Appeal: Pending [2025] FCR 119 - Contempt of Court Charge - Appeal

[ToadKing]

Username: ToadKing__

I am representing myself

What Case are you Appealing?: [2025] FCR 119 - Contempt of Court Charge

Link to the Original Case: Lawsuit: Pending - Volt Bank, Inc. v. .AstuteSundew823 [2025] FCR 119

Basis for Appeal:

I. CONTEMPT BASED ON UNPROVEN ALLEGATIONS OF COLLUSION​

The Federal Court held me in contempt based on allegations that I "colluded" with the defendant by knowingly providing an alt account for fraudulent asset transfers. This alleged collusion is completely false and wholly unsupported by evidence.

Under the Criminal Code Act, Part III, Section 2, Contempt of Court requires:

(a) disobeys a lawful order of the court; or
(b) engages in conduct that obstructs or interferes with the administration of justice.

The court appears to have held me in contempt under element (b), concluding that filing this lawsuit while allegedly knowing about the defendant's fraudulent activities constitutes "conduct that obstructs or interferes with the administration of justice."

This contempt finding cannot stand because:

1. The alleged "collusion" was never proven
2. No evidence was presented to support the claims
3. Contempt cannot be based on unsubstantiated factual allegations
4. I had no knowledge of any alt account activities

​

II. NO EVIDENCE SUPPORTS THE COLLUSION ALLEGATIONS​

Staff member @Technofied testified that:

• I "supplied said alternative account to the Defendant when the Defendant asked for said account"
• "The Defendant moved assets to the alternative account (Abadoniss) prior to this suit being filed"

These statements falsely imply I knowingly participated in fraudulent asset transfers. However, NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER was provided to support these serious accusations:

• No communications between myself and the defendant discussing
• No messages showing I knew about asset transfers
• No evidence linking me to the Abadoniss account activities
• No witness testimony (other than the unsupported staff statement) suggesting my knowledge or involvement

The Federal Court accepted these allegations as fact based solely on Staff testimony, without requiring any supporting evidence. This violates the most basic principles of due process.

​

III. VIOLATION OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS​

The Constitution Section 32(9) guarantees:

(9) Any citizen, criminal or otherwise will have the right to a speedy and fair trial presided over by an impartial Judicial Officer, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation, and to be confronted with the evidence against them, and to have the assistance of legally qualified counsel for their defence.

I was never confronted with any evidence of alleged collusion because no evidence exists. The court:

• Accepted unsubstantiated staff testimony as fact
• Made findings without requiring proof
• Held me in contempt based on allegations rather than evidence
• Denied my constitutional right to see and challenge evidence

The Constitution Section 32(5) further provides:

(5) Every citizen has the right to not produce self-incriminating evidence in any situation. In criminal matters, no adverse inferences may be made from this right being exercised, specifically such that the exercise of this right in itself shall not be weighted when determining a verdict in criminal Court.

The court cannot hold me in contempt for "collusion" based on lack of evidence to the contrary. The burden is on the accuser to prove the allegation, not on me to disprove it.

​

IV. IMPROPER ISSUANCE OF CONDUCT STRIKE​

The conduct strike issued under the Modern Legal Reform (Conduct Strikes) Act, Section 3 must be cancelled because:

1. The contempt conviction is based on unproven allegations rather than evidence, making it invalid.
2. This provision requires that "the lawyer's conduct objectively reflects adversely on the legal profession." My actual conduct does NOT reflect adversely because:
   • I filed a legitimate lawsuit to recover funds for a client
   • I had no knowledge of any fraudulent behaviour concerning this alt account
   • I followed all proper legal procedures
   • The allegations of "collusion" are false and unproven
3. If lawyers can receive conduct strikes based on unsubstantiated allegations, without any evidence, it creates an impossible situation where lawyers face professional sanctions based on speculation rather than proof.

Supporting Evidence: Government - Constitution

Act of Congress Thread 'Criminal Code Act'

May 27, 2025

House Vote: 7-0-2
Senate Vote: 4-2-0

A
BILL
To

Establish a Criminal Code

The people of the Commonwealth of Redmont, through their elected Representatives in the Congress and the force of law ordained to that Congress by the people through the constitution, do hereby enact the following provisions into law:​

1 - Short Title and Enactment
(1) This Act may be cited as the 'Criminal Code Act'.

(2) This Act shall be enacted immediately upon its signage.

(3) This Act has been authored by Senator xEndeavour.

(4) This Act has been co-sponsored by Senator xEndeavour...

• Pepecuu
• Replies: 69
• Forum: Breach of Peace Law

Act of Congress Thread 'Modern Legal Reform (Conduct Strikes) Act'

Oct 21, 2025

A
BILL
To

Better Regulate Conduct of Lawyers​

The people of the Commonwealth of Redmont, through their elected Representatives in the Congress and the force of law ordained to that Congress by the people through the constitution, do hereby enact the following provisions into law:

1 — Short Title and Enactment
(1) This Act may be cited as the "Modern Legal Reform (Conduct Strikes) Act".
(2) This Act comes into effect immediately upon receiving the President’s signature.
(3) This act has been authored by Director of Legislative Services BrownBerry and edited...

• Franciscus
• Replies: 5
• Forum: Acts of Congress

•