SD v xxxiii4 2025 Crim 121
SD v _xxxiii4 [2025] Crim 121
| Date of judgment | 24th September 2025 |
| Judge | Judge ppatpat |
| Charges | 1 charge of Association with a Proscribed Organization (Criminal Code 2020, Article 51, Division 2, Subdivision 4) |
| Verdict | Guilty |
| Sentence | Permanent ban |
| Applicable persuasive precedent |
|
JUDGMENT by Judge ppatpat
Introduction
[1] The State of SimDemocracy has charged the defendant, _xxxiii4 (hereafter “Xi4”), with one count of Association with a Proscribed Organization, to wit, TIDE, under Article 51, Division 2, Subdivision 4 of the Criminal Code 2020.
[2] The Defence pled not guilty, and denies that this conduct amounts to criminal association, arguing that many within the jurisdiction—including even the then President—have interacted with TIDE bots.
Trial proceedings
[3] The Prosecution presented its opening statement, asserting that the bot in question was not generally available to the public, that its existence was not widely known, and that its immediate deletion following the Defendant’s interaction was evidence of concealment. The Prosecution described the command used as unusual and privileged, accessible only to those with ties to TIDE.
[4] The Defence responded with a vivid address to the Court, portraying the prosecution as a continuation of political persecution. The defence argued that numerous respected figures had previously interacted with TIDE bots without facing prosecution and that this selective enforcement undermined both fairness and legitimacy.
[5] The Court then heard evidence from the Prosecution. The prosecution began with Exhibit C, which depicts the Defendant issuing the command “/cypher” to a bot labelled “OVERWATCH Agent”, which carried the TIDE insignia as its profile picture. The interaction occurred within the Central Investigation Bureau (“CIB”) server, a server with known links to SimDemocracy institutions. Upon issuing the command, the bot returned a set of glyphs, which the prosecution argued bear visual and structural similarity to the encryption systems previously utilised by TIDE operatives and known alts.
[6] The prosecution contended that this specific command is not a general or common bot instruction, but rather a targeted function associated with TIDE-affiliated intelligence activity. This distinction, they argue, is central to establishing that the bot in question was not merely a public or test bot, but a functionally restricted bot likely intended for internal use.
[7] The prosecution then continued with Exhibit B, a close-up image of the bot’s Discord profile, captured contemporaneously with the events forming the subject of this trial. It reveals that the bot in question — “OVERWATCH Agent” — was registered on August 1, 2025, just two days before the alleged interaction took place on August 3.
[8] The prosecution then continues with exhibit A, presenting a search result from a Discord bot-tracking tool or interface, showing metadata associated with the OVERWATCH Agent bot previously described in Exhibits B and C. Specifically, this exhibit confirms that the bot was deleted from Discord’s systems on August 3, 2025, the same day it was used by the Defendant in the CIB server.
- [8.1] The timing of the bot’s deletion is central to the prosecution’s narrative. The Defendant’s message was sent at 10:25 PM, according to Exhibit C and the audit log in Exhibit E. Within minutes, the bot itself no longer existed, as reflected in this deletion record.
- [8.2] The prosecution argues that such a deletion, so soon after the bot’s use and the deletion of its output, is not coincidental. Instead, they suggest it is evidence of conscious cover-up, and infer that either:
- [8.2.1] The Defendant had control over the bot and deleted it to eliminate evidence; or
- [8.2.2] The Defendant was in contact with TIDE operatives who deleted the bot upon being informed of its exposure.
[9] The prosecution then presents exhibit E, an image taken from the audit log of the Central Investigation Bureau (CIB) server, showing that the Defendant deleted a message authored by the now-deleted OVERWATCH Agent bot on August 3, 2025 at 10:25 PM, in the local time zone of the witness Nolan, who submitted the screenshots and affidavit.
- [9.1] The State further contends that such an action is inconsistent with innocent conduct, especially in a context where the bot bears the insignia of a proscribed organisation and performs a sensitive or obscure function. They suggest that an individual using a bot innocently or out of curiosity would have no reason to immediately erase the resulting output—particularly if there were a legitimate explanation for its use.
[10] Exhibit F is a screenshot of Nolan’s immediate reaction to the appearance—and sudden disappearance—of the OVERWATCH Agent bot in the Central Investigation Bureau (CIB) server on August 3, 2025. The image captures Nolan pinging the bot, attempting to interact with it or confirm its presence, and sharing a hyperlink to the bot’s Discord ID for investigative or evidentiary purposes.
- [10.1] The timestamp on Nolan’s message is 10:26 PM, just one minute after the bot’s output was sent and deleted by the Defendant, as established in Exhibits C and E. Notably, the bot’s message was already absent from the channel by the time Nolan replied. The prosecution submits this as contemporaneous confirmation of the Defendant’s rapid deletion.
[11] Additionally, the Court received an affidavit from Nolan, dated 3 August 2025, attesting to his direct observations and actions in relation to the bot incident in the Central Investigation Bureau (CIB) server. Nolan affirms, under penalty of perjury and with acknowledgement of the Department of Justice’s authority, the following:
- [11.1] Nolan received notifications for the CIB server and was therefore immediately alerted when the bot with ID 1401007928441307246—identified in previous exhibits—was used by the Defendant, xi4. This corroborates the timeline established in Exhibit C, where the bot’s command (“cypher”) appears, and Exhibit E, where the audit log confirms the message was deleted at 10:25 PM.
- [11.2] Upon observing the command, Nolan:
- [11.2.1] Received a notification of the bot message,
- [11.2.2] Copied the bot’s hyperlink, which included its Discord ID (also shown in Exhibit A),
- [11.2.3] Retrieved the CIB server logs, where the deleted message was still recorded,
- [11.2.4] Sent contemporaneous messages in response to the incident, as visualised in Exhibit F.
[12] The absence of an alternative explanation and the Defendant’s failure to provide an exculpatory account are invoked as supporting the inference of guilt. The Prosecution concludes that the only plausible explanation is that the Defendant knowingly and unlawfully associated with TIDE, fulfilling the offence under Article 51, Division 2, Subdivision 4 of the Criminal Code 2020.
[13] The Defence challenged both the evidentiary weight and the legal sufficiency of the prosecution’s case. Their response comprises two key strands:
- [13.1] Critique of the exhibits and inferences drawn therefrom; and
- [13.2] Principled objection to the prosecution’s invocation of the Defendant’s silence as evidence of guilt.
[14] The Defence argued that Exhibit C merely shows that the Defendant interacted with a bot. It does not prove any formal or informal association with TIDE.
[15] For Exhibits A and B, the Defence's position is that “a TIDE bot is a TIDE bot”, and declined to explain further.
- [15.1] Presumably, the defence is arguing that its existence and design prove nothing about the user’s state of mind, intention, or knowledge of its provenance. At most, it suggests that the bot existed and was used. Presumably, the defence is alleging that it does not bridge the evidentiary gap between interaction and association, the latter being the required element under Article 51.
[16] With respect to Exhibit E, which shows the Defendant deleted the bot’s message within one minute, the Defence contends that deletion alone cannot imply guilt.
[17] Exhibit F, showing Nolan’s reaction and documentation efforts, is challenged on the basis of credibility. The Defence argues that Nolan is not a neutral observer, but a “prolific whistle-blower” with a long-standing belief that the Defendant is linked to TIDE. They emphasise that Nolan has maintained a mental list of suspected TIDE members, with the Defendant’s name appearing therefrom the moment he joined SimDemocracy. This, the Defence submits, renders his credibility compromised.
[18] A central plank of the Defence’s response is its constitutional objection to the Prosecution’s attempt to draw adverse inference from the Defendant’s silence. The Prosecution remarked that the “Defendant declined to explain himself” and used this silence to support the allegation of guilt. The Defence asserts that this argument is constitutionally improper.
[19] In support, the Defence cites SD v fortnitewfortnitew [2025] Crim 117, a persuasive—but not binding—precedent. There, the Court cautioned prosecutors against using silence as proof of guilt in Article 51 offences, stating at paragraph [12.2]:
“The prosecution tried to paint the invocation of rights as evidence of nefarious intent. Any future prosecutors are strongly warned against repeating that tactic, absent dramatic change in the legal landscape.”
[20] For main argumentation, the Defence introduces seven exhibits aimed at demonstrating that interacting with a TIDE bot is neither uncommon nor inherently suspicious. The individuals featured include high-ranking public officials, respected figures, and even past Department of Justice personnel, all of whom are shown accessing or attempting to access TIDE-affiliated bots.
[21] The defence presented the following:
- [21.1] Exhibit I shows former Lady President NotCom interacting with a TIDE bot.
- [21.2] Exhibit II shows Senator Zeps successfully issuing commands to a TIDE bot.
- [21.3] Exhibit III shows Deputy Secretary of State TripodPlayz doing the same.
- [21.4] Exhibit IV depicts Chief Ombudsman Budo interacting with such a bot.
- [21.5] Exhibit V shows former Attorney General and DoJ advisor Delulu attempting to do so.
- [21.6] Exhibit VI reveals a prior instance of Nolan accusing the Defendant of using a bot, framing it as a pattern of suspicion rather than objective reporting.
- [21.7] Exhibit VII portrays Nolan himself interacting with a TIDE bot, further calling into question his neutrality and the alleged “exclusivity” of such access.
[22] Through these exhibits, the Defence posits that bot interaction is not unique to TIDE members or sympathisers, thereby dismantling the Prosecution’s core premise. It is argued that if such conduct were truly indicative of association with a proscribed organisation, then a large swath of SimDemocracy’s leadership would be similarly implicated.
[23] The Defence also addresses the Defendant’s deletion of the bot output, which the Prosecution presents as consciousness of guilt. Instead, it is claimed that the deletion was motivated by a desire to avoid alerting TIDE, not concealment from state authorities. The Defence suggests that the Defendant sought to prevent TIDE from realising that their bot was exposed to general users, not to erase evidence.
[24] It is argued that the Department of Justice has shown a pattern of overreach, exemplified by what the Defence calls accusations from individuals like Nolan. The Defence paints the prosecution as a politically motivated witch hunt, lacking the objectivity and neutrality required by due process.
[25] The Prosecution began by distinguishing the bot used by the Defendant from those shown in the Defence’s exhibits. It was asserted that the bots depicted in Exhibits I to V and VII were not the same bot as the one used by the Defendant. Notably, those bots remained online for hours at a time, and their use by various citizens did not trigger immediate deletion by TIDE. In contrast, the bot used by the Defendant was allegedly unknown to SimDemocracy prior to the incident, was newly created, and was deleted minutes after the Defendant used it and then deleted the message it produced. The Prosecution submitted that this sequence of deletion—message first, bot second—strongly supports the theory that the Defendant either controlled the bot or was in direct contact with someone who did.
[26] Accordingly, the Prosecution asserted that the Defendant’s interaction with this particular bot was not equivalent to other users interacting with older or publicly known bots. Thus, the comparative defence fails on grounds of factual dissimilarity.
[27] Next, the Prosecution argued that Exhibit VI violated foundation requirements, as the Defence failed to authenticate the source of the screenshot or confirm its contextual reliability. As a result of these compounded issues, the Prosecution requested the Court strike Exhibit VI in full. These objections were ultimately sustained by the Court under Article 13 §2.4 and Article 7 §5 of the Courtroom Procedures Act 2025, with the Court ruling that appending further material to cure incompleteness would constitute the submission of new evidence post-pre-trial, which is barred by statute.
[28] The Defence’s argument that the Defendant deleted the bot message in order to protect the community from TIDE discovering the bot’s public exposure was met with scepticism. The Prosecution characterised this theory as “absurd speculation”, asking rhetorically why, if the deletion was so innocuous, the bot itself was deleted only minutes later.
[29] In response to the Defence’s invocation of the constitutional right against self-incrimination under Article 21 §7, the Prosecution did not dispute that the Defendant had a right to remain silent. However, it denied that merely noting non-compliance with an investigation amounted to a breach of this right. The Prosecution drew a distinction between drawing adverse inferences from silence, which may violate due process, and noting silence as a factual observation, which does not. They argued that pointing out the Defendant’s lack of cooperation was a permissible commentary on context, rather than a prosecutorial inference of guilt.
[30] The Prosecution closed by reaffirming its position that the evidence presented would be completed by witness testimony, which it claimed would establish the Defendant’s association with TIDE beyond reasonable doubt, and rejected the Defence’s portrayal of the Department of Justice as politically motivated or biased.
[31] Nolan, the individual who provided the affidavit forming the foundation of the prosecution's evidentiary case, testified to a number of key facts in support of the state’s case.
- [31.1] Nolan confirmed that he was notified by the CIB server of a bot being used and saw the Defendant issuing a command that generated a message. He further stated that when he attempted to follow the hyperlink associated with the bot’s user ID shortly after, the bot was no longer extant on Discord—suggesting that it had been deleted within minutesof the Defendant’s interaction with it.
- [31.2] He did not receive any response from the Defendant after attempting to contact him in the CIB server. He further stated that, to the best of his knowledge, no one else in the Department of Justice, broader government, or public was aware of this specific bot’s existence prior to this incident.
- [31.3] When questioned on his own prior interaction with TIDE bots, as shown in Defense Exhibit VII (which depicted him pinging a bot known as OVERWATCH Mini), Nolan testified that OVERWATCH Mini had a brief period where it could return statistics when pinged. However, he noted that this was a bug, not intended functionality, and that TIDE fixed it rather than deleting the bot.
- [31.4] On cross-examination, Nolan acknowledged that he had known the Defendant since the formation of the “Legal Union” political party and admitted that he had been attempting to prove the Defendant’s association with TIDE since shortly after the Defendant’s arrival in SimDemocracy.
[32] Saket, who previously served as both an SDBI agent and OHS agent, provided expert testimony regarding the classification and accessibility of TIDE bots, drawing from his institutional knowledge of SimDemocratic security operations.
- [32.1] Saket testified that the bot used by the Defendant (depicted in Exhibits B and C) was new, unreleased to the public, and was not known even within government circles before Nolan reported its usage. He identified this bot as distinct from those shown in Defense Exhibits I–V and VII.
- [32.2] On the question of public accessibility, Saket testified that on the relevant date—August 3, 2025—the only TIDE bot that had limited accessibility was OVERWATCH Mini, and even then, it would generally deny authorization to users attempting to engage with it.
- [32.3] Saket clarified on cross-examination that he was aware of general public interaction with TIDE bots in other circumstances, but not on the date or with the specific bot at issue in this case. He referenced a past DOJ operation which used passive detection by a bot to locate sleeper accounts, but noted that DOJ agents could not directly issue commands to it due to lack of authorization.
- [32.4] When asked whether there were any coordinated or unofficial group efforts to interact with TIDE bots, Saket said he did not recall any such efforts and pushed back on any mischaracterization of his prior testimony suggesting SimDemocracy users had never interacted with TIDE bots.
Considerations
[33] The Defendant, Xi4, stands charged with the offence of Association with a Proscribed Organization under Article 51, Subdivision 4 of the Criminal Code 2020, which reads as follows:
“§1. A person who associates with a Proscribed Organization, or any of its members, commits an offence.”
[34] The organization known as TIDE has been declared a proscribed terrorist organization under SD v Pretzel [2025] Crim 80 and SD v TIDE [2025] Crim 70. This classification is not in dispute, nor is the applicability of Article 51 to associations with this group.
[35] The heart of this case is not whether the Defendant used a bot—he did—but whether such use constitutes association with a Proscribed Organization within the meaning of Article 51.
[36] The question of whether the bot used by the Defendant was publicly accessible is central to the case.
[37] On this point, the Court heard testimony from Saket, a former SDBI and OHS agent, who testified that the bot in question was “unreleased to the public”, and that no one in the DOJ, government, or public should have been aware of its existence prior to the Defendant’s use.
[38] This was corroborated by Nolan, who stated that he had never seen the bot before, and that the bot was deleted within minutes of its use by the Defendant. Saket also affirmed that, while OVERWATCH Mini had been previously accessible, it had only been so due to a bug and was not comparable to the bot at issue.
[39] The Court finds this testimony credible. The Defense’s exhibits (I–V and VII), while demonstrating interactions with bots bearing TIDE insignia, do not involve the same bot. In contrast to the immediate deletion seen here, those bots remained active hours after being used, and in some cases, were widely known and discussed within SimDemocracy circles. This fact undermines the Defense’s argument that the Defendant’s actions were merely part of a larger, tolerated pattern.
[40] The Defendant deleted the bot’s message from the CIB server within a minute of its appearance. Shortly thereafter, the bot itself was deleted from Discord. The Prosecution argues that this sequence indicates a deliberate cover-up, while the Defense posits that the Defendant deleted the message in hopes of preventing TIDE from discovering that the bot had been exposed.
[41] The latter explanation strains credulity. If the Defendant was merely worried about TIDE, there would be no reason to delete the message from the CIB server, a space already under the purview of SimDemocracy. Nor does it explain the subsequent deletion of the bot itself. The Court agrees with the Prosecution that this sequence suggests either active collaboration with TIDE, or at the very least, that TIDE was made aware of the Defendant’s command usage and acted accordingly, further suggesting some level of two-way association.
