Appeal: Pending [2026] DCR 37 - Appeal | [2026] FCR 40

[TheSnowGuardian]

Username: TheSnowGuardian

I am representing a client

Who is your Client?: Talion & Partners INC., Noadenmark

What Case are you Appealing?: [2026] DCR 37

Link to the Original Case: Lawsuit: Adjourned - Noadenmark v. Zombie_Bro_ [2026] DCR 37

Basis for Appeal: The Court did not award Plaintiff's counsel legal fees.

According to Part III, Section 7(2)(h)(i), legal fees can only be given up where "communicated" to the Court. Appelant did not communicate so anywhere within the filing or the legal case.

The RCCA clearly dictates legal fees "shall" be awarded 30% of the value of the case to the prevailing party. The Court ruled that the Plaintiff is the prevailing party.

Additionally, the RCCA also clearly dictates that a minimum of 3000$ "shall" be awarded for any case heard by the District Court.

We respectfully request that the Court reverse the Hnble. District Court's judgement in not awarding legal fees and ask that Talion & Partners INC. be awarded 3000$.

Supporting Evidence:

 

[Franciscus]

Writ of Summons

@Zombie_Bro_ is ordered to appear before the Federal Court in the appellate proceeding [2026] DCR 37 - Appeal | [2026] FCR 40.

Failure to appear within 72 hours of this summons will result in a default judgement based on the known facts of the case.

Both parties should make themselves aware of the Court Rules and Procedures, including the option of an in-game trial should both parties request one.

 

[TheSnowGuardian]

Writ of Summons

@Zombie_Bro_ is ordered to appear before the Federal Court in the appellate proceeding [2026] DCR 37 - Appeal | [2026] FCR 40.

Failure to appear within 72 hours of this summons will result in a default judgement based on the known facts of the case.

Both parties should make themselves aware of the Court Rules and Procedures, including the option of an in-game trial should both parties request one.

Your Honour, is the Federal Court going to hear this appeal?

 

[Franciscus]

On review of the filings herein by Plaintiff-Appellant, through their learned counsel, the Federal Court accepts the Appeal for review. We have thus issued a summons to the Defendant-Appellee.

 

[Franciscus]

Court Order

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ORDER — SUMMARY CONVICTION OF CONTEMPT OF COURT

The respondent, Zombie_Bro_, has failed to appear. The Federal Court finds the respondent to have committed Contempt of Court by failing to obey our Writ of Summons. The respondent shall be jailed for 10 minutes.

In the Federal Court,
Hon. Judge Multiman155

Court Order

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ORDER — APPOINTMENT
A GUARDIAN AD LITEM

The Federal Court hereby issues this writ:

Within 72 hours, the Public Defender Program shall assign a public defender to represent the Appellee within this appellate proceeding. Should none be assigned in that time frame, the Court will randomly select a public defender not on leave of absence and assign them to this proceeding.

In the Federal Court,
Hon. Judge Multiman155

Court Order

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE — AUTHORIZATION TO REPRESENT CLIENTS

The Federal Court is aware that the appellant has stated that their clients are “Talion & Partners INC.” and “Noadenmark”. Upon review of the filings, the Court does not see material submitted that would provide evidence of authority to represent either of these parties in the instant appellate proceeding.

Before we proceed to a full appellant brief, the Court requires the following:

1. On what basis does Appellant’s Counsel (@TheSnowGuardian) claim authority to represent Talion & Partners INC. in the instant appeal?
2. On what basis does Appellant’s Counsel (@TheSnowGuardian) claim authority to represent Noadenmark in the instant appeal?

TheSnowGuardian is ordered to provide a response to this Order to Show Cause within 48 hours, on pain of contempt.

In the Federal Court,
Hon. Judge Multiman155

 

[TheSnowGuardian]

Court Order

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ORDER — SUMMARY CONVICTION OF CONTEMPT OF COURT

The respondent, Zombie_Bro_, has failed to appear. The Federal Court finds the respondent to have committed Contempt of Court by failing to obey our Writ of Summons. The respondent shall be jailed for 10 minutes.

In the Federal Court,
Hon. Judge Multiman155

Court Order

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ORDER — APPOINTMENT
A GUARDIAN AD LITEM

The Federal Court hereby issues this writ:

Within 72 hours, the Public Defender Program shall assign a public defender to represent the Appellee within this appellate proceeding. Should none be assigned in that time frame, the Court will randomly select a public defender not on leave of absence and assign them to this proceeding.

