------------------------Welcome to the Term 4 Judiciary------------------------
:hammer:
Could the House please come to order?!

As the fourth term Chief Justice, I declare this Term 4 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 4 Judiciary are:
Chief Justice: gert-janl
Judge Advocate:mhcarver
Public Defender: ravensfire

In accordance with Constitutional article I.1, the official Japanatican census of term 4 is 35.
Hence, the number of votes required for a constitutional amendment/ratification is, in accordance with Constitutitional article I.2.c, 26
In order to amend the Code of Laws a quorum of 13 voters is required to make the poll valid.

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)
The Term 3 Judiciary (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=101138)


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

------------------------Term 4 Docket------------------------

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Ratification of Court Procedures
Status: ratified by all members of the Term 4 Judiciary
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
DG5JR#26
Status: closed. Ruling published in the Judicial Log (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=2309749&postcount=30)
Submitted by:Strider
Details:Strider proposed a Constitutional Amendment. He proposes to expand Article K. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
DG5JR#27
Status: closed. Ruling published in the Judicial Log (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=2321882&postcount=31)
Submitted by:Sir Donald III
Details:Sir Donald III wants to know how to act as DP, without valid instructions
by an official, either governor or minister.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
DG5JR#28
Status: closed. Ruling published in the Judicial Log (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=2339503&postcount=32)
Submitted by:Ashburnham
Details:Ashburnham wants to know who has, according to the Constitution the final word in conducting spy/embassy missions. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
DG5JR#29
Status: closed. Ruling published in the Judicial Log (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=2350836&postcount=33)
Submitted by:mhcarver
Details:mhcarver proposed a constitutional amendment to Article D.6.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Term 4 - Court Procedures

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 Reviews 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 Reviews (JRs) 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 Reviews 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. Performs 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 him 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 details 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. The Chief Justice has the right to dismiss a Judicial Review,
if the Chief Justice deemes a Judicial Review to have "No Merit".
i. Specific reasoning must be given by the Chief Justice for a
judgement of "No Merit".
ii. If the Judge Advocate and the Public Defender believe that the
Judicial Review has merit, while the Chief Justice dismissed a
Judicial Review, the Majority Opinion will be followed.
4. 2 of 3 Justices must agree on the interpretation or clarification,
forming a Majority Opinion.
5. 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. The Trial poll will have the Options of Guilty, Innocent and Abstain
and will remain open for 48 hours.
2. 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:
i. Recommended Moderator action - turned over to the Moderators.
ii. Impeachment from Office (if applicable)
iii. Final Warning (whether or not a prior warning has been given)
iv. Warning
v. No Punishment
vi. 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. Once the poll has been closed, the Chief Justice shall determine the
sentence for the accused.
i. Each vote shall be determined as a vote for the option selected,
and all less-severe options.
ii. The sentence selected shall be the most severe sentence that a
majority of the citizens supported.

Example:Option A- 4 Votes
Option B - 12 Votes
Option C - 13 Votees
The sentence carried out is option B.

Option A has 4 total votes.
Option B has 16 total votes.
Option C has 29 total votes.
A total of 29 citizens voted, making Option B is the most severe
sentence that a majority of the citizens support with a total of 16
votes in support and 29 votes overall.
4. 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.
5. The guilty party must abide by the sentence as determined in the
Poll by the Chief Justice.

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

L. 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.

Fellow Judges,

Congratulations to your appointment by the people to serve the Judiciary.
Like my previous term as Chief Justice, I would like to ask you to read the Judicial Code thoroughly, and if you accept, to ratify the document.
Some changes were made in comparison to the Term 3 Procedures. Most importantly are the interpretations of a sentence poll changed back to the way the Demogame has always done it with success.

Except for that I changed some format issues.

Thank you in advance,

Chief Justice gert-janl

Moving into my desk right now. The procedures look good to me, I accept them.

The Public Defenders office is now open!

-- Public Defender Ravensfire

I also accept the procedures.

I also vote Yay on ratification of the procedures

In the Court Procedures for this Term, you have added lines to the Section about Judicial Reviews (Section 7) that enable the Chief Justice alone to throw out Requests for Judicial Review because the CJ arbitrarily feels they have "No Merit". While I personally feel this addition is not warranted or politically correct, the post does not deal with the restrictions on a citizen's right to Request a JR. I merely want to point out that Section 7.C has 2 lines in it that are labeled with the number 1. Can we get this changed? Typographical errors in Court Procedures can lead to other problem done the line. :) Please see below:

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. The Chief Justice has the right to dismiss a Judicial Review, if the Chief Justice deemes a Judicial Review to have "No Merit".
1. Specific reasoning must be given by the Chief Justice for a judgement of "No Merit".
4. 2 of 3 Justices must agree on the interpretation or clarification, forming a Majority Opinion.
5. The interpretation/clarification is then entered into the Judicial Log for reference.

The numbering will be changed. Thank you.

um as has been pointed out before the preamble to our constitution still says Fannatika, members of the court , do you believe it should take an amendment to change this or can we just say that a cosmetic change like that doesn't matter and ask CT to edit it?

