Ppatpat v SD 2025 Civ 38

Ppatpat v SD [2025] Civ 38

Date of judgment	7th February 2026
Judge	Judge Benbookworm
Torts	1 count of Breach of Civil Rights (Article 29 of the Civil Code 2025)
Verdict	Liable, by default
Awards	8,000 t paid to plaintiff
Applicable persuasive precedent	Unfair elections amount to less damage than unlawful criminal sanctions, [8] If a plaintiff has already been fully compensated for their loss, then no additional damages are permissible, [9.1] The damages suggested by the prevailing party should be a ceiling, and the damages suggested by the non-prevailing party should be a floor, [10.2]

JUDGMENT by Judge Benbookworm

(Other half of Ppatpat v Birdish [2025] Civ 38)

Introduction

[1] The plaintiff brings an action against the State for breach of civil rights, alleging that the 156th presidential election was tampered with by an Elections Commissioner and that the State bears a non-delegable duty to ensure elections are “fair and untampered”, and failed to do so.

[2] Due to lateness / lack of response from the defense when the Attorney General changed, the case was found in favor of the plaintiff by default. As such, the court opts to not opine further on any merits or lack thereof.

Damages

[3] The plaintiff seeks 10,000 tau in damages, with an additional 8,000 tau for loss of social opportunity, emotional distress, loss of desire to participate in SimDem, and loss of reputation.

[4] After additional delay (partially on the court, partially on a force majeure of the defense), the defense presented that damages should be limited to 8,000 tau, as the State is also a victim of one user's actions.

[5] The Civil Code Compensation Guideline Act 2025 caps damages for breach of civil rights at 10,000 tau. Additional compensation is permitted, and limited to 2,000 tau each for specific additional damages. Thus, the plaintiff requests the absolute maximum.

[6] There are existing cases on breach of civil rights that indicate what severity of misconduct merits as damages.

[7] Strix v SD [2024] Civ 2 found that being banned for several days and being unfairly removed from the ballot each merited 2,500 tau. Being unfairly removed from the ballot is substantially similar to being unfairly denied office. This is a fair benchmark for damages in this case.

[8] BelugaWhaleMan9 v SD [2024] Civ 2 found that being banned for months merited 7,500 tau. Being banned for months is manifestly more injurious than loss of office. This can reasonably be pointed to as an upper bound for damages in this case.

[8.1] Although much older and in a different economy, the enormity of the damages awarded in TheReak v SD [2023] Civ 2 likewise support how unlawful bannings are extremely severe harm, potentially meriting the maximum possible damages.

[9] Both Article 4 of the compensation guidelines and other civil case law indicate that when damages are calculable, they may exceed the maximums. Luckily here, the denial of the presidency can be at least partially likened to denial of a job, which has a calculable loss. The tort of wrongful dismissal results in “payment for any salary or business lost”. The Government Salaries Act 2025 sets the presidential salary at 500 tau every two weeks; the plaintiff’s claim to presidential office would have resulted in one term’s worth of salary: 500 tau. This sets a floor for compensation.

[9] Furthermore, the plaintiff has already been richly compensated for the exact wrongs in this civil complaint (and was the other portion of this very case): ppatpat v Birdish [2025] Civ 38 resulted in 12,000 tau in damages. That case also set a framework for damages. There is manifestly no intent here on the part of the State, lowering this case on that framework.

[9.1] On the same set of facts, that court rejected claims of emotional distress, loss of desire to participate, and loss of reputation, but accepted the claim of loss of social opportunity. That claim was compensated with the maximum 2,000 tau. As only one instance of social opportunity was lost, such has already been fully compensated; no additional damages are merited here.

[9.2] The plaintiff also received compensation again from Birdish in part of Civ 39, again from the same nucleus of facts (but different torts).

[9.3] The claim for loss of social opportunity has already been fully compensated, and the attempt to double (or even triple) dip is flatly rejected.

[10] In consideration of the weight of case law (including cases involving the exact same set of facts from the same plaintiff), the plaintiff would be adequately compensated with damages somewhere between 500 tau and 2,500 tau on the breach of civil rights.

[10.1] However, the court looks to SD v mayuuii [2025] Crim 84 [14] which criticized SD v Mooklyn (Remanded) [2023] Crim 1 for giving a sentence above even what the prosecution recommended. Similarly here, the defense recommended a remedy of 8,000 tau.

[10.2] The prevailing party ought not receive more than they asked for, nor the non-prevailing party give less than they offered.

Decision

[11] The defense is ordered to pay the plaintiff 8,000 tau for defaulting on the claim of breach of civil rights, to be paid within 48 hours of the publication of this judgment.