Appeal: Denied in re [2026] DCR 142 | [2026] FCR 102

[MMiqa]

Appeal

Client & counsel name: MMiqa, Self-Represented

Appealed case name & style: MMiqa v. Bar Association of Redmont [2026] DCR 142

Appealed Court Order: [2026] DCR 142

Were you originally the plaintiff or the defendant: Plaintiff

Reason for appeal:

The Appellant, MMiqa, was fined 20 PU for using his educated guess in a lawsuit. This is false, the Appellant had an educated guess, that CreeperTD voted Aye in Motion to Censure MMiqa, but never initiated this guess in his lawsuit. At the time of filing this lawsuit, he was not in the BAR Discord, and for his Motion to Censure, the information on which councillor voted Aye or Nay or Abstain was not published. On Fact 5, he had stated while filing the lawsuit "5. Councillor CreeperTD participated in the vote. CreeperTD is a named DHS Recruit in MMiqa v. Department of Homeland Security [2026] DCR 77 — an active case in which CreeperTD's own conduct is directly at issue as evidence against the Defendant.", the Appellant knew CreeperTD had participated, but did not know what was the then Councillors' vote not until later and amended their complaint during Discovery, as seen in Fact 11, "11. Councillor CreeperTD voted Abstain on the Motion to Censure MMiqa."

Judge Superwoops wrongly accuses of MMiqa for their "educated guess" quoting "That being said, providing "guesses" to the Court is not acceptable practice in the courtroom because the statements could be false, as seen in this case. The Court finds that providing guesses and presenting them as fact interferes with the administration of justice. For that reason, I find @MMiqa GUILTY of Contempt of Court. They shall be fined 20 Penalty Units."

However, in Motion to Reconsider, right after this Order which was posted over 3 weeks ago, the Appellant explained that he had talked about his educated guess, stated he did state what CreeperTD had voted while filing the lawsuit and he had left CreeperTD's vote ambigious on purpose to not use his educated guess in the courtroom. He had talked about his educated guess, because he was asked whether it was true in an Interrogatory question.

The Appellant's first sentence of the answer to the question was this "Yes, in part. In my mind I thought CreeperTD voted Aye, but at the time of filing I had no proof, so I left it ambiguous on purpose. I made an educated guess but never explicitly stated what CreeperTD’s vote was while filing this lawsuit." and later continued with "The claim was that CreeperTD’s vote, due to the COI, should be disregarded, whether it was Aye, Against, or Abstain. I made my claim ambiguous on purpose, since I had no access to full information."

He had made this educated guess before filing the lawsuit, but since he had no proof, he did not use it as fact and left it ambigious, as stated multiple times, and his second answer to Perjury claim was also posted.

Due to Judge Superwoops not responding to the Motion to Reconsider for over three weeks, and the fact that appeals must be done within one month, the Appellant is not waiting any longer for an answer to Motion to Reconsider, since he will have no way to appeal if this goes unanswered. This is not an direct or indirect attack on Judge Superwoops' activity, it is just a fact, explaining why the Appellant stopped waiting for an answer for his Motion to Reconsider filing that was done on September 1st.

 

[Muggy21]

Verdict

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Decision - in re [2026] DCR 142 | [2026] FCR 102

SUMMARY ON APPEAL

The Appellant was the plaintiff in MMiqa v. Bar Association of Redmont [2026] DCR 142. The District Court found that the Appellant presented a guess about Councillor CreeperTD's vote on the Motion to Censure MMiqa as fact, held that this interfered with the administration of justice, and convicted the Appellant of Contempt of Court with a fine of 20 Penalty Units.

The Appellant argues that he never presented his guess as fact. He says he deliberately left CreeperTD's vote ambiguous in his complaint, and disclosed his guess only in answer to an interrogatory. He filed this appeal on September 24, 2026, after his Motion to Reconsider of September 1, 2026 went unanswered. The appeal is timely under the Judicial Standards Act Part VI §1(3).

STANDARD OF REVIEW

A. This Court does not make findings of fact.

An appellate court reviews the record made below. It does not hear evidence (Rule 8.1), and it does not substitute its own reading of the record for that of the court that heard the case. A finding of fact may be disturbed on appeal only where it is not reasonably supported by the evidence (JSA Part VI §1(2)(b)). In practice, this means a finding stands unless it is grossly devoid of any basis in the record. It is not enough for an appellant to show that the record could support a different conclusion, or that he would have weighed the evidence differently.

B. The Supreme Court requires deference to the trial court on questions of fact.

The Supreme Court has held that reviewing courts must defer to the factual determinations of the trial court. In [2025] FCR 128 - Contempt of Court Charge - Appeal, the appellant challenged the factual premise on which the trial court based a contempt conviction. The Supreme Court declined to consider that challenge. It found the trial court's determination reasonable and held that "Reviewing courts must not supplant their judgment for that of the trial court." The Supreme Court explained that if a reviewing court could overturn the reasonable judgments of lower courts, no matter would be final until the Supreme Court itself had heard it.

That precedent binds this Court.

OPINION OF THE COURT

A. The appeal raises only a question of fact.

The Appellant does not argue that the District Court applied the wrong law. He argues that the District Court misread the record: that his guess was never presented as fact, and that his complaint was deliberately ambiguous. Whether the Appellant presented a guess as fact is a question of fact. It turns on how the District Court read the complaint, the amended complaint, and the Appellant's discovery responses, and what it inferred from them.

B. The District Court's finding has a basis in the record.

The finding is not devoid of basis. By the Appellant's own account, he formed a belief about CreeperTD's vote with no evidence for it. In his interrogatory answer, he stated: "In my mind I thought CreeperTD voted Aye, but at the time of filing I had no proof." The record later showed that CreeperTD voted Abstain. The District Court considered these materials and concluded that the Appellant had put an unsupported belief before the Court as fact. That is a reasonable reading of the record. The Appellant's alternative reading may also be reasonable, but under [2025] FCR 128, that is not a ground for reversal.


For the foregoing reasons, the Federal Court DENIES this appeal.

The Appellant has identified no error of law. His challenge to the District Court's findings of fact does not meet the standard for appellate intervention. The appeal is DENIED. The conviction for Contempt of Court and the fine of 20 Penalty Units in [2026] DCR 142 are affirmed.

So ordered,
Justice Mug in the Federal Court