Appeal: Denied Appeal in re:Superwoops Contempt [2026] FCR 1

[Superwoops]

Username: Superwoops

I am representing myself

What Case are you Appealing?: [2025] DCR 96 - Contempt of Court charge

Link to the Original Case: Lawsuit: In Session - Muggy21 v. Riverardd [2025] DCR 96

Basis for Appeal: I am appealing all three contempt charges in the above case where I served as the assigned PD.

Charge 1:
I was dismissed as PD, which prompts the Public Defense Director (hereafter called PDD) to assign a Public Defender again. I was dismissed again, and given a warning to not speak again. I was re-reassigned as the Public Defender. Because I now was Defense counsel once more, I responded to a motion (Magistrate Vennefly had instructed that the new PD respond to the motion immediately). Without having been given lawful warning, I was charged with contempt.

While a warning was given, Section III(2) of the CCA does not apply. It specifically reads"gives a lawful order". The order stopped being lawful as soon as I was reassigned as a Public Defender. Note that there is nothing stopping the PDD from reassigning the same PD to a case, especially when dismissal for PD competence is wholly unjustified. I fulfilled my duties as PD, especially by looking at Rule 6.5(1) of the Court Rules of Procedure, which states that I must "Attempt to move the matter favorably in their client’s situation, even settling if needed." It is assumed (because it is never stated outright) that this is the sub-rule I was dismissed for. I did attempt to move the matter favourably, as the whole settlement would only have cost my client the $800 in his name, which one can easily earn through a day of voting rewards. This settlement also removed the apology required by the prayer for relief.

Perhaps more worryingly, Magistrate Vennefly appeared to be under the impression that they are entitled to perform the duties of the Public Defense Director by hand-picking the Public Defenders that take said case. The Constitution states that "he Judicial arm of Government shall also establish and maintain a Public Defender program to provide the assistance of legal counsel." It also states that "Only text physically contained within the Constitution itself may be considered a part of the Constitution.". The Judiciary has already fulfilled its duty by establishing a program, naming a PDD and maintaining it by providing funds for the payment of PDs. That is it. We cannot add meaning to the Constitution when it is not there. It specifically does not say "run" the program for a reason. To fill in the blank of "who runs the PD program?" the answer can be found in the Public Defender Director EOI form, created by the Judiciary. Within it, the PDD's role is to "Manage and supervise attorneys, staff, and support personnel within the Public Defender's office."


Charge 2 & 3:
After being held in contempt, I filed more motions. Note that the contempt charge did not include a warning, although it could be implied that the charge itself is a warning.
In any case, this is not my argument. I filed more motions, as I was not re-dismissed by the Presiding Officer after that last time when the PDD publicly and privately reassured I was the assigned PD. Again, the order was not a lawful one, and as such I was certain I could remain involved in the case.


Additionally, I move for the conduct strike attached to the third contempt charge to be struck. It is unreasonable to suggest that the Judicial Officer was satisfied my conduct reflected negatively on the legal profession as a whole. At most, I was attempting to fight for the rights of my client amidst a situation where the Honourable Magistrate was attempting to interfere with the process of reaching a settlement agreement. Moreover, Public Defenders expressly have the authority to sign these types of agreements on their client's behalf.

Supporting Evidence: I would like to submit the conversation between me and the PDD in the Court Discord, but I am not sure if said channels are classified so I will hold off for now.

 

[Superwoops]

Additionally, I ask that Magistrate Vennefly’s contempt of court charges are not enforced until the conclusion of this appeal, following what was done in the following appeal:
Post in thread '[2025] DCR 106 - Appeal'
Appeal: Accepted - [2025] DCR 106 - Appeal

 

[Muggy21]

I recuse from the consideration of this appeal on the basis that I'm the named Plaintiff in the underlying DCR case. The Chief Justice has been notified regarding this appeal and it will proceed after a JO is assigned.

 

[ko531]

Verdict

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Verdict - Appeal of Contempt of Court Charges against Superwoops in [2025] DCR 96

Summary of Public Defender Superwoops's conduct in [2025] DCR 96
Superwoops after being assigned to this case by the Public Defender Director, reached a settlement with the plaintiff on behalf of their client. The Honorable Vennefly declined to accept the given settlement and dismissed Superwoops as the Public defender of this case for failure to adequately protect the Defendant's interests. After being reassigned by the Public Defender Director, Superwoop's presented himself which was met with another dismissal by Magistrate Vennefly. Vennefly also assigned Vernicia to the case as the public defender. The Public Defender Director then tried to overrule the order by reassigning Superwoops which was met with a contempt charge. Following the Public Defender Director's order, Superwoops began practicing in the case by filing motions, all of which were struck and met with contempt charges, three in total.

Analysis on Appeal
The appellant brings up multiple issues with the legality of the Magistrates actions in this case. As this is an appeal on contempt charges, the charges are all that will be considered and not the legality of the Magistrates conduct.

When looking at this case, it is clear that Magistrate Vennefly dismissed Superwoops and assigned Vernicia to the case. This is where the actions of the appellant should have stopped whether or not they believe the act to be illegal. If legality is of question there are other avenues to address those concerns such as through appeal of the case or an entirely new case brought by the Public Defender Director. The Public Defender Director after this court order assigning Vernicia decided to try and overrule the order and draw the case away from the issue brought in the original complaint and into a new issue over the power of who can assign public defenders. The conduct by the appellant Superwoop only fueled this effort by the Public Defender Director. This conduct therefore meets the defintion of "engages in conduct that obstructs or interferes with the administration of justice" set by the definition of Contempt of Court in CCA.

This means all three contempt court charges and conduct strike will remain in effect and this appeal is denied