[42] The Defense failed to explain how the Defendant had access to the bot in the first place, despite credible witness testimony that no one else in the public was aware of it. The reasonable inference is that such access required some level of communication or shared infrastructure with TIDE members.
[43] The Defense raised concerns that the Prosecution's emphasis on the Defendant’s silence following questioning amounted to an adverse inference contrary to Article 21 §7 of the Constitution, which protects against self-incrimination.
[44] The Court finds that while the Defendant is entitled to invoke his right to remain silent, observations of non-cooperation may still be noted as factual circumstances.
[45] The Defense presented evidence of numerous public officials previously interacting with bots that appeared to be associated with TIDE. However, there are critical distinctions between those interactions and the current case. First, the bots in Defense Exhibits I–V and VII were already known to SimDemocracy, had been used repeatedly, and were not deleted shortly after their use. Second, no evidence has been presented that any of those individuals deleted bot messages, nor was there ever evidence that the bots used were private or restricted bots. The Court concludes that the Defendant’s conduct—both in accessing a previously unknown bot and in attempting to erase any record of that interaction—goes far beyond the conduct displayed by the individuals shown in the Defense’s exhibits.
[46] The Defense suggested that Nolan’s history of suspicion toward the Defendant rendered his testimony biased and unreliable. However, the credibility of Nolan's testimony is bolstered by the corroborating affidavit, screenshots, and testimony from Saket, none of which were shown to be falsified or inaccurate.
[47] The Court finds that while Nolan clearly harbored suspicions about the Defendant, this does not disqualify his testimony, nor does it override the objective corroboration of the events as described.
Findings
[48] Having considered all admissible evidence, including the exhibits, affidavits, witness testimony, cross-examination, and the closing submissions of both the Prosecution and the Defense, the Court makes the following findings.
[49] The Defendant did, on August 3rd, 2025, utilize a bot later determined to be operated by or associated with the Proscribed Organization known as TIDE.
[50] The bot in question was not known to the public, the government, nor any relevant department (including the Department of Justice) prior to its discovery by Nolan.
[51] The message returned by the bot was deleted by the Defendant within the same minute it was posted, and the bot itself was deleted from Discord within a few minutes thereafter.
[52] The Defendant offered no explanation for these actions at the time of inquiry, and the Defense has failed to provide a plausible innocent explanation consistent with the evidence.
[53] The witness testimony of Nolan and Saket, despite suggestions of bias, was credible, consistent, and corroborated by contemporaneous exhibits and surrounding context.
[54] The Court finds that the Defendant could not have accessed the bot in question without associating with TIDE or its members, and that the circumstances of deletion support a finding of intentional concealment.
[55] The charge brought against the Defendant falls under Article 51.4.1 of the Criminal Code 2020, which prohibits association with a Proscribed Organization, including its members.
[56] The term “association” is not defined in the Criminal Code 2020. I hold that association includes not merely overt allegiance or explicit support, but also material acts of cooperation, facilitation, or access that would not be available absent some form of established contact with the organization or its members.
[57] The Court is satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the Defendant’s conduct constitutes association with TIDE, within the meaning of the law.
Verdict
[58] Accordingly, the Court hereby finds that the Defendant, Xi4, is guilty of Association with a Proscribed Organization, contrary to Article 51.4.1 of the Criminal Code 2020.
Sentencing
[59] The Court now turns to consider sentencing in accordance with the Sentencing Act, and the submissions of both parties.
[60] The prosecution submits that the Defendant associated with a terrorist organization known for severe and repeated harm to the SimDemocracy community, including coordinated attacks, harassment, doxxing, and bigotry.
[61] The prosecution also submits that the Defendant attempted to conceal his involvement through deletion of digital evidence and failed to cooperate with legitimate investigative inquiries.
[62] The prosecution further contends that the bot used by the Defendant was not publicly accessible and was swiftly deleted following his usage, suggesting some degree of coordination or implicit communication with TIDE.
[63] The prosecution ends with stating that the Defendant’s legal and political experience within SimDemocracy—including his leadership of the Legal Union, a now-identified TIDE-affiliated front—demonstrates an understanding of the system that he exploited.
[64] The Defense has emphasized that no direct evidence has been presented that the Defendant personally participated in any of the violent or harmful acts committed by TIDE.
[65] The Defense stresses that the Defendant has previously served as a bar member and contributed to the legal community, though such service is outweighed by the serious nature of the offence.
[66] The Defense wraps up in stating that there is no evidence that the Defendant posed an immediate violent threat, though ideological alignment and operational assistance to TIDE is itself a punishable offence.
