Will the court please come to order !
:hammer:
Welcome to the term 5 Judiciary thread, note this is not the official judiciary thread until the start of term 5 so refer requests to the term 4 thread

Edit: Gert Janl has just declared the term 4 thread closed, therefore the Office of the term 5 Judiciary is now officially open for business!
I am setting this up in order to have the court in order the minute term 5 starts and to ensure that the court procedures are ratified as quickly as possible. I have not made any changes to the Judicial code but if the Public Defender and Judge Advocate elect feel any changes are needed now would be the time to make your voice heard

The Census for term 5 is 31
The amount of voters needed for an amendment to the Code of laws is 11
The amount of voters needed for an amendment to the consitution in 20

The Justices for term 5 are :
Chief Justice:Mhcarver
Public Defender:Ravensfire
Judge Advocate:Black_Hole

I would like to congratulate Ravenfire on his re-election to the office of PD and Black_Hole on finally getting a spot on the Judiciary his second try

Feel free to visit the Judicial library for the following things
Japantican constitution
Japanatican Judicial Log
Term 1 Judiciary
Term 2 Judicary
Term 3 Judiciary
Term 4 Judicary


As my honorable predecessor said
"Do not hesitate to approach the Court when needed. It's our task to protect your rights!"
:hammer:

------------------------Term 5 Docket------------------------

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Ratification of Court Procedures
Status:Ratified in advance by all three members of the Judiciary

DG5JR30
Status:Completed, ruling entered in Judicial log
Submitted by: Ashburnham
Details:Ashburnham has proposed an amendment to portions of Article D of the Constitution.

DG5JR31
Status:Completed, ruling entered in Judicial Log
Submitted by:Nobody
Details:FA minister nobody wants to know who has power over trade embargoes, the Foreign affairs or trade department.

DG5JR32
Status:Completed, ruling entered in Judicial Log
Submitted by:Mhcarver
Details:as a citizen, Mhcarver has proposed adding a section H to the Code of Laws dealing with election reform

DG5JR33
Status:Completed
Submitted by:Classical Hero
Details:The trade minister Classical hero wants to know who has power over giving gifts, foreign affairs or trade Ministries?


DG5CC2
Status: Dismissed after investigation
Submitted by:Anymous
Details:an anymous citizen has filed a Citizen Complaint against Epithemus for violating article N

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.

I hereby vote Yes for the ratification of the Judicial procedures for term 5

I, Governer General CivGeneral of the Edo Province, would like to present the Term 5 Judicary Department a new gavel and a poofy wig worn by the judges of the British Commonwelth in RL. :)

Congrats and hope to have a calm 5th term :D.

Calm term? Wasn't term 4 calm enough? I hope this will be an active term for the judiciary so that they can show their potential!

Good luck!

Calm term? Wasn't term 4 calm enough? I hope this will be an active term for the judiciary so that they can show their potential!

Good luck!
I hope that it will continue :D

Hello Honorable Chief Justice Elect Mhcarver and Honorable Public Defender Ravensfire.
Lets fix up this constitution! :D
I will look at the Judicial Procedures when possible.

Honorable Justices,

I'd like to ask for a judicial review of a proposed amendment to the Constitution regarding Articles D.2 and D.5 (additions highlighted in red). I understand a ruling on this won't be effective until Term 5 begins, but I felt it should be proposed now to allow the proper time for discussion and inspection.


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.
2. The Minister of Foreign Affairs shall be responsible
for matters involving treaties with foreign nations as well
as all espionage and embassy missions as prescribed by law.
3. The Minister of Defense shall be responsible for all
military strategy and troop activities, as
prescribed by law.
4. The Minister of Trade shall be responsible for all
trade, domestic and foreign, and the use of resources,
as perscibed by law.
5. The Minister of Science shall be responsible for all tech
acquisition and construction of spaceship parts
as prescribed by law.
6. The Minister of Culture shall be responsible for the
construction of wonders, as well as the analysis and
maintenance of cultural borders.This official shall also be
responsible for monitoring Japanatica's cultural level
against that of all rival nations.

Discussion Thread (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=105101&page=1&pp=20)
Proposed Poll (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=2374193&postcount=36)


Regards,
Deputy Minister Ashburnham

The Office of the Public Defender is preparing for it's second term under my direction.

Welcome to the big gavel, mhcarver!

Your judicial procedures look fine to me.

-- Ravensfire, Public Defender

Ashburnham has proposed amending article D of our consitution from


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.
2. The Minister of Foreign Affairs shall be responsible
for matters involving treaties with foreign nations,
as prescribed by law.
3. The Minister of Defense shall be responsible for all
military strategy and troop activities, as
prescribed by law.
4. The Minister of Trade shall be responsible for all
trade, domestic and foreign, and the use of resources,
as perscibed by law.
5. The Minister of Science shall be responsible for all tech
acquisition, as prescribed by law.
6. The Minister of Culture shall be responsible for the construction
of wonders, as well as the analysis and maintenance of cultural
borders. This official shall also be responsible for monitoring
Japanatica's cultural level against that of all rival nations.

to
(changes in bold)
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.
2. The Minister of Foreign Affairs shall be responsible
for matters involving treaties with foreign nations as well
as all espionage and embassy missions as prescribed by law.
3. The Minister of Defense shall be responsible for all
military strategy and troop activities, as
prescribed by law.
4. The Minister of Trade shall be responsible for all
trade, domestic and foreign, and the use of resources,
as perscibed by law.
5. The Minister of Science shall be responsible for all tech
acquisition and construction of spaceship parts as prescribed by law.
6. The Minister of Culture shall be responsible for the
construction of wonders, as well as the analysis and
maintenance of cultural borders.This official shall also be
responsible for monitoring Japanatica's cultural level
against that of all rival nations.

The incoming court finds that this will have merit for Judicial review and is to be added to the docket at the start of term 5 and will be marked and added to the docket as DG5JR30

I approve of the Judicial Procedures.
I will not rule on DG5JR#30 until the new term has begun.

