------------------------Welcome to the Term 3 Judiciary------------------------
:hammer:
Could the House please come to order?!

As the third term Chief Justice, I declare this Term 3 Court's Session opened.
:hammer:
The main task of the Judiciary is to uphold the Constitution and its supporting laws in a fair and impartial manner, as prescribed by article F of the Japanatican Constitution.

Members of the Term 3 Judiciary are:
Chief Justice: gert-janl
Judge Advocate:mhcarver
Public Defender: KCCrusader

In accordance with Constitutional article I.1, the official Japanatican census of term 3 is 32.
Hence, the number of votes required for a constitutional amendment/ratification is, in accordance with Constitutitional article I.2.c, 21

It's free to any interested citizens to visit the Judicial Library, where they can find the following documents:


The Japanatican Constitution (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=94616)
The Japanatican Judicial Log (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=94623)
The Term 1 Judiciary (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=95439)
The Term 2 Judiciary (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=98573)


Do not hesitate to approach the Court when needed. It's our task to protect your rights!

Term 3 Court Procedures

Ratified by all member of the Judiciary

1. The Judiciary is comprised of three members, the Chief Justice, the Public Defender, and the Judge Advocate.

2. All members of the Judiciary shall share certain rights and responsibilities.
A. Discuss the Court Procedures, as composed by the Chief Justice, in a most constructive way, and ratify when reaching consensus.
B. Post polls and discussions on interpretations of the Constitution, and any lower laws.
C. Do not have Deputies, but may appoint Pro-Tem officials (Pro-Tem CJ, Pro-Tem PD, and Pro-Tem JA) if they are unable to fulfil their duties. Pro-Tem officials have all the rights and responsibilities of the officials they are filling in for, but are a temporary position, and must surrender their pro-tem status upon the request of the official. The pro-tem status may be given for individual assignments or for the entirety of the official (this must be declared).
D. Initiate and participate in Judicial Review to determine the legality of proposed Constitutional Amendments and any other form of lower law. Any citizen may request a JR for this purpose.
E. Initiate and participate in Judicial Review to interpret and clarify existing Constitutional Articles and any other form of lower law. Any citizen may request a JR for this purpose.
F. Initiate and participate in Judicial Review to examine whether or not all investigations should be considered as having "No Merit".
G. Post Legislative polls that have passed Judicial Review.

3. The Chief Justice ~
A. Perform as needed in the positions of Public Defender and Judge Advocate in the absence of either official. This duty shall only apply if said officials have not appointed a Pro-Tem official.
B. Is responsible for posting the current Active Census in the Judicial thread at the beginning of the Term.
C. Is responsible for updating and maintaining the Judicial Log.
D. Is responsible for monitoring investigation threads to keep them on topic and procedurally accurate.
E. If the situation arises where the actions of a Leader (Advisor) of a Department fall within the parameters of being absent from a position, as set forth by CoL Section G.3, the Chief Justice may declare said Office vacant.

4. The Public Defender ~
A. Is tasked with ensuring all Citizens’ Complaint investigations are performed correctly, with deference to the presumed innocence of the accused.
B. Will ensure that the accused understands the charges brought against them and what rules were purportedly broken so the accused can mount an effective defence.
C. Will perform as defender, unless the accused wishes otherwise.

5. The Judge Advocate ~
A. Is tasked with the mechanics of Citizen's Complaint investigations and trial.
B. Will open and close discussions and polls as appropriate to the trial.
C. Will perform as Prosecutor (gather and present evidence) for any anonymous accusers.

6. All Judicial Review and Investigations will be held publicly. Public communication between the Justices will be posted in the Judicial thread or the Investigation threads.

7. Judicial Review ~
A. A quorum requires the attendance of all three members of the Judiciary.
B. Review of proposed legislation.
1. Any member of the House may present proposed legislation to the Judiciary after following procedure for proposing amendments and laws.
2. The request will be included in the Court’s Docket
3. 2 of 3 Justices must agree that the amendment or law does not conflict with existing rules.
4. If a proposal is rejected due to conflict(s), it is returned to the house with detail of the conflict(s) noted. This proposal may then be edited and resubmitted for Review.
5. If the proposal is approved through Judicial Review, it is posted as a ratification poll by a member of the Judiciary.
C. Interpretation and clarification of existing Law.
1. Any member of the house may request a Judicial Review for interpretation or clarification of an existing Law. The existing Law must be clearly stated in the request.
2. The request will be included in the Court’s Docket
3. 2 of 3 Justices must agree on the interpretation or clarification, forming a Majority Opinion.
4. The interpretation/clarification is then entered into the Judicial Log for reference.
D. Dismissal of Investigations deemed as having "No Merit".
1. 3 of 3 Justices must agree that the accusation shows "No Merit".
2. Specific reasoning must be given by each Justice for a judgement of "No Merit".

8. Citizen's Complaint ~
A. If any citizen believes that someone has violated an Article of the Constitution or any other lower form of law, they can report this suspected violation for investigation and trial.
1. The allegation can be posted in the Judicial thread.
2. The allegation can be made privately to the Chief Justice via Private Message.
B. Allegations of misconduct must include:
1. Name of the defendant.
2. The Article(s) or lower Law(s) suspected of being violated.
3. When and where the suspected violation(s) occurred.
C. The Citizen's Complaint will be included in the Court’s Docket
D. The Judge Advocate notifies the Public Defender and the accused of the charge(s).
E. A brief Judicial Review of the charge(s) is done (see 7.D above) to determine if the charges have "No Merit".
F. If the charge(s) are found to have "Merit", the Judge Advocate opens an Investigation thread detailing the alleged violation(s).
1. The first two replies to this thread are reserved for the Public Defender and the accused to respond publicly to the charge(s) (Defence). Either may post first, and both may say what they wish (within forum rules). If their replies/responses have not been posted within 24 hours of the thread's posting, they lose these reserved spots and anyone can post.
G. Citizens can post in this thread their opinions on the charge(s), whether they think the accused is guilty of the infraction or not, and if the case should go to Trial.
H. If the accused pleads guilty, the Trial is skipped and the case moves to the Sentencing Process. The Chief Justice may close the Investigation thread early if this occurs.
I. When discussion has petered out and at least 48 hours have passed, the Judge Advocate will post a Trial poll.
1. If the results of the Investigation (defined as input in the Investigation thread) thread are overwhelmingly in favour of the Defendant, the Judge Advocate will submit the case for a brief Judicial Review to determine if the case has "No Merit". If the case is then viewed as having "No Merit" the case is closed.
2. The Trial poll will have the Options of Guilty, Innocent, and Abstain and will remain open for 48 hours.
3. In the event the Trial poll ends in a tie, the members of the Judiciary will determine if the defendant is innocent or guilty by posting independent and clear Opinions at the end of the Trial poll.
J. If the accused is found guilty through the Trial poll, a Sentencing poll is posted by the Judge Advocate.
1 The Sentencing poll will remain open for 48 hours, and have the following Options:
a. Recommended Moderator action - turned over to the Moderators.
b. Impeachment from Office (if applicable)
c. Final Warning (whether or not a prior warning has been given)
d. Warning
e. No Punishment
f. Abstain
2. If the guilty party has previously received a final warning for the current offence, the Judge Advocate will post that in the Sentencing poll narrative.
3. In the event the Sentencing poll ends in a tie, the members of the Judiciary will determine the Sentence by posting independent and clear Opinions at the end of the Sentencing poll.
4. The guilty party must abide by the results of the Sentencing poll.

9. The Judicial Log may be referenced for further interpretation or clarification, but may not be used for criteria for review of proposed legislation.

10. For any Judicial Review ruling or issue involved with a Citizen Complaint, each Justices must post independently their opinion on the matter. In essence, they must answer the question asked by the Judicial Review in a Yes or No fashion (have "Merit" or "No Merit" also applies here). Specifically, there will be no "fence-riding". Each Justice will come down on one side of the issue or the other, clearly.

------------------------Term 3 Docket------------------------

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
DG5CC#1
Status: closed. Ruling published in Judicial Log (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=2229655&postcount=23)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Ratification of Court Procedures
Status: ratified by all other member of the Court
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
DG5JR#19
Status: closed. Ruling published in Judicial Log (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=2229655&postcount=23)
Submitted by:Sir Donald III
Details:Sir Donald III has requested a Judicial Review concerning who has the authority to post Instructions for the route of a Naval transport carrying a Settler. SD3 is referencing Article O for this JR.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
DG5JR#20
Status: closed. Ruling published in Judicial Log (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=2229670&postcount=24)
Submitted by:KCCrusader, Strider
Details: KCCrusader and Strider have requested a judicial review on the trial of president Chieftess. They doubt that Chieftess has access all the rights provided by the Constitution.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
DG5JR#21
Status: closed. Ruling published in Judicial Log (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=2229678&postcount=25)
Submitted by:MOTH
Details: MOTH wants the judiciary to define a 'vacant office' in relation to Constitution article G.4 and CoL G.1
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
DG5JR#22
Status: closed. Ruling published in Judicial Log (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=2252272&postcount=26)
Submitted by:classical_hero
Details: Classical_hero wants to know which official has the authority over military upgrades. He references Article D.1/D.3 of the Constitution
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
DG5JR#23
Status: closed. Ruling published in Judicial Log (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=2281234&postcount=27)
Submitted by:Ashburnham
Details: Ashburnham has requested a Judicial Review, concerning the authority of ministers over governors as provided by the Constitution.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
DG5JR#24
Status: closed. Ruling published in Judicial Log (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=2281238&postcount=28)
Submitted by:blackheart
Details: blackheart has approached the Court for amending the Code of Laws. He proposes the addition of a fifth article to the Code of Laws concerning turnchats
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
PRIORITY-DG5JR#25
Status: closed. Ruling published in Judicial Log (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=2281238&postcount=29)
Submitted by:Donovan Zoi
Details: Donovan Zoi has approached the Court concerning the Term 4 elections. He wants to know when a nomination thread can be considered closed according to the Constitution.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Dear Judges,

This term is only 2 minutes old, and I already have a first request for you. I compiled this term's Court Procedures, and I want you to discuss any issues you can't agree with. If it's already agreeable with you, please announce, and we can start working along the published Procedures.

Regards,
gert-janl

(O, one more thing. Cyc has done a tremendous job composing his Procedures, and I thankfully almost copied it for use this term. :goodjob: Cyc!! Thanks very much!)

I hereby vote in favour of ratification of the published Court Procedures.

welcome to the bench gert-janl! :D

I have no problem with court procedures and vote yay on ratifying them BTW the previous court did not reach judicial quorom on DG5JR19, :eek: only CJ Cyc ruled on the matter, which leaves the question what do we do? I believe that it is clear that me and KCcrusader should rule but does the new CJ have the right to put out a new opinion if he believes one is needed?

-Mhcarver

Congratulations to the Term 3 Judiciary. In addition to transferring you the Citizen's Complaint DG5CC1, as you have posted above, the Term 2 Judiciary must also transfer the Judicial Review DG5JR19 over to the Term 3 Judiciary. I have posted such in the Judicial Log (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=2223857&postcount=20)

I have stated there that the Chief Justice Opinion is null and void. The honorable Chief Justice gert-janl should replace it with his own in a new Judicial Log listing for DG5JR19.

Thank you for the compliment on the procedures. If you need any help before I take off for vacation, let me know. :)

Mayor Cyc

I second the motion to ratify the court procedures. I will post opinion on JR as soon as our JA makes it.

Welcome to the new Judges, and best of luck in the new term. I'll be out of here just as soon as I clear the last doughnuts out of the JA's office...

In the meantime, I'd just like to point something out for considertion. Cyc had earlier [url=http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=98717started some discussion[/url] on how to make the CC process easier, and there were some good ideas you guys might want to take into consideration.

As soon as quorum is met and the procedures are agreed upon, please include this JR on our list of cases:

I, KCCrusader, as a member of the House, am requesting a judicial review regarding the recent trial of accused President Chieftess. The Law that shall be the focus of the review shall be Articles A and F of the constitution which state:

Article A. All Civfanatics Forum users who register in the Citizen
Registry are citizens of our country. Citizens have the
right to assemble, the right to free movement, the right
to free speech, the right to a fair trial, the right to
representation, the right to seek to redress grievances
and the right to vote.

Article F. The Judicial Branch will consist of one Chief Justice, one Public
Defender and a Judge Advocate. These three justices
are tasked with upholding the Constitution and its supporting
laws (if any) in a fair and impartial manner as prescribed
by law. The Chief Justice shall have the additional
responsibility to organize and conduct the affairs of the
Judicial Branch. The Public Defender will act as council to an
accused individual. The Judge Advocate will act as the prosecution.

Specifically regaring the right of all citizens to have a fair trial and the right to representation. It appears to me that Chieftess was stripped of these rights in the recent trial. I shall post evidence in support of overturning the any results obtained by this trial in a separate post.

Simplified Argument for my JR: (if you don't want to read everything I wrote, this is better organized anyway)

1. Controversial closing of investigation and reopening it without notifying the defense.

2. Lack of 24-hour period for the defense to post on EITHER investigation or even a total of 24 hours of the investigation being OPEN before citizens were allowed to post.

3. Lack of defense in general before the trial moved to polling

4. Violation of several judicial proceedings. While not law, the proceedings are established to ensure a fair trial. Thus when broken, a fair trial Cannot be administered.

5. All aspects added together make for a BLATENTLY unfair trial.

The reasons, explained at length, for my judicial review are as follows:

1. Chieftess had a single post of input. And no more in her defense. Although this can be partly to blame on the President herself, more explanation and defense should be presented by the accused before a trial poll is posted.

2. The Public Defender was not given a chance to respond free of previous opinion in support of defending the accused. When I came to the investigation poll to post a defense I found it had been open for approximately 14 hours, yet due to the fact that citizens had posted before the defense it was closed.

There was no investigation thread, which the Term 2 Judicial procedures specifys must be created by the Judge Advocate.

A second investigation was opened without the knowlege of the defense(violating court procedures by the way), and after 38 hours this poll was labeled as "closed" before any relevant defense was presented. The fact of the matter is the 24-hour span in which a defense was ready to be presented did not line up with the timing of the posting of the trial polls. I was unable to post a relevant defense without the already present commentary, nearly all of which was AGAINST Chieftess. Chieftess was barred of her right to representation in court, which violates Article A.

Also, there was no 24-hour period given on this new thread. Within one hour of being opened, the new investigation thread was opened to the public, blatenly violating the 24-hour defense clause in the judicial procedings.

Had the Public Defender been aware of the the opening of a new investigation so soon, he would have issued his statements within a

The trial poll was posted based upon a timeline set forth by an essentially illegal investigation poll. The Investigation was posted by Cyc. Cyc's own procedure requires the JA accomplish this task. While one my think, "Who cares who opens the thread?", think about this. If the Chief Justice opens the thread, there is a 24 hour time period in which the defense has to respond to charges posted by a supposed neutral justice. The purpose of the JA opening the thread is to enable the justice to establish the opening case of charges against the accused. The defense should require 24 hours from the posting of the charges BY THE JA to respond. In my attempts to accomplish this, I found the thread had already been closed!

If one looks at the so-called "Investigation" thread, he will see that there is almost no debate in support of Chieftess. She has no defense, and is destined by this investigation poll to be found guilty no matter what for the reason of a simple lack of debate.

In sum, the trial should be restarted from the beginning in order to make sure this "closed" investigation, allowing the prosecution extra time to have their arguement heard, including the illegal posts of citizens does not influence the outcome of the trial. The fact that an investigation was halted and restarted should be enough evidence to support ruling the trial null and void. Either way, it would be best to be right, even if it takes another trial!

KCCrusader has requested a Judicial review regarding the trial of President Chieftess. Did the defendent have acces to all rights she should have, provided by law?

This request has been placed in the Docket.

I thank mhcarver and Cyc on their input about DG5JR#19. This request will also be placed in the court's docket.

With a vote of 3-0-0 this term's procedures have been accepted by the judges. From this moment I declare the procedures official(:hammer: ), and the Court shall do its utmost best to follow the procedures.