I personally believe it is entirely cosmetic and should just be edited

That can simply be changed. Just post it in the 'needed things' thread.

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.

This 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?

I would think that would refer to domestic peace, due to the nature of the culture ministry. They use happiness imps and wonders to keep citizens from rioting.

The Foreign Ministry is clearly responisble for peace treaties, as stated in the constitution.

also, any chance the chief justice could be overruled by the other two justices if done so unanimously? As it stands (Although it would probably rarely be a problem) the Chief justice has complete control over what will go on the docket.

Just a suggestion :D

as I said in the term 3 thread I have no idea why that is there but In my mind at least(I invite my colleagues to disagree) it means nothing at all and gives the culture minister no power whatsoever to declare peace and just to be clear the foreign affairs minister has power over all treaties with foreign nations.

as I said in the term 3 thread I have no idea why that is there but In my mind at least(I invite my colleagues to disagree) it means nothing at all and gives the culture minister no power whatsoever to declare peace and just to be clear the foreign affairs minister has power over all treaties with foreign nations.
I have no idea why that blurb about keeping the peace is in there either. I didn't write it. You might want to review the Article D thread posted at the begining of the game to find an answer, but I believe KCCrusader has already reckoned the appropriate answer.

I completely agree. The culture minister may advocate peace, just as any other citizen. He has however no authority on 'demanding' peace or signing treaties.

I submit the following amendment proposal to the Judiary to check:

Article K. All irreversible game actions must progress during a public turnchat, while reversible game actions(ie build queues) that adhere to legal instruction can be prepared offline.
A turnchat instruction thread must be created at least 3 days before the chat.
All instructions created by leaders must be posted inside of the currentturnchat instruction thread. Instructions must be clear and defined.
A leader must post their instructions at least one hour before the Turnchat. However, a leader may make changes to their instructions up to an hour before the chat, so long as those changes are noted.

The designated player shall be charged with the creation of a date and time for all public turnchats.

I have no idea why that blurb about keeping the peace is in there either. I didn't write it. You might want to review the Article D thread posted at the begining of the game to find an answer, but I believe KCCrusader has already reckoned the appropriate answer.

I looked in the article D thread and after skimming through it here is what I can tell:
that it was part of Epithemus original 6 ministers proposal and was never looked at and discussed. Perhaps a judicial review here would be helpful since it would allow us to strike that language from the books?

As others have said, correcting a typo in a law isn't amending it, just request it!

-- Ravensfire, Public Defender

I want to bring in this poll for a judicial review, to consider it valid or not, since one option is "Other" where you have to write in your preference. As you can read from the thread, there are indeed almost a tie there. However, this poll is illegal in my opinion, as it is neither private or public, and dsicriminates the privacy of the citizens in the same poll that has to write others, compared to those who vote Odawara or Veii.
Odawara has already a legally binding poll that says it shall build Newtons College with a vast majority. I hope you can look into this matter quickly. This means, no instructions on the FP build can be resolved until this case is handled.


http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?p=2308403#post2308403

Before we go any further on this JR, I would like someone to prove to me that this poll is not completely private. :D

Well, it is proven, the ones voting for others had to write their option down, in order for it
to be considered, so all the others votes are de facto public, where all the other votes are private.

So if I vote for Yatta and then claim below that my "Other" choice is Doomsville, you would allow me two votes?

Exactly, the poll has a major inherent weakness there, there is a hybrid accountability in creating a differentiated privacy policy, where the aristocrats of Veii and Odawara can hide their persona, where the Doomsville people has to announce it.

No, the fact is this is a private poll, not a hybrid. Although it never should have been a weasley private poll, that's water under the bridge. Votes must stay the way they are. Minister Zarn is in charge of locating our second Palace as a Domestic initiative. That makes the poll legal and binding. You are trying to flank it with a personal side issue and this is not right.

Provolution, there's nothing in the Constitution about public or private polls. A poll can be public, private, a "hybrid", whatever; it doesn't make the poll invalid. It simply doesn't matter.

Well, good to know :) We rest the case :) The poll stands. I only hope for a second great leader to emerge now. As long as I am allowed to make similar polls, I assume this sets precedence in the Code of Laws as Case Law in the Common Law sense.

We rest the case
Does this mean you don't request a judicial review anymore? :confused: I don't really get what you want from the Judiciary in regard to this poll.

Whatever the case, I can inform you that our current ruleset (e.g. Constitution and Code of Laws) makes no difference between 'formal' and 'informal' polls. Hence every poll is valid, and to some extent (remember the Will of the People in Article J) binding. The only exception the Constitution makes between polls are Constitutional/Code of Laws amendment polls and policy polls. The latter are not exactly codified, while amendments have to follow certain procedures, and are subject to the number of voters and approval.

Strider has requested a Judicial Review regarding a Constitutional Amendment. He proposes to change Article K:
All irreversible game actions must progress during a public turnchat,
while reversible game actions(ie build queues) that adhere to legal
instruction can be prepared offline.
into:
Article K.
All irreversible game actions must progress during a public turnchat, while
reversible game actions(ie build queues) that adhere to legal instruction can
be prepared offline.
1. A turnchat instruction thread must be created at least 3 days before
the chat.
a. All instructions created by leaders must be posted inside of the
current turnchat instruction thread.
Instructions must be clear and defined.
b. A leader must post their instructions at least one hour before the
Turnchat. However, a leader may make changes to their instructions up
to an hour before the chat, so long as those changes are noted.
2. The designated player shall be charged with the creation of a date and
time for all public turnchats.

The Court decides to add this Review to the docket and marks this Judicial Review as DG5JR#26.

CJ's Ruling DG5JR#26

I find no contradictions to our current ruleset, since this is just an expansion of the current article. Hence I see no problems to pass it to the Ratification Poll.

also, any chance the chief justice could be overruled by the other two justices if done so unanimously? As it stands (Although it would probably rarely be a problem) the Chief justice has complete control over what will go on the docket.

Just a suggestion :D

It's been some time ago since KCCrusader posted this. I didn't have to time to reply to it, so here is my reply.

Quite frankly, I like it. It gives the Chief Justice the authority to quickly rule on something on which is basically concensus among the judges. And if there is not, the 2 judges have to unite in order to overrule the CJ.

If the other judges agree, I will add this clause to the Procedures.

I find that the proposed law has no contradictions in our current ruleset and it may proceed to polling as soon as quorom is achieved

It's been some time ago since KCCrusader posted this. I didn't have to time to reply to it, so here is my reply.

Quite frankly, I like it. It gives the Chief Justice the authority to quickly rule on something on which is basically concensus among the judges. And if there is not, the 2 judges have to unite in order to overrule the CJ.

If the other judges agree, I will add this clause to the Procedures.
No arguments here feel free to add it

Public Defender's ruling on DG5JR#26:

Aside from minor typos (words running together) that the CJ should correct prior to posting the official poll, I find this proposal to not contradict any current Constitutional article. It therefore passes my Judicial Review.

-- Ravensfire, Public Defender

It's been some time ago since KCCrusader posted this. I didn't have to time to reply to it, so here is my reply.

Quite frankly, I like it. It gives the Chief Justice the authority to quickly rule on something on which is basically concensus among the judges. And if there is not, the 2 judges have to unite in order to overrule the CJ.

If the other judges agree, I will add this clause to the Procedures.

This proposal gives a small check to a potentially abusive rule, I agree to adding this clause.

-- Ravensfire, Public Defender

Since the amendment on Article K passed Judicial Review, an amendment poll is now up in the polls section (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=104005).
The Court urges all citizens to vote in this Constitutional Amendment Poll.

No arguments here feel free to add it
This proposal gives a small check to a potentially abusive rule, I agree to adding this clause.

It's changed. From now on the Judge Advocate and the Public Defender can stand up together to a decision by the CJ on the merit of a Judicial Review.

May it Please the Court!

I hereby request a Judicial Review to consider what would happen if neither an Officer (encompasses both Ministers and Governors) nor his/her Deputy, are able to post instructions in the TCIT for various reasons. I have found nowhere in the Constitution, the CoL, nor the Judicial Log that can give me guidance on this.

If an Officer and his/her Deputy are unable to post in the TCIT, for whatever reason, then how should the DP proceed with the affairs of that Office?

May it Please the Court!

I hereby request a Judicial Review to consider what would happen if neither an Officer (encompasses both Ministers and Governors) nor his/her Deputy, are able to post instructions in the TCIT for various reasons. I have found nowhere in the Constitution, the CoL, nor the Judicial Log that can give me guidance on this.

If an Officer and his/her Deputy are unable to post in the TCIT, for whatever reason, then how should the DP proceed with the affairs of that Office?
i thought JRs questions had to be answerable with yes or no.....

I didn't read that in the Term 4 Court Procedures.

Though, if I had to ask Y/N questions, that JR would have multiple questions. I guess it would be like this:

1. If an Officer and his/her Deputy are unable to post in the TCIT, for whatever reason, then can the Turnchat proceed?

2. And, if so, Can the DP change standing orders relating to that Office? (Standing orders are items that can be continued such as Slider Settings, orders regarding Demands, and Build Queues.)


The reason why I bring this up is that in 12 Hours, I'll have to have a TC with no orders for Edo Province. I'm considering letting the current build orders (from the previous TC) stand, but not go beyond them. If the Justices decide any differently, then I will abide by their decision in future TCs.

I didn't read that in the Term 4 Court Procedures.

Though, if I had to ask Y/N questions, that JR would have multiple questions. I guess it would be like this:

1. If an Officer and his/her Deputy are unable to post in the TCIT, for whatever reason, then can the Turnchat proceed?

2. And, if so, Can the DP change standing orders relating to that Office? (Standing orders are items that can be continued such as Slider Settings, orders regarding Demands, and Build Queues.)


