This is the courthouse for Term 3.

Chief Justice: DaveShack
Judge Advocate: mhcarver
Public Defender: Black_Hole

Average # votes cast in all elections: 35.44
Census: 35
To approve a constitutional amendment requires a majority and 21 votes cast, or 2/3 approval with no minimum number of votes.
To approve a CoL amendment requires a 55% majority of votes cast and at least 37% of census (13 votes).

Link to constitution amendment requirements (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=114975)
Link to CoL amendment requirements (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=114978)

Link to previous term's courthouse (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=115959)

Judicial Procedures

All members of the Judiciary shall share certain rights and responsibilities. There responsibilities are:

Discuss the Court Procedures, as composed by the Chief Justice, in a most constructive way, and ratify when reaching consensus.
Post polls and discussions on interpretations of the Constitution, and any lower laws.
Are expected to appoint a Pro-Tem Justice, if they are unable to carry out there 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).
Initiate and participate in Judicial Reviews, in a timely manner, to determine the legality of proposed Constitutional Amendments and any other form of lower law. Any citizen may request a JR for this purpose.
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.
Initiate and participate in Judicial Reviews to examine whether or not all investigations should be considered as having "No Merit".
Post Legislative polls that have passed Judicial Review.

The Chief Justice ~

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. This may include the appointment of a Pro-Tem official for that position.
Is responsible for posting the current Active Census in the Judicial thread at the beginning of the Term.
Is responsible for the updating, maintaince, and organization of the Judicial Log.
Is responsible for monitoring investigation threads to keep them on topic and procedurally accurate.
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 H.5, the Chief Justice may declare said Office vacant.

The Public Defender ~

Is tasked with ensuring all Citizens’ Complaint investigations are performed correctly, with presumed innocence of the accused.
Will ensure that the accused understands the charges brought against them and what rules were in violation so the accused can mount an effective defence.
Will perform as defender, unless the accused wishes otherwise.

The Judge Advocate ~

Is tasked with the mechanics of Citizen's Complaint investigations and trial.
Will open and close discussions and polls as appropriate to the trial.
Will perform as Prosecutor (gather and present evidence)

Judicial Review

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.
A quorum requires the attendance of all three members of the Judiciary except in the case of absence (either announced or unannounced) in which case two members are sufficient.
Review of proposed legislation.

Any member of the General Assembly may present proposed legislation to the Judiciary, after following procedure for proposing amendments and laws.
The request will be included in the Court’s Docket.
2 of 3 Justices must agree that the amendment or law does not conflict with existing rules.
If a proposal is rejected due to conflict(s), it is returned to the General Assembly with details of the conflict(s) noted. This proposal may then be edited and resubmitted for Review.
If the proposal is approved through Judicial Review, it is posted as a ratification poll by a member of the Judiciary.

Interpretation and clarification of existing Law.

Any member of the General Assembly may request a Judicial Review for interpretation or clarification of an existing Law. They must include the law in question, or the laws location (IE: Article B. Section 2.). If after making reasonable efforts to identify the law in question the citizen is unable to do so, the court must assist the citizen by giving a reference.
The request will be included in the Court’s Docket.
The Chief Justice has the right to dismiss a Judicial Review, if the Chief Justice deemes a Judicial Review to have "No Merit". Specific reasoning must be given by the Chief Justice for a judgement of "No Merit".
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.
Anyone, including justices, may request the Judicial Review to receive a thread in the Citizen's Forum. This thread will be posted by the Chief Justice.
2 of 3 Justices must agree on the interpretation or clarification, forming a Majority Opinion.
The interpretation/clarification is then entered into the Judicial Log for reference.


Citizen's Complaint

NO ANONYMOUS CCs will be filed.
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.
Allegations of misconduct must include:

Name of the defendant.
The Article(s) or lower Law(s) suspected of being violated.
When and where the suspected violation(s) occurred.

The Citizen's Complaint will be included in the Court’s Docket.
The Judge Advocate notifies the Public Defender and the accused of the charge(s).
A review of the charge(s) is done to determine if the charges have "No Merit". A majority of the justices must agree that the charges have merit for the case to proceed.
If the charge(s) are found to have "Merit", the accused may then decide to work out an agreement with the accusing party. The Judge advocate and Public Defender act as a meditating party during this process. If not agreement is reached, then the Judge Advocate opens an Investigation thread detailing the alleged violation(s).