In response to KCCrusader's allegations against me, I am re-posting the response I made in the Citizen's sub-forum. His accusations are way out of line with what actually happened. The Court needs to realize just what took place and the efforts made to stay within procedure. Posted below is my response:

While I initially posted against the idea in the judicial thread, I have seen by the travesty of the latest Citizen Complaint that it would protect the citizens and the game if these procedures were legalised so that trials would have to be fair in order to be accepted. Also, It seems that the affairs of the court can be "organized" by the judiciary even if the actual procedure is coded. This will also prevent the Chief Justice, or any member of the bench from setting up a system weighted against any defendant (innocent until proven guilty)

In the last (and first) CC, I encountered numerous challenges in trying to uphold my duty to defend the accused Chieftess. In Cyc's organization of the trial, as mandated by the law, the posted proceedings of the court were blatantly violated. I list the offenses here to bolster support for making court procedures official:
Broken Judicial Procedures(list can be found here) (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=2145820&postcount=3) :

8.D: At no point in this CC was I contacted by the honorable Octavian X
with regards to the charges brought against Chieftess, but rather was
left to stumble upon the charges in the judicial thread.

Sept. 27th 8:23pm
Completed. Also, my clarification is done. I for one am much happier with the result. I shall begin looking at Cheiftess's innocence soon .

Finally Thank you for your two terms as Chief Justice. You really helped me get into the groove of this demogame when I had no idea what I was supposed to do! I look forward to further participation later in the game as either CJ or an advisor post. Thanks again!
-PD KCC
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyc
Also, Public Defender KCCrusader, could you post as to whether or not the CC has merit? We need to move this up to the next level.
Thanks,CJ Cyc

As you can easily see from the PM posted above, the Chief Justice PMd you about the CC. My statement at the bottom indicates further discussion, so it's plain to see you were notified. Your opinion of "Merit" for the CC came before the chronological order of the JA sending you a PM. So you didn't stumble upon it. You had already worked on it. As you know JA Octavian X had a habit of slow work in our matters, that's why I had to cover for him sometimes.

8.F:While the original investigation thread was opened by Octavian X, Chief
Justice Cyc opened the second (flawed) version.
When I saw the fiasco caused by the Defense in the first Investigation Thread, I tried for a long time to get the situation taken care of. The only reason Black_Hole had posted was inexperience. He felt he needed to clarify the charges. True he should have used the Judicial Thread for this, but as I say, he has no experience with CCs. Chieftess on the other hand was the second person to have a PI filed against them in DG1. So she has lots of experience. She posted twice in the begining of this thread claiming 3 reasons for her defense in the first post.

I had made several posts in different locations trying to get the situation rectified. Finally Rik Meleet came back and said he would delete the posts in 4 hours. What was I to do. As soon as he did this people started posting again, even through the Instructions were clearly posted at the top of the thread. I even went into the chat rooms looking for a Mod, but they never answered my requests for help. After I signed off, Moderator eyrei came to the Investigation Thread. This Investigation Thread which was opened at 11:33pm 9/27, was then closed by Moderator eyrei at 6:29pm 9/28. Post is shown below:
Moderator eyrei ~ 6:29pm 9/28

Thread closed. I hate to inconvenience the judiciary, but it will just be easiest if you open another. Please note that the 24-hour rule will be enforced by myself.

I didn't come back till later and saw the thread closed for the first time. I also noticed you had shown up and were unable to post in it because it was closed. So I opened a new thread and PMd you right away. You will notice that from the time the first thread was opened to the time it was closed, 19 hours had elapsed. This meant that the initial 24-hour period had only 5 hours left in it. The Defendant had posted twice and 8 out of the first ten posts were for the defendant. This also means that you never checked the Investigation Thread for the first 22 hours or so. None of this was planned by the Chief Justice and, in fact, I tried my best to keep within procedure. The Defense was mostly to blame for the first thread's problems (check the thread) (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=100935) . Had you returned to the new Investigation Thread, as my PM asked you to, our had even come back to the forums, I'm sure you could have done a lot better job at defending CT. In the mad rush, I did my best to re-construct the first post of the second thread, I'm sorry you weren't happy with it.

8.F.1:The first two posts of the investigation thread are obviously not a
Combonation of Chieftess and myself. When I arrived to post an opening
defense, I found the invevtigation already cluttered and closed due to
the fact that people had violated this very clause (F.1). Cyc opened a
new thread dedicated to the investigation, but once again, the defense
was disenfranchised the right to present an arguement. Before a 24 hour
period had passed, the Chief Justice opened the thread to the public.
When I arrived with arguments in mind, I found the investigation cluttered
yet again! The opinion was already completely biased towards a guilty
verdict, and there was no ability to submit a defense.

As I said above, I PMd you right away. You took your time coming back, even though you knew the first thread had been closed. :rolleyes: And I copied the defense's first post to the second thread immediately following the charges. So CT's statement was covered.

8.I: Honorable Justice Cyc issued a message on the investigation thread
issuing the debate closed. No where in the procedings is anyone given
the power to close the investigation, especially after essentially NO
defense has been presented at all! While the thread is technically still
open, newcomers to the thread will cease reading after the "closed"
message, hindering the defendants right to a fair trial.

In the Court Procedures you worked within for two Terms and have just submitted your approval of for Term 3 is Procedure 8H. If the accused pleads guilty, the Trial is skipped and the case moves to the Sentencing Process. The Chief Justice may close the Investigation thread early if this occurs.
There's one example of the CJ closing the Investigation Thread. So you're mistaken there. The reason I closed it was so that the citizens knew it went on to the next phase. The thread had gone past the 24 hour period for the PD and Defendant to post, yet only the Defendant showed enough interest to do so. The thread had been open far beyond the minimum 48 hours required of it. I would have thought that if you had wanted to participate AT ALL in CT's defense, you would have done so by then. :rolleyes:

These digressions from procedure currently cannot be challenged because the proceedings are not written into law. Obviously, a defendant cannot recieve a fair trial when the procedure is allowed to be manipulated by the bench.

The procedure was manipulted by the Defense, as shown in the first thread. Strider calls his posts outright a fillibuster. He meant to disrupt the proceedings on behalf of CT. This is not my fault.

The period of time in which the investigation was closed happened to be the time I had to post my defense. The thread was not open for 48 hours continuously, therefore barring the defense (who checks in at least every 24 hours) from issuing any statements to help Chieftess.

I did not close the first thread and opened the second as soon as I could. I also PMd you right away, to which you never answered. This is not the CJ's fault either. I did the best I could considering the circumstances. Look what Strider did to the Trial Poll, the same thing.

It is in my opinion, after this egregious infringement of Chieftess's rights as listed in Article A, the procedure MUST be scribed into law.

You may be right. The Procedures may need to be coded to stop people like Strider from doing the things he did. But CT's rights were not violated, except maybe from lack of help by the PD. ;)

Thank you.

CJ's opinion DG5JR#20

When reviewing the term 2 Judicial Guide articles on the procedures of a Citizen Complaint

F. If the charge(s) are found to have "Merit", the Judge Advocate opens an Investigation thread detailing the alleged violation(s).
G. Citizens can post in this thread their opinions on the charge(s), whether they think the accused is guilty of the infraction or not, and if the case should go to Trial.
I. When discussion has petered out and at least 48 hours have passed, the Judge Advocate will post a Trial poll.

I come to the conlusion that several points were not exactly followed this CC as specified in the Judicial Guide.
The investigation thread was not opened by the appointed official, but by the CJ himself. Whatever reasoning was behind this, it's not exactly as outlined in the judicial guide.
Article G was followed and every citizen did have the chance to post their opinions on the charges. So here are no violations.
Article I however is not followed. The former CJ closed the discussion thread 10 hours early without a clear reasoning.

Concluding from all this can I say that the trial didn't quite follow the judicial guide well. The former CJ did some things without legal back-up. Therefore it's a good thing that this case is now back in the discussion phase, to ensure the rights of the accused.

Honorable Chief Justice, in your point about Article F, you claim the thread was not opened by the appropriate official. This is not true. Judge Advocate Octavian X did open the Investigation thread. But after procedure had been broken, I tried to rectify the problem. This worked once with Moderator Rik Meleet, albeit on a 4 hour delay, but when it happened again, I once again went on a search for help in correcting the problem. It was at this time that one of the Defendant's fellow Moderators closed the initial Investigation Thread. Closing the thread was not what the Court had requested/instructed. The Moderator took it on his own to close the thread. This is called Moderator Action and there is nothing you or I can do about it, except deal with it the best way you can. So the closing of the initial Investigation Thread, which had been open for 19 hours, was not caused by the Court. Because the CJ noted the PD had come to the forums during the time after the thread had been closed, I opened up a new thread, in hopes of again rectifying the problems that had been created beyond the control of the Judiciary. So the inital thread WAS opened by the JA. The replacement thread (an administrative action) was done by the CJ, after Moderator Action eliminated the possibility of the first thread serving its purpose.

If you've read my statement above, you know that your thoughts on the Article I issue are also incorrect. As the initial Investigation thread was opened at 2330 PDT on 9/27 by the JA and closed 1830 PDT 9/28 by Moderator eyrei (with the announcement that the 24 hour rule was still in force and would be enforced by himself), that the thread was legally open for 19 hours. During this time the Public Defender made no attempt to post in the thread. The second thread was opened 3.5 hours after the first one was closed. Luckily, I had come back to the forums, as Moderator had taken it on his own to close the thread (aginst my wishes) and not notify me. This second thread, as you can see by the times posted above, was open for 38 hours. You know this. That means the total time for an Investigation thread to have been open and accessable by the prosecution AND the defense (as noted by Chieftess' multiple postings) was 57 hours. That's 57 hours. That was plenty of time for the defense to be presented to the people.

As you can see the fiasco caused by experienced and inexperienced players was dealt with in appropriate manners by the Court. Inappropriate Moderator Action caused a need for a second thread, again not the fault of the court. An Administrative Action, deemed necessary by the CJ, solved the problem caused by the Moderator. Total time for the Investigation threads to be open went far beyond the required 48 hours. This was plenty of time for PD KCCrusader to present the Defense, which he chose not to.

If you move forward with this Judicial Review agreeing with the Public Defender, what you will be saying to the People of Japanatica is "Our legal system is so incompetant that if the Public Defender purposely screws up the defense in a Citizen's Complaint, he can get his client off on a technicality".

This would never happen in the real world and shouldn't happen here. It shouldn't happen anywhere.

I have come to the conclusion that the case against President Chieftess should not be restarted. The public defender has done his job and has returned to put up a passionate fight for his client, I agree with that. But the fact that the Public Defender and the accused each had ample time to post their opinions and a lack of objection by the defendant to the proceedings against her cannot be ignored. Therefore I find that the defendant had access to all the rights she should have provided by law.
Mhcarver
Office office of the Judge Advocate

Honorable members of the Judiciary,
Please consider the following request for clarification.

Three questions regarding Constitution article G part 4 and Code of Laws G.1

1. What constitutes an "Vacant office" according to Constitution article G. part 4? Specifically, is a Deputy position and "office" and is it "vacant" following an uncontested election?
2. Who can "appoint" a citizen to a vacant office? President of Office holder?

Some thoughts:
The constitution (G.4.) does specify that "the president will appoint a citizen to any Vacant office" There is however no definition of "office" or "Vacant". The c.o.l (G.1) states how deputies are determined and states that when a election was not contested that any citizen may be appointed. It goes on to say that the office holder may seek any citizen if the runner up(s) does not accept. It does not specify who does the appointing.

My personal opinion is that a deputy position is an office and it is vacant following an uncontested election. Also, only the president may appoint a citizen to a vacant office.

Concluding from all this can I say that the trial didn't quite follow the judicial guide well. The former CJ did some things without legal back-up. Therefore it's a good thing that this case is now back in the discussion phase, to ensure the rights of the accused.

Chief Justice gert-janl,

I disagree with your assessment of the actions of former CJ Cyc. The Chief Justice has plenty of latitude when it comes to keeping a judicial process on course, including stepping in to open a thread in the place of a wayward judge.

That said, this matter needs to be put behind us, and the sooner the better. There is no law in our books, or prescribed by the Court, that states that a new term of judges can interrupt an investigation in progress. So in roughly 14 hours, this investigation needs to move directly from the trial phase to the sentencing phase, with no more discussion needed.

If the above is not carried out as prescribed, or if the Court Procedures post is editted sometime after the time of this post to allow cross-term meddling, this court will be treated as hostile and will be dealt with accordingly. I am posting a copy of the current procedure for cross-reference to any such act.

1. The Judiciary is comprised of three members, the Chief Justice, the Public Defender, and the Judge Advocate.

2. All members of the Judiciary shall share certain rights and responsibilities.
A. Discuss the Court Procedures, as composed by the Chief Justice, in a most constructive way, and ratify when reaching consensus.
B. Post polls and discussions on interpretations of the Constitution, and any lower laws.
C. Do not have Deputies, but may appoint Pro-Tem officials (Pro-Tem CJ, Pro-Tem PD, and Pro-Tem JA) if they are unable to fulfil their duties. Pro-Tem officials have all the rights and responsibilities of the officials they are filling in for, but are a temporary position, and must surrender their pro-tem status upon the request of the official. The pro-tem status may be given for individual assignments or for the entirety of the official (this must be declared).
D. Initiate and participate in Judicial Review to determine the legality of proposed Constitutional Amendments and any other form of lower law. Any citizen may request a JR for this purpose.
E. Initiate and participate in Judicial Review to interpret and clarify existing Constitutional Articles and any other form of lower law. Any citizen may request a JR for this purpose.
F. Initiate and participate in Judicial Review to examine whether or not all investigations should be considered as having "No Merit".
G. Post Legislative polls that have passed Judicial Review.

3. The Chief Justice ~
A. Perform as needed in the positions of Public Defender and Judge Advocate in the absence of either official. This duty shall only apply if said officials have not appointed a Pro-Tem official.
B. Is responsible for posting the current Active Census in the Judicial thread at the beginning of the Term.
C. Is responsible for updating and maintaining the Judicial Log.
D. Is responsible for monitoring investigation threads to keep them on topic and procedurally accurate.
E. If the situation arises where the actions of a Leader (Advisor) of a Department fall within the parameters of being absent from a position, as set forth by CoL Section G.3, the Chief Justice may declare said Office vacant.

4. The Public Defender ~
A. Is tasked with ensuring all Citizens’ Complaint investigations are performed correctly, with deference to the presumed innocence of the accused.
B. Will ensure that the accused understands the charges brought against them and what rules were purportedly broken so the accused can mount an effective defence.
C. Will perform as defender, unless the accused wishes otherwise.

5. The Judge Advocate ~
A. Is tasked with the mechanics of Citizen's Complaint investigations and trial.
B. Will open and close discussions and polls as appropriate to the trial.
C. Will perform as Prosecutor (gather and present evidence) for any anonymous accusers.

6. All Judicial Review and Investigations will be held publicly. Public communication between the Justices will be posted in the Judicial thread or the Investigation threads.

7. Judicial Review ~
A. A quorum requires the attendance of all three members of the Judiciary.
B. Review of proposed legislation.
1. Any member of the House may present proposed legislation to the Judiciary after following procedure for proposing amendments and laws.
2. The request will be included in the Court’s Docket
3. 2 of 3 Justices must agree that the amendment or law does not conflict with existing rules.
4. If a proposal is rejected due to conflict(s), it is returned to the house with detail of the conflict(s) noted. This proposal may then be edited and resubmitted for Review.
5. If the proposal is approved through Judicial Review, it is posted as a ratification poll by a member of the Judiciary.
C. Interpretation and clarification of existing Law.
1. Any member of the house may request a Judicial Review for interpretation or clarification of an existing Law. The existing Law must be clearly stated in the request.
2. The request will be included in the Court’s Docket
3. 2 of 3 Justices must agree on the interpretation or clarification, forming a Majority Opinion.
4. The interpretation/clarification is then entered into the Judicial Log for reference.
D. Dismissal of Investigations deemed as having "No Merit".
1. 3 of 3 Justices must agree that the accusation shows "No Merit".
2. Specific reasoning must be given by each Justice for a judgement of "No Merit".

8. Citizen's Complaint ~
A. If any citizen believes that someone has violated an Article of the Constitution or any other lower form of law, they can report this suspected violation for investigation and trial.
1. The allegation can be posted in the Judicial thread.
2. The allegation can be made privately to the Chief Justice via Private Message.
B. Allegations of misconduct must include:
1. Name of the defendant.
2. The Article(s) or lower Law(s) suspected of being violated.
3. When and where the suspected violation(s) occurred.
C. The Citizen's Complaint will be included in the Court’s Docket
D. The Judge Advocate notifies the Public Defender and the accused of the charge(s).
E. A brief Judicial Review of the charge(s) is done (see 7.D above) to determine if the charges have "No Merit".
F. If the charge(s) are found to have "Merit", the Judge Advocate opens an Investigation thread detailing the alleged violation(s).
1. The first two replies to this thread are reserved for the Public Defender and the accused to respond publicly to the charge(s) (Defence). Either may post first, and both may say what they wish (within forum rules). If their replies/responses have not been posted within 24 hours of the thread's posting, they lose these reserved spots and anyone can post.
G. Citizens can post in this thread their opinions on the charge(s), whether they think the accused is guilty of the infraction or not, and if the case should go to Trial.
H. If the accused pleads guilty, the Trial is skipped and the case moves to the Sentencing Process. The Chief Justice may close the Investigation thread early if this occurs.
I. When discussion has petered out and at least 48 hours have passed, the Judge Advocate will post a Trial poll.
1. If the results of the Investigation (defined as input in the Investigation thread) thread are overwhelmingly in favour of the Defendant, the Judge Advocate will submit the case for a brief Judicial Review to determine if the case has "No Merit". If the case is then viewed as having "No Merit" the case is closed.
2. The Trial poll will have the Options of Guilty, Innocent, and Abstain and will remain open for 48 hours.
3. In the event the Trial poll ends in a tie, the members of the Judiciary will determine if the defendant is innocent or guilty by posting independent and clear Opinions at the end of the Trial poll.
J. If the accused is found guilty through the Trial poll, a Sentencing poll is posted by the Judge Advocate.
1 The Sentencing poll will remain open for 48 hours, and have the following Options:
a. Recommended Moderator action - turned over to the Moderators.
b. Impeachment from Office (if applicable)
c. Final Warning (whether or not a prior warning has been given)
d. Warning
e. No Punishment
f. Abstain
2. If the guilty party has previously received a final warning for the current offence, the Judge Advocate will post that in the Sentencing poll narrative.
3. In the event the Sentencing poll ends in a tie, the members of the Judiciary will determine the Sentence by posting independent and clear Opinions at the end of the Sentencing poll.
4. The guilty party must abide by the results of the Sentencing poll.

9. The Judicial Log may be referenced for further interpretation or clarification, but may not be used for criteria for review of proposed legislation.

10. For any Judicial Review ruling or issue involved with a Citizen Complaint, each Justices must post independently their opinion on the matter. In essence, they must answer the question asked by the Judicial Review in a Yes or No fashion (have "Merit" or "No Merit" also applies here). Specifically, there will be no "fence-riding". Each Justice will come down on one side of the issue or the other, clearly.

Don't worry, DZ. No-one is going to secretly change the Judicial Code!

Though I stick to my opinion as stated in my ruling of DG5JR20, we should consider a few more issues now. I thank Cyc and DZ for their response.

The game, however, needs to move on, as DZ just stated. 'The sooner is CC is behind us, the better'. Some mistakes have been made this CC, by mods, by Cyc, and also by me (closing the poll, instead of closing the thread :blush: ). After the time of the trial poll is expired, a sentencing poll will be opened.

I can't imagine that the defense of the accused has any additional evidence, and therefore I am convinced that the best option, for both the defending and the accusing party, now is to move on the process. :hammer:

MOTH has requested a judicial review concerning Constitutional article G.4 and CoL G.1. He likes to see clarified the following questions:

1. What constitutes an "Vacant office" according to Constitution article G. part 4? Specifically, is a Deputy position and "office" and is it "vacant" following an uncontested election?
2. Who can "appoint" a citizen to a vacant office? President of Office holder?

His request will be included in the Court's docket, and a ruling can be expected soon.

1.What constitutes a "vacant office" according to Constitution article G part 4? specifically, is a deputy position and "office" vacant following an uncontested election?
since this question has several parts I am going to split my answer:
The COL says that
Should an official fail to post instructions for 2
consecutive turn chats without prior notice, the
Judiciary may declare that office Vacant.
that is the definition of a vacant office


Is the deputy position "vacant" following an uncontested election?
due to the code of laws mentioned above a deputy cannot be declared vacant in an uncontested election since it does not meet the definition of a vacant office.


2.Who can appoint a citizen to a vacant office, the president or the office holder? this is a complicated one

the Col section on deputies states that: If the election was
not contested, any citizen may be appointed

this leads to the question of what appointment means. the constitution says that :
4. The President will appoint a citizen to any Vacant
office

However the position of Deputy in an uncontested election is not a vacant position in my mind so If an election is uncontested then the power to appoint deputies is in the hands of the department head, furthermore the office holders appointment may still be challenged by a confirmation poll however, if there are no accepted nominations for a position , or a new province has been formed the president has the power to appoint someone to head the office and that the president has the power to appoint a deputy to a postition if that position is declared vacant during a term.

so to sum it up

1.A vacant office is defined in the code of laws and deputy in an uncontested election is not vacant.

2. The office holder may appoint a deputy of his/her own choice after an uncontested election, but not during a term, and the president is charged with appointing deputies declared vacant during a term.

-Office the Judge Advocate

I hope to rule on DG5JR19 later today

Do we have to go through the whole amendment process to change a minor error in the constitution? It would be annoying to have to wait at least five days just to change Fanatika to Japanatica in article L of the constitution (amazing that nobody noticed it until now).

Do we have to go through the whole amendment process to change a minor error in the constitution? It would be annoying to have to wait at least five days just to change Fanatika to Japanatica in article L of the constitution (amazing that nobody noticed it until now).

More amazing that positions have gone uncontested. I agree with TB here, it's just a minor change, do we really need all the paper stamping?

Small adjustments, without altering the contents of the Constitution, such as changing 'Fanatika' to 'Japanatica', doesn't have to follow standard amendment procedure, if you ask me. I think we can view these changes more or less as type-errors, instead of expressing something on purpose.

I suggest that if all judges agree, we can easily change this minor error, and that way stamp all the papers all at once.

While we're at it, I'd like to ask that the current [ code ] tags around the entire document be changed to the newly created [ pre ] tags. If my understanding is correct, the document will retain its current spacing, while removing that rather annoying scrolling box around it.

I see my attempts at rejustifying the defense have gone unanswered. While disappointed, I agree that the game must move on, I understand your reasoning.

On the matter of "Fanatika", I don't see any problem in changing an obvious typographical error.

JR rulings coming soon...

DG5JR19 Submitted by:Sir Donald III
Regarding Galley/Settler combonations.

It seems to me that although a galley carrying a settler is an obvious domestic issue(expansion), we must also remember that a galley is a Military unit, or rather a unit with attack and defense values. The settler, and all movements of the settler are under control of the Domestic ADvisor. All movement of the galley is the responsibility of the war ministry. Since the settler is not actually expending any movement, the actual responsibility for posting the galley movements fall to the War ministry.

While some may think that this infringes on the right of the Domestic minister to be "responsible for all domestic initiatives," the ruling on this case should make no difference. Because of Article J and Article O (Guaranteeing all actions by leaders follow the WOTP, including city settlement sites), if the people vote to found a city on a foreign continent or further up the coast of our own, it will be the domestic and war ministry's top priority to accomplish the WOTP.

I hope that the Domestic and War ministers will always work together to decide on the best route, and I suggest if they do not agree with each other to not be afraid to poll the house regarding the movement of a galley with a settler.
If the war minister refuses to supply a galley for settler transport, again use the tool of the poll to make sure the WOTP is clear.

Decision on DG5JR19: The responsibility for posting instructions regarding the movement of a galley, no matter what the cargo is, will be granted to the War ministry. The instructions must comply with the will of the people.

DG5JR20 Submitted by:The handsome, honorable, wise and charming KCCrusader :D

Although this case is already decided by the fellow justices, I shall speak for a moment.

My reasoning is posted above. Feel free to review it.

Decision on DG5JR20: President Chieftess was convicted under a trial constantly slanted towards accused, with no viable "Grace" period for the defense to post as required by the former judicial procedure. The results of the Trial poll should be thrown out a new trial should begin promptly.

May it Please the Court!

It usually takes the occurance of an injustice, or a imminent one, in order for thought to prevent the injustice occurs.

Such is the case with how the Procedures outline Sentencing polls. At this time, should an option in the sentencing poll gain a Plurality of votes, it takes effect. At this point, there is 1 vote separating "Impeachment" from "No Punishment" in the poll for CC1. 1 Vote separating two polar opposite factions... and as many votes for Impeachment as are for the two "Warning-Level" options combined.

Because I forsee a tragedy, whether "Impeachemnt" or "No Punishment" should prevail by plurailty but without Majority, I hereby advance this sugestion to alter Section 9, Subsection J "Sentencing Poll." Removed text in strikeout, added text in bold.

J. If the accused is found guilty through the Trial poll, a Sentencing poll is posted by the Judge Advocate.
1 The Sentencing poll will remain open for 48 hours, and have the following Options:
a. Recommended Moderator action - turned over to the Moderators.
b. Impeachment from Office (if applicable)
c. Final Warning (whether or not a prior warning has been given)
d. Warning
e. No Punishment
f. Abstain
2. If the guilty party has previously received a final warning for the current offence, the Judge Advocate will post that in the Sentencing poll narrative.
3. If the charge involved an abuse of powers by an Officer in any Branch, then the following procedure will be used:
a. If "Recommended Moderator Action" receives a Majority of votes, then that sentence takes effect.
b. Otherwise, the Sentence shall be the Median vote along this Spectrum: Impeachment, Final Warning, Warning, No Punishment.
4. If the charge involved a violation of Procedures or Laws or Forum Rules by a Citizen, then this procedure will be used:
a. If the Guilty Party is an Officer and Impeachment receives a Majority of votes, then that sentence takes effect.
b. Otherwise, the Sentence shall be the Median vote along this Spectrum: Recommended Moderator Action, Final Warning, Warning, No Punishment.
5. In the event the Sentencing poll ends in a tie the Median is between two options, the members of the Judiciary will determine the Sentence from the options nearest the Median by posting independent and clear Opinions at the end of the Sentencing poll.
6. The guilty party must abide by the results of the Sentencing poll.

If it is needed to add the definition of Median, the Justices may do so.

For odd-numbered vote totals, it is the option that holds the vote that is exactly (n+1)/2 from either extreme.

For even-numbered Totals, it is the option that is inbetween the two that are exactly n/2 away from the extremes. If these votes are not the same value, it then goes to the Justices.

I support all changes submitted by Sir Donald III, especially since an impeachment should never be possible with only a third of the vote.

Also, I feel we should add a quorum required to convict and sentence a citizen.

DG5JR21 Sumbitted by:MOTH
Regarding Vacancies

A vacant office shall be defined as any office in in which the officer has been declared absent by not posting in 2 consecutive turn chats.

Therefore, deputy positions in an uncontested election are not "Vacant offices." The elected official is granted the right to appoint a citizen to the deputy position. Since Deputies are recognized by the constitution, the appointment may be challenged in the standard way.

The president is still granted the right to fill and Vacant office, an office in which the elected official has been removed from office by force.

Opinion on DG5JR21: A vacant office is an office that is vacant due to the absence of a previously elected/appointed official. The president has the power to fill these positions. In an uncontested election, the deputy position is NOT a vacant position and therefore may be filled by the elected leader of the department. It would follow that the Chief Justice may appoint the Public Defender or Judge Advocate should no one run, and the President may appoint the VP should no one run. If no one runs for a standard position(advisor/chief justice) the president may appoint an official.

I support all changes submitted by Sir Donald III, especially since an impeachment should never be possible with only a third of the vote.

Also, I feel we should add a quorum required to convict and sentence a citizen.

And this of course would be a true sign of a Kangaroo Kourt. "Let's change the rules after the game has started! That way we're sure to win! Won't that be fun?"

CJ gert-janl posted above that this sort of thing wouldn't happen. I can't believe that this court would even consider a low-life move like that. You ALL just approved these rules. Now because they don't suit your immediate needs in punishing someone, you're considering changes to the rules mid-process. Don't you see? It's not the point that your want of changing the rules is to make you look more humanitarian. What if you wanted to change the rules so you could go the other way? Would you allow that too? "Say, according to the Court Procedures, we can only give this person a warning or less, let's change the Court Procedures mid-process so we can really nail this person." I doubt you would, so why would you allow the court to degrade itself by changing the rules mid-process at all? Are you some kind of Savior? Or are you a Judiciary that follows procedure?

As Cyc outlines in his statement above, we can't change the Judicial Code while in the middle of a trial. When this trial is closed we may get back to this issue, but altering it now would not be fair for any citizen, including the accused. I therefore postpone this discussion to held later. We are using the current Judicial Code.

Ruling DG5JR#19

The movement of a settler cannot be included in the instruction of a Defense Minister, as the constitution prescribes in article D.3 that the minister of defense is responsible for all military strategy and troop activities. A settler cannot qualify for that.

A galley on the other hand cannot be regarded as a ‘domestic initiative’, nor worker allocation, as prescribed by article D.1.

In my opinion this is a clear example where the Japanatican officials should cooperate closely. The settlers falls under a domestic initiative, hence under the Domestic Minister, while the galley can be regarded as a ‘troop activity’, hence as the responsibility of the Defense Minister. In this situation, the domestic official should approach the defense minister in the government thread, or any other method, to deliberate about the naval transport of the settler.
So, according to the constitution, the settler remains under the responsibility of the Domestic Minister, while the galley still falls under the responsibility of the Defense Minister.

Ruling DG5JR#21

The Japanatican Code of Laws article G.3, clearly explains when an officle is called vacant:

"Should an official fail to post instructions for 2 consecutive turn chats without prior notice, the judiciary may declare that office vacant."

However, Governor MOTH seems to be looking from a different point of view, and refers to the after-election period, when there is not deputy.
First of all, the deputy falls under the same office as his minister. That means that when a minister/governor occupies an office the office is not vacant and a deputy position can only be referred to as ‘office’ when the official is absent.

Article G.2 however, demands that every official shall have a deputy. So, although the lack of a deputy cannot be called a vacant office, it requires to be filled.

To fill an vacancy of a deputy position, CoL section G.1 requires an appointment, if elections don’t provide a deputy. This article also gives the authority of an office holder to appoint a deputy:

(Note that the text between the brackets is my own, but it reflects the previous sentences.)

"[if the elections don’t provide the office-holder with a deputy] the office-holder may seek any citizen for the position"

As Cyc outlines in his statement above, we can't change the Judicial Code while in the middle of a trial. When this trial is closed we may get back to this issue, but altering it now would not be fair for any citizen, including the accused. I therefore postpone this discussion to held later. We are using the current Judicial Code.
but would the effect of the changes alter CT's punishment?
or would it have to stay because that happened before it was changed?

Yes, we'll be using this Judicial Code, as all judges agreed to use this Judicial Code. It's irrelevant to consider whether changes in the Code alter CT's punishment.
Only when this case is closed, and we know, by experience, to point some flaws in this Code, we may change it.

As is stated by the honerable CJ Gert-Janl a settler cannot be included in the instructions of the defense minister and a galley is not a domestic minister. But I believe that the military minister should have full control of galleys. Therefore, control of galleys regardless of their cargo goes to the military minister.
-mhcarver

I've got a different suggestion for the sentencing options - one that's a bit more consistent and (personal opinion) fair.

J. If the accused is found guilty through the Trial poll, a Sentencing poll
is posted by the Judge Advocate.
1 The Sentencing poll will remain open for 48 hours, and have the following Options:
a. Recommended Moderator action - turned over to the Moderators.
b. Impeachment from Office (if applicable)
c. Final Warning (whether or not a prior warning has been given)
d. Warning
e. No Punishment
f. Abstain
2. If the guilty party has previously received a final warning for the current offence,
the Judge Advocate will post that in the Sentencing poll narrative.
3. The options should be arranged in order from most severe to least, and listed above
in J.1
4. A vote for an option is consider approval of that option, and all less severe options.
5. The sentence will be the most severe option that a majority of voters approve of.
Example: Option A has 8 votes, Option B has 4 votes, Option C has 9 votes,
Option D has 10 votes and Option E has 1 vote, for a total of 32 votes.
Option A is approved by 8 voters, B by 12 voters (8+4), C by 21 voters
(8+4+9), D by 31 (8+4+9+10) and E by 32 voters (8+4+9+10+1). The
sentence chosen is C, as it is the most severe sentence that a majority
of citizens approve of.
6. The guilty party must abide by the results of the Sentencing poll.


This system allows citizens to vote for their preference, for the most severe sentence they approve of, without fearing that they are "throwing their vote away". For example, if 2 options have 9 votes each, and they prefer a more severe option (which has no votes) that those two option, there would be a feeling of a wasted vote. Under this system, no vote is wasted, and the collective will of the people is determined.

-- Ravensfire

The only problem I see with your suggestion, Ravensfire, is at the top. There are some times I feel that Impeachment from office would be an improper Sentence, while "Moderator Action" would be perfectly Reasonable. And vice versa. The former usually deals with breaking a rule as a Citizen (i.e. posting in an Investigation thread before the PD or the accussed) while the latter would be abuses of power (i.e. altering a build queue w/o permission.) And there may be the rare instance when both Impeachment and Mod action are appropriate.

Now, if I think that for an offence where an Officer violated procedures in a way that is not an abuse of power, and that I think that Mod action is needed, but not a full impeachemnt, then I would have to debate as to whether to impeach a guy for a Citizen's Mistake, or else let someone off with a Warning when I feel that the Mods need to sanction that person as well...

Of course, we can also have all Elected Officials per term take an "Oath of Office" which would include a promise to do their best to follow and enforce all laws of Japanatica. Then, if there's an action severe enough to warrent Mod Action, I can also rest easy in impeaching that person as he/she violated an Oath of Office.

And this of course would be a true sign of a Kangaroo Kourt. "Let's change the rules after the game has started! That way we're sure to win! Won't that be fun?"


The current procedures give no indication as to HOW a sentencing poll passes. Plurality? Majority? Unanimity?

If you think this court could let an impeachment (or even a no punishment) stand with only 1/3 of the citizens supporting it, think again.

Well, Sir KCCrusader. YOUR approved procedures state the defendant must comply with the results of the poll. YOU can bend and twist the rules of the court if you want, but that would be the same as one of the defendant's fellow Mods coming in to stop the Court action through Moderatoe Action. Totally unfair. As precedence, take any other poll that does not have specific parameters attached to it, or is declared a preliminary poll. When you look at the "results" of the poll, can you enter in your personal feelings in interpreting the winner of the poll? If there is a clear winner, meaning one option received more votes than another, then NO, you can't. In a crooked game with crooked rules, you could say "Well, this option won, but I feel we need to change the winning option to this, as my judgement is better than yours". I know you don't have any difficulty reading, but you spend way too much time determining the facts. You must be smoking some good stuff.

Go ahead and make your claim, that you are above the rules. It will probably be a futile move any way. You're just going to make yourself look bad.

I must oppose the ratification of this courts procedures, it is lacking, and needs SEVERE changes. It does not say what shall happen if a Judicial member is CC, and fails and several other major points, also.

The Court Procedures shows a severe lack of thinking, and I must request that the Judicial correct the many mistakes. I will have a summary of many soon.

This Judical office is a bunch of cowards who dare to insult CT!

JackA - warned. Stop being personal and insulting people. Final warning - Rik

JackA - contempt of court.

1. The Judiciary is comprised of three members, the Chief Justice, the Public Defender, and the Judge Advocate.
It says this inside of our constitution, no need to repeat ourselves.

2. All members of the Judiciary shall share certain rights and responsibilities.
A. Discuss the Court Procedures, as composed by the Chief Justice, in a most constructive way, and ratify when reaching consensus.
B. Post polls and discussions on interpretations of the Constitution, and any lower laws.
C. Do not have Deputies, but may appoint Pro-Tem officials (Pro-Tem CJ, Pro-Tem PD, and Pro-Tem JA) if they are unable to fulfil their duties. Pro-Tem officials have all the rights and responsibilities of the officials they are filling in for, but are a temporary position, and must surrender their pro-tem status upon the request of the official. The pro-tem status may be given for individual assignments or for the entirety of the official (this must be declared).
D. Initiate and participate in Judicial Review to determine the legality of proposed Constitutional Amendments and any other form of lower law. Any citizen may request a JR for this purpose.
E. Initiate and participate in Judicial Review to interpret and clarify existing Constitutional Articles and any other form of lower law. Any citizen may request a JR for this purpose.
F. Initiate and participate in Judicial Review to examine whether or not all investigations should be considered as having "No Merit".
G. Post Legislative polls that have passed Judicial Review.

This should not be here, you need to push for the duties of the Justices to be solidified into the constitution. I would also recommend fighting for the right to have a deputy for two main reasons:

1) If a Justice goes missing
2) If a Justice is the one being CCed

However, I do not believe that a Justice should be aloud to choose there own deputies. Maybe make say the Chief Justice choose the Judge Advocates deputy, the Judge Advocate choose the Public Defenders deputy, and the Public Defender choose the Chief Justices deputy. There are many possible ways, I'm sure you can think of something.

3. The Chief Justice ~
A. Perform as needed in the positions of Public Defender and Judge Advocate in the absence of either official. This duty shall only apply if said officials have not appointed a Pro-Tem official.
B. Is responsible for posting the current Active Census in the Judicial thread at the beginning of the Term.
C. Is responsible for updating and maintaining the Judicial Log.
D. Is responsible for monitoring investigation threads to keep them on topic and procedurally accurate.
E. If the situation arises where the actions of a Leader (Advisor) of a Department fall within the parameters of being absent from a position, as set forth by CoL Section G.3, the Chief Justice may declare said Office vacant.

One person SHOULD NOT beable to possibly act as the whole judiciary. Everything else, is okay.

4. Public Defender ~
A. Is tasked with ensuring all Citizens’ Complaint investigations are performed correctly, with deference to the presumed innocence of the accused.
B. Will ensure that the accused understands the charges brought against them and what rules were purportedly broken so the accused can mount an effective defence.
C. Will perform as defender, unless the accused wishes otherwise.

It's okay, seems lacking, give me a few hours and I'll think of something that should be added or changed.

5. Judge Advocate
A. Is tasked with the mechanics of Citizen's Complaint investigations and trial.
B. Will open and close discussions and polls as appropriate to the trial.
C. Will perform as Prosecutor (gather and present evidence) for any anonymous accusers.

I do not believe the Judge Advocate should be tasked with these duties, see my thread in the Citizens forum over Article F. A link to the discussion is here (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=101326).

All Judicial Review and Investigations will be held publicly. Public communication between the Justices will be posted in the Judicial thread or the Investigation threads.

So short, you can't really go wrong on this one.

7 Judicial Review.
A.quorum requires the attendance of all three members of the Judiciary.
B. Review of proposed legislation.
1. Any member of the House may present proposed legislation to the Judiciary after following procedure for proposing amendments and laws.
2. The request will be included in the Court’s Docket
3. 2 of 3 Justices must agree that the amendment or law does not conflict with existing rules.
4. If a proposal is rejected due to conflict(s), it is returned to the house with detail of the conflict(s) noted. This proposal may then be edited and resubmitted for Review.
5. If the proposal is approved through Judicial Review, it is posted as a ratification poll by a member of the Judiciary.
C. Interpretation and clarification of existing Law.
1. Any member of the house may request a Judicial Review for interpretation or clarification of an existing Law. The existing Law must be clearly stated in the request.
2. The request will be included in the Court’s Docket
3. 2 of 3 Justices must agree on the interpretation or clarification, forming a Majority Opinion.
4. The interpretation/clarification is then entered into the Judicial Log for reference.
D. Dismissal of Investigations deemed as having "No Merit".
1. 3 of 3 Justices must agree that the accusation shows "No Merit".
2. Specific reasoning must be given by each Justice for a judgement of "No Merit".

Lacks in any information or data on how a judicial review, or an investigation, over the fairness of a trial should be held. The only thing it handles is the clearification of the constitution. Oh, sure Section 10 says alittle bit about it, but does not define how it should be handled.

8. Citizens Complain ~
A. If any citizen believes that someone has violated an Article of the Constitution or any other lower form of law, they can report this suspected violation for investigation and trial.
1. The allegation can be posted in the Judicial thread.
2. The allegation can be made privately to the Chief Justice via Private Message.
B. Allegations of misconduct must include:
1. Name of the defendant.
2. The Article(s) or lower Law(s) suspected of being violated.
3. When and where the suspected violation(s) occurred.
C. The Citizen's Complaint will be included in the Court’s Docket
D. The Judge Advocate notifies the Public Defender and the accused of the charge(s).
E. A brief Judicial Review of the charge(s) is done (see 7.D above) to determine if the charges have "No Merit".
F. If the charge(s) are found to have "Merit", the Judge Advocate opens an Investigation thread detailing the alleged violation(s).
1. The first two replies to this thread are reserved for the Public Defender and the accused to respond publicly to the charge(s) (Defence). Either may post first, and both may say what they wish (within forum rules). If their replies/responses have not been posted within 24 hours of the thread's posting, they lose these reserved spots and anyone can post.
G. Citizens can post in this thread their opinions on the charge(s), whether they think the accused is guilty of the infraction or not, and if the case should go to Trial.
H. If the accused pleads guilty, the Trial is skipped and the case moves to the Sentencing Process. The Chief Justice may close the Investigation thread early if this occurs.
I. When discussion has petered out and at least 48 hours have passed, the Judge Advocate will post a Trial poll.
1. If the results of the Investigation (defined as input in the Investigation thread) thread are overwhelmingly in favour of the Defendant, the Judge Advocate will submit the case for a brief Judicial Review to determine if the case has "No Merit". If the case is then viewed as having "No Merit" the case is closed.
2. The Trial poll will have the Options of Guilty, Innocent, and Abstain and will remain open for 48 hours.
3. In the event the Trial poll ends in a tie, the members of the Judiciary will determine if the defendant is innocent or guilty by posting independent and clear Opinions at the end of the Trial poll.
J. If the accused is found guilty through the Trial poll, a Sentencing poll is posted by the Judge Advocate.
1 The Sentencing poll will remain open for 48 hours, and have the following Options:
a. Recommended Moderator action - turned over to the Moderators.
b. Impeachment from Office (if applicable)
c. Final Warning (whether or not a prior warning has been given)
d. Warning
e. No Punishment
f. Abstain
2. If the guilty party has previously received a final warning for the current offence, the Judge Advocate will post that in the Sentencing poll narrative.
3. In the event the Sentencing poll ends in a tie, the members of the Judiciary will determine the Sentence by posting independent and clear Opinions at the end of the Sentencing poll.
4. The guilty party must abide by the results of the Sentencing poll.

A1 and A2 can be combined, and should be combined.

Section F1 instead of being handled publicly, needs to be done in private. Both the defense and prosecution submit a PM to the Judge Advocate, stating there case. They are then added into the thread, which is opened to the public, and the defense and prosecution is also allowed to reply to eachothers cases.

Section I There should be no time limit on an investigation, it should just simply state "48 hours after the discussion has petered out, the Judge Advocate will post a Trial Poll."

Cyc, as the voting stands now (IMpeach:10,FW:3,Warning:9,No Punishment:12) would you be comfortable giving CT No Punishment?

I would not. I'm not putting personal feelings into this topic. Im just stating an obvious fact that 34% of the population should not get to choose the appropriate action. The meaning of democracy insinuates a majority. 34% is not a majority. There is a statistical 3 way tie right now.

I am saying that as the vote stands RIGHT NOW (could change) I support splitting the difference of severity and issuing a warning. Right now there is very little chance I would support either extreme (Impeach or nothing).

Cyc, as the voting stands now (IMpeach:10,FW:3,Warning:9,No Punishment:12) would you be comfortable giving CT No Punishment?

As I stated in my last post, "It will probably be a futile move any way." At the time I wrote that it appeared my choice for a sentance would not win in the poll. And that is why I wrote that. You people want to pull a move that should only come from a Dictatorship or some other lobby-controlled type Judiciary and change the rule mid-stream. That's your choice. Make yourself look like Darth Vader.

What I wrote means that you may not need to do this, as "Warning" or "No Punishment" may win the poll, and you may be humiliating the Court for no reason.

So the poll result I wanted doesn't win. So what? It's what the people choose. Just because the option I chose doesn't win, doesn't mean I should cheat. That's what this CC is all about. Or have we lost sight of that? :rolleyes:

The court reckonises the need for reviewing its procedures concerning CCs. We'll start this discussion as soon as CC#1 is closed. So Strider, we'll get back to you.

Cyc: noone is cheating, not now, and definitely not in the future. Let's wait the final results of the sentencing poll, before already insulting this Judiciary.
Order! :hammer:

The court reckonises the need for reviewing its procedures concerning CCs. We'll start this discussion as soon as CC#1 is closed. So Strider, we'll get back to you.

Cyc: noone is cheating, not now, and definitely not in the future. Let's wait the final results of the sentencing poll, before already insulting this Judiciary.
Order! :hammer:
Mr CJ:
Could you please clarify whether we are using the poll winner or a median/math formula to figure out the poll winner?

Thanks for your time

The Court will announce its interpretation of the poll results after the poll is closed. I understand that people already want to know how to read the poll results, but in the interest of the rights of the accused ánd the well-being of our Mods we won't publish it yet.

Jury's Verdict DG5CC#1
President Chieftess has been found guilty by the Japanatican people for violating article D of the constitution.

More specificially, she is has been found guilty, during the Sept. 26, 2004 Turn 170 A.D. Turn Chat, of violating legally posted orders of the Province of Zarnia's Deputy Governor RegentMan. The President, according to the people, set the city of Zojoji to build a swordsman, rather than the stated instruction to build a colosseum.

CJ's Verdict DG5CC#1

The people have judged that the accused has not followed an legal instruction. This is a violation of article D of the constitution. Violating the constitution should never be unpunished. In the light of upholding the Constitution, a task of the Judiciary, as provided in article F, the CJ dismisses the sentence ‘no punishment’.

During the tense discussion of the jury, several speakers rose the point of possible conspiracies, or the possibility of the accused to follow her own agenda, without taking guidance of her officials, a condition set by Constitutional article D.
The CJ will not take into account any crimes committed by any ‘ancestors’ of the accused and henceforth dismisses the crime of either a conspiracy, either a hidden agenda, due to a lack of evidence.

The CJ takes note of several citizens suggesting how to interpret sentencing poll results. We have seen most of all references to a system used for CCs/PIs in DG3. A good summary is made by ravensfire (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=2229905&postcount=42) & Donovan Zoi (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=2229112&postcount=27), in the judicial discussions. This system results in a ‘Warning’ for this CC.

Considering that ‘no-punishment’ is too light for a crime against the Constitution, and ‘impeachment from office’ too severe for a first time crime, and taking note of the DG3 interpretation of sentencing polls system, the CJ comes to the conclusion that a ‘Warning’ is an appropriate sentence for the accused.

Jury's Verdict DG5CC#1
President Chieftess has been found guilty by the Japanatican people for violating article D of the constitution.

More specificially, she is has been found guilty, during the Sept. 26, 2004 Turn 170 A.D. Turn Chat, of violating legally posted orders of the Province of Zarnia's Deputy Governor RegentMan. The President, according to the people, set the city of Zojoji to build a swordsman, rather than the stated instruction to build a colosseum.

CJ's Verdict DG5CC#1

The people have judged that the accused has not followed an legal instruction. This is a violation of article D of the constitution. Violating the constitution should never be unpunished. In the light of upholding the Constitution, a task of the Judiciary, as provided in article F, the CJ dismisses the sentence ‘no punishment’.

During the tense discussion of the jury, several speakers rose the point of possible conspiracies, or the possibility of the accused to follow her own agenda, without taking guidance of her officials, a condition set by Constitutional article D.
The CJ will not take into account any crimes committed by any ‘ancestors’ of the accused and henceforth dismisses the crime of either a conspiracy, either a hidden agenda, due to a lack of evidence.

The CJ takes note of several citizens suggesting how to interpret sentencing poll results. We have seen most of all references to a system used for CCs/PIs in DG3. A good summary is made by ravensfire (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=2229905&postcount=42) & Donovan Zoi (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=2229112&postcount=27), in the judicial discussions. This system results in a ‘Warning’ for this CC.

Considering that ‘no-punishment’ is too light for a crime against the Constitution, and ‘impeachment from office’ too severe for a first time crime, and taking note of the DG3 interpretation of sentencing polls system, the CJ comes to the conclusion that a ‘Warning’ is an appropriate sentence for the accused.

i would like to correct you in that she broke article d, but actually she broke article D twice, first by not following the deputies prefferred winner of the poll(and it tied), not giving the culture minister opputrtuninty to break the tie, and then finally switching from a colloseum to swordsman

just wanted to make sure you knew the entire picture :)

Whatever happened, what you are stating now is not included in the official accusation, as formulated by former JA Octavian X (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=2217445&postcount=1).
The trial poll was only about these charges, and the jury found the accused guilty of these charges.

Therefore these extra charges were not taken into consideration when determining the punishment.

Anticipation

an·tic·i·pa·tion [ an tìssi páysh’n ]

noun

1. expectant waiting: the feeling of looking forward, usually excitedly or eagerly, to something that is going to happen.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

8.J.3 ~ In the event the Sentencing poll ends in a tie, the members of the Judiciary will determine the Sentence by posting independent and clear Opinions at the end of the Sentencing poll.

with a three way tie I am forced to decide between three options

No Punishment-sorry, this is to little in my mind

Impeachment--I do not believe their was enough support for this, and that the punishment may not fit the crime , this is to much and will cause to much uproar

Warning--This is in my mind the best option, as it condemns the president for her actions and doesn't let her get off

Therefore I rule that the President Chieftess will receive a warning. Though the Public Defender has not ruled this brings the matter of People V Chieftess to close. this has been a trying time for all of us as tempers have flared high, lets cool down, People of Japanatica, let us be countrymen again. :beer:

-Mhcarver
Office of the Judge Advocate

Actually, nothing has been ruled yet, as according to Court Procedure 8.J.3 ...

"...the members of the Judiciary will determine the Sentence by posting independent and clear Opinions at the end of the Sentencing poll."

Niether of the Opinions posted by the two Justices has been posted at the end of the Sentancing Poll. Without that, according to Court Procedure, the above is just discussion. :)

Whatever happened, what you are stating now is not included in the official accusation, as formulated by former JA Octavian X (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=2217445&postcount=1).
The trial poll was only about these charges, and the jury found the accused guilty of these charges.

Therefore these extra charges were not taken into consideration when determining the punishment.
*sigh*
it was in my offical accusation post, but owell....

DG5CC1

Despite my personal feelings toward the situation, I don't feel it would be right to issue no punishment on this case. The people have decided that CT is guilty, and that must stand. Also, this is on the farthest end of the spectrum regarding punishments

However, since there are Three options that tied, that gives me three options to choose from.

Impeachment is on the other end of the spectrum of choices.

With not enough support for either extreme ideas, I am forced to rule from the middle. Chieftess should recieve a warning as a result of the tied sentencing poll.

Opinion on DG5CC1: Chieftess should recieve a warning for her actions.

So that makes all three Justices that have not abided by this Court's Procedures. As a Citizen, I'm asking this Court when you will bring closure to the Citizen's Complaint DG5CC1. You say you want to end the process, but you intentionally drag out the finishing touch.

To the members of the Court,

To make it clear, the procedures you have stated you are following require you to post your findings on the sentence in the sentencing poll.

Please copy your findings to that thread and make the sentence official.

Thanks,
-- Ravensfire

:blush: Cyc slaps himself in the forehead...

You mean that we could probably be done with this CC now, had I put the word thread on the end of that sentance? :cringe: I guess that's my bad.

Now that every judge has posted its opinion, the opinion will also be placed in the official sentence poll.

Hereby the Court declares this case closed.
:hammer:

EDIT: unfortunately the sentence poll is closed by the mods. Seeing that posting in the sentence poll is only a mere formality, the Court decides that a post in the Judicial thread is enough to formally close it

Once again, this case is now closed

I PMd Moderator Rik Meleet. He should either be able to open the thread long enough for both of your posts to be copied to the end of the Sentancing Poll thread or maybe he can just transfer them for you. :)

may it pleas the court to find out what the WOTP actually means. Does the WOTP mean that the option that has the highest percentage, even though it is less that 50%+1? Does that mean that the WOTP include those options that are above as part of the majority? An example of this is when you got some choice from an affirmative answer that includes many options, but because they are split over that choice and that mean that even though the affirmative has more votes than the negative, and yet out of all the single options, the negative has the most votes. What can be done in that situation? I think that we need to upgrade our laws so that the WOTP is better handled.

Regards, your Trade Deputy, acting in his role as a citizen, Classical Hero.

I PMd Moderator Rik Meleet. He should either be able to open the thread long enough for both of your posts to be copied to the end of the Sentancing Poll thread or maybe he can just transfer them for you. :)

The thread is currently open with a very clear warning at the beginning.

Thank you, eyrei. The ex-CJ appreciates your action. I would also like to thank Rik Meleet for his work in this.

may it pleas the court to find out what the WOTP actually means. Does the WOTP mean that the option that has the highest percentage, even though it is less that 50%+1? Does that mean that the WOTP include those options that are above as part of the majority? An example of this is when you got some choice from an affirmative answer that includes many options, but because they are split over that choice and that mean that even though the affirmative has more votes than the negative, and yet out of all the single options, the negative has the most votes. What can be done in that situation? I think that we need to upgrade our laws so that the WOTP is better handled.

Regards, your Trade Deputy, acting in his role as a citizen, Classical Hero.

The will of the people means the will of the people. Period.

No mathematical problems have to pop when determining the will of the people. If you, as a leader, want to post a poll, it's up to you to interpret the results. So if there are 3 yes options all with 5 votes (so basically 15 supporters) and 1 no option with 10 votes, my logic says that the supporters won. But once again, that's only poll interpretation.

I must warn though, that in the light of any possible future CCs, the minister interprets the poll, instead of only posting the results in the Turnchat thread, and leaving the President basically without guiding.

So in my opinion the WOTP doesn't have to be better handled by law. It's up to the official to determine this 'will'. This can be based on both the polls and the discussion. As long as you post a clear instruction in the Turnchat thread!

note that this is not a judicial review. It has not been included in the docket, and the above can be read as the opinion of myself as a citizen. If this is not enough, please consider requesting a judicial review.

This is a perfect example of a question regarding a certain piece of law, where no official JR procedure have to be followed. I also encourage citizens to approach the Court without hesistation if there are any question about our law.

The will of the people means the will of the people. Period.

No mathematical problems have to pop when determining the will of the people. If you, as a leader, want to post a poll, it's up to you to interpret the results. So if there are 3 yes options all with 5 votes (so basically 15 supporters) and 1 no option with 10 votes, my logic says that the supporters won. But once again, that's only poll interpretation.

I must warn though, that in the light of any possible future CCs, the minister interprets the poll, instead of only posting the results in the Turnchat thread, and leaving the President basically without guiding.

So in my opinion the WOTP doesn't have to be better handled by law. It's up to the official to determine this 'will'. This can be based on both the polls and the discussion. As long as you post a clear instruction in the Turnchat thread!

note that this is not a judicial review. It has not been included in the docket, and the above can be read as the opinion of myself as a citizen. If this is not enough, please consider requesting a judicial review.

This is a perfect example of a question regarding a certain piece of law, where no official JR procedure have to be followed. I also encourage citizens to approach the Court without hesistation if there are any question about our law.
According to this then, it becomes the Will Of The Minister(WOTM) then. Isn't the job of the poll to find out what the WOTP is? If the poll is only about the options that tie, then maybe we could repoll with only those options there to remove. But this would push back the TC so that is not an option. I would push for preferencial voting, to solve this issue. This would require a change in the Constituion to make it possible.

I will go back to the last CC as a case in point. Because of the three-way tie there were three possible options that the minister (in this case, the Justices,) could chose from. This could have been very differet because as I was the las voter on the poll, I had alot more power given to me than any citizen should ever have. Fortunately, my vote made it a three-way tie, rather than a two-way tie, with the option being impeachmen or no punishment. Had I chose to go with impeachment, then that would have created a constiutional crisis because it was made clear by a fellow moderator that he would not accept that option since it was not the main consensus. Had I chosen to vote no punishment, then despite of the majority deciding that punishment was best, then the WOTP would not have been followed, but these are the rules in the constiution. Since I was a voice of reason and voted for a warning, which does seem to be the opinion of the Justices. This is my fear that if the poll are always close, then it will turn out to be the WOTM, and not the WOTP. What would have happened if the vote went for impeachment and yet this was not accepted?

I will not go in detail about possible other outcomes of the poll. I am happy this is settled like this, and I hope other cases will be less tense than this one.

I don't agree with your suggestions about WOTP/WOTM. I believe in a system where the minister is chosen in the first place. Thus, he has a mandate from the citizens to act with a certain freedom. If the official deems it necessary, he polls certain important questions among the citizens.
If the WOTP is not followed properly, the official will have problems being re-elected. That way the WOTP is settled.

EDIT: If more citizens want to have a discussion I suggest to move the discussion to the 'citizens sub-forum'. I am a supporter of a discussion about the interpretation of the WOTP, but preferably not in my office ;). I want to thank classical hero for starting this discussion.

The point with voting is that you are not supposed to look at the results before you vote. Therefore, assuming everyone would have voted the same way, the order of voters makes no difference and everyone's vote counts equally. If someone votes just to make the poll weird rather than their true feelings it's only their disadvantage.

I also agree that since the ministers/judges are elected they are given a mandate that allows them to ...basically... do as they please. If it obviously goes against the wotp (a poll or such) then it can be dealt with immediately (see CT's case for instance). If The WOTP is gradually and less obviously violated, it will be reflected in the next election.

The point with voting is that you are not supposed to look at the results before you vote. Therefore, assuming everyone would have voted the same way, the order of voters makes no difference and everyone's vote counts equally. If someone votes just to make the poll weird rather than their true feelings it's only their disadvantage.

I also agree that since the ministers/judges are elected they are given a mandate that allows them to ...basically... do as they please. If it obviously goes against the wotp (a poll or such) then it can be dealt with immediately (see CT's case for instance). If The WOTP is gradually and less obviously violated, it will be reflected in the next election.
I didn't look at the vote before I voted. I voted for a warning because that is what I thought was the suitable punishment. Often the option I have vote for has been the least popular option.

Edit. I will put all the relevant quotes on the citizen forum to have a better discussion.

I would like the Judicary to have a look at the census. According to the first post, there should only be 32 people in this Demogame. But if you look at the CC poll for the punishment of the President, 43 people voted. How is this possible? Is the census wrong, or did more people who are not citizens of Japanatica voted? Can you please clear up this for me.

Regards, Classical_Hero, Trade Deputy.

Article I. Census, and Amending the Constitution

1. The census shall be defined as the average number
of votes cast, dropping fractions, in each of the
contested elections in the most recent general
election.



As you can see, the census is not necessarily the total number of people in the Demogame. Not all citizens voted in all the elections, thus the technical census number may not actually be the true number of citizens participating. Add in the fact that the CC against Chieftess was a hotly debated issue, and you're guarenteed to have a large turnout of voters-- even larger than the turnout on election day. Don't worry, there wasn't any voter rigging, just mathematical silliness.

As you can see, the census is not necessarily the total number of people in the Demogame. Not all citizens voted in all the elections, thus the technical census number may not actually be the true number of citizens participating. Add in the fact that the CC against Chieftess was a hotly debated issue, and you're guarenteed to have a large turnout of voters-- even larger than the turnout on election day. Don't worry, there wasn't any voter rigging, just mathematical silliness.
Thanks for clarifying that up Ash.

A very clear explanation Ashburnham, I thank you.

One further point: this census will be used when amending the constitution or the code of laws. Then we need at least the number of the Census to make the amendment legal. That's to prevent from only 5 citizens amending the whole constitution.

If there is anything else you, or other citizens want to see clarified, don't hesitate to ask!

Sorry, I didn't mean YOU did it. I was just making a point that no one had more voting power than anyone else, since it didnt matter when you voted so long as you voted for what YOu personally wanted.


I didn't look at the vote before I voted. I voted for a warning because that is what I thought was the suitable punishment. Often the option I have vote for has been the least popular option.

Edit. I will put all the relevant quotes on the citizen forum to have a better discussion.

This came to my attention after reding blackheart's comment on this poll. 101775. Here is what he had to say. I am satisfied with the MSAV's work but there is always room for improvement. We need a rapid response system and a system to upgrade our units. here is my responce to that comment. Upgrading units is Domestics Job. But could that be part of Defence's job?
Domesitic has control over finances, according this from the constitution, article D section 1. The Minister of Domestic Affairs shall be.... ,as well as the distribution of funds, as prescribed by law. Whereas Defence has control over troops, according to the constitution article D section 3. The Minister of Defense shall be responsible for all military strategy and troop activities, as prescribed by law. I would think that as part of the military strategy, ungrading would be part of that strategy.

I would therefore like to request a Judical review on who has the powers over upgrades.

I dont think upgrades should count as "troop activities"
Thus i believe domestic still has that power

I dont think upgrades should count as "troop activities"
Thus i believe domestic still has that power
The problem that I have seen is that many people have been asking this in military thread as to why there has been no upgrading. I really want a clarification of this issue. It could be classified as "troop activities" because if you do not have a modern enough army, then wars that are waged are less likely to in our favour and it is an issue regarding troops.

classical_hero has requested a Judicial Review, concerning article D of the Constitution. He wants to know which official does have the authority over military upgrades.

He refers to article D.1/D.3 of the Japanatican Constitution:
D.1 The Minister of Domestic Affairs shall be responsible for all
domestic initiatives, worker allocation, as well as the distribution
of funds, as prescribed by law.
...
D.3 The Minister of Defense shall be responsible for all military
strategy and troop activities, as prescribed by law.

The Court decides that this Judicial Review has merit, and marks this Judicial Review as DG5JR22.

I think it should be Domestics job to decide if we are going to upgrade units, and how much we should spend on it. It should be military's job to decide what units are upgraded, and where they are upgraded.

CJ's Ruling DG5JR22

The Constitution isn't very clear about what official has the authority over troop upgrades. But the Constitution is very clear about which official has the authority over the distribution of funds. (namely the domestic minister, as stated in D.1)
So it's constitutionally impossible to let the defense minister decide over upgrades, as they require (lots of) money.
Hence it's the domestic minister who has the authority over troop upgrades.

However, the Minister of Defense remains responsible for the military strategy/state of the military. In order to keep up the strategy and to modernise the National Army, the Minister of Defense is obligated by article D.3 to file requests of upgrades.

So basically, the Minster of Defense should determine if troop upgrades are required, and then file an upgrade-request with the Minister of Domestic Affairs (this can be done preferably via the government forum). The latter will decide whether or not the upgrade will take place.

DG5JR22 Submitted by:classical_hero
Regarding Upgrades

Since the Military minister is in charge of all military and strategic objective, as stated by the constitution, he shall have a say in the upgrade process as it pertains to strategy.

Since the Domestic Minister is in charge of all distribution of funds, he shall have a say in the up grade process as it pertains to gold.

In order to satisfy both of these needs, it is necissary to separate the responsibility of upgrading.

Opinion on DG5JR22: The Military minister shall be in charge of suggesting when upgrades are necissary, which units should be upgraded and what barracks will perform the actions.

The Domestic Minister shall be in charge of allocating appropriate funds for the upgrades. The Domestic minister may allocate none, all or some of the upgrading money requested by the Military advisor.

First a few things that are absolute:
The military Minister is in charge of all military troops and objective

The Domestic Minister is in charge of the distribution of funds.


The upgrading of troops is the distribution of funds and therefore control over troop upgrades goes to the Domestic Minister . The Domestic Minister may accept or deny requests by the Military Minister for upgrades but may not upgrade troops if the Military Minister has not requested it.

I have a quick question about constitutional authority. Do I, as the Interim Culture Minister, have the authority to override the building instructions posted by governors.

Specifically, can I interrupt production of something already being built and order a Wonder to be built instead?


Thank you.

I have a quick question about constitutional authority. Do I, as the Interim Culture Minister, have the authority to override the building instructions posted by governors.

Specifically, can I interrupt production of something already being built and order a Wonder to be built instead?


Thank you.
note this is not an official ruling
In my opinion(I invite the other justices to disagree) you can post instructions that interrupt production to build a wonder but only if it is the Will of the People. IE if you post a poll that approves building a wonder in a city they you may post those instructioms

Ashburnham, you raise a very good point and I'd love to give my opinion about this issue. (this could have been a JR, don't hesistate to file them in the future if you need clarification!)

Since this is not a Judicial Review, this is not an official ruling, but only my opinion as a citizen posting coincidentally in the Judicial thread.

I disagree with my fellow judge (as he invited me to ;) ) in saying that a minister have the authority to override governor's instructions.
First of all the Constitution is not very clear about the hierarchy of officials. Therefore I allow myself to conclude that when posting instructions every instruction has the same weight, and all need to be followed by the DP. Posting contradicting instructions would therefore be confusing to the DP, as the DP needs to determine what instruction has more citizen support, while that's exactly what the officials have to do!
Having concluded that I want to refer to article E.2.b. which states the following:
Governors are responsible for the care, management, use of the cities,
and use of lands of a province through the setting of build queues,
allocation of laborers on tiles, population rushes and drafting of citizen
soldiers.

This clearly gives the governor the authority on instructing the DP with buildqueues. So this can never be done by the Culture Minister.

You're question now is probably what you can do about wonder building. Well, it's your job to decide if wonders will be build, and (mostly after discussing with the responsible governor) more importantly where. Once again, the Constitution doesn't give us a clear bearing who has more authority, the minister of the governor, so you have to agree with each other. Of course the minister ór the governor can show poll results to clarify their opinion, if any discussion between the responsible officials will arise. It's these inter-office discussion that makes the demogame extremely interesting, so I would support to argue in public, instead of spamming each other's PM account which deprives the citizens ánd other officials from a nice rhetorical fight!

Thank you mhcarver and gert-janl for your opinions on this matter. But, I'm afraid that-- due to the conflicting opinions of the two justices who answered my question-- I'm going to have to file a judicial review. My question is: Can a ministry override the instructions of a governor when it comes to city production?

I understand your point, Ashburnham, and since I believe this Review has merit, your request will be added to our agenda.

----
Ashburnham has requested a Judicial Review, concerning the authority of ministers over governors as provided by the Constitution. He wants to know if a minister can override the instructions of a governor when it comes to city production.

The Court believes this Judicial Review has merit, and it will be marked as DG5JR23 in the Court's Docket.

CJ's Ruling DG5JR23

First of all the Constitution is not very clear about the hierarchy of officials in the government. Therefore I conclude that when posting instructions every instruction has the same weight, and all instructions need to be followed by the DP. Posting contradicting instructions would therefore be confusing to the DP, as the DP needs to determine what instruction has more citizen support, while that's exactly what the officials have to do!
Having concluded that I want to refer to article E.2.b. which states the following:


Governors are responsible for the care, management, use of the cities,
and use of lands of a province through the setting of build queues,
allocation of laborers on tiles, population rushes and drafting of citizen
soldiers.

This provides the governor with the authority on instructing the DP with city buildqueues. So this can never be done by the Culture Minister.

The question remains what the constitutional task of the Culture Minister is. It's his task to decide if wonders will be build (as provided by article D.6), and (mostly after discussing with the responsible governor) more importantly where. Once again, the Constitution doesn't give us a clear bearing who has more authority, the minister of the governor, so you will have to agree with each other.

I agree with the Chief Justice on his points that the constitution is vague on the power of the culture minister. This is something that should be fixed in the next demogame. I believe that the Governor has control over build ques as to make sure that someday an overzealous culture minister can't just order every city to build a wonder.So I agree with the CJ on the point that the governor is the authority on all city build ques however The Culture minister is the sole factor in control of wonders. Because of this I believe that the Culture minister can issue binding instructuons overiding a Governors que as long as it is the proven Will of the People

I'd like to file a judicial review about turnchats. Is there a law that enforces when turnchats occur (I don't think there is)? And how can we change or make rules about the turnchats?l

With regard to DG5JR23 there have been several failed attempts/discussion concerning getting override powers added to the constitution, including these (and others around the same time) here:

Citizen Discussion: Reinstate the 'Traditional' powers of MA and CM? (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=98108)
Democratic Proposal: Mutability of Build Queues (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=98245)

I'd like to file a judicial review about turnchats. Is there a law that enforces when turnchats occur (I don't think there is)? And how can we change or make rules about the turnchats?

Since this is a plain question about the procedures, without judicial complications the Court decides that this request has no merit for a Judicial Review.

I will, however, be honoured to answer your question.
No, there is currently no Constitutional Article or even a lower law in our ruleset concerning Turnchats.

About the procedure to be followed to add a new piece of law into either the constitution or our Code of Laws I refer to Constitution Article I.2 and Code of Laws article I

CoL I. Code of Laws Amendments

1. Altering the Code of Laws requires the proposed change to be presented in a
discussion thread. When discussion dies down, a proposed poll must be posted
at the bottom of the discussion thread and remain there for at least 24
hours for review. During this period, some form of a "Second" and a "Third"
must be obtained from at least two citizens other than the bill's author.
During this period of review, if any changes are made, the 24 hour review
period starts over at that time and all "Seconds" and "Thirds" are lost.

2. Once the review period ends, and a "Second" and a "Third" obtained, the
author of the proposed change may request a Judicial Review, by posting
in the Judicial thread. Having passed Judicial Review, the proposed poll
may be posted in the Poll sub-subforum. The poll must remain open for 72
hours.

3. A quorum of 37% of the active census is required for the poll results to be
valid. 55% (dropping fractions) of those voting must approve of the proposed
change for it to be admitted to the Code of Laws.

I suggest that you write a new Article in the Code of Laws, as it would, in my opinion, fit better there than in the Constitution.

Has anyone seen the Public Defender around? It's coming up on three days since the last JR was added to the docket and not a peep from him/her :eek:

as for JR23, it might be a bit later, but I would like to voice my opinon.
I believe the culture minister has NO power to ovveride a build queue and post an instruction for it. Even if the will of the people is to build a wonder, I believe it isnt the job of the culture minister to post the actual instructions. The culture minister should decide if a wonder is nessecary, but they dont choose(nor can they post instructions about) where the wonder is to be built.

The Culture Miniser is "Responsible for Keeping the Peace and Wonder Construction", this means constructing wonders in general(thus they post the polls/discussions on which wonder to build, but the governor posts the poll/discussion about where to place it, and the governor also posts in the TCIT about that wonder)

Also other ministers shouldnt have the power also..... Since that is the actual question the JR is asking...

Has anyone seen the Public Defender around? It's coming up on three days since the last JR was added to the docket and not a peep from him/her :eek:

He posted in the absence registry that he will be away untill the 20th/21st.

oops, I suppose I should have checked today. :suicide:

My sincere apologies

I have another question regarding authority. I started a discussion (here, by the way (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=102822)) about naming the continents on our planet. My question is, who actually has the power to do so? Does anyone? If not, I think this would be a perfect job for the Culture Ministry. ;)



Thanks for your opinions,
Pope Ashburnham

Domestic Ministry has the authority here.

Ah. Thanks, Provolution.

Hear ye hear ye I humbly present this addition to our Code of Laws. I hope the judiciary will speedily rule on this matter so it can go before the citizens (if everything is alright that is)
CoL G.5 - Turnchat Schedule
A. At least 4 days between Turnchats is required. The time, however, of
the TC does not have to be exactly 96 hours from the previous Turnchat.
Some latitude will be given (+/- 5 hours). This latitude is up to the
discretion of the DP.
B. There must be played at least one full Turnchat every week; one full
turnchat usually constitutes of at least 10 turns, but this does not have
to be fully played as the DP can stop the turnchat early as the need
arises.
C. If required, the DP can decide to hold more turnchats, limited to one turn,
as needed to decide in matters of trade or any other one turn actions.
During these one turn TCs no more than one turn can be played, but no
turns (effectively pressing the turn button) are needed to be played, just
the instructions are required to be carried out as dictated by the
ministers and governors.

Honorable members of the court,
I would like to request that blackheart's request be sent back to the legislature for procedural issues. I do not believe that Code of Laws Section I has been followed in this case. Specifically, a proposed poll was not posted at the bottom of the discussion thread. Even if it were decided that something (the Chief Justice's post perhaps) in the thread would be considered a proposed poll, there was only an official 'second' and no clearly stated 'third' as procedure would require.

Thanks for your consideration in this matter.

Secondation by Black_Hole http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=2276336&postcount=27

And thirding by Ashburnham http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=2276538&postcount=32

DG5JR23

The constitution makes it quite clear who is in charge of build queues: governors. Therefore a culture minister cannot over rule the governor without proving (no need for CC, just post in turnchat) that the governors instructions violate the WOTP. If the culture ministry has an approproate complete poll, the WOTP can over rule the governors build requests.

Also, might as well say this now, I will be unavailable for two weeks out of the next two upcoming terms. Therefore, I will not be a candidate again until Term 6 (as needed) at the soonest.

Thanks for all of your support so far in this game. I hope to return to your judiciary after i return from vacation :D

Don't worry, I'll be able to finish this term out.

Also, might as well say this now, I will be unavailable for two weeks out of the next two upcoming terms. Therefore, I will not be a candidate again until Term 6 (as needed) at the soonest.

Thanks for all of your support so far in this game. I hope to return to your judiciary after i return from vacation :D

Don't worry, I'll be able to finish this term out.
good bye mister public defender :(

though the CJ has not yet officially added this to the docket I may be busy the next 2 days so I would like to rule that I find that the proposed leglislation does not conflict with the constitution in any way and may proceed to polling

though the CJ has not yet officially added this to the docket
I am really sorry about this. I usually check the forums at least once a day. However, due to real life I wasn't be able to do that. I do my utmost best to keep all judicial matters rolling and updated.

Honorable members of the court,
I would like to request that blackheart's request be sent back to the legislature for procedural issues. I do not believe that Code of Laws Section I has been followed in this case. Specifically, a proposed poll was not posted at the bottom of the discussion thread. Even if it were decided that something (the Chief Justice's post perhaps) in the thread would be considered a proposed poll, there was only an official 'second' and no clearly stated 'third' as procedure would require.

Thanks for your consideration in this matter.
I thank you for your point. However the Court interprets the 'proposed poll' in this piece of law to mean that the particular part of law has to be presented in the discussion, the way it will appear in the law. Since that's been done here (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=2272308&postcount=21) and as can be found in post #108 it has been approved by the required 2 citizens, I see no problems bringing it to the next stage of amendment procedures. That will constitute of a Judicial Review on the matter.

On October 22nd, blackheart approached the Court for amending the Code of Laws. He proposes the addition of a fifth article to the Code of Laws. That proposed article consists of the following.

CoL G.5 - Turnchat Schedule
A. At least 4 days between Turnchats is required. The time, however, of
the TC does not have to be exactly 96 hours from the previous Turnchat.
Some latitude will be given (+/- 5 hours). This latitude is up to the
discretion of the DP.
B. There must be played at least one full Turnchat every week; one full
turnchat usually constitutes of at least 10 turns, but this does not have
to be fully played as the DP can stop the turnchat early as the need
arises.
C. If required, the DP can decide to hold more turnchats, limited to one turn,
as needed to decide in matters of trade or any other one turn actions.
During these one turn TCs no more than one turn can be played, but no
turns (effectively pressing the turn button) are needed to be played, just
the instructions are required to be carried out as dictated by the
ministers and governors.

In concurrence with CoL.I.2 the Court decides to accept the request for Judicial Review. This will be added to the Court's docket as DG5JR24.
The question for the Court to decide on will be the following:
Does the proposed article conflict in any possible way with the Constitution, and if yes, where?

CJ's Ruling DG5JR24

Having compared the proposed addition to the Code of Laws with our Constitution, there are no contradictions or complications in regard to our present Constitution found.

It's no problem Mr. CJ I understand what ones real life can do to them, and no worries you've done a great job in your position. :goodjob:

DG5JR24

I find that this law has no contadictions with current laws or rights. It should move to polling soon.

The judiciary unanimously agreed that there are no conflicts with present legislation concerning the proposed amendment of blackheart. Therefore it's been brought to the House of the People (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=103054) to be approved by at least 55%, as provided in Constitution article E.1.a and Code of Laws article I. 2 & 3

I would like to request a Judicial Review on the following:

Can a nomination be considered accepted so long as it is posted before the commencement of the General Election?

Some background: I posted my nom acceptance for the position of Foreign Affairs Advisor at 8:01pm EST while the Election Office announced an uncontested victory for CivGeneral at 8:05pm EST. Incidentally, this announcement was made by EO trustee CivGeneral himself, stating that I missed the deadline by one minute. Yet there is nothing written in our current ruleset to support the schedule to which the Election Office adhered.

While my last-minute acceptance was definitely risky and not good practice, are my rights not covered by Article H of our Constitution? If the are covered, I would need the Judiciary to work quickly to reverse the decision of the Election Office so that an election could indeed take place.

Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter

Respectfully,

Donovan Zoi
FA Candidate

For reference:

Article H.
No person shall hold multiple positions of leadership
(President, Vice-President, Department Leader,
Judiciary, Provincial Governor, Deputy) simultaneously,
nor shall have more than one accepted nomination at the
commencement of the general election.

I would like to request a Judicial Review on the following:

Can a nomination be considered accepted so long as it is posted before the commencement of the General Election?

Some background: I posted my nom acceptance for the position of Foreign Affairs Advisor at 8:01pm EST while the Election Office announced an uncontested victory for CivGeneral at 8:05pm EST. Incidentally, this announcement was made by EO trustee CivGeneral himself, stating that I missed the deadline by one minute. Yet there is nothing written in our current ruleset to support the schedule to which the Election Office adhered.

While my last-minute acceptance was definitely risky and not good practice, are my rights not covered by Article H of our Constitution? If the are covered, I would need the Judiciary to work quickly to reverse the decision of the Election Office so that an election could indeed take place.

Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter

Respectfully,

Donovan Zoi
FA Candidate

For reference:

yep i can see it easily your way DZ, since there is nothing in the constitution about election times you should be allowed to be in the election

Put up the election then. DZ managed to get in within time of closure. A fair election for FA would be a good way to go, and we need some arguments back and forth to make this
Demogame good. I also do expect some arguments on Doctrine.

I plan to speek with Cheftess in this matter (I did talked with her early this morning but I had to end a bit short since she has to head for work), If things are at my fault on the timing of the closing of the elections (Which should be 8:00pm EDT traditionaly), then eather CT and I will open up a poll and I admit my mistakes and apologise to DZ. Like my stepfather always said "We are all not machines, were all humans".

Donovan Zoi has requested a Judicial Review concerning the upcoming elections. He was said to be one minute late, and hence the Foreign Advisor position went unconstested. He wants the court to answer the following question:

Can a nomination be considered accepted so long as it is posted before the commencement of the General Election?

The Court recognises the need for a fast ruling concerning this pressing issue. Therefore this Judicial Review will be accepted and marked as PRIORITY-DG5JR25.

I urge my fellow colleagues to post a ruling as soon as possible.

CJ's Ruling PRIORITY-DG5JR25

Having considered the current legislation I can conclude from Constitution article H

...nor shall have more than one accepted nomination at the
commencement of the general election
that one can accept a nomination untill the election are officially started.
Currently we don't have a law providing any guidance when to start the elections. Hence it is the responsibility of the Election Office to start the elecitons on the time they think it is the best.

In this current case the Election Office closed the nomination thread (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=103025) for Foreign Advisor at October 27th, 0.05 GMT. All nominations before that closure should be considered legal. So DZs acceptance, posted on October 27th 0.01 GMT will be considered legal, according to the Constitution.

Comment on DG5JR25

The Election Office has been rather lax in it's duties this entire DG. There has been minimal communication, minimal responsiveness and no guidelines posted. We have seen flat-out wrong descriptions, no control, and no willingness to help the citizens.

Once again, the EO has caused problems by it's own ineptness. I urge the Court to correct this matter, by forcing the EO to do what's right, since they can't determine what do to on their own.

Perhaps it is time to legislate the Election Office. Volunteer offices are wonderful ideas, and should be encouraged. When they interact with the game, the performance of those offices should be evaluated and measured. Should they be found wanting, structure and oversight must be put into place.

Let me ask a simple question to all citizens - where would a new citizen find how elections are conducted, when they are scheduled (dates AND times) and when the future elections are? Please - include a link to the post detailing that information. The three obvious places - Constitution, FAQ and EO thread are strangely silent on that.

This is our ELECTIONS we're talking about. Good grief - we're making FLORIDA look organized and prepared!

-- Ravensfire

Ravensfire

100 % Agreed

Many Americans, also in the DG, seems to consider any democratic proceeding a lawsuit of two sides, not a democratic system with two or more options. They place candidates to watch the ballots, close threads and make value assessments with their political competitors. Should not we have a citizen NOT running for an election term to actually run the election? We should also have clear cut rules for last minute acceptances, presenting the deadlines WITHIN the Nomination Threads and Polls.
I am sick and tired of dirty business, and we need clear cut rules to squeeze the acting maneuvering space of the more sordid political animals.

I completely agree with you. Fortunately the Election Office started a reform discussion here (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=103333).

We can solve the problems by contributing to this thread!

I completely agree with you. Fortunately the Election Office started a reform discussion here (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=103333).

We can solve the problems by contributing to this thread!

Oh my word - I'm in shock! The EO is actually TRYING to fix the problem?

Will wonders never cease ...