I approve of the Judicial Procedures.
I will not rule on DG5JR#30 until the new term has begun.
No problem BH I don't intend to rule until the start of the term either

All Members of the court have ratified the Judicial procedures for term V. They are to be considered valid the moment the term starts

it should be 30, as the original #30 wasnt added to gert's docket because it had no merit

can someone please check my math on the quorom and census? I have a funny feeling I messes up somewhere,,,,

I find that the proposes leglislation does not conflict with our constitution in any way .

From the office of The Judge Advocate

DG5JR#30 Decision
I find the modifacations to article D do not conflict with any other laws and may move onto polling.

From the office of The Judge Advocate

DG5JR#30 Decision
I find the modifacations to article D do not conflict with any other laws and may move onto polling.


Does a Justice have to poll this? If not, I'll be putting up a poll right now.

Does a Justice have to poll this? If not, I'll be putting up a poll right now.
the cj will once all justices have ruled

Greeting Honoured members of the court.
Congratulations of your Elections. I would like to request a Judical Review. I would like a Interpretation and clarification of existing Law. I wan't to know who has responsabilitys over Trade Embargos. Trade or Foreign Affair,
4. The Minister of Trade shall be responsible for all
trade, domestic and foreign, and the use of resources,
as perscibed by law. says all trade but issueing a embargo is not really a exchange while
2. The Minister of Foreign Affairs shall be responsible
for matters involving treaties with foreign nations as well
as all espionage and embassy missions as prescribed by law. says all treatys. As a embargo is a diplomatic agreement between to civs not to trade with another 3rd. Iam unsure.
Oh well please clarifiy.

Thanks
Nobody

Nobody has requested a judicial review on who has power over trade embargoes. I find this Judicial review has merit and will be added to the judicial docket as DG5JR31

Public Defender's ruling on DG5JR#30

The Public Defender finds that the proposed legislation does not conflict with current law, and should be presented to the People for a vote.

-- Ravensfire

nobody has requested a JR on who has power over trade embargoes, the trade minister of Foreign Affairs minister. At question here are the descriptions of the two offices:


2. The minister of Foreign Affairs shall be responsible
for matters involving treaties with foreign nations as well
as all espionage and embassy missions as prescribed by law.

and


4. The Minister of Trade shall be responsible for all
trade, domestic and foreign, and the use of resources,
as perscibed by law.

As nobody outlined in his argument the foreign affairs minister is responsible for all treaties while the trade minister is responsible for all trades and use of resources. Dictionary.com defines an embargo as "A prohibition by a government on certain or all trade with a foreign nation." Under this logic it would go to the trade ministry. However a trade embargo requires an agreement with another nation and a treaty is defined as "A formal agreement between two or more states, as in reference to terms of peace or trade. In my mind the power to sign a treaty trumps the power of the trade department . Therefore the actions required to sign an embargo with another nation are a treaty and the power to issue embargoes falls under the Foreign affairs ministry.
:hammer:

-Mhcarver
Office of The Chief Justice

Judge Advocate's Opinion on DG5JR31

Nobody(The person :p) has asked:
I wan't to know who has responsabilitys over Trade Embargos. Trade or Foreign Affair,


As CJ Mhcarcer has shown above, article D.2 states the Foreign Affairs Minister is responsible for treaties. Trade embargoes are treaties, so he has control. Actually the only thing that would hint that the trade advisor has power, is the word "trade" before embargo. All other treaties are property of the FA, as decided in law and judicial reviews, so this one should be no exception.
The foreign affairs minister has control over trade embargos.

AS a citizen I would like to propose the following addition as article H of our COL

Code of Laws Section H:
1. Nominations
a. Nomination threads shall be normally be opened 8 days
before the end of the month at approximately 00:00 GMT (this is 7 or 8 PM Eastern time of the 23rd.) in the main DG forum
by a representative of the Election Office though any citizen may open a pre-nomination thread in the main forum to post a self-nomination and acceptance for any office up to one week ahead of the normal nomination threads."
b. The initial post for each office will describe the office and
the relevant dates for the election process.
c. A citizen may nominate any citizen(s), including themself, for
each election.
d. A nomination is considered Declined until the nominated citizen
posts that they accept the nomination. All self-nomination are
considered accepted unless posted otherwise.
e. Nomination threads are open until the first election poll is
posted.

2. Debates
a. Debate threads shall be opened at the same time the nomination
threads are opened, and be placed in the Citizens forum by a
representative of the Election Office.
b. Any citizen may post a question for the candidates to answer.
c. Debate threads are open until the election polls close.
3. Elections
a. Election polls shall be opened approximately 3 days after the
nomination threads are opened, and be placed in the main forum
by a representative of the Election Office.
b. Election polls shall set as "private" polls, and set to close
after 3 days (72 hours).
4. Election Office
a. The Election Office shall be comprised of those citizens
willing to assist the election process. These citizens are
nominated by the President, and are subject to a confirmation
poll.
b. The Election Office shall determine before each election who
will post the threads for that election.
c. The Election Office shall maintain on the initial post of their
thread the dates for the current and next election cycle.
d. The Election Office shall solicit and maintain a common list of
debate questions for each office. This list shall be posted as
soon as possible in each debate thread.
e. Any non-trivial differences in the dates/times threads are posted
from the scheduled time should be noted by the Election Office
official posting the thread.
discussion

I find that the above request for Judicial review has Merit and is to be added to the docket as DG5JR32

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

-Mhcarver
Office of the Chief Justice
:hammer:

Nobody bring the following question before the court:
I wan't to know who has responsabilitys over Trade Embargos. Trade or Foreign Affair,

Relevant law
Article D.2 of the Constitution: 2. The Minister of Foreign Affairs shall be responsible
for matters involving treaties with foreign nations,
as prescribed by law.
Article D.4 of the Const: 4. The Minister of Trade shall be responsible for all
trade, domestic and foreign, and the use of resources,
as perscibed by law.

