Welcome to the Court! You may find the rock chairs to be a little uncomfortable, I do apologize, but please try to make yourselves at home if you have any concerns or questions regarding the laws of this great nation.

Members
Chief Justice - Black_Hole
Judge Advocate - Lord Civius
Public Defender - Nobody

Laws
Constitution (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=7745199&postcount=2)
Code of Laws (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=7745199&postcount=2)
Judicial Procedures (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=7824078&postcount=2)

Census
The term 1 census is: 16.
This means a poll for amending the constitution requires at least 9 votes with 67% of those (ignoring abstain) voting for the amendment.
A poll for amending the code of laws has no dependence on the census.

Judicial Procedures
Became official on 3/6/09.

Rights of the Citizens

The right to the presumption of innocence
The right to a fair and speedy trial
The right to inquire into possible violations of the law (Official Investigation)
The right to ask for a review of the law
The right to ask for clarification of the law
The right to publicly comment on judicial reviews of the law

Responsibilities of the Chief Justice

Act with impartiality and fairness while conducting official court functions
Recuse self when the subject of an Official Investigation
Make rulings in judicial reviews, official investigations, absence investigations, and amendment reviews in a speedy manner
Organize and conduct the affairs of the judiciary
Maintain order and procedure in the court
Maintain the judicial log and court docket
Appoint pro-tem justices, with presidential approval, in case of absence of another justice
Propose and maintain judicial procedures

Responsibilities of the Judge Advocate

Act with impartiality and fairness while conducting official court functions
Recuse self when the subject of an Official Investigation
Make rulings in judicial reviews, official investigations, absence investigations, and amendment reviews in a speedy manner
Appoint pro-tem chief justice, with presidential approval, in case of absence of the chief justice
Act as the prosecutor in an Official Investigation; the Judge Advocate is not required to act impartially in this role

Responsibilities of the Public Defender

Act with impartiality and fairness while conducting official court functions
Recuse self when the subject of an Official Investigation
Make rulings in judicial reviews, official investigations, absence investigations, and amendment reviews in a speedy manner
Appoint pro-tem justices, with presidential approval, in case of absence of both other justices
Act as the attorney for a citizen accused in an Official Investigation; the Public Defender is not required to act impartially in this role

Judicial Reviews

Any citizen may request a judicial review into questions or conflicts of the law
A request may be posted in judiciary thread or private messaged to a justice
The Chief Justice shall rule as to whether the proposed review has merit
If the Chief Justice rules the judicial review to have no merit, unanimous consent of the other justices can override his/her decision
If a judicial review is declared to have merit then the justices will allow time for citizen comments
If any citizen publicly or privately requests for a discussion thread, the Chief Justice shall post a discussion thread in the Citizens' Sub forum

Legal Clarifications

This is a non-binding request for clarification of any law
If another justice disagrees with the clarification of the justice answering the citizen, a judicial review shall be called for

Official Investigations

Any citizen may request an investigation into violations of the law by posting in the judiciary thread or sending a private message to both the Chief Justice and Judge Advocate
Once a citizen has requested an investigation the judiciary shall determine whether reasonable evidence occurs that indicates the possibility of a violation of law
If a at least one justice believes reasonable evidence exists into violations of the law the Chief Justice will open a discussion thread detailing the allegations and evidence against the accused
The accused shall be notified of the investigation and shall have the option to choose their own attorney or use the services of the Public Defender
For 24 hours no person may post in the official discussion thread until both the attorney and the accused have posted defenses in the discussion thread
The defendant shall ensure that their first post contains a plea of innocence or guilt
If the defendant pleads guilty the trial will skip to the sentencing phase
If the defendant pleads innocence the discussion thread will remain open for at least 48 hours and longer at the discretion of the Chief Justice
After the discussion the Chief Justice will post a private poll with the options Innocent, Guilty, and Abstain. This poll will have a link to the trial thread and brief summaries of the prosecutor's argument and accused's defense. The poll will be open for 48 hours
In the event of a tie, the judiciary members will vote again to break it
If the defendant is determined to be guilty the Chief Justice will open a sentencing poll containing punishments the Chief Justice deems reasonable ranked in order of severity
The sentencing poll, will contain at a minimum, the options No Punishment, Public Apology, Impeachment from Office, and Abstain. This poll shall run for 48 hours and be private
After the poll closes the Chief Justice will determine the most severe punishment that a majority of citizens approved (A citizen voting for the most severe punishment approves of all other punishments and so on down the line).
The results of this poll will become valid immediately and the Chief Justice will close the trial

