Thatpyrodude

“A man who is his own lawyer has a fool for a client.” Comments Farooq

“I am glad the church was swift in their investigation.” Comments Farooq “They could not have done this quicker”

Its been 10 years? Yikes

“He looks an awfully lot like me.” Comments Lucien V from the seven

Ruling on the Request for Judicial Review: Dangerous Drug Ordinance Justice GRAY delivered the opinion of the Court. Mr. Puller filed a Request for Judicial Review, asking us to examine the legality of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, calling it an inappropriate use of legislative power by the Ministry of Justice. The ordinance declares “illegal substance” to be an ambiguous term that was not defined by the diet, potentially leading to confusion with the law. The Ministry aimed to alleviate this confusion, by declaring that they would interpret “illegal substance” as “hallucination or personality affecting drugs for recreational use”. Mr. Puller states that they have the power to do so. We do not agree. In an unusual step, This court also held its first oral arguments, a transcript of which is Attached. Ambiguous laws are created for various reasons. As this Court has previously noted, sometimes wording comes from painstaking negotiations, or perhaps the diet believed it would be best to allow the agency to use its expertise to define the ambiguous term itself. Regardless of what the reasoning is, it is difficult to imagine they left it ambiguous with the idea that it would not be interpreted and thus the law would not be enforced. While some have asked this court to rule that only the courts may define ambiguous terms, that would be an unfair usurpation of the power of the diet, and would not be practical. By leaving the wording of a statute ambiguous, they’ve delegated their legislative power to the agency, permitting it to use it’s best judgement to interpret the meaning of the word or phrase. Yet, despite that, the judicial branch plays an important role in ensuring this process is done fairly. An agency may only interpret a statute it administers that is truly ambiguous. If a court finds a word or phrase is not ambiguous, then the meaning of the word or phrase is what is what the court has determined it to be. Furthermore, an agency's interpretation must be reasonable. Therefore, this court must first determine if the word illegal substance is ambiguous or not. While a brief does cite the Cacti Prohibition Act, this act was passed prior to the Lex Criminalis Reform Act of 1774, which rewrote a large portion of the criminal law in this country, including “on contraband” which contains the much debated section we are discussing today. Because of this, if the diet wanted to incorporate the Cacti Prohibition Act to define illegal substances, it would have been made clear during this reform. Yet, the diet opted to move forward with ambiguous legislation, suggesting the intention of keeping ambiguous legislation. Therefore, considering there is nothing further defining illegal substances, this Court determines that “illegal substance” is ambiguous and may be defined by the agency that administers the statute, in this case the Ministry of Justice. Then, we must determine if this interpretation is reasonable. Considering the lack of legislative history on the topic, the Diet offers no guide on what “illegal substance” should cover. Considering the wording of Section 204.04 of the Oren Revised Code, which states: “illegal substances, literature, or items” the Diet seemingly intended to leave it open ended and ambiguous, giving broad discretion to the Ministry of Justice. Therefore, it is reasonable to hold that substances that are “hallucination or personality affecting drugs for recreational use” would be covered under the definition. Still, the title of the section is “On Contraband.” While drugs would seemingly fit under contraband, as the diet has previously legislated on types of drugs before, many items would not. Therefore, this interpretation should not be construed to give the Ministry of Justice unlimited authority to declare every possible item contraband. It must still conform to the traditional definition of contraband, as drugs do. To conclude, a court will defer to an Agency’s interpretation of a statute it is charged with administering as long as the word or phrase they are interpreting is ambiguous and their interpretation is reasonable. If a court holds the law is not ambiguous, the court’s ruling controls. This court holds that “illegal Substance” is ambiguous, and the Ministry of Justice’s interpretation is reasonable. Therefore we defer to their interpretation. Joined by: Justice NAPIER