Citizen comments
There are no citizen comments for this Judicial Review.

Analysis
The question is what are trade embargoes, and who controls them. Trade embargoes are essentially agreements between two civilizations not to trade with a third. These may involve money, technology or other agreements as part of that agreement. The key part, however, is that it is possible, and indeed normal, for these agreements to be made without any resources or technologies attached to the agreement. It's simple a promise between both civilizations.

As such, trade embargoes that do not involve resources or technologies are within the purview of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. When such an agreement involves such resources, the Ministry of Trade should be consulted for their approval. Such an agreement, including resources and technologies, constitutes a trade (...all trade, domestic and foreign, and the use of resources ...).

Likewise, any trade embargo agreement that involves the expenditure of our treasury must have the approval of the Minister of Domestic Affairs.

Public Defender's Ruling
Trade Embargo agreements are initiated and managed by the Minister of Foreign Affairs. The Minister must, however, seek the approval of other ministers as needed should the trade embargo agreement involve other Ministries.

-- Ravensfire, Public Defender.

Mhcarver brings a proposal to reform the election laws before the court, seeking a Judicial Review.

Public Defender's Ruling
After reading the proposed law, and the current laws, I find no conflict. This proposal should be presented before the people for adoption or rejection.

-- Ravensfire, Public Defender.

I would like to thank the judges for there fair decision, i present you with these fine gold clubs *all judges get a $14000 set of golden golf clubs* and your daughters will be released Immediately ;)

I would like to thank the judges for there fair decision, i present you with these fine gold clubs *all judges get a $14000 set of golden golf clubs* and your daughters will be released Immediately ;)


How did they find out about Bertha? :eek:

How did they find out about Bertha? :eek:

Rest assured, the CIA was watching the entire time and made sure the FAmily made no rash decisions.

I have the question for the Judiciary, does the power to upgrade (actual physical upgrading, not just allocating funds) fall under CIA (Domestic) or MSAV (Military)?

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.

3. The Minister of Defense shall be responsible for all
military strategy and troop activities, as
prescribed by law.

As stated in the Constitution, Domestic has power of funds and domestic initiaves while Defense's is military strategy and troop activites. Upgrading is borderline between the 2 since it requires funds, has to do with troops, and is a domestic initiative due to the fact of national defense and national interest.

I have the question for the Judiciary, does the power to upgrade (actual physical upgrading, not just allocating funds) fall under CIA (Domestic) or MSAV (Military)?




As stated in the Constitution, Domestic has power of funds and domestic initiaves while Defense's is military strategy and troop activites. Upgrading is borderline between the 2 since it requires funds, has to do with troops, and is a domestic initiative due to the fact of national defense and national interest.
i believe there was already a judical review on this...

I find the legislation doesn't conflict with itself or current legislation and should go forth to the people.

i believe there was already a judical review on this...

Do you have a link for it?...

Do you have a link for it?...In the Judicial Log in the Main Forum, this post here (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=2252272&postcount=26)

In the Judicial Log in the Main Forum, this post here (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=2252272&postcount=26)

Thank you.

Thanks for the help Furiey and Black Hole :goodjob:

Do you have a link for it?...
sorry, I was busy when i posted that

A citizen of the Demogame has contacted me anymously and wished to file a Citizen Complaint against Epithemus

the complaint reads

I, An anonymous citizen, will file a Citizen Complaint against the City Naming Office and Epimethius.

He has broken article N which says all rights not decscribed in the constitution are the right of every citizen. Since the constitution says nothing about city names, it is presumed each citizen has the right to name a city. However Epimethius as shown below has switched city names around. Also note, this is not the first time he has messed up in the citizen naming office.

Note: Since this is a bit long, the important information has been bolded.

Evidence:
1.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Article N
Article N: Rights reserved to the people As provided by Article A of this constitution, all actions not forbidden by forum rules, or by this Constitution, are presumed to be within the right of every citizen. Actions prescribed by this Constitution may be substituted by other similar actions, provided such substitution lies within the spirit of these rules.


2.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 360 AD TC instructions
City Naming Office Instructions

Eridu should immediately be renammed Nihilon
Any city founded or captured should also be renamed with the next name in this order. This is copied from the City Name Registry. If this list is not enough, then simply continue from there.

1. Doomsville
2. Baldur's Gate
3. Ominato
4. Kagemusha
5. Drachenfels
6. Fishpond if near a lake or Duckburg is anywhere else.

Rome should not be renamed. Should it be captured a poll on the matter of its name will be held.

Link : http://forums.civfanatics.com/showp...129&postcount=5

NOTICE how this list deviates from Citizen Registry List:

3.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Citizen Registry
Babbler
Msz4
Provolution
Annatar
Ankka

Link: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showp...688&postcount=2

4.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 610 AD instruction thread
-Ravenna will be renamed Port Solema, by request of Babbler.
-Hispalis will be renamed Ominato, by request of msz4.
-Viroconium will be renamed Kagemusha, by request of Provolution.

-Rome will not be renamed, as is tradition with wonder sites and former capitals. A poll will be held on what to rename it, if anything.

-TBD (Neo-Neapolis) will be renamed Drachenfels, by request of Annatar.
-TBD 2 (North Corrino) will be renamed Duckburg, by request of Ankka.

Link: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showp...652&postcount=5

Notice, Vironicum was not conquered at that time he posted instructions, it was conquered 590 AD.

