Appeal: Accepted [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?

 

[Franciscus]

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?

As I explicitly stated, I do not think of myself as prejudiced in this case. I am, however, able to read subtext—it is self-evident to any reasonable observer that you would not have raised the issue had you not meant to suggest yourself that I may be prejudiced on this topic. For this reason, external review is warranted, as it constituted a constructive motion whether you said the words “motion to” or not.

 

[Muggy21]

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!

Recusal denied on review.

The Court didn't ask you for your suggestions, it gave you a direct order with an example of prior behaviour. Furthermore, the Federal Court, and Judge Multiman155, are impartial arbiters of justice, we aren't a party to this case. You do not argue with a court in the way that you did.

Furthermore, you're on the Redmont Bar Association, tasked with upholding the legal profession in/out of the courtroom. Act like it or the Court will adjust your attitude for you.


~Judge Mug.

 

[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!

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?

Court Order

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
SUMMARY CONVICTION - CONTEMPT OF COURT

"Litigants must respect decorum in the court" (In re [2026] FCR 8 | [2026] SCR 8). TheSnowGuardian was warned in this case to adhere to proper decorum when in front of the Court, on pain of contempt. Following this warning, TheSnowGuardian proceeded to troll the Court and engage in the same sort of biting sarcasm that earned the warning.

The Court does not tolerate continued breaches of decorum, particularly after a warning. Litigants must respect the decorum of the Court and must conduct themselves accordingly.

TheSnowGuardian is found to have disobeyed a direct order of the Court and to have engaged in conduct that obstructs or interferes with the administration of justice. The Court thus concludes that TheSnowGuardian have violated Criminal Code Act, Part III, Section 2, and finds TheSnowGuardian in Contempt of Court.

TheSnowGuardian is sentenced to $10,000 fine and 10 minutes in jail for this Contempt of Court.

The Judicial Standards Act governs the issuance of conduct strikes, with judges able to issue conduct strikes when a "lawyer’s conduct objectively reflects adversely on the legal profession" upon their conviction of Contempt of Court (see: JSA, Part VII, Section 1). The Court finds that repeated breaches of decorum objectively reflect adversely upon the legal profession as a matter of fact. The Federal Court issues a conduct strike against TheSnowGuardian.

So Ordered,
Hon. Judge Multiman155

 

[gribble19]

Your Honor, appellee respectfully requests a 20 hour extension to present their appellee brief.

 

[Franciscus]

Your Honor, appellee respectfully requests a 20 hour extension to present their appellee brief.

Granted

 

[gribble19]

Brief

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
APPELLEE BRIEF

Your Honor,

Appellant has appealed this case on the basis that they were not granted $3,000 in legal fees and that such is due to an error of fact or law.

The Court however, has not committed an error of fact or law in making this decision for the following reasons:

1. THE COURT DOES NOT HAVE TO ADHERE TO THE 30% OR $3,000 MINIMUM

In their original request for an appeal the Appellant alleged two errors of law, namely that the Court did not follow the provision in the RCCA dictating that legal fees "shall" be awarded at 30% of the value of the case to the prevailing party and the provision in the RCCA dictating that a minimum of 3000$ "shall" be awarded for any case heard by the District Court. Redmont Civil Code Act §3 Art. 7.2.a; id. at §3 Art. 7.2.d.

The Court, however, did not make an error of law in failing to follow these minima, as legal fees are not required to adhere to these minima. See In re [2026] FCR 12 | [2026] SCR 9.

2. THE CLAUSE DOES NOT STATE "ONLY"

The only remaining error alleged by Appellant is that the Court has made an error by failing to adhere to an RCCA provision that Appellant alleges states that legal fees can only be given up where "communicated" to the Court. This provision however, does not state that legal fees can only be given up where "communicated" to the Court, but rather that counsel may choose to give up legal fees and that if they wish to do so this must be communicated to the court in a case filing, response, or plea. Redmont Civil Code Ac §3 Art. 7.2.h.i. This provision does not state that the court is not allowed to grant legal fees only in those cases where counsel has not made such communications.

