View source for BelugaWhaleMan9 v State of SimDemocracy 2024 Civ 2

[[Category:Case Law|2024-07-28-02]] [[Category:Civil Cases|2024-07-28-02]] [[Category:Court Cases from 2024|2024-07-28-02]]
= BelugaWhaleMan9 v State of SimDemocracy 2024 Civ 2=

{| class="wikitable" style="text-align:center;"
|-
! Date of judgment
! 28th July 2024
|-
| Judge
| Justice halfcat
|-
| Grounds
| Tort of Breach of Civil Rights (Article 22c) Tort of Breach of Police Responsibility (Article 22b) Common Law Tort of Civil Negligence
|-
| Verdict
| D held liable for Breach of Police Responsibility and Breach of Civil Rights, D held not liable for Civil Negligence under Common Law
|-
| Result
| D had to pay 8500 Tau in damages to P
|-
| Applicable persuasive precedent
| It is not negligent of the State to fail to prosecute someone for potential criminal activities, and the State can not be held liable for such, 20.4
|}
== JUDGMENT by Justice halfcat==

'''[1].''' The plaintiff is suing the State of SimDemocracy for 1 count of Breach of Civil Rights, 1 count of Breach of Police Accountability, and 1 count of Torts Under Common Law (Civil Negligence), alleging that the State owes the plaintiff compensation for harm suffered due to their illegal ban.

'''[2].''' Prior to the hearing commencing, some procedural matters had to be dealt with in the course of which it was established that (1) Supervisors are employees of the State and that (2) the State is responsible for any actions taken by its employees in the course of their employment which has been well established precedent for years.

'''[3].''' The plaintiff argues in their opening statement that they are deserving of compensation for their illegal ban, especially because the appeal to get it annulled took many months and upon its conclusion they were not informed, leading to them not being able to rejoin before 21 months had elapsed. Additionally, they argue that no actions were taken by the government to punish those who had perpetrated this act.

'''[4].''' The defense on the contrary argues in their opening statement that the State can not be held to account neither for actions taken by rogue Supervisors, nor successive governments’ inaction for the duration of the plaintiff’s absence from SimDemocracy because the State of today is not the same entity as it was then, and that the blame instead lies on the electorate. The defense also states that the responsibility of informing the plaintiff of their unban should lie on their counsel who argued the case on their behalf.

'''[5].''' The plaintiff begins their argumentation by providing a timeline of events, which it is not necessary to record in detail.

'''[6].''' For the first count, Breach of Civil Rights, the plaintiff provides a series of screenshots in which the former Discord Supervisor who banned the plaintiff admits that they knew the actions they took were illegal, and that the ban itself was a breach of their rights as evidenced by its reversal by appeal.

'''[7].''' For the second count, Breach of Police Accountability, the plaintiff argues that the same evidence proves the second claim as well, as procedural rules in the exercising of banning powers were not properly followed.

'''[8].''' For the third count, Civil Negligence, the plaintiff argues that the State should have unbanned the plaintiff on its own as it did with the many other unlawful bans the then Discord Supervisor carried out. They additionally argue that they shouldn’t have been banned from the Subreddit, and that their initial appeal was ignored, leading to a prolonging of their ban, and that there were no investigations or consequences from the State for the perpetrators of the illegal act. This, argues the plaintiff, is enough to make the State liable for negligence.

'''[9].''' It is important to note that the Supreme Court verdict which freed the plaintiff was rendered seven (7) months after their ban.

'''[10].''' Lastly, the plaintiff argues that it should have been the State’s responsibility to inform them of their unban after the Supreme Court verdict and that the current government should be held responsible for the actions of past governments.

'''[11].''' The defense begins their argumentation by making non-legalistic arguments about the intentions of the SimDemocracy electorate. The Court strongly rejects these arguments in their entirety.

'''[12].''' The defense points out that there is a distinction between the plaintiff and other persons who were illegally banned by the former Discord Supervisor, as the plaintiff’s ban happened separately and earlier. They also note that it should not be the State’s responsibility to inform the plaintiff of a legal case in which they were the opposite party.

'''[13].''' In their closing statement, the plaintiff reiterates their arguments and states their belief that the defense has not meaningfully retorted them.

'''[14].''' In their closing statement, the defense argues that the State by unbanning the plaintiff through the Supreme Court review followed proper procedure. The defense again makes moralistic arguments about the plaintiffs intentions which are once again strongly rejected in their entirety.