Alphabethically, this would be:

Hispalis 570 BC founded, conquered 450 AD
Neo Neapolis, 490 AD founded,
North Corrino, 520 AD founded
Ravenna, 950 BC founded, conquered before 440 AD
Vironicum, 150 AD founded, conquered 590 AD

The above information shows that Virconium was conquored after Neo Neapolis

This is how is should be:

Ravenna 440 AD conquest (babbler) Port Solema
Hispalis 450 AD conquest (msz4) Ominato
Neo Neapolis 490 AD (Provolution) Kagemushab
"North Corrino" 520 AD (Annatar) Drachenfels
Viroconum 590 AD conquest (Ankka) Duckburg

This means, as proven by the Citizen Registry list, compared to various chatlogs and screenies, not to mention saves, as well as Epimethius own instructions, that his bias had lead the named city to be dislocated to the corrupt edge of Japanatica.
Kagemusha should have been where Drachenfels is now, not the other way around. All I want with this trial is to have Epimethius proven for obvious misconduct in handling the simplest of the simplest tasks, either to extreme incompetence, or by motivated intent to harm a political rival.

Thank-You,
Concerned Citizen

Notice: I have also been contacted by the undisclosed defendant. Unfortunately through pming, the bbcode didnt go through, so below is the same version with bbcode working..

__________________________________________________ __________________________

I, An anonymous citizen, will file a Citizen Complaint against the City Naming Office and Epimethius.

He has broken article N which says all rights not decscribed in the constitution are the right of every citizen. Since the constitution says nothing about city names, it is presumed each citizen has the right to name a city. However Epimethius as shown below has switched city names around. Also note, this is not the first time he has messed up in the citizen naming office.

Note: Since this is a bit long, the important information has been bolded.

Evidence:
1.
Article N: Rights reserved to the people As provided by Article A of this constitution, all actions not forbidden by forum rules, or by this Constitution, are presumed to be within the right of every citizen. Actions prescribed by this Constitution may be substituted by other similar actions, provided such substitution lies within the spirit of these rules.


2.
City Naming Office Instructions

Eridu should immediately be renammed Nihilon
Any city founded or captured should also be renamed with the next name in this order. This is copied from the City Name Registry. If this list is not enough, then simply continue from there.

1. Doomsville
2. Baldur's Gate
3. Ominato
4. Kagemusha
5. Drachenfels
6. Fishpond if near a lake or Duckburg is anywhere else.

Rome should not be renamed. Should it be captured a poll on the matter of its name will be held.
Link : http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=2227129&postcount=5

NOTICE how this list deviates from Citizen Registry List:

3.
Babbler
Msz4
Provolution
Annatar
Ankka

Link: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=2057688&postcount=2

4.
-Ravenna will be renamed Port Solema, by request of Babbler.
-Hispalis will be renamed Ominato, by request of msz4.
-Viroconium will be renamed Kagemusha, by request of Provolution.

-Rome will not be renamed, as is tradition with wonder sites and former capitals. A poll will be held on what to rename it, if anything.

-TBD (Neo-Neapolis) will be renamed Drachenfels, by request of Annatar.
-TBD 2 (North Corrino) will be renamed Duckburg, by request of Ankka.

Link: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=2253652&postcount=5

Notice, Vironicum was not conquered at that time he posted instructions, it was conquered 590 AD.

Alphabethically, this would be:

Hispalis 570 BC founded, conquered 450 AD
Neo Neapolis, 490 AD founded,
North Corrino, 520 AD founded
Ravenna, 950 BC founded, conquered before 440 AD
Vironicum, 150 AD founded, conquered 590 AD

The above information shows that Virconium was conquored after Neo Neapolis

This is how is should be:

Ravenna 440 AD conquest (babbler) Port Solema
Hispalis 450 AD conquest (msz4) Ominato
Neo Neapolis 490 AD (Provolution) Kagemushab
"North Corrino" 520 AD (Annatar) Drachenfels
Viroconum 590 AD conquest (Ankka) Duckburg

This means, as proven by the Citizen Registry list, compared to various chatlogs and screenies, not to mention saves, as well as Epimethius own instructions, that his bias had lead the named city to be dislocated to the corrupt edge of Japanatica.
Kagemusha should have been where Drachenfels is now, not the other way around. All I want with this trial is to have Epimethius proven for obvious misconduct in handling the simplest of the simplest tasks, either to extreme incompetence, or by motivated intent to harm a political rival.

Thank-You,
Concerned Citizen

I find this CC has merit and has been added to the Judicial docket, could the Judge Advocate please inform the Public Defender and the accused VIA PM as prescribed by judicial code and open the discussion thread when the time is right

-Mhcarver

Judge Advocates Ruling on DG5CC#2 Judical Review

I find that DG5CC#2 has merit and should continue in the Citizen Complaint Process.

From the office of the Judge Advocate

The public defender and accused have been notified by personal message.
Also note that the judical review regarding this CC having merit has not yet reached quorem(ravensfire must rule), thus a discussion will not be opened until ravensfire has ruled(althought it doesnt matter what he rules)

[May I speak publically on the matter, or I am supposed to hold it in until later? Assuming I can...]

Oh dear God, that's the big thing he had on me? An honest mistake made months ago?

And, while we're accusing eachother of being really cool politicians, I might as well point out that I never actually used my "trump card" on....the Anonymous but Obvious Plantiff, so its unclear why he pulled out his defense right now. ;)

Watch the language, and don't flame.

From the office of The Judge Advocate
Please save all discussion on the matter for the thread, which will be put up once ravensfire rules on the judical review.

Also Epimethius, I am prosecuting this case(not the accuser) since the accuser is anonymous, please do not post who you think he/she is, as it will most likely be wrong and create more flame wars.

Also please keep vulgarity out of the Judical Thread.

I didn't use any vulgarity. I said what, God? :dubious:

And even if the...."victim" were to get someone else to file the complaint, its obvious from the unique style of formatting and writing, not to mention timing, that he filed it himself. Just saying. ;)

From the Office of the Judge Advocate

lying __________ politicians
also it doesnt matter who accused you, the accuser is accusing on behalf of the citiznes of japanatica, hence the the title fo the thread will be "The Citizens vs Epimethius" not Name vs Epimethius

Oh, yeah, I did say that, didn't I. :p

I just think that the time between when the mistake took place and when the complaint was filed speaks for itself on what kind of wrong was done to who here. :p

Instead of reasonable let me put it this wasy

GET OUT OF MY OFFICE THIS IS NOT THE PLACE TO DISCUSS THIS. THAT GOES FOR ANYBODY, DO I MAKE MYSELF CLEAR!!!!!

