Appeal: Denied [2025] DCR 106 Appeal - Appeal

[RiggoSoft]

Username: RiggoSoft

I am representing myself

What Case are you Appealing?: [2025] DCR 106 Appeal

Link to the Original Case: Lawsuit: Pending - OakRidge Community Bank v. XinmjirGamingHQ [2025] DCR 106 Appeal: Accepted - [2025] DCR 106 - Appeal

Basis for Appeal: I am not appealing the decision of the case as the case is still ongoing however I am appealing the second contempt of court charge that was held up by the federal court in the case "[2025] DCR 106 Appeal".

For my second contempt of court, in the case [2025] DCR 106 Oakridge Community Bank v. XinmjirGamingHQ, the presiding judge had charged me with contempt of court for "speaking out of turn". Speaking out of turn is a breach of procedure that could have been objected to by the opposing council and then struck from the record however does not constitute a contempt of court charge as it does not "(a) disobeys a lawful order of the court; or (b) engages in conduct that obstructs or interferes with the administration of justice."

Additionally the trial had not started as there was still confusion from me as the presiding judge had stated they were going to put the case in default judgement so I was not obstructing the administration of justice and the presiding judge had not told me to stop bringing up the matter.

Supporting Evidence: Attaching after submission

 

[RiggoSoft]

Spoiler: D-01

 

[Matthew100x]

Verdict

In a 3-0 decision written by Associate Justice Matthew100x and signed by Chief Justice Aladeen22 and Associate Justice SmallFries4, the Supreme Court has decided the following.

I. Facts​

This case comes before us from the District Court case OakRidge Community Bank v. XinmjirGamingHQ [2025] DCR 106. OakRidge Community Bank is represented by now-Attorney Riggosoft, who is the Appellant in this case. (Lawsuit: Pending - OakRidge Community Bank v. XinmjirGamingHQ [2025] DCR 106). At issue in that underlying case is a typical breach of contract for a loan case. During the proceedings of the District Court case, the Appellant was charged twice with Contempt of Court. The first charge was for questioning the lack of default judgment after 72 hours had lapsed from the summoning. The second charge was for saying the following to the presiding officer: “So your word means nothing, a judge can say something and do another in a trial that’s what justice is. You said default judgement then refuse to give default judgement, if you meant a public defender would be assigned why don’t you say that first.”

The Appellant first made an appeal to the Federal Court seeking to overturn both Contempt of Court charges. (Appeal: Accepted - [2025] DCR 106 - Appeal). In a decision made by Judge Muggy21, the Federal Court decided to reverse charge I but not charge II. (Appeal: Accepted - [2025] DCR 106 - Appeal). The appellant now appeals directly from the District Court to the Supreme Court of Redmont.
​

II. Rules​

The Supreme Court has the ability to review Federal Court decisions, not District Court decisions. (see 19, Government - Constitution). It is improper for a case to be made as a direct appeal to the Supreme Court from the District Court. (Appeal: Denied - [2025] DCR 106 - Appeal - Appeal).
​

III. Application​

Appellant assigns two errors to the presiding officer of the District Court here. 1) that the Appellant did not speak out of turn; and 2) confusion on the issue at hand meant that the Appellant seeking clarification was not obstructing justice. Neither of those issues are relevant for our review. The Supreme Court of Redmont is the appellate court to the Federal Court of Redmont. We cannot review issues of facts or law from the District Court’s verdict. We can, however, review issues of facts or law from the Federal Court’s verdict. Therefore, the correct assignment of any issue shouldn’t involve the presiding officer of the District Court, but instead the fault of the presiding officer of the Federal Court in handling the appeal of the District Court.

For instance, if the District Court were to make an issue in mishandling a player’s constitutional rights in an indictable crime, the first level of appeal would be the Federal Court. For our hypothetical, let’s say the issue gets appealed to the Federal Court. The Federal Court then decides erroneously, stating that such a right does not apply in this hypothetical. The next step is to then appeal to the Supreme Court. The appeal would focus on how the Federal Court made a mistake in incorrectly handling the player’s right, not how the District Court originally made the mistake. The case linked would be the Federal Court appeal, not the District Court appeal. Doing so would allow the Supreme Court to make a decision.

In this case, the Supreme Court cannot remedy the Appellant’s issue because the Appellant directly appeals from the District Court. As such, we must again decline this matter.
​

IV. Conclusion​

The Supreme Court declines to hear this appeal and moves to dismiss it with prejudice.

Smallfries agrees with the Court in decision and outcome, but differs in reasoning regarding dismissing with prejudice in a separate concurring opinion.

Spoiler: SmallFries Concurrence

I agree in whole with the reasoning set out by the majority. However, I do not believe this case should be dismissed with prejudice. Though surely and totally within our powers, I do not mind extending some leniency to Appellant here. I believe we should try to gently teach and give a chance to properly hear out the case. However, I understand the hesitancy by my brothers in the Majority.

Third time’s the charm, but we can’t grant leniency for every single case. For that reason, I concur.