Welcome to the Term 1 Judiciary - The Court of the Big Rock!

Yeah, that's us sitting under the shade of that really big boulder. Try to ignore the guy off to the side with that big rock next to him. We only use that for "trouble", like the last time the Mob tried to interfere with us. They were reminded that we take Judicial Indepence seriously!

We're all here to help, so please post any rules related questions here. If you've got something for us to review, please post it! Comments on current matters? Give 'em to us! Ultimately, the court's success depends on the participation of all citizens in its discussions.

The Court
Chief Justice - Ravensfire
Judge Advocate - Lockesdonkey
Public Defender - Octavian X


Useful Links:
Constitution (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=206618)
Initiatives
Judicial Procedures
Current Docket
Current Initiative/Amendment discussions

Other offices:
Chieftain
Elder

-- Ravensfire, Chief Justice

Common

Rights and Duties of all Citizens

Participate in all Judicial discussions
Request that any Judicial discussion be moved to its own thread in the Citizen's forum
Post requests for Judicial Review of existing law.
Post requests for Judicial Review of proposed amendments. This request should contain the exact text to be reviewed and a link to the discussion thread.
Post requests for clarification. This is an unofficial question about the rules that does not create a finding or set legal precedent, but may lead to a Judicial Review if any Justice feels one is needed.
Post requests for Investigations. This is a request to determine if a citizen has violated a rule. This request must be posted in the Judicial thread. There are no anonymous requests.Shared duties and responsibilities of all Justices

Conduct the business of the court in a fair, impartial, open and speedy manner.
Review and discuss any questions about our laws.
Review all proposed Amendments to our laws.
Review all requested Investigations to determine if there is need.
Participate in all Investigations in a fair and impartial manner.
Post clear opinions on all questions.
Notify the Judiciary during any Absence, and arrange for a Pro-Tem replacement
Discuss and ratify these Judicial Procedures.
Recuse themself from any Investigation that they are involved in as either the citizen requesting the investigation, or as the citizen under investigation. A Pro-tem replacement will be named by the Chieftain.
Recuse themself from any Judicial Review where they feel unable to render a fair, impartial, open or speedy decision. A Pro-tem replacement will be named by the Chieftain.Rights and Duties of the Chief Justice

Post polls for amendments once they pass review
Oversee all Judicial Proceedings.
Maintain the Judicial Log.Rights and Duties of the Judge Advocate

Post any valid Recall poll if for the Chief Justice.
Serve as the Prosecution during any trial of a citizen. In this role, the Judge Advocate need not act impartial as they are arguing for a specific side.Rights and Duties of the Public Defender

Serve as the Defense during as trial of a citizen, unless requested otherwise by the citizen. In this role, the Public Defender need not act impartial as they are arguing for a specific side.
Judicial Reviews
Judicial Reviews are used to resolve questions of the law and to validate proposed amendments. The opinion of a majority of the Justices will be used to resolve the Judicial Review.

Reviews of existing laws may be requested by anyone. The Judiciary shall review each request for merit. If any Justice determines the request has merit, it is accepted. The Chief Justice will post each accepted request, clearly denoting the questions for that Judiciary Review. After at least 24 hours, each Justice may post their finding. This post should clearly answer the questions as posed by the Chief Justice. The Chief Justice may request clarification of these findings as needed.

The Chief Justice may also accept a request as one for a Temporary ruling. This process is for questions that may materially delay the Demogame, but would best be answered by an Initiative or Amendment. Once the ruling is made, the Chief Justice will open a discussion on creating an Initiative or Amendment. This ruling is in effect only until a relevant initiative is passed. Temporary rulings may, at the discretion of the Chief Justice, ignore the 24 hour rule above.

Reviews of proposed amendments may be requested by anyone. The post must include the proposed amendment, and a link to the discussion thread. This post should clearly note all changes, including additions, deletions and changes. The proposed amendment must have been conspicuously posted as a proposed poll for at least 24 hours, and the discussion thread open for at least 48 hours. The Justices will review the amendment for any conflicts with current law, and post their findings. The Chief Justices will post the poll for all proposals that pass Judicial Review.

