Lawsuit: In Session MMiqa v. Department of Homeland Security [2026] DCR 77

[Ebborsnam]

Don't worry, I won't.

The Court finds you in Contempt of Court, x2 for their continued outbursts and disrespectful behaviour. This behaviour must be corrected and the Court sees reason to impose the maximum penalties.

You shall pay a fine of $24,000, face 20 minutes imprisonment and x1 Conduct Strike shall be issued. If you have a problem with my ruling appeal, every post you make in my thread, I'll slap another Contempt charge.

I can't pay that, any possibility this could be less money?

 

[Muggy21]

I can't pay that, any possibility this could be less money?

+1 Contempt of Court charge. Another $12,000 fine, 10 minutes in jail;

You clearly have an issue with following the Court's instructions. Read what I wrote again.

 

[MMiqa]

Brief

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

Your Honour,

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

The Plaintiff has referred to the relevant provision throughout these proceedings using the shorthand "§6(b)" for ease of reference, since he had used it multiple times in this court before. The full and correct citation is Part I §6(10)(b) of the Criminal Code Act. This shorthand does not alter the substance of the provision or its application to the facts of this case - it refers to the same statutory text quoted throughout the Plaintiff's filings: "Crimes committed can be appealed under a claim of self defence, at which point all punishments are to be delayed until after the appeal."

I. THE DEFENDANT'S OWN ANSWER ESTABLISHES MISFEASANCE

The Defendant argues there is no evidence of intentional misuse of power. The Plaintiff does not need to prove this from scratch - the Defendant has already admitted it. Answer Fact 5, the Defendant affirms the Plaintiff invoked §6(10)(b) at least 8 times. The Defendant affirmed Robbe Haegi conditioned the Plaintiff's dispute on proof at 22:12, a condition found nowhere in §6(10)(b). Answer Fact 13, the Defendant affirms Vuda Sage was actively present in the ticket from 00:14 onward, a full 40 minutes before release. Answer Fact 7, the Defendant affirms the Plaintiff was released only after sustained and repeated pressure.These are not the Plaintiff's characterisations. They are the Defendant's own admissions. A public official who is told the law eight times, who imposes a condition that does not exist in that law, who is present and engaged for 40 minutes while the citizen demands compliance, and who only complies after sustained pressure, has not made an honest mistake. The Defendant's own words describe intentional conduct, not negligence.

II. ROBBE HAEGI'S OWN TESTIMONY CONFIRMS THE ELEMENTS OF MISFEASANCE

Beyond the Answer, Robbe Haegi's testimony before this Court removes any doubt. Robbe Haegi confirmed that they did not consult a superior before deciding not to release the Plaintiff. This was a unilateral decision, made without authority, made without guidance, and made in direct response to a citizen invoking their statutory rights. Robbe Haegi confirmed under oath that they were unaware of §6(10)(b), despite the Plaintiff citing that exact provision to Robbe Haegi directly, in the same ticket, on multiple occasions. A DHS officer who is handed the text of the law by the very person it protects, and still does not apply it, cannot claim good faith ignorance. They knew, because the Plaintiff told them. And they ought to have known regardless, because the Defendant's own interrogatory response confirms that DHS procedure required release upon submission of a self-defence claim. The Defendant knew what its own officers were required to do. Its own officers did not do it.

§6(10)(b) states, "Crimes committed can be appealed under a claim of self defence, at which point all punishments are to be delayed until after the appeal." The Plaintiff served almost all of his sentence before he was released, and as the Defendent affirmed, they released him after pressure from the Plaintiff.

III. P-006 AND P-007 CORROBORATE EVERY ELEMENT

P-007, the full transcript of Ticket #32935, is a DHS record, not the Plaintiff's own creation. It shows Robbe Haegi's statement at 22:12 requiring proof before accepting the dispute, and it shows no release instruction issued at any point by Robbe Haegi.P-006 shows Vuda Sage's typing indicator active at 00:35, 00:38, and 00:41, confirming Vuda Sage was reading the Plaintiff's messages and drafting responses throughout the period the Plaintiff was demanding release, rather than simply releasing the Plaintiff as required. None of this evidence originates from the Plaintiff. It originates from DHS's own systems and the Defendant's own witness. The Defendant is not disputing facts it has never seen. It is disputing the legal consequences of facts it created and confirmed itself.