Amendment Review

A discussion thread must be created for either a Constitutional or Code of Laws amendment
The discussion must have lasted at least 48 hours before a proposed poll can be posted
After sufficient discussion, a proposed poll should be posted in the discussion thread
After at least 24 hours have passed the proposed poll should be submitted to the judiciary for review
For constitutional amendments the justices shall ensure the proposed poll is formatted properly and the changes are clear
For amendments to the code of laws the judiciary shall ensure a correct poll format and they shall ensure that the proposed amendment does not contradict with the constitution
At least two justices must approve of the proposed poll before it shall be polled
Upon approval the Chief Justice shall post the proposed poll, in his/her absence another member of the judiciary will post the poll

Recalls

Any citizen may post a thread calling for the recall of an elected official
If two additional citizens concur with the recall within 24 hours a recall poll will be posted
The Chief Justice, or in his recall or absence the Judge Advocate, shall post a recall poll in accordance with the constitution
A 2/3rds vote, ignoring abstains, shall be required to remove the official from office with half the census voting
An official may not be recalled more than once per seven days

Absence Investigation

If an elected official has not posted in the Demo Game forums for 7 days any citizen may request that the judiciary investigate
A request to investigate may be posted in the judiciary thread or private messaged to a justice of the court
The justices will send a private message to the individual
If the justices do not receive a response from the official within a reasonable time a majority vote of the justices will suffice to declare the office vacant
If the elected official in question is required for time sensitive items the judiciary may skip the private message and declare the office vacant if the official has not posted in the Demo Game forums in seven days

Court Docket
JR1 (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=7868243&postcount=22)
Requested By: Lord Civius
Pertaining: Constitution Article A
Question: Does the AADP constitute a political party and therefore be banned?
Status: The AADP does not constitute a political party.

AR1 (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=7868243&postcount=29)
Requested By: Cyc
Pertaining: CoL Amendment Review
Status: Proposed poll found valid

My proposed judicial procedures have been posted. Please take a look through them and let me know what you think because I drafted these from scratch.

Wow! They are quite detailed and very well worded. On reading them once I also find them sensible and convincing. I was just wondering whether we need all these precautions. In the last demogame I played, we had nothing of the sort IIRC. But that was a little more than six years ago.

Good work, Black_Hole! :goodjob:

Yes, excellent work, Black_Hole. We might want to mention here that the procedures are in limbo until the Public Defener and the Judge Advocate approve them. Well two of three of the Judiciary anyway. You might find a better way to word that. :)

I approve the proposed procedures.

Well I believe we have waited long enough for public comment, so I will vote for approval of these judicial procedures. We have now reached a 2/3rds quorum and the above procedures are now official.

you might want to PM the JA.

you might want to PM the JA.
I have (twice actually) and I have not yet received a response.

Hmm. As Chief Justice, when would you say the Judge Advocate is absent from the position? I'd hate to bounce anyone so quickly, but rules are rules.

Hmm. As Chief Justice, when would you say the Judge Advocate is absent from the position? I'd hate to bounce anyone so quickly, but rules are rules.
Constitutionally his office cannot be declared vacant unless he has not posted in the demogame forums for seven days. His last post in these forums was March 2nd (5 days ago). I will make another attempt to contact him and then we will determine the next course of action in two days.

However there appears to be a constitutional difference between absence and vacant, in his absence I am allowed to appoint (with presidential approval) a pro tem justice, however at the current time there is no need to do so, since there are no issues before the court.

