Appeal: Pending MMiqa v. rykazard [2026] DCR 69 - Appeal

[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: I. THE GOVERNING STANDARD

The Criminal Code Act (restored), Part I, Section 5, provides:

"5 - Sentencing
(1) Where an offence in this Code provides for a list or range of penalties, including fines, imprisonment, or other sanctions, it shall be within the discretion of the judicial officer to impose any part or the whole of the prescribed penalty, subject to the limits set out in this Code.
(2) In exercising discretion, the judicial officer shall consider:
(a) the nature and seriousness of the offence;
(b) the intent and conduct of the offender;
(c) any aggravating or mitigating circumstances;
(d) the offender's criminal history or lack thereof;
(e) the protection of the community and the deterrence of future offences.
(3) A judicial officer may impose a lesser sentence than the maximum provided for the offence, or a combination of penalties, unless:
(a) the law specifically requires the imposition of a mandatory minimum penalty; or
(b) the offence expressly prohibits alternatives to the maximum sentence.
(4) Nothing in this section limits the authority of the courts to impose additional lawful remedies such as restitution, damages, or community service where such powers are established under this Code or another Act."

The Constitution of the Commonwealth of Redmont, Part IV, Section 33(13), provides:

"Every citizen is equal before and under the law and has the right to equal protection and equal benefit of the law without unfair discrimination and, in particular, without unfair discrimination based on political belief or social status."

The Judicial Standards Act, Part VII, Section 1(2), provides:

"(2) A Judicial Officer must not issue a conduct strike unless they are satisfied that the lawyer’s conduct objectively reflects adversely on the legal profession."

II. THE COMPARATIVE RECORD

The appellant was found in Contempt of Court in MMiqa v. rykazard [2026] DCR 69, a District Court proceeding in which the appellant was an actual party to the case, representing himself. This was the appellant's first punishment of this kind, after he spoke out of order, and received 60 PU, 5 minutes of imprisonment, and a Conduct Strike.

Ebborsnam did worse, and was punished for less. He was not a party to MMiqa v. Bar Association of Redmont [2026] FCR72, and was not representing anyone in that case. He nonetheless filed an objection, retracted it after the Plaintiff (also the appellant) had warned him, and spoke out of order so many times that Attorney General came and apologized for his action. He then mocked the Court, the Judge, by replying "okay" to a warning if he ever spoke out of order again, he would receive punishment.

Judge in MMiqa v. rykazard case punished the appellant for:

" - Such disobediences of a court order is a serious offense, especially when done four separate times, and;
- Such disobediences also hinder the proper administration of justice and bloat this Court with senseless filings, and;
- Such disobediences, which are repeated and interfere with the administration of justice and the sanctity of this Court's procedures, reflect negatively on the legal profession as a whole."

Ebborsnam, back then was the State Prosecutor, received 30 PU and no jailtime, with no Conduct Strike, after he was warned and he talked out of order again, he got punished again, 30 PU, 5 minutes of jail, and no Conduct Strike, then Ebborsnam did not care and openly mocked the Plaintiff (the appellant) and the Judge Superwoops, yet again, he did not receive a Conduct Strike, and got 30 PU, 5 minutes of jailtime WITHOUT Conduct Strike.

MMiqa was representing himself, he made mistakes and he does not seek to escape punishment, only to be punished justly. Ebborsnam did more disrespect to Court in multiple lawsuits that MMiqa was in, in MMiqa v. Department of Homeland Security [2026] DCR 77, where he objected the Plaintiff (the appellant in this case), filed Objections and again, talked out of order multiple times and more than 10 posts that was not in order, he was punished with 24000$, 20 minutes of Jailtime and 1 Conduct Strike by Justice Muggy21.

In MMiqa v. Department of Homeland Security [2026] DCR 77, Ebborsnam then mocked the Court again, said "I can't pay that, any possibility this could be less money?", which Justice Muggy21 responded with one more Contempt of Court charge with another 12000$ and 10 minutes in Jail.

All of these sentences, the appellant's sentence in DCR 69, the appellant's second sentence in FCR 72, and all three of Ebborsnam's sentences in FCR 72, were handed down by the same presiding officer, Judge Superwoops, within the span of one to two days.

A sentence that treats a first-time party more harshly than a repeat non-party offender, imposed by the same Judge within the same one-to-two day period, is not the ordinary exercise of sentencing discretion contemplated by Section 5. It is the unequal treatment Section 33(13) of the Constitution exists to prevent.

Ebborsnam, then the sitting State Prosecutor, showed far greater disrespect to this Court while not even being a party to the case, and his conduct was serious enough that Attorney General Matthew100x personally appeared before the Court to apologize for it, yet he received no Conduct Strike at all.

Is this the Court's understanding of justice?

In MMiqa v. Bar Association of Redmont [2026] FCR 72, he made eight messages and filings, twice the four which appellant received the Strike for, in a Federal Court case where he was not representing anyone and openly mocked the Plaintiff, Judge and the Courtroom in that case.

III. RELIEF REQUESTED

The appellant respectfully requests that this Court reduce the sentence imposed in MMiqa v. rykazard [2026] DCR 69 to bring it into line with the sentence consistently imposed for this category of conduct in every comparable instance on the record: 30 Penalty Units, 5 minutes of jailtime with no Conduct Strike.

Supporting Evidence: