SimDem Law

Base

Sat, 25 Apr 2026 14:22:37 GMT

Table4 resultsSort0Filter1PropertiesSearchNewShowing 4file nameAcquitted of Crim Code 22a.Convicted of Crim Code 22a.General RulePled Guilty to Crim Code 22a.

General Rule

Sat, 25 Apr 2026 05:55:30 GMT

A person violates Criminal Code 2020 Art. 22a when they do the following. §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. 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." §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.

SD v. Notcommunist366, Creative, & Acool, 2025 Crim 103

Sat, 25 Apr 2026 05:51:00 GMT

Link Facts: The prosecution presented evidence of the defendant pinging SDBI twice in a row, and then replying to the statement shortly after with “oops”. The defendant presented evidence that the SDBI and SBDI roles are extremely similar and hard to make out, with the former being real law enforcement and the latter a joke role made for pinging as a joke. The defense also pointed to the evidence that was used to establish probable cause for Creative and Acool, which would establish a crime occurring in chat at the same time as notcommunist366’s pings to the SDBI. The prosecution pointed out that even the latter of these two (2) pings was still five (5) minutes before notcommunist366’s conduct. ∆s Acool and Creative pled out. Issue: Was it, or should it have been, obvious to the defendant that the scenario did not require summoning legal authorities? Holding: Yes. Reasoning: Conduct: the pinings. The fact that the pings happened was not in dispute, so the judge took it as given. Attendant Circumstance: the pings were manifestly without legal merit. ∆ posited a very strict reading, where if a crime had occurred in the chat around the ping, the situation automatically merited pinging the SDBI. π posited a very lax reading wherein anything that obviously did not require the SDBI’s attention would be “manifestly without legal merit.” "Legal merit, generally, carries a connotation of substance over technicality." (15) The prosecution pointed out, there were five (5) minutes between the final allegedly illegal SDBI ping and the chat was moving quickly. The other actions the defendant claims to have been pinging the SDBI about were other pings to the SDBI. To use the prosecution’s analogy, “it's equivalent to calling 911 to report a crime while standing directly in front of the police,” more than this, it is like walking up and screaming in a cop's face to report that another person had just walked up and screamed in the cop’s face. There is no mens rea for Making a False Report beyond the defendant’s legal expertise; intent, malice, or other ill will has no bearing on conviction. The accused either made the summons with legal merit or they didn’t. To their own admission, the pinging was a mistake, a mistake they made twice. Judgment: Convicted and sentenced to a 4 hour mute.

SD v Sunbear 2025 Crim 173

Sat, 25 Apr 2026 05:49:24 GMT

Facts: ∆ charged with Making a False Report. ∆ pinged the SDBI, saying: “@SDBI this overuse of the word chud pmo and should count as a crime”. ∆ argued that the report was not manifestly without legal merit. π argued that the “pmo” wording shows mere annoyance and joking context, such that the summon was manifestly without legal merit. ∆ moved to dismissal for failure to state a claim. At motion consideration stage. Issue: whether the Prosecution has proven beyond reasonable doubt that the summon occurred in a situation “manifestly without legal merit”. Holding: No. Reasoning: At the "no case to answer" stage of trial. If the Court is not satisfied that the Prosecution has proven its case sufficiently to the criminal standard, the Court must find the accused not guilty. Actus reus Conduct: Pinging the SDBI. Ruled that ∆ did summon the SDBI in the pleaded message. "That is capable of satisfying the “mass summon” requirement in Article 22a §1.2." Attendant Circumstance: "manifestly without legal merit." 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. Court found that there were no indicia that showed that the summon was "manifestly without legal merit." Because the AC of legal merit was not satisfied, ∆ is not guilty. Judgment: Acquitted.

Pled Guilty to Crim Code 22a.

Sat, 25 Apr 2026 05:46:49 GMT

Rule: Criminal Code 2020 Art. 22a
SD v Caden 2025 Crim 171
SD v nein 30660 2026 Crim 175
SD v Supermanbob 2025 Crim 160

Convicted of Crim Code 22a.

