Petition for Advisory Opinion - Application of GM16

Post Reply
User avatar
Antonio McFornell
Judicial Branch
Posts: 1177
Joined: Sat Apr 23, 2022 10:24 pm
ECRP Forum Name: McFornell

SAJB Awards

Petition for Advisory Opinion - Application of GM16

Post by Antonio McFornell »


San Andreas Judicial Branch

"HERE FOR YOU | SAFE FOR YOU"

IN THE SUPREME COURT
FOR THE STATE OF SAN ANDREAS




  • Docket Number
    [LEAVE FOR THE JUDGE]
    Date Filed
    22/APRIL/2023
    Nature of petition
    Advisory Opinion


    Re: Application of GM16




PETITION FOR ADVISORY OPINION


I. Information
  • Challenged Provision
    Provide the basic information in relation to your advisory opinion request. Is this request in relation to the application of an specific law, a conflict of jurisdictions, etc.
    Relevant (or laws) provisions: Penal Code - GM16; Penal Code - BLB
    Additional comments:
    Any additional comments that might be necessary.

II. Opinion Requests
  • These should be presented in form of question. For example "Is the Los Santos Police Department, according to our constitution, is vested with the power to perform detainment and arrests within the Sheriff's Department jurisdiction without previous authorization from the LSSD?"
    1. Should GM16 - Failure to Pay a Fine be applied to those who have been fined for Business Licensing matters, or should it not be applied given that GM16 was initially constituted for the fines found in the regular section of the Penal Code and not the special section added by H. R. 4?
    2. Should GM16 be applied after the seven day period to those who have been fined for Business Licensing matters?
    3. Does the application of GM16 in these cases breach any constitutional provisions or principles (such as equality, due process, etc.) given that the fines in this portion of the Penal Code are 25 to 100x higher than the average fine within the regular portion of the Penal Code?
    4. Should the 7 day period be interpreted in a different manner for Business Licensing matters specifically?

III. Arguments
  • State your opinion, if any, in relation to the petition.
    Honorable members of the Supreme Court.

    I believe that the application of GM16 to those who have unpaid fines from the Business Licensing section of the Penal Code is unfair, given the different nature of the regular fines found in our Penal Code and the nature of the Business Licensing fines. I do not believe that it is not reasonable that someone who is subject to a 25,000-100,000 fine is given the same amount of days to pay as someone who is subject of a fine as low as $500. In fact, it is of my belief that no person that receives Business Licensing fines should be subject to GM16, due to the special and distinct nature of these fines.

IV. Certification and Closing
  • Under the rules of Court Procedure, by signing below, I, Tony McFornell, hereby affirm that all information provided above is true and correct to the best of my knowledge, and understand that knowingly presenting reckless requests in this court could result in criminal charges being added to my record and/or fines. (( I affirm that all information submitted has been obtained via In-Character means. ))

Image
Antonio José McFornell
Court Clerk
Director of the San Andreas Bar Association
Chairman of the Bar Ethics Review Board
Training & Hiring Staff

Express your satisfaction or concerns about Judicial Employees and licensed Attorneys.
Commend & Complain
Code of Ethics | Bar Licensing Office | Become an Attorney
State Constitution | Penal Code
Post Reply

Return to “SAJB - Supreme Court”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests