Frozen snapshot of the SimDemocracy Archives, captured 2026-05-05. Read-only mirror; no edit, no live updates. mypenjustbroke.com

Writ of Habeas Corpus - ai lawyer 2025 SDIC 9

From SimDemocracy Archives
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Writ of Habeas Corpus — ai_lawyer [2025] SDIC 9

Date of judgment 13th August 2025
Judge Judge ppatpat
Writ Habeas Corpus
Verdict Granted
Result Petitioner ai_lawyer released
Applicable persuasive precedent

JUDGMENT by Judge ppatpat

Introduction

[1] On August 12th, 2025, a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus from ai_lawyer (ID: 1343121495118975006) was filed for themselves. As pretrial arrest is clearly done under the jurisdiction of SimDem, the Court has jurisdiction.

[2] The Petition made the claim that Petitioner had been arrested for a period of 72 hours without a criminal complaint being filed, in violation of Article 25, §1 of the Courtroom Procedures Act.

[3] The petition for a writ was to all judges, made in the discord channel “court-case-request”.

Factual Findings

[4] I issued a court order for the competent authorities to justify why the continued detainment of the petitioner is lawful. An SDBI Lieutenant clarified that the petitioner was arrested on or about 8th August 2025. No criminal charges were filed by 11 August 2025, thereby exceeding the lawful charging period and violating Article 25, §1 of the Courtroom Procedures Act.

Verdict

[5] The Court finds the continued arrest of the petitioner is unlawful.

[6] In accordance with Article 17, §3 of the Courtroom Procedures Act 2025, the petition is granted, and a writ of habeas corpus shall be issued. The State’s authority to restrain liberty is bound by law, and when the law fixes a clear temporal limit on detention without charge, that limit marks the boundary of lawful power. The undisputed record shows that boundary was crossed here. Continued detention in these circumstances is not the operation of due process but its denial. The Court therefore restores the liberty the law protects, with relief ordered as set out at [7].

[7] The State is hereby ordered, through any competent party with the necessary Permissions, as per Art. 10 §4 of the Constitution, to immediately release the petitioner.