In the Federal Court,
Hon. Judge Multiman155

Court Order

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE — AUTHORIZATION TO REPRESENT CLIENTS

The Federal Court is aware that the appellant has stated that their clients are “Talion & Partners INC.” and “Noadenmark”. Upon review of the filings, the Court does not see material submitted that would provide evidence of authority to represent either of these parties in the instant appellate proceeding.

Before we proceed to a full appellant brief, the Court requires the following:

1. On what basis does Appellant’s Counsel (@TheSnowGuardian) claim authority to represent Talion & Partners INC. in the instant appeal?
2. On what basis does Appellant’s Counsel (@TheSnowGuardian) claim authority to represent Noadenmark in the instant appeal?

TheSnowGuardian is ordered to provide a response to this Order to Show Cause within 48 hours, on pain of contempt.

In the Federal Court,
Hon. Judge Multiman155

1. I am an employee of the firm I represent, which is seeking its rightfully entitled legal fees.

2. Talion & Partners has a retainer agreement with Noadenmark, additionally, the agreement to continue representation for this appeal is attached below.

To clarify for the record, it is Talion & Partners which is representing itself and Noadenmark through me.

Spoiler: Proof of Representation

 

[Dartanboy]

Within 72 hours, the Public Defender Program shall assign a public defender to represent the Appellee within this appellate proceeding. Should none be assigned in that time frame, the Court will randomly select a public defender not on leave of absence and assign them to this proceeding.

Your honor, @gribble19 has been assigned.

 

[gribble19]

Present as a public defender to represent the Appellee, your Honor.

 

[Franciscus]

Ok.

@TheSnowGuardian please present your full appellant brief within the next 72 hours. After you do this, the Court will give the Appellee time to present their response. After that response is given, Appellant will be permitted to present a rebuttal brief.

 

[TheSnowGuardian]

(Your Honour, on a more procedural note, the tag of this case is still Pending.)

 

[Franciscus]

(Your Honour, on a more procedural note, the tag of this case is still Pending.)

We don't have an in-progress tag for appeals (yet).

 

[gribble19]

Your Honor, Appellee respectfully requests a clarification on who the parties to this appeal are. It is clear to us that the Appellee is Zombie_Bro_. It is not clear to us whether there is one appellant and if so who, or whether there are multiple appellants.

 

[TheSnowGuardian]

Your Honor, Appellee respectfully requests a clarification on who the parties to this appeal are. It is clear to us that the Appellee is Zombie_Bro_. It is not clear to us whether there is one appellant and if so who, or whether there are multiple appellants.

Your Honour, may we respond?

 

[Franciscus]

Your Honour, may we respond?

You may.

 

[TheSnowGuardian]

Your Honor, Appellee respectfully requests a clarification on who the parties to this appeal are. It is clear to us that the Appellee is Zombie_Bro_. It is not clear to us whether there is one appellant and if so who, or whether there are multiple appellants.

The party to the appealed case aswell as Talion & Partners Inc., who Appellants allege are owed Legal Fees by statute, are the appellants.

Noadenmark is being represented by Talion & Partners Inc., Talion & Partners Inc. is representing itself pro-se, and all of this is being done through TheSnowGuardian, an employee at Talion & Partners Inc.

To answer the Counsellor's question, there are multiple appellants as explained above.

 

[gribble19]

Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO CLOSE APPEAL PROCEEDINGS


Your Honor, the Appellee respectfully requests that these appeal proceedings be closed and ceased and that no further stages of this appeal proceeding be considered. Litigants of a case may apply to the appellate court to appeal that case. See Judicial Standards Act Part VI §1.1. This appellate proceeding stems from an application which among others was applied for by Talion & Partners Inc. who were not a litigant of the case that is being appealed. See Noadenmark v. Zombie_Bro_ [2026] DCR 37, Complaint §1. The application for this appeal, and with that this court's decision to hear this appeal is thus not in line with our laws. The Appellee respectfully requests these appeal proceedings be closed and ceased immediately.

Thank you.

 

[TheSnowGuardian]

Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO CLOSE APPEAL PROCEEDINGS


Your Honor, the Appellee respectfully requests that these appeal proceedings be closed and ceased and that no further stages of this appeal proceeding be considered. Litigants of a case may apply to the appellate court to appeal that case. See Judicial Standards Act Part VI §1.1. This appellate proceeding stems from an application which among others was applied for by Talion & Partners Inc. who were not a litigant of the case that is being appealed. See Noadenmark v. Zombie_Bro_ [2026] DCR 37, Complaint §1. The application for this appeal, and with that this court's decision to hear this appeal is thus not in line with our laws. The Appellee respectfully requests these appeal proceedings be closed and ceased immediately.

