San Andreas Judicial Branch Supreme Court of San Andreas "EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"
NOTICE OF ACTIVATION
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAN ANDREAS
Article III, Section 3.2: Judicial Review
Executive Order #7
A Notice of Activation was entered in the above case on the 21st day of April, 2024.
The Supreme Court of San Andreas hereby invokes it's authority granted under Article III, Section 3.2 to perform judicial review of Executive Order #7 as issued by the San Andreas State Government, under the authority of the Board of Governors, on the 7th day of April, 2024.
Based on an initial review of the Executive Order, the Supreme Court will momentarily issue a preliminary injunction, which will outline initial findings and shall prohibit the enforcement of certain provisions established by Executive Order #7 in order to protect against potentially unconstitutional actions.
At this time, the court will await a Notification of Counsel from a representative of the San Andreas Executive Branch before formal proceedings commence. Once adequate representation has been established for the San Andreas Executive Branch, the court will provide additional instruction as to the future course of proceedings.
Chief Justice
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 372-4223 — [email protected]
Associate Justice
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 402-9713 — [email protected]
Associate Justice
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 257-9183 — [email protected]
San Andreas Judicial Branch Supreme Court of San Andreas "EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAN ANDREAS
A preliminary junction was issued on the 21st day of April, 2024.
WHEREAS, the San Andreas State Government, under the authority of the Board of Governors, issued Executive Order #7 on the 7th day of April, 2024.
WHEREAS, the San Andreas Penal Code was amended on or before the 17th day of April, 2024, with changes being made effective on the 7th day of April, 2024.
WHEREAS, the Supreme Court is vested with the authority to perform the judicial review of all laws, along with public acts in order to determine their constitutionality.
WHEREAS, the power of judicial review may not be excluded by any act of the government or any endeavor of the legislature through the enactment of law.
WHEREAS, the Supreme Court of San Andreas has invoked the authority of the Article III, Section 3.2 to conduct a judicial review of Executive Order #7.
Upon consideration of the changes made by the San Andreas State Government, under the authority of the Board of Governors, the Supreme Court of San Andreas finds:
1. The likelihood of success on the merits of a challenge to the constitutionality of certain provisions of Executive Order #7 has been established.
2. Citizens of San Andreas will suffer irreparable harm if the Penal Code Amendment being made effective on the 7th day of April, 2024, is allowed to be enforced pending a final determination on its constitutionality by this court.
3. A preliminary injunction serves the public interest by preserving the status quo and preventing the enforcement of potentially unconstitutional laws.
THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
1. The enforcement of GF22 - Breach of Trust and/or the execution of any warrant issued on the grounds of a violation thereof, by any state agency, officer, or official, is temporarily prohibited until further notice.
2. The enforcement of all Business Licensing Bureau Fines & Criminal Charges (with the exception of BLB01 - Breach of Minor Licensing Conditions) and/or the execution of any warrant issued on the grounds of a violation thereof, by any state agency, officer, or official, is temporarily prohibited until further notice.
This preliminary injunction shall take effect immediately and shall remain in place until otherwise ordered by this court. Any violation of this binding court order may result in criminal charges including, but not limited to, GM22 - Contempt of Court and GF25 - Felony Contempt of Court at the discretion of the Supreme Court.
Chief Justice
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 372-4223 — [email protected]
Associate Justice
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 402-9713 — [email protected]
Associate Justice
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 257-9183 — [email protected]
San Andreas State Government Supreme Court V. San Andreas State Government
Supreme Court of San Andreas
1. Introduction
We hope this response finds you well. As the only individual authorized to write and respond to legal inquires for the San Andreas State Government, I acting as an attorney for the state pen this letter to the court. Given that the state last had notice that the Supreme Court would be activating the "Petition for Judicial Review - Unconsititutional Denial Of Liberty and Life, and Cruel and Unusual Punishment " by Herrman Wolff, we are blindsided by this sudden shift in posturing of the branch.
2. Unequivocal rejection of this Review & Injunction
We unequivocally reject this move by the Supreme Court to misconstrue the founders intent behind Article III, Section 3.2 - Judicial Review when drafting the constitution. Supreme Courts in first world nations worldwide NEVER act to issue an injunction, or begin the process of judicial review, without petition from another party. Moreover, this party generally must have been affected by some action of the government, thus necessitating the judicial review process.