[67] The offence of Association with a Proscribed Organization is among the gravest charges in the SimDemocracy legal framework. While the Defendant did not directly engage in violence, his conduct facilitated the goals and operations of a known terrorist group.
[68] The deception involved in masquerading as a loyal public servant while associating with a hostile organization is a betrayal of trust that must be met with a firm response.
[69] The Court considers that rehabilitation is unlikely and that continued participation in SimDemocratic life would pose a significant risk to the community.
[70] As such, I find reasonable cause not to apply the framework in the Sentencing Act.
[71] Finally, with respect to Article 51, Division 2, Subdivision 6, §2.1 of the Criminal Code 2020, which states that “In sentencing, the Judge shall have due regard to whether a person, through their association, assisted in the activities of the Proscribed Organization.” The Court has had due regard to whether the Defendant, through their association, assisted in the activities of the Proscribed Organization. The Court finds that the Defendant’s usage of a TIDE bot, followed by immediate deletion and subsequent deletion of the bot itself, reflects a pattern of conduct consistent with operational assistance. Though not violent, such assistance enabled TIDE’s clandestine presence in SimDemocracy systems, constituting meaningful support to a Proscribed Organization.
[72] Accordingly, the Defendant, Xi4, is to be permanently banned from SimDemocracy and all associated platforms, effective immediately. It is so ordered.
REFUSAL TO RECUSE by Judge ppatpat
[A1] Under Article 5 of the Courtroom Procedures Act 2025, a judge may be recused only where a condition in §1.1 Article 5 of the CPA is made out.
[A2] The mere disagreement with evidentiary rulings, or dissatisfaction with judicial reasoning, is not a basis for recusal. The Defense alleges that the Court has been "poisoned" by the prosecution’s implication that the defendant’s silence is suggestive of guilt. However, the record is clear: the Court has not drawn such an inference, nor made any prejudicial remarks regarding the defendant’s silence.
[A3] Additionally, the Court did not rely on the defendant’s silence in any ruling, whether procedural or substantive. The defense’s assertion of “bias” is based on a perceived tone, not demonstrable conduct. Such speculative concerns do not meet the legal standard for recusal.
[A4] To quote Dominic Toretto in Fast Five: "Your mistake? Thinking you're in America".
[A5] We are in SimDem. The right against self incrimination squarely stands as:
No person shall be required to testify to anything which may expose them to criminal liability.
[A6] There has been no testimony compelled.
[A7] I also do not find any reason why the defense's assertion that
the introduction is during the pre-trial and not during arguments.
holds weight, given that pre-trial and trial are two separate processes in law. Furthermore, it is very clear that objections are when evidence is presented, not introduced.
[A8] I deny both motions, and await on a fellow judge to rule on my recusal.
APPEAL OF RECUSAL by Judge Heinrich
Dated 27th August 2025.
[B1] First, the object-level argument:
- [B1.1] If a protestor walks by and shouts "he's not talking because he's guilty!", must the Presiding Judge recuse himself? I think not.
- [B1.2] Judges are held to high standards for a reason. What difference does it make if a protestor shouts such a statement or an attorney does? Must Judges be hermetically sealed in their homes during cases?
- [B1.3] Finding bad faith or bad acting on the part of the DoJ is irrelevant to the question of recusal.
[B2] Second, the meta-argument: let us take a step-by-step of the CPA's standards for recusal.
- [B2.1]
§1.1.1. The Judge is the creditor or debtor of any of the parties, the complainant, the victim, or the injured party
- No evidence has been proffered by the defence showing that such is the case.
- [B2.2]
§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
- (Same)
- [B2.3]
§1.1.3. The Judge has previously participated in the proceedings outside of their position as Judge on the case
- (Same)
- [B2.4]
§1.1.4. The Judge has acted as a plaintiff or prosecutor in the proceedings
- (Same)
- [B2.5]
§1.1.5. The Judge is not able to preside over cases in a reasonably efficient manner
- (Same)
- [B2.6]
§1.1.6. Generally if there exists a conflict of interest that prevents them from being unbiased
- (Same)
[B3] The Constitution also mentions a requirement to not recuse for a lack of conflict of interest; it is likewise not fulfilled.
[B4] While it may be an error in the law, poisoning the Judge is not a valid reason for recusal even if the Judge may be biased – only a conflict of interest suffices.
[B5] I find against recusal.