Honorable Justice Daniels,
The Defense raises that Judge McFornell has an incorrect foundational interpretation of the Constitution of the State of San Andreas.
Article III Section 2 of the San Andreas Constitution reads as follows:
The judicial power shall judge all cases in law and equity, with direct observance of the Constitution, the Laws of San Andreas and Treaties made.
Decisions made by the Supreme Court amount to binding precedent, which will form part of the doctrine of precedent and the judges must apply them in analogous cases; the doctrine may not be applied in cases where the precedent in question appears to be in error or ill founded but that determination must be reasonable and logical.
The only binding source of law that the judicial power must enforce, respect and cannot reject, is the Constitution and Written Legislation of the State of San Andreas. Other sources of law will have a secondary or lesser value that may be taken into consideration by the judges.
The relevant section to the defense's argument has been highlighted for ease of reference.
Might I also raise in question the validity of the decision made in the Superior Court Ruling in regards to a similar Constitutional infringement in the case of The State of San Andreas v. Melody Frey et Al., wherein the Constitutionally protected right to a fair and
speedy trial was also decided to not be applicable to these persons, also by Judge McFornell, referencing a verdict that in the opinion of the defense, was invalid and violated the constitution to begin with.
The Court finds itself in need of quoting these reflections, as they are directly applicable to the case at hand, as mentioned by the Prosecution on their arguments against the Motion. References to the "rights and interests of citizens and the State" will not be considered null and void, not because they exist in a legal document "authorized by State Legislature", as the defense argues, but because these are foundational principles and elements of our legal system. For that matter, and to finalize the presentation of the arguments that lead the Court to dismiss the Motion in question, there would be no reason for the existence of any state entity, neither the government, nor the three branches of power, nor the Constitution of San Andreas, if the permanent protection of the rights and interests of the citizens and the State were not sought
This is a response that highlights that the rights of one will supersede another, Stating that an adverse party effectively does not have the right to anything stated in the constitution when compared to the litigating party, which is fundamentally wrong and an injustice to ANY who may claim to be wronged or have done wrong by the State of San Andreas or any agent thereof.
Constitutional Rights are not a pick and choose to whom they apply, If an individual is a citizen of the State of San Andreas who is not currently incarcerated, they are subject to the same protections as any other individual, and are equal in all considerations. Such is stated plainly in Section 1 of the 14th Amendment of the Constituion,
To Summarize, Judge McFornell has plainly disregarded the highest form of Law in the State of San Andreas on two accounts by firstly allowing the indictment trial to be prolonged unduly violating the 6th Amendment, and also by denying the existence of the defendant's 14th Amendment Rights.
