Opinion and Writ of Execution 2025 SDCR 28
Opinion and Writ of Execution [2025] SDCR 28
On the Petition for Enforcement of Judgements in Ppatpat and brandmal, et al. v AerospaceEnjoyer [2025] Civ 27 and Keepbloxburgsafe v AerospaceEnjoyer [2025] Civ 28
| Date of judgment | 12th December 2025 |
| Judge | Judge Thyme |
| Verdict | Writ of Execution Amended and Granted |
| Applicable persuasive precedent |
MAJORITY OPINION by Judge Thyme
Introduction
[1] Petitioners seek enforcement of final judgments in Civ 27 and Civ 28. The debtor has been banned permanently from SimDemocracy and cannot voluntarily satisfy the judgments. Petitioners request liquidation and distribution of assets held by the debtor. This Court exercises continued jurisdiction and is within its right to hear such a petition.
Procedural background
[2] In Civ 27, the damages awarded to plaintiffs were 5 tau each to terak, brandmal11, and delusionallou for defamation. 10 tau was awarded to ppatpat for defamation. 1,000 tau was awarded to ppatpat for harassment. Costs of 1,000 tau were awarded to ppatpat. 475 tau each in damages for abuse of process was awarded to ppatpat, terak, brandmal11, delusionallou, Ivy Cactus, and Mrgamerboy. The total amount to have been disbursed was 4,875.
[3] In Civ 28, the damages awarded to plaintiffs were 5,000 tau for bbcuba_ for legal malpractice. 1,500 tau in attorney’s fees was awarded to ppatpat. The total amount to have been disbursed was 6,500.
[4] Citing Part 2, Article 2, §1.2, “Applications for the court to exercise continuing jurisdiction shall be heard by a single Judge of the Court of Review.” In understanding that the petition was filed requesting such, Judge Thyme was assigned as the sole Judge to preside over the matter.
[5] The petition for enforcement was filed by ppatpat, a plaintiff or counsel for the plaintiff in both cases concerned within this matter. It was filed on 14th November, 2025.
[6] The respondent, busiedcomb, motioned for the recusal of Judge Thyme on December 4th, 2025, citing the Judge’s bias against him having held support against him in Court previously. Judge Ferris, brought in to rule on the recusal, found against the motion to recuse, citing that the standard for a conflict of interest was not met. The full decision can be read at the bottom of this opinion, prior to the writ.
[7] The respondent’s argument against enforcement argued that he would be unable to legally transfer the tau to his creditors based on two Court orders issued to him prohibiting him from doing so.
Findings of fact
[7] The debtor in this matter is one busiedcomb. He is currently serving a sentence of a permanent ban from SimDemocracy. He owes the amounts described in [2] and [3] to the listed creditors. On account of his ban, he is unable to voluntarily complete payment to the creditors.
[8] For Civ 27, no amount of tau has been transferred from any of the debtor’s holdings to any of the creditors.
[9] For Civ 28, the 1,500 tau in attorney’s fees has been paid to ppatpat, and a partial amount, 831.96 tau, has been transferred to bbcuba_’s escrow account and is currently awaiting permanent disposition.
[10] The total enforceable outstanding amount totals to 5,706.96 tau, including the escrow account’s current balance.
[11] The petitioner stated the total as 6,375 tau, having included the 1,500 in attorney’s fees awarded to ppatpat in Civ 28, but having excluded the 831.96 tau awarded to bbcuba_ in the same case. The petitioner’s proposed percentage breakdown for disbursal has 62.5% going to ppatpat, and 7.5% going to each of the following creditors: terak, brandmal11, Ivy Cactus, Mr. Gamerboy, and delusionallou.
[12] For the respondent’s argument, the Court was only able to locate one such order prohibiting him from transferring tau, but it was to prohibit the debtor from transferring tau without permission of the Court through the duration of the trial, which has since ended and an expectation to pay the creditors came into force.
Legal authority
[13] Jurisdiction is granted by Part 2, Article 3, §1 of the Judiciary Act 2025, “The Court of Review shall have appellate and continuing jurisdiction over all matters to which the Inferior Court has jurisdiction under this Constitution.”
[14] The ability to issue a Writ of Execution is granted by The Schedule within the Judiciary Act 2025, “Power to issue to any person or authority any direction, order or writ for the enforcement of any right conferred by any written law or for any other purpose”. The use of this writ in particular arises from inherent enforcement authority granted to the Court of Review by way of having the ability to issue other writs such as a Writ of Mandamus or Prohibition.
Analysis
[15] It is necessary that judgments be enforced in a timely and equitable manner, else there is no mechanical reason to have them. When it comes to civil matters in Court, a lack of payout is a lack of enforcement. A debtor being banned from SimDemocracy does not remove their obligation to pay their creditors what they are owed.
[16] The use of a Writ of Execution is suitable in this instance as it is the best tool in the judicial toolbox that can accomplish what has been asked for effectively, efficiently, and equitably. To be clear, Cornell Law defines a Writ of Execution as “a court order that directs law enforcement personnel to seize non-exempt property owned by the defendant and sell it at public auction to satisfy a judgment won by the plaintiff. The defendant is also called a judgment debtor.” This is the best way to identify, seize, liquidate, and disburse the assets of the debtor in order to satisfy the original judgments.
[17] For the distribution of the tau, we must look at each partial sum first before addressing the collective. We will begin with the 831.96 tau currently sitting within the escrow account addressed to bbcuba_. In Civ. 28, the inferior court expressly ordered that any awarded sums be held in escrow “pending lawful determination by a higher authority of a beneficiary or mode of disposition.” This Court is that higher authority, and the question of disposition is therefore properly before it.
[18] Funds held in escrow do not vest in the judgment debtor or any particular beneficiary by default. Escrow is a custodial mechanism designed to preserve value where immediate lawful distribution is unavailable or impracticable. Where multiple potential beneficiaries exist, and where one or more beneficiaries are subject to legal or practical disability preventing receipt of funds, equity favors distribution to beneficiaries whose entitlement is uncontested and whose status permits immediate lawful receipt.
[19] In this case, the debtor remains permanently banned and is incapable of participating in, directing, or receiving funds through SimDemocracy’s lawful financial mechanisms. By contrast, ppatpat, as plaintiff counsel in Civ. 28, is an undisputed creditor, remains in good standing, and is capable of lawful receipt. Accordingly, the Court determines that the 831.96 tau presently held in escrow shall be released in full to ppatpat, in partial satisfaction of the outstanding judgment.
[20] The 1,500 tau already awarded to ppatpat shall remain his as it represents compensation granted directly to counsel for services rendered, rather than damages owed to the plaintiffs collectively. Fees and costs awarded by the court in one case are not held in trust for other creditors from another.
[21] Given [19] and [20], the new enforceable total to be split between the creditors is 4,875 tau. We must now look at the percentages given by the petitioner and adjust them to better reflect the amounts due and their weight. With [19] and [20] addressed, ppatpat is still owed 2,485 tau. terak, brandmal11, and delusionallou are still owed 480 tau each, with Ivy Cactus, and Mr. Gamerboy owed 475 each, totalling 2,390. Using MathTM, we can calculate the new totals. The amount owed to ppatpat is 51% of the remaining total. The amount owed to everyone else shall be split evenly at 9.8%. This change in percentage is more equitable given the adjustments made to the available total.
[22] On the matter of the limits to enforcement, the State may not reward an amount to the creditors greater than the total enforceable amount should the liquidation result in more than 4,875 tau. The authority granted by a writ of execution is limited to satisfaction of the lawful judgment amount. Execution is compensatory in nature and may not operate as a de facto forfeiture of funds or property. If liquidation of a debtor’s assets yields proceeds in excess of the enforceable judgment total, the Court’s authority to distribute funds is exhausted upon full satisfaction of the initial judgments.
[23] Any surplus funds shall not be distributed to creditors, nor absorbed by the State, but shall instead remain the property of the debtor. Where the debtor is subject to legal or practical incapacity preventing immediate receipt, such surplus shall be held in custodial escrow by the Treasury pending lawful disposition, return, or further order of a competent authority.
Holding
[24] The petition for enforcement is GRANTED as a writ of execution.
[25] The Court authorizes and demands the seizure and liquidation of the debtor’s assets up to the outstanding judgment total.
[26] The proceeds are to be disbursed according to the percentages approved by the Court [21].
[27] The Department of the Treasury is directed to carry out the enforcement without delay.
DECISION ON RECUSAL by Judge Ferris
[A1] The respondent motions for the recusal of Judge Thyme on the basis of bias due to them stating that the respondent's ban was justified several times and voicing support against them in the courts.
[A2] Firstly, agreeing with a person's banning clearly doesn't satisfy §1.1.1, §1.1.3, §1.1.4 and §1.1.5.
[A3] Enmity is defined as "positive, active, and typically mutual hatred or ill will".
[A4] Does presiding over a case which involves the banned member after stating that they agree with their ban appear as a conflict of interest to a reasonable person? Citing , which sets a PR firestorm as the minimum viable standard, and agreement with a decision simply doesn't satisfy that.
[A5] When a judge sentences a person and has them banned (inherently agreeing with their own decision), does that mean that they are now biased against the defendant forever more ? That is an absolutely absurd notion. Not only does it not constitute serious enmity in any way (since most judges don't have deep interpersonal connections with the people they preside over simply due to presiding over them), it is not supported by precedent, such as SD v AerospaceEnjoyer [2025] Crim 126 [9.1-9.2]
[A6] Not only is that argument independent of precedent, the hypothetical in the previous paragraph supports that.
[A7] Finally, voicing support against someone in the courts, presumably acting as counsel can’t possibly be a conflict of interest. Similar to CRB v Redshore Casino [2025] Civ 20 [9], presiding over a case involving one of the parties after going up against said party in another court isn't a conflict of interest.
[A8] I find against recusal.
WRIT OF EXECUTION by Judge Thyme
Dated December 12th, 2025
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND COMMANDED, pursuant to the Court’s authority to enforce civil judgments, that the Department of the Treasury shall:
- Transfer the balance of the bbcuba_ escrow account to ppatpat.
- Identify any and all assets belonging to busiedcomb.
- Seize and liquidate said assets via public auction.
- Distribute the proceeds (up to 4,875 tau) to the creditors in accordance to the following scheme:
- 51% to ppatpat
- 9.8% (each) to terak, brandmal11, delusionallou, Ivy Cactus, Mr. Gamerboy
- Should there be any more than 4,875 tau available from liquidation, the remainder shall be credited to an escrow account in busiedcomb’s name.
- Provide certification of compliance to the Court of Review.
SO, ORDERED
Judge Thyme, Court of Review
Citations
<references />