Absence Investigation of Darkwish

I have concluded the investigation into the absence of Darkwish. Here is his last post:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?p=7830018#post7830018.
It is dated March 2nd(my timezone), which was 9 days ago. He has not responded to three private messages I have sent him.

As such, I vote to declare the office of public defender vacant.

I think as a precaution we elect (or choose) some one else. He might just come back when the game starts. If so then he should become the JA when he returns. Otherwise the other person chosen should take over. He seems to be famed for long absenses- He joined in 2005, and has only posted 15 times :D

I vote to declare the judge advocate absent.

Absence Investigation of Darkwish
By a 2-0 vote, Darkwish has been declared vacant from his office of Judge Advocate.

Can I get a reclarifiction, please. That would either be declaring Darkwish absent from his office, or declaring the office of the Judge Advocate vacant. Or is this a morphing decision.

Can I get a reclarifiction, please. That would either be declaring Darkwish absent from his office, or declaring the office of the Judge Advocate vacant. Or is this a morphing decision.
The office of judge advocate has been ruled vacant.

How exactly do we decide a new Judge Advocate?

How exactly do we decide a new Judge Advocate?
The President makes the appointment. Any citizen then has 24 hours to post a confirmation poll if they disagree with the president's appointment.

Hmm, could have sworn I posted an "On it, boss!" post earlier today. Must have hit the wrong button. But I am working on it.

A group that is formed to protect Democratic political principles would constitute IMO a democratic political party. Political Parties are, of course, unconstitutional. I hereby challenge the forming of the Association for the Advancement of Democratic Principles as it overtly pushes a political agenda. The Society for Environmental Protection of Hibernia is a good example of a citizen group. They push no political agenda but have a single objective, to protect the forests of Hibernia.

Article A. Citizenship
All Civfanatics Forum users who register in the Citizen Registry are citizens of our country, and members of the Assembly. Citizens have the right to assemble, the right to free movement, the right to free speech, the right to a fair trial, the right to representation, the right to request an investigation into possible violations of law and the right to vote. Political parties are not permitted.

*I would expect the Chief Justice to excuse himself from the review as he is the groups founder.

Now that's what I call an entrance.

As President, I hereby appoint Lord Civius as Judge Advocate in the Term 1 Judiciary. Welcome, sir.

New Judge Advocate
Let us all welcome Lord Civius, to the bench as the new Judge Advocate. Hopefully I can find some cases to keep you entertained, oh wait, here we go... ;)

Judicial Review #1
Lord Civius has requested a judicial review into the AADP (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=313579).
The question is whether the AADP counts as a political party and is therefore banned by Article A of the constitution.
Article A. Citizenship
All Civfanatics Forum users who register in the Citizen Registry are citizens of our country, and members of the Assembly. Citizens have the right to assemble, the right to free movement, the right to free speech, the right to a fair trial, the right to representation, the right to request an investigation into possible violations of law and the right to vote. Political parties are not permitted.

I find this judicial review to have merit and it will be added to the docket as JR1.

Pro Tem Justice
I will declare myself absent from this case and therefore I can appoint a pro tem justice to rule for me, with presidential approval. I hope to find a temporary justice in the next day or so.

BlackHole,
I may have been a little rash in my statement asking you to excuse yourself from JR1. I would have no problem with you remaining on if you feel you can look at the case with an open mind.

As President, I hereby appoint Lord Civius as Judge Advocate in the Term 1 Judiciary. Welcome, sir.

Thank you sir, I am honored to accept.

I believe it would be best for me to step aside on this case, and now to make a related announcement.

Pro Tem Chief Justice
I appoint donsig to serve in my place as Chief Justice for JR1. He has graciously accepted this position, and now we must await on Presidential approval for it to be official.

By all means. Pro Tem Chief Justice donsig receives Presidential approval in this post. Excellent choice, CJ Black_Hole. :goodjob:

Thank you Mr. Chief Justice and Mr. President. I have opened a JR1 - citizen discussion (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=314027) thread. Everyone is free to post Amicus Curiae briefs on this case which addresses the definition of political parties.

