SD v Ivy Cactus and Syndicality 2025 Crim 169
SD v Ivy Cactus and Syndicality [2025] Crim 169
| Date of judgment | 16th February 2026 |
| Judge | Judge Muggy |
| Charges | One count each of Contempt of Senate (Article 21 Subdivision 2 of the Criminal Code 2020) |
| Verdict | Dismissed |
| Sentence | N/A |
| Applicable persuasive precedent |
|
JUDGMENT by Judge Muggy
On the motion to dismiss
[1] Throughout this case, the prosecution has argued that defendants ivycactus and astralisyndica have violated Article 21, Subdivision 2 of the Criminal Code 2020, and specifically that the defendants “disobe[yed] [..] [a] lawfully issued subpoena [..] from the Senate”, which is important to say, as the prosecution did not in fact argue for the viewpoint that the defendants “serious[ly] disrupt[ed] […] the legislative proceedings of the Senate”.
[2] To start, the motion for referral was not much of a referral at all, as the defense correctly points out. the Senate words its motion as one to “hold [the defendants] in Contempt of Senate”, something that the Senate cannot do, and must be done by the Courts after a referral and subsequent legal proceedings.
[3] While one might excuse this via the fact that lawmakers aren’t especially well-versed in legal terminology, when it comes to criminal matters, courts must take the strictest interpretation of wording and actions of all parties involved. Thus, in my opinion, this would be enough to say that the referral, being the foundation for this charge, is flawed.
[4] Though, there is more to expand on when it comes to the prosecution’s arguments.
[5] For one, as the defense correctly points out, the period between the defendants being subpoenaed and their “referral” to the Department of Justice for contempt was around 37 hours, of which a majority of that time coincided the 27th of November [2026], the day of Thanksgiving, a widely celebrated holiday worldwide.
[6] If we apply that to something like judicial proceedings, which have a time limit of 48 hours, and degrees of leniency that allow parties some wiggle room with it comes to that limit, there would still be about 11 hours before that limit would be up for the defendants, which is a rather loose way of determining something as contemptuous disobedience.
[7] Further, this court is bound by Nighteye (Appellant) v LordDeadlyOwl (Respondent) [2020] SDSC 5, a staple of SimDemocracy’s legal system, as it enshrines a recognition of SimDemocracy’s existence as a virtual space, and not being people’s top priority, as real-life happenings can matter infinitely more.
[8] I find that there is plenty of doubt that the defendants acted in such a manner that could be designated as contemptuous disobedience of a lawfully issued order, and thus, I dismiss this case.
[9] All rulings can be appealed to a higher court yada yada you get the deal we’re done here.