Thank you.

Brief

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
RESPONSE TO "MOTION TO CLOSE APPEAL PROCEEDINGS"

Your Honour,
This is a Motion to Dismiss disguised as a "Motion to Close Appeal Proceedings". Which, I am sure the Appellee's counsel would know does not apply to appeals. Even if it weren't a disguised motion to dismiss, this isn't a recognised motion within the Courts Rules and Procedures, so without the Appellant even having to dive into the merits of this motion, it should be denied.

On reviewing the substance of motion, it seems that Appellee's Counsel claims that Noadenmark, the litigant in the appealled case is not a litigant here, when the Appeal clearly states Noadenmark is being represented here.

I do not understand from where learned opposing counsel decided to conclude that this Appeal proceeding is not "in line with our laws." The Court decided to hear this appeal, and there are now 4 possible outcomes, all of which include an Appellant's Brief, an Appellee's Brief and a Rebuttal Brief from the Appellant.

Thus, we ask that the Court administratively deny this motion for lacking any foundation in procedure, and even if found procedurally valid, be denied for lacking merit in it's arguments.

 

[TheSnowGuardian]

Brief

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Brief - APPELLANT'S BRIEF

Your Honour, the appeal is quite simple. Talion & Partners INC. was supposed to get 3000$, the Honourable DCR missed it. Even if it was never originally asked for, stature requires that legal fees be awarded at a minimute rate or 30% of total value of case excluding legal fees, whichever is greater. The only option that legal fees should not be awarded is when counselcommunicates that they DON'T want legal fees to the Court, which we did not.

I humbly request Appellee's counsel to not further drag this matter on, for a measly 3000$ for hardwork which we are rightfully and duly owed.

We also insert all contents of our 'Basis for Appeal' as if they were a part of the arguments within this brief.

 

[Franciscus]

Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO CLOSE APPEAL PROCEEDINGS


Your Honor, the Appellee respectfully requests that these appeal proceedings be closed and ceased and that no further stages of this appeal proceeding be considered. Litigants of a case may apply to the appellate court to appeal that case. See Judicial Standards Act Part VI §1.1. This appellate proceeding stems from an application which among others was applied for by Talion & Partners Inc. who were not a litigant of the case that is being appealed. See Noadenmark v. Zombie_Bro_ [2026] DCR 37, Complaint §1. The application for this appeal, and with that this court's decision to hear this appeal is thus not in line with our laws. The Appellee respectfully requests these appeal proceedings be closed and ceased immediately.

Thank you.

Brief

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
RESPONSE TO "MOTION TO CLOSE APPEAL PROCEEDINGS"

Your Honour,
This is a Motion to Dismiss disguised as a "Motion to Close Appeal Proceedings". Which, I am sure the Appellee's counsel would know does not apply to appeals. Even if it weren't a disguised motion to dismiss, this isn't a recognised motion within the Courts Rules and Procedures, so without the Appellant even having to dive into the merits of this motion, it should be denied.

On reviewing the substance of motion, it seems that Appellee's Counsel claims that Noadenmark, the litigant in the appealled case is not a litigant here, when the Appeal clearly states Noadenmark is being represented here.

I do not understand from where learned opposing counsel decided to conclude that this Appeal proceeding is not "in line with our laws." The Court decided to hear this appeal, and there are now 4 possible outcomes, all of which include an Appellant's Brief, an Appellee's Brief and a Rebuttal Brief from the Appellant.

Thus, we ask that the Court administratively deny this motion for lacking any foundation in procedure, and even if found procedurally valid, be denied for lacking merit in it's arguments.

Denied. Even if we were to read the JSA to restrict appellants to the named parties in the original underlying case, the Appellant's counsel has shown evidence that they represent one of those parties. The appeal, therefore, will continue.

 

[Franciscus]

Brief

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Brief - APPELLANT'S BRIEF

Your Honour, the appeal is quite simple. Talion & Partners INC. was supposed to get 3000$, the Honourable DCR missed it. Even if it was never originally asked for, stature requires that legal fees be awarded at a minimute rate or 30% of total value of case excluding legal fees, whichever is greater. The only option that legal fees should not be awarded is when counselcommunicates that they DON'T want legal fees to the Court, which we did not.

