In re AerospaceEnjoyer as Vexatious Litigant 2025 SDCR 15
In re AerospaceEnjoyer as Vexatious Litigant [2025] SDCR 15
| Alternate citation | In re Application under Article 13 of the Judiciary Act Against Busiedcomb [2025] SDCR 15 |
| Date | 25th October 2025 |
| Judges |
|
| Held |
|
| Applicable precedent |
|
JUDGMENT by Judge Hmquestionable
Introduction
[1] In this application under Article 13 of the Judiciary Act 2025, the Court of Review Judge Benbookworm has petitioned the court for the following order:
“No legal proceedings may be instituted by [Busiedcomb] in any Inferior Court or Court of Review without permission from any Judge of the Inferior Court, for an indefinite amount of time (until the user petitions the Court of Review and the restriction is deemed such no longer necessary)”.
Background
[2] Over the past months, the respondent, Busiedcomb, has filed a number of defective complaints which have been generally dismissed at pre-trial or have resulted in sanction. Such cases include “Aero v Lucas”, which is the subject of the Bar Association Ethics Committee decision Bar Association of SimDemocracy v AerospaceEnjoyer (alias Busiedcomb), “ChatGPT v Judges”, “AerospaceEnjoyer v AerospaceEnjoyer”, and “AerospaceEnjoyer v mypenjustbroke”.
[3] Each of the Civil Complaints which were filed by the respondent were submitted to the court. They are poorly constituted. For instance, “AerospaceEnjoyer v mypenjustbroke” reads, in part:
“The Court has personal jurisdiction over the defendant as [Defendant here], as a citizen of Simulated Democracy. Venue is proper under the Civil Code of 2020, Article 1, §1, as all of the alleged actions were committed on the SimDem Discord Server and or Subreddit”
[4] Multiple issues already arise in this third section of the Civil Complaint. The section names “[Defendant here]” as the defendant, “Simulated Democracy” as the name of the state (we are in the state of SimDemocracy, and attempts to cite the Civil Code 2020, which has been repealed.
[5] The substantive portion of the complaint is clearly not to be trifled with. It reads:
“The Plaintiff alleges a violation of — 1 count of Civil Code 2025 Article 33, Harassment”
Nothing is said about the cause of this allegation, and no evidence is submitted to reach a standard of reasonable and probable cause for the harassment.
[6] The other complaints which I have mentioned read in this similarly ridiculous fashion.
Respondent’s Submissions
[7] The respondent submits that AerospaceEnjoyer v AerospaceEnjoyer was an attempt to “set precedent”, that “AerospaceEnjoyer v Mypen” was started with a “reasonable and good faith belief” of a case, and that “ChatGPT v Judges” was filed in jest.
The Law
[8] Article 13 of the Judiciary Act 2025 states that “habitually and persistently and without any reasonable ground institut[ing] vexatious legal proceedings in any court apart from the Supreme Court” is a reason to grant the application for the order. I must now consider if the respondent has fulfilled all three factors listed.
[9] Firstly, I must determine if the respondent’s proceedings are “vexatious”. I agree that they are. All the cases which I have listed resulted in sanctions and were summarily dismissed at pre-trial. The complaints are generally deficient, with insufficient content to reach the necessary evidentiary standard.
[10] I must now determine if the proceedings were initiated “without any reasonable ground”. With respect, I do not agree with the submissions of the respondent on reasonable grounds. Firstly, filing a case in jest cannot be said to be a reasonable ground. The judicial system is interested in not wasting time on cases with no actual basis. Secondly, a brief glance at the proceedings in AerospaceEnjoyer v Mypenjustbroke shows the respondent stating that the case was filed “for the funsies”, or, in other words, in jest. As for AerospaceEnjoyer v AerospaceEnjoyer, it is clear that that case is also filed “for the funsies”. As an example, part of the civil complaint reads “Plaintiff seeks—60,000,000,000,000 tau provided by the Defendant”.
[11] I therefore determine that the cases were filed without any reasonable ground.
[12] Finally, I must determine if the cases were habitually and persistently filed. Given the number of cases as well as their timings at being filed over the course of two months, I am satisfied that the proceedings were initiated “habitually and persistently”.
[13] Therefore, I am satisfied that the respondent has “habitually and persistently and without any reasonable ground institut[ing] vexatious legal proceedings in any court apart from the Supreme Court”.
Conclusion
[14] I order that no legal proceedings may be instituted by the respondent, AerospaceEnjoyer, in any Inferior Court or Court of Review without permission from any Judge of the Inferior Court for a period of six (6) months.