:hammer:

I would also like to ask a favor of the Mods: to edit out any post(from anyone) that tries to name the accuser as it would cause flame wars and is not relevant to the proceedings

An anonymous Citizen's Complaint was filed against Epimethius and the City Naming Office (CNO), alleging violations of Article N of the Constitution.

Analysis
This complaint centers around actions taken during the turnchats for 360AD and for 610 AD. For the record, at the time of this analysis, we are at 1425 AD. The instructions in question are dated October 1st and October 12. It is currently December 4th.

The City Naming Office was started by citizen Epimethius in an effort to assist the President and the Minister of Internal Affairs. The Citizen Registry thread is large and citizens are continually changing the names they would like to use for cities. From my review of the evidence provided, it appears that the complaint centers around the names provided by Provolution (Kagemusha) and Annatar (Drachenfels)

There are three areas that I have concerns with about this complaint.

The first is was any harm done. Opening the current save, I see a city named Kagemusha, the name Provolution has requested, and one named Drachenfels, Annatar's requested city. I cannot see how there is currently any harm from this alleged action.

Second, the timeliness of this complaint is suspect. This CC is from actions 2 months ago. The citizen filing this complaint has had ample time to present this, yet chose not to do so. Citizens have a right to a fair trial and a right to seek a redress of grievances, among others. This does not include the right to delay filing a case beyond a reasonable amount of time. To be considered a fair trial, the rights of ALL citizens involved must be respected. The evidence presented has been available for some time, there was, and is, no viable reason for the CC to be filed at such a late date. No citizen should be faced with continually looking over their shoulder, wondering when an action, taken months ago, might be used against them. Such actions smack of political attacks, underhanded assaults and downright pettiness. CC's must be filed in a timely manner.

Third, the CNO is a citizen's office. It holds no official standing and has no power granted to it. It was created by a citizen wanting to participate in a meaningful manner to the game, using the skills and knowledge they possess. Per the Judiciary (see DG5JR18) “The Public Defender stated that Naming Rights for Provinces and Cities fall under the supervision of the Domestic Advisor. The Judge Advocate stated that the ultimate authority for naming Provinces and Cities lies with the citizens, but the various Governors and the Domestic Advisor are to determine their will. The Chief Justice stated that Governors are responsible for giving the Provinces their permanent names and that citizens are responsible for City Naming as per their place in the Citizen Registry. “ In no place was the CNO mentioned, it was not recognized as an entity for posting instructions. I note that, during the time this was filed, an ongoing debate, of which the Judiciary was no doubt aware, on the CNO was happening.

The Preside must ... “take direction from a council of leaders and from other elected and appointed officials via the turnchat instruction thread.” (Article D). The CNO is neither an elected, nor an appointed office, and so acts in an advisory role at best. Anything posted by the CNO is not, and cannot be, a legal instruction. Without the weight of being a legal instruction behind it, there can be no harm resulting from a post by the CNO.

Ruling
For the reasons detailed above, the Public Defender finds this Citizen's Complaint does not have merit.

On a further note, I wish to take one of my fellow justices to task.Also note that the judical review regarding this CC having merit has not yet reached quorem(ravensfire must rule), thus a discussion will not be opened until ravensfire has ruled(althought it doesnt matter what he rules)
The suggestion that what one justice has to say does not matter is reprehensible. The viewpoint of all justices is completely relevant and should be considered. Indeed, the rulings of the other two Justices took place a very short time after the CC was filed, mere minutes. I would suggest to the other Justices that they consider my arguments, and perhaps those of any other citizens, about the validity of the case. To dismiss the words simply because they are in the minority smacks of the tyranny of the majority. I am disappointed to see it.

-- Ravensfire, Public Defender

For what it's worth (though I realize my opinion carries 0 weight in this matter), I agree with ravansfire's ruling. The time discrepancy between when the actions took place and when the CC was filled make this case suspect. Add to that the fact that no real harm was done (all the names on the list have been used, even if the order was switched), and I see no reason to pursue this CC. The bitterness and friction that will result from this (and, frankly, that's always a byproduct of any CC) far outweigh the possible benefits of a ruling.

An anonymous Citizen's Complaint was filed against Epimethius and the City Naming Office (CNO), alleging violations of Article N of the Constitution.

Analysis
This complaint centers around actions taken during the turnchats for 360AD and for 610 AD. For the record, at the time of this analysis, we are at 1425 AD. The instructions in question are dated October 1st and October 12. It is currently December 4th.

The City Naming Office was started by citizen Epimethius in an effort to assist the President and the Minister of Internal Affairs. The Citizen Registry thread is large and citizens are continually changing the names they would like to use for cities. From my review of the evidence provided, it appears that the complaint centers around the names provided by Provolution (Kagemusha) and Annatar (Drachenfels)

There are three areas that I have concerns with about this complaint.

The first is was any harm done. Opening the current save, I see a city named Kagemusha, the name Provolution has requested, and one named Drachenfels, Annatar's requested city. I cannot see how there is currently any harm from this alleged action.

Second, the timeliness of this complaint is suspect. This CC is from actions 2 months ago. The citizen filing this complaint has had ample time to present this, yet chose not to do so. Citizens have a right to a fair trial and a right to seek a redress of grievances, among others. This does not include the right to delay filing a case beyond a reasonable amount of time. To be considered a fair trial, the rights of ALL citizens involved must be respected. The evidence presented has been available for some time, there was, and is, no viable reason for the CC to be filed at such a late date. No citizen should be faced with continually looking over their shoulder, wondering when an action, taken months ago, might be used against them. Such actions smack of political attacks, underhanded assaults and downright pettiness. CC's must be filed in a timely manner.