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.

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.
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.
When discussion has petered out and at least 72 hours have passed, the Judge Advocate will post a Trial poll.

The Trial poll will have the Options of Guilty, Innocent and Abstain and will remain open for 48 hours.
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.

If the accused is found guilty through the Trial poll, a Sentencing poll is posted by the Judge Advocate.

The Sentencing poll will remain open for 48 hours, and have the following Options:

Impeachment from Office (if applicable)
Final Warning (whether or not a prior warning has been given)
Warning
No Punishment
Abstain

If the guilty party has previously received a final warning or warning for the current offence, the Judge Advocate will post that in the Sentencing poll narrative.
Once the poll has been closed, the Chief Justice shall determine the sentence for the accused.

Each vote shall be determined as a vote for the option selected, and all less-severe options.
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.

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.
The guilty party must abide by the sentence as determined in the Poll by the Chief Justice.

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

reserved for CC's

DG6T3JR1

President Furiey asked if Article J provisions on TCIT threads being opened 3 days in advance effectively eliminated special play sessions.

The unanimous ruling is that the law makes no provision for special play sessions, so the TCIT must be open for 3 days even to play a single action with no turns completed.

DG6T3JR2

CivGeneral, as a citizen and member of the General Assembly, requested a review of proposed legislation to add special play sessions to the constitution.

Here are draft judiciary procedures for review and comment by the court and citizens. I'll do the fancy formatting thing later. :)

Judicial Procedures 1. All members of the Judiciary shall share certain rights and responsibilities. There responsibilities are:

1. Discuss the Court Procedures, as composed by the Chief Justice, in a most constructive way, and ratify when reaching consensus.
2. Post polls and discussions on interpretations of the Constitution, and any lower laws.
3. Are expected to appoint a Pro-Tem Justice, if they are unable to carry out there 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).
4. Initiate and participate in Judicial Reviews, in a timely manner, to determine the legality of proposed Constitutional Amendments and any other form of lower law. Any citizen may request a JR for this purpose.
5. 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.
6. Initiate and participate in Judicial Reviews to examine whether or not all investigations should be considered as having "No Merit".
7. Post Legislative polls that have passed Judicial Review.

2. The Chief Justice ~

1. 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. This may include the appointment of a Pro-Tem official for that position.
2. Is responsible for posting the current Active Census in the Judicial thread at the beginning of the Term.
3. Is responsible for the updating, maintaince, and organization of the Judicial Log.
4. Is responsible for monitoring investigation threads to keep them on topic and procedurally accurate.
5. 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 H.5, the Chief Justice may declare said Office vacant.

4. The Public Defender ~

1. Is tasked with ensuring all Citizens’ Complaint investigations are performed correctly, with presumed innocence of the accused.
2. Will ensure that the accused understands the charges brought against them and what rules were in violation so the accused can mount an effective defence.
3. Will perform as defender, unless the accused wishes otherwise.

5. The Judge Advocate ~

1. Is tasked with the mechanics of Citizen's Complaint investigations and trial.
2. Will open and close discussions and polls as appropriate to the trial.
3. Will perform as Prosecutor (gather and present evidence) for any anonymous accusers.

6. Judicial Review

1. 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.
2. A quorum requires the attendance of all three members of the Judiciary except in the case of absence (either announced or unannounced) in which case two members are sufficient.
3. Review of proposed legislation.
a. Any member of the General Assembly may present proposed legislation to the Judiciary, after following procedure for proposing amendments and laws.
b. The request will be included in the Court’s Docket.
c. 2 of 3 Justices must agree that the amendment or law does not conflict with existing rules.
d. If a proposal is rejected due to conflict(s), it is returned to the General Assembly with details of the conflict(s) noted. This proposal may then be edited and resubmitted for Review.
e. If the proposal is approved through Judicial Review, it is posted as a ratification poll by a member of the Judiciary.
4. Interpretation and clarification of existing Law.
a. Any member of the General Assembly may request a Judicial Review for interpretation or clarification of an existing Law. They must include the law in question, or the laws location (IE: Article B. Section 2.). If after making reasonable efforts to identify the law in question the citizen is unable to do so, the court must assist the citizen by giving a reference.
b. The request will be included in the Court’s Docket.
c. The Chief Justice has the right to dismiss a Judicial Review, if the Chief Justice deemes a Judicial Review to have "No Merit". Specific reasoning must be given by the Chief Justice for a judgement of "No Merit".
d. 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.
e. Anyone, including justices, may request the Judicial Review to receive a thread in the Citizen's Forum. This thread will be posted by the Chief Justice.
f. 2 of 3 Justices must agree on the interpretation or clarification, forming a Majority Opinion.
g. The interpretation/clarification is then entered into the Judicial Log for reference.

