SD v keepbloxburgsafe 2025 Crim 28

SD v keepbloxburgsafe [2025] Crim 28

Date of judgment	26th March 2025
Judge	Judge Benbookworm
Charges	1 charge of second-degree hate speech (Article 53a of the Criminal Code) 1 charge of conspiracy to commit aggravated doxxing (Article 52a of the Criminal Code) 3 charges of abuse of vulnerability (Article 60 of the Criminal Code)
Verdict	Guilty on all charges
Sentence	10 year ban
Applicable persuasive precedent	Reaffirmation of previous persuasive precedent, pleading guilty may be the only reason to not be permanently banned Reaffirms SD v We_are_all_Uno [2019] Crim 2 [2] Improved standards of admissibility of evidence were put forward, but had no bearing on the verdict or sentencing. They are included for informational purposes only, [7]

JUDGMENT by Judge Benbookworm

Guilt and sentencing

[1] Defendant plead guilty to all charges, without the prosecution agreeing to a plea deal.

[2] The defense moved to enter mitigation, asking for clemency on the basis of remorse and accepting responsibility. No demonstration of remorse was put forward. The bare minimum of acceptance of responsibility was shown in pleading guilty.

[3] Under the Criminal Code Article 2§2, the accused has the burden to prove mitigating circumstances. The defense did not present any statutory defenses.

[4] The prosecution presented classified evidence to demonstrate aggravating factors, but this did not in an increased recommended sentence. As such, I decline to rule on the admissibility of the evidence, as the sentence would not be affected.

[5] Under SD v We_are_all_Uno [2019] Crim 2 [2], the judge found that the only reason a permanent ban was not merited was because the accused “had the common sense to plead guilty”, and instead levied a sentence of 10 years.

[6] The defendant is sentenced to a combined ban of 10 years, effective the date of the last arrest.

Dicta on admissibility of evidence

[7] Prior to entering a guilty, various evidentiary exhibits were submitted that consisted solely of heavily cropped screenshots void of context; these were ruled incomplete under Article 5§3.4 of the Court Room Procedures Act. To guide the parties in submitting adequate evidence, I put forward the following:

[7.1] Any messages entered as evidence that were sent publicly must contain a direct link to message sent, and specify the originating channel in plain text. If the publicly sent message has been deleted, you must still link to nearest extant message in the same channel.

[7.2] All messages entered as evidence must identify bookends of messages that may reasonably be considered part of the conversation in order for opposing counsel (and me) to evaluate the broader context. The start and end of new conversations may be determined by breaks in time or in topic, as most appropriate.

[7.3] The entire conversation must be made accessible to opposing counsel and me.

[7.4] Examples for providing public conversations include: direct links to the first and last message, by saying "from [x] hours/minutes before [linked message] to [y] hours/minutes after", or UTC timeframes to bookend a linked message.

[7.5] If the messages are not public (they are from direct messages, private servers/channels, deleted messages, etc.):

[7.5.1] the start and end of the conversation must still be determined in manner similar to above;

[7.5.2] the entire conversation must be submitted via screenshots, txt file, or similar;

[7.5.3] if the entirety of the conversation is not available, explain why not;

[7.5.4] if any part of the conversation is alleged to be classified, the appropriate permissions must obtained for opposing counsel and me to have access and/or follow the redaction process outlined in the most recent amendment to the CRPA;

[7.5.5] certify who captured the conversation;

[7.5.6] if someone other than counsel for the prosecution/plaintiff/defense captured the conversation, the evidence may be entered, but may only be introduced at trial once the foundation has been laid while questioning the user as a witness;

[7.5.7] if counsel captured the conversation, they must certify under penalty of perjury that the conversation is complete and has not been altered.

[7.6] If the counsel submitting non-public messages as evidence (particularly for direct messages) is a participant in the conversation and (and especially if they were generated in direct preparation for the present litigation), then appropriate steps must be taken to bring at least one (1) of the other participants to testify in the trial as a witness.

[7.6.1] If the witness is incapable of testifying at trial, then propose a reasonable process for deposing them out of court, or justify why the conversation should be admitted as an exception.