An example for this court would be that a state Law Enforcement Agency placed "SF01 - Domestic Terrorism" on an individual in accordance with a fictitious executive order, they will petition the court via the Superior Court for review, if found guilty, the individual will file a petition to the Appeals Court of San Andreas, on the loss of that appeal, then and ONLY then would the individual be entitled to submit such an petition to the supreme court. We also want to note that the clause this court cites to issue and engage in this judicial review is very clear. That "Judicial review may be solicited by any citizen of San Andreas with founded and constitutional arguments." Neither a citizen of the state has created this petition, nor has the court provided any constitutional arguments for this review, this was created by the court with no petitioner.
If the court felt that the matter "contained questions of constitutional validity" as per Article III, Section 3 - Jurisdiction "The judicial power over executive orders or other binding instruments shall only exist to the effect of ensuring they they are constitutionally valid, and do not infringe the rights of the people." Then and only then may the court begin to receive briefs from both parties as to the necessity of the petition, once this is achieved, then may an injunction be had. The state may be willing to respect this process if it had been filed as an emergency injunction, however, this process would still have required that the court hear the prevailing opinions of both the petitioner (of which at this time we remind the court their is none) and that of the state.
Instead, this court has decided to abandon those principles and instead engage in "judicial activism" and "judicial lawmaking." For this courts reference, that takes place when a court takes existing legal principles and construes them in a way to create new principles or laws, a highly contentious issue especially for the Supreme Court to be taking on. In this instance, the court is effectively creating an unprecedented case whereby NO party has petitioned this case before the supreme court. This effectively means that this case title, utilizing the standard “Petitioner V. Respondent", is EITHER "NOBODY VS State of San Andreas" OR "Supreme Court VS State of San Andreas", both options being utterly ludicrous.
Had this court have adopted the standard practice of allowing a member of the public file this petition, we would have been in an entirely different situation where a more constructive dialog would be had between the Supreme Court and the Executive Branch. The branch by taking this path has put this state on course with one of the darkest moments in San Andreas history.
3. Constitutional Crisis
By the court taking this drastic and unprecedented action, the court has placed the state in a dangerous constitutional crisis. For the betterment of public education, a constitutional crisis occurs when a branch of government takes an action so absurd, so brazen, that no normal remedy constitutionally assigned could possibly resolve it. These crisis are uncommon, but when they appear, its a major deal to institutionalists like myself. When I, Emily Whitehorse, was part of the team to develop the constitution, I never could have foreseen a government branch doing something as reckless as this.
The court is recklessly placing the state in this position by acting as lawmakers and the petitioners of a case against the state, and not interpreters of the law. A superior court judge making this mistake is one thing, but for the supreme court that is entrusted with the power of judicial review, is something exceptionally concerning to see. This indicates to the state that the court is willing to subvert the Rule of Law and the importance of the separation of powers, to present this review.
The options to exist this crisis initiated by the branch is unclear. The branch should for the stability of the state retract this injunction, and this case, for good. However, due to the branch playing its cards preemptively like this, I think its right for the state to cast doubt on the objectivity and fairness of process when something like this reaches the court as our constitution intended.
The state and judicial branch could collectively draft a constitutional amendment, but given that the LRC remains paralyzed due to numerous factors, this is a fundamentally flawed solution and I expect that it will make reorganizing the LRC harder.
The truth is, their exists no nice and easy way out of this thanks to the court, and we once again find ourselves in a situation where no answers exist. We cannot, for lack of any better words, state how clearly reckless and brazen this act has been. Unless the San Andreas State Government and the San Andreas Judicial Branch sit down and come to an extra-constitutional solution, we see no hope in this matter being resolved.
4. Issues facing the San Andreas Judicial Branch
While the court decides to partake in this project of legislating from the bench, the court has failed to engage the actual problems facing it. Most notably, why has the branch decided to flaunt its responsibility to respond to the cases within the superior court? Why has the branch left important law enforcement sensitive material to remain floating without a response. Why is the branch willing to allow a terrorist organization, who have killed the branches own Attorney General and are gloating about it on social media, to continue to roam the streets without signing important documents to respond to their assault?
The answer is clear, this court is showing that its willing not to solve the institutional issues it faces, refuses to initiate a judge training process, and is willing to allow its own Attorney General die at the hands of terrorists, all for the greater goal of being the petitioners of a judicial review against the executive branch.