7. Citizen's Complaint

1. NO ANONYMOUS CCs will be filed.
2. 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.
a. The allegation can be posted in the Judicial thread.
b. The allegation can be made privately to the Chief Justice via Private Message, however the accuser's identity will not be kept private if the matter proceeds to an investigation.
3. Allegations of misconduct must include:
a. Name of the defendant.
b. The Article(s) or lower Law(s) suspected of being violated.
c. When and where the suspected violation(s) occurred.
4. The Citizen's Complaint will be included in the Court’s Docket.
5. The Judge Advocate notifies the Public Defender and the accused of the charge(s).
6. A brief Judicial Review of the charge(s) is done to determine if the charges have "No Merit".
7. If the charge(s) are found to have "Merit", the accused may then decide to work out an agreement with the accusing party. The Judge advocate and Public Defender act as a meditating party during this process. If not agreement is reached, then the Judge Advocate opens an Investigation thread detailing the alleged violation(s).
a. 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.
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. When discussion has petered out and at least 72 hours have passed, the Judge Advocate will post a Trial poll.
a. The Trial poll will have the Options of Guilty, Innocent and Abstain and will remain open for 48 hours.
b. 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.
11. If the accused is found guilty through the Trial poll, a Sentencing poll is posted by the Judge Advocate.
a. The Sentencing poll will remain open for 48 hours, and have the following Options: i. Impeachment from Office (if applicable) ii. Final Warning (whether or not a prior warning has been given) iii. Warning iv. No Punishment v. Abstain
b. If the guilty party has previously received a final warning or warning for the current offence, the Judge Advocate will post that in the Sentencing poll narrative.
c. 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.
d. 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.
e. The guilty party must abide by the sentence as determined in the Poll by the Chief Justice.
12. The Judicial Log may be referenced for further interpretation or clarification, but may not be used for criteria for review of proposed legislation.
13. 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.

Welcome to the Court DaveShack and mhcarver!

I should be the "Old Man" of the court, been in it all 3 terms this game. :lol:

Thank you BH I look forward to working with you again and I would like to welcome DS to the bench I have looked over the judicial procedures and have one problem

5. The Judge Advocate ~

1. Is tasked with the mechanics of Citizen's Complaint investigations and trial.
2. Will open and close discussions and polls as appropriate to the trial.
3. Will perform as Prosecutor (gather and present evidence) for any anonymous accusers.
7. Citizen's Complaint

1. NO ANONYMOUS CCs will be filed.2. 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.
a. The allegation can be posted in the Judicial thread.
b. The allegation can be made privately to the Chief Justice via Private Message, however the accuser's identity will not be kept private if the matter proceeds to an investigation.

when looking at the higlighted materials I think that section three of the Judge advocates duties should be stricken or read "will perform as prosecutor in an investigation should the accused wish not to

when looking at the higlighted materials I think that section three of the Judge advocates duties should be stricken or read "will perform as prosecutor in an investigation should the accused wish not to

Good point, thanks for catching it. What about simply:

3. Will perform as Prosecutor (gather and present evidence)

Good point, thanks for catching it. What about simply:

3. Will perform as Prosecutor (gather and present evidence)

that works for me.

and also I would like clarification on this
6. A brief Judicial Review of the charge(s) is done to determine if the charges have "No Merit".


I think this would read more clearly if it said

all justices will rule on if the charge(s) have merit
I suggest this because it is unclear what a brief judicial review is, BTW in the past it has been 3 out of 3 justices that must rule a charge has no merit but I believe that should be changed to 2 out of 3. so perhaps a section that reads

7.A simple majority opinion must be formed on wether or not a case has merit

I like these changes too, thanks! Now we just need the PD's input. :)

well I am still not sure about blocking anonymous CCs, but rest of it looks fine. Perhaps we should open a discussion about anonymous CCs?

