Appeal: Accepted [2025] DCR 106 - Appeal

[RiggoSoft]

Username: RiggoSoft

I am representing myself

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

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

Basis for Appeal: I am not appealing the decision of the actual case I am appealing the charges of contempt of court.

The judge had no basis to charge and sentence me for contempt of court.

Count 1, the presiding judge has stated in his write of summons that failure to appear in 72 hours would result in default judgement. The judge said that a public defender would be assigned to the case however when I pointed out that his initial message said that failing to appear within 72 hours would result in default judgement he charged me for contempt. In this circumstance I had not disobeyed a lawful order as the presiding judge had not given me an order not to talk or to stop discussing the matter. Additionally I was not interfering with the administration of justice as I was not denying the other party right to representation I was pointing out the judge had said the case was going into default judgement and then back tracked his statement

Count 2, I once again told the judge that he had said the case was going into default judgement if the defendant hadn’t shown up and pointed out his hypocrisy and he once again charged and sentenced me to contempt of court. For this case I had also not interfered with the administration of justice or disobeyed a lawful order.

Supporting Evidence: Adding later

 

[Muggy21]

Pending a review of the application, the Court suspends the enforcement of contempt charges filed in the District Court by the Hon. Magistrate Dearev.

 

[RiggoSoft]

Pending a review of the application, the Court suspends the enforcement of contempt charges filed in the District Court by the Hon. Magistrate Dearev.

Thank you, your honor. I am currently submitting my evidence.

 

[RiggoSoft]

Spoiler: D-01

Spoiler: D-02

Spoiler: D-03

Spoiler: D-04

Spoiler: D-05

 

[Muggy21]

Verdict

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Verdict - Appeal of Contempt of Court Charges against RiggoSoft in [2025] DCR 106

Summary of Barrister RiggoSoft's conduct in [2025] DCR 106

On December 14th, 2025 at 8:42pm EST, the Hon. Magistrate Dearev issued a summonses to the named defendant. On December 15th, 2025 at 3:41pm EST, Barrister Riggosoft ("Counselor") filed a motion for summary judgment, which was subsequently denied. On December 18th, 2025 at 6:54pm, Counselor filed another Motion for Summary Judgement which was subsequently denied. After this last motion, Counselor questioned the Court's denial based on the text within the initial summons to Defendant. As a result of the x3 attempts/remarks by Counselor, the presiding officer found Counselor in Contempt, fining him $500 and imprisoning him for 5 minutes.

After this first contempt, Counselor stated the following:
"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." After this statement, the presiding officer found Counselor in contempt, fining him $800 and imprisoning him for 10 minutes. After this declaration, Counselor stated "What’s the basis of me interfering with justice or disobeying an order of the court for me to be issued my second contempt charge?" The presiding officer did not respond and no further valid action occured.

Analysis on Appeal

Contempt of Court is meant for "misconduct that obstructs or interferes with the administration of justice (the court proceedings), is enough to be held responsible for this crime.” ( see [2025] FCR 119 Contempt of Court Charge Appeal ). On review of Counselor's actions, questioning the text of the summons to Defendant is not, in itself, misconduct. After all, the Courts must be consistent in the way it conducts its affairs. Without consideration for the numerous cases that clearly dictate that a public defender is always constitutionally available after a failure to appear, Counselor was not out of line for questioning the Court based on what was in the docket at the time. For this reason, Contempt charge #1 is dismissed.

In regards to the second Contempt charge, this Court can't relieve Counselor in this instance. 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. Furthermore, a default judgment would occur if the public defender wasn't called. Since a Public Defender appeared on behalf of Defendant, a default judgment would not be possible on the basis that defense didn't appear. The Public Defender, as the name implies, is defense counsel. Continually arguing with the Court when Counselor misapprehended the public defender program is his fault alone. Contempt charge #2 is affirmed.


All other arguments raised disregarded as moot. Evidence entered by Counselor was disregarded as duplicative of the ongoing DCR case.

So ordered,
Judge Mug.