- Joined
- May 26, 2026
- Messages
- 40
- Thread Author
- #1
Client's and counsel's name:
Slime_Mario - client
coslos - counsel
Appealed case name & style:
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):
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)).
Dated: 27th day of October 2026
Slime_Mario - client
coslos - counsel
Appealed case name & style:
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):
CTA §7(1)–(2):
The Commonwealth's Answer, Defence 5:
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)).
Last edited:
