General Rule
A person violates Criminal Code 2020 Art. 22a when they do the following.
Actus Reus
§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.
As to actus reus, the factors are:
- Conduct: the pinings.
- Filings
- SD v Legal Eagle 2025 Crim 140: filing a report in §1.1 is generally read as: delivering the substance of a report through the authority’s established procedure for receiving reports.
- Filings
- Attendant Circumstance: the pings were manifestly without legal merit.
- SD v Legal Eagle 2025 Crim 140: the question that Courts must ask is: "is the ping provides any law-relevant basis to invoke a legal authority’s powers?"
- SD v Sunbear 2025 Crim 173: The word “manifestly” sets a high threshold: it is not enough that the claim was weak or mistaken; it must be obviously lacking legal merit.
- Result: a mass summoning of SDBI agents occurs.
- SD v AerospaceEnjoyer 2025 Crim 126: 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, thus making the role ping a mass summon.
- SD v Legal Eagle 2025 Crim 140: no matter the membership size of a role pinged, the pinging of a role always constitutes a "mass summon."
Mens Rea
§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.
- Culpability Standard—SD v Loger 2026 Crim 8: Art. 22a uses a negligence standard.
- How courts find culpability—SD v Loger 2026 Crim 8: ruled that objective indicia may signal requisite intent, if any exists.