3. NO FURTHER ERRORS HAVE BEEN ALLEGED BY APPELLANT

In an appeal, it is Appellants duty to bring forward all errors of fact or law that have been made. It is not up to the Court to find errors of law to consider or find errors which have not been alleged by the Appellant. As all the errors alleged by the Appellant have been shown not to be errors as explained by Apellant, the Appellee respectfully request that the Court Affirm the lower Court' s decision.

4. PLAINTIFFS COUNSEL CHOSE TO GIVE UP LEGAL FEES IN THEIR COMPLAINT

Even if the Court were to find that it would constitute an error of law to not grant legal fees unless when a party's counsel has communicated to the court in a case filing, response, or plea that they choose not to be awarded legal fees upon success in a case, the Court in the original proceeding would not have made an error. Within the complaint in the original proceeding, Plaintiff's counsel specifically opted to not request legal fees, and in doing so communicated to the court, in their case filing, that they choose not to be awarded legal fees upon success in a case.

5. LEGAL FEES SHOULD BE AWARDED AT A DIMINISHED RATE

If the Court finds that it constituted an error to not grant legal fees in the original case and decides that legal fees should be granted, they should choose to grant legal fees at a diminished rate due to the messy proceedings in the original case and the very low case value of the original case. Granting $3,000 in legal fees for a small claim over a total requested relief of $1,050, would encourage further litigious behaviors from those with small claims, and discourage out of court settlements for such minor disputes. The Appellant respectfully requests that if the Court finds legal fees must be granted, that the Court does so at a diminished rate of 15% of the case value.

Thank you.

 

[Franciscus]

Appellant shall have 72 hours to post their response brief.

Brief

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
APPELLEE BRIEF

Your Honor,

Appellant has appealed this case on the basis that they were not granted $3,000 in legal fees and that such is due to an error of fact or law.

The Court however, has not committed an error of fact or law in making this decision for the following reasons:

1. THE COURT DOES NOT HAVE TO ADHERE TO THE 30% OR $3,000 MINIMUM

In their original request for an appeal the Appellant alleged two errors of law, namely that the Court did not follow the provision in the RCCA dictating that legal fees "shall" be awarded at 30% of the value of the case to the prevailing party and the provision in the RCCA dictating that a minimum of 3000$ "shall" be awarded for any case heard by the District Court. Redmont Civil Code Act §3 Art. 7.2.a; id. at §3 Art. 7.2.d.

The Court, however, did not make an error of law in failing to follow these minima, as legal fees are not required to adhere to these minima. See In re [2026] FCR 12 | [2026] SCR 9.

2. THE CLAUSE DOES NOT STATE "ONLY"

The only remaining error alleged by Appellant is that the Court has made an error by failing to adhere to an RCCA provision that Appellant alleges states that legal fees can only be given up where "communicated" to the Court. This provision however, does not state that legal fees can only be given up where "communicated" to the Court, but rather that counsel may choose to give up legal fees and that if they wish to do so this must be communicated to the court in a case filing, response, or plea. Redmont Civil Code Ac §3 Art. 7.2.h.i. This provision does not state that the court is not allowed to grant legal fees only in those cases where counsel has not made such communications.

3. NO FURTHER ERRORS HAVE BEEN ALLEGED BY APPELLANT

In an appeal, it is Appellants duty to bring forward all errors of fact or law that have been made. It is not up to the Court to find errors of law to consider or find errors which have not been alleged by the Appellant. As all the errors alleged by the Appellant have been shown not to be errors as explained by Apellant, the Appellee respectfully request that the Court Affirm the lower Court' s decision.

4. PLAINTIFFS COUNSEL CHOSE TO GIVE UP LEGAL FEES IN THEIR COMPLAINT

Even if the Court were to find that it would constitute an error of law to not grant legal fees unless when a party's counsel has communicated to the court in a case filing, response, or plea that they choose not to be awarded legal fees upon success in a case, the Court in the original proceeding would not have made an error. Within the complaint in the original proceeding, Plaintiff's counsel specifically opted to not request legal fees, and in doing so communicated to the court, in their case filing, that they choose not to be awarded legal fees upon success in a case.

