Appeal: Accepted Appeal In Re: Brzzzes, Contempt of Court and Perjury [2026] FCR 22

[Brzzzes]

Username: Brzzzes

I am representing myself

What Case are you Appealing?: [2026] DCR 27

Link to the Original Case: Lawsuit: Pending - Fletchingrs v. UrbanDesign [2026] DCR 27

Basis for Appeal: 1. Reversible Error: Failure to Prove "Specific Intent" (Mens Rea)
Under the Criminal Code Act (CCA), Perjury requires that the defendant knowingly provide false testimony. The Appellant maintains that the statements made were not "knowing falsehoods" but were "procedural nomenclature errors." As a Barrister specialized in Corporate and Administration, the Appellant utilized terminology consistent with administrative oversight (where a party's demand to end a case is a de facto dismissal) rather than the strict docket labeling of the District Court. A mistake of professional labeling is not a crime of moral turpitude.

2. Violation of Judicial Precedent (Bardiya_King Standard)
In Commonwealth v. Bardiya_King [2023] SCR 23, the Supreme Court established that mislabeled or sloppily titled motions should be addressed by striking the motion or warning counsel. The District Court’s decision to bypass these procedural remedies in favor of a summary criminal conviction and a conduct strike is a departure from established precedent and constitutes an abuse of discretion.

3. Disproportionate Sentencing
A fine of $45,000 and 130 minutes of imprisonment for a first-time procedural misunderstanding is grossly disproportionate. Such a sentence effectively dismantles the Appellant's legal practice (Utterly Amazing Group LLC) before a higher court can review the merits of the underlying confusion.

Supporting Evidence: Exhibit A: The Defendant's "Dismissal" Arguments

Reference: District Court Record, Post #9 and #10.

Description: In these posts, the Defendant argued that they had already refunded the money and that the case should be struck or stopped.

Purpose: To prove the Appellant did not "invent" a motion from thin air, but was responding to the substance of the Defendant’s arguments for the case to end.

Exhibit B: Professional Certification of Appellant

Reference: Appellant's Profile.

Description: Confirmation that the Appellant is a Barrister specialized in Corporate and Administration.

Purpose: To demonstrate that the Appellant's "Discovery Notice" (Post #12) and use of "Motion to Dismiss" terminology were based on Corporate Administrative training, proving a lack of criminal intent to deceive a Civil District Court.

Exhibit C: Timing of the Response to Order to Show Cause

Reference: Post #28 (Judge's Order) and Post #29 (Appellant's Response).

Description: The Appellant responded within eight (8) minutes.

Purpose: To show "Good Faith." A person intending to commit perjury would likely avoid immediate interaction with the Court. The rapid response indicates a lack of a "guilty mind."

 

[Muggy21]

@Brzzzes

In review of the application, the Federal Court stays the penalties levied by Judge Multiman155. The Federal Court hasn't granted the appeal, it simply seeks to review the appeal.

In the meantime, what is a "Bar Association Registry?" If you're using an external tool to assist with your writing, you need to proof-read it.

 

[Brzzzes]

Sorry got it to fix my grammar and some my wording because I didn't like it. I think it saw sine imperfections on what I wrote though. I said to it that I wanted it to double check it and fix and grammar and wording.

 

[Brzzzes]

@Brzzzes

In review of the application, the Federal Court stays the penalties levied by Judge Multiman155. The Federal Court hasn't granted the appeal, it simply seeks to review the appeal.

In the meantime, what is a "Bar Association Registry?" If you're using an external tool to assist with your writing, you need to proof-read it.

Just fixed it thanks for the notice

 

[Muggy21]

Verdict

IN THE FEDERAL OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Order - Brzzzes v. Honourable Judge Multiman155 [2026] FCR 22

Controversy on Appeal

On March 31st, 2026, Judge Multiman155 issued an Order to Show Cause against Appellant for the purpose of determining if a summary conviction of Perjury and Contempt of Court was appropriate. The District Court levied these charges on five statements that were, in the lower Court's view, were "plainly false or misleading representations." After permitting a response from Appellant, the lower Court issued an order finding Appellant guilty of Perjury x2, x1 Contempt of Court, and issued a Conduct Strike.

The Appellant raises three grounds of appeal: (1) failure to prove the requisite mens rea for Perjury; (2) violation of the precedent established in Commonwealth v. Bardiya_King [2023] SCR 23; and (3) disproportionate sentencing.

