greymc
Moderator
Moderator
Vice President
Homeland Security Secretary
Congressional Staff
Supporter
Oakridge Resident
State Department
Homeland Security Department
Interior Department
Education Department
Justice Department
Health Department
_GreyMC
Vice President
- Joined
- May 23, 2026
- Messages
- 978
- Thread Author
- #1
Appeal
Username: _GreyMC
Client: I am representing CreeperTD. In this case I am not working as a member of any law firm, but as CreeperTD's personal attorney.
Were you originally the Plaintiff or Defendant?: Defense
Original Case: zPokebr_ v. ZapperyDoo [2026] DCR 113
Reason for Appeal:
The Court in [2026] DCR 113 made an error in law by charging the Appellant with x2 Contempt of Court, and accepting improper evidence.
I. Ex-Parte Communication
The Court ordered a Contempt of Court charge under Rule 1.4.1.1 & Rule 1.4.2.
Rule 1.4.1.1 of the Court Rules & Procedures states:
The Appellant, upon becoming a Federal Judge, was no longer a Public Defender, and therefore was no longer a party to the case. This rule specifies being a party, not just being in the case. Therefore, Contempt under this rule is not possible for this case.
The other Rule the court cited was Rule 1.4.2, which states:
The Court decided that the Appellant had an interest in this case for two reasons. The first was that they formed an Attorney-Client relationship with the Defendant, and the second was that the Appellant would be paid for their work as a Public Defender in this case. Attorney-Client privilege exists when “a client or potential client engages in a formal discussion with a lawyer or law firm regarding a case, potential case, or other legal matter.” In this case, the Defendant, ZapperyDoo, never engaged in a discussion with the Appellant. The Appellant was assigned as a Public Defender because the Defendant never showed up. No discussion happened, meaning no attorney-client relationship was formed.
For the second reason, the Appellant will not be paid for this case. The Appellant notes that Public Defender (PD) policy will have the PD paid upon case completion, for the PD assigned. Since the Appellant left the case, as they were appointed to Federal Court Judge, they forfeited any of the funds they would make. Therefore, the Appellant had no interest in this case, and the requirement set in Rule 1.4.2 was not met.
II. IMPROPER EVIDENCE
The evidence submitted by the Plaintiff in this case, marked as P-005, was presented improperly to the Court. P-005 was a message sent by the Appellant in the Judiciary of Redmont discord server, in a channel that, according to the Appellant, was classified as JUD-SECRET under the Classified Materials Act. There are valid ways to provide classified evidence, like requesting a sidebar, such as in Commonwealth of Redmont v. schmuck [2026] FCR 58.
III. DECORUM
The Court also issued a Contempt of Court charge for breach of decorum, coming from what seems like Rule 1.4.3.1:
The Appellant asks the Court to consider if calling something “unsavory”, “disturbing”, and “unacceptable” constitutes disrespect and a breach of decorum. The Appellant believes it does not. The Appellant made a statement based on the context of the objection and called it disturbing, because it was. The Plaintiff had no personal attack, the attack was entirely on the objection, a valid response.