5. LEGAL FEES SHOULD BE AWARDED AT A DIMINISHED RATE

If the Court finds that it constituted an error to not grant legal fees in the original case and decides that legal fees should be granted, they should choose to grant legal fees at a diminished rate due to the messy proceedings in the original case and the very low case value of the original case. Granting $3,000 in legal fees for a small claim over a total requested relief of $1,050, would encourage further litigious behaviors from those with small claims, and discourage out of court settlements for such minor disputes. The Appellant respectfully requests that if the Court finds legal fees must be granted, that the Court does so at a diminished rate of 15% of the case value.

Thank you.

 

[TheSnowGuardian]

Appellant shall have 72 hours to post their response brief.

Your Honour, I request an extension until Sunday. The weekend will give me time to work on the brief, unfortunately, I've had university.

 

[Franciscus]

Your Honour, I request an extension until Sunday. The weekend will give me time to work on the brief, unfortunately, I've had university.

Granted.

 

[Smallfries]

All deadlines tolled from this moment pending reassignment.

 

[Muggy21]

@TheSnowGuardian Do you still wish to be heard in a Response Brief?

If so, please take until 6/7/26 @ 9pm EST. If not, please advise.

 

[TheSnowGuardian]

@TheSnowGuardian Do you still wish to be heard in a Response Brief?

If so, please take until 6/7/26 @ 9pm EST. If not, please advise.

We do wish to file one, Your Honour.

 

[Muggy21]

We do wish to file one, Your Honour.

You appeared to have been Thanos-snapped counselor.

The Court will extend your response period to 6/11/26 at 9pm EST.

 

[TheSnowGuardian]

You appeared to have been Thanos-snapped counselor.

The Court will extend your response period to 6/11/26 at 9pm EST.

I am no longer employed (I thanos-snapped myself) with TT&P, Your Honour. If @xXTheoryXx still wants me to file it, I can.

 

[TheSnowGuardian]

As I am no longer a party to this appeal, I believe Theory needs to be summoned

 

[TheSnowGuardian]

Spoiler

Your Honour, Theory, Talion & Partners Inc. and Noadenmark are both going to be represented by me.

 

[TheSnowGuardian]

You appeared to have been Thanos-snapped counselor.

The Court will extend your response period to 6/11/26 at 9pm EST.

Your Honour, I have tests for this entire week, can I submit this by Sunday?

 

[Muggy21]

Your Honour, I have tests for this entire week, can I submit this by Sunday?

Granted

 

[TheSnowGuardian]

Brief

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Appellant’s Response Brief

Your Honour, the Appellant (“we”, “us”, “our”) will address the Appellee’s claims and defences as follows:

I. Statute Addresses the Problem​

In Section 1 of the Appellee’s brief, the Appellee claims that the Court does not have to adhere to the minimum. The Redmont Civil Code Act specifically addresses this as follows:

All matters settled in the District Court, and where such a matter reaches a verdict, a minimum of 3000$ shall be awarded. Part III, RCCA, §7(2)(d).

The Plaintiff can, however, choose not to be awarded legal fees. Id. §7(2)(h)(i).

We have already stated the above in their Basis for Appeal and Appellant Brief. Basis for Appeal; Appellant’s Brief.

A. Statute Supports Our Claim That Legal Fees Should be Awarded​

On reviewing the language of the Redmont Civil Code Act, Congress has repeatedly used the word “shall” for the section on Legal Fees.

As mentioned supra with reference to RCCA, Part III, §7(2)(d), statute statutorily requires the Court to grant us legal fees statutorily as the case reached a verdict as defined by statute. Can statute get more clear than this? We, statutorily, think not and plead as such.

Appellee’s inference that Appellant’s counsel chose not to be awarded legal fees will be further discussed infra.

B. Precedent Cited by Appellee Contradicts Appellee’s Arguments​

In the precedent cited by the Appellee in their brief, the Appellee uses it to justify the Hnble. District Court (hereby known as the ‘Trial Court’) of Redmont’s decision not to award legal fees.

