View source for Strix v State of SimDemocracy 2024 Civ 1

[[Category:Case Law|2024-07-28-01]] [[Category:Civil Cases|2024-07-28-01]] [[Category:Court Cases from 2024|2024-07-28-01]]
= Strix v State of SimDemocracy 2024 Civ 1=

{| class="wikitable" style="text-align:center;"
|-
! Date of judgment
! 28th July 2024
|-
| Judge
| Justice halfcat
|-
| Grounds
| Tort of Breach of Police Accountability (Article 22b) 2 Counts of Tort of Breach of Civil Rights (Article 22c)
|-
| Verdict
| D held liable for Breach of Police Responsibility and 2 counts of Breach of Civil Rights
|-
| Result
| D had to pay 6000 Tau in damages to P
|-
| Applicable persuasive precedent
| Precedent prior to the reset amendment holds, 17.1 Monetary damages in terms of tau are allowed, even despite no specific values being listed, 21
|}
== JUDGMENT by Justice halfcat==

'''[1].''' The plaintiff is suing the State of SimDemocracy for 1 count of Breach of Police Accountability and 2 counts of Breach of Civil Rights, alleging that the State owes the plaintiff compensation for harm suffered due to their revoked ban and removal from the ballot of the 112th Presidential election. The plaintiff is seeking compensatory damages and permanent employment for the State.

'''[2].''' Due to there being no established court procedures at the commencement of the hearing, the beginning was somewhat chaotic. The plaintiff submitted a series of screenshots into evidence which established a timeline of events where the plaintiff was having a discussion in ⁠general about the role of education and intelligence in voting rights. Some on the other side of this discussion accused the plaintiff of supporting eugenics, which led to them being banned from the SimDemocracy Discord server. After this, Syndicality, the Election Supervisor, can be seen saying they will have to remove the plaintiff from the ballot of the then ongoing 112th Presidential election.

'''[3].''' The defendant denied the claims made against the State, stating that the plaintiff has not cleared the evidentiary bar as they have not asserted the manner of the breach nor proved their allegations.

'''[4].''' Subsequently the two parties began by questioning a series of witnesses. These were in order:
Yonimations, the officer who banned the plaintiff.
Strix, the plaintiff themselves.
Syndicality, the Election Supervisor.

'''[5].''' The questioning of Yonimations was brief, with the witness only stating that they were asked to ban the plaintiff because of user Hamletateham asking them to do so, with the witness having no knowledge whether this ban was lawful under SimDemcoracy law.

'''[6].''' In the questioning of Strix, the plaintiff responded to their counsel’s questions that they believed themselves to be engaging in good natured political discussion, not displaying any prejudice against others, and that they were therefore surprised by the ban. Additionally, they stated their belief that Hamletateham was being hostile towards them during their discussion.

'''[7].''' To the questioning of the defense, the plaintiff responded that they were not notified of their ban by any law enforcement officer or otherwise. The plaintiff made a Reddit post on the 24th of March and a Discord post on the 1st of April attempting to request a case. The defense counsel also notes that they were Secretary of State at the time of the ban and had no involvement.

'''[8].''' In the questioning of Syndicality, the Election Supervisor stated that their assumption was that banned members were not eligible to be on the ballot and that they took this decision alone. They believe this to be a reasonable interpretation of the law.

'''[9].''' After the questioning of witnesses, the case stalled for multiple weeks as a settlement was negotiated but failed to be reached. The presiding Judge was also swapped when former Judge twisty pretzels resigned their post. When the hearing resumed, the plaintiff had appointed new legal counsel. After this point, the hearing resumed with argumentation.

'''[10].''' The plaintiff argued that the officer who banned them did so with recklessness as the officer did not check whether the action they banned for was actually illegal under SimDemocracy law. Additionally, they provide a screenshot of a message sent several days after the ban took place where the then SDBI Director iaccp admitted that the SDBI could not find a point of the Discord Terms of Service of which the plaintiff was in violation and therefore unbanned them.

'''[11].''' As for the Election Supervisor’s actions, the plaintiff argues that removing them from the ballot was an unconstitutional breach of their rights and that the Discord Supervisor acted recklessly by (1) not confirming that a banned person is ineligible for being elected to public office and (2) not waiting for a competent court to certify the ban before removing the plaintiff.

'''[12].''' The defense begins their argumentation by admitting that the former SDBI Director’s actions were reckless, but that since the processes of the SDBI have been altered. The defense additionally concedes that the Election Supervisor’s actions were “premature and contradictory to proper procedure”, but submits evidence stating that there was little the Election Supervisor could do to remedy their mistake due to technicalities with the voting system. They also note that judicial confirmation of the ban was properly received.

'''[13].''' The plaintiff concludes by reiterating their arguments and emphasizing how while the plaintiff admitted fault in the second count, they did not remedy their mistake.

'''[14].''' The defense concludes by arguing that the State has remedied their mistakes by changing the procedures in similar cases for the future and that occasional mistakes are unavoidable.

'''[15].''' 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.

'''[16].''' For the first count, the banning of the plaintiff, 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. The Court also finds that the government employee who banned them did so recklessly as they did not confirm that the ban was lawful. The Court completely rejects the defense’s argument that the State has remedied the breach by changing their procedures for future cases as this in no way remedies the situation they are being sued for. The Court strongly recommends that the State not use such arguments in the future.

'''[17].''' For the second count, the removal of the plaintiff from the ballot, the Court finds that the State violated the plaintiff’s right to freedom of expression by participation in a free and fair election by removing them from the ballot without a valid reason. The Court also finds that the government employee who removed them did so recklessly as they did not confirm that the removal was lawful and instead acted on assumptions which inflicted harm on the plaintiff.

17.1 The Court does not believe the argument that banned members should automatically be removed from the ballot to have been proven. The Court strongly believes that the burden of proof for removing a citizen from the ballot lies on the Electoral Commission (see the numerous Supreme Court cases on the legality of invalidating ballots), and that as no evidence or law was presented before the removal to support it, nor has been since, that the removal was unlawful.

'''[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 not confirm that the ban was lawful.

'''[20].''' Therefore, the Court finds the State liable for:
    -   2 counts of Breach of Civil Rights.
    -   1 count of Breach of Police Accountability.

'''[21].''' 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.

'''[22].''' Considering the upsetting nature of the violation of their rights by being unfairly banned for several days, and the vital importance of the right to liberty and security of the person, the Court finds an appropriate remedy for the first count of Breach of Civil Rights to be 2500t.

'''[23].''' Considering the upsetting nature of the violation of their rights by being unfairly removed from the ballot, and the vital importance of unimpeded access to free and fair elections, the Court finds an appropriate remedy for the second count of Breach of Civil Rights to be 2500t.

'''[24].''' Considering the gross recklessness displayed by the responsible officer in the course of their duties, and the essential principle of the SDBI 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.

'''[25].''' 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 6000t as remedy, to be fulfilled within the next seven (7) days.


==Citations==
<references />