If it please the court, a discussion has begun and a mock poll has been created for an Amendment to Section H1. of the Code of Laws. I hereby request Judicial Review and input on the proposed Amendment.

Proposed Poll for Amendment to Section H.1 of the Code of Laws (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=7851397&postcount=35)

Is there any conflict of interest for judicial reviews created by one of the members of the court?

Is there any conflict of interest for judicial reviews created by one of the members of the court?

It's been a while but IIRC we've had justices initiate JRs and then rule on them. So I see no reason for the JA to not hear the case. I think the rule of thumb we've used in the past is that a justice should recuse him/herself if the case had a direct bearing on him or her. While this case only indirectly involves the CJ, I think he was wise to appoint a pro tem.

Is there any conflict of interest for judicial reviews created by one of the members of the court?
I would also say no to this question as the Constitution is very clear when it gives each citizen rights.

In the Preamble, we see "We uphold the beliefs that each
citizen must have an equal voice in the government and ruling of our country, that
government itself is a construct of and servant to the people, that rules, regulations, and laws should be established to facilitate the active participation of all citizens and to make possible the dreams and desires of the citizens."

In Article A, the very Article involved in this JR, we see Citizenship in Hibernia gives all of us "the right to request an investigation into possible violations of law"

I don't see keeping the members of our High Court from their duly appointed rights.

Judicial Review #2
A request for an amendment to the Code of Laws has been made. The proposed poll is as follows:


This is a poll for an addition to Section H.1 of the Code of Laws. Please review the legislation carefully before voting.

This is the way Section H.1 reads now -

Section H.1 Elections
The Election Office, a citizen’s office supervised by the President, will perform all actions needed for each election cycle.

The regular election cycle starts at the posting of the nomination threads, and concludes when the last poll, including runoff polls, closes. Nomination threads will be posted 8 days before the end of the current term. Election polls will be posted 4 days later, and will list all accepted candidates for each election. Election polls will be marked public, and last for 3 days.

Each position will be granted to the candidate receiving the largest number of votes in that election. In the event of a tie between two or more front runners, a runoff poll shall be opened between those candidates only. This poll shall run for 2 days, and be repeated as often as needed to resolve the tie.

Except for the possibility of the first term being shorter, all terms will start on the 1st of the month, and end on the last day of that month.
--------------------------------------------------------------

This is Section H.1 with the proposed amendment in place -

Section H.1 Elections
The Election Office, a citizen’s office supervised by the President, will perform all actions needed for each election cycle.

The regular election cycle starts at the posting of the nomination threads, and concludes when the last poll, including runoff polls, closes. Nomination threads will be posted 8 days before the end of the current term. Election polls will be posted 4 days later, and will list all accepted candidates for each election. Election polls will be marked public, and last for 3 days.

Each position will be granted to the candidate receiving the largest number of votes in that election. In the event of a tie between two or more front runners, a runoff poll shall be opened between those candidates only. This poll shall run for 2 days, and be repeated as often as needed to resolve the tie.

An official may not serve more than three consecutive terms in the same elected office unless there are no other candidates for the position.

Except for the possibility of the first term being shorter, all terms will start on the 1st of the month, and end on the last day of that month.
_____________________________________

This poll will be open for 72 hours (3 days) and is subject to Section N.1 of the Code of Laws.


This judicial review has been added to the docket as JR2. I will wait about a day before making an official ruling on this review for citizens to comment on its legality.

JR2 Ruling
I find that the proposed poll for amending the Code of Laws is formatted properly and that the amendment does not conflict with the constitution.

JR2 Ruling
I find that the proposed poll for amending the Code of Laws is formatted properly and that the amendment does not conflict with the constitution.

I concur with the chief justice regarding JR2.

i was just looking in this thread (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=309558) and i cant find

Section H.1 Elections
The Election Office, a citizen’s office supervised by the President, will perform all actions needed for each election cycle.