However, our claims are not whether the Trial Court was right in diminishing the award or wasn’t statutorily allowed to diminish the award, but rather, that the Court isn’t statutorily allowed to choose not to award legal fees unless explicitly asked by the Plaintiff. (supra)

On examining the precedent cited itself, the Hnble. Supreme Court of Redmont itself noted that “the diminution of award serves as an exception to the mandatory requirements of an award.” In re [2026] FCR 12 | [2026] SCR 9.

Even if we considered the Appellee’s argument that the Trial Court has the power to diminish the award, which we are not arguing against, the Trial Court still has to adhere to the minimum as dictated by statute. Id.

There is, and if it isn’t, should be, a clear difference between diminishing an award and choosing not to award in its entirety. These two functions are completely different and come under different circumstances. Compare RCCA, Part III, § 7(2)(h)(i) (“[l]egal representatives may choose not to be awarded legal fees upon success in a case”), with § 7(4) (“legal fees may be diminished at the discretion of the presiding officer ..”, emphasis mine, and “in cases that reach a verdict, legal fees must not be awarded at a rate less than 15% of the value of the case in any court ..”)

C. The Appellate Court Should Not Diminish Legal Fees​

We believe this Hnble. Court can take two of many actions: either reverse or reverse and remand. Judicial Standards Act, Part VI, Section 2(3).

On the matter of reversing the decision of not awarding legal fees, if the Court finds that there is no legal justification for choosing not to award legal fees or diminishing legal fees, it can simply reverse the Trial Court’s decision and award legal fees to the Appellant’s Counsel.

However, if the Court finds that there is no legal justification for not awarding legal fees, a question may still arise as to whether the award should be diminished; in such cases, the case should be remanded to the Trial Court with the specific instruction to reassess the award of legal fees. It is not within the purview of the Appellate Court to determine, but rather to review. cf. Lawsuit: Dismissed - jsrkiwi v Trentrick_Lamar [2025] DCR 90 | DemocracyCraft, Post #12. If the Court chooses this option and remands the case back to the Trial Court, the Trial Court may choose to diminish the legal fees; as such, it may return to this Court on another appeal on whether the diminishing of legal fees was appropriate. See Judicial Standards Act, Part VI, Section 1(4) (“Appellate courts are established [f]or a proceeding in the District Court, the Federal Court”, determination of legal fees being a District Court proceeding).

Appellee’s argument that “[g]ranting $3,000 in legal fees for a small claim … would encourage further litigious behaviors from those with small claims, and discourage out of court settlements for such minor disputes” is confusing to us for a great number of reasons:

1. Is it the Appellee’s argument that Appellants like us should not seek judicial relief?
2. The Appellee themself refused to pay the amount ordered by the Court prior to the lawsuit, what further “out of court settlement” does the Appellee want us to indulge in?
3. Is it not the burden of legal fees and a lawsuit that should discourage erroneous behaviour like the Appellee’s?

For this defunct reason of the Appellee, we ask that the Court refuse to consider the diminished rate.

Additionally, even if the Court made the decision that the Trial Court is not the venue for the determination of legal fees, the reasoning cited by the Appellee isn’t statutorily enough for the diminsihing of legal fees. RCCA, Part III, §7(4)(a). Appellant’s counsel hasn’t shown incompetent behaviour or acted outrageously within the original lawsuit.

II. Questions and Issues of Law​

A. Whether the Trial Court Even Has the Power to Diminish Legal Fees​

As discussed supra in Section I.C., we claim that the Trial Court may not have an option to diminish legal fees.

The Court must now consider the weight of two clauses, RCCA, Part III §7(2)(d) and §7(4).

