempt charges come from the same Judge although I have seen at least 5 or 6 Judges, and one of my contempt strikes was removed due to it being unlawful.

30 PU wiithout jailtime and no strike against my charge, a conduct strike 60 PU and 5 minutes of jail is not fair, since Ebborsnam made these acts when he was not representing no one in MMiqa v. Bar Association of Redmont, and I have received a harsher punishment for same act, where I represent myself. I don't wish forgiveness, but my strike was not fair since Ebborsnam did not get any strike from the Judge Superwoops for all of his conduct in MMiqa v. Bar Association of Redmont, for all of his 8 filings, all can be see via links I have attached.

Both Charges filed on August 10th, the same day. My charge, Ebborsnam's charge (first after 4 out of order statements and filings, same conduct with far less punishment with no strike). Judge Superwoops gave unfair punishment in the same day, worse conduct got the lesser punishment without a strike.

Laws Quoted:

MMiqa said:
The Criminal Code Act (restored), Part I, Section 5, provides:

"5 - Sentencing
(1) Where an offence in this Code provides for a list or range of penalties, including fines, imprisonment, or other sanctions, it shall be within the discretion of the judicial officer to impose any part or the whole of the prescribed penalty, subject to the limits set out in this Code.
(2) In exercising discretion, the judicial officer shall consider:
(a) the nature and seriousness of the offence;
(b) the intent and conduct of the offender;
(c) any aggravating or mitigating circumstances;
(d) the offender's criminal history or lack thereof;
(e) the protection of the community and the deterrence of future offences.
(3) A judicial officer may impose a lesser sentence than the maximum provided for the offence, or a combination of penalties, unless:
(a) the law specifically requires the imposition of a mandatory minimum penalty; or
(b) the offence expressly prohibits alternatives to the maximum sentence.
(4) Nothing in this section limits the authority of the courts to impose additional lawful remedies such as restitution, damages, or community service where such powers are established under this Code or another Act."

The Constitution of the Commonwealth of Redmont, Part IV, Section 33(13), provides:

"Every citizen is equal before and under the law and has the right to equal protection and equal benefit of the law without unfair discrimination and, in particular, without unfair discrimination based on political belief or social status."

The Judicial Standards Act, Part VII, Section 1(2), provides:

"(2) A Judicial Officer must not issue a conduct strike unless they are satisfied that the lawyer’s conduct objectively reflects adversely on the legal profession."
Click to expand...
 
MMiqa said:
I have stated:

Unfair punishment: I have received a strike and hefty punishment for speaking out of turn, in my own case, where I represent myself. Ebborsnam multiple times did that in rykazard case while you, Justice Muggy21, was the PO. Superwoops was and still is my PO in MMiqa v. Bar Association of Redmont case, I have received harder punishment, days apart, compared to Ebborsnam when he made worse conduct than I did. He himself openly mocked the Court, made objections and withdrawn these so-called objections when he was not representing anyone in this case. In this post, I have received a strike and hefty fine for out of order statements, with "empty" filings as a reason, in my own lawsuit where I represent myself. When Ebborsnam did talk disrespectful towards me, to this court and to the Judge, he received 30 PU, but what I got was 60 PU, with a conduct strike. These incidences happened days apart, and the punishment for a worse crime was punished less from the Judge Superwoops.

Ebborsnam's charge, when he made out of order statements, filings, objections in a case where he did not represent anyone in a case at all, including posts #3, post #6, post #10, post #11.

After that, he had received the contempt charge in post #12 from the Judge Superwoops, which was 30 PU. Ebborsnam did not stop, and continued out of order statements in post #14, post #16 which he answered "ok" to the Judge Superwoops to his contempt charge he received in post 12, then he got another contempt charge in post #17 from the Judge Superwoops again, repeated offence from Ebborsnam, the charge was 30PU and 5 minutes in jail.

After that, Ebborsnam made another out of order statements in post #19, and in post #21.

I have made 4 out of order statements in a lawsuit where I represent myself, the charge was 60 PU, 5 minutes of jail with a conduct strike, when Ebborsnam did a worse act, where he openly mocked the Judge, the Court, the Plaintiff and made 8 filings with some mockery, some objection, some just comments in a lawsuit where he represents no one, and "fills the docket", he receives 30 PU with no jail time for the first 4 comments he made.

This was my first contempt for making out of order statements, and my second contempt, while my first contempt I have received is also in appeals. I wish to draw attention that ALL of my contempt charges come from the same Judge although I have seen at least 5 or 6 Judges, and one of my contempt strikes was removed due to it being unlawful.

30 PU wiithout jailtime and no strike against my charge, a conduct strike 60 PU and 5 minutes of jail is not fair, since Ebborsnam made these acts when he was not representing no one in MMiqa v. Bar Association of Redmont, and I have received a harsher punishment for same act, where I represent myself. I don't wish forgiveness, but my strike was not fair since Ebborsnam did not get any strike from the Judge Superwoops for all of his conduct in MMiqa v. Bar Association of Redmont, for all of his 8 filings, all can be see via links I have attached.

Both Charges filed on August 10th, the same day. My charge, Ebborsnam's charge (first after 4 out of order statements and filings, same conduct with far less punishment with no strike). Judge Superwoops gave unfair punishment in the same day, worse conduct got the lesser punishment without a strike.

Laws Quoted:
Click to expand...

Okay, let me review and go from there.
 

Verdict


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Decision, Memorandum, and Order - in re [2026] DCR 69 | [2026] FCR 76

SUMMARY ON APPEAL

On August 9, 2026, the District Court issued an order and summarily convicted the Appellant of Contempt of Court and issued a Conduct Strike. The order reasoned that “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.” It found this to be interference with the administration of justice. The District Court reaffirmed on reconsideration. The Appellant timely appealed, arguing the error was reliance on superseded law rather than fabrication.

This Court treats the matter as a standard appeal under the Judicial Standards Act Part VI, as the underlying case has concluded. The dismissal of DCR 69 on the merits is not before this Court.

MEMORANDUM

A. The statements were outdated, not fabricated.

The quoted sentence is real Redmont statute. It appeared in the repealed Standardized Criminal Code Act §4(1)(a) and in Part I §6(1)(a) of the Criminal Code Act prior to the Civil Code reforms. It is also reproduced verbatim within the Redmont Civil Code Amendments Act, which restructured that section. It has been cited by other counsel in this jurisdiction during 2026. The District Court was correct that the provision was not current law on June 2, 2026. It was also correct that the brief mischaracterized the effect of the Amendments Act. Both statements were wrong. They were not, however, invented. They are traceable to an existing, superseded source.

B. Fair Corrections is not interference

The order identifies the harm as the Court having to verify the Appellant’s claims. Verifying the authorities that parties cite is the ordinary work of adjudication. If a mistaken proposition of law that requires a judge to check the source were itself contempt, nearly every incorrect legal argument would expose counsel to criminal liability; That cannot be the law. Contempt without prior warning under Rule 1.4.3 is reserved for misconduct. A negligent mis-citation of superseded law is error. It may become misconduct where counsel acts knowingly, recklessly, in bad faith, or contrary to a prior warning or order. The order makes no such finding. No prior warning in this case concerned the accuracy of legal citations.

C. On Conduct Strikes

The Conduct Strike fails on two independent grounds. First, the strike was issued in the same order as the contempt conviction and rests on the same reasoning. The order gives no separate basis for it. The Supreme Court has made clear that a conviction under the obstruction or interference prong of CCA Part III §2 requires conduct that actually obstructs or interferes with the proceedings, not conduct that burdens or frustrates the presiding officer. See [2025] FCR 128 - Contempt of Court Charge - Appeal. In that case, the Supreme Court vacated a contempt conviction resting on the trial judge's view that he had been "pestered," holding that conduct which is annoying to a judicial officer does not, without more, obstruct or interfere with the administration of justice. The same reasoning applies here. The burden of verifying a party's citations is the ordinary work of a court, not an obstruction of it. Having vacated the conviction on that basis, this Court cannot leave standing a sanction that depends entirely on it. A professional sanction cannot outlive the finding that justified it. Second, even if the conviction had survived, the strike would still fail. The Judicial Standards Act Part VII §1 permits a Conduct Strike only where the Judicial Officer is satisfied that the conduct objectively reflects adversely on the legal profession. Three features of that test matter here.

  1. The finding must be stated. A Conduct Strike is a separate sanction from any criminal punishment. It is not an automatic consequence of a contempt conviction. The officer must therefore address the statutory threshold specifically and explain why it is met. The order does not do so. Its only reasoning concerns the alleged AI hallucinations and the burden of verification. It never explains how the Appellant's conduct reflects on the legal profession as a whole.
  2. The test is objective. The question is not whether the presiding officer found the conduct frustrating or suspected its origin. It is whether a reasonable observer, aware of the full circumstances, would regard the conduct as reflecting adversely on the profession. Those circumstances include the following:
    • The quoted text exists in Redmont law, in both repealed and amending legislation.
    • The same citation has been made by other members of the bar during 2026.
    • No court had previously told the Appellant that the provision was no longer in force. In [2026] DCR 91, the Appellant cited the same provision, and the case was dismissed on other grounds without any finding that the provision was obsolete.
    A reasonable observer would see a careless reliance on superseded law, an error shared by other practitioners. That is a matter for correction, and if repeated after notice, for discipline. It is not, on this record, conduct that discredits the profession. The characterization of the error as an AI hallucination is what gave it that weight, and that characterization has been set aside.
  3. The consequences require care. Conduct Strikes accumulate, and three unexpired strikes result in automatic suspension under JSA Part VII §2. A strike also remains on the attorney's record, where it may be relied on by the Bar Association and by other courts. A strike issued on the basis of a finding that an attorney filed machine-fabricated law will be read in that light by everyone who later relies on it. Because a strike carries those consequences, the officer must reach the statutory threshold on a supported factual basis and say so in the order. Neither occurred here.
This Court recognizes that the choice of sanction is ordinarily committed to the discretion of the trial court, and that reasonable exercises of that discretion should not be disturbed on review. [2025] FCR 128. This appeal, however, does not turn on discretion. It turns on whether the statutory threshold for a strike was addressed at all, which is a question of law.This Court does not hold that a misstatement of law can never warrant a Conduct Strike. A knowing or reckless misrepresentation of the law to a court plainly reflects adversely on the profession, as does a repeated misstatement after a warning. Consistent with the Supreme Court's guidance in [2025] FCR 128 that less serious conduct is properly addressed by first issuing an order and then enforcing it, a court concerned about the accuracy of a party's citations may direct the party to verify and hyperlink its authorities, and may sanction a failure to comply. The defect here is that the order made no such finding and issued no such direction, and rested instead on an unsupported one. The strike is therefore vacated.

Thus, in consideration of the record and the appellant brief herein, the Federal Court adjudicates as follows:
1) The conviction for Contempt of Court arising from the order of August 9, 2026 in [2026] DCR 69 is VACATED. All fines shall be refunded and the conviction removed.
2) The Conduct Strike issued is VACATED.
3) All other claims made by Appellant are considered and are found unpersuasive.


So ordered,
Justice Mug in the Federal Court

 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top