Black_Hole, I suggest we stay away from anonymous CC's, you should know that by now.

I agree with the ban on anonymous CC's. The potential for abuse is simply too great.

then CCs will not be filed only because the accuser is afraid...
the right to request an
investigation into possible violations of law
forcing citizens to add their name to a CC makes them a part of the investigation, taking focus away from the accused law breaking

Accusations are messy business, there's simply no getting around it. But I think that anonymous CC's add more fuel to the fire by allowing for an air of mystry that detracts from the case in general. One need only recall DG5CC2 (http://forums.civfanatics.com/archive/index.php/t-106060.html) for proof of just how disruptive anonymous CC's can be to the Judiciary.

I got the draft wording from Strider's platform in the nomination thread, so I'm not sure what the intent was -- but the effect seems to be that an accuser can check if the charge has merit before making their identity known. Presumably this also would allow the "out of court settlement" to be done without identifying the accuser, nor making the charges public.

My opinion is we should proceed with approving something for the judicial procedures and if a full discussion on anonymous CCs is needed then run that separately.

The risk for the political JA to misrepresent the client accuser is too big.
I also see a lot of crazy statements all the time here, so I cannot see anyone should be afraid to CC someone. I would rather be afraid the JA, PD and CJ would lose the case for you.

Here is an edited copy of the judicial procedures for ratification by the court.

Judicial Procedures

All members of the Judiciary shall share certain rights and responsibilities. There responsibilities are:

Discuss the Court Procedures, as composed by the Chief Justice, in a most constructive way, and ratify when reaching consensus.
Post polls and discussions on interpretations of the Constitution, and any lower laws.
Are expected to appoint a Pro-Tem Justice, if they are unable to carry out there 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).
Initiate and participate in Judicial Reviews, in a timely manner, to determine the legality of proposed Constitutional Amendments and any other form of lower law. Any citizen may request a JR for this purpose.
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.
Initiate and participate in Judicial Reviews to examine whether or not all investigations should be considered as having "No Merit".
Post Legislative polls that have passed Judicial Review.

The Chief Justice ~

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. This may include the appointment of a Pro-Tem official for that position.
Is responsible for posting the current Active Census in the Judicial thread at the beginning of the Term.
Is responsible for the updating, maintaince, and organization of the Judicial Log.
Is responsible for monitoring investigation threads to keep them on topic and procedurally accurate.
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 H.5, the Chief Justice may declare said Office vacant.

The Public Defender ~

Is tasked with ensuring all Citizens’ Complaint investigations are performed correctly, with presumed innocence of the accused.
Will ensure that the accused understands the charges brought against them and what rules were in violation so the accused can mount an effective defence.
Will perform as defender, unless the accused wishes otherwise.

The Judge Advocate ~

Is tasked with the mechanics of Citizen's Complaint investigations and trial.
Will open and close discussions and polls as appropriate to the trial.
Will perform as Prosecutor (gather and present evidence)

Judicial Review

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.
A quorum requires the attendance of all three members of the Judiciary except in the case of absence (either announced or unannounced) in which case two members are sufficient.
Review of proposed legislation.

Any member of the General Assembly may present proposed legislation to the Judiciary, after following procedure for proposing amendments and laws.
The request will be included in the Court’s Docket.
2 of 3 Justices must agree that the amendment or law does not conflict with existing rules.
If a proposal is rejected due to conflict(s), it is returned to the General Assembly with details of the conflict(s) noted. This proposal may then be edited and resubmitted for Review.
If the proposal is approved through Judicial Review, it is posted as a ratification poll by a member of the Judiciary.

Interpretation and clarification of existing Law.

Any member of the General Assembly may request a Judicial Review for interpretation or clarification of an existing Law. They must include the law in question, or the laws location (IE: Article B. Section 2.). If after making reasonable efforts to identify the law in question the citizen is unable to do so, the court must assist the citizen by giving a reference.
The request will be included in the Court’s Docket.
The Chief Justice has the right to dismiss a Judicial Review, if the Chief Justice deemes a Judicial Review to have "No Merit". Specific reasoning must be given by the Chief Justice for a judgement of "No Merit".
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.
Anyone, including justices, may request the Judicial Review to receive a thread in the Citizen's Forum. This thread will be posted by the Chief Justice.
2 of 3 Justices must agree on the interpretation or clarification, forming a Majority Opinion.
The interpretation/clarification is then entered into the Judicial Log for reference.


