IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF RIDGEWAY
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF RIDGEWAY
WilfordShulman,
Plaintiff,
v.
JamesGardai,
Defendant.
___________________________/
CIVIL DIVISION
CASE NO.: 07-2024-CV-003172
JUDGE: HON. BOMMES
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR HABEAS CORPUS
THIS MATTER came before the Court on behalf of Plaintiff WilfordShulman. Plaintiff
entered a request for a writ of habeas corpus. As is procedure, the solicitor general’s office was
also notified. Review of the writ was granted on 07/09/2024. The solicitor general entered a
Brief in opposition on July 13, 2024. The Court permitted Plaintiff to enter a reply to the Brief in
opposition. Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s request is GRANTED, for the reasons explained
therein.
I. BACKGROUND
Plaintiff’s counsel requested a review of Plaintiff’s arrest on their behalf, alleging that the
arrest did not satisfy the statutory prongs as listed. Plaintiff was arrested for “Unlawful
assembly”. The statute for unlawful assembly reads as follows: “(...) a group of 4 or more
individuals with bats on their person who are acting in a violent manner or rallying without a
valid permit”.
At the time of their arrest, the plaintiff was gathered in front of the county hall with
approximately 5 other citizens, conveying their beliefs regarding a potential end of the world
scenario.
II. LEGAL STANDARD
According to the aforementioned statute, a group of citizens that are numbered four or
more, in possession of bats and/or acting in a violent manner, or those that are assembling
without being in the possession of a valid permit issued by the relevant authority, are subject to
arrest under R.C.C. 2.14 - Unlawful assembly. I shall now go over every criterion mentioned in
the statute and explain if they are met or not, and if applicable: why.
First, there were indeed four or more individuals present at the scene, this prong is MET.
Second, there was no evidence that four or more of the individuals were in possession of bats as
outlined by the statute. Therefore, this criterion is UNMET. Third, there has not been provided
any evidence of violent behavior, rioting or behavior that is otherwise classifiable as disorderly.
Therefore, this criterion is UNMET.
The final criterion is that groups of four or more without a valid permit are also
susceptible to being arrested under the codification of unlawful assembly. Under normal
circumstances, this is where the review would end and the petition would be denied.
However, in this case: that is also where the problem lies. There has not been presented
any proof to this court, neither by the solicitor general nor the plaintiff’s attorney, of a way for a
citizen of the State of Ridgeway to obtain a permit for an assembly, therefore rendering this
criterion unsatisfiable as a whole.
This case opens up a legal loophole that can not be patched by the judiciary. Namely,
there is not a way to obtain a permit for a lawful assembly. If applied to the extreme, this means
that any lawful gathering of four or more individuals on public property with signs expressing
their beliefs are subject to being arrested by law enforcement. This directly infringes on one’s
freedom of speech.
As the solicitor general in this case has correctly stated, we must be vigilant to not allow
this charge to extend to other assemblies, such as religious or leisurely gatherings. Therefore, the
portion stating that a valid permit is required for an assembly shall be set aside, pending
amendment by the legislative and/or executive branch of government.
III. CONCLUSION
Accordingly, the Court holds that Plaintiff’s request for relief in the form of a petition of
habeas corpus is GRANTED.
SO ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED in chambers in Milton, Ridgeway
County, Ridgeway, this 16th day of July, 2024.
/s/ bommes
BOMMES
MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Copies to: Plaintiff / Defendant
BrendaPopplewell, Counsel for the Plaintiff
stickza, Solicitor General