The reason why I bring this up is that in 12 Hours, I'll have to have a TC with no orders for Edo Province. I'm considering letting the current build orders (from the previous TC) stand, but not go beyond them. If the Justices decide any differently, then I will abide by their decision in future TCs.
you are correct, it seems that was taken out...

Sir Donald III has requested a Judicial Review on the issue of the absence of both the official and his deputy. His exact question to the court is as follows.

If an Officer and his/her Deputy are unable to post in the TCIT, for whatever reason, then how should the DP proceed with the affairs of that Office?

The Court sees that this Judicial Review has merit and it will be marked as DG5JR#27 in the docket.

Sir Donald III has requested a Judicial Review on the issue of the absence of both the official and his deputy. His exact question to the court is as follows.

If an Officer and his/her Deputy are unable to post in the TCIT, for whatever reason, then how should the DP proceed with the affairs of that Office?

The Court sees that this Judicial Review has merit and it will be marked as DG5JR#27 in the docket.

Sir Donald III also posted two yes/no questions in place of his original question. Should we include our answers to those in our opinion?

-- Ravensfire, Public Defender

Let's consider those as sub-questions. So try to formulate an answer to these questions while ruling on the main-question.

CJ's Ruling DG5JR#27

Currently there is no specific law in place to give the DP any guidance on what to do if a leader doesn't post instructions or is absent.
However, I would like reference to article E.2.b of the Constitution for this matter.
Constitution Article E.2.b
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.
Stating that governors are responsible for setting any build queus, this article suggests that build queues remain valid until they are changed by the governor, or if applicable his deputy, or until the queue finished. Therefore they may not be changed by the DP, without the explicit approval of the governor So I would suggest the DP to finish the build queues, as set by the governor first.

If the governor, or any other official, is absent, as prescribed by the Code of Laws in article G.3.b
Code of Laws Article G.3.b
Should an offical fail to post instructions for 2 consecutive turn chats
without prior notice, the Judiciary may declare that office vacant
the president will be allowed to appoint a new official as set forth by Constitution article G.4.
However if an official fails to task his deputy with the official's authority, as described in Article G.2 of the Constitution, I think that the office can even be considered vacant if the absence is announced in advance.

To get back on your question I will provide a short statement. In the event of the absence of both an official and his deputy, the DP should finish the existing buildqueues, and if no further instructions are provided, should take over the responsibility of the office, by either appointing a new official, if the office have been declared vacant by the Judiciary, or by setting buildqueus that way, the DP deems the best, taking into account the Will of the People.

EDIT: This ruling is based on the situation that a governor fails to post new instructions. However, this ruling also applies if a member of the Executive Branch fails to post instructions, since the same rules apply to them concerning deputies.

Sir Donald III comes before the court asking:
If an Officer and his/her Deputy are unable to post in the TCIT, for whatever reason, then how should the DP proceed with the affairs of that Office?
Along with this, he asks two sub-questions:
1. If an Officer and his/her Deputy are unable to post in the TCIT, for whatever reason, then can the Turnchat proceed?

2. And, if so, Can the DP change standing orders relating to that Office? (Standing orders are items that can be continued such as Slider Settings, orders regarding Demands, and Build Queues.)

The DP is perhaps the most thankless job in the DG. It takes a tremendous amount of time and planning to pull off, and usually garners only disapproval, second-guessing and complaints. These are from when there are instructions!

The specific question is how to proceed when there are no instructions.

Relevant law
Article D: The President shall take direction from a
council of leaders and from other elected and appointed
officials via the turnchat instruction thread.
Article J. Elected officials must plan and act according to the will
of the people. The will of the people will be determined
through discussion and polls, formal or informal. If pertinent
discussion is done outside the scope of the DG forums, then it must
be documented in the Turnchat Instruction Thread 6 hours
prior to the commencement of the turnchat by the appropriate
leader.

Article K. All irreversible game actions must progress during a
public turnchat, while reversible game actions(ie build
queues) that adhere to legal instruction can be prepared
offline.

Citizen comments
At the time of this posting, no citizen comments have been made on this JR.

Analysis
As feared by Sir Donald III, an elected official did fail to post instructions for their office. SDIII adopted the position that he would follow the instructions from the TCIT. The President is bound by Article D to "take direction" through the TCIT (interestingly enough, the DP is not bound by Article D if they are not the President). These instructions must follow (per Article J) the Will of the People (WotP) from discussions and polls. The requirement for the DP to follow legal instructions is somewhat vague compared to previous games, but still very much in force through Article J. The question, however, is what happens when the WotP is not made clear to the President/DP?

We, through our laws, place the burden of posting instructions upon the elected officials. If they fail to post instructions directly or indirectly (through others via PM, for example), the elected official is in danger of being removed from office. This burden is shared only to the deputy for that office, who may post instructions for an office if the main holder does not post anything. There is no burden placed in law for the President to conduct discussions or post instructions for absent ministers.

With this desire to punish only the minister for missing instructions, it seems foolish to further punish the DP by requiring them to look through multiple discussions/polls to determine what the WotP might be for that office.