INITIATIVES DO NOT NEED TO BE REVIEWED BY THE JUDICIARY.

Concurring decisions or rulings by at least two justices will resolve a judicial review. Any justice can request clarification of another justice's decision or ruling. Justices may also request the use alternative means of internal discussion to aid in their decisions. All ruling MUST, however, be posted in the Judicial thread.

Requests may be deferred to the next term if the Chief Justice deems it likely that the Judicial Review will not finish prior to the conclusion of the current term.

Investigations
Investigations are used to determine if a citizen has violated a rule. They may be requested by any citizen in a post in the Judicial thread. Except as noted, the Justices must act in a fair, impartial, open and speedy manner throughout the process. All citizens are innocent unless determined to be guilty. All evidence, except foreknowledge of the game, must be presented publicly. Evidence of foreknowledge of the game will be reviewed by the Judiciary, and a statement about that evidence posted. Once that evidence becomes irrelevant due to game progress, any citizen may request it to be posted.

Any citizen who is the defendant of a Citizen Complaint has the right to representation throughout the process. The Public Defender will defend each citizen charged with an offense from the moment the Citizen Complaint is filed until the complaint is concluded, unless another citizen is appointed by the defendant to serve as the Defense, with that citizen's consent, or if the accused prefers to defend him/herself.

At any time during a citizen complaint, the prosecution and the defense (and accused) may agree to drop the case and implement an alternative agreed to solution, provided the Chief Justice concurs. Likewise, the citizen making the request may drop the request, ending the citizen complaint unless another citizen wishes to continue the process. Likewise, the citizen under investigation may accept the charges, and move immediately to the Sentencing phase.

If a citizen has been found innocent of a charge or if the citizen has been found guilty and sentenced appropriately, the citizen may not be charged again with the same violation.

Review
Each requested Investigation will be reviewed by the Judiciary. Justices will gather and look through the evidence presented, including requests for statements from all citizens. If all Justices posting decisions determine the request to have No Merit, the basis for that finding will be posted by each Justice and the request is denied. If at least one Justice determines the request to have Merit, a trial on the facts will be conducted. The Judge Advocate will review the request and the relevant law, and determine the specific law the accused citizen is alleged to have violated.

Trial
The Judge Advocate will create a thread for the trial in the Citizen's forum. This initial post should contain the specific violations and the evidence for those accusations. The next two posts are reserved for the citizen accused and the Public Defender - until they post, or 24 hours from the initial post, no other citizen may post in the thread. All citizens are encouraged to post in this thread, but are reminded to respect the rights of all citizens.

Once at least 48 hours have passed, and discussion has petered out, the Chief Justice can declare the discussion closed, and post a Trial poll.

The Trial poll will be a private poll, with the options Innocent, Guilty and Abstain. It will run for 48 hours. The option receiving the most votes will determine the result. In the event of a tie, the members of the Judiciary will determine the result by posting clear opinions in the Trial thread.

Sentencing
If a citizen under an investigation has accepted the charges, the citizen, the accuser and the Judiciary may determine and assign a sentence if they all unanimously agree to the arrangement. Failure to uphold that arrangement will result in full sentencing poll posted as if the citizen were found guilty in a Trial.

If an arrangement cannot be made, or the citizen was found Guilty in a trial poll, the sentence will be determined by the citizens through a poll. The Chief Justice will post the poll, marked as private with a duration of 48 hours. The options for the poll will include:
Suspension from Demogame
Removal from Office (if applicable)
Final Warning
Warning
Abstain
Other options may be included through unanimous consent of the Judiciary.

Once the poll closes, the Chief Justice or Judge Advocate will determine the sentence imposed using cumulative voting. The most severe option that a majority of citizens support will be imposed. If a Warning is issued, a warning will be posted by the Chief Justice in the Judicial thread, sent via PM to the citizen, and posted in that person’s government thread, if they hold an office. If a citizen is given a Final Warning, the above procedure will be used, but with stronger language. Additionally, the options “Warning” and “Final Warning” will not appear on a sentencing poll if that citizen is charged with a similar offense in the future. If a citizen is sentenced to a Public Apology, a thread apologizing for the actions taken must be posted by the defendant within 48 hours of the close of the sentencing poll. If the citizen is removed from office, they are barred from holding that office for the remainder of the term. The length of any suspension is to be determined by the moderators.

