Jump to content

Thatpyrodude

Gold VIP
  • Content Count

    2180
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1928 Godly

About Thatpyrodude

  • Rank
    Minor Royalty
  • Birthday 02/02/1998

Contact Methods

  • Minecraft Username
    pyro
  • Skype
    Thatpyrodude

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    the seven
  • Interests
    Thanium

Character Profile

  • Character Name
    Farooq Gray

Recent Profile Visitors

31768 profile views
  1. Ruling on the Request for Judicial Review: Second Lemonade Legal Reform Justice GRAY delivered the opinion of the Court. Mr. Barclay filed suit after the House of Commons passed The Second Lemonade Legal Reform Bill, which notably regulates the creation and authorization of militias. Oddly, Mr. Barclay voted aye before filling his suit, but this court shall not consider that to be a relevant fact. Instead. We consider Mr. Barclay’s request for judicial review on the basis of the House of Commons not having the jurisdiction to legislate on matters related to the military. Mr. Barclay states in his filling that the Imperial Diet can not pass legislation regarding the military. The Edict of Reform clearly outlines the limitations on the House of Commons, one being that they are not permitted to legislate on the military. The question for this Court is if The Second Lemonade Legal Reform Bill is a statute that affects the military, or if it is a separate matter entirely. This court agrees with the arguments outlined by Mr. Barclay. Mr. Barclay argues the Edict of Reform prevents the statute passed in the House of Commons, which states: The Imperial Diet’s functions and legislation, as a whole, are prohibited from interaction with the following matters of state, which remain the exclusive purview of the Crown. The military and appointment of generals and other commanders. The Crown, the succession, its authority, and the Imperial household. Diplomacy and foreign affairs, exempting when permitted by the Crown in special circumstances. The language is clear that any statute which may interfere with the structure, maintenance or operation of the military is to be prevented by this Court. In this Bill, the House of Commons aims to allow the creation of a militia, directly altering the structure of the military by creating additional armed forces that do not operate under the traditional structure. Even with the requirement of approval by the Minister of War, the bill violates the clear limitation placed on the House of Common by His Imperial Majesty. Mr. Rakoczy submitted an Amicus Brief outlining the argument by the House of Commons. While they outline two different arguments, they fail to provide evidence for their conclusions and thus do not provide this Court with enough evidence that sufficiently convinces us to believe their conclusions to be correct. The first argument outlined by Mr. Rakoczy is that this matter falls under a matter of state. It is impossible for this court to come to that conclusion with the evidence provided. While Mr. Rakoczy argues that the management of estates is not a matter that is not covered by the limitations outlined by the Edict of Reform, we fail to see how that is relevant. Mr. Rakoczy does not sufficiently explain how militias are equivalent to the management of estates. It is curious why the House of Commons would require the Minister of War’s authorization on a matter simply related to the management of estates. Instead this Court believes this requirement to be an acknowledgement of the military significance of this statute. The second argument brought forth by Mr. Rakoczy is that “the military” in The Edict of Reform has a constructed meaning, equivalent to “The Imperial State Military.” He provides no basis or reasoning for this belief, which forces this Court to reject it. Furthermore, this Court holds that interpreting the Edict of Reform in the way asked by Mr. Rakoczy would render the line “and appointment of general and other commanders” redundant. Therefore, this court rejects this position. To conclude, The Second Lemonade Legal Reform is struck down by this Court on the basis of a violation of the Edict of Reform. The House of Commons is unable to legislate on matters which may interfere with the structure, maintenance or operation of the military. Joined by: Chief Justice ADLER, Justice SARKOZY
  2. Request for Judicial Review Granted; Second Lemonade Legal Reforms Bill (1776) ________________________________________________ The Request for Judicial Review requested by Mr. Conrad Barclay has been granted. The Supreme Court of Oren will thus be accepting Amicus briefs from the public for the next three months. Any citizen, group or organization is permitted to submit an Amicus brief to the Court. After which, this Court shall review the original complaint, all briefs and any other relevant information to address the questions raised by Mr. Barclay. ________________________________________________