Ruling by the Public Defender
If an Officer and his/her Deputy are unable to post in the TCIT, for whatever reason, then how should the DP proceed with the affairs of that Office?

The DP may conduct the affairs of that office as they see fit, using their best judgement. They may, at their discretion, request advice from those attending the chat, but are under no obligation to ask for advice, or follow any advice given. This involves all aspects of that office. Turn Chat instructions are found only in the TCIT - all other instructions/standing orders not referenced in a post in the current TCIT are invalid (see Article D).

If an Officer and his/her Deputy are unable to post in the TCIT, for whatever reason, then can the Turnchat proceed?

Yes.

And, if so, Can the DP change standing orders relating to that Office? (Standing orders are items that can be continued such as Slider Settings, orders regarding Demands, and Build Queues.)

Yes.

-- Ravensfire, Public Defender

To open up Article's D state that


Article D : The President shall take direction from a
council of leaders and from other elected and appointed
officials via the turnchat instruction thread.

Code:
Article J. Elected officials must plan and act according to the will
of the people. The will of the people will be determined
through discussion and polls, formal or informal. If pertinent
discussion is done outside the scope of the DG forums, then it must
be documented in the Turnchat Instruction Thread 6 hours
prior to the commencement of the turnchat by the appropriate
leader.



The question is "If an Officer and his/her Deputy are unable to post in the TCIT, for whatever reason, then how should the DP proceed with the affairs of that Office?"

in the case of governors the DP should follow the buildques until they have finished . After the buildques the DP may act in the place of that leader as he/she sees fit until either the head of the province/department returns or is declared vacant , in which case the DP is required to follow the constitutions requirments for filling a vacant office.

the questions

If an Officer and his/her Deputy are unable to post in the TCIT, for whatever reason, then how should the DP proceed with the affairs of that Office?
The DP may act in place of those ministers as he she/sees fit unless it is a governor , then the DP must finish the buildques before taking over
If an Officer and his/her Deputy are unable to post in the TCIT, for whatever reason, then can the Turnchat proceed?
Yes



And, if so, Can the DP change standing orders relating to that Office? (Standing orders are items that can be continued such as Slider Settings, orders regarding Demands, and Build Queues.)

Yes


I know this is not as long or detailed as the PD or CJ's rulings but I have been busy lately and am loaded with work now(200+ math problems and 2 literary analysis paper) and I feel that this case needed a clear ruling sooner rather than a detailed one later.

***Chief Justice gert-janl got down from his seat. When he walked through the empty courthouse his footsteps echoed against the high ceiling. Strafing towards the exit he passed the 'Hall of Famous Judges'. He passed a lot of old paintings of all his predecessors. Then he noticed the painting of former Chief Justice Cyc. He moved his head closer to the painting so that he could smell the paint. His imagination took him for a while. "Imagine", he thought, "how it would be like to be actually working". When he looked closely he noticed that this former Chief Justice looked very worried on the painting. Apparently this man had to deal with a lot of cases. This created worries with the present term Chief Justice. He wondered what had changed over time..."Would the constitution be perfect now? Would everything be settled peacefully by the citizens without needing the intervention of a Court?" The sudden movement behind him awoke him from his worried thoughts. The Chief Justice turned around, but couldn't see what awoke him. Depressed he continued walking through the hall of Famous Judges and entered the Central Hall. He decided to take a walk outside. He walked to the huge wooden door of the Courthouse. He tried to open it, but the door seemed jammed. After numerous times trying to open the rusty locks the Chief Justice succeeded. The bright sunlight entered the building and blinded the Chief Justice; he wasn't used to daylight anymore. After a while he could see again, and he noticed various busy marketsalesmen at the market across the street. "At least some people are working", he thought. After making a short walk, he got back into his Courthouse, hoping to be working soon. ***

Ashburnham looks around the dusty Courthouse, not seeing any activity. He leaves a note on one of the desks and walks out

I'd like to ask for a Judicial Review regarding authority. Who has the final say on embassy and espionage missions? Specifically, who says when to send missions, where to send them, and what exactly to do? Common sense would say the FA Ministry, but it's never mentioned in the Constitution (as far as I could tell).

Glad you've got something on the docket now,
Deputy Ashburnham

Classical_hero walks into the courthouse. "Hello" he yells. "This place must be barren. Justice seems to be asleep in this nation."

@Ash. I would assume it be the job of the FA to be in charge of espionage, because does not seem to fit any other ministry. I think that Atricle D in the Constitution needs to be fleshed out so that it includes all the Jobs of each department. not just a brief, unclear description.

This is exactly why some of us has tried to create organizations out of ministries, to some isolated players dismay. But for me it has increased the value of the DG, and many agrees.

Ashburnham has requested a Judicial Review regarding article D of the Constitution.
He would like to know who, according to the Constitution has the final say on embassy and espionage missions? Specifically, who says when to send missions, where to send them, and what exactly to do?

After consideration this Court decides that this Judicial Review has merit and it will be marked as DG5JR#28 in the Court's docket.

