Appeal: Accepted CreeperTD vs. Magistrate zPokebr_ | [2026] FCR 87

[greymc]

Username: _GreyMC

I am representing a client.

Who is your Client?: CreeperTD

What Case are you Appealing?: [2026] DCR 166

Link to the Original Case: Slime_Mario v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2026] DCR 166

Reason for Appeal: Court Made a Error on Law.

Appealed case name: [2026] DCR 166

Were you originally the plaintiff or the defendant: N/A

Reason for appeal: The Court in [2026] DCR 166 ruled that CreeperTD, the former BAR Councilor, committed Contempt of Court for obstructing the administration of justice. However, counsel disagrees with this decision. CreeperTD was unable to respond on behalf of the BAR as he was no longer the Chairperson or even a Councilor, due to being confirmed as a Judge. The Chairperson of the BAR is to "Represent the BAR in public communications." CreeperTD could not have handed the matter to another Councilor, as the other Councilor would not have been the chairperson. Even more, Section 5(c) of the Bar Association of Redmont Act notes that a Council member cannot hold a "Judicial Officer appointment," and Former President xXTheoryXx appointed CreeperTD to Judge on 21 September 2026 at 11:48 AM EDT, only a day after he was ordered to respond, and only one hour after he was given clarification on the brief. Upon his appointment, CreeperTD was no longer a BAR Councilor nor Chairperson per the Bar Association of Redmont Act, and did not have the authority or responsibility to respond.

Additional Information or evidence (see appellate rules):
- Part IV, Section 2(a-b) of the Bar Association of Redmont Act
- Part IV, Section 5(c) of the Bar Association of Redmont Act
- Passage of CreeperTD's Federal Court Confirmation on 23 September 2026 at 6:41 AM EDT
- Nomination of CreeperTD to Federal Court Judge on 21 September 2026 at 11:48 AM EDT
- Contempt of Court Order in [2026] DCR 166 charging CreeperTD with Contempt of Court

 

[greymc]

Spoiler: Proof of Representation

 

[Superwoops]

Upon careful review of the filings submitted by the Appellant through counsel, the Federal Court accepts review of this Appeal.

The Court will issue summons shortly.

 

[Superwoops]

Due to the nature of this non-party Contempt appeal, the Federal Court will not issue summons.

Rather, we will move into the Appellant's brief. The Court is very interested in hearing this as an oral argument/brief; if anything, for immersion and fun, and to get newer legal minds excited about the legal field considering that in-game legal activity is very attractive to the general public.

Is this something the Appellant's counsel (@greymc) would be interested in?

 

[Superwoops]

The Court would deliver its ruling during the in-game appeal as well.

 

[greymc]

Your Honor,

The Appellant is interested in doing an oral argument, the Court would just have to find a time that works for the Appellant and counsel.

 

[Superwoops]

Very doable. I will open a sidebar.

 

[greymc]

The Appellant respectfully informs the Court that a new presiding officer needs to be assigned to this case. Moreover, the Appellant is no longer interested in doing an in-game appeal.

 

[Muggy21]

I'll take this case on my docket.

@greymc If you wanna do an oral argument, I can hear this a lot faster.

 

[greymc]

I'll take this case on my docket.

@greymc If you wanna do an oral argument, I can hear this a lot faster.

Your Honor,

The Appellant is actually still interested in doing an oral argument. Like noted earlier, the only trouble will be scheduling it.

 

[Muggy21]

Verdict

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Decision and Order - CreeperTD v. Magistrate zPokebr_ [2026] FCR 87


Summary of Controversy


In [2026] DCR 166, the District Court ordered the Bar Association of Redmont to file a brief within 72 hours on its interest in the case. When no brief was filed, the District Court found four sitting Councillors and Appellant CreeperTD, the former Chairperson, in Contempt of Court and fined each 5 PUs. The finding against Appellant was for obstructing the administration of justice. Appellant appeals through counsel, arguing that the Court made an error of law. Only Appellant’s contempt finding is before this Court.


Findings of Fact


The material chronology is uncontested. On September 20, 2026, the District Court issued a Writ of Summons and a Court Order directing the BAR to file a brief within 72 hours (post #3). Appellant appeared the same day and stated that the BAR had no power to open the legal exams at that time (post #5). On September 21, 2026, the District Court thanked Appellant for appearing, explained its concern regarding joinder, and “gently request[ed]” a brief (post #6). That post set no new deadline. On September 23, 2026, the District Court found Appellant in contempt and fined him 5 PUs (post #7). The 72 hour period set on September 20 had not expired when the contempt order issued [confirm against post timestamps]. Appellant was nominated to the Federal Court on September 21, 2026 at 11:48 AM EDT, and his confirmation passed on September 23, 2026 at 6:41 AM EDT.


Findings of the Court


Contempt of court is a serious finding. Where a party is charged with disobeying a lawful order, the order must have been breached, and where a party is charged with obstruction, the record must show deliberate conduct. Neither is established here.


First, the contempt order rests on a failure to answer within 72 hours, but that period had not lapsed when the order issued. A party cannot disobey a deadline that has not yet run. Second, the District Court’s own post of September 21 treated the request for a brief as courteous and non-mandatory, and restated no deadline. A party who receives a softened request after the original order cannot fairly be said to have defied a firm deadline that remained open. Third, the finding of obstruction requires deliberate delay. Appellant appeared on the day of the writ and communicated the BAR’s position to the Court, which is inconsistent with a deliberate effort to delay. The District Court’s reasoning that Appellant could have delegated the matter to the DoJ or another Councillor does not cure the timing defect, because the obligation to respond had not yet matured.


Counsel and officers of the legal system appearing before the courts of Redmont are owed courtesy. Before sanctioning a person, a court should confirm that a deadline has actually lapsed, give a clear warning where earlier communications were ambiguous, and allow a short opportunity to comply. Those steps were not taken, and the finding was an error of law.

All other arguments considered and found unpersuasive.

Order of the Court
The finding of Contempt of Court against CreeperTD in [2026] DCR 166 (post #7) is VACATED.
The 5 PU fine ($600.00) imposed on CreeperTD is reversed and shall be refunded to him.

The District Court is reminded to afford counsel courtesy and clear, lapsed deadlines before imposing contempt sanctions.


So ordered,
Justice Mug in the Federal Court