-- Ravensfire

since this is a priority case my rulling will be brief and bulleted

-currently there are no laws in the constitution of COL about the election cycle
-the election office was late posting nominations threads
-One cannot ignore the conflict of interest by Civgeneral who prevented a possible opponent from running.
-I agree with the Chief-Justice's interpretation of the law and in the interests of Democracy in our nation I rule that Donovan Zoi's nomination is to be considered legal furthermore I direct the Elections office to open up an election thread for the election of foreign advisor with the candidates being Civgeneral and Donovan Zoi. Though the courts ruling will not be official until the public defender has ruled one way or another I encourage the thread be opened early since the two returning members for the term 4 court have issued concurring rulings and to make sure that there is a minister a the beggining of term 4 .

-Office of the Judge Advocate

However, if the Justices are in doubt about the election system, they are welcome to play a social game over it in relaxing environments in Kagemusha. Or we can arrange a revolver duel at High Noon, or we have a local Saloon Court there to handle the matter.
Kagemusha is the Camp X Ray Guantanamo of Japanatica, outside the normal legislation. :) ( Just joking to those anal types who takes everything seriously, disclaimer).

May I point out to the Judiciary that the election office made the first post concerning the end of nominations at 6:57 p.m. (My time). Donovan_Zoi made his acceptance at 7:01 p.m.

As all nominations closed at 6:57 p.m. DZ missed the mark by 4 minutes. CivGeneral is not a moderator, and as such can not close threads.

I suggest the Judiciary starts researching there case before making a ruling.

As such, I request a Judicial Review over DG5JR25.

Although the first nomination thread was closed at 23.57 GMT, the FA nomination thread was closed at 0.05 GMT. With no laws in place about time limits of nomination threads the Court believes that a judicial review over the ruling of PRIORITY DG5JR25 does not have merit.

A majority of the Judiciary ruled in PRIORITY DG5JR25 that Donovan Zoi's nomination of 0.01 GMT has to be considered legal, since there are no laws in place concerning time limits.
Therefore the Court will reopen elections for the Foreign Affairs position. :hammer:

Although the first nomination thread was closed at 23.57 GMT, the FA nomination thread was closed at 0.05 GMT. With no laws in place about time limits of nomination threads the Court believes that a judicial review over the ruling of PRIORITY DG5JR25 does not have merit.

Thank you for this honor then. :goodjob:


Article F. The Judicial Branch will consist of one Chief Justice, one Public
Defender and a Judge Advocate. These three justices
are tasked with upholding the Constitution and its supporting
laws (if any) in a fair and impartial manner as prescribed
by law. The Chief Justice shall have the additional
responsibility to organize and conduct the affairs of the
Judicial Branch. The Public Defender will act as council to an
accused individual. The Judge Advocate will act as the prosecution.

The Judiciary is tasked with only upholding the Constitution and it's supporting laws. As such, the Judicial Branch may not interpret the Constitution. That power laws with the citizens.

As your saying that the Tradition of all nominations closing at the same time is not within the laws of the constitution, I must point out that the act of Judicial Reviews is only tradition and as such, you just said that what you said doesn't mean ****.

The Judicial Reviews, or better yet ALL Judicial Reviews can not be accepted as law. It is not within the laws of our constitution, and it does not define them. From what I've seen, Judicial Review isn't even mentioned in our laws.

Strider, what you are saying here is incorrect.

The Constitution demands from the CJ to uphold the Constitution and have the responsibility to organise and conduct the affairs of the Judicial Branch.

In order to do this legally, the Judiciary adopted its own procedures, which specifies how to uphold the Constitution. And this can be done or by Judicial Reviews, or by Citizen Complaints. Hence a Judicial Review can never be seen as only a tradition as it is legally backed by the Court Procedures.

Upholding the Constitution does also mean that citizens can approach the Judiciary to ask for clarification. If every citizen interpreted the Constitution on its own way, there would be chaos. Therefore the Judiciary upholds the constitution by clarifying/reviewing the law for the citizens.

Strider, what you are saying here is incorrect.

The Constitution demands from the CJ to uphold the Constitution and have the responsibility to organise and conduct the affairs of the Judicial Branch.

In order to do this legally, the Judiciary adopted its own procedures, which specifies how to uphold the Constitution. And this can be done or by Judicial Reviews, or by Citizen Complaints. Hence a Judicial Review can never be seen as only a tradition as it is legally backed by the Court Procedures.

Upholding the Constitution does also mean that citizens can approach the Judiciary to ask for clarification. If every citizen interpreted the Constitution on its own way, there would be chaos. Therefore the Judiciary upholds the constitution by clarifying/reviewing the law for the citizens.

No, what I'm saying is correct. The Constitution demands only that you uphold, not interpret the Constitution. Your using a power that you do not have to justify giving yourself power. You CAN NOT say what the constitution means, the only say you have in our laws is wether or not a proposed amendment defies the constitution. That is the ONLY thing you can do.

Your "Court Precedures" wrongly steals power from the people. Judicial Reviews are illegal, and if it wasn't for Citizen Complaints being completely illegal also, I'd have to launch one against you.

Our Constitution only allows you to punish someone for breaking the laws of our constitution, it does not justify you with deciding what it means. That power comfortable sleeps with the people. Your "Court Precedures," not only defy the constitution, but I would atleast be content if you had polled them.

You did neither, exercising a power you do not have.

You said above, that sense it was not in the constitution, that it was illegal. Yet, can the Election Office not do the same thing as your "Court Precedures?" The Election Office can not set up "Procedures" to run the nominations/elections, yet the Judiciary can?

No, what I'm saying is correct. The Constitution demands only that you uphold, not interpret the Constitution. Your using a power that you do not have to justify giving yourself power. You CAN NOT say what the constitution means, the only say you have in our laws is wether or not a proposed amendment defies the constitution. That is the ONLY thing you can do.

Your "Court Precedures" wrongly steals power from the people. Judicial Reviews are illegal, and if it wasn't for Citizen Complaints being completely illegal also, I'd have to launch one against you.

Our Constitution only allows you to punish someone for breaking the laws of our constitution, it does not justify you with deciding what it means. That power comfortable sleeps with the people. Your "Court Precedures," not only defy the constitution, but I would atleast be content if you had polled them.

You did neither, exercising a power you do not have.

You said above, that sense it was not in the constitution, that it was illegal. Yet, can the Election Office not do the same thing as your "Court Precedures?" The Election Office can not set up "Procedures" to run the nominations/elections, yet the Judiciary can?

Strider why the heck are you bring this up now? These court procedures have been here all game, and NOW you are calling them illegal? This is really sounding like you have something against DZ. I also cant see why you would CC gert-janl, he has broken no law.
These three justices
are tasked with upholding the Constitution and its supporting
laws (if any) in a fair and impartial manner as prescribed
by law.
By law means that the judiciary can do what it wants(since law can be the court procedures) to uphold the constituion.
A constitution cant be upheld if citzens cant understand it, thus the need for JRs. Plus CCs are plain and simple in the constituion in multiple places(Article A and F)

Strider why the heck are you bring this up now? These court procedures have been here all game, and NOW you are calling them illegal? This is really sounding like you have something against DZ. I also cant see why you would CC gert-janl, he has broken no law.

I've known the court precedures have been here all game, I actually suggested a few changes to them. However, that does change anything. They are still illegal, and incase you didn't notice I hate Donovan_Zoi with a passion, and I'm sure the feeling is mutual. However, I was willing to let it drop, he was not. If it's a fight he wants, then I will no longer sit back and let him beat on me. I'm simply taking the fight to him, as he's been doing to me most of this game.

By law means that the judiciary can do what it wants(since law can be the court procedures) to uphold the constituion.
A constitution cant be upheld if citzens cant understand it, thus the need for JRs. Plus CCs are plain and simple in the constituion in multiple places(Article A and F)

As I pointed out, the Judiciary just ruled that if it is not in the Constitution, then it is illegal. I pointed out that there "Judicial Precedures" are not inside of the Constitution, and as such illegal. That is problem that should've been solved during the creation. It's not my problem that the people who made it, completely ****ed it up.

The Citizen Complaint process, however, is not listed inside of the Constitution.

I have no problem with the Judicial Precedures, however, I do have a problem with the Judiciary declaring that one thing is right for them, yet the same thing is wrong for someone else.

Umm strider when did the court rule that anything about something not being in the constitution was illegal? I looked in past reviews and can't find anything and this ruling simply said an election should be held. In my mind the courts were created without much description in the constitution in order to let them operate as they saw fit. Without the courts there would by widespread confusion, ex: when the first appointment of new Governors began it took a judicial review to interpret their powers, if the court had not been their then nobody would have known what the governors could do. We need a body to interpret the law. I personally believe that the court was made with the assumption that it would be able to regulate law. Part of upholding the constitution is interpreting the law and punishing those who violate it . And finally was anyone hurt by having an election? I mean this is a game of democracy, in a sense the will of the people is the will of god. oh and BTW you are propably going to flame and post some mean rebuttal but hey what can I do about it?

Umm strider when did the court rule that anything about something not being in the constitution was illegal? I looked in past reviews and can't find anything and this ruling simply said an election should be held. In my mind the courts were created without much description in the constitution in order to let them operate as they saw fit. Without the courts there would by widespread confusion, ex: when the first appointment of new Governors began it took a judicial review to interpret their powers, if the court had not been their then nobody would have known what the governors could do. We need a body to interpret the law. I personally believe that the court was made with the assumption that it would be able to regulate law. Part of upholding the constitution is interpreting the law and punishing those who violate it . And finally was anyone hurt by having an election? I mean this is a game of democracy, in a sense the will of the people is the will of god. oh and BTW you are propably going to flame and post some mean rebuttal but hey what can I do about it?

He ruling stated "there is nothing in the constitution about the election cycle." I pointed out that there is also nothing in the constitution about the Judicial Cycle. As such, he ruled that sense it is not inside of the constitution, it is illegal. I merely pointed out, that his power over ruling, is not inside of the constitution, and as such, is also illegal.

I've known the court precedures have been here all game, I actually suggested a few changes to them. However, that does change anything. They are still illegal, and incase you didn't notice I hate Donovan_Zoi with a passion, and I'm sure the feeling is mutual. However, I was willing to let it drop, he was not. If it's a fight he wants, then I will no longer sit back and let him beat on me. I'm simply taking the fight to him, as he's been doing to me most of this game.



As I pointed out, the Judiciary just ruled that if it is not in the Constitution, then it is illegal. I pointed out that there "Judicial Precedures" are not inside of the Constitution, and as such illegal. That is problem that should've been solved during the creation. It's not my problem that the people who made it, completely ****ed it up.

The Citizen Complaint process, however, is not listed inside of the Constitution.

I have no problem with the Judicial Precedures, however, I do have a problem with the Judiciary declaring that one thing is right for them, yet the same thing is wrong for someone else.

the CC process is in the constitution, first off it is referened who does what in a cc in article F, also article a:

Article A. All Civfanatics Forum users who register in the Citizen
Registry are citizens of our country. Citizens have the
right to assemble, the right to free movement, the right
to free speech, the right to a fair trial, the right to
representation, the right to seek to redress grievances
and the right to vote.
the right ot seek to redres grievenances is basically a CC, but you can call it what ever you want

the right ot seek to redres grievenances is basically a CC, but you can call it what ever you want

With that logic, you can also say that elections are also mentioned inside of the constitution.

Your point of posting this was what?

because were all irritated at one another and I have a feeling this may get ugly(er)
-goodnight

With that logic, you can also say that elections are also mentioned inside of the constitution.

Your point of posting this was what?
yep they are, with that logic you can prove in the constitution that elections must happen...
how else can people seek justice because of grievances?

Strider, what are you doing? First you file for a judicial review, it fails, then you say what the judiciary did was illegal? :confused:

How do you even uphold the constitution without interpreting it, since some parts are vague? Since you consider judicial reviews and CCs illegal, there's nothing you can do about it without lobbying for a new law, which of course requires judicial review to see that it doesn't conflict with an existing law, which of course you deem that these reviews are illegal, so therefore, you cannot change the laws. :D

yep they are, with that logic you can prove in the constitution that elections must happen...
how else can people seek justice because of grievances?

There are many ways, the game can be turned back and the "grievance" fixed. Citizen Complaints are just the most direct approach, and the one that causes the most diffusion inside of the game. Overall, it's a bad system. I honor Ravensfire for his attempt to make Citizen Complaints less dividing, but I think the best way would be to throw the system away completely and handle it differantly.

Strider, what are you doing? First you file for a judicial review, it fails, then you say what the judiciary did was illegal? :confused:

How do you even uphold the constitution without interpreting it, since some parts are vague? Since you consider judicial reviews and CCs illegal, there's nothing you can do about it without lobbying for a new law, which of course requires judicial review to see that it doesn't conflict with an existing law, which of course you deem that these reviews are illegal, so therefore, you cannot change the laws. :D

Actually, no, the Judicial is impowered with the power to check if a proposed amendment conflicts with an existing law.

Also, incase you didn't get it, I filed the Judicial Review expecting it to be declared to have no merit.

He ruling stated "there is nothing in the constitution about the election cycle." I pointed out that there is also nothing in the constitution about the Judicial Cycle. As such, he ruled that sense it is not inside of the constitution, it is illegal. I merely pointed out, that his power over ruling, is not inside of the constitution, and as such, is also illegal.
you have blown it out of context and used the ruling for matters not related to it
article H says that they have the right to be in an election unless they have accepted elsewhere, there is no law in the constitution that stops the judical cycle while article H clearly gives citizens the right to an election poll spot, but no law that contradicts the judicial cycle

you have blown it out of context and used the ruling for matters not related to it article H says that they have the right to be in an election unless they have accepted elsewhere, there is no law in the constitution that stops the judical cycle while article H clearly gives citizens the right to an election poll spot, but no law that contradicts the judicial cycle

So, by your reasoning, a person may accept a nomination after the election has started and still must be included in the election?

Your reasoning is not that good.

So, by your reasoning, a person may accept a nomination after the election has started and still must be included in the election?

Your reasoning is not that good.
you know what I mean, I was in a hurry let me explain:

Article H.
No person shall hold multiple positions of leadership
(President, Vice-President, Department Leader,
Judiciary, Provincial Governor, Deputy) simultaneously,
nor shall have more than one accepted nomination at the
commencement of the general election.
DZ definetly was in time, because it was b4 cg posted the election poll, its nice how you are chaning topics away from the judical stuff back to the elections

DZ definetly was in time, because it was b4 cg posted the election poll, its nice how you are chaning topics away from the judical stuff back to the elections

You still haven't gotten my point? The Election Precedures has always been that ALL nomination threads close at one time, and acceptances passed after this time do not count. The Chief Justice however, said that the Election Procedures are not inside of the constitution, and are against our laws.

To use as a counter-example, I pointed out that with this reasoning, the Judicial Review and CC process are also not in the constitution, and as such, also against our laws.

If we had followed the Election Procedures, Donovan_Zoi was late with his acceptance.

Ruling on DG5JR25

shall have more than one accepted nomination at the
commencement of the general election.

This line is quoted in the Review and is one of the only references to elections in the constitution. This line suggests that Nominations may be accepted until the election starts. In this case, the election did not start until after Donovan Zoi accepted the nomination. By this clause Donovan Zoi shall be allowed to be on the ballot.

I'm glad this is already taken care of :D

You still haven't gotten my point? The Election Precedures has always been that ALL nomination threads close at one time, and acceptances passed after this time do not count. The Chief Justice however, said that the Election Procedures are not inside of the constitution, and are against our laws.

To use as a counter-example, I pointed out that with this reasoning, the Judicial Review and CC process are also not in the constitution, and as such, also against our laws.

If we had followed the Election Procedures, Donovan_Zoi was late with his acceptance.
you still havent got my point:
article h allows somoene to accept their nomination for election until the election starts, the constitution is higher than both precedures(election and judicial) thus it is legal, the so called "election procedures" cant break the constituion neither can the judicial procedures. but the judical procedures arent breaking the constitution

Strider: Your arguments in the Judicial Thread are not constructive. Instead of pessimistically criticizing our procedure, why not try to change it in the citizens forum? So far the court's actions have been accepted for three terms. If the citizen's had a problem with the legality why is this just now being dealt with.

Do not argue for the sake of arguing. Argue to change something. I'm glad you think the court's procedures are illegal. It shows you are one step ahead of everyone else. If you think it's best to more clearly define our role in the constitution, take it to the citizen's thread, which may end in a final result you like. That would be more prudent than to simply attack the judicial thread for the ruling, which in the end will have no affect on this game at all.

Until then, no judicial reviews (ILLEGAL! :lol: ) of the legality of our powers has been presented so I am finished.

you still havent got my point:
article h allows somoene to accept their nomination for election until the election starts, the constitution is higher than both precedures(election and judicial) thus it is legal, the so called "election procedures" cant break the constituion neither can the judicial procedures. but the judical procedures arent breaking the constitution

Article H actually agrees with me.