  3. Ruling on the Request for Judicial Review: Corbish v. Ministry of Justice Justice GRAY delivered the opinion of the Court. As previously established in the Ruling on the Request for Judicial Review: Admissibility of testimonies of Non-Intelligent Persons a request for judicial review is only applicable to edict, act or order. As that ruling determined, the process only applies to “Edict, Act, or Order generally applies to actions of our legislative branch (The Imperial Diet), or our executive branch (The Government), and of course, in this sense is not applicable to His Imperial Majesty.” Seeing as the question in this case revolves around a judicial opinion issued in the case of Crown v. Corbish, this Court is unable to conduct judicial review on the matter, as an appeal would be the appropriate course of action to review the questions raised by the initial filling. Thus, the request for Judicial Review filled by Mr. Corbish is denied without prejudice. Joined by: Chief Justice ADLER, Justice SARKOZY
  4. Ruling on the Request for Judicial Review: Admissibility of testimonies of Non-Intelligent Persons Justice GRAY delivered the opinion of the Court. A request for Judicial Review has long been an essential part of the Orenian legal system. It was most recently reaffirmed by both The Diet and His Imperial Majesty with the Legal Procedure Act, 1772. The following guidelines were outlined by The Imperial Diet in relation to Invoking Judicial Review: a. Any Imperial subject or government may submit a Request for Judicial Review to call upon the Supreme Court to review the legality of any Edict, Act, or Order issued throughout the Empire; Upon review of the stature, section a states a Judicial Review can be used to “call upon the Supreme Court to review the legality of any Edict, Act, or Order issued throughout the Empire.” The Request for Judicial Review issued by Mr. Alimar asks us to review the legality of witness testimony in the case of Crown v. Alimar (1780). In order to do this, we must first review if Witness Testimony falls under the definition of “Edict, Act or Order” as set out by the Imperial Diet. After a thorough review of the materials at hand, this court is unable to find that Witness Testimony falls under this definition. Despite the extensive list of definitions attached to the Legal Procedure Act, 1772 and to the Oren Revised Code, there is no clear definition of an Edict, Act, or Order. Looking to common law also fails us, as there has been no adjudication on this matter. Thus it is up to this court to determine the definition of Edict, Act or Order. Yet this court has not been established to become a legislator, merely a body to clarify existing statues and reviewing appeals. Thus, this court must look at the intention of the law, seeing the text is unclear. Reviewing the transcript of The House of Commons provides no insight, seeing as there was only a brief discussion on the entirety of the bill, and no discussion on Judicial Review itself. Thus, we must take an unfortunate route of using “common sense” to determine whether the legislature would have envisioned Witness Testimony to fall under the definition of Edict, Act, or Order. In order to make this determination, we must imagine that there is a fictitious legislator able to answer questions about the Legal Procedure Act, 1772. In doing so we would imagine what the common sense answer this reasonable legislator would give, in determining if Witness Testimony falls under the definition of Edict, Act or Order. The answer to this question is no, an Edict, Act, or Order generally applies to actions of our legislative branch (The Imperial Diet), or our executive branch (The Government), and of course, in this sense is not applicable to His Imperial Majesty. The Diet only reaffirms this belief in the Legal Procedure Act, 1772 by outlining a separate appeals process for judicial decisions. Considering this, it is outside the scope of this court to review the legality of witness testimony or to review judicial decisions in a Request for Judicial Review. Thus, the Request for Judicial Review filed by Mr. Alimar is denied without prejudice. Joined by: Chief Justice ADLER, Justice SARKOZY
  5. Farooq Gray votes NAY on sutican Bill PRESENT on legal reform bill AYE on Funding Bill NAY on adoption bill