IV. PUNITIVE DAMAGES REQUIRE ONLY ONE CRITERION AND THE DEFENDANT'S OWN RECORD SATISFIES THREE

RCCA §3(2)(b) requires only one of six criteria to be met for conduct to be outrageous. The Defendant's own Answer satisfies three simultaneously.(ii) Acting with knowledge that conduct would disadvantage another, satisfied by Answer Fact 5, the eight invocations DHS read and did not act on.(iv) Abuse of trust or power, satisfied by Answer Fact 12, the invented condition imposed by Robbe Haegi with no statutory basis, and by Vuda Sage's 40 minutes of visible engagement without release. (v) Persistent misconduct or failure to change conduct after becoming aware of consequences - satisfied by Answer Fact 7, the Defendant's own admission that release came only after sustained and repeated pressure. This Court has already found DHS liable for punitive damages on a weaker record. In Dr_Eksplosive v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] FCR 17, DHS failed once, without being told its obligation in advance, and did not even appear to contest the case, and this Court awarded $10,000 in punitive damages. Here, DHS was told eight times, by two separate officers, over 72 minutes, and still did not comply. If a single silent failure warranted $10,000, by this logic a repeated and informed failure warrants at least the $15,000 the Plaintiff requests.

V. THE $4,100 PAYMENT DOES NOT SHIELD THE DEFENDANT FROM PUNISHMENT

The Defendant argues the $4,100 payment bars further recovery. That payment was made under Judicial Standards Act Part II §6(1)(b), which compensates for time spent in jail on unproven charges. It is a compensation mechanism, not a punishment mechanism. It addresses the time the Plaintiff lost. It says nothing about the conduct of the two officers who caused that time to be lost unlawfully.The Plaintiff has never asked for the $4,100. The Plaintiff asks for punitive damages, which punish the conduct, and Misfeasance damages, which address the intentional misuse of power by Robbe Haegi and Vuda Sage. These are different remedies for a different wrong. Accepting the Defendant's argument would mean any officer could detain a citizen unlawfully, pay the statutory minimum afterward, and face no consequence for the decision to ignore the law in the first place.


VI. CONCLUSION

Every fact necessary to this motion comes from the Defendant. The Defendant's Answer admits the invocations, the invented condition, the 40 minutes of presence, and the release only under pressure. The Defendant's interrogatory response admits the legal obligation. The Defendant's own witness admits the unilateral decision and the absence of any legal authority for it. The Plaintiff is not asking this Court to accept the Plaintiff's version of events. The Plaintiff is asking this Court to hold the Defendant to its own.

This Court's own precedent points firmly in one direction. In Dr_Eksplosive v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] FCR 17, DHS arrested a citizen without informing them of the nature or cause of the accusation and without advising them of their rights, violating the Miranda Warning Act and the Constitution. DHS did not even appear before the Court to contest the case. On that record alone, the Federal Court awarded $5,000 in emotional damages and $10,000 in punitive damages, totalling $15,000, and further ordered DHS to unfine the Plaintiff and issued a Writ of Mandamus compelling DHS to provide information about the arrest. In Lawanoeseper v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] FCR 69, DHS invented a punishment not found in any statute and applied it against a citizen. The Federal Court held that "The executive as a whole is responsible for enforcing the law, not inventing laws to be enforced" found this to be a breach of DHS power, and awarded $21,750 in damages.

Both cases involved a single instance of DHS failing to follow the law, in one case without any warning from the citizen involved, and in the other without the citizen repeating themselves at all. Here, the Plaintiff told DHS the law eight times. Two separate officers read those invocations and did not comply for 72 minutes. If a single, unrepeated failure warranted $15,000 in Dr_Eksplosive and $21,750 in Lawanoeseper, a repeated and directly communicated failure by two officers over 72 minutes warrants at least the $15,000 the Plaintiff requests here.

The Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court deny the Defendant's Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law and enter judgment for the Plaintiff on Claim II, Misfeasance in Public Office, together with $15,000 in punitive damages.

Respectfully submitted,
MMiqa

 

[MMiqa]

Your Honour,

The Plaintiff wishes to clarify certain references made in prior filings to avoid any confusion regarding the Defendant's Answer. In prior submissions, the Plaintiff referred to certain facts as having been affirmed by the Defendant when, more precisely, the Defendant neither affirmed nor denied them. The Plaintiff clarifies that this distinction does not change the outcome. Pursuant to Court Rule 3.2.3, "a lawyer who answers a pleading by neither confirming nor denying pleads no contest to a fact for the purposes of a Verdict or Summary Judgment." Whether a fact was affirmed outright or met with no contest under Rule 3.2.3, it stands as established for the purposes of this case. This includes portions of Facts 2, 5, 6, 9, 10, 12, 13, and the entirety of Fact 14 of the Defendant's Answer.

The Plaintiff wished to clearify it to be precise.