Appeal: Accepted [2025] DCR 104 - Contempt of Court Charge - Appeal

[essx]

Username: totemundying

I am representing myself

What Case are you Appealing?: [2025] DCR 104 - Contempt of Court Charge

Link to the Original Case: Lawsuit: Pending - Commonwealth of Redmont v. Whimsythegolden [2025] DCR 104

Basis for Appeal: The district court has held me in contempt without issuing lawful instruction and thereby mischaracterized my message as “obstructing court proceedings.” Under the Criminal Code, contempt requires disobeying a court order or engaging in conduct that obstructs justice. I received only a remark of discontent from the court, rather than an order or instruction, nor does my comment obstruct justice, considering that it is defined as ..."influencing, threatening, harming or impeding witnesses or giving false information to law enforcement" in the Criminal Code Act.

One may also argue that the court, in Evidence 1, purposefully chose broad terms that are up to interpretation, using words like "advised", as well as "irrelevant remarks", without stating what relevance remarks need to have in the court, and I would argue that an apology for a previous message would suffice as relevant.

While the enforcement of laws and punishments regarding court behaviors are incredibly inconsistent among cases and have too wide of a scope to be properly monitored and enforced, the presiding judge in this court also has an inconsistent punishment for Contempt of Court cases, ranging from 1,000 R$ to 4,000 R$ alongside 10 minutes of jail time (Lawsuit: In Session - Commonwealth of Redmont v. EatYourGreens_ [2025] DCR 101).

I also believe that such an excessive fine was a result of retaliation by the court for what my messages contained, and would like the fine and jail time either repealed by the court, or reduced to a reasonable amount comparable to other relevant cases.

Supporting Evidence: Evidence 1: "This remark will be stricken from the record. Be advised that making further irrelevant remarks in this Court will result in being held in Contempt."

 

[Muggy21]

The Federal Court grants this appeal.

You have 72 Hours to provide an Appellant Brief. Extensions permitted within the time frame.

 

[essx]

Appellant Brief​

May a court find a litigant in contempt without issuing any lawful instruction, based solely on judicial dissatisfaction with a message (although a nuisance) that does not obstruct justice? The Court Rules and Procedures say you could be, but the answer is no. There is no law, with the exception of obstruction of justice that states you can be found in contempt for a message without any prior instruction.

---

Basis for Appeal​

The District Court held totemundying in contempt without issuing any order or instruction, and mischaracterizing his message as “obstructing court proceedings.” by finding him in contempt. Under the Criminal Code Act, contempt requires either disobedience of a lawful court order or conduct that obstructs or interferes with the administration of justice (obstruction of justice as defined in the Criminal Code Act).

No instruction was ever given. The Court expressed displeasure with Appellant’s message but did not direct Appellant to cease posting and did not identify prohibited conduct. An expression of discontent is not a lawful order, and without an order, contempt cannot apply.

Nor does his conduct meet the definition of obstruction of justice. Obstruction is separately defined as conduct that “influences, threatens, harms, or impedes a witness or law-enforcement officer, or knowingly provides false information to law enforcement.” His message did none of these. It neither interfered with witnesses, nor impeded law enforcement, and contained no false information.

The Court’s ruling rests on subjective judicial annoyance rather than legal obstruction. In [2025] FCR 36 - Contempt Charges - Appeal by Dartanboy, the court ruled that speaking on an active court case is defined as obstruction of justice, however the law does not interpret such conduct as obstruction of justice which has resulted in purposefully broad laws that even the highest judges in court of law are unable to adhere to.

The Court further relied on vague terms such as “irrelevant remarks” without defining what relevance was required, and what topic any messages in the court were required to be relevant to.

Finally, the penalty imposed is inconsistent with comparable contempt cases and disproportionately severe. This disparity suggests punishment based on subjective reaction and the content my message contained rather than the fair and unbiased application of the law.

---

Conclusion​

Because no lawful instruction was issued and no obstruction of justice occurred, I ask that the court rule to accept my appeal, repeal the fine, and remove the jail sentencing. I also ask that the court clarify the law regarding unsolicited comments on cases, or put into writing that the interpretation of this topic is extremely broad and needs to be further clarified and established by Congress.

 

[Muggy21]

Verdict

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Verdict - [2025] DCR 104 - Contempt of Court Charge - Appeal

Summary of Proceeding

During the criminal prosecution of Whimsythegolden, non-party "essx" made statements regarding the case, within the court docket, that are not reasonably construed to be a proper filing. After the District Court struck the first remark, Appellant made a second remark and was subsequently held in Contempt of Court, as defined under the Criminal Code Act. Appellant was assessed a fine of $4,000 and ordered imprisoned for 10 minutes. Appellant approaches this Court and prays for relief.


Decision on Appeal

Appellant prays for relief by proffering that the Hon. Magistrate Vennefly failed to give an instruction; That the contempt charge was borne out of displeasure rather than a lawful order. He supports this assertion by pointing to the charge of Obstruction of Justice in the Criminal Code Act. Since the contempt, in the Appellant's eyes, was mere "subjective judicial annoyance, rather than legal obstruction" the charge should not lie (insufficient grounds to uphold or sustain). Lastly, Appellant proffers that the penalty imposed is inconsistent and disproportionately severe.


These arguments are not compelling, but the Court does reduce the monetary penalty to $1,000.

In [2025] FCR 119 - Contempt of Court Charge - Appeal, the Supreme Court performed an in-depth analysis and restatement on Contempt of Court charges. As stated by the Hon. Justice Matthew100x in the above case's verdict, "As illustrated in the history of our court, regardless of the time and definition of Contempt of Court, the Court at all levels has held that misconduct that obstructs or interferes with the administration of justice (the court proceedings) is enough to be held responsible for this crime." For this purpose, the Appellant must demonstrate one of the following: a novel legal theory regarding contempt, failure for the Magistrate to issue an order, or that the behaviour itself didn't hinder the administration of a judicial proceeding.

The Appellant does not raise novel arguments, this is not applicable. Appellant does rest the majority of his legal arguments on the basis that the lower Court failed to issue a lawful instruction for him to violate. Although true, this argument is not germane to the basis for contempt. On review of the lower Court's docket, Appellant was held in contempt for obstructing the administration of justice. The Court is confused by Appellant's attempt to introduce Obstruction of Justice as a basis for refuting the contempt charge. Obstruction of Justice is generally meant for law enforcement officers, not judicial officers.

Notwithstanding the Court's findings above, the charge of $4,000 is excessive. The messages were limited in scope and were made in a jestful manner. The Court reduces the monetary penalty to $1,000 and 10 minutes in jail.



All other arguments and points are academic and are not considered.


So ordered,
Judge Mug