Citizen's Complaint

NO ANONYMOUS CCs will be filed.
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.
Allegations of misconduct must include:

Name of the defendant.
The Article(s) or lower Law(s) suspected of being violated.
When and where the suspected violation(s) occurred.

The Citizen's Complaint will be included in the Court’s Docket.
The Judge Advocate notifies the Public Defender and the accused of the charge(s).
A review of the charge(s) is done to determine if the charges have "No Merit". A majority of the justices must agree that the charges have merit for the case to proceed.
If the charge(s) are found to have "Merit", the accused may then decide to work out an agreement with the accusing party. The Judge advocate and Public Defender act as a meditating party during this process. If not agreement is reached, then the Judge Advocate opens an Investigation thread detailing the alleged violation(s).

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.

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.
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.
When discussion has petered out and at least 72 hours have passed, the Judge Advocate will post a Trial poll.

The Trial poll will have the Options of Guilty, Innocent and Abstain and will remain open for 48 hours.
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.

If the accused is found guilty through the Trial poll, a Sentencing poll is posted by the Judge Advocate.

The Sentencing poll will remain open for 48 hours, and have the following Options:

Impeachment from Office (if applicable)
Final Warning (whether or not a prior warning has been given)
Warning
No Punishment
Abstain

If the guilty party has previously received a final warning or warning for the current offence, the Judge Advocate will post that in the Sentencing poll narrative.
Once the poll has been closed, the Chief Justice shall determine the sentence for the accused.

Each vote shall be determined as a vote for the option selected, and all less-severe options.
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.

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.
The guilty party must abide by the sentence as determined in the Poll by the Chief Justice.

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

The Judge Advocates Office Votes YAY for ratifying the judicial procedures

I approve of the judicial procedures.

I just wonder if I should waste my time posting amendment proposals with this Judiciary.

I just wonder if I should waste my time posting amendment proposals with this Judiciary.
You just wasted more time posting this :rolleyes:
You would also need to start a topic first

Just a general question to the court members (Both old and newly elected). Is it alright for a person, like myself, who aspires to be part of the Judiciary to join in the discussions? I am interested in getting my toes into the Judiciary someday :).

@Provolution: Of course, any amendment proposal submitted by a citizen will get a timely and accurate review. You can also be assured that conflicts with existing law and failure to follow the required procedure are the only valid grounds for not proceeding with a vote on an amendment.

@CivGeneral: One needs only glance at my record of commenting on topics before prior term courts to see that my position is one of openness to citizen comment. :D

@CivGeneral: One needs only glance at my record of commenting on topics before prior term courts to see that my position is one of openness to citizen comment. :D

Sounds good. I do it would help me get my feet into the Judicary since I do plan to run for JA or PD for Term 4.

hello anybody there? is our constitution really that perfect? nobody has someone they want to nail for a questionable offense? c'mon people I spend two terms trying to get this job and the minute I do everything dries up? :lol:

hello anybody there? is our constitution really that perfect? nobody has someone they want to nail for a questionable offense? c'mon people I spend two terms trying to get this job and the minute I do everything dries up? :lol:
Im still here, I guess I am the only Judicary Student in this place waiting for the Judicary to become active to at least gain some experiance.

Nobody has someone they want to nail for a questionable offense!

I aint saying nothing

I aint saying nothing
talking about my friend Nothing are ya?

hello anybody there? is our constitution really that perfect? nobody has someone they want to nail for a questionable offense? c'mon people I spend two terms trying to get this job and the minute I do everything dries up? :lol:
I suggest that you enjoy it while it lasts. ;)

I suggest that you enjoy it while it lasts. ;)

You beat me to it. :D

We can't have our Judiciary sitting around getting bored so here's something to for clarification/interpretation...

I would like to hold a special session to do the peace deal with the Dutch that is currently being polled. This 0 turn, just make peace session would then allow further trades for Republic etc to be assessed.

The next full session is scheduled for Saturday, however it seems a bit of a waste to do one deal then stop on a fully scheduled session, so I was thinking of slotting a special session to do the deal on Friday, a couple of hours after the poll to confirm it closes.

