Appeal: Accepted INTERLOCUTORY MMiqa v. Judge Superwoops | [2026] FCR 77

[MMiqa]

Username: MMiqa

I am representing myself

What Case are you Appealing?: MMiqa v. rykazard [2026] DCR 69

Link to the Original Case: Lawsuit: Dismissed - MMiqa v. rykazard [2026] DCR 69

Basis for Appeal: Judge Superwoops' claim,

Supporting Evidence: What Are AI Hallucinations? | IBM

Post:

S

Lawsuit: Dismissed Post in thread 'MMiqa v. rykazard [2026] DCR 69'

Aug 9, 2026

Court Order

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ORDER - CONTEMPT, CONDUCT STRIKE

In reference to this brief:

Brief

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW

Your Honour,

The Plaintiff respectfully opposes the Defendant's Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law.

I. THE CITED PRECEDENTS DO NOT APPLY TO THIS CASE AND ARE NOT BINDING

The Defendant cites DCR 67, DCR 59, and DCR 100 as controlling precedent. They are not. None of these cases involve a claim of Assault under CCA Part IV §1 — the claim the Plaintiff...

• Superwoops

• 

The hallucinations were the following, as is stated in my order: - Claim that the following section was in the CCA on June 2, 2026: "In civil lawsuits, crimes may be used to seek damages, although damages are not presumed" - Claim that the Redmont Civil Code Amendments Act amended CCA Part I to add the following provision at §6(1)(a): "In civil lawsuits, crimes may be used to seek damages, although damages are not presumed."

It was a red marked law I used on accident this was framed illegally as AI hallucination.

AI hallucination means :"An AI hallucination is a response generated by an artificial intelligence—most often a large language model—that contains false, fabricated, or misleading information presented as absolute fact."

In the same website, it gives us a difference between mistake vs AI hallucinations, which is important for your order and why you are biased or wrong.

Information from the website:
Hallucinations vs. mistakes

"AI mistakes are a broader category that includes any kind of incorrect or suboptimal output from an AI model. AI hallucinations are a specific type of mistake where the system confidently generates false or fabricated information.Mistakes include simple inaccuracies, such as mislabeling an image or providing an outdated fact. They also cover biased recommendations, overly generic answers and subtle logical errors that don’t necessarily involve inventing facts but still lead to poor or incorrect outcomes.With ordinary mistakes, the issue is usually that some detail or assumption is incorrect. These issues are typically traceable, so AI engineers can focus on supplying better context or improving training data to correct the error.Hallucinations generally involve AI models producing fabricated content that has no grounding in real data. They can be harder to spot than other mistakes because their adherence to real patterns makes them seem authoritative. Hallucinations can “sound right” even when they are fundamentally wrong or unverifiable."


"Mistakes include simple inaccuracies, such as mislabeling an image or providing an outdated fact", outdated facts, such as using an amended law?


The claim had this in hand:

"The Redmont Civil Code Amendments Act amended CCA Part I to add the following provision at §6(1)(a):

"In civil lawsuits, crimes may be used to seek damages, although damages are not presumed.""

"On interference

This Court does not wish to address the question of whether any reliance on AI LLMs constitutes interference with the proper administration of justice. However, the hallucinations that the model produced in this case, and moreover, my suspicion that these were AI hallucinations, made it so I had to manually check if the Plaintiff's claims were true (they were not). This constitutes an interference with this Court's procedures and the administration of justice as a whole."

Judge Superwoops defined my mistake as "AI hallucination" where I made a mistake to refer an outdated law. This is exactly what human mistake is, according to IBM, which is one of the leading tech companies.

Judge reconsidered the order, and made the same mistake again.

I wish to appeal this.

Supporting Evidence: What Are AI Hallucinations? | IBM

 

[MMiqa]

Edited this part to erase a possible confusion.