I humbly request Appellee's counsel to not further drag this matter on, for a measly 3000$ for hardwork which we are rightfully and duly owed.

We also insert all contents of our 'Basis for Appeal' as if they were a part of the arguments within this brief.

@gribble19 please present an appellee brief within 72 hours.

 

[gribble19]

Username: TheSnowGuardian

I am representing a client

Who is your Client?: Talion & Partners INC., Noadenmark

What Case are you Appealing?: [2026] DCR 37

Link to the Original Case: Lawsuit: Adjourned - Noadenmark v. Zombie_Bro_ [2026] DCR 37

Basis for Appeal: The Court did not award Plaintiff's counsel legal fees.

According to Part III, Section 7(2)(h)(i), legal fees can only be given up where "communicated" to the Court. Appelant did not communicate so anywhere within the filing or the legal case.

The RCCA clearly dictates legal fees "shall" be awarded 30% of the value of the case to the prevailing party. The Court ruled that the Plaintiff is the prevailing party.

Additionally, the RCCA also clearly dictates that a minimum of 3000$ "shall" be awarded for any case heard by the District Court.

We respectfully request that the Court reverse the Hnble. District Court's judgement in not awarding legal fees and ask that Talion & Partners INC. be awarded 3000$.

Supporting Evidence:

Brief

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Brief - APPELLANT'S BRIEF

Your Honour, the appeal is quite simple. Talion & Partners INC. was supposed to get 3000$, the Honourable DCR missed it. Even if it was never originally asked for, stature requires that legal fees be awarded at a minimute rate or 30% of total value of case excluding legal fees, whichever is greater. The only option that legal fees should not be awarded is when counselcommunicates that they DON'T want legal fees to the Court, which we did not.

I humbly request Appellee's counsel to not further drag this matter on, for a measly 3000$ for hardwork which we are rightfully and duly owed.

We also insert all contents of our 'Basis for Appeal' as if they were a part of the arguments within this brief.

Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - PERJURY

Your Honor,
The appellant's counsel has commited perjury, in both their original request for appeal as well as in their appellant brief, by knowingly providing false testimony to this Court. Appellant again and again repeated that our law requires legal fees to be rewarded at a minimum of 30% of the case value and at a minimum of $3,000 for any case heard by the District Court. Appellant was and is well aware that this is a false statement, and yet provided this testimony to the court multiple times.

The Supreme Court of Redmont has recently, before the testimony made by appellant's counsel, ruled that a judicial officer under The Redmont Civil Code is allowed to grant a lesser legal fee than the mandatory requirements of an award as so far as the amount granted is above the statutory minimum of 15% of the case value. In re [2026] FCR 12 | [2026] SCR 9.

Appellant's counsel was well aware of this ruling and thus of this truth, as can be seen in A-001 and A-002, which show Apellant's counsel not only taking note of this ruling, but visibly enjoying it!

The Appellee respectfully requests that Apellant's counsel be appropriately punished for their perjurious testimony, and that all perjurious statements be struck from both the original request for an appeal (as it is part of Appellant's brief) and from Appellant's brief.

Thank you.

Spoiler: A-001

Spoiler: A-002

 

[TheSnowGuardian]

Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - PERJURY

Your Honor,
The appellant's counsel has commited perjury, in both their original request for appeal as well as in their appellant brief, by knowingly providing false testimony to this Court. Appellant again and again repeated that our law requires legal fees to be rewarded at a minimum of 30% of the case value and at a minimum of $3,000 for any case heard by the District Court. Appellant was and is well aware that this is a false statement, and yet provided this testimony to the court multiple times.

The Supreme Court of Redmont has recently, before the testimony made by appellant's counsel, ruled that a judicial officer under The Redmont Civil Code is allowed to grant a lesser legal fee than the mandatory requirements of an award as so far as the amount granted is above the statutory minimum of 15% of the case value. In re [2026] FCR 12 | [2026] SCR 9.

Appellant's counsel was well aware of this ruling and thus of this truth, as can be seen in A-001 and A-002, which show Apellant's counsel not only taking note of this ruling, but visibly enjoying it!

The Appellee respectfully requests that Apellant's counsel be appropriately punished for their perjurious testimony, and that all perjurious statements be struck from both the original request for an appeal (as it is part of Appellant's brief) and from Appellant's brief.

Thank you.

Spoiler: A-001

View attachment 83030

Spoiler: A-002

View attachment 83031

Your Honour, do I have to respond to this?