Changes to Judicial Procedures
The Judicial Procedures may be changed at any time by a concurring decision of at least two justices.

Current Requests: (links to post accepting request)
None

Closed Requests: (links to post with court's ruling)

C4DG2JR1 - Are unofficial offices elected, and thus under the 1 election per term restriction? (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=5251403&postcount=35)

C4DG2JR2 - Was the election for the Elder of city 2 conducted correctly? (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=5251403&postcount=35)

Place holder ...

:hammer: Court is now in session! :hammer:

Okay, maybe not quite for a few hours, but who's to notice! :satan:

I'd like to welcome my fellow Justices to the bench - Judge Advocate Lockesdonkey and Public Defender Octavian X! It's an honor to have such people up on this big rock with me.

Justices, please review the proposed procedures and post any comments you have.

Fellow citizens, once the clock strikes on midnight, March 1 GMT, we're open for business!

-- Ravensfire, Chief Justice

Thank you, Justice Ravensfire! I'm already looking forward to a solid first term for this DG!

But, we must get to the business at hand, I suppose. Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice, for composing the first proposal for procedures. They sound pretty good to me. My only current qualms are as follows:

- The section on Temporary Judicial Reviews seems rather vague at the moment. Are these types of reviews temporary until the passage of a proper law? An elaboration would help this section.

- The power to decide the merit of a potential Judicial Review seems to put disproportionate power in the hands of the Chief Justice, or else the wording is a little unclear. As I'm reading it at the moment, if the Chief Justice finds merit in the question, the review goes ahead, but if he doesn't find any merit, BOTH the Public Defender and Judge Advocate must find merit for the case to proceed - that is, it takes the PD and JA to overrule the CJ on the issue, but the CJ can force the issue if the PD and JA don't find merit.
Again, I may have misread the statement, but I would prefer it if only one of the other Justices were needed to accept the review, irregardless of position on the bench.

- The section on Temporary Judicial Reviews seems rather vague at the moment. Are these types of reviews temporary until the passage of a proper law? An elaboration would help this section.Yup - I'll get a clarification up.

- The power to decide the merit of a potential Judicial Review seems to put disproportionate power in the hands of the Chief Justice, or else the wording is a little unclear. As I'm reading it at the moment, if the Chief Justice finds merit in the question, the review goes ahead, but if he doesn't find any merit, BOTH the Public Defender and Judge Advocate must find merit for the case to proceed - that is, it takes the PD and JA to overrule the CJ on the issue, but the CJ can force the issue if the PD and JA don't find merit.
Again, I may have misread the statement, but I would prefer it if only one of the other Justices were needed to accept the review, irregardless of position on the bench.Works for me.

-- Ravensfire

[lawyerly language]
Dear Honorable Chief Justice ravensfire:

Like Octavian X, I look forward to a great first term under your guidance, and thank you for your clarifications.

I really have nothing else to say at this point.

Yours, etc.,
Lockesdonkey, Judge Advocate
[/lawyerly language]

I'm ready for work.

I also have a question: if I think I have a conflict of interest in an Investigation, I assume I can recuse myself. Is that correct?

I also have a question: if I think I have a conflict of interest in an Investigation, I assume I can recuse myself. Is that correct?

Yes. In the past citizens often ask that you recuse yourself if they feel there is a conflict of interest, but that doesn't mean you have too. It's up to you to decide whether you feel you are or are not (with possibly prodding from citizens and other officials :)).

I also have a question: if I think I have a conflict of interest in an Investigation, I assume I can recuse myself. Is that correct?
Yup - first and foremost, the Judiciary is supposed to be impartial. Obviously, if you're the target of the investigation or the citizen requesting the investigation, you must recuse yourself.

To both Lockesdonkey and Octavian - I've made the changes suggested by Octavian. Please review the procedures, and post any comments and if you accept them.

