Judicial Review - Executive Order #7

[Judith Mason]

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]

[Judith Mason]

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]

[Emily Whitehorse]

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.

[Judith Mason]

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]

[Judith Mason]

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]

[Judith Mason]

San Andreas Judicial Branch
Supreme Court of San Andreas
"EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"

---

• Pursuant to previously established Supreme Court procedure for this judicial review, the Supreme Court of San Andreas would like to pose several questions to the San Andreas Executive Branch to establish the authority and constitutional basis of Executive Order #7 and the subsequent Penal Code Amendment made effective on the 7th day of April, 2024.
  
  The answers to the questions below are intended to demonstrate to the Supreme Court the basis of why the Executive Branch adjourned the Law Review Committee, why the Executive Branch implemented a penal code amendment without going through the constitutionally-prescribed legislative process, and whether the language of the charges included in the amendment should be considered constitutionally valid.
  
  1. With regards to Article II, Section 3, what extraordinary circumstances necessitated the adjournment of the House of Representatives on the 7th day of April, 2024?
  2. With regards to Article II, Section 3, what disagreement necessitated the adjournment of the House of Representatives on the 7th day of April, 2024?
  3. With regards to Article I, Section 2.2, what actions, prior to the issuance of Executive Order #7, had the Executive Branch taken to fill any vacancies within the House of Representatives?
  4. With regards to Article II, Section 3, what recommendations had the Executive Branch previously made to the House of Representatives to (a) address the conduct later made unlawful with the implementation of GF22 - Breach of Trust and to (b) address the changes later made to Business Licensing Bureau Fines & Criminal Charges?
  5. How does the Executive Branch reconcile the apparent legislative actions with the implementation of GF22 - Breach of Trust and the changes made to Business Licensing Bureau Fines & Criminal Charges with the Legislative Process established in Article I, Sections 1 and 7 of the Constitution?
  6. How does the Executive Branch reconcile the broad and discretionary language of the GF22 - Breach of Trust charge with freedom of speech protections offered by the 1st Amendment of the Constitution?
  7. What is the current procedure for making changes to established Business Licensing regulations, including licensing fees, restrictions & requirements, and violations? How does the Executive Branch reconcile this procedure with the Legislative Process established in Article I, Section 7?
  8. Are there any additional considerations that the Executive Branch would like to inform the court of before moving forward?
  Despite the lack of response from the Executive Branch, the Executive Branch may still, within 24 hours of this notice, indicate intent to answer the above posed questions, at which point, a period of 7 days will be allotted for a response to be drafted and submitted. However, in the absence of the Executive Branch's intent to file a written brief, the court shall promptly move forward with a period of 72-hours to allow interested and qualified parties to petition the court to file an Amicus Curiae (Friend of the Court) Brief.
  
  This initial petition should outline the party's qualifications and expertise, and should focus on a short summary of what unique insight or perspective the party wishes to present the court with. In the interest of transparency, the petition will also ask for any disclosures that should be made known to the court, such as relevant personal, professional, and financial affiliations and relationships that may present an appearance of bias.
  
  Following the conclusion of the 72-hour window for petitions to be filed, the court will conduct a review of any petitions received and shall grant or deny each petition. Once notice has been given, granted petitions will have a period of 7 days to file the full text of their Amicus Brief with arguments that the court should take into consideration when deliberating a final ruling.
  
  Interested parties may find the formatting document for Amicus Brief Petitions within the Supreme Court Case Filing area, with petitions being submitted as a direct reply to this docket. The court stands in recess for 24 hours.
  
  
  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]

[Judith Mason]

San Andreas Judicial Branch
Supreme Court of San Andreas
"EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"

---

• This message is to serve as notice that the court will now be accepting Amicus Curiae Petitions for a period of 72 hours. Once this window has elapsed, the court will review each petition and shall update the docket once a determination has been made.
  
  Petition filing information can be found within the Supreme Court of San Andreas - Amicus Brief Filing Information.
  
  Respectfully,
  
  
  Associate Justice
  San Andreas Judicial Branch
  (909) 257-9183 — [email protected]

[Dante Buchanan]

Name: Dante Buchanan
Date of Birth: 02/JUL/1980
Occupation: Free Agent

Relevant personal, professional, and financial affiliations and relationships that may present an appearance of bias:
I have no current professional or finance bias, however I was previously employed by the San Andreas State Government in an official capacity. This capacity was as the Deputy Director for Public Relations for the San Andreas State Government. I did sign a Non Disclosure Agreement for my employment (and after I leave) however I believe this has no enforceable weight, and I am willing to disregard this for this court to ensure a full picture of the truth is provided. My position was entirely to serve the State of San Andreas and its people, and I hold no secrecy for, or ill will against, the entity of the Government. My previous position has no barring on the testimony I will give, and instead only marks itself as a marker for the first-hand information I can provide. I have always and will always serve the state of San Andreas and its people, and believe doing so would be best done by providing a non-bias testimony.

