Appeal: Denied [2026] DCR 92 - Appeal | [2026] SCR 15

Status
Not open for further replies.
S

Slime_Mario

Citizen
Slime_Mario
Slime_Mario
Solicitor
Joined
May 27, 2026
Messages
18


Username: Slime_Mario

I am representing myself

What Case are you Appealing?: [2026] DCR 92

Link to the Original Case: Lawsuit: Pending - Slime_Mario v. Department of Commerce [2026] DCR 92

Basis for Appeal: The Presiding Officer, Judge Muggy21, committed clear bias, a factual error, and a constitutional violation by denying the Plaintiff’s Motion to Recuse on June 22, 2026.

According to the Guide - Motions (Recusal), the Chief Justice has the authority to overrule a Judge's denial of recusal.

I appeal the Court Order on Recusal in Slime_Mario v. Department of Commerce [2026] DCR 92 on the following grounds:

Actual and Perceived Bias: Under the Guide - Motions, a Judge must remove themselves due to actual or perceived impartiality or a conflict of interest. On June 22, 2026, the Presiding Officer (acting in his private capacity as operator of The Stock Exchange) took retaliatory, punitive action against the Plaintiff by banning him from the exchange due to personal animosity arising from a public Discord debate.

Factual Error: In his denial, the Presiding Officer claimed the allegations of retaliation were "bare assertions" lacking evidence. The Plaintiff is submitting undeniable evidence, proving the Presiding Officer openly bragged on Discord about banning the Plaintiff for his Discord messages.

Constitutional Violation: Under Section 33(9) of the Constitution, every citizen has the right to a "trial presided over by an impartial Judicial Officer." A Judge who is literally actively withholding a Plantiff's property and banning them from participating in Redmont's only stock exchange, cannot, under any possible legal standard, be perceived as impartial.

The Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Chief Justice overrule the denial, remove Judge Muggy21 from the case, and order the assignment of a new, impartial Judicial Officer.

Supporting Evidence: Publicly clarify the rules for predictive markets or ban the stock exchange for gambling
Slime_Mario
OP
— Yesterday at 10:03 PM
betting on "Who will win the House Special Election?" is clearly a form of gambling and should be banned under the new rules

"Participating in, advertising, promoting, or facilitating gambling services is prohibited. This prohibition does not apply to player-run arcade or casino games conducted exclusively within the game or on Discord and not involving real-world currency or external gambling services."

The Stock Exchange is also making money on facilitating this gambling with a 5% rake
Image
Long Island — Yesterday at 10:22 PM
This is Facts
Seedslol [PLEX], Role icon, Homeland Department — Yesterday at 10:33 PM
Your honor it’s a prediction market
[PLEX],
Slime_Mario
OP
— Yesterday at 10:36 PM
it literally isnt though because you cant trade with other people or anything, although i suppose the example i showed is less gambling than the other ones
Image
for these yes/no bets im pretty sure they're just bets against the stock exchange itself?
Seedslol [PLEX], Role icon, Homeland Department — Yesterday at 10:39 PM
The exchange just acts as a market maker to create liquidity I’m pretty sure
You can sell your yes/no shares though I know
Slime_Mario
OP
— Yesterday at 10:40 PM
you cant set them at specific prices or anything its all dictated by the exchange
MugRole icon, System Administrator — Yesterday at 10:41 PM
Server leadership blessed the prediction market on TSE as designed* under the new rule change.
Slime_Mario
OP
— Yesterday at 10:43 PM
i mean its kinda unfair that a random site gets "blessed" by the owners
Zombian BeerRole icon, System Administrator — Yesterday at 10:43 PM
I do wonder what then the line is if its not gambling

I recall you saying you being unable to advertise it, but it can exist under these rules?
Seems odd
MugRole icon, System Administrator — Yesterday at 10:43 PM
A random site?
TSE's casino, before the rule change, couldn't be advertised
I didn't advertise the prediction market b/c I didn't want to make that a focal point
Zombian BeerRole icon, System Administrator — Yesterday at 10:44 PM
Oh right I forgot that was a thing
MugRole icon, System Administrator — Yesterday at 10:45 PM
the random site that is sitting on this server's homepage.
Image
Slime_Mario
OP
— Yesterday at 10:46 PM
okay? its still unfair someone else cant make their own site and get blessed, making it much more difficult for other people to create a new site considering how vague the rules are
if prediction markets are allowed then make an exception in the rules, stop having it be a vague system
MugRole icon, System Administrator — Yesterday at 10:47 PM
Bro, you're confusing yourself.
I just made a staff ticket and asked leadership if what I was doing was a problem. End said no, literally ANYONE can do this.
Slime_Mario
OP
— Yesterday at 10:48 PM
first of all there was literally an entire riot to ban end from making staff decisions idk what happened to that
second that was never publicly stated
MugRole icon, System Administrator — Yesterday at 10:48 PM
End is still a server owner so that first remark is nonsense and the 2nd statement, okay?
It was a leadership-level staff ticket
Slime_Mario
OP
— Yesterday at 10:51 PM
"End will abstain from in day-to-day operations for the Network effectively immediately for 12 months ( June 8, 2027 12:00 AM ). He will only involve himself in strategic decisions which are made at a leadership level"
MugRole icon, System Administrator — Yesterday at 10:52 PM
Server leadership told me that the prediction market didn't run afoul of the new gambling rule
Slime_Mario
OP
— Yesterday at 10:52 PM
then revise the rule and have it be less vague
MugRole icon, System Administrator — Yesterday at 10:53 PM
That doesn't change the fact that you want to ban a very popular service because of your misunderstanding.
Slime_Mario
changed the post title: Publicly clarify the rules for predictive markets or ban the stock exchange for gambling — Yesterday at 10:53 PM
Slime_Mario
OP
— Yesterday at 10:56 PM
LMAO MUG BANNED ME FROM THE STOCK MARKET
MugRole icon, System Administrator — Yesterday at 10:58 PM
dont want peeps on my discord server that call to ban something I've been working on for months b/c they dont understand how it works
Slime_Mario
OP
— Yesterday at 10:59 PM
yea i should have just "understood" that you had a private staff ticket where you got blessed
MugRole icon, System Administrator — Yesterday at 10:59 PM
Yea, because why wouldnt I (a staff member) not comply with a new server rule?
It's not like most (if not all) staff members know what TSE is
Why would I openly violate the gambling rule?
Even if you were concerned about this, why not make a staff ticket?
 