Third, the CNO is a citizen's office. It holds no official standing and has no power granted to it. It was created by a citizen wanting to participate in a meaningful manner to the game, using the skills and knowledge they possess. Per the Judiciary (see DG5JR18) In no place was the CNO mentioned, it was not recognized as an entity for posting instructions. I note that, during the time this was filed, an ongoing debate, of which the Judiciary was no doubt aware, on the CNO was happening.

The Preside must ... “take direction from a council of leaders and from other elected and appointed officials via the turnchat instruction thread.” (Article D). The CNO is neither an elected, nor an appointed office, and so acts in an advisory role at best. Anything posted by the CNO is not, and cannot be, a legal instruction. Without the weight of being a legal instruction behind it, there can be no harm resulting from a post by the CNO.

Ruling
For the reasons detailed above, the Public Defender finds this Citizen's Complaint does not have merit.

On a further note, I wish to take one of my fellow justices to task.
The suggestion that what one justice has to say does not matter is reprehensible. The viewpoint of all justices is completely relevant and should be considered. Indeed, the rulings of the other two Justices took place a very short time after the CC was filed, mere minutes. I would suggest to the other Justices that they consider my arguments, and perhaps those of any other citizens, about the validity of the case. To dismiss the words simply because they are in the minority smacks of the tyranny of the majority. I am disappointed to see it.

-- Ravensfire, Public Defender

I am truly sorry ravensfire,
i didnt mean it in that way, i meant it didnt matter what you ruled, because the thread would go up anyways

also the reason i voted for it having merit, is i ask myself a question:
Was a law broken? if yes then the CC should move on, it doesnt matter if it was right or not, if a law could have been broken the cc should move on, and then the citizenry should decide whether it matters that is was a long time ago

P.S. Ashburnham your opinion does count, just wait for the trial poll

What law was broken? ;)

also the reason i voted for it having merit, is i ask myself a question:
Was a law broken? if yes then the CC should move on, it doesnt matter if it was right or not, if a law could have been broken the cc should move on, and then the citizenry should decide whether it matters that is was a long time ago

What would punishment be even if this CC does succeed? The CNO isn't an elected office. Surely a ban isn't warranted in this case. That and add to the fact that neither Provolution or Annatar complained about this matter and that it is 2 months overdue points to the direction that this CC really has no merit.

As for Citizens v. Epimethius, is it really the citizens wanting a CC or just one person?

What would punishment be even if this CC does succeed? The CNO isn't an elected office. Surely a ban isn't warranted in this case. That and add to the fact that neither Provolution or Annatar complained about this matter and that it is 2 months overdue points to the direction that this CC really has no merit.

As for Citizens v. Epimethius, is it really the citizens wanting a CC or just one person?
if you look at all past ccs it was the citizen verse the people.

Also please leave all of this for the investigation thread whichi will be opened soon.
Also epi, if you read the accusation post, you would know which article you broke.

From the Office of the Judge Advocate

The Investigation Thread (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=106558)

Please redirect all dicussion to the investigation thread.
But do not post until the PD and accused have posted, or 24 hours have passed.

From the office of The Judge Advocate

The offical investigation thread is now open to all citizens. Feel free to post.
The Investigation Thread (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=106558)

I have a couple of requests here. Feel free to break these up.

First a question for Judicial Review:
As a citizen may I post in the TCIT?

Note: Any such post would not be "instructions", and the DP would not be required to take direction from my post. It may be that I am posting some evidence of the WOTP regarding any action that the DP can freely take (such as suggested build queues for a province with no Governor). It may even be "free speech" stating that I disagree with a leaders posted instructions.

Points of Law:
Article A states I have a right to free speech and free movement.

Article D states the DP takes direction from leaders and other elected and appointed officials.

Article N states I have the right to any action that is not forbidden.

My Legal argument: Yes, I may post anything that's not spam or against forum rules. Article A allows for my free speech and there is no article or law (that I could find) that forbids me from posting in the TCIT, so article N allows me to post there.


Second, I would like to formally request that the court reconsider the merit of CC#2.

My legal arguments:
1. A previous court ruled that the OCN could only make posts that were not binding. Thus Epi could not have broken a law since there was no legal bind.
2. As far as I could find, there has been no formal determination of the WOTP regarding the naming of cities. It seems as if the naming is a Demogame Tradition and the WOTP is not involved. As such Epi could not have violated the WOTP (as there is none).
3. The various DPs have not consistently followed the OCN's suggestions. There has been at least one misspelling by the DP and they have failed to rename cities when captured. If there is merit to accuse Epi of a CC then there would also be merit to accuse the DPs of failing to rename cities correctly.

While I am tempted to rule on this JR quickly, I will not.

Citizens, please, comment on both of the JR's requested above. Most especially, the second. Quite obviously, I dislike the CC filed, and would love to see the Court reconsider it's acceptance on this matter. Perhaps a large number of citizens commenting on this matter may help.

-- Ravensfire, Public Defender

From the Office of the Judge Advocate

On the request of a citizen I will be relooking over the CC's merit.
However since the JR hasn't been filed, I will still give a bit of opinion. Technically citizens have the right to post in the TCIT since it is not forbidden by the constitution. However the mods will most likely delete the posts anyway...
Later I will look deeper into this and the CC's merit, don't kill me yet.

Review of CC#2's Merit

Lets present the facts:
1. Epimethius switched 2 city names around
2. He was appointed by Nolodon to run the city naming office
3. He has actually already resigned
4. This was approximately 2 monthes ago

Now article N says that anything not forbidden in the constitution is legal, this means that epimethius could have indeed posted in the TCIT, but the DP didnt have to follow it. Well thats a flaw if you ask me...
Article N could also mean all citizens have the right to name a city, however as someone pointed out this would mean their constitutional right was broken if they didnt get to name a city(they were near the end of the list).

