Petition for Judicial Review - The use of Capital Punishment against Gabe Ehrmantraut and request for stay of Execution
Posted: 26 Feb 2025, 23:50
Supreme Court of San Andreas,
I, Herrman Wolff, citizen of the state of San Andreas, wish to invoke Article III, Section 3.2, of the constitution:
The 14th Amendment states that any individual born or naturalized in the State of San Andreas, which I believe includes Mr Erhmantraut as he is believed to be naturalized, is being deprived of life, without due process of law. It is clear that Mr Ehrmantraut has not been given a trial, which could be combatted by saying that he may have wavered one but at the time of the announcement of his execution, the 7-day period for him to log a trial had not yet expired (and has not expired as of writing this). Mr Ehrmantraut could challenge his charges, but this is being suppressed as he has already been decided for execution. The execution of MR Ehrmantraut would also mean that he is then deprived of his liberty, by no longer being able to exercise it, as well as being deprived of his possesses due to being unable to convey ownership in death. I believe this constitutional excerpt has the strongest bearing against Capital Punishment and against the decision levied against Mr Ehrmantraut. The mention of Capital Punishment (or any synonym) is absent from our penal code and constitution in their entirety, and thus is a decision primarily decided by the executive. The spirit of law regarding the 14th Amendment is to ensure inability for forces to act against the judicial liberties of citizens of the state and this opportunistic decision by the executive fully disregards this important aspect of the constitution and requires a much deeper Judicial Review to fully evaluate. In that time, Mr Erhmantraut should be, at the very least, a stay of execution in that time.
The 8th Amendment deals with excessive punishments and protections of citizens against being "over" prosecuted for a crime. The largest guideline for all punishments in the state is the Penal Code. The totality of his listed crimes, would see Mr Ehrmantraut fined a considerable amount of money, jailed for an excessive amount, and the majority of his potential licenses suspended. It does not make any mention of Capital Punishment or execution. In this instance, the death penalty is being instigated ABOVE the established punishments and is in fact a cruel punishment. In the spirit of the penal code, which considers murder a serious felony, an execution (state sanctioned murder) would also clearly fit the definition of cruel punishment due to its totalitarian effect on the individual. In this same vein, due to having zero mention in any state sanctioned document, execution can easily be ascertained as an unusual punishment. In the past it has only been used for a select few individuals which have been cherry-picked by The Executive. It's impossible to Beguin to attribute any sort of rhyme or reason to the usage of Capital Punishment in the past due to the vast varieties across each of the cases, and therefore bucks fair process of justice due to being entirely undocumented and therefore unusual.
The 5th and 6th amendment are mentioned due to its relation to Mr Ehrmantrauts seemingly ignored potential need for a criminal trial. It is no doubt that Mr Ehrmantraut is being held indefinitely at the Department of Corrections or some other type institution. This entirely permitted by the constitution in the instances of treason, but it's not entirely clear if this meets that barrier, with a large amount of case law with far more grievous crimes, that have never had this type of treatment. Even in the event that it did meet this barrier, which it may not, it still only allows this detainment until an individual's trial. In this event, it may be that Mr Ehrmantraut is being denied the ability to raise a case, as he may not have access to an electrical device to do so. The supreme court should stay the execution, to ensure that Mr Ehrmantraut did indeed have the ability to challenge his charges. The Supreme Court should also ensure that Mr Ehrmantraut was afforded the ability for a trial at all which it appears is not the case and therefore, entirely unconstitutional.
I believe each point in and of themsleves, would at least qualify to stay the execution of Mr Ehrmantraut until a judicial review can be performed on the use of Capital Punishment, but all togither I believe it makes a compelling legal arguement that cannot be ignored. Due to the time sensitive nature of this situation, I request this Judicial Review is expediated. I believe it is considered as soon as possible or the risk of a unconstitutional execution grows inevitble.
@Hope Kant @Judith Mason and @Terence Williams (maybe?) please review this.
Kind Regards,
Herrman Wolff
Citizen and SpeedyRefuel Chief Operations Officer
I, Herrman Wolff, citizen of the state of San Andreas, wish to invoke Article III, Section 3.2, of the constitution:
The Supreme Court is vested with the authority to perform the judicial review of all laws, along with public acts (decisions and determinations by tribunals, agencies and branches of government) in order to determine their constitutionality. 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. Judicial review is not limited to errors of law but may also include errors of fact. Judicial review may be solicited by any citizen of San Andreas with founded and constitutional arguments
I would like to petition the Supreme Court to perform a Judicial Review regarding the decision of the Board of Governors to execute the individual known as Gabe Ehrmantraut, and to review the legitimacy of the use of Capital Punishment. It is believed by myself, a former holder of a bar licence, and as well as several other individuals, who also hold a bar license, that the use of Capital Punishment is unconstitutional and the inability for Mr Ehrmantraut to receive a trial is also unconstitutional. This is based on the following portions of the constitution:
5th Amendment
Each person within the State of San Andreas shall adhere to the penal code of the state, and should it be violated, with probable cause and proof of evidence, a member of any San Andreas Law Enforcement Agency may submit an individual for punishment to the Department of Corrections. Should the crimes of the individual detail treason, grand acts of terrorism, or murder of public officials the individual will be held in the Department of Corrections until a trial date can be set and due process followed.
In cases of indictment by the Office of the Attorney General, no person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime unless the presentment of indictment is approved by a qualified judge as the Chief Justice may see fit.
No person shall be subject to prosecution of the same offense twice, constituting double jeopardy, and put in jeopardy of life or limb.
No person shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against themself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.