Ruling on the Request for Judicial Review: Non-Partisan Courts Act Justice GRAY delivered the opinion of the Court. Mr. Adler, former Chief Justice of this Court, filed a request for judicial review asking this court to determine the legality of Section I, Article I of the Non-Partisan Courts Act. The act lays out a noble goal, to ensure that courts remain non-partisan so that His Imperial Majesty's citizens may have full trust that court’s are not acting with ulterior motives. While Mr. Adler may be a supporter of these goals, he challenges the means in which they were enacted. The text of Section I is as follows; “Court justices are hereby to be barred from running for or holding a seat within the House of Commons.” Mr. Adler lays out three arguments, which if one is accepted, should lead to the repeal of this section. This Court agrees with Mr. Adler’s first argument, that elections are entirely under the purview of His Imperial Majesty and his delegates. The Edict of Reform, 1763 grants His Imperial Majesty the power of both calling and dismissing Diets at will, through the form of a national election. That was affirmed by This Court in The Ruling on the Request for Judicial Review: Election Cancellation and Ballot Nullification, and we see no basis to second guess that decision. Furthermore, This Edict forbids the Diet from legislating on the authority of The Crown. Here, The Diet has legislated on who may or may not participate in The Diet. Declaring who may and may not participate in The Diet remains a function of The Crown, as it has previously set age and property restrictions on electoral participation. The Diet, by adding a restriction, is directly interfering with the rights of The Crown, which is strictly forbidden by the Edict of Reform, 1763. Therefore, Section I of the Non-Partisan Courts Act is in violation of the Edict of Reform. This Court sees no reason to further evaluate the arguments of Mr. Adler. But, this court must make a decision on what to declare invalid. This Court could take the simple approach, striking Section I and leaving the rest of the statute intact. Or, this Court could strike the entirety of the act, going beyond what we were asked to do today. This court will take the latter approach. The creation of legislation is an act of compromise, a legislator works with other legislators to determine each and every word in a bill. The phrasing of bills often results from months of careful negotiation and painstaking discussions. To strike part of a bill and leave the rest intact would upset the compromise that went into the creation of this bill. Without Section I, who is to say that the bill would have passed? This Court can not know, and we are not in the business of guessing what occurred during private negotiations. Therefore, statutes lacking explicit evidence otherwise will be assumed to have been passed in their entirety. Without a part of the bill, the entire bill will cease to exist. Therefore, the Non-Partisan Courts Act is struck down in it’s entirety by this court on the basis of a violation of the Edict of Reform. The House of Commons is unable to legislate on the authority of His Imperial Majesty. Furthermore, this Court will assume an all or nothing approach with statutes unless explicitly stated otherwise within the four corners of the bill. Joined by: ALL

Request for Judicial Review Granted; Dangerous Drug Ordinance, 1813 ________________________________________________ The Request for Judicial Review by Mr. C.B. Puller 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. Puller. Since no injunction has been requested, none will be granted. _______________________________________________

Farooq frowns

Request for Judicial Review Granted; Article I of the Non-Partisan Courts Act ________________________________________________ The request for Judicial Review by Mr. Joseph Adler 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. Adler. _______________________________________________

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. Furthermore, he championed the Protecting Our Veterans Act, granting the hard working hero’s a safety net after retirement. Few candidates have the 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. Finally, Farooq spent two decades on the court, setting down multiple landmark rulings that are established legal precedent. Finally, Farooq Gray is the only candidate endorsed by the Union of former solicitors and judges, along with Former Chief Justice, J. Adler. Platform for the Imperial Diet Once elected, Farooq Gray will continue to push forward smart legislation, including the following 3 pieces of legislation: Judicial Reform - Our current legal system is broken. Scoundrels have taken away people’s right to judicial review, putting citizens at risk of unlawful punishment from the diet. Farooq will spearhead legislation to reform the courts, permitting anyone to bring forth judicial review requests. 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. Reestablishment of the constabulary - Without a dedicated constabulary, corruption is rampant, crime is at an all time high. Farooq will establish a program to reform the constabulary, and ensure it is enacted. VOTE FAROOQ GRAY For sensible leadership.

RP Name: Farooq Gray MC Name: Thatpyrodude Voted: Yes :)

SURNAME: Gray FIRST NAME: Farooq ADDRESS OF RESIDENCE: Little Ves 8 YEAR OF BIRTH: 1730 Are you registered and eligible to vote in the Providence District? Yes 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?: Yes ((MC NAME)): Thatpyrodude

Farooq Gray offers his services as an attorney to the accused. Instructions are left to send a letter to Gray & Sons if interested. @Pimmerd2005 ((discord is Thatpyrodude#2437))