No person shall hold multiple positions of leadership (President, Vice-President, Department Leader, Judiciary, Provincial Governor, Deputy) simultaneously, nor shall have more than one accepted nomination at the commencement of the general election.

The general election? That pretty much means the whole election, EVERY election. Not just Foreign Affairs.

Strider: Your arguments in the Judicial Thread are not constructive. Instead of pessimistically criticizing our procedure, why not try to change it in the citizens forum? So far the court's actions have been accepted for three terms. If the citizen's had a problem with the legality why is this just now being dealt with.

Do not argue for the sake of arguing. Argue to change something. I'm glad you think the court's procedures are illegal. It shows you are one step ahead of everyone else. If you think it's best to more clearly define our role in the constitution, take it to the citizen's thread, which may end in a final result you like. That would be more prudent than to simply attack the judicial thread for the ruling, which in the end will have no affect on this game at all.

Until then, no judicial reviews (ILLEGAL! :lol: ) of the legality of our powers has been presented so I am finished.

A thread in the Citizens forum of this has been up for several hours.

Wow, a CJ lies himself to rest here in Western Europe, and when he wakes up he finds someone making trouble. I am relieved the the discussion continues in the citizens thread...

Wow, a CJ lies himself to rest here in Western Europe, and when he wakes up he finds someone making trouble. I am relieved the the discussion continues in the citizens thread...

Causing Trouble? I was simply just showing that your wrong in your Judicial Ruling.

As both Black_Hole and KCCrusader brought to my attention, your ruling goes against Article H. of our constitution.

Strider, cease and desist at once, or you will be banned. Remember that this game is about fun, and noone really cares that DZ accepted his nomination 4 minutes after the election office closed nominations except you.

If you want something more along the lines of forum rules for this warning, your language included cursing twice, and you advertised your hatred of another forum member, which is flaming/trolling. Do not respond to this warning in public. Eyrei.

I have a question. Can governors directly request that units stationed in their province to be upgraded or does this have to pass thru the MSAV/military ministry?

Your revered and illegal ;) judges, I would like to ask if there is any current law governing polls. Specifically, if it is constitution for one poll to override several previous polls.

And here's another question: what is the judiciary's exact job and where do we amend the constitution to enhance the judiciary's "legitimacy"?

Good afternoon Chief Justice gert-janl and esteemed judges mhcarver and KCCrusader.

I have never asked for a judicial review before so I might get this wrong. But now I have decided that I must ask for one. The Question I am asking is "Are the doctrines made by Provolution law. They are a series of polls about military reform. they are TERM IV MSAV MILITARY REFORM BILL - 980 AD, Section 1B.,
TERM IV MSAV MILITARY REFORM BILL - 980 AD, Section 1C,
TERM IV MSAV MILITARY REFORM BILL - 980 AD, Section 1A,
TERM IV MSAV NAVAL DOCTRINE BILL 980 AD, Section 1B,Eastern Navy
TERM IV MSAV NAVAL DOCTRINE BILL 980 AD Section 1A,
TERM IV MSAV NAVAL DOCTRINE BILL 980 AD, Section 1C Privateer Flotilla. These threads are located in the polls sub-forum.

In the begging of the threads Provolution said they are advisory polls but in a recent thread (a poll on what to do if Iroquois attack) people were acting as if they were law, so I was wondering are they law. I properly set this request for a review out all wrong, oh well thanks.

Nobody

LOL @ Nobody

I felt about coming with a personal attack, but I took it back. The main irritation is that you like to JR me, but provide no valuable inputs in debates, discussions, no plans come from your hands, but still you want to stop a producing hand.

why ?

Provo while I applaud your far-sightedness in determining policy, the above attack seems personal and unwarranted. I don't believe Nobody was attacking you, he was simply asking for clarification from the Judiciary, which is his right.

Aside from which - Koalas Kangaroos and boomerangs are from Australia, not New Zealand!

The main irritation is that you like to JR me

I never JRed you just your dogma. I wish I had seen your insult, if it was half as harsh as it seems (dising the country to the north of mine) I am worried. so please send me you "personal attack" by PM so I can respond in kind, also the appropriate insults about new Zealanders are to do with sheep. If you need to know native New Zealand animals to make fun of some are the Kiwi, the Tuatara, the Kakapo.

I don't think Nobody meant this as a personal attack, just as clarification.

Whatever nobody implied...The Court considers this just a question.

And Provolutions 'doctrines' can never be considered as law. To add a piece of law the proposer has to follow strict instructions as provided in the Constitution/Code of Laws.
Because of this I will consider your question not as a Judicial Review.
I think Provolution just tried to state his views and determine the will of the people, and gave it all very official names.

It cannot even be regarded as official policy since his Term will only start at November 1st, 0.00GMT.

Now blackheart...to come to your questions.

Can governors directly request that units stationed in their province to be upgraded or does this have to pass thru the MSAV/military ministry?0
Governors have no authority concerning troops. All they can do is advise the military and domestic minister (who have the authority to decide about upgrades) about a possible need. But concerning troop upgrades they have just the right every citizen has. Since this is clearly stated in Article D & E of our Constitution I consider a Judicial Review without merit.

is there any current law governing polls
The Constitution has some things to say about polls. Article J says:
The will of the people will be determined through discussion and polls,
formal or informal
I don't exactly know what you want to know, but this is basically what the Constitution says about polls. If you are referring to amendment polls, you can find clear procedures in either Constitution article I or Code of Laws article I.

what is the judiciary's exact job and where do we amend the constitution to enhance the judiciary's "legitimacy"?
First of all I need to say that I don't see why we should enhance the Judiciary's Legitimacy. It is competely legal according to our Constitution. To come to your first question; I would like to refer to article F of the Constitution. This is basically all you need.

Although I am happy with the interest of some of our citizens brought forward in regard to our Constitution, I would like to stress that the Judiciary is not a law-search engine. I suggest that you, before you ask the Judiciary a question about law, to take a look at the constitution. I didn't highlight it for nothing in the start post of my office.
Remember...never hesistate to contact the Judiciary, either by forum or PM (preferably forum, so everyone can benefit)! But most articles in the Constitution are so clear, that if you just take a quick look, you can conclude yourself what is implied, without needing to ask the Judiciary.

Thank you for your help Chief Justice GJ and I took your advice and looked over the constitution, this in has lead me to raise more questions.

Article L. The constitution, laws and standards of Fanatika can never
be contrary to the rules and regulations of the
Civfanatics forums. Moderators may veto any such
constitutional amendments, laws or standards.
First off, Article L of the constitution refers to a nonexistant country "Fanatika". I propose we declare this section void (we could always change the name back to Japanatica :lol: )

2. The Minister of Foreign Affairs shall be responsible
for matters involving treaties with foreign nations,
as prescribed by law.
6. The Minister of Culture shall be responsible for the
keeping of the peace and the construction of wonders.

Second has to do with the Culture Minister's powers. It states that he/she is responsible for keeping of the peace, does this mean the constitutional power to declare peace with a nation we are currently at war with?

BH, you are not the first person to point this out(which makes it even more embarassing :lol: ) I am not sure wether it was GJ or Cyc but one of them said that changing something cosmetic does not require it to go through the process of an amendment. As for the part about the culture minister I have no idea what the frick that means but you can be sure that (in my mind at least I invite the CJ and public defender, current and elect to disagree if they see fit) the culture minister cannot construe any powers from that for reasons of common sense.

Honorable Justice Gert Jani

I figure you did not notice, but I democratized my own decision-making space in how to conduct wars. And as long as the military is in total control of warfaring activities, we can write and poll as many doctrines as we want, as the Consitution has no Codex Bellorum in its custody. In fact, I expanded the lawmaking scope of Japanatica, where previous generals merely submitted their orders, we have developed doctrines for every conceivable situation with our neighbors. And you know Gert Jani, as long as I do not impede on the constitution, Military Law is military law within the scope of the decision-making activities of the MSAV already got in its posession. Nobody on the far right hawk side and Donsig and Blackheart on the other, had no notion on what doctrines meant until they were posted. Now, we have formed local military districts, army and navy groups as well a miltary staff, and do not expect any institution intervene in our internal organization as long as we act within the Constitution and Code of Laws. The Doctrinal framework is a military plan for building up our force, and is a de facto military development plan and doctrine. If the Chief Justice find this long term plan and structure to just be a thinly disguised opinion poll to support my will, he is wrong. This is a series of polls with multiple options reassuring that each citizens voice is specifically added to the entire plan. The top three doctrines and the averaged numbers of our military forces are now passed as an accepted military build-up and reorganization plan. If I wanted to, I would not even poll it.
so I want to bury any accusations on that I am exceeding my authority, of which I am
not, I am inviting the WOTP into my existing authority. And yes, this is very official policy, and that the CJ tries to deprive me of critically needed transition time for Term IV iI find disrespectful and untenable to our national needs.

however, CJ is right on one matter, is that the doctrines are not in place before 1 November, when they are to be adopted from 1 Nov 0000. However, the present MSAV Minister and future MSAV Deputy Civanator will act on these doctrines in order to arrange a smooth transition to our new miolitary reforms. As an end note to this, we expect the Judiciary to consider our just use of "very official names", as the military is as official as any institution can be, not a mickey mouse club as Nobody envisions.

I would now ask this pestering voices to add constructively to this policy and polling of doctrines in threads, and if they want to come up with alternatives, they better write them, or they will not be adopted. I will also set minimum standards for what is accepted battle plans to be adopted as poll option alternatives. I serve the people, but a few citizens of the people are not allowed to filibuster their ministry in order to prevent the policy of the majority for happening. I hope I made myself understood.

Must you always mention people who don't support your all of your policies Provo? It seems to me that you go out of your way to bring up whoever is opposed to your policies.

GJ was pretty clear, MSAV doctrines are just that, doctrines, and not law. It means the MSAV is free to follow the doctrines, but they are NOT laws.

Blackheart

Thank you. And of course I am allowed to answer to those parties that attack my policies in my postings. It would be muddy if I did not mention the 3-4 people continuously trying to undermine my work with no other alternative but delay, waste of time and accusations. Write an alternative, and we will poll it. Otherwise I recommend to focus on more neglected policy areas that does not involve players and actually fails to materialize results.

@ provolution. Woman Please

(edit: i had a longer more insulting post, but the requried person read it.)

No more insulting in my office. Everyone's point is very clear

Blackheart

Thank you. And of course I am allowed to answer to those parties that attack my policies in my postings. It would be muddy if I did not mention the 3-4 people continuously trying to undermine my work with no other alternative but delay, waste of time and accusations. Write an alternative, and we will poll it. Otherwise I recommend to focus on more neglected policy areas that does not involve players and actually fails to materialize results.
provo your doctrines cant become law, technically law cannot also be overturned by the WOTP, meaning your docrtines would be law for term 4 about how the military operates, the ppl will change their mind(shown many times in this DG) about what they want, and if these doctrines were law they couldnt change their opinon

also this is not an attack on you or your policies but the power your policies actually have

My policies do have a base power as model plans, and as I have written countless places, these will be discussed and repolled as time gooes by. We just lacked a plan in general for the military, and now it has materialized. I am amazed that this lack has not been pointed out before, that is another question. However, I never said they were LAW, or I would have written LAW in my writings and polls, but a doctrine is a sort of documented pre-prepared plan and the reform bills are organizational plans. That some people feel overrun because we are well and thightly organized and that we have created military organizational bodies is only a means to democratize the DG.

Also, formerly, the WOTP had no influence on the conduct of war, only when to end it.
This time, the WOTP gets a say on a continuous basis. Doctrines will be rediscussed and repolled between every turnchat, but these will have a lifetime of 3 turnchats ahead, so no bickering will occur when time is critical. However, the Doctrines comprise of a conceptual base from which we can work from, so we do not have to start from scratch again and again and again. And yes, the attack you came with blackhole was unwarranted, I am still within the Const and CoL, and if I decide to give these policies the official emblem as Doctrines, Military Law and so on ,I am free to do so, as this ministry intends to be very organized and precise.

My policies do have a base power as model plans, and as I have written countless places, these will be discussed and repolled as time gooes by. We just lacked a plan in general for the military, and now it has materialized. I am amazed that this lack has not been pointed out before, that is another question. However, I never said they were LAW, or I would have written LAW in my writings and polls, but a doctrine is a sort of documented pre-prepared plan and the reform bills are organizational plans. That some people feel overrun because we are well and thightly organized and that we have created military organizational bodies is only a means to democratize the DG.

Also, formerly, the WOTP had no influence on the conduct of war, only when to end it.
This time, the WOTP gets a say on a continuous basis. Doctrines will be rediscussed and repolled between every turnchat, but these will have a lifetime of 3 turnchats ahead, so no bickering will occur when time is critical. However, the Doctrines comprise of a conceptual base from which we can work from, so we do not have to start from scratch again and again and again. And yes, the attack you came with blackhole was unwarranted, I am still within the Const and CoL, and if I decide to give these policies the official emblem as Doctrines, Military Law and so on ,I am free to do so, as this ministry intends to be very organized and precise.

then we are on the same page :)
you had confused me because you were argueing with people that said your doctrine wasnt law....

Thank you all for 3 terms of support. I might be back later...

Blackhole

They only wanted to dilute the wording so it seemed as harmless and toothless writing, in fact, they were more concerned with the dogma, the wording and the thinking in general,, they merely wanted to test it against the lawmaking in the Const and CoL as a political move in order to weaken the military reform. Yet, they failed as I worked within the mandate of the MSAV. What made the MSAV more powerful now, is that we are an organized body with several profiled ranking military leaders, and that we are so well organized that we have ready contact points with all ministries and governors, so the outcome will be a more active and functional MSAV.

Is that a real problem ?

Blackhole

They only wanted to dilute the wording so it seemed as harmless and toothless writing, in fact, they were more concerned with the dogma, the wording and the thinking in general,, they merely wanted to test it against the lawmaking in the Const and CoL as a political move in order to weaken the military reform. Yet, they failed as I worked within the mandate of the MSAV. What made the MSAV more powerful now, is that we are an organized body with several profiled ranking military leaders, and that we are so well organized that we have ready contact points with all ministries and governors, so the outcome will be a more active and functional MSAV.

Is that a real problem ?
no its not a problem,
theres nothing in the constitution stopping you, but remember other people can post other polls and there is nothing in the constitution stopping them

KCCrusader, thank you very much for being in the Judiciary for 2 terms!
You proved to be a valuable colleague!

Of course not, but these polls will be external advisory, and that is fair enough.
The reason I came out hard, was that some of the criticism came out to sabotage the reform for other reasons, like the Forbidden Palace and so on. I did not notice the FP was an issue until I had posted my polls.

KCCrusader, thank you very much for being in the Judiciary for 2 terms!
You proved to be a valuable colleague!
wasnt it 3 terms?
anyway we will miss you KCCrusader

:blush: you are right black_hole. I apologise.

I also want to thank mhcarver for serving the Judiciary last term. We will see each other in the Term 4 Courthouse.

Why has the last days of this term of the Judicary become so nasty? It is not the fault of the members, but certain citizens are abusing this thread to try and get their way. I think that there should have been some mod action, beside a warning to try and keep this thread back on it's focus. The exact focus of this thread is to have a look at the constitution and the CoLs and to get clarification on somethings that either do not quite spell out everything and could be a source of confusion. We must never let ourselves lose this focus because we are then not playing the game in the spirit that it is meant to be played in. After it is all a game and these threa fine gentlemen have made playing this game better for us all and I congratulate you. :goodjob:

Regards, Classical_Hero, your soon to be former Trade Deputy.

Personal attacks of any sort will result in a ban. Quit bickering and play the game. Eyrei.

Of course not, but these polls will be external advisory, and that is fair enough.
The reason I came out hard, was that some of the criticism came out to sabotage the reform for other reasons, like the Forbidden Palace and so on. I did not notice the FP was an issue until I had posted my polls.

Provo, let me say it again, no one is trying to take away your position, undermine your power, etc. This is a game of democracy, and as such people can freely raise questions about how dongs are conducted. You keep saying people are sabotaging your ideas, when they are not. You keep saying that people question your policies without adding any ideas of their own, perhaps questioning IS an idea.

I certainly hope the Term 4 Judiciary gets their courthouse in order soon, as I already have a question regarding jurisdiction.

I hereby declare the third term Judiciary officially closed.

:hammer:

The term 4 Judiciary is now in session here (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?p=2303162#post2303162)