CJ's Ruling on DG5JR#28

Here's the most important article of this Judicial Review for reference.
Article D.2
The minister of Foreign Affairs shall be responsible for matters
involving treaties with foreign nations, as prescribed by law

Article D.2 specifies the task of the Minister of Foreign Affairs. However this article remains quite vague on the exact task. This article implies that the foreign Minister should only be concerned with 'matters involving treaties with foreign nations'. However, conducting spy/embassy missions have no treaties involved. So one could conclude that the Minister of Foreign Affairs has not the final decision in these missions.

The question remains, who is?
Considering that Article D also states the following:
The Executive branch is responsible for determining
and implementing the will of the People.
I cannot conclude otherwise than that the Executive Branch as a whole is responsible for spy/embassy missions. Given the fact that the President is the leader of the Executive Branch, it's also his right to decide whether or not to conduct spy/embassy missions.

I would like to thank Ashburnham for bringing the attention of the court to this situation. I would personally recommend to change article D.2 so that this situation, which is, as you stated, according to common sense a Foreign Affairs issue, will be resolved.

I wish to request a Judicial Review much like the above.

Who has the authority to organize placement of Spaceship parts?

Justice Ravensfire looks up from his notes on the current Judicial Review.
"Are there any other citizens with input on this matter?"
He poises his pen over a pad of paper, ready to take notes.

The President shall take direction from a
council of leaders and from other elected and appointed
officials via the turnchat instruction thread.

This would make it so that the president would have to follow the instruction of each minister. So, we're back to where we started from, confusion.

I think it is high time that each ministry's roles are solidified and the borders clearly drawn.

The key question here is who has the power in Embassy and espionage missions. Logically one would think the foreign affairs minister would have this power, however the constitution gives the foreign minister the powers of :

Article D.2
The minister of Foreign Affairs shall be responsible for matters
involving treaties with foreign nations, as prescribed by law

The actions of espionage and establishing an agency cannot be considered matters of treaty si therefore the foreign minister does not have the power to order espionage missions or embassies

THis leads to the question of who does have that power


My honorable colleage CJ Gert-Janl ruled that the final say on these matters goes to the president , I agree with him on this matter for a different reason, he cited article D , I my opinion DG5JR27 said that instructions not posted leaves the DP with the authority to issue instructions for that office and since nobody can legally post instructions on the abovementioned matters, their jurdisticion falls directly under that of the president.

Summary
The deciscion on embassies and espionage is soley in the hands of the president. however I would strongly reccomend this be altered to give the powers to the FA minister

-Mhcarver
Office of the Judge Advocate

What? Now we want a detailed Constitution? I thought everyone was against that. It seems to me that Japanatica could have used The Three Books as a model of want needed to be addressed as far as responsibilities of our Leaders. But now, we find the "small footprint" Constitution and supporting laws lacking in guidance. :mischief: What a shame. Seems to me that with a bit of common sense applied to previous documents, most of these questions could be answered.

With this question about espionage, the Constitution doesn't help. We can conduct espionage in a foreign nation whether we have a treaty with them or not. But espionage is merely covert operations in a foreign country, therefore you would think that the Foreign Affairs Office would handle it. But what is the purpose of our espionage? I would think most of it would be for Military operations, therefore the MA would be heavily involved in deciding which cities to investigate, or which nations to plant a spy in. I would think checking on Wonders would be a major concern for investigating cities,therefore the Cultural Minister would play a big part in the espionage game. And of course, monitoring Space Ship production of other countries is an important reason for having spies located in the Capitals of foreign nations, therefore the Science Advisor would want to have a say in the placement of spies in order to help project future research paths.

So, I say it is not up to the President. Quit piling things on top of the Prez's shoulders. This espionage game covers many different facets of Foriegn Affairs. All of which are entwined around the common goal of obtaining information for the benefit of the nation. So at this point, I would say any Leader can initiate a call for espionage in any foreign country for any reason supported by their Department. Rather than funneling these calls through one person, such as the FA Minister or the President, it would probably be more efficient for each Leader desiring a bit of under-cover investigation to start a discussion thread about it and then create a detailed poll asking permission to move forward with discussed options. All of this is vaguely covered in the Constitution now, although it's hard to see.

In other words, there is no ONE person in charge. Just use the normal procedures to collect information and obtain the WOTP. That should cover the question.

You are completely right, however, the question of the Judicial Review was who was in the end responsible. Of course anyone could start discussions about a possible spy/embassy mission. That is a right of the people, as also stated in Article N, which allows anyone anything not strictly forbidden by the Constitution.

In my ruling however, I tried to point out that the current wording of Article D should be a little more flexible. Instead of the words 'involving treaties with foreign nations' possibly the words 'involving relations with foreign nations' could be better. However, this amendment should be discussed by the House of Representatives and it is not up to me to change the Constitution here.

In response to Strider I would say this is merely a co-operation between local governors and the minister of Science, since space-ship parts falls under tech-acquisition untill it is discovered and then it becomes a small wonder.

As a last word I would like to remind everyone, just as Cyc just did, that we all wanted a short non-detailed constitution. That means we can't cover anything, and that we have to use our common sense most of the time.