We think its clear that a judicial suicide pact has been signed, where any attempt to resolve this constitutional crisis in mediation will result in the court placing the state in a even more dangerous position of loosing three supreme court justices at once. Should the branch be willing to allow this to occur, we expect this state to see some of its darkest days in history ahead of us.
5. State Counsel & Protest
Its important to note that no law firm in the history of this state has ever had to handle such things as this. Given that the court only accepts a active Law Firm registered in the state of San Andreas, and the fact that the only two competent Law Firms with the ability to handle such a case as this would have to face severe ethical considerations given the complexities of their clients, the state sees no viable options for representation. Its even more bewildering that the court wants this process to be a black box, not providing the state with the information on how this process will proceed, only willing to after representation has been had.
Furthermore, the state at this time will turn down the request to provide the court with a representative for legal counsel, on the basis that constitutional grounds to not exist for either this injunction or review.
Sincerely,
Emily Whitehorse
Emily "Chedhamenou" Whitehorse San Andreas State Government Chief Counsel | Special Counsels Office
Rockford Hills City Hall
Carcer Way, Los Santos.
San Andreas Judicial Branch Supreme Court of San Andreas "EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"
The Supreme Court stands firm in authority to exercise the checks and balances of original jurisdiction afforded to the judicial power in Article III of the Constitution of San Andreas. Our examination of Executive Order #7 shall continue and the Supreme Court thus shall outline expectations for the upcoming course of proceedings.
The Supreme Court recognizes the representational concerns brought forth regarding private practice and affiliation with a private law firm for the Executive Branch and would like to provide clarification on this matter. Representation by private practice is intended for cases in which a designated party wishes to hire an outside individual or organization to act as their representation in a legal matter.
As this case calls the San Andreas Executive Branch as a party, the Executive Branch may either choose to take this route and hire private counsel if deemed necessary, or the Executive Branch may choose to utilize any qualified individual within their own ranks to speak on behalf of the Executive Branch, such as what has been done in the most recent response by Chief Counsel Emily Whitehorse. While it would be ideal if this representative is licensed by the San Andreas Bar Association, we will not require that an internal representative be bar licensed for the purposes of responding to this judicial inquiry.
The Supreme Court will allow a period of 48-hours from the issuance of this notice for the San Andreas Executive Branch to provide this representation as requested. Should no representation be presented to this court, we will have no choice but to proceed with this case in their absence.
Once the 48-hours has elapsed, Justices on the Supreme Court will pose specific questions to the Executive Branch in order to ascertain background knowledge behind the issuance of Executive Order #7 and to establish the Executive Branch's legal basis for the provisions included in the order. Should the Executive Branch intend to participate in this process, a period of 7 days will be allotted to allow for a thorough response to the court, and additional time may be granted upon formal request.
After a response to the questions posed has been filed, a 72-hour window will be given to allow interested and qualified parties to petition the court to file an Amicus Curiae (Friend of the Court) Brief, which is intended to elicit relevant arguments from the unique perspective of a third-party to ensure the court is appropriately informed with the relevant viewpoints necessary to make a well-considered decision during deliberations.
The court will review each petition for relevance, expertise, and qualifications, among other considerations, and shall grant or deny each petition submitted. A period of 7 days will then be allotted for those with granted petitions to file the full text of their Amicus Curiae Brief.
The court shall then allot 7 days for the Executive Branch to provide any additional relevant details or arguments in response to any briefs received before deliberations commence.
During deliberations, Justices on the Supreme Court will carefully consider the information and arguments presented to the court and shall weigh the provisions of Executive Order #7 against the Constitution of San Andreas to ensure it is constitutional and does not infringe the rights of the people.
After an official opinion has been drafted by the Supreme Court, any preliminary injunctions shall be rescinded and a final binding decision will be issued.
At this time, the court stands in recess until the allotted 48-hours to establish representation for the San Andreas Executive Branch has elapsed.
Chief Justice
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 372-4223 — [email protected]
Associate Justice
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 402-9713 — [email protected]
Associate Justice
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 257-9183 — [email protected]
San Andreas Judicial Branch Supreme Court of San Andreas "EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"
Due to the recent intermittent availability of the government website since the submission of the court's most recent filing, an additional 48 hours will be permitted should the Executive Branch wish to provide a representative for this case.
Respectfully,
Associate Justice
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 257-9183 — [email protected]