Remarks on the Jurisdiction of the District Court

CCA Section 6(2)(c) grants Judicial Officers the authority to impose punishments for summary offenses committed during proceedings without the need for a standalone prosecution. This Court accepts that the summary conviction mechanism is not a prosecution in the traditional sense. It is an ancillary judicial tool designed to allow courts to maintain order and integrity during proceedings, and it operates separately from the Department of Justice's prosecutorial function. The Federal Court has confirmed that self-representation does not constitute the practice of law under the Modern Legal Reform Act (Commonwealth v. MC20masarati [2025] FCR 57), and the Appellant's appearance before the District Court as self-represented counsel does not alter the nature of the summary conviction mechanism invoked against them.

The summary conviction mechanism does not, however, operate without limit. The Constitution establishes a tiered court structure with deliberate jurisdictional ceilings. The District Court holds original jurisdiction over minor criminal prosecutions resulting in jail not exceeding 60 minutes or fines not exceeding D$10,000 (R Const., Section 16(1)(d)). The Federal Court holds original jurisdiction over major criminal prosecutions exceeding those thresholds (R Const., Section 18(1)(b)). This Court has previously applied those thresholds to assess its own jurisdiction, dismissing a civil case for falling below the Federal Court's floor and confirming that the D$10,000 and 60-minute markers are operative jurisdictional boundaries (YourlocalDiabeto v. jb4bass [2025] FCR 79; AlexanderLove v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2024] FCR 99).

The spirit of this tiered structure is clear: the District Court is designed to be an accessible, approachable forum for minor matters, while more serious criminal consequences carry the procedural weight of a higher court. To permit the summary conviction power to operate without any reference to the jurisdictional ceiling of the court exercising it would allow a District Court judicial officer to impose penalties of any magnitude simply because the conduct occurred during proceedings, effectively circumventing the constitutional architecture entirely. A defendant whose identical conduct was prosecuted as a standalone indictable offense would face those charges in the Federal Court. That same defendant cannot be deprived of that protection merely because the mechanism invoked is labeled summary rather than prosecutorial.

This Court holds that the District Court's summary conviction authority is bounded by the same sentencing ceiling that defines its original criminal jurisdiction: no more than D$10,000 in fines and no more than 60 minutes imprisonment per individual conviction. This does not deprive the District Court of meaningful summary authority. Within those limits, the full range of judicial discretion remains available. It means only that the summary conviction power cannot be used to impose consequences that would, if sought through formal prosecution, require the jurisdiction of a higher court. To hold otherwise would permit the summary conviction mechanism to swallow the constitutional limits on District Court criminal authority entirely, contrary to the spirit and structure of the Constitution.

Decision on Appeal

The Federal Court has held that Perjury constitutes the deliberate act of presenting fabricated information with the intention of deceiving the court (Commonwealth of Redmont v. Wetc [2024] FCR 68), and that litigants have a duty of candor and that unsubstantiated false factual claims can result in a Perjury charge.

In applying this standard, this Court sees no reason to disturb the factual findings of the District Court. As the trial judge, Judge Multiman155 is in a more advantageous position to discern the behaviours of participants in proceedings and, without unreasonable error of law or fact appearing on the face of the record, this Court will defer to those findings. The Appellant has not demonstrated that the District Court's conclusions regarding knowledge and intent were unreasonable on the evidence before it. Deference to the trial court on questions of credibility and conduct is particularly appropriate where, as here, the impugned statements were made directly before the presiding officer, who was best placed to assess their character and context.

With respect to a possible obligation under the Bardiya_King SCR case, this Court does not read Bardiya_King so broadly in these circumstances. The District Court did effectively warn the Appellant in Post No. 15, directly informing them that no Motion to Dismiss had been filed and requesting clarification. That warning was given and was not heeded.

The third ground is noted by the Court and will adjust accordingly.


Order of the Court

The convictions on two counts of Perjury and one count of Contempt of Court are AFFIRMED.
The conduct strike is AFFIRMED.
The sentence is VACATED AND REMANDED.

With respect to the penalties, the Federal Court remands this component of this decision back to the lower Court. The maximum penalty for any distinct District Court summary offense is $10,000 in fines and 60 minutes imprisonment.


So ordered,
Judge Muggy21