  6. FAROOQ GRAY FOR SENSIBLE LEADERSHIP A History of Legislative Success Farooq Gray has proven himself as a competent and successful legislator. First serving in the 15th diet, he has worked with both Everardines and Josephites on bills. Most recently that was working with Sir Konstantin Wick on the Legal Procedures Bill. Yet, Mr. Gray has written his own bills, most recently having the Lex Criminalis reform bill pass unanimously in the house, leading to a safer Oren. Few candidates have the legislative experience of Farooq Gray. Experience and Leadership Farooq Gray has maintained a perfect record of attendance through the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Diet. But Farooq Gray has been far from a backbencher, introducing multiple bills of his own and critiquing bills presented by both parties. He has also served as acting minority leader during absences. Outside of the house, Farooq Gray has a long history as a crown solicitor, most notably serving as prosecutor for Crown v. Harjalainen, successfully booting a corrupt crook from The Empire’s leadership. Since them Farooq Gray has since served as Solicitor-General, ensuring criminals are brought to justice. Platform for the 17th Imperial Diet Once reelected, Farooq Gray will continue to push forward smart legislation, including the following 3 pieces of legislation: A National Pension Plan - Those serving in the Imperial State Army, The Emperor’s Constabulary and The Haense Royal Army endure a great sacrifice. Those that serve honorably should be rewarded with a lifetime pension to ensure our soldiers are never left without shelter or food. An Imperial Loan Program - Establishing an Imperial Loan Program to allow citizens that would otherwise be unable to afford the upfront costs of opening a business to receive loans. Continued Legal Reform - Improving on the Lex Criminalis Reform, Mr Gray will continue to improve the Oren Revised Code, making smart and sensible laws that make for a better country. VOTE FAROOQ GRAY | VOTE EVERARDINE For sensible leadership.
  7. SURNAME: Gray FIRST NAME: Farooq ADDRESS OF RESIDENCE: Victory Street 6, Helena DATE OF BIRTH: 1730 Are you registered and eligible to vote in the Holy Orenian Empire? Yea Do you have any other title, peerage or military service that may conflict with becoming a Member of the House of Commons, as per the Edict of Reform (1763)? No If yes, do you understand that you will be required to resign or abdicate from this position should you be elected to the House of Commons, and if this does not occur your seat shall be considered to be vacant?: Yea ((MC NAME)): Thatpyrodude
  8. Farooq Gray hands each of his men a set of armor, preparing the constabulary for a chance at glory.
  9. THE MINISTRY OF JUSTICE As issued the 7th of Sun’s Smile, 1771 As dictated by the Solicitor-General The Sheriff’s Department of Helena is seeking any information in regards to the disappearance of Porphyre Nicephore, Sherriff of Helena. He was last seen in Helena, seeing to this safety of the city. Any information that leads to the successful return of Sheriff Nicephore, will be granted with a reward of 1,500 Imperial Marks. Should you have information on Porphyre Nicephore and his whereabouts, please send a letter to Acting Sheriff Tirilan Sentinel ((Tirilan#1349)). If unavailable or unwilling to send a letter, seek a member of the department at the Ministry of Justice in Helena. Farooq B. Gray Solicitor-General ((Thatpyrodude#2437))
  10. Excellent post Liam, think this is something everyone needs to remember. At the end of the day this is all a game, and all your accomplishments here don’t mean anything in the real world. Don’t make sacrifices to your real life to improve your mineman life.
  11. FACTION AFFILIATION: Everardines FACTION LEADER NAME: Amadeus d’Aryn 1. Amadeus d'Aryn [Caranthir_] 2. Farooq Gray [Thatpyrodude] 3. Karl Amador [Sanderwarrior14] 4. Winston Rothesay [proddiusmaximus] 5. Sigmar Joren Baruch [Drew2_dude] 6. Lajos Sandor Karoly [CrownedLime747] 7. Conrad Barclay [James2k] 8. Edmund Bren [Sliw] 9. Siol of Helena [GoodGuyMatt] 10. Ed Myre [Boiendl] 11. Louis Entier [bickando] 12. John Edward Pruvia [NordLord1] Do any members of the draft have any title, peerage or public service that may conflict with becoming a member of the House of Commons, as per the Edict of Reform (1763)?: No If yes, do you understand that you will be asked to provide an alternative and legal candidate, and if this does not occur your faction’s seat shall be considered to be vacant?: Yes ((MC name)): Caranthir_
  12. Ahh I quite enjoyed blowing up Jburg.
  13. Never understood the point of these posts? If you’re leaving tell the relevant people, don’t need to announce it to the server. And dr fate, no one has nostalgia when thinking of the Tahmas era staff
×
×
  • Create New...