Thegoldenfish v SD 2026 Civ 1
thegoldenfish v SD [2026] Civ 1
| Date of judgment | 2nd February 2026 |
| Judge | Judge Tech Support |
| Grounds | Tort of Uncompensated Expropriation (Article 27 of the Civil Code) |
| Verdict | Defendant held not liable for Uncompensated Expropriation |
| Remedy | |
| Applicable persuasive precedent |
|
JUDGMENT by Judge Tech Support
Summary of Case
[1] Plaintiff Golden Fish filed a civil suit against the state on the 12th of January 2026, the plaintiff is alleging that the state has violated the tort of Uncompensated Expropriation by deleting the role of the plaintiff after they had left SimDemocracy, despite them stating their intention to return and for them to be kept on the 15th of September.
[2] The plaintiff sought a public apology from the defendant, the full compensation of 400 tau and 800 tau in reparations and losses from the state of SimDemocracy.
Summary of Facts
[3] On the 29th of January at 00:13 UST the plaintiff was instructed to proceed with their main argumentation during the trial, they sent a response to this message at 00:14 UST of the same day.
[4] The plaintiff was pinged in the court several times including reminders that once 48 hours from their final message had elapsed, they would be deemed inactive and a default judgement would be entered for the defence.
[5] After the 48 hours had elapsed, at 00:19 UST on the 31st of January the defence asked the court to declare the plaintiff as inactive and enter a default judgement in favour of the defence.
[6] Article 25 §1.2. of the CPA states that:
§1.2. If either side during civil proceedings becomes inactive, or fails to follow courtroom procedures in a reasonably timely and speedy manner the case shall automatically be found in favor of the other side.
[7] Thus a default judgement was found in favour of the defence, due to the inactivity of the plaintiff.
Costs hearing
[8] The trial then proceeded to the costs hearing, where the plaintiff and defence were invited to submit their costs for the case.
[9] The plaintiff requested “the maximum reparations available for lost costs (double the presidential salary) + 51200 tau in reparations for all the heinous acts committed by the defence.” They then increased these demands to 9 billion tau alongside a wall of text in all capitals.
[10] The plaintiff was subsequently found in contempt of court for this outburst, where after a long back and forth, including a motion for recusal, was sentenced to a 1 week mute for disrupting judicial proceedings.
[11] In response to this outburst, and its subsequent developments, the defence requested the maximum costs, 2 times the salary of the President, due to the plaintiffs “heinous misconduct”.
[12] When considering the costs submissions from both parties, it’s time to consult the relevant precedent. Firstly, in Strix v SD [2025] Civ 2 a default judgement was found in favour of the plaintiff, the plaintiff received the entirety of the costs that they had asked for due to the defence being found liable on all counts.
[13] With the default judgement entered against the plaintiff in this case, and the relevant precedent, there is the consideration to apply the inverse of the judgement from the precedent.
[14] Alongside this the CPA states that:
§2.5. In all cases no cost order shall exceed an amount two times of the salary of the President of Simdemocracy.
[15] The current salary of the President, the same as when the events of the case took place, is 500t.
[16] The court also considers the misconduct of the plaintiff through their actions during the trial, as per Article 27 §2.2 (b) of the CPA in its evaluation of the costs.
[17] In line with Boho43 v SD [2025] Civ 13, the calculated wages of the attorneys spared by the state up to the end of the trial is also considered by the court in the verdict.
Verdict
[18] This case is hereby dismissed with prejudice.
Remedy
[19] This court orders the plaintiff to pay the defendant a total of 1000 tau to cover the factors previously outlined.
[20] The department of the Treasury is authorised to execute this judgement against any accounts or assets held in the name of Golden Fish. Should such assets prove insufficient, further enforcement proceedings may be sought consistent with the civil code.
Refusal to Recuse by Judge Tech Support
Issued on 31st January 2026.
On the Motion to recuse by the plaintiff:
[A1] The Plaintiff has motioned for recusal of the trial judge due to a “more than reasonable doubt that you cannot perform your due duties in a way that is fair and impartial”
[A2] the plaintiff goes on to forward a series of messages sent by myself including a sticker stating “is this Latinx serious” in response to their demands in the cost hearing, that being firstly 51200 tau in fees, which subsequently increased firstly to 5 billion tau, and another where they stated “you have been offered the opportunity and desire to waste it clearly” in response to the defendant’s statements after being sent to contempt of court, where the defendant had continued to raise the fees they were asking for after being found in contempt.
Considerations
[A3] the Courtroom Procedures Act states that:
(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.
[A4] the plaintiffs arguments stem from the messages sent at the beginning of the cost hearing, where they demanded firstly 51200 tau in costs, and then 5 billion tau alongside other demands in an expletive rant sent during the cost hearing.
