Writ of Habeas Corpus Bazinga 2025 SDCR 31
Writ of Habeas Corpus Bazinga [2025] SDCR 31
| Date of judgment | 3rd December 2025 |
| Judge |
|
| Held |
|
| Applicable persuasive precedent |
MAJORITY OPINION by Judge Ferris
(With Judges Brandmal agreeing)
Summary of Arguments
[1] The petitioner argues that §5 of Article 23a of the Criminal Code is unconstitutional due to the section allowing any competent authority to summarily eject or ban an alleged alternate account without satisfying the requirements for due process set forth in Article 22 of the Constitution.
Citing In re EO 139-07 [2025] SDSC 19 [14.1], the petitioner concludes that in this case, competent authority refers to the executive, cementing their theory of it being unconstitutional since it does not satisfy §2.1 Art. 22.
[2] Since the section under review has since changed, this verdict will refer to that past version as it was the reason for the ban.
[3]The petitioner prays the court grant habeas corpus for the user Bazinga on the presumption of §5 Art. 23a of the Criminal Code being unconstitutional and hence the continued detention is unlawful.
[4] The petitioner also argues that In re Candidacy of Alien Users in the 2nd Parliamentary Election [2020] SDSC 19 does not apply due to the laughable standard of proof required to invoke the clause in question.
Considerations
What Does Competent Authority Refer to?
[5] The court finds the principle established in In re EO 139-07 [2025] SDSC 19 to apply in this scenario, almost exactly. The powers granted to this competent authority are with reference to law enforcement, specifically enforcing Art. 23a and just as [14.1] of the aforementioned ruling stated, the executive serves as the competent authority in this matter.
Is Due Process Satisfied?
[6] After a series of questions from the court, the petitioner conceded that the clause in question requires the balance of probabilities to be satisfied, this is ultimately irrelevant as whatever burden of proof the executive holds itself to, ultimately the requirements for due process set forth in §2 Art. 22 of the Constitution must be satisfied. The court adds that an ejection is equivalent to a kick.
[7] The first option is “The lawful suppression, detention, muting, fine, or ban of a person after conviction by, or on order of a competent court through the authorities as prescribed by law”. Given that the clause in question allows for the banning and suppression of a person without conviction or a court order. Hence it does not meet this alternative.
[8] A summary ejection or ban also does not meet §2.2 either, since it only covers a fine or muting, neither of which are allowed for by the clause.
[9] §2.3 requires a trial to be held for the banned account and more importantly, the mere existence of unlawful alternate accounts cannot in any way be an exceptional circumstance affecting public safety.
[10] Similarly to [7] §2.4 cannot apply, especially given the fact that the bar for an egregious violation is set as high as serious doxxing, NSFW, or gore (See §2.4.1 Art. 22)
[11] The court agrees with [3] but not for the reason argued. While the cited verdict establishes that alternate accounts are extensions of the user, its nature as an alternate account must still be proven with a method compliant with legislation.
[12] Neither §2.5 nor §2.6 can apply since both specify “The lawful suppression, detention, mute, or arrest”, none of which can possibly constitute a ban. Since “ban” is mentioned along with detention and arrest in several instances, such as §2.4. Reading “ban” as any of the above would render it meaningless which has been explicitly prohibited by In re Article 30 of the Civil Code 2025 [2025] SDCR 2 [30].
Verdict
[13] Taking everything into consideration, §5 of Article 23a of the Criminal Code was unconstitutional as it fails to provide the alleged unlawful alternate account due process that is guaranteed by the Constitution. Which ought to be assumed to be a real person before a process that satisfies the right to a fair trial and liberty is concluded
[14] The writ of Habeas Corpus for Bazinga is denied as they are currently lawfully banned via a plea deal and hence the court shall not order their release.
Citations
<references />