Appeal: Denied [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: 119
• Forum: Breach of Peace Law

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

Oct 21, 2025

House Vote: 8-0-0
Senate Vote: 6-0-0

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...

• Franciscus
• Replies: 5
• Forum: Administrative Law

• 

 

[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. Introduction​

The Appellant, appearing pro se, seeks review of a contempt of court finding issued in Volt Bank, Inc. v. AstuteSundew823 [2025] FCR 119. The contempt charge arose after the Federal Court concluded that the Appellant had engaged in “conduct that obstructs or interferes with the administration of justice” under Part III, Section 2(b) of the Criminal Code Act (Contempt of Court) after a staff statement made by Tech was placed on the Federal Court case thread. The Appellant challenges that determination on four grounds. First, they argue that the contempt ruling was improperly based on unproven allegations of collusion relating to an alternative account and alleged asset transfers. Second, they contend that there was no evidence supporting those allegations, asserting that the court relied solely on an unsupported staff statement. Third, they claim a violation of constitutional protections, including the rights to a fair proceeding and to be confronted with evidence. Fourth, they assert that the conduct strike issued alongside the contempt finding was improper because it rested on the same unsubstantiated accusations. The Appellant seeks reversal of the contempt charge and cancellation of the conduct strike.​

II. Historical Background of Contempt of Court in Redmont​

Contempt of court, one the oldest charges in Redmont, is one that is most fraught with varying interpretations since it is applied so often. The original definition of contempt of court is hard to find. While the Contempt of Court Act provides an initial definition in February of 2021, it is clear that the law existed in some form due to its location in the Crime Severity Act (see Repealed - Contempt of Court Act, accord Repealed - Crime Severity Act).

It is possible that the historical record is muddled, and that contempt of court was part of the “original law,” the body of law that existed when the nation first started which has since been overridden. Original law is contrasted with the “original constitution,” as the nation had both a constitution and an initial set of laws that were modified after the nation’s government began. (See Lawsuit: Adjourned - Snowy_Heart v Commonwealth [2023] FCR 76 (“meaning it existed from the beginning, and since has been amended”); see also Lawsuit: Dismissed - SCR 3 [2025] Vernicia v. The Commonwealth of Redmont).

Working from the first definition change, we say that the original definition for contempt of court is “speaking in a court case when not involved or summoned to provide testimony” which came with a relatively modest punishment (see Repealed - Contempt of Court Act). In UtahCowboy20 v. The_Angel_Wings [2020] FCR 15, the defendant was held in contempt for cursing out the plaintiff. (see Lawsuit: Adjourned - UtahCowboy20 v. The_Angel_Wings [2020] FCR 15). Then in The State v. M_Lasai [2020] FCR 24, the defendant was ordered to apologize for their misconduct under threat of contempt. (see Lawsuit: Adjourned - The State v. M_Lasai [2020] FCR 24).

It was clear that the original definition had issues, and on May 10, 2021, the Contempt Amendment Act was passed into law. (see Repealed - Contempt of Court Act). This law changed the contempt definition to the following:
​

[T]he act of speaking in a court case when not involved or summoned to provide testimony, the failure to respond to a summons issued by the court, and or the violation of court procedure.​

Id. The reasoning for this change was to force compliance when the court did a summons. But the definition also added “violation of court procedure” as part of the definition. Allowing for judges to have a better handle on misbehaving involved parties within the cases that they presided over.

Yet still, the definition in and of itself had operational problems. It’s curious whether the judge in The State v. M_Lasai actually had the power to order an apology. The original definition certainly did not allow it, nor did the new definition in the Contempt Amendment Act. This issue would be remedied by the Miscellaneous Offenses Act as part of the Standardized Criminal Code. (see Repealed - Miscellaneous Offenses Act and Repealed - Standardized Criminal Code Act). At first, the definition reverted back to its original definition passed under the Contempt of Court Act, and was then modified by the Contempt Clarification Act to be as follows:
​

The disobedience of an order of a court. Conduct tending to obstruct or interfere with the orderly administration of justice also qualifies as contempt of court. A party that fails to perform a specific act, in accordance with a judgment by a court, can be charged with contempt and subsequently penalized.​

(see Repealed - Miscellaneous Offenses Act (the law also removed Contempt of Court from the JSA)). This definition forms the core of what has become the modern contempt of court law.

From there, you can see that Courts applied this rule to prevent the obstruction of justice. Speaking in cases that you have not been summoned to has been held to automatically be contemptible. (see Lawsuit: Adjourned - Dusty_3 v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2023] SCR 8 for an illustrative example; see also Appeal: Denied - [2025] FCR 36 - Contempt Charges - Appeal). The contempt of court definition changed once more to its modern iteration.​

III. Rule & Application​

On June 22, 2025, the Criminal Code Act was passed, changing the definition:
​

A person commits an offence if the person:
(a) disobeys a lawful order of the court; or
(b) engages in conduct that obstructs or interferes with the administration of justice.​

(see Act of Congress - Criminal Code Act). The Appellant here appeals from subsection (b) “engages in conduct that obstructs or interferes [].” They argue four bases: 1) contempt on unproven allegations; 2) no evidence; 3) violation of constitutional rights; 4) improper issue of a conduct strike.