I was the previous;y the co-worker of the individuals of the Government. I have personal relationships with all members of the Government but in particular Emily Whitehorse, Julia Whitehorse, Lewis Langley, Jason Castillo, and the other one whose name I never remember. I can say that I honestly only had professional relationships with these individuals, opting to not fully establish personal relationships due to other personal reasons such as their clique ness. The relationships with these individuals has since soured upon my dismissal from Government, and I am no longer in contact with any of the individuals mentioned. I believe I can still provide keen insight that is free from bias since whilst any relationship would sour, I can provide facts and information that is independent of any single person and paint a clear image of the happenings of Executive Order #7. I have no ill will against the government as an entity, and it is on this basis that I can offer my services to this court.

I was dismissed from government, and I believe part of the events that surround my dismissal led to the introduction of Executive Order #7. I think this bias can be disregarded since the Executive Order was signed in to place after I was removed and the information I can provide is merely non-bias facts that are clear.

God bless the supreme court.

Relevant Interest/Expertise:
The expertise I can share is the definitive knowledge that I experienced first hand regarding the workings of the Business Licensing Bureau, and the first-hand account I have of the events that lead to the introduction of Executive Order #7. These first-hand accounts also make up the subject matter that surrounds Executive Order #7 which is beneficial to court to understand further. The insight I can provide to the supreme court is second to none, and I have a willingness to answer any and all questions asked of me under oath, providing full insight into the court with zero hesitation.

Summary of Intentions: (Approximate 300 word maximum)
My intention is to ensure the Supreme Court operates efficiently and to the best of its ability, and by providing myself to the court to be a marker of evidence, is the best of my ability to be able to accomplish this. I hold no official position in the state of San Andreas and whilst there is a matter of closeness of myself to the subject matter, I can provide full insight free from any bias I have in order to facilitate justice. The matter of Executive Order #7 should be explored in its fullest, and I am happy to provide a clear narrative for this court.

I believe Executive Order #7 was, in a way, an attempt at targeting myself and others who were fired by the San Andreas State Government, and so I would freely give my testimony. I also have a desire to provide it since it has become apparent that the San Andreas State Government is not willing to cooperate with the Supreme Court in this case and instead prefers to ignore its commitments to transparency that it made in its disclosures' newsletter which said "The San Andreas State Government is committed to providing open communication and transparency to those that we serve".

The Supreme Court (or any court for that matter) should not be subject to blanket silence by the government and thus a delay in justice. I am happy to stand in and provide testimony to this court in order to fill in the gaps that are being left, as well as to serve my state in the duty that I pledge in helping it become a better place.

In times when the Government fails its citizens by delaying justice, it's important for the people to instead step in and shine a light on the path to justice. Internal discussions, intentions, reasoning, and all information obtained since leaving are open from me, to this court to question and consider helping them find the truth that they seek.

---

I, DANTE BUCHANAN, hereby affirm that all information provided above is true and correct to the best of my knowledge, and understand that knowingly providing false information could result in charges and/or fines. (( I affirm that all information submitted has been obtained via In-Character means. ))

[Solomon Cobb]

Name: Solomon Cobb
Date of Birth: 10/FEB/1994
Occupation: Independent Journalist

Relevant personal, professional, and financial affiliations and relationships that may present an appearance of bias:
I run an independent news page on LifeInvader and have a vested (non-financial) interest in the ability of people to 'whistleblow' to an extent.

Relevant Interest/Expertise:

• Ex-Warden of SADOC.
• Ex-Director of PR at SASG.
• Ex-employee at LSEMS with specialisation in CRU, AMU, and Forensics.
• Ex-LRC Elected Representative of the 3rd Congress.
• Bar Licensed with specialisation in Contract Law.
• Independent journalist of #CobbBlog on LifeInvader.

Summary of Intentions: (Approximate 300 word maximum)
As a previous leader of one government institute (SADOC), a high ranking official of another (SASG), and a supervisor of a third (LSEMS), with extra responsibilities surrounding confidentiality with the Crisis Response Unit (CRU), Advanced Medical Unit (AMU), and Forensics, I wish to officially document my opinions on the sudden addition of "GF22 - Breach of Trust" from the perspective of someone who holds a considerable amount of information from several government agencies in my trust.

Firstly, I intend to address the way in which the law got placed into effect, and also the implications of the law as it currently stands and the subsequent impact on citizens like myself, who have been placed in positions of trust across a variety of areas within the government and its institutions.

Secondly, I intend to address the constitutional implications from the perspective of an independent journalist, and the impact of the law on potential whistleblowing.

---

I, Solomon Cobb, hereby affirm that all information provided above is true and correct to the best of my knowledge, and understand that knowingly providing false information could result in charges and/or fines. (( I affirm that all information submitted has been obtained via In-Character means. ))

[Antonio McFornell]

Name: Antonio McFornell
Date of Birth: 01/JAN/1966
Occupation: Superior Court Judge

Relevant personal, professional, and financial affiliations and relationships that may present an appearance of bias:
My only affiliation is professional, with the SAJB as a Superior Court Judge.
In the past I was indirectly affiliated with the Executive Government as a member of the team that worked on the constitution, for which I was paid around 50,000 dollars or so. I might be wrong but it was a (now) insignificant value.

