SD v AerospaceEnjoyer 2025 Crim 126

SD v AerospaceEnjoyer [2025] Crim 126

Date of judgment	20th September 2025
Judge	Judge Benbookworm
Charges	2 charges of making a false report (Article 22a of the Criminal Code 2020)
Verdict	Guilty on all counts
Sentence	12 hours mute for each charge, to run consecutively for a total of 24 hours
Applicable persuasive precedent	Pinging @SDBI counts as mass summoning them, [4] Supports SD v Notcommunist366, Creative, & Acool [2025] Crim 103 [15] Misbehavior does not erase that a user should have known better, [10,14] Having presided over other cases involving a party does not constitute a conflict of interest, [9.1]-[9.2] Sentencing considerations are not held to the same burden of proof as for convictions, [14.2] Two data points does not establish a pattern but does show repetition, [16]

JUDGMENT by Judge Benbookworm

Introduction

[1] The prosecution alleges that AerospaceEnjoyer (ID: 854074851752804363) committed two counts of making a false report under Article 22a of the Criminal Code 2020, and requests a 12 hour mute for each. They allege that the accused pinged the SDBI, declined a ticket for it, and then pinged the SDBI again.

Relevant Statutory and Case Law

[2] The relevant portion of Article 22a of the Criminal Code 2020 reads as follows:

 §1. A person commits the offense of making a false report if they:
   §1.1. File a report to the SDBI or other legal authorities which is manifestly without legal merit, or
   §1.2. Mass summon the SDBI or other legal authorities in any way in a situation that is manifestly without legal merit.
 §2. In making a determination whether the person knew or ought to know that their claim was manifestly without legal merit, the court must consider whether the person has legal experience and expertise.

[3] SD v Notcommunist366, Creative, & Acool [2025] Crim 103 (SD v Notcom, et al.) is the only verdict found regarding making a false report (as it is a somewhat recent addition to the Criminal Code via the SDBIrritation Amendment), but is highly relevant and persuasive here.

General considerations

[4] It is uncontested that the accused pinged the SDBI on two occasions. While the defense tried to argue that pinging the SDBI did not necessarily constitute a “mass summon”, this reasoning is rejected. In SD v Notcom, et al. [13], it is taken for granted that pinging counts as a mass summon. Indeed, within the preamble to the SDBIrritation Amendment, it is made clear the intent to stop needless pinging. While perhaps pinging one or a limited number of officers may not constitute a “mass summon”, pinging the SDBI role does indeed summon the entire SDBI en masse. It is settled that the accused mass summoned the SDBI.

[4.1] The defense argued to split other hairs, but in most instances was unconvincing. For example, trying to draw a distinction between “false” and “manifestly without legal merit”, but such reasoning was not fully developed.

Evaluation of the legal merit

[5] SD v Notcom, et al. [15] establishes that “Legal merit, generally, carries a connotation of substance over technicality” and that the accused “ought to have known, that their ping was not substantive” (based on their level of expertise).

[6] The prosecution presented uncontested evidence of the accused replying to a user “@SDBI ban threat” followed by “Arrest her” when the other user had said "you cant literally ban yourself so that why i said 'by leaving'. you can cease the bait im better than that </3". The prosecution argued that such was in response to a joke, was clearly baseless, and needlessly escalated the situation. For the second charge, the accused replied “@SDBI Ticket them I’m offended” to a user saying what amounts to a common puerile “yo mama” joke: “I mean your mom is certainly more”.

[7] The defense argued that ban threats and insulting one’s mother could be perceived as potentially criminal due to their “obvious immorality” and harming the public. The court acknowledges the defender was trying their hardest, but this argument is scraping the barrel in search of arguments.

[7.1] This court echoes SD v changebac [2025] Crim 24 [5] in calling these defenses dubious.

[8] The mass summonings of the SDBI occurred entirely in situations manifestly without merit, where the context is blatantly nonserious and untethered to any conceivably criminal conduct.