So seeing this now article N talks about rights of the ordinary citizens, I believe rights are things that the demogame is based on. The demogame isnt based on things like naming cities, but on things like running countries. So now as I see it getting to name a city is a privilige, not a right... thus Epimethius hurt no ones rights, but hurt their privilges, nothing wrong there I guess...

Next as he was having an office that advised but not instructed, what stops people from making their own office and posting in the TCIT. As pointed out above you should be able to post in the TCIT as long as it doesnt break forum rules.

Even though epimethius has done something wrong, he has not hurt anyones rights, or broken anything in the constitution or code of laws.

Because of the citizens(and this country is run by citizens, so citizens should have some voice in the courts)

I find this CC has no merit after reevaluation.

And I would like to thank the other justices putting up with me prosecuting this CC. So even if i didnt believe in this CC, I was tasked with the responsibility to prosecute at all costs. I hope I didn't hurt anyones feelings.

I didn't hurt anyone's rights or priveleges. They both got their city names. They were just accidentally swiched.

MOTH has requested a Judicial review over wether or not a citizen can post in the TCIT. I find that this request has no merit


Reason for dismissal

I would like to reference this case (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=2114199&postcount=13). In it the question of wether or not a citizen can post instructions in the turnchat instruction thread. The court ruled that the instructions were not legally binding. By ruling Epi's instructions were not legally binding one can take assumption Epi was allowed to post.

Review of CC2's merit

Though no procedure exists currently for the dismissal of a CC during trial I am willing to bend the rules this once.

In brief, I find that this CC has no Merit after Re-evaluation
Since the Judge Advocate gave a strong explanation that I agree with my reasoning will be brief. Yes Epi did get the city names wrong that is a given. But the fact that this occured two months ago must be considered. No citizens rights were harmed, no complaints have been filed by those whose names were switched, and the violations were technical. This along with Epithemus resignation and overwhelming citizen support are my reasons for dismissing this upon re-evaluation


-Note: Judicial procedures require 3 out of 3 justices to agree on a no merit ruling for a CC so even though I think he will agree with me and the JA I would like to here from the Public Defender before I officialy declare this case dismissed

-Mhcarver
Office of the Chief Justice

For the same reasons detailed in this post (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=2387614&postcount=54), I find that this CC has No Merit.

I thank my fellow Justices for their willingness to reconsider their earlier opinions. Thanks guys! :goodjob:

-- Ravensfire, Public Defender

Chief Justice mhcarver,

In addition to his request for us to reconsider the CC, MOTH requested a JR on the validity of citizen's posting in the TCIT. Has this been docketed?

-- Ravensfire

Chief Justice mhcarver,

In addition to his request for us to reconsider the CC, MOTH requested a JR on the validity of citizen's posting in the TCIT. Has this been docketed?

-- Ravensfire
I dismissed it citing a previous case as establishing precedent it is right above the ruling on dismissing the CC but to be thorough it is here (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=2392604&postcount=67). If you and the public defender disagree then Judicial code says that the two of you can override me should that be your wish

I dismissed it citing a previous case as establishing precedent it is right above the ruling on dismissing the CC but to be thorough it is here (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=2392604&postcount=67). If you and the public defender disagree then Judicial code says that the two of you can override me should that be your wish

That's right - just missed it for some reason. No complaints here, just wanted to make sure we didn't miss anything. Too much Vicodin, I guess.

-- Ravensfire

Bigmeat, Governor of the Itakaji province has not posted any instructions this term or even created a thread. Though their has only been one turnchat this term and it takes two consecutive chats without an official posting instructions for before an office can be be declared vacant I am making this announcement in advance since I may be busy the next two days. Therefore with the powers invested in me by the people of Japanatica I declare that the Office of Governor of the Itakaji province is to be considered Vacant unless bigmeat has posted instructions before the start of tommorows scheduled TC. As their have been prior attempt to contact bigmeat by MOTH I feel no need to attempt to do so myself
-Mhcarver
Office of the Chief Justice
Edit:Bigmeat has not posted instructions therefore the above ruling is final, the president may now appoint a successor

I would like to have a JR on this issue.

Who has the authority over gifts? It is Trade or Foreign Affairs?

Does it matter? If the people deem it should be done, let it be so. In the end, as long as someone posts the instruction and backs it up with the Will of the People, it's fine in my book.

Then again, that's the crazy revolutionary inside me talking... :)

I would like to have a JR on this issue.

Who has the authority over gifts? It is Trade or Foreign Affairs?


Well, considering gifts are simply trades where the other person gives nothing, I would imagine it would be under Trade.

Classical hero has requested a JR on who has power over giving gifts, foreign affairs or trade? I find this request has merit and it to be added to the docket .

well this post should be ignored,,,, for now

Edit: looks like this post can also be ignored for now.

Friend of the court brief in regards to mhcarver's request for a judicial review. The constitution states that the WOTP is determined via discussion and polling. It does not state that polling is required if the the discussion indicates the wotp. It also does not indicate when polling must take place.

My opinion on the direct questions:

1. Not necessarily. The whole of the situation needs to be looked at. It is possible that the minister has determined the WoTP strictly via discussion or it may have been determined via earlier discussion and polling on general doctrines or policies that provide a mandate.

2a. Yes, all instructions posted by a legal representive for a postion are valid and should be followed by the DP (unless overridden in the case of a deputy's instructions.)

2b. Yes, it could be a violation or article D if there is any evidence of that what was posted was potentially against the WOTP. For example, if in the discussion threads where the minister participated there was even a single post indicating that someone disagreed with the minister's interpretation then this might indicate that the minister did not determine the WOTP in regard to that citizen.

In provolutions case, he has actively polled many "contingencies" in the form of the various doctrines. He has also actively participated in many discussions. He has also indicated in one of the governor's threads that he will poll some aspect of the war with Russia.

