in re [2026] DCR 142

[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.