Legal experience and expertise of the defendant

[9] In considering Article 22a§2, the court looks to the legal knowledge of the accused. The defense claims the accused has little legal knowledge, shown by their current suspension from the Bar Association in SDBA v AerospaceEnjoyer. This does not work in their favor, but the court would have taken judicial notice of such whether or not it had been mentioned.

[9.1] The court inserts here a note regarding having participated in multiple proceedings involving the accused. I sit on the Ethics Committee and signed off on the sanctions to the accused’s ability to practice law. I likewise presided over AerospaceEnjoyer v BTernaryTau [2025] MCiv 01. However, I have not participated in the current proceedings outside of my position as judge (see Article 5§1.1.3 of the Courtroom Procedures Act 2025, and the reasonings in the recusal decision from CRB v Redshore Casino [2025] Civ 20).

[9.2] In the recusal decision in SD v _xxxiii4 [2025] Crim 121 (overall case unfinished at this time), the reviewing judge rhetorically asks, "Must Judges be hermetically sealed in their homes during cases?" No. It cannot be held against the judge that the currently accused frequently ends up in proceedings with the same presiding user. The more often you are in court, the more likely it is that even random chance will put you in front of the same presiding officer.

[10] SD v Notcom, et al. [15] establishes that it counts when the user knew or ought to have known that the ping was baseless. Even if an attorney’s behavior in court has been poor enough to result in sanctions from the Ethics Committee, that does not erase that they should have known better. Passing the bar exam shows knowledge; persistent gross incompetence and neglect of professional duties shows that expertise has been wasted.

Verdict

[11] Beyond all doubt, the accused is guilty of two counts of making a false report.

Sentencing

[12] The court now gives due heed to the arguments presented in mitigation, the Sentencing Act, and other relevant law. The convictions carry a statutory maximum sentence of a mute no longer than 12 hours, with no specified minimum. The prosecution seeks the maximum 12 hours for both.

[13] While the crime here is not the same, the framework for Spamming and Brigading is partially analogous. While a small or moderate amount of pings is listed in Band 3, each offense was only one ping and was related to the conversation per Band 1. The lower band is thus more applicable, which suggests a minimum sentence of 6 hours (up to 24 hours, which exceeds the legal maximum for the convicted crimes).

[14] As someone who has passed the bar exam and handled cases in criminal contexts, the convict is expected to know better than to distract law enforcement officers. This is an aggravating factor. The suspension from practicing law mentioned in [9] is not criminal in nature; the court is hesitant to apply such as an antecedent offense in this instance.

[14.1] However, there is a nexus between the nature of the offenses. The bar sanctions for persistent gross incompetence came from behavior that wasted judicial resources, and this case comes from wasting law enforcement resources.

[14.2] This clearly and convincingly establishes a sufficient degree of character evidence to merit a minor aggravating factor and need to deter this particular convict from future offenses. Unlike a conviction that requires “beyond reasonable doubt”, sentencing factors may be resolved at a lower threshold.

[15] The defense argues for mitigation based on provocation. This is unconvincing under the statutory requirements, as the surrounding events would not have led a reasonable person to lose control and the convict was the source of the escalation. (See chiefly [6] and [10] herein.)

[15.1] The defense also alleges a “heat of the moment” or “heat of passion” defense. This is not yet a recognized factor in SimDemocracy, but does arise out of common law, where the defense most commonly used to cast doubt on the presence of malice aforethought (premeditation) in murder charges. In the existing vocabulary of SimDemocracy, it is used in the context of mens rea. The analysis here leads to the same result as provocation, and is rejected.

[16] The defense argues that two data points is not enough to establish a pattern, and the court agrees. However, the crimes were committed in wholly unrelated times and conversations; this outweighs the similar purpose of the crimes (see Article 5 of the Sentencing Act and SD v mayuuii [2025] Crim 85 [25]), and the distinct sentences shall thus run sequentially. Also, the lack of a pattern but repetition nonetheless merits a minor aggravating factor on the second conviction.

[17] The court sees no reason to depart from the prosecution's recommendations, and sentences the convict to be sequentially muted for the maximum 12 hours for each crime, for a total of 24 hours. Under Article 4§6 of the Criminal Code 2025, the sentence is to be carried out immediately.