Note: the justices want to consider carefully what precedence is set. There have been many instructions posted without any polling. In particular, most of the governor's instructions are posted without polling. Several of the minster's actions are done as part of a mandate. For example, most of the "slider setting" part of the DA's instructions have not been polled.

hmm well just a bit of pre ruling info on the JR: I have to stronlgy agree with ashburnham, and I fail to see why this JR was filed. GIfts are simply trades with nothing on one side... It is not possible to gift treaties, because if you notice the treaty is added on both sides, so the foreign affairs has no control at all over this. Gifts are trades, not treaties....

Honorable justices

A threat has been sent me at the MSAV Ministry. I hope this threat will be withdrawn and apologized, since actual historical, both past and present, neglects have gone unpassed, both in omitted polls and instructions. I would like the Judiciary to review all Ministries operations, mine included, and see if any action has violated the constitution gravely enough to present a CC. I have been threatened two times by CC, one for the naming issue (based on an actually admitted mistake that is correctible) and a threat for taking me to court based on an issue involving FA, TA and Domestic.
Is it fair that MSAV shall be held responsible for a lack of foreign policy and failure to instruct/poll settlers, and that only MSAV is threatened with sanctions?

classical hero has come before the Court with a question:

Who has the authority over gifts? It is Trade or Foreign Affairs?

Relevant Law
From Article D of the Constitution
2. The Minister of Foreign Affairs shall be responsible
for matters involving treaties with foreign nations,
as prescribed by law.
4. The Minister of Trade shall be responsible for all
trade, domestic and foreign, and the use of resources,
as perscibed by law.
Citizen Comments
Octavian X, Ashburnham both commented on this, with Octavian expressing no preference and Ashburnham preferring Trade. I thank them both for taking the time to consider this matter.

Analysis
The question before the Court is which ministry should handle gifts made to other nations. There are good arguments for both sides.

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs generally handles our relations with other countries, keeping track of our views of them, and their views of us.

The Ministry of Trade generally handles all exchanges of resources and technology from one civ to another.

The methodology of gifting resources, cash or technology to another civ most closely matches the actions of the Trade ministry. Note especially the “…and the use of resources” in Article D.4 of the Constitution. While the actions of this transaction will impact foreign relations, that’s a side benefit of the transaction. It is not enough to move the responsibility for handling gifts from the Ministry of Trade to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

Ruling
The Ministry of Trade has the authority to plan, poll and instruct the gifting of cash, resources and/or technology to other Civilizations, based upon the Will of the People.

-- Ravensfire, Public Defender

Judge Advocate's Opinion on JR#33

As seen in my last post, gifts are essentially trades with nothing on one side. It cleary states that trading is under the *shock* Trade Minister.

The Trade Minister is in charge of gifitng, of course as always following the Will of the People.

Classical hero has requested a JR on who has power over giving of gifts, the Trade or FA ministries. As Public defender Ravensfire pointed out in his ruling each side has a valid argument. Primarily that FA handles relations with other nations, which Gift giving effects and trade is in charge of "exchanges of resources and technology from one civ to another". However I agree with the opinion of Culture Minister Ashburnham that a gift is essentially a trade with nothing in return. Therefore the power of giving gifts is with the Trade minister

Would that also include the gifting of cities?

Perhaps I should have stated that in my original question.

Would that also include the gifting of cities?

Perhaps I should have stated that in my original question.

This is an addendum to clarify my ruling. The trade minister may not gift away cities on a whim. This is because governors are "responsible for the care, management and use of the cities" . This situation calls for inter-agency cooperation. The trade minister may gift away/trade cities only if he has the approval of the Governor of the province or the Domestic Ministry, whoever has jurdisctiction.

I would like to ask my fellow justices to post their own addendums to since this is a valid question

-Mhcarver

To gift cities, the governor of the province and the trade minister must agree on gifting it. If there is no governor, the city is not in a province, or the governor is absent without a replacement the Domestic Advisor should choose.

As mhcarver did point out that governors are incharge of handling cities, and giving away a city should be under his juristiction.

Addendum to DG5JR33 ruling

Instructions for gifting a city are still done by the Trade Minister, but require the explicit approval of the official in charge of that city.

-- Ravensfire, Public Defender

Honorable Judiciary,

I hope you haven't put away your volumes on International Trade and Diplomatic Law yet. ;) Because I have yet another request for clarification.

Who handles trade embargoes? It seems to me that they should be under the jurisdiction of the Foreign Ministry since they are treaties. This would cover them under Article D.2 of our Constitution:

2. The Minister of Foreign Affairs shall be responsible
for matters involving treaties with foreign nations as all
espionage and embassy missions as prescribed by law.

While I expect jurisdisction to fall under the FA department, please also state what role the Trade department should have in embargoes, if any.

Thank you your time.

Respectfully,

Donovan Zoi
Deputy Trade Minister

Honorable Deputy Zoi,

JR #31 has ruled that the FA has control of trade embargoes. Below is the link to the judicial log:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=2385154&postcount=35

The trade minister has really no power when it comes to trade embargoes, as embargoes are treaties and fall under the FA.

Well as some of you may have seen in the absence registry I will not be back until sometime on the 31st. Please forward all Judicial reviews to the term 6 court, they may issue rulings that are not official until the 1st . If someone wishes to file an anymous CC please send it to the Judge Advocate, and for the purpose of achieving Judicial quorom The JA has the power to cast my vote on the merit of any CC's after he and the PD have ruled(even though it is unlikely anywill be filed) And since I doubt much will come up I hereby declare the term 5 court closed :hammer:
I would like to thank my esteemed colleagues on their excellent work this term. Good luck to Judge Advocate Black_hole on his election to the position of term VI chief Justice and the Culture minister Ashburnham on his election to the honorable position of Judge Advocate. And applause to Ravensfire for returning for a third term as Public Defender. People of Japanatica , It has been an Honor to serve you in the Judiciary these past three terms :king:

-Mhcarver
Office of the Chief Justice(darn I won't be able to post that again for a while)