Thanks!
-- Ravensfire, Chief Justice

Everything looks good, in my opinion. I am prepared to accept the Judicial procedures as posted above.

The new procedures look OK to me.

In any case:

[sort-of legal language]
Chief Justice Ravensfire:

In the very unlikely event that the judiciary is required tomorrow or the day after, or on March 16-18, I will not be able to discharge my duties. I request that Your Honor select a suitable temporary replacement.

Yours, etc.
Lockesdonkey

Excellent - the procedures have been accepted!

Lockesdonkey - I'll be gone for most of that period as well, so I think we'll just recess for that weekend in honor of St. Patricks!

-- Ravensfire, Chief Justice

May I approach the Bench Big Rock?

The rights of citizens include:


Participate in all Judicial discussions
Request that any Judicial discussion be moved to its own thread in the Citizen's forum


Because I don't check the Judiciary thread frequently I might miss a discussion that would benefit from citizen input. May I ask the Court to automatically create a discussion thread for each Judicial discussion in the Citizen's forum?

Thank you for your consideration!

Certainly!

At least, if we do every have anything to do ... Which I hope we don't!

-- Ravensfire

I'm a bit confused about elections. Who is the EO for this term? Is it a duty assigned to the Chieftain?

It is, in fact, the Chieftain.
The Chieftain is the supreme leader of our nation, and controls all units and has all powers not granted to another official. This includes overseeing Elections and the Designated Player pool.

-- Ravensfire, Chief Justice

It is, in fact, the Chieftain.


-- Ravensfire, Chief Justice

And legally I can delegate that duty to a deputy? (With it being my responsibility of course.)

And legally I can delegate that duty to a deputy? (With it being my responsibility of course.)
Or to any else, for that matter! You've gotta make one person responsible for things, but shouldn't prevent them from seeking help.

-- Ravensfire, Chief Justice

We'll need a quick judgement on that before term 2 elections...

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=5247156&postcount=16

although i dont want to run in an elected office.

im fairly certain that you can run for both a unoffical and a offical position as well as the dp pool.

Here's a hopefully quick question for the court. Does a potential candidate for office have to be a citizen first? What defines citizenship, membership in the user group, posting in the citizen's registry, either one, or both?

whoah I woke up the court here or what? :)

The Tribal Government Act and Election Act seem fairly clear on the point - elections are only for elected officials, and offices like that of the cartographer are unelected positions to which the Chieftain has delegated some of his power. This matter is uncomplicated and uncontroversial, and thus I do not believe it merits a full Judicial Review - just a reminder about the law.

Edit: woah... Forgot to hit the refresh button before I posted. The above was a response to NKVD's first query.

Here's a hopefully quick question for the court. Does a potential candidate for office have to be a citizen first? What defines citizenship, membership in the user group, posting in the citizen's registry, either one, or both?

A citizen is any member of the CivFanatics forums that participates in the Democracy Game in any way. Citizens are encouraged, but not required, to post in the Citizen Registry. Membership in the user group specific to this democracy game is required in order for a citizen to vote.

Seems straightforward enough. Running for a demogame office is, almost by definition, participating in the demogame while simultaneously being a member of the CFC forum. Ergo, a candidate for office is a citizen.

We'll need a quick judgement on that before term 2 elections...

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=5247156&postcount=16

although i dont want to run in an elected office.

As both of those are unofficial offices, not governed by the ruleset, there is no issue with holding one of those offices and running for any other offices.

I concur with Octavian X, and find this request for Judicial Review has no merit.

-- Ravensfire, Chief Justice

Here's a hopefully quick question for the court. Does a potential candidate for office have to be a citizen first? What defines citizenship, membership in the user group, posting in the citizen's registry, either one, or both?
Per Article B.1 of the Constitution
A citizen is any member of the CivFanatics forums that participates in the Democracy Game in any way. Citizens are encouraged, but not required, to post in the Citizen Registry. Membership in the user group specific to this democracy game is required in order for a citizen to vote.
Citizenship is granted by participation - so the act of declaring interest in an office would grant citizenship. Citizens must be a member of the user group to vote, so it's entirely possible that a candidate that fails to request membership would be unable to vote for themself!