However I have obviously been thinking of previous demogames when I thought a special session could be slotted in at shorter notice than a normal session as it appears from the constitution that all sessions need a TCIT posted 3 days in advance.

Article J. All irreversible game actions must progress during a scheduled game session while reversible game actions (i.e. build queues) that adhere to legal instructions can be prepared offline before the scheduled game session.
1. An instruction thread must be created at least 3 days before the scheduled turnchat.

The relaxation of the time limit for the special session no longer appears to be there so it effectively means that it's almost impossible to schedule one in and you might just as well have a very short next scheduled session.

Or am I missing something?

I would like to hold a special session to do the peace deal with the Dutch that is currently being polled. This 0 turn, just make peace session would then allow further trades for Republic etc to be assessed.

The next full session is scheduled for Saturday, however it seems a bit of a waste to do one deal then stop on a fully scheduled session, so I was thinking of slotting a special session to do the deal on Friday, a couple of hours after the poll to confirm it closes.

I might argue that Furiey's planned special session is in fact a continuation of Wednesday's turnchat, and not an entirely new session. Play was stopped to confirm that the conditions under which the Dutch were willing to make peace were in accordance with previous discussion and polls. The External Consulate's exact instructions regarding what to seek in peace were: "We should seek the most valuable techs. The Dutch will give us Feudalism; and we hope by the time peace is negotiated they will give us another tech. If they will give us Feudalism and Monotheism, take those. We also want the Republic but with one of those techs for ammunition we should be able to trade for it." (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=2757344&postcount=7)

This is essentially what the Dutch offered us; the only difference is they also want some gold (41 pieces) which we hadn't previously polled. The previous poll speaking to what peace settlement we should seek IS HERE (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=118565); the current poll asking whether we should pay the 41 gold (plus peace) in exchange for the techs we prefer - Monotheism and Feudalism - IS HERE (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=118710).

Therefore I'd argue we don't need an instruction thread for this special session because we're holding the special session only to confirm that the will of the people is in fact to take the two techs that we prefer even though it will cost us a modest 41 pieces of gold. In other words, this isn't a new session (strictly speaking); rather it's a continuation of Wednesday's session. Wednesday Part 2. :)

We can't have our Judiciary sitting around getting bored so here's something to for clarification/interpretation...
I agree, I cant be sitting around using up my DG Law School time waiting for noting :p. Eventhough I am just a Judicary Student, I do wish to put in my $.02 :).


Article J. All irreversible game actions must progress during a scheduled game session while reversible game actions (i.e. build queues) that adhere to legal instructions can be prepared offline before the scheduled game session.
1. An instruction thread must be created at least 3 days before the scheduled turnchat.

The relaxation of the time limit for the special session no longer appears to be there so it effectively means that it's almost impossible to schedule one in and you might just as well have a very short next scheduled session.

Or am I missing something?

I would agree, as a Judicary Student, with Bertie that we dont need a special TCIT unless there is a big need for one :).

The question asked by President Furiey has merit and is designated DG6T3JR1.

To rephrase it slightly, I see two questions being asked.

1. Are special sessions subject to the same timeframe requirements as regular sessions?

2. Is the proposed session actually a special session?

I would like to post comments on these two questions without those comments being considered my official ruling on the matter, to see if any arguments to the contrary develop.

For the first question, we had considerable discussion on this point and the general concensus was that we wanted to support the idea of special sessions with the purpose of finding out information which is needed for the next real session. Given a special session's purpose it was not intended that the long time period would be required, however it does not appear the law was written with this idea in mind.

For the second question, I'm inclined to agree that the action to be taken falls under what was already instructed in a TCIT and therefore would not be required to follow the advance posting requirement, as long as no citizens protest.

I will be ruling on this JR tomorrow, if you have comments post them!

Also, I hope that none of the Judicaries mind if a Student from the Judicary School places his $.02 in :).

Cool i want to be in the Judicary School, well if you guys don't mind two students (there are three of you) i will also most my oppion

DG6T3JR1.



Question 1.

1. Are special sessions subject to the same timeframe requirements as regular sessions?

Yes, because “special sessions” are really regular game session subject to the same timeframe requirements. Therefore the session would require “an instruction thread…. Created at least 3 days before the scheduled game session” [Article J., Section 1.]

Question 2.