We claim that there are two interpretations the Court can take up on this matter,

1. Interpretation 1: There is a minimum of 3000$ to be awarded as legal fees, but the Trial Court may diminish this award, noting that this cannot go below 15% of the total case value. We oppose this idea for the most obvious reasons. The Court first must indulge in what it considers a “minimum” and whether this minimum can be diminished. However, we concede this is the most logical idea and seems to line up with legislative intent. (infra)

It seems Congress does want to allow Judicial Officers to diminish even the minimum. Compare (repealed) Legal Damages Act, §9(3)(a) (said minimum being established in the Dimunition of Award section), with RCCA, Part III §7(2)(d) (the minimum being moved up to the award section).

2. Interpretation 2: There is a minimum of 3000$ to be awarded as legal fees; the Trial Court cannot diminish this award. If the Court supports this interpretation, then there is no legal justification to remand the case back to the Trial Court.

B. We Plead Legal Fees Should be Opt-Out​

The Appellee’s inference that the lack of a claim for legal fees is communication that the Appellant’s counsel chooses not to be awarded legal fees is without any merit.

As discussed supra in Section I.A, statute already dictates that legal fees “shall” be awarded at a minimum of 3000$ for cases heard in the District Court.

However, we vehemently oppose this interpretation that lack of a communication is a communication by itself. Statute clearly requires that a communication be made in plea, response, or any filing for the claim of legal fees to be forfeited. See RCCA Part III, §7(2)(h)(i). Lack of a communication is not a communication; it is quite literally not a communication.

We would also like to remind the Court that there was a change of legal representatives in the case. Initially, the Appellant represented themself pro se, however, Theory, Talion & Partners stepped into the picture after the Appellant sought legal counsel.

III. Conclusion​

For the reasons above, we request that the Court either:
1. Reverse the Trial Court’s decision and grant the 3000$ minimum, or,
2. Reverse the Trial Court’s decision and remand it back to the Trial Court for determination of legal fees.

Author: TheSnowGuardian

 

[Muggy21]

Verdict

IN THE FEDERAL OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Memorandum, Decision & Order - [2026] DCR 37 - Appeal | [2026] FCR 40


In the underlying matter, the District Court issued a judgment in favour of the Plaintiff. The District Court awarded no legal fees. On review of the application and briefing before the Court in the instant appeal, the Federal Court now issues the following decision.


OPINION OF THE COURT

Section 7(2)(a) of the Redmont Civil Code Act directs that legal fees shall be awarded to the prevailing party at thirty percent of the value of the case. Section 7(2)(d) provides that, where a matter heard in the District Court reaches a verdict, a minimum of $3,000 shall be awarded. Section 7(2)(h)(i) permits a legal representative to choose not to be awarded legal fees, and provides that such an election must be communicated to the Court in a filing, response, or plea. Section 7(4) authorises the presiding officer to diminish legal fees in their discretion, but fixes a floor: in cases that reach a verdict, fees must not be awarded at a rate less than fifteen percent of the value of the case. The Supreme Court has partially affirmed this statutory scheme In re [2026] FCR 12 | [2026] SCR 9, holding that a judicial officer may grant a lesser fee than the mandatory award so long as the amount remains above the fifteen percent statutory floor, and describing the diminution of an award as an exception to the mandatory requirements of an award. Both parties rely on this precedent.


The Appellee proffers that Appellant had waived fees by declining to request them, this is incorrect. Section 7(2)(h)(i) frames waiver as an affirmative election: a representative "may choose not to be awarded" fees, and that choice "must be communicated" to the Court. A communicated choice requires the expression of a choice. Silence, or the mere omission of a fee request, is not the communication the statute demands. With respect to the diminution argument, zero is not an acceptable value within the definitions of the RCCA, the District Court erred in only awarding nothing.

ORDER OF THE COURT

The District Court's decision to award no legal fees to the prevailing party was contrary to the RCCA and is an error of law. As the reviewing court, this court must not replace its judgement for that of the trial court. The trial court, as the original trier of fact, has the superior ability to evaluate witness credibility, weigh testimony, and determine the facts of the controversy; Therefore, it is prudent that the lower Court be afforded the opportunity to make this determination.

The Federal Court reverses the judgement of the District Court, insofar as no legal fees were awarded, and remands the case back to the lower Court for further proceedings consistent with the this Court's decision.


So ordered,
Judge Mug