Appeal: Pending Case No. [2026] DCR 148 - Appeal Request

[TheREALWINner]

Appeal

Client & counsel name:

Client: Slime_Mario
Counsel: SniperElite508

Appealed case name & style: Slime_Mario v. Veronica [2026] DCR 148

Were you originally the plaintiff or the defendant: Plaintiff

Reason for appeal:
Error of Law - Failure to apply the Criminal Terminology Act to Illicit Renting

The District Court held that Redmont Civil Code Act (RCCA) Part VII, §11 "prescribes no medium" for a posted restriction, and that the Criminal Terminology Act (CTA) does not apply because it "is not incorporated into §11." It then treated a Discord message as a clearly posted restriction.

CTA §7 is the Illicit Renting section. Restrictions on renting must be posted "before said restrictions can become legally enforceable," and posted restrictions "must be posted on a sign or in a clearly marked and publicly readable book on a lectern, at every public entrance to the property." No restriction was posted at 432office-1 on a sign or a lectern, and DHS "never used /inspect."

Error of Law - Wrongful Seizure

The District Court denied Wrongful Seizure (RCCA Part XI, §4) only because "Illicit Renting occurred." Without Illicit Renting, DHS had no lawful authority to take the three penalties totalling $720.00.

Interests of Justice

RCCA §11 is the only Illicit Renting provision left in Redmont law, so if the District Court is right, CTA §7 applies to nothing. The Commonwealth enforces §11, and it told the District Court twice that CTA §7(1)–(2) applies. The court still held that it does not. The verdict is also hard to square with jsrkiwi v. Department of Homeland Security [2025] DCR 93. In that case, a ban-list book on a lectern at the entrance to the same landlord's property bound players, and evidence of the book had to be in the enforcement record. Every Illicit Renting penalty DHS issues raises the same question.

This appeal does not challenge any finding of fact or bring new evidence (Rule 8.1). It is only about the law, so review is de novo under Rule 8.2. The Plaintiff argued this at trial in Part I of the Closing Brief.

The holding appealed (Verdict, Findings of the Court):

"RCCA Part VII, §11(a) prescribes no medium for warning notices and requires only that the restriction be clearly posted. The Criminal Terminology Act is not incorporated into §11, and the Court finds no precedent that requires its inclusion. A public declaration naming Plaintiff, made on Discord and read by Plaintiff himself, was clear and was directed at his continued tenancy."

CTA §7(1)–(2):

"(1) Restrictions on renting must be posted by the landlord before said restrictions can become legally enforceable. [...]

(2) Posted restrictions must be posted on a sign or in a clearly marked and publicly readable book on a lectern, at every public entrance to the property. Failing to notice such signage shall not be a defense against illicit renting."

The Commonwealth's Answer, Defence 5:

"The Criminal Terminology Act further provides that restrictions must be posted before becoming legally enforceable and specifies that qualifying restrictions are to be posted on a sign or in a clearly marked and publicly readable lectern book at every public entrance."

This appeal is against the Commonwealth of Redmont only. The verdict was entered on October 23, 2026, so this application is within the one-month limit (Judicial Standards Act Part VI, §1(3)).

Are you requesting oral argument: No.

Additional Information or evidence (see appellate rules):
[Spoiler: Proof of Representation]

[/Spoiler]