2. Is the proposed session actually a special session?

There is no reference to special sessions in the constitution or code of laws, so it is not really a special session just a regular session that will be short.

Obiter dicta

If you were to declare a turn session this afternoon to carry out some instructions in the may 14th turn chat instruction thread, and then only carried out External Console specific instruction 2

“2. Make peace with the Dutch. They will give us Feudalism and Monotheism; we will give them 41 gold.
THIS POLL supports this”

Then this would probably be legal as there is no part of the code of laws or constitution that states that each game session needs its own instruction thread. Or that all Instructions need to be carried out in one game session.

On Question 1:
When I was going to do the special session, I checked the constitution to check the specific requirements for one. I was very surprised that there was not mention of one. I remembered the discussions before the start of the game - people wanted to allow them, they were considered a "good thing", and much of the discussion was on whether they could be offline or not. Unfortunately this didn't seem to get in the constitution or COL and what we have now makes no provision for shorter sheduling. As it stands now, my interpretation is that there is no provision for special sessions and all sessions come under the 3 day rule. This is unfortunate as we certainly seemed (and still seem) to want to be able to have them.

on Question 2:
The last turnchat session was stopped and this issue was brought back to the forums for discussion. Anything done from now must therefore part of a new session be it special or scheduled as normal. To allow "well it was covered in the last set of instructions" as a reason for it not being a new session at all but part of the old one opens up a whole can of worms - there are lots of instructions that weren't completed as ministers do not post for exactly 10 turns (and we do not necessarily do exactly 10 turns) - how far could we go? A special session to play out the other 6 that weren't done? This could give the judicary lots to do.

There were things written to cover special sessions in previous demogames, if I get the time I'll probably fish them out. Getting something in to cover it would probably be best for the rest of the game rather than try to fudge it now.

Public Defender's Ruling on JR # ?
1. As it is not specified anywhere in the law, special turnchats do require a Turn Chat Instruction Thread posted 3 days in advance.
2. Again, as it is not specified in the constitution special sessions really aren't special sessions, just a regular game play session where the the DP decides the end the game after a turn.

1.As my esteemed colleague Black Hole has pointed out there is no place in the constitution that mentions special sessions, Even though I think the constitution should be interpteted broadly I don't think that a continuation of the previous turnchat is a good enough argument because that gets us on a slippery slope that could potentially lead to a president ignoring turnchat laws
2.There is no such thing as a special session , just one where the DP ends the session after one turn.

On a side note I encourage any citizen willing to propose leglislation authorizing special turnchats.

On a side note I encourage any citizen willing to propose leglislation authorizing special turnchats.
I can certanly whip up one. Though oviously it will have to be a rough draft first so that additional addition and changes can be done ;).

Edit: I have created a proposal, but I am holding off the request of a review untill a Final Draft is done of if the Judicary sees the proposal fit. Which ever comes first ;).

CJ Ruling, DG6T3JR1.

On question 1, there is no special provision for special play sessions, so all TCITs must be opened at least 3 days before the scheduled time.

On question 2, the law does not have the concept of a special session, therefore the proposed session cannot be a special session.

On the citizen comments regarding this situation, there does not seem to be any time limit on how long a play session can last -- but when it's declared over, the next play would be a new session.

anyone heard from the governor of middle earth? he hasn't posted in his thread since the ninth and I'm waiting to hear if I can be mayor,,,,,,,

anyone heard from the governor of middle earth? he hasn't posted in his thread since the ninth and I'm waiting to hear if I can be mayor,,,,,,,
I have seen Noldy posting outside the Demogame. Sadly there is no written law regarding absences. Most likely that the absences go through an unwritten rule by tradition that if an offical has gone on an unadnounce absences that the deputy becomes the offical by eather the judicary or the president (I dont remember at this point how they did it in demogames past). I beleve there should be a written law inplace regarding absences and the proper procedure to replace the absent offical. The law should cover general absence (Not posting in the DG and CFC for a length of time), Demogame absence (posting in other parts of CFC but not the DG excluding the MSDG), or Adnounced absence (Posting in the "absence thread" adnouncing their planed absence with an arival time.).