 

[Franciscus]

Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - PERJURY

Your Honor,
The appellant's counsel has commited perjury, in both their original request for appeal as well as in their appellant brief, by knowingly providing false testimony to this Court. Appellant again and again repeated that our law requires legal fees to be rewarded at a minimum of 30% of the case value and at a minimum of $3,000 for any case heard by the District Court. Appellant was and is well aware that this is a false statement, and yet provided this testimony to the court multiple times.

The Supreme Court of Redmont has recently, before the testimony made by appellant's counsel, ruled that a judicial officer under The Redmont Civil Code is allowed to grant a lesser legal fee than the mandatory requirements of an award as so far as the amount granted is above the statutory minimum of 15% of the case value. In re [2026] FCR 12 | [2026] SCR 9.

Appellant's counsel was well aware of this ruling and thus of this truth, as can be seen in A-001 and A-002, which show Apellant's counsel not only taking note of this ruling, but visibly enjoying it!

The Appellee respectfully requests that Apellant's counsel be appropriately punished for their perjurious testimony, and that all perjurious statements be struck from both the original request for an appeal (as it is part of Appellant's brief) and from Appellant's brief.

Thank you.

Spoiler: A-001

View attachment 83030

Spoiler: A-002

View attachment 83031

Overruled.

Perjury, at its core, is when someone knowingly misrepresents facts (see: Objections Guide, “misrepresents facts under oath”; see: CCA, Part III, Section 1, “knowingly provides false testimony”). Making arguments about the law is of a different kind and character to making representations about facts; the two are distinct categories of things. That the Supreme Court has interpreted a law does not transform that matter of law into a matter of fact.

A perjury objection cannot be sustained because someone is merely incorrect about the law; they have to knowingly be providing false representation on matters of fact. If a counsel is wrong about the law in some material way, that is the responsibility of the Court to correct in our rulings and of the opposing counsel to address in argument, not something warranting an objection for perjury.

 

[Franciscus]

Your Honour, do I have to respond to this?

Counselor:

You, TheSnowGuardian, have previously been to reminded to adhere to the decorum of this Court (see: mar_milk v. Plura72 and Social Democrat Party [2026] FCR 2, Post No. 46).

Bitingly sarcastic interjections phrased nominally as requests to the Court fall short of the decorum required of legal representatives in Redmont. The Court, noting its prior reminder, warns you that further such breaches of decorum may result in you being held in contempt.

 

[TheSnowGuardian]

Counselor:

You, TheSnowGuardian, have previously been to reminded to adhere to the decorum of this Court (see: mar_milk v. Plura72 and Social Democrat Party [2026] FCR 2, Post No. 46).

Bitingly sarcastic interjections phrased nominally as requests to the Court fall short of the decorum required of legal representatives in Redmont. The Court, noting its prior reminder, warns you that further such breaches of decorum may result in you being held in contempt.

Your Honour,
If Your Honour has prejudiced Your Honour's self with my conduct regarding to a non-relevant case, then I would strongly urge that Your Honour consider a recusal. Otherwise, I intend to tell Your Honour that Your Honour's warning is duly considered and of course, will be adhered to, however, I haven't an idea why Your Honour thinks my question was sarcastic in the slightest because I was indeed asking a genuine question and hoping for a response, with a smile! Of course, I will adhere to Your Honour's warning about respecting decorum of the Court!

 

[Franciscus]

Your Honour,
If Your Honour has prejudiced Your Honour's self with my conduct regarding to a non-relevant case, then I would strongly urge that Your Honour consider a recusal. Otherwise, I intend to tell Your Honour that Your Honour's warning is duly considered and of course, will be adhered to, however, I haven't an idea why Your Honour thinks my question was sarcastic in the slightest because I was indeed asking a genuine question and hoping for a response, with a smile! Of course, I will adhere to Your Honour's warning about respecting decorum of the Court!

I decline your request to recuse; I am not prejudiced here. In like with the Judicial Standards Act, I will have another judge review this request and provide comment as to your alleged grounds for recusal.

 

[TheSnowGuardian]

I decline your request to recuse. In like with the Judicial Standards Act, I will have another judge review this request and provide comment as to your alleged grounds for recusal.

Your Honour, I never made a motion to recuse. I just said if Your Honour has prejudiced Your Honour's self I would strongly urge you to consider recusal. The meaning of the statement being, if you think you have prejudiced yourself, then I would ask you to recuse. Is this a sign that Your Honour has thought of Your Honour's self as prejudiced?