Writ of Habeas Corpus - robert 2025 SDIC 3

Writ of Habeas Corpus — robert [2025] SDIC 3

Date of judgment	18th July 2025
Judge	Judge ppatpat
Writ	Habeas Corpus
Verdict	Granted
Result	Petitioner robert released
Applicable persuasive precedent

JUDGMENT by Judge ppatpat

Introduction

[1] On July 17th, 2025, a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus from _xxxiii4 (ID: 1315519807793270805) on behalf of robert (ID: 1315156159413616744) who was a Citizen of SimDemocracy before being banned from it. This Court has jurisdiction since robert falls under the Jurisdiction of SimDemocracy Law for their Actions and as far as their presence on the SimDemocracy Discord Server is concerned.

[2] The Petition made the following claims:

[2.1] That robert had been banned for a period of 2+ months without being given a trial, convicted on any crime, having a complaint filed, or given any other due process required by law (as far as the petitioner could see from their research).

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

Factual Findings

[4] In accordance with precedent from Writ of Habeas Corpus — Guava [2025] SDIC 1 and Writ of Habeas Corpus — Guava III [2025] SDIC 2, I found the following in my own investigation. robert’s ban was issued on extralegal grounds. The Fair Use of Alternate Accounts Act 2025 allows for summary removal of alternate accounts, but not main accounts.

[4.1] The phrase “an account on the registry” in Article 3 §1 of the Fair Use of Alternate Accounts Act 2025 must be interpreted to apply solely to alleged alternate accounts, not to main accounts. This is because the registry referred to in the Act concerns only alternate accounts linked to a primary account; a main account, by its nature, cannot be registered to itself. To read the provision as extending to main accounts would create a dichotomy of enforcement options: authorities could either proceed under Article 23a of the Criminal Code 2020, or invoke Article 3 §1 of the Fair Use of Alternate Accounts Act 2025. Such a dichotomy of options would violate the fundamental right to equality before the law, as established in the binding precedents of In re Appeal of Summary Ban — “mc_uighilin” (u/Panzzrr) [2025] SDSC 2 and In re Article 6 Section 6 of the Executive Act 2023 [2025] SDSC 10. Therefore, Article 3 §1 must be read as applying exclusively to alternate accounts.

[5] Even if the executive was to fall back on the binding precedent set in In re Candidacy of Alien Users in the 2nd Parliamentary Election [2020] SDSC 19, that alternate accounts of a person are an extension of said person, the alleged alternate account johnlolbert had their charges dropped by the Department of Justice. Therefore, for all intents and purposes, johnlolbert and robert are distinct legal entities, unless proven otherwise.

Verdict

[6] The rule of law commands not only that authority be exercised according to procedure, but that it be exercised with fairness, equality, and respect for the inherent rights of every person. The protections guaranteed by our Constitution are not mere formalities, nor can they be brushed aside by expediency or convenience. They are the enduring safeguards of individual liberty, owed to all, regardless of status or accusation. When the State disregards these protections, it does more than overstep its bounds; it denies the dignity that the law must afford every citizen. The rights of the individual are not granted by the grace of government but are secured against its overreach. Liberty and justice are owed to all, without exception.

[7] The Court finds the fundamental rights of robert have been violated by the Department of Justice by upholding a ban without having respected the right to liberty and security of the person.

[8] The State is hereby ordered, through any competent party with the necessary Permissions, as per Art. 10 §4 of the Constitution, to immediately unban robert (ID: 1315156159413616744).