Appeal: Pending In re FCR 4 [2026] | SCR 6

[Muggy21]

Username: Muggy21

I am representing myself

What Case are you Appealing?: [2026] FCR 4

Link to the Original Case: Appeal: Denied - INTERLOCUTORY Muggy21 v. Hon Magistrate Vennefly [2026] FCR 4

Basis for Appeal: *see attached brief*

Supporting Evidence:

 

[Muggy21]

Brief

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Brief - Basis for Appeal, Interlocutory Review


The above appeal appliation is taken from the order of Judge Ko, Federal Court, in denying interlocutory review in Muggy21 v. Riverardd [2025] DCR 96, which held that the appellant failed to satisfy conditions (b) and (c) of §13 of the Subversion of Appeals Act.

The Federal Court committed reversible legal error by mischaracterizing the appellant’s brief and applying an unduly narrow construction of of the SAA.

Specifically, the Federal Court erroneously concluded that the appeal alleged only unlawful conduct, and failed to demonstrate:

2) impact on fairness or accuracy of proceedings, and
3) irreparable harm absent immediate review.

That conclusion is contradicted by the record.


The Federal Court overlooked that the Magistrate’s actions materially distorted the proceedings including the unauthorized dismissal and reassignment of a public defender and adjudication judicially created delay attributable solely to overreach rather than party conduct which undermined procedural fairness and equality before the law and the refusal to consider a valid settlement agreement. Further, the Magistrate also refused to consider a valid settlement agreement without any finding of illegality, coercion, or procedural defect, contrary to settled precedent favoring finality once no live controversy remains.

These are not abstract harms, but defects that strike at the structural fairness and reliability of the ongoing case. The Federal Court further erred by treating this harm as remediable on final appeal. Speedy trial violations cannot be cured retroactively, as time lost to unauthorized judicial delay is irretrievable. Continued proceedings under an ultra vires order impose non recoverable costs, strategic prejudice, and constitutional injury. Section 13 of the Subversion of Appeals Act does not require proof of ultimate outcome reversal, but only that the error materially biases the proceedings and that delay causes irreparable harm. By imposing a higher and incorrect threshold, the Federal Court abused its discretion.