CRB v Redshore Casino 2025 Civ 20
CRB v Redshore Casino [2025] Civ 20
| Alternate citations | SDIC 10 and SDIC 11 |
| Date of judgment | 20th and 21st August 2025 |
| Judge |
|
| Recusal decision | Recusal not required |
| Result | Case later dropped by Plaintiff, as Defendant had left the server. |
| Applicable persuasive precedent |
|
REFUSAL TO RECUSE by Judge Benbookworm
Introduction
[A1] A motion to recuse has been made. The question before the court: does suing the State appear to create a “conflict of interest” when presiding over any or all other cases involving the State?
[A2] Under Article 13§5 of the Courtroom Procedures Act 2025 (CPA), I take judicial notice of previous cases, current and previous officers, etc.
[A3] Article 10 of the Constitution is the primary authority on recusal and the role of judges:
§2. The first round of a case shall be heard by a judge assigned through a process absent of their input, as decided by further legislation. Inactive or otherwise incapacitated judges should be excluded from said process. §2.1. Judges must recuse themselves in the event they may have, or may appear to have, a conflict of interest in the case except in the case where no other Judge can be provided. §2.2. In the event that a Judge refuses to recuse themselves a separate Judge shall rule whether they have a conflict of interest and to forcefully recuse them or not. §3. The presiding Judge shall interpret and apply the laws of SimDemocracy. §3.1. In cases not covered by law, Judges shall use their best professional judgment. §3.2. Judges must provide the legal reasoning behind their judgements, citing relevant legislation and precedent.
[A4] The case is at least partially covered by statutory law; I turn there first. For reference, here is the most relevant portions of Article 5 of the CPA:
§1. The following motions are able to be made at any point in the trial or pre-trial – (a) Motion for substitution or recusal of the representation of a party, which may be used to substitute the Judge or the representation of any party in a case. (a)(i) A motion to recuse a Judge may be made if there is a real likelihood that a fair hearing or trial is not possible. … §1.1. A motion for Recusal is said to be made out if – §1.1.1. The Judge is the creditor or debtor of any of the parties, the complainant, the victim, or the injured party, §1.1.2. The Judge has a close friendship or serious enmity between any of the parties, the complainant, the victim, or the injured party, or the relevant judicial officer, §1.1.3. The Judge has previously participated in the proceedings outside of their position as Judge on the case. §1.1.4. The Judge has acted as a plaintiff or prosecutor in the proceedings. §1.1.5. The Judge is not able to preside over cases in a reasonably efficient manner. §1.1.6. Generally if there exists a conflict of interest that prevents them from being unbiased.
[A5] Do I have or appear to have any of the listed reasons for recusal?
- I do not have a financial relationship with any of the parties
- I do not have a strong enmity nor friendship with any of the parties.
- I have no previous participation with this case, not even as Judge, let alone plaintiff or prosecutor.
- I do not have any reasons preventing me from swiftly addressing all concerns here.
The most subjective condition is §1.1.6, which will be further evaluated below, always keeping in mind what would appear to the reasonable person.
Case law involving conflicts of interest
[A6] In NotCommunist336 et al. v Black Diamond Casino [2025] Civ 11 [19] the judge discussed that having a direct financial stake in the outcome of a case represents a conflict of interest for an arbitrator. This mirrors CPA 5§1.1.1. I have nothing to gain or lose financially in the present case.
[A7] In re 9th Parliamentary Election [2021] SDSC 3 [22] the Supreme Court that candidates for an office are not to participate in votes for removal discussions. This possibly falls under CPA 5§1.1.2, but §1.1.6 surely applies. I have no office to gain or lose in this case.
[A8] SD v MagicGhost [2021] Crim 2 the court found that ordering opposing counsel to drop a case was a conflict of interest. This could fall under multiple categorizations, including CPA 5§1.1.2, § 1.1.3, § 1.1.4, and § 1.1.6. I do not exercise significant authority over either party.
[A9] Many of the present judges (Sparty, Ivy, Alexa, Confused, Ed, myself, etc.) have previously served as prosecutors or even (Deputy) Attorney General, including on some cases that overlapped tenures (Ivy finishing up a case or two on his most recent appointment as Judge). Ed and I have both served as public defenders on various cases, while still presiding over other unconnected criminal cases as judges. I have likewise served as counsel for plaintiffs in multiple cases against the State, while presiding over other cases where the State was a party. It does not appear that previous judges nor parties have (at least not successfully) raised issues regarding any particular such case previous to today.
- [A9.1] It is possible to argue that a form of estoppel applies here, given no party has previously requested the recusal of judges like Ed and myself while serving as public defenders, but this court does not believe that should bind the present parties. If it were appropriate, such a determination ought to be made instead on the basis of res judicata instead.
Other interpretations of a conflict of interest
[A10] Black's Law Dictionary, 2nd Ed. (online edition) defines conflict of interest as:
- a situation that can undermine a person due to self interest and public interest.
- a situation when parties discharge responsibility to a third party.
The second definition does not appear relevant. I believe that "self-interest" has been addressed above; I have nothing to gain from any outcome in this case. Regarding the public interest, this has more broad relevance, similar to CPA 5§1.1.6.
[A11] While the reasons for recusal are and ought to be lower than for impeachment, the Senate determined in a unanimous vote that, among other things, being judge and public defender did not merit impeachment.
Decision
[A12] The average SimDemocracy user would be unable to point to a matter that appears to be a conflict of interest, as such is defined in constitutional, statutory, and case law.
[A13] As the Constitution requires, I refer this matter to another judge to rule on, promptly.
DECISION ON RECUSAL by Judge Heinrich
Dated 21 August 2025
[B1] As I like to do, let me construct the minimum viable case for not recusing:
[B2] As noted above, only the following section may apply to this case:
"§1.1.6. Generally if there exists a conflict of interest that prevents them from being unbiased."
[B3] The plaintiff alleges that the Judge being in a suit against SimDemocracy is grounds for a conflict of interest. But this suit is about the operation of the Supreme Court, and only the Supreme Court (save some other details about the AG's office and whatnot in the legal system). The case here is about the Treasury, and more specifically the SimDemocracy State Bank. No conflict of interest sufficient to prevent the Presiding Judge from being unbiased exists.
[B4] Nor can the Constitution rescue the case for recusal.
"Judges must recuse themselves in the event they may have, or may appear to have, a conflict of interest in the case except in the case where no other Judge can be provided."
[B5] There are enough Judges, so that last part does not apply here. We have also already established that the Presiding Judge does not have a conflict of interest. Finally, it would not be rational to say that he appears to have a conflict of interest in the case. The question here is "appears to who?". While it may be that any given case can appear to have a conflict of interest given enough creative reasoning, in practice Courts have a Constitutional duty to do their job. Recusal whenever the local free-thinker comes in with a new pushpin conspiracy board is not a viable standard for justice. The most reasonable standard of "appear" is, at minimum, "appears true enough to enough people to have some negative effect on the reputation and trust in the justice system of SimDemocracy". For example, even if a Justice was secretly conflict-of-interest-free, it would be prudent to recuse in the middle of a PR firestorm. It may be higher than this, but this seems a good minimum viable line to draw.
[B6] This appearance does not exist for this case, as suing an entirely different branch and section of government is not an activity that a reasonable person would consider worthy of creating a conflict of interest.
[B7] With all of this in mind, the motion for recusal is denied.