Private property shall not be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Each person within the State of San Andreas shall adhere to the penal code of the state, and should it be violated, with probable cause and proof of evidence, a member of any San Andreas Law Enforcement Agency may submit an individual for punishment to the Department of Corrections. Should the crimes of the individual detail treason, grand acts of terrorism, or murder of public officials the individual will be held in the Department of Corrections until a trial date can be set and due process followed.
In cases of indictment by the Office of the Attorney General, no person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime unless the presentment of indictment is approved by a qualified judge as the Chief Justice may see fit.
No person shall be subject to prosecution of the same offense twice, constituting double jeopardy, and put in jeopardy of life or limb.
No person shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against themself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.
Private property shall not be taken for public use, without just compensation.
6th Amendment
In all criminal trials brought forth by or too the San Andreas Judicial Branch, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial Judge of the State wherein the crime shall have been committed, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against them; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in their favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for their defense.
In all criminal trials brought forth by or too the San Andreas Judicial Branch, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial Judge of the State wherein the crime shall have been committed, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against them; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in their favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for their defense.
8th Amendment
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
14th Amendment
Section 1:
All persons born or naturalized in the State of San Andreas, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the State of San Andreas. The state shall not make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the State of San Andreas. The state shall not deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Section 1:
All persons born or naturalized in the State of San Andreas, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the State of San Andreas. The state shall not make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the State of San Andreas. The state shall not deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
The 14th Amendment states that any individual born or naturalized in the State of San Andreas, which I believe includes Mr Erhmantraut as he is believed to be naturalized, is being deprived of life, without due process of law. It is clear that Mr Ehrmantraut has not been given a trial, which could be combatted by saying that he may have wavered one but at the time of the announcement of his execution, the 7-day period for him to log a trial had not yet expired (and has not expired as of writing this). Mr Ehrmantraut could challenge his charges, but this is being suppressed as he has already been decided for execution. The execution of MR Ehrmantraut would also mean that he is then deprived of his liberty, by no longer being able to exercise it, as well as being deprived of his possesses due to being unable to convey ownership in death. I believe this constitutional excerpt has the strongest bearing against Capital Punishment and against the decision levied against Mr Ehrmantraut. The mention of Capital Punishment (or any synonym) is absent from our penal code and constitution in their entirety, and thus is a decision primarily decided by the executive. The spirit of law regarding the 14th Amendment is to ensure inability for forces to act against the judicial liberties of citizens of the state and this opportunistic decision by the executive fully disregards this important aspect of the constitution and requires a much deeper Judicial Review to fully evaluate. In that time, Mr Erhmantraut should be, at the very least, a stay of execution in that time.
The 8th Amendment deals with excessive punishments and protections of citizens against being "over" prosecuted for a crime. The largest guideline for all punishments in the state is the Penal Code. The totality of his listed crimes, would see Mr Ehrmantraut fined a considerable amount of money, jailed for an excessive amount, and the majority of his potential licenses suspended. It does not make any mention of Capital Punishment or execution. In this instance, the death penalty is being instigated ABOVE the established punishments and is in fact a cruel punishment. In the spirit of the penal code, which considers murder a serious felony, an execution (state sanctioned murder) would also clearly fit the definition of cruel punishment due to its totalitarian effect on the individual. In this same vein, due to having zero mention in any state sanctioned document, execution can easily be ascertained as an unusual punishment. In the past it has only been used for a select few individuals which have been cherry-picked by The Executive. It's impossible to Beguin to attribute any sort of rhyme or reason to the usage of Capital Punishment in the past due to the vast varieties across each of the cases, and therefore bucks fair process of justice due to being entirely undocumented and therefore unusual.
The 5th and 6th amendment are mentioned due to its relation to Mr Ehrmantrauts seemingly ignored potential need for a criminal trial. It is no doubt that Mr Ehrmantraut is being held indefinitely at the Department of Corrections or some other type institution. This entirely permitted by the constitution in the instances of treason, but it's not entirely clear if this meets that barrier, with a large amount of case law with far more grievous crimes, that have never had this type of treatment. Even in the event that it did meet this barrier, which it may not, it still only allows this detainment until an individual's trial. In this event, it may be that Mr Ehrmantraut is being denied the ability to raise a case, as he may not have access to an electrical device to do so. The supreme court should stay the execution, to ensure that Mr Ehrmantraut did indeed have the ability to challenge his charges. The Supreme Court should also ensure that Mr Ehrmantraut was afforded the ability for a trial at all which it appears is not the case and therefore, entirely unconstitutional.
I believe each point in and of themsleves, would at least qualify to stay the execution of Mr Ehrmantraut until a judicial review can be performed on the use of Capital Punishment, but all togither I believe it makes a compelling legal arguement that cannot be ignored. Due to the time sensitive nature of this situation, I request this Judicial Review is expediated. I believe it is considered as soon as possible or the risk of a unconstitutional execution grows inevitble.
@Hope Kant @Judith Mason and @Terence Williams (maybe?) please review this.
Supporting Documents
San Andreas Constitution
The Constituion Can Be Found HERE
San Andreas Penal Code
The Penal Code Can Be Found HERE
Executive Order #11
The Executive Order Can Be Found HERE
Glossary For Non-Judicial Individuals
Unconstitutional
not in accordance with the political constitution or with procedural rules.
The Constituion Can Be Found HERE
San Andreas Penal Code
The Penal Code Can Be Found HERE
Executive Order #11
The Executive Order Can Be Found HERE
Glossary For Non-Judicial Individuals
Unconstitutional
not in accordance with the political constitution or with procedural rules.
Kind Regards,
Herrman Wolff
Citizen and SpeedyRefuel Chief Operations Officer