The regular election cycle starts at the posting of the nomination threads, and concludes when the last poll, including runoff polls, closes. Nomination threads will be posted 8 days before the end of the current term. Election polls will be posted 4 days later, and will list all accepted candidates for each election. Election polls will be marked public, and last for 3 days.

Each position will be granted to the candidate receiving the largest number of votes in that election. In the event of a tie between two or more front runners, a runoff poll shall be opened between those candidates only. This poll shall run for 2 days, and be repeated as often as needed to resolve the tie.

Except for the possibility of the first term being shorter, all terms will start on the 1st of the month, and end on the last day of that month.


i can only find

Article H. Elections
The Executive Branch positions, Governorships and the Judiciary positions are all elected positions
with a fixed term not to exceed one month.
Code of Laws Section H.1 Elections
Code of Laws Section H.2 Designated Player Pool
Code of Laws Section H.3 Deputies
Code of Laws Section H.4 Vacancies
Code of Laws Section H.5 Confirmation Polls
Code of Laws Section H.6 Recalls

CivGeneral has not posted in seven days.
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=7855143&postcount=6
Could you send the PM?

Nobody: It's in the Code of Laws not the Constitution, scroll down a little ways (its kinda unformatted right now tho).

billybones27: I don't see the need to launch an investigation because he hasn't missed any of his official duties and he has been active in other forums. If you need him for something you can send him a message to get a hold of him. I would prefer if we can try to handle these matters outside of the judiciary and then call in the judiciary as a last resort.

Nobody: It's in the Code of Laws not the Constitution, scroll down a little ways (its kinda unformatted right now tho).

lol im the worst judge ever.

JR2 Ruling
I find that the proposed poll for amending the Code of Laws is formatted properly and that the amendment does not conflict with the constitution.

JR2 Results
By a vote of 3-0 the proposed amendment to the Code of Laws has been formatted properly and does not conflict with the constitution. The amendment poll has been posted here (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=314561).

Judicial Review 1 Ruling
Judge Advocate Lord Civius

I have come to a decision and I find the AADP constitutes a political party. However I do not believe it was the intent of the group to form a political party. They are in fact "a group of citizens organized under shared political ideals". It is the duty of the court to uphold the constitution and Article A of the Hibernia constitution forbids political parties. The constitution does not define a political party so I will not attempt to define one myself. I suggest a better definition of what constitutes a "political party" under Article A should be revised by the legislative body. For the Judiciary to start writing law would IMO overstep the powers given us by the citizenry. I thank all of the citizens that joined the discussion of JR1.

The question before the court in this judicial review:

Is the Association for the Advancment of Democratic Principles (AADP) a political party?

This question cannot be answered without first defining political party. I think it is also necessary to define citizens group as well:

A citizens group is an assembly of citizens who band together for a common cause.

A political party is an assembly of citizens who band together to elect candidate(s) to office(s).

Using these definitions it is possible to consider a political party a narrow and specialized form of citizen's group. The next step would be to determine where the line is drawn between a citizens group that is a political party and one that is not. What characteristics does each group share and not share? How can a non-political party citizens group participate in our electoral process without crossing the line and becoming a political party?

One of the most loved citizen groups was the Spice Traders Guild in the first [civ3] democracy game. Its avowed purpose was the expansion of trade. On the surface this is a non-political topic for a citizens group. Yet, if the Spice Traders Guild were not allowed to encourage its members to run for office, endorse candidates or even to campaign for candidates then what is the purpose of the guild? What is the point of having a citizens group if you're not organizing it to push the group's agenda? Isn't the whole purpose of forming a citizens group to try to influence the formation of the nation into an image consistent with the group's philosophy? By putting up a legal wall between citizens groups and elections do we not deprive the citizens in the Spice Traders Guild of some of their most basic democratic rights? What good are the rights to free speech and free assembly if they cannot be exercised in elections, the very basis of our democracy? My answer to these questions leads me to give wide latitude to citizens groups regarding our electoral process. Yet, this must still be reconciled with our constitutional ban on political parties and to do this I must have a more specific definition of a political party.