To answer the question DaveShack has raised, the answer is neither, either or both! Any act of participation, any act, is enough to grant citizenship.

-- Ravensfire, Chief Justice

Members of the Court may find the timing of the end of nominations (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=213360) interesting. Although we have not passed anything regarding poll invalidation, the Court's opinion on the election poll (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=213827) for the Elder of the Capitol City would be greatly appreciated.

Excerpt from Citizen Initiative - Conducting Elections (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=5080784&postcount=1)
The Election Act of 4000 BC

Conducting the affairs of Government in our system requires periodic elections. These elections allow citizen to chose their leaders based on their personalities, views and stated goals.

Terms of office will run from the first of the month to the last day. If the first term starts in the middle of a month, that term will not end until the last day of the subsequent month. No citizen can be elected to the same office in more than two consecutive terms.

Elections will be conducted by the official in charge of Election (called the EO). The EO will create nomination threads for each elected office, plus the Designated Player poll, 7 days prior to the end of the current term. After 3 days, the EO will post voting polls, one for each contested office, listing each candidate that has accepted their nomination in order of acceptance. These polls will be marked private, single-choice, and will be set to expire in 3 days.

Citizens can only accept one nomination for an elected office. If they accept more than one, the EO will try to determine which one is their preference. If the EO cannot, they will assume the most recent acceptance takes precendence. The Designated Player pool is not considered an elected office.

The citizen recieving the most votes at the conclusion of the election poll is deemed the winner of that election. In the event that more than one citizen is tied for the most votes, a runoff election poll, listing all citizen's tied for the most votes, will be conducted. This poll will be marked private, single-choice, and will be set to expire in 2 days. This process will be repeated until one citizen recieves the most votes.

A citizen can withdraw from an election at any time. This is an irreversible choice. When they do so, their name, and number of votes, is ignored for determining the winner of the election and for any runoffs.

The Designated Player poll will list all citizens that accepted their nomination. This poll will be marked private, multiple choice and will be set to expire in three days. All citizens receiving the required support will be considered to be the Designated Player pool for that term.

First off I must apologize for my failure to make myself clear when I posted this statement:

The election poll will be posted by 2:00 pm (1900 GMT) on March 27th and will list all accepted nominations, in order of acceptance.

What I failed to do was post when the nomination threads would end. Instead I posted the latest time I would have the polls posted. I apologize.

In regards to the review let me offer this statement in the above article in my defense:

After 3 days, the EO will post voting polls, one for each contested office, listing each candidate that has accepted their nomination in order of acceptance. These polls will be marked private, single-choice, and will be set to expire in 3 days.

The above states after three days. It does not state that the EO must post when the threads close. It only states how long they must be open.

First off let us agree that three days is equal to 72 hours. Next, let us show that the latest nomination thread I posted was on March 24th @ 0956 GMT. The first poll I posted was on March 27th @ 1020 GMT, which is past the 72 hour mark required by our laws. By the statements in our laws I conducted the elections legally.

I'm beginning to think we need to amend the election act with a statement that the EO must declare when the nomination threads will close. Oddly enough, did you notice in the Election Act we don't even state that the nomination threads must close? As they say, we learn from our mistakes.

DaveShack has requested (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=5250487&postcount=28) a Judicial Review of the election for the Elder of our capital city.

Summary:
I find this request to have no merit.

Relevant law:
Elections will be conducted by the official in charge of Election (called the EO). The EO will create nomination threads for each elected office, plus the Designated Player poll, 7 days prior to the end of the current term. After 3 days, the EO will post voting polls, one for each contested office, listing each candidate that has accepted their nomination in order of acceptance. These polls will be marked private, single-choice, and will be set to expire in 3 days.

Analysis:
Chieftain ice2k4 delegated his duties as Election Officer to Methos for the Term 2 election. Only the election for the Elder of our capital city is relevant to this discussion.