The Appellant’s problem with the charge is expressly clear here. The problem we have is that the law is also clear. 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. (see Lawsuit: In Session - jsrkiwi v Trentrick_Lamar [2025] DCR 90; Lawsuit: Adjourned - JediAJMan v. FoniWeiss [2023] DCR 29; Lawsuit: Adjourned - ToadKing v. Culls [2025] DCR 82; Lawsuit: Adjourned - BoopingBerry v. Town of Oakridge [2024] FCR 88; Lawsuit: Adjourned - Ko531 v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2024] FCR 96; Lawsuit: Adjourned - RaiTheGuy v. lukeyyyMC_ [2025] FCR 30; Lawsuit: Adjourned - Steveshat v. HenryDz5 [2024] FCR 65).

There is a Supreme Court verdict where a contempt of court charge was removed because prior directive was not given. (see Appeal: Accepted - FCR 80 - Appeal Request). The Appellant in that case had dropped his clients in the FCR for inactivity reasons, then took on new clients to work on a different case. (see Lawsuit: Dismissed - Bardiya_King v. Dumbyhead1234 [2023] FCR 80, Lawsuit: Dismissed - Bardiya_King v. Dumbyhead1234 [2023] FCR 80). However, this falls under the exception of subsection (a) of contempt of court that Court Rule 1.4 covers, that warning must be given before someone can fail to perform a judicial order. In none of Appellant’s arguments is Court Rule 1.4 invoked, and the Appellant is right to not do so as that rule was designed to protect against abuses from subsection (a) “disobeys a lawful order of the court.” Further this verdict utilizes an older, defunct, definition of contempt of court, and shall otherwise not be considered.

For the Appellant, the issue at contention really is hyperfocused on the posts made by Tech. (see Lawsuit: Pending - Volt Bank, Inc. v. .AstuteSundew823 [2025] FCR 119 and Lawsuit: Pending - Volt Bank, Inc. v. .AstuteSundew823 [2025] FCR 119). The presiding officer of the case moved to charge with contempt of court after conferring with judicial colleagues regarding the posts that Tech made. The reasoning, from what can be inferred, is that Tech’s statement showed that the Appellant had made a COI by supplying the plaintiff in that case the alternative account for the defendant of the same case. Therefore, the point of contention is whether the statement made by Tech is true. Most of the Appellant’s argument rests on the logic that there is no evidence for the court to reach contempt of court (points 1, 2, and 4) and that finding him in contempt violated his constitutional right (point 3).

On the argument that there is no evidence for the FCR to reach its conclusion, the Appellant is wrong. “It is not for the Supreme Court to be deciding what is or is not a staff decision… While the Supreme Court reserves the right to comment on and review the impact of the staff’s decisions on the government… our decision also can be reversed by an Owner Override. Thus we give deference to the ownership team on the matters at hand.” (see Lawsuit: Dismissed - SCR 3 [2025] Vernicia v. The Commonwealth of Redmont). The statement made by Tech, an Owner of DemocracyCraft, can be sufficient as evidence in-and-of itself when made in a staff capacity. The Supreme Court will not by trying the sufficiency of staff statements, especially one made by an Owner, for the purposes of appeal. Therefore, if a presiding judge is making a determination based on a staff statement, the statement itself is sufficient as evidence for whatever purpose the presiding judge may deem necessary for the case. Thus, points 1 and 2 are moot.

On the argument that the contempt of court charge violated the Appellant’s constitutional rights. The Appellant argues that all citizens have the right to be confronted with evidence under Right IX and V (see Government - Constitution). He argues that the decision must be reversed because there was no evidence of collusion within the original case. As we already stated, a staff statement is evidence, and that evidence alone can be sufficient. Thus, we decide that the Appellant was confronted with evidence, and see point 3 as moot.

As for point 4, we for now leave the discretion to apply conduct strikes to presiding officers under Court Rule 1.2. While we reserve the right to reverse such a decision under Court Rule 1.3, we also decide that there has not been enough decisions on conduct strikes percolating for us to determine what the standard should be for applying the conduct strike. Given that the contempt of court charge was properly applied, at this moment, there is no reason for us to reverse the decision of the presiding judge. Therefore, point 4 is rejected.​

IV. Dicta Commenting on Staff Statement​

To comment with dicta, the Supreme Court was not the proper venue to field these concerns. The Appellant should make a staff ticket and ask staff for evidence/proof of the alleged behavior. If Staff feels that the decision of the presiding judge went too far, staff should issue an owner override of the conduct strike/contempt of court charge, and provide further guidance to the Judiciary on how to handle situations like this. Staff should also be careful to comment on ongoing cases, as their word can and will have a direct impact on the case.​

V. Conclusion​

All four points for this appeal are rejected. The contempt finding and conduct strike is affirmed.​