In order to fine tune my definition of a political party I must turn to real life (RL). RL political parties fit my earlier definition of a citizens group with the express purpose of electing candidates to office. One striking characteristic of RL political parties is their restrictive membership. A citizen can be a member of only one political party at a time. In the US one cannot be both a Democrat and a Republican. Another feature of RL political parties is that they are institutional and formally recognized by the government. The party submits a slate of candidates to run for office and indeed this is part of the established order for conducting elections, at least in the U. S. But even here party members are not compelled to vote a certain way even after they are elected to office. This is possible (at least for general elections) by the secret ballot, another cornerstone of democracy.

This leads to a refined legal definition of political party for our purposes:

A political party is an exclusive citizen's group formed for the express purpose of electing candidates to office with membership restricted to those citizens who vote for the citizen group's / political party's slate of candidates.

Using this definition, is the AADP a political party? The self stated purpose of the AADP is to:

Welcome to the Association for the Advancement of Democratic Principles, otherwise known as the AADP. This is an organization for individuals who believe in always upholding our democratic ideas, no matter how big we get, no matter how many wars we are in, no matter how unhappy we are, and no matter what economic situation we are in.

There is no mention of exclusivity, no requirements for admittance. No talk in the AADP thread about elections or candidates or who or what to vote for. Therefore I find:

According to the definitions I have formulated, the AADP is not a political party.

governor donsig
pro tem CJ for JR1

JR1 Public Defender Ruling

Does the Association for the Advancement of Democratic Principles fit the definition of a political party under our laws?

Really two questions, what is the definition of political party under our laws and is the AADP a political party.

The Constitution does not define what a political party is it merely prohibits them.

The Chief Justice Pro tem has given us these three questions to help define a political party:

1. Why does our constitution ban political parties?
2. What is the function of citizens groups?
3. What actions are considered proper and improper for citizen groups to engage in?


The Constitution bans political parties because in the past people worried that having them would divide the nation. Citizens would join factions and the demogame would turn into a bitter war between these factions.

The function of citizens groups are so the members can group together and discuss or promote their common interests. Citizens groups need to be able to carry out these functions without turning into political parties,

I think that as long as the citizens groups aren’t forcing their members to Vote a certain way then they are fine.

Therefore I define a Political Party as “a collection of people who organize votes for or against specific individuals or policies.” (Shack,dave 2009)

Now I have the definition does the AADP fall under it? Reading the groups thread I see no reason to believe that they organise members to vote in a certain manner.

I enter my ruling that the Association for the Advancement of Democratic Principles is not a Political party.

I also recommend that the Assembly create Laws better defining a Political Party, or amend the constitution to allow them.

I also recommend that the Assembly create Laws better defining a Political Party, or amend the constitution to allow them.

I second that recommendation!

I second that recommendation!

Yes it will be much easier to determine a political party once we have a legal definition in our constitution.

Yes it will be much easier to determine a political party once we have a legal definition in our constitution.

Might be better and easier to have it in the Code of Laws.

Might be better and easier to have it in the Code of Laws.

Good point. I'll open a discussion in the citizens forum.

Before our first Term ends, will we see additions to the Judicial Log? I believe we have at least two Judicial Reviews and an Amendment to the CoL.

Before our first Term ends, will we see additions to the Judicial Log? I believe we have at least two Judicial Reviews and an Amendment to the CoL.
You will, but am I missing a JR? I count 1 JR and 1 amendment review. I think I may have called the amendment review a JR in my docket, but I'll change that.

Judicial Review 1 Opinion
By 2-1 vote, the court has found that the AADP is not a political party as defined by Article A of the constitution. The majority found that a political party was a citizen's group whose purpose was to organize votes for candidates in an election.

Pro Tem CJ Ruling (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=7889882&postcount=42) (Majority)
JA Ruling (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=7889188&postcount=41) (Dissent)
PD Ruling (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=7889980&postcount=43) (Majority)

Thank you, CJ Black_Hole. Excellent work.