Sat, 25 Apr 2026 05:46:43 GMT

Rule: Criminal Code 2020 Art. 22a
SD v AerospaceEnjoyer 2025 Crim 126
SD v Legal Eagle 2025 Crim 140
SD v Loger 2026 Crim 8
SD v. Notcommunist366, Creative, & Acool, 2025 Crim 103

Criminal Code 2020 Art. 22a

Sat, 25 Apr 2026 05:46:33 GMT

§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. The sentences available for making a false report shall be a ban or a mute of duration between 8 hours and 7 days.

Acquitted of Crim Code 22a.

Sat, 25 Apr 2026 05:46:27 GMT

Rule: Criminal Code 2020 Art. 22a
SD v Sunbear 2025 Crim 173

SD v Supermanbob 2025 Crim 160

Sat, 25 Apr 2026 05:43:55 GMT

Link Facts: ∆ was charged with 2 counts and entered guilty pleas on each. Judgment: Conviction, credited time served arrested.

SD v nein 30660 2026 Crim 175

Sat, 25 Apr 2026 05:43:19 GMT

Link Facts: ∆ pinged the SDBI. ∆ pled guilty. Judgment: Convicted and sentenced to 45 day ban.

SD v Caden 2025 Crim 171

Sat, 25 Apr 2026 05:42:38 GMT

Link Facts: ∆ was charged for 1 count of Making a False Report. ∆ stated “Ok I will, but in all serious, ping @SDBI next time for unserious things, us SBDI only for important issues”; resulting in a SDBI ping. Pled guilty. Judgment: Convicted and sentenced to a ban of 1 week.

SD v Loger 2026 Crim 8

Sat, 25 Apr 2026 05:41:47 GMT

Link Facts: On March 6th, 2026, Loger (the ∆) sent a message saying that “Three strikes amendment is cringe I can't ping @SDBI anymore.” Defense admitted one piece of evidence, an affidavit from the ∆. This affidavit swore that the Defendant pinged the SDBI as “a means of political protest to state my dissatisfaction with the three strikes amendment.” Issue: Did the ∆ have the requisite mens rea to create criminal liability? Rules: Actus reus: For a defendant to perform the actus reus required for a conviction under Art. 22a, they must (1) file a report to or mass summon the SDBI or other legal authorities; (2) in any way; and (3) the summoning is manifestly without legal merit. Mens rea: the defendant “knew or should have known” the claim was manifestly without legal merit. Negligence Standard Holding: Yes. In the absence of patent reasons, objective indicia may signal intent, or lack of such. Reasoning: Since the Defense admitted that "he used the SDBI ping,” actus reus was satisfied in argumentation. For mens rea: While "affidavits inherently hold less weight” than other evidences or testimony, “as the person writing the affidavit did not have to come into Court and be cross-examined by the opposing party," they do provide a valuable insight as to the subjective mens rea of the defendant in cases that, without such, would essentially function as strict liability.
See SD v. dragoncrxst. 2025 Crim 138, (8). The law does not prohibit protest, merely the misuse of regulatory and official systems. The State also argued that a political opinion cannot transform "misuse into legitimacy." Court disagreed, as "legal merit, generally, carries a connotation of substance over technicality."
SD v. Notcommunist366, Creative, & Acool, 2025 Crim 103, (15). Evidence showed that a debate occurred before the summons where various persons discussed the Three Strikes amendment. During this, ∆ interjected with the offending message. The exhibit establishes no reason by way of illegal activity for the ping, so the Court looked for objective indicia as to why the ∆ sent the ping. While Defendant’s affidavit swears that his intention was to summon the SDBI because he believed that the amendment overbore upon the SDBI, the message itself reads as a joke meant to provoke the SDBI, a “pushing of the envelope."
Multiple other reasons were found that the court considered to show negligence. See Id. at 11. Because these factors showed negligence, mens rea was satisfied Judgment: Convicted of Art. 22a and sentenced to a mute of 8 hours.