Important times (in both CDT and GMT):
Nomination thread
Nomination thread opens: 3/24/2007 04:48 CDT, 3/24/2007 09:48
ordinaryguy posts acceptance: 3/27/2007 t 06:51 CDT, 3/24/2007 11:15 GMT

Election thread
Election thread opens: 3/27/2007 05:22 CDT, 3/27/2007 10:22 GMT
Election thread closes: 3/30/2007 05:30 CDT, 3/30/2007 10:30 GMT

Nomination tracker thread
Nominations closed: 3/27/2007 5:15 CDT, 3/27/2007 10:15 GMT

Our laws require that nominations last for 3 days (72 hours), and that elections last for 3 days (72 hours), and that this process starts 7 days before the end of the term.

A review of the relevant times show that the nominations threads were open for the minimum time required - 3 days. Likewise, they show that the election polls are open for the required time - 3 days. It is clear that the requirements of the law have been met.

DaveShack's concern is that the EO (Methos) had indicated that he would post the election polls "by 2:00 pm (1900 GMT) on March 27th", but by posting them when he did, citizens that were undecided lost a few extra hours to decide to run for office.

Ultimately, decisions about how to run elections are made by the EO as guided by the rules and their availability. Methos has met the requirements of the law in leaving the nominations open for 72 hours. Methos also did meet his statement of "by 2:00 pm" by posting the election polls prior to that time.

The post by ordinaryguy came over an hour after Methos closed nominations and over an hour after the Elder poll was posted. While unfortunate for ordinaryguy, no rules have been violated, nor is the poll unfair, invalid or otherwise lacking. Ultimately, the election rules are defined and static. Allowing acceptances after the election polls were validly created introduces issues that this process should not have. In this instance, ordinaryguy was nearly an hour an a half late. If we created a new poll with his name, at what point would nominations truly close? On time? 1 hour after that time? 2 hours? 24 hours?

In an ideal world, the EO would post in each nomination thread that the nominations are closed, create the poll threads, and then edit the close posts with a link to the relevant election. This would help reduce some confusion, and immediately have indicated to ordinaryguy that it was too late to accept his nomination. However, ordinaryguy also could have noticed the election poll for that office, and seen that it was too late to accept his nomination.

Ruling
As the election process for the Elder of our capital city was correctly followed, there is nothing incorrect about the election poll. DaveShacks request for Judicial Review is determined to have no merit.

-- Ravensfire, Chief Justice

On NKVD's point:

Because the office of Cartographer has no official existence (that is, it exists by the Chieftain's fiat), I see no problem in the rules about this. I would even be willing to entertain the idea that a definite non-citizen could hold the office (though I would not advocate it, and probably decide against it).

That said, I advise elected officials not to seek appointed office, and likewise advise elected officials to include provisions in the conditions for the appointed offices they create forbidding other elected officials from holding them.

In summary, I concur with the rest of the Court and rule that NKVD's petition bears no merit.

I join Ravensfire's opinion on the elder elections issue, and also rule that this request bears no merit.

I concur with my fellow justices the question of elections originally posted by DaveShack. ordinaryguy is getting the short end of the stick here, and we probably could do a better job of ensuring that all citizens are properly informed about the law. However, I find no merit in the question.

And here I was afraid that we wouldn't see any judicial action at all over this term. :mischief:

I didn't expect a full JR -- but well done.

By unanimous decision, the Court has made the following decisions:

NKVD's request (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=5248306&postcount=20) for a Judicial Review about elections and non-elected offices has been found to have no merit.

DaveShack's request (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=5250487&postcount=28) Judicial Review on the election cycle for the Elder of our capital city has been found to have no merit.

Thanks for giving the court something to do!

-- Ravensfire, Chief Justice

lol...I can find more.

Can I run for History and cartography?

I only read that you cant run for two elected seat...didnt find on running on two non-elected seat

NKVD - as those aren't elected seats, the decision about who should fill those roles is entirely up to the Chieftain. They can appoint someone, or have a mini election for that role, or draw virtual straws! Regardless, offices like those, created by the Chieftain, aren't elected. Only offices created by a law are elected.

Hope that clears it up for you!
-- Ravensfire, Chief Justice

yep..your honor