'''[15].''' The defense multiple times during the course of the hearing brought up the allegations that the plaintiff was banned for sexual harassment, calling it troubling. The Court finds this absolutely unacceptable as the reason for the ban has already clearly been established both through evidence and Supreme Court review. The defense provides no evidence for the claim other than the hearsay of an individual who “if they recall correctly” may have banned the plaintiff for it. The Court finds no other reason for the defense to bring this accusation up other than to smear the plaintiff, in lieu of providing factual arguments to counter their claim. The Court finds this behavior to be contrary to what should be expected of a Certified Attorney, but can do no more than to refer the matter to the Bar Association. Additionally, it should serve as a reminder to all attorneys out there that in the Court arguments should always be substantive and based on evidence, not attacks on a person's character or questioning of their motives unless such is absolutely vital to proving your case, which it was not in this one.

'''[16].''' Article 22c §1 states the following:

§1. A breach of civil rights is committed when a government employee or employees, or a governmental body, violates a citizen’s or a group of citizens’ constitutional or statutory rights, and does so with intention or recklessness.

'''[17].''' The Court finds that the State violated the plaintiff’s right to liberty and security of the person by banning them without a valid reason as was made wholly clear by the Supreme Court ruling. The Court also finds that the government employee who banned them did so with intention as evidenced by the multiple messages they sent stating their clear intention to ban the plaintiff regardless of the legality of such an action.

'''[18].''' Article 22b §1 states the following:

§1. The following shall constitute a breach of police accountability:

§1.1. Failing to follow procedure as required by law in exercising emergency and ToS banning powers,

        		§1.2. Exercising powers of the SDBI in a way that constitutes gross misconduct, and

§1.3. Breaching a duty of care owed to the public to ensure proper standards are enforced within the SBDI and that unlawful orders are not issued.

'''[19].'''  The Court finds that the officer who banned the plaintiff failed to follow the procedure as required by law in exercising Terms of Service banning powers, as they did so with complete disregard to it.

'''[20].''' For the count of Civil Negligence, there is no current legislation to cite. The Court finds that the plaintiff has not proven on the balance of probabilities that the State is liable for Civil Negligence as they have not adequately laid out the conditions for being liable for such a tort. Dealing with the plaintiff’s claims one by one, they are dismissed as following:

20.1 The Court finds that the State did not have a responsibility to inform the plaintiff of their unbanning, as there is no statutory basis for such a claim and that therefore there is no unlawful harm done to the plaintiff.

20.2 The Court finds the plaintiff did not prove on the balance of probabilities that the ban from the Subreddit (1) constituted a separate action from the Discord ban and (2) why the State’s actions regarding it would be considered negligent.

20.3 The Court finds that the plaintiff did not prove on the balance of probabilities that the State ignored their attempts to appeal, or how being banned in itself would constitute negligence on the part of the State. In fact, the only available evidence shows them being unbanned by the Court, even though it did take an undue amount of time.

20.4 The Court finds that failing to prosecute a crime does not cause any harm to the plaintiff nor is it necessarily negligent on the part of the State as in this case the absence of any prosecution did not in any way negatively impact the plaintiff.

'''[21].''' Taking that all into account, the Court finds the State liable for:
    -   1 count of Breach of Civil Rights.
    -   1 count of Breach of Police Accountability.

'''[22].''' The Court finds the State not liable for:
    -   1 count of Torts under Common Law (Civil Negligence)

'''[23].''' As for the remedy, the Court takes the Amendment to the Civil code which simply stated that “all penalties of tau shall be removed from the Civil Code 2020” to mean that the specific amount of Tau outlined in torts to be removed. The Court finds that it may still include monetary compensation for the plaintiff under Article 8 §1 of the Civil Code.

'''[24].''' Considering the severely upsetting nature of the violation of their rights by being unfairly banned for as much as seven (7) months, and the vital importance of the right to liberty and security of the person, the Court finds an appropriate remedy for the count of Breach of Civil Rights to be 7500t.

'''[25].''' Considering the gross intent displayed by the responsible officer in the course of their duties, and the essential principle of the State not to be acting outside the bounds of the law, the Court finds an appropriate remedy for the count of Breach of Police Accountability to be 1000t.

'''[26].''' In total, taking into account the severity of the torts, the social harm caused, the damage caused to the plaintiff, and any defenses invoked, the Court orders the defense to pay the plaintiff 8500t as remedy, to be fulfilled within the next seven (7) days.

==Citations==
<references />