SD v Pretzel 2025 Crim 80
SD v Pretzel [2025] Crim 80
| Date of judgment | 23rd June 2025 |
| Judge | Justice Ivy Cactus |
| Charges | 1 count of Terrorist Conspiracy (Criminal Code Article 51) |
| Verdict | Guilty of 1 count of Terrorist Conspiracy |
| Sentence | Permanent Ban and 1000 tau fine |
| Applicable persuasive precedent |
|
JUDGMENT by Justice Ivy Cactus<ref>Verdict redacted for national security purposes, if still redacted on or after 23 November 2025 contact Ivy Cactus for the unredacted version.</ref>
Introduction
[1] The Department of Justice is charging “Pretzel” with one singular count of Terrorist Conspiracy under Article 51 of the Criminal Code. They seek a permanent ban from SimDemocracy and its associated territories.
[2] Similarly to SD v Traditionalist Insurgency for Defense and Enforcement (TIDE) [2025] Crim 70, this case was handled in a private summary trial with the three-month maximum waived. Refer to the “Procedural Notes” part of said case for further clarification.
Summary of the Evidence
[3] Like the case mentioned in [2], the evidence in this case is classified. I will, likewise, attempt to give fair summaries of the provided evidence in order to uphold transparency in our judicial processes. It should be noted that all of the evidence was presented by the prosecution.
[4] The first two pieces of evidence, which are similar, both represent the following scenario [REDACTED]: a SimDemocracy citizen is contacted by the defendant, who gives them a password and a piece of JSON. They are later contacted by a Discord bot, which invites them to enter the password given to them. When such was done, the bot pasted a message inviting them to join an organization that undermines SimDemocracy - the bot concludes it's screed with "semper invictus". The message then summarily self-destructs. It is unclear whether the JSON had any real effect or if it was merely for show.
[5] The following five pieces of evidence are all used to establish that “semper invictus” is a motto used by the party “Traditionalist Insurgency for Defense and Enforcement”.
[6] The last piece of evidence was the subversive doctrine outlined in SD v Traditionalist Insurgency for Defense and Enforcement (TIDE) [2025] Crim 70 [9].
- [6.1] The defense objected to this piece of evidence for lack of foundation, which (somewhat confusingly, given its legitimacy had been established in a previous court case), caused the prosecution to voluntarily withdraw it. The document's existence, and the details therein, will not play a part in this trial’s outcome.
- [6.2] That being said, during argumentation, that case was cited several times. The court is of the belief that prior court verdicts are inherently entered into record (or else things such as Supreme Court precedent would not be properly binding), and therefore will use the conclusions drawn from that case throughout. This interpretation was implicitly supported by the prosecution and defense, who both pointed to it.
Considerations
[7] Criminal Code Article 51, a rather odd statute, outlines several different ways that Terrorist Conspiracy can be committed. The most relevant to this case, and the one pursued specifically by the Prosecutor, is as follows: someone commits terrorist conspiracy if they are “a member and supporter of a terrorist organization as described in the Terrorist Connection Accounts Act, Article 2: Terrorist Organizations”. Article 2 defines a terrorist organization as “group of individuals organized to commit terrorism as defined in Article 1: Terrorism Against the Individual or any other legally recognized form of terrorism in SimDemocracy.” Membership is later defined as being in a terrorist organization’s server or being frequently associated, and support is defined, broadly, as giving material support (although in more specific terms). It should be noted that Article 51 creates a rebuttable presumption that a member of a terrorist organization supports it.
[8] The prosecution put forth that the defendant’s repeated use of the term “semper invictus” demonstrates that they are a member, and therefore rebuttably presumed to be a supporter, of TIDE. The court concurs — the subversive actions that the defendant outlines are identical to those the court found TIDE to be conspiring to commit in SD v Traditionalist Insurgency for Defense and Enforcement (TIDE) [2025] Crim 70, which, combined with the defendant uses TIDE’s tagline, demonstrates beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is either in TIDE or purposefully associating with it and supporting its efforts (even without the rebuttable assumption, recruiting for a terrorist organization is clearly covered by the “not limited to” in Terrorist Connected Accounts Act Part 1, Article 2, Section 3).
[9] The defense countered, though, that nowhere in the past had TIDE been declared a terrorist organization. The prosecution countered that, while factually correct SD v Traditionalist Insurgency for Defense and Enforcement (TIDE) [2025] Crim 70 establishes that TIDE committed the actions which amount to it being a terrorist organization, mainly “[v]iolation[s] of Discord’s Terms of Service as defined in the Criminal Code, Part 12, Terms of Service Violation.” To be exact, the twenty members of TIDE were convicted of conspiracy to commit Terms of Service Violation[s]. The court believes, though, that inchoate offenses tied to terrorist actions can still comprise terrorist actions; it would be absurd to say that a group was not a terrorist organization because they merely attempted to dox. This situation is the same. Thus, TIDE committed crimes outlined in Part 1, Article 1 of the Terrorist Connected Account Act, and is hereby officially declared a terrorist organization.
Verdict
[10] The defendant is found guilty of Terrorist Conspiracy, and, in line with their co-conspirators in SD v Traditionalist Insurgency for Defense and Enforcement (TIDE) [2025] Crim 70, is sentenced to a permanent ban from SimDemocracy and its associated territories.
Addendum on Remand, Dated 7/29/2025
[11] In ppatpat, ex parte State of SimDemocracy (Appellant) v Pretzel [2025] SDSC 23 the Supreme Court directed this court to make a decision on a fine, between 1000 and 10000, to apply to the defendant, Pretzel.
[12] Given the heavy sentence, and the non-financial nature of this crime, the defendant is sentenced to a minimum of a 1000 tau fine.
Citations
<references />