As a last word I would like to remind everyone, just as Cyc just did, that we all wanted a short non-detailed constitution. That means we can't cover anything, and that we have to use our common sense most of the time.

True, but leaving it too vague or having bad wording leads to the confusion we are in.

This would make it so that the president would have to follow the instruction of each minister. So, we're back to where we started from, confusion.

I think it is high time that each ministry's roles are solidified and the borders clearly drawn.

I've tried several time to clearly define the executive branches duties, but so far it has not worked.

Public Defender's opinion on DG5JR#28

I'm going to skip my usual quoting of relevant law on this one, just note that it's found in the other Justice's rulings.

I will disagree with the opinions offered by my fellow members of the Judiciary, and agree with the comments offered by Cyc and others.

The intent of the framers of our Constitution were clear - the Minister of Foreign Affairs was to oversee most matters with foreign nations, excepting those clearly within the purview of other Ministers (trade and conducting war). We divide up most of the National level tasks and objectives to the Ministers, leaving only a few things up to the President. This division helps distribute the workload. Although not clearly specified, the task of espionage and spying falls to the Minister of Foreign Affairs.

The wording of our Constitution is to be lamented at times, but the intent and desires of the creators was, and is clear. Key among those ideals was a broad, generalized reading of the Constitution with regards to the tasks assigned to various elected officials. We have experimented with highly detailed, verbose rulesets, and minimal, generic rulesets. By far, we have had the best luck with a combination of a loose ruleset and a broad reading when questions arose.

To me, placing Espionage on the entirity of the Executive branch is, well, a cop-out. We, the Judiciary, should be more defined, more clear in matters such as this. Our role is not just to resolve questions, but to help ensure the process of playing the game, the political process that these forums represent, continues in a smooth manner. When the Constitution speaks clearly, it should be read as such (WoTP is a prime example of this). When is reads loosely, it should be treated as such.

Ruling:
The Public Defender finds that Espionage is assigned to the Minister of Foreign Affairs. That official should direct discussions and post instructions on all intelligence matters, including investigations, placement of spies and espionage.

-- Ravensfire, Public Defender

You are completely right, however, the question of the Judicial Review was who was in the end responsible. Of course anyone could start discussions about a possible spy/embassy mission. That is a right of the people, as also stated in Article N, which allows anyone anything not strictly forbidden by the Constitution.

By that same token, one could say that the Designated Player (usually the President, though not in this immediate case on account of Sir Richard and Mr. Phil,) is always in the end responsible, since it's the DP that ultimately impliments all actions taken from the TCIT. (Or makes things up as they go along at times.) There is the opening clause of Article D regarding the rights of subordinate Offices, but, again, if these do not speak up, DP has free reign. (DG5JR27)

As a last word I would like to remind everyone, just as Cyc just did, that we all wanted a short non-detailed constitution. That means we can't cover anything, and that we have to use our common sense most of the time.

Of course, from RL experiences, "Common Sense" and "Legal Code" seem to be mutually exclusive.


As for this particular case, this is, in my opinion on, how procedure should go:
Relevant Minister, or any Concerned Citizen, Opens Discussion
FA opens Poll; or decides by fiat if possible.
DA approves Funds if poll Passes or if DA agrees with FA if by fiat.
Pres/DP impliments action, regardless of opinion.

I'm not saying I wouldn't want more power. :lol: Although I don't want to go back "down" to a Minister to get funding, especially if I impliment something by fiat. ;)

Actually, one point that was not made is that, in more devious operations than straight investigations, if the person making the covert action gets "caught", it would represent, at the least, a stain on our reputation, and at worst, initate War. Because of that, "Investigate City" is perhaps the only mission that might be outside the scope of Foreign, becuase a "Diplomatic Incident" has the potential of breaking Peace Treaties, and IC is the only mission that does not have that as a possible consequence.


This is quite similar to how I would view "Abort Wonder Polls" in a future CoL I am proposing (within the 24 hour holding time):
Concerned Citizen calls for abort Wonder; War Minister has a special case clause.
Culture opens poll
Governor or War Minister (depending on circumstance) changes build queue in TCIT (if "Abort" wins),
Pres/DP changes build queue in game.

as a citizen I would like to request a judicial review on the following amendment to article D.6 of our constitution under current language it reads

Article D.6
The Minister of Culture shall be responsible for the
keeping of the peace and the construction of wonders.

if amended it would read:

The Minister of Culture shall be responsible for the construction of wonders, as well as the analysis and maintenance of cultural borders. This office shall also monitor Japanatica's cultural level against that of all rival nations.


-mhcarver

mhcarver has requested a Judicial Review on a Constitutional Amendment. The amendment reads:

Change article D.6 into:
The Minister of Culture shall be responsible for the construction of wonders,
as well as the analysis and maintenance of cultural borders. This office
shall also monitor Japanatica's cultural level against that of all rival
nations.

This has merit, and will be marked as DG5JR#29.

The Court will now consider this Judicial Review, and produce rulings soon.