Financial relationships: I have owed 200,000 to Roderick Marchisio for many months, which remain unpaid due to him being out of town and I believe Mary Burrows has a financial obligation with me for approximately 100,000 dollars or so.

Needless to say, my opinions are only my own and they do not compromise the San Andreas Judicial Branch or the Superior Court specifically.

Relevant Interest/Expertise:
In San Andreas, I have been connected to the Judicial Branch since around April 2021. During my time as a Junior Attorney and Law Student I reached out to the Executive Government and I aided in the drafting of the Constitution and also provided advice on how the initial Law Review Committee would work. I believe this gives me special insight in the constitutional design of our country, and also the implications this Executive Order might've had in relations to the Law Review Committee.

I am also a phd in constitutional law, my masters studies were related to constitutional law and I practiced outside of San Andreas for a very long time in matters specifically related to constitutional law. I believe I can provide insight valuable to the Supreme Court in regards to this judicial review.

Summary of Intentions: (Approximate 300 word maximum)
My intentions with my amicus brief is to provide an academic and completely legal perspective to the questions asked. I also seek to weigh in on whether the questions proposed by the Supreme Court, in my expert opinion (as a constitutional law academic), should have been formulated in the way they were and which could be the outcomes of this procedure.

For that, I will touch some subjects such as separation of powers, checks and balances, principle of legality among others that are natural (and perhaps not explicit) in our constitutional text.

---

I, Antonio McFornell, hereby affirm that all information provided above is true and correct to the best of my knowledge, and understand that knowingly providing false information could result in charges and/or fines. (( I affirm that all information submitted has been obtained via In-Character means. ))

[Andy Tyrie]

Name: Andy Tyrie
Date of Birth: 14/MAY/2024
Occupation: Rare Book Collector

Relevant personal, professional, and financial affiliations and relationships that may present an appearance of bias:
I was a part of the San Andreas State Government for 367 days. During this time, I formed relationships purely as friends. I can say with certainty this is no longer the case. In that same vein, I can say that I do not hold this (My Dishonourable Discharge) against any member of the San Andreas State Government. I just have the same disappointment in the Government that I have seen from other Citizens of the State.

Professional and Financial Affiliations: I do not have with any member of the State Government. With the Government as an entity of itself, I do currently own and manage businesses from which I purchase licenses. I also have an outstanding contract with what used to be the Property & Housing Bureau for a property. Said property is paid off and is just pending myself holding three events in order to end the probation period. Apart from this, I do not have any professional or financial biases.

Relevant Interest/Expertise:
I have served as an Officer within the Los Santos Police Department towards the start of my career, learning in depth the placing of penal code entries. I also participated in a very small amount of investigative work through their Detective Support Unit.

I then moved to the San Andreas State Government in which I started as a Law Review Committee member. Through my time in the San Andreas State Government, I served as a Supervisor within the San Andreas Aviation Administration, specifically over the flight school section. At the time of my dismissal, I was a Government Director (Command) of the San Andreas State Government, This position was specifically over the Property & Housing Bureau. I did serve for a short time as a High Command Member; however, no real work was done in that position, so I would not like to classify it as a position I held.

Finally, the area of expertise I believe is the most important and relevant for this case is my time served through the LRC, going up to the rank of Deputy Speaker of the LRC. Throughout my time, I can say safely and with certainty that I have done the most bill writing out of any other person in the state. I have written to my recollection over 30 bills. Sadly, most of these are still in the internal section and were pending the approval of the Speaker of the House. I was, in essence, the leader of the Law Review Committee despite having a superior who was for the most part inactive in the LRC. Through my different ranks, I served as Speaker Pro Tempore and Deputy Speaker, hosting again more meetings in the LRC over any other citizen in the state.

Summary of Intentions: (Approximate 300 word maximum)
My intentions here are very plain and simple. As the person with the most experience in the Law Review Committee in the state, I would like to provide full information to the court and people of the issues and methods taken to correct said issues, right and wrong, that occurred with the Law Review Committee. As I served up to and on the day of this executive order being pushed out, my preference here would be as an expert witness to further be asked questions by the Court, especially due to the State Government's failure to interact with this Supreme Court Case. Point blank, it is atrocious, and I aim to provide what was, at the time of the issuance of the Executive order, inside information. I fully recognize I no longer have this inside information.

I would, on top of stating above, like to provide a full witness statement on the events I witnessed. My reasoning behind this is many things I and others noticed are simply not public knowledge, and there is no way for the Court to ask me adequate questions regarding things only ~6 people have access to (3 Governors (No Input), 2 Chiefs, 1 Assistant to the Governor). I would also have my suggestions the Branch be asked; however, in order to maintain myself not having any bias, I am able to accept not being allowed to suggest them and just have my witness statement and expert witness involvement.

---

I, Andy Tyrie, hereby affirm that all information provided above is true and correct to the best of my knowledge, and understand that knowingly providing false information could result in charges and/or fines. (( I affirm that all information submitted has been obtained via In-Character means. ))