I have seen Noldy posting outside the Demogame. Sadly there is no written law regarding absences. Most likely that the absences go through an unwritten rule by tradition that if an offical has gone on an unadnounce absences that the deputy becomes the offical by eather the judicary or the president (I dont remember at this point how they did it in demogames past). I beleve there should be a written law inplace regarding absences and the proper procedure to replace the absent offical. The law should cover general absence (Not posting in the DG and CFC for a length of time), Demogame absence (posting in other parts of CFC but not the DG excluding the MSDG), or Adnounced absence (Posting in the "absence thread" adnouncing their planed absence with an arival time.).

ah my young protege you seem to have overlooked code of laws section 5b


b. Should an official fail to post in the DG forum for 3
days in a thread related to their area without prior
notice, the Judiciary may declare that office Vacant.


and also our constitution states



4. The President will appoint a citizen to any Vacant
office. If a deputy exists for that office, the
President must appoint that citizen. This appointment
may be challenged by any citizen by that citizen
posting a confirmation poll within 24 hours of the
appointment.

ah my young protege you seem to have overlooked code of laws section 5b


b. Should an official fail to post in the DG forum for 3
days in a thread related to their area without prior
notice, the Judiciary may declare that office Vacant.


and also our constitution states



4. The President will appoint a citizen to any Vacant
office. If a deputy exists for that office, the
President must appoint that citizen. This appointment
may be challenged by any citizen by that citizen
posting a confirmation poll within 24 hours of the
appointment.

Doh, How can I over look that. I must have use control-F and just entered in the words "absent" and "absence" :crazyeye:. So this law would cover officals posting outside the Demogame, but would be considerd absent if he or she does not post in the demogame forum in 3 days. I can already tell that 5 days of RL College exams can realy fry the cyberbrain :crazyeye:. I had a gut feeling that the president appoints citizens or deputies but was not sure.
Please dont give an F to this DG Judicary Student :sad: ;).

we get to grade you? :devil:

I have sent a PM and posted a query in the Middle Earth Governor's mansion regarding Noldodan's absence. We can give a little time for a response before ruling on a vacancy. There doesn't seem to be a deputy, unless I missed that appointment somewhere.

Also, Dave, have you PMed Noldy?

Edit: PS, speaking about PMs, have you responded to the PM I've sent you at the beguinning of this month?

Governor Noldodan posted in the TCIT, so vacancy proceedings are withdrawn for now. :)

24 Earth Hours has passed and its time to present the proposed poll for the change in the consitution. I am submitting this to the Term 3 court for Judicial Review of the following proposed legislation.

Proposed Poll
Do you approve of the following changes to the Consitution?
Yes/No/Abstain and will run for a maxumum of 96 Hours

Original Text of the current consitution

Article J. All irreversible game actions must progress during a
scheduled game session while reversible game actions
(i.e. build queues) that adhere to legal instructions can
be prepared offline before the scheduled game session.

1. An instruction thread must be created at least 3 days
before the scheduled turnchat.
a. All official instructions must be posted in the
current instruction thread. Instructions must be
clear and defined.
b. Officials must post their instructions at least
one hour before the game session. Offcials may
make changes to their instructions up to an hour
before the game session, so long as those changes
are clearly noted.


New changes (In Boldface)


Article J. All irreversible game actions must progress during a
scheduled game session while reversible game actions
(i.e. build queues) that adhere to legal instructions can
be prepared offline before the scheduled game session.

1. An instruction thread must be created at least 3 days
before the scheduled turnchat.
a. All official instructions must be posted in the
current instruction thread. Instructions must be
clear and defined.
b. Officials must post their instructions at least
one hour before the game session. Offcials may
make changes to their instructions up to an hour
before the game session, so long as those changes
are clearly noted.
c. A special sessions to achieve a single specific task is
exempt from the 3 day creation rule provided no turns are
played. Such sessions shall be scheduled and the TCIT
posted no less than 24 hours in advance and only the
single specific action to take shall be posted in the TCIT.
An offical from which the department would be effected
can freely object if they find that there is not sufficient
time for discussion


As a Student of the Judicary, I shall avoid the conflict of interest and keep my $.02 to myself for the duration of the review of this proposed changes :).

CG's request for a JR of proposed legislation is accepted as having merit and numbered DG6T3JR2.

CJ Ruling: I find the proposed legislation is not in conflict with the existing law.

I find the proposed legislation is not in conflict with any laws and may proceed to polling after the ruling of the Judge Advocate

I agree with my collegaues the proposed leglislation has no conflict and may proceed to polling