CJ's Ruling on DG5JR#29

Though this is amendment changes a very important part of the Constitution, by striking the 'keeping of the peace' from the Cultural official's tasks, I don't think it is contradicting the Constitution as a whole.

I allow this amendment to be taken to the House of the People for a final vote.

Proposed Legislation
The Minister of Culture shall be responsible for the construction of wonders, as well as the analysis and maintenance of cultural borders. This office shall also monitor Japanatica's cultural level against that of all rival nations.

This proposal does not contradict any current law. Moreover, it clarifies the role of the Minister of Culture. This proposal passes my review. It should, however, be formatted per the rest of the Constitution prior to be submitted.

-- Ravensfire, Public Defender

I find that the proposed leglislation does not contradict the constitution in any way and may proceed to polling

In DG5JR#29 the Court rules unanimously that this amendment is allowed to be passed for approval by the House of the People. The poll is up here (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=105316).

May it Please the Court!

So that there are no toes stepped on, I hereby request a Judicial Review on this question:

Who is the administrator of the City recently founded on the other Continent?

For this JR, I refer to Section O (1) of the Code of Laws (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=94616).

Col O.1 - Formation of new Provinces

A: All land that is not within or surrounded by the Cultural Boundaries
of another nation may be considered as part of the Japanatican Nation.

B: In the beginning of the game, a default Province shall be established and
a Governor installed by election therein. This First Province shall contain
all lands that are part of the Japanatican Nation until other Provinces are
formed, and has at its Capital the First Established City.

C: Territories shall be formed by the House devising "Boundary Lines" within
established Provinces. Ratification by the People is required before these
boundaries have effect. The minimum size of these Territories should be a
space large enough to fit 3 cities at full Temple Radius.
1: Once a Territory has at least three (3) towns or has at least 50% of
the land within the entire territory under Japatanica's Cultural
Borders, then it becomes a Full Province with its own Governor.
a: Until this happens, administration of towns within the territory
are retained by the Governors of their respective former
Provinces. Administration of New Towns formed before the limit
is achieved will be under the control of the Domestic Minister.
b: Governors of new Provinces will be appointed by the President,
under recommendations from the Domestic Minister. These
appointments will last only until the end of the current term,
and be subject to Section G of the Code of Laws.
D: Provincial Boundaries may be readjusted with consent of the affected
Governors and the House.

May it Please the Court!

So that there are no toes stepped on, I hereby request a Judicial Review on this question:

Who is the administrator of the City recently founded on the other Continent?

Why would the responsibility shift from Domestic at this day and age?

Sir Donald III has requested a Judicial Review on the following question:
Who is the administrator of the City recently founded on the other Continent?

Sir Donald III referenced Code of Laws article O.1

After careful consideration the Chief Justice rules, in accordance with Term 4 Court Procedures Article 7.c.3 that this Judicial Review doesn't have merit, and will therefore be dismissed.

CJ's Ruling on the dismissal
In my opinion Sir Donald III already gave the answer to his own question by referencing Code of Laws article O.1.
Article O.1.C.a clearly states that as long as a town/city doesn't belong to an officially established Province, the Domestic Minister will in control of the town(s)/city(s).
For reference you'll find the article here as well:
Code of Laws Article O.1.C
C: Territories shall be formed by the House devising "Boundary Lines" within
established Provinces. Ratification by the People is required before these
boundaries have effect. The minimum size of these Territories should be a
space large enough to fit 3 cities at full Temple Radius.
1: Once a Territory has at least three (3) towns or has at least 50% of
the land within the entire territory under Japatanica's Cultural
Borders, then it becomes a Full Province with its own Governor.
a: Until this happens, administration of towns within the territory
are retained by the Governors of their respective former
Provinces. Administration of New Towns formed before the limit
is achieved will be under the control of the Domestic Minister.
b: Governors of new Provinces will be appointed by the President,
under recommendations from the Domestic Minister. These
appointments will last only until the end of the current term,
and be subject to Section G of the Code of Laws.
D: Provincial Boundaries may be readjusted with consent of the affected
Governors and the House.

Sir Donald III comes before the court asking:
Who is the administrator of the City recently founded on the other Continent?

Relevant law
a: Until this happens, administration of towns within the territory
are retained by the Governors of their respective former
Provinces. Administration of New Towns formed before the limit
is achieved will be under the control of the Domestic Minister.

Citizen comments
The Public Defender's office notes the comments by blackheart, and extends our thanks!

Analysis
Fortunately, the law is clear on this. Until such time as territorial boundaries are defined, and three cities are formed within that territory, the Domestic Minister controls the actions of those cities. A single city in a new land clearly fails both the defined territory and the three city requirement, thus it's under Domestic's control.

Ruling by the Public Defender
A city outside defined territories, or within a brand new territory (not carved out of an existing territory), is under the control of the Domestic Minister.

-- Ravensfire, Public Defender

The Term 4 Court is now officially closed
:hammer:

Any judicial matters may be directed to the new Chief Justice in the appropriate thread (term 5 thread (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=106060))