SD v Legal Eagle 2025 Crim 140

Sat, 25 Apr 2026 05:41:44 GMT

Link Facts: ∆ was charged of 1 count of Making A False Report and 3 counts of Making a False Report Hoax for pinging Hope's Hand 4 times. Hope's Hand is a statutory legal authority under the HOPE Act. π's theory for Art. 22a relied on the assumption that Hope's Hand was a statutory legal authority, that a role ping alerts all holders at once and therefore constitutes a mass summon “in any way” under Article 22a §1.2; and that “ling”-only pings are manifestly without legal merit. ∆ conceded the 4 pings and offered no evidence. Instead, ∆ argued 3 things: Hope's Hand is not a legal authority, rather a medical/volunteer service outside the legal system. A ping is not a filing, and a single ping to a small role is not a mass summon. Legal merit cannot be assessed for what it called a medical alert. Issues: Does Hope’s Hand fall within “other legal authorities” in Article 22a? Is a role ping a “filing of a report” under Article 22a §1.2? Are the pings manifestly without legal merit under Article 22a? Holdings: Yes. Hope’s Hand is an “other legal authority” under Article 22a. Hope’s Hand was a statutory authority with a public, role-based intake for crisis alerts, so the defendant’s four pings therefore constituted filings of reports under §1.1. No one, regardless of how low their experience or expertise, could reasonably believe there was legal merit to summoning a legal authority on that basis. Reasoning: On first issue:
Relied on the canon of construction in In re Article 30 of the Civil Code 2025, 2025 SDCR 2.
“Statutes are to be read such that no word is treated as meaningless…”, and “In a system of law, words are everything. If they are not treated with care, then law becomes only will, not reason.” Id. at (30)–(30.3). To this, reading “other legal authorities” to mean only SDBI would erase “other.” The statute names SDBI and a broader class.
A body like Hope’s Hand, constituted by the HOPE Act with delegated intervention powers, therefore fits the text; to hold otherwise would “treat statutory language as surplusage." On second issue: File a report” in §1.1 was read as: delivering the substance of a report through the authority’s established procedure for receiving reports. Hope’s Hand is found to be a statutory authority with a public, role-based intake for crisis alerts: Thus, the defendant’s four pings therefore constituted filings of reports under §1.1. On third issue: Article 22a is not concerned with clinical or moral merit; it uses the legal phrase “manifestly without legal merit” and requires the Court to consider whether the person knew or ought to know that. The question is thus whether the ping provides any law-relevant basis to invoke a legal authority’s powers. Content consisting of nothing but “ling” provides no facts, no description, and no threshold-qualifying circumstance. That is manifestly meritless in the legal sense. Judgment: Convicted and sentenced to a 64 hour mute, at 16 hours per conviction.

SD v AerospaceEnjoyer 2025 Crim 126

Sat, 25 Apr 2026 05:41:38 GMT

Link Facts: ∆ pinged the SDBI on two occassions. ∆ contended that it was in response to a user's statement: "you cant literally ban yourself so that why i said 'by leaving'. you can cease the bait im better than that SD v. Notcommunist366, Creative, & Acool, 2025 Crim 103, is the only verdict found regarding making a false report at this time. Court finds its reasoning highly relevant and persuasive. Preamble of Art. 22a states that part of its purpose was 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. 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. Considering ∆'s legal expertise, court found that there was plenty. Judgment: Convicted and sentenced to a mute of 24 hours.

Case Template

Sat, 25 Apr 2026 04:51:59 GMT

Link Facts: Issue: Rule: Holding: Reasoning: Judgment: Citations:

In re Article 30 of the Civil Code 2025, 2025 SDCR 2.

Sat, 25 Apr 2026 04:51:32 GMT

SD v. dragoncrxst. 2025 Crim 138.

Sat, 25 Apr 2026 03:45:58 GMT