The official Motions guide said it had to be the Chief Justice.
 

Response


IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
RESPONSE TO REMARKS

Your Honor, the Plaintiff respectfully rejects the Presiding Officer's proposal to bypass the Supreme Court:

  1. The Guide - Motions (Recuse) states that a recusal motion is decided first by the presiding judge, and then the Chief Justice if necessary. The Presiding Officer has already issued a Court Order denying the recusal. Therefore, any additional decisions on that motion can now only be decided by the Chief Justice.
  2. The Plaintiff does not consent to a deviation from the official motions guide.
The Plaintiff respectfully requests a formal ruling from the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court on the motion.

Respectfully submitted,
Slime_Mario
Licensed Solicitor
Plaintiff, self-represented

 

Court Order


IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Please link the FCR appeal that this case is coming from. The Supreme Court has the ability to review Federal Court decisions, not District Court decisions. It is improper for a case to be made as a direct appeal to the Supreme Court from the District Court. Appeal: Denied - [2025] DCR 106 Appeal - Appeal.

 

Response


IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Your Honor,

The Plantiff is not appealing a final verdict from the District Court. Therefore, the standard appeals hierarchy and the precedent of [2025] DCR 106 Appeal do not apply.

This appeal is an interlocutory appeal on a pending Motion to Recuse in an active District Court case. Under Court Rule 6.4, motions are actionable by the Supreme Court’s own Guide - Motions.

This legally binding guide explicitly establishes the procedure for recusal: "The motion is decided first by the presiding judge, then the Chief Justice if necessary." The rules do not provide for, nor do they permit, a Federal Court to rule on a pending motion for recuse inside an ongoing District Court case.

Because the Motions Guide explicitly designates the Chief Justice as the secondary decisionmaker in this situation, the Plantiff has properly filed this appeal in the Supreme Court.

Respectfully submitted,
Slime_Mario
Licensed Solicitor
Plaintiff, self-represented

 
Slime_Mario said:

Response


IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Your Honor,

The Plantiff is not appealing a final verdict from the District Court. Therefore, the standard appeals hierarchy and the precedent of [2025] DCR 106 Appeal do not apply.

This appeal is an interlocutory appeal on a pending Motion to Recuse in an active District Court case. Under Court Rule 6.4, motions are actionable by the Supreme Court’s own Guide - Motions.

This legally binding guide explicitly establishes the procedure for recusal: "The motion is decided first by the presiding judge, then the Chief Justice if necessary." The rules do not provide for, nor do they permit, a Federal Court to rule on a pending motion for recuse inside an ongoing District Court case.

Because the Motions Guide explicitly designates the Chief Justice as the secondary decisionmaker in this situation, the Plantiff has properly filed this appeal in the Supreme Court.

Respectfully submitted,
Slime_Mario
Licensed Solicitor
Plaintiff, self-represented

Click to expand...
To confirm because you did not file this as an interlocutory appeal, you are confirming now that this is an interlocutory appeal from the District Court?
 
Your Honor,

Yes, I formally confirm that this is an interlocutory appeal of the District Court's denial of the Motion to Recuse in Slime_Mario v. Department of Commerce [2026] DCR 92.
 
I apologize for any confusion and not making my initial filing clearer that this was an interlocutory appeal.
 

Court Order


SUPREME COURT OF REDMONT
ORDER - DISMISSAL

The Supreme Court of Redmont unanimously dismisses this appeal. In short, this appeal is totally invalid and ignores all of the proper statutory schema created to foster appeals and relevant interlocutory processes. See Judicial Standards Act ("JSA") Part VI. The appeal erroneously cites an outdated court guide, which counseled that a request to recuse a presiding officer would be decided by the Chief Justice, personally. Court Guide: Motions.

We understand that Appellant relied on this and trust that reliance was in good faith, but it was clearly in error. This guide was severely outdated, and goes directly against legislative authority duly and properly promulgated by Congress. JSA Part VI. Further, even if this guide was intended by us it would be irrelevant as our court rules apply only in the absence of legislative or constitutional guidance. See Court R. & Proc. § 1.1.

While an understandable mistake, this was a mistake nonetheless. The lower court has disposed of this issue properly, and the Supreme Court will inflict no punishment on Appellant or order to the lower court.

So ordered.

 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top