[A5] disagreeing with this conduct by the plaintiff, where they reasonably disrupted judicial proceedings, and thus finding them in contempt is not grounds for recusal, a right to a fair hearing or trial is not no longer possible due to a judge finding the plaintiff in contempt for disrupting judicial proceedings, being found in contempt does not automatically make the judge prejudiced against you.
[A6] this argument is further unconvincing when consulting precedent, a judge who sentences someone to a crime is not poisoned against the person they have previously sentenced or found guilty, see the recusal decision in Opinion and Writ of Execution [2025] SDCR 28.
[A7] alongside this, Motion for recusal of Judge Ppatpat [2026] SDCR 14 holds that a judge disagreeing with what a party in a case has to say is not grounds enough for recusal, my opinions on what the plaintiff had said in regards to their contempt of court is not wholly enough to see me recused.
[A8] when consulting the Constitution, it states that:
§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.
[A9] there is no appearance of a conflict of interest, finding the plaintiff in contempt of court does not create a conflict of interest, if all judges had to recuse themselves from a case where they’ve found a party in contempt, the system wouldn’t work. Finding someone in contempt does not create a conflict as the judge is not acting with malice when doing so, but applying the law.
Plaintiffs conduct
[A10] during the cost hearing, I had asked the plaintiff to submit their costs to the court, after doing so, they submitted a series of increasing demands, not possible to grant under law, which disrupted judicial proceedings, afterwards, I told them of their right to defend themselves, where they continued to disrupt judicial proceedings by increasing their demands after I firstly asked them for a defence, and then asked them if their first statement after contempt was their defence, where the plaintiff then accused me of wrongfully assuming their words.
[A11] the plaintiff has repeatedly attempted to provoke me by calling me “dishonourable” and “your dishonour”, showing that they are still disrupting judicial proceedings and that my taking of what they had said is not without merit.
[A12] I thus refuse to recuse myself, as the plaintiff has misconstrued my words, and has continued to attempt to provoke a response from myself, alongside continuing to disrupt judicial proceedings, the precedent holds that I am neither prejudiced against them due to finding them in contempt, and that disagreeing with what they have said are not grounds enough for recusal.
In re Recusal of Tech Support in Golden Fish v. State of SimDemocracy [2026] Civ 1
JUDGMENT by Judge ppatpat issued on 1st February 2026.
Introduction
[B1] The plaintiff has moved for the recusal of the presiding judge, Judge Tech Support, on the basis that remarks made and rulings issued during the costs hearing—most notably a finding of contempt—demonstrate bias, hostility, and an inability to continue to preside fairly and impartially.
[B2] The motion is brought pursuant to Article 5 §1(a)(i) of the Courtroom Procedures Act 2025 (“CPA”) and the constitutional guarantee of a fair hearing.
Considerations for recusal
[B3] The CPA provides that a motion to recuse a judge may be made only where “there is a real likelihood that a fair hearing or trial is not possible.” This is a demanding standard. It is not satisfied by conjecture, displeasure, or rhetorical excess. The Constitution similarly requires recusal where a judge “may have, or may appear to have, a conflict of interest.” These provisions do not constitutionalise a litigant’s comfort, nor do they create a right to a judge whose rulings are agreeable. The law protects fairness, not friendliness.
[B4] As this Court and others have repeatedly held, the test for recusal is objective. The question is not whether the moving party feels aggrieved, but whether a reasonable observer, properly informed of the facts and the law, would conclude that the judge is incapable of adjudicating the matter according to law.
[B5] The plaintiff’s principal submission is that the presiding judge’s finding of contempt, and the language accompanying it, demonstrate animus sufficient to disqualify him from further participation.
[B6] That argument misunderstands the nature of contempt and the role of the judiciary. Contempt is not evidence of bias; it is a tool essential to the maintenance of order and the administration of justice. A judge who could not sanction disruptive conduct without thereby disqualifying himself would be a judge without authority.
[B7] The record shows that the plaintiff repeatedly submitted escalating and legally impossible cost demands—despite explicit statutory limits—and continued to do so after being warned and afforded an opportunity to present a defence. The finding of contempt was not arbitrary; it was responsive to conduct that materially disrupted proceedings.
[B8] Nor does judicial language expressing frustration, disapproval, or finality transform lawful adjudication into prejudice. Judges are not required to speak in abstractions when confronted with concrete obstruction. The Constitution does not mandate judicial silence in the face of provocation.
[B9] Importantly, nothing in the record suggests that the presiding judge prejudged the merits of any substantive issue, relied on extrajudicial information, or acted for reasons other than the application of law to conduct before the court.
Verdict
[B10] For the foregoing reasons, the Motion to Recuse Judge Tech Support is denied.
[B11] It is so ordered.