Information from the website:
Hallucinations vs. mistakes

 

[MMiqa]

P-001: Section used in the appeal from thr IBM's website.

Spoiler: P-001

 

[MMiqa]

P-002: From hausfeld.com, stating "One of the most significant challenges currently facing legal professionals is the phenomenon of AI hallucinations which occur when an AI system generates information that sounds plausible but is entirely false, such as fictitious case law. Unlike human error, these inaccuracies are not due to carelessness."

(Link: Part 2 - AI for legal professionals: Hallucinations)

Spoiler: P-002

 

[Muggy21]

I'll take this case on for my Appellate docket.

 

[Muggy21]

Verdict

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Decision and Order - MMiqa v. Judge Superwoops [2026] FCR 77


Summary of Controversy

In MMiqa v. rykazard [2026] DCR 69, Appellant MMiqa, a licensed attorney appearing for himself, filed a brief that cited two provisions of law. The District Court found that neither was in force. It suspected AI hallucinations, held that checking them interfered with the administration of justice, found Appellant in contempt, and issued a conduct strike (post 165568). Appellant argues that he cited a struck, outdated provision by accident, which is a human mistake and not an AI hallucination. Only the August 9, 2026 contempt finding and conduct strike are before this Court.


Findings of Fact

Appellant does not dispute that the cited provisions were not in force. The District Court acted on "my suspicion that these were AI hallucinations" and expressly declined to decide whether AI use is itself interference. It rested on the burden of manually verifying Appellant's claims. The order makes no finding that the verification caused delay, that the Court was misled, or that Appellant knowingly misstated the law. The underlying action was later dismissed with prejudice on August 10, 2026, and the sanctions survive that dismissal.


Standard of Review

Appellant was fined and received a conduct strike, so he has standing under Court Rule 2.1. Whether the conduct found meets the legal meaning of contempt is a question of law reviewed de novo. Court Rule 8.2.


Findings of the Court

The District Court proceeded under CCA Part III, section 2(b), which punishes conduct that obstructs or interferes with the administration of justice. The Supreme Court has defined that prong. See [2025] FCR 128 - Contempt of Court Charge - Appeal. To obstruct is to block or illegitimately delay a proceeding. To interfere is to illegitimately alter it, for example by withholding information needed for a reasoned verdict. Conduct that is merely annoying or burdensome to the presiding officer is not enough. No prior warning is required under this prong.

Neither obstruction nor interference is shown here. First, the only harm identified is the effort of checking Appellant's claims, which is ordinary judicial work, and no illegitimate delay was found. Second, the inaccurate statements did not alter the proceeding, because the District Court verified and rejected them. This Court does not decide whether a knowing attempt to mislead a court could amount to interference, because the order makes no finding of knowledge and rests on suspicion about the tool used.

Whether the error is labelled an AI hallucination or a human mistake does not decide this appeal. The IBM and Hausfeld materials are factual background only. Court Rule 1.12(3)(c). Counsel answer for the accuracy of every filing, however it was drafted. Appellant's comparison to opposing counsel is also unavailing, since the treatment of other counsel does not bear on whether this conduct meets the legal standard.

This decision does not hold that Appellant's brief was free of fault. A court concerned about unverified or AI-assisted filings may admonish counsel, strike the material, or issue an order requiring verification of citations, the breach of which may be punished under the lawful order clause. The finding of contempt under the obstruction or interference clause was an error of law, and the conduct strike falls with it.

All other arguments are considered and found unpersuasive.


Order of the Court

The finding of Contempt of Court against MMiqa in [2026] DCR 69 (post 165568) is VACATED, and the conduct strike is VACATED and shall be removed from Appellant's record.

Appellant is to be remunerated as applicable under relevant law for any fine paid or time served, and any penalty or referral resting solely on the vacated finding is withdrawn.

This decision does not address the separate order of August 10, 2026 (post 102), which is not before this Court.

So ordered,
Justice Mug in the Federal Court