Office of the Judiciary - Term 5

This is the official thread for the Term 5 Judiciary Department. You can use this thread to post requests for Judicial Reviews, requests for Public Investigations, or to simply have questions answered about the rules, how they work, and what the Judiciary's positions are on the legality of various issues.
Note that if you wish to post a Public Investigation, please use the proper procedure as described in Section H of our Code of Standards.


The following is a list of referenced posts and links:
Term 4 Official Judiciary Thread (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=37989)
Judicial Log (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=26749)
Constitution of Fanatika (The Three Books) (http://www.civfanatics.net/~demogame/constitution_of_fanatika.htm)


Our current judiciary members are as follows:
Chief Justice - Veera Anlai
Public Defender - Shaitan
Judge Advocate - Naervod


In accordance with Article I of our Constitution, the current census is as follows:
Term 4 Active Census - 30
Term 4 Quorum Level - 15
Term 4 Full Census - 33

The active census (30) and quorum (15) are numbers normally used in polling for all issues from the simple up to, and including, changes to our Code of Laws.
The Full Census (33) is only used for constitutional amendments. To pass a constitutional amendment, half of the full census (17) must approve the measure, along with a 2/3 approval in the Senate.

The duties and responsibilities of the Judiciary are outlined in Section E of our Code of Laws.

And most important of all, our Judiciary exists to help our citizens avoid and resolve conflicts. If you ever have any legal questions, please feel free to ask, and don't hesitate to discuss any issues with us.

Veera Anlai
Chief Justice

Congrats Veera on your election to Chief Justice :).

I must *bump* this thread away from the term - 4 threads ;).

Congrats Veera. If two more Council Members vote yes in confirmation, I will be serving under you as JA again, so we will have the same judiciary as last term :).

Originally posted by Veera Anlai
Term 4 Active Census - 30
Term 4 Quorum Level - 15
Term 4 Full Census - 33


Are these the quorums for term 5?

Well its official, I am the new Judge Advocate (sort of new...)

EDIT: Nevermind :rolleyes:

I would like a review to have this poll (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=40858) closed since it contridicts the poll that is/was trying to establish the same thing. Here is the other Poll that it contridicts here (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=40860)

Judge Advocate Opinion

I agree that one of the polls needs to be closed, but it is actually the one you say gets contradicted. The poll that was contradicted (by FortyJ) is the poll that should be closed as it was posted 48 minutes after the poll by donsig.

the poll by forty is not the one that needs to be closed tho

@Fionn - First, the Judiciary does not close polls. Second, there is no rule against confusing or contradictory polls. Contact the pollsters and see if you can get one or the other to have their poll closed.

We had this problem earlier about contradicting or confusing polls, and the conclusion was that there was nothing to be done. It is up to the department head to determine which poll best represents the wishes of the people if such an event occurs.

As Governor of the Southwest, I formally request a Public Investigation of Vice-President Octavian X and Military Leader (General) Falcon02. The charges are unlawfully changing a governor's build queues, to wit, the build queues for the cities of Bremershaven, Civanatoria and New Falcon's Nest (in the Southwest Province) were changed from cavalry to musketmen. This was done by order of General Falcon and implemented by the VP, as DP, Octavian X. The General had no authority to over-ride the governor's queues since there were and are no enemy units in the Southwest Province. I do not request that either of these upstanding officials be punished, however I do wish to go ahead with the public investigation in order to avoid any illegal over-rides in the future.

I offer the following in evidence:

CoL: C.2G.7 (Military Department)

Can supercede a provincial build queue with military units or improvements during time of invasion.
Invasion is the presence of offensive troops belonging to a country we are at war with inside the borders of the province to be superceded.


1000 AD turn chat instruction thread. (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=42023)
This thread has the governor's queues, the saves from 1000 AD and 1010 AD as well as the chat log. An examination of the saves will show that no Indian, Babylonian or Persian units were or are in the Southwest Province.

Southwest Province thread. (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=40940) The first post in this thread contains a map of the Southwest Province.

Here is the excerpt from the chat log (edited):

[23:07] <@Falcon02> we need more muskets
[23:07] <+DX_Zoi> ya think?
[23:08] <@Octavian_X> then both Strum and hunt would be undefended
[23:09] <@Falcon02> so once the Pike gets to Strumandrang, send the Musket.... gonna take a while, but I don't wanna leave a city undefended now
[23:09] <@Octavian_X> I see
[23:09] <@Octavian_X> Waht about the musket outside serenity?
[23:12] <@Octavian_X> Shimonoseki musket?
[23:13] <@Falcon02> Tlax, NFN, Highlands, Strider's Haven, Civanatoria, Bremershaven, switch to Musket please
[23:13] <@Octavian_X> waste 6 sheilds in muskets?
[23:13] <@Falcon02> send it to Kyoto
[23:14] <@Falcon02> any which are gonna waste, don't switch


I request that the Judiciary act on this request in a timely manner since there is a short time between turn chats and the issues of over-rides may well be an important one for the upcoming chat.

Thank you,
donsig
Governor of the Southwest Province

In a related issue, I've noticed that the build queue for Riga was ignored in last night's t/c. Riga was supposed to be changed to a Library, but was left on Musketman. No major damage was done, as either queue would take a long time to complete, allowing for a later change (if no rushing were involved). The fact remains, procedure was not followed.

Here is a link to The North Province Instructions. (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?threadid=42023&perpage=20&pagenumber=1&display=show)

I do not believe that Octavian should be PIed. He was simply carrying out Falcons directions.

Governor donsig, surely you think no major damage was done. For one, the turn chat lasted a single turn. Second, the cities that were switched were in the process of building cavalry. General Falcon felt that the defense of the cities came before the possibility of capture. No cities lost already produced sheilds. Thirdly, that kind of thing tends to happen when there are just two people actively talking in a chat. Any sort of over riding council vote would've resulted affirmitively, since Falcon was the only council member preseint.

Also, Governor Cyc, Riga was purely my mistake. I was disconnected a few too many times, and likely though I had completed your province when in reality Riga was still left.

It's kind of weird, since I was came to this thread first when I got in knowing donsig had something to complain about... :D

I will open a PI thread soon. I want to wait to see donsig's reply.

Also, this term has been very quiet. Veera where have you been? The quorum levels are not fixed and the Judge Advocateposition says unfilled, even though I have held this position for almost three weeks now.

Originally posted by naervod
I will open a PI thread soon. I want to wait to see donsig's reply.


I'm not sure what I should reply to. I'd like to see the PI go forward and we can discuss the charges there. It is up to the Judiciary to decide who shouold be PIed.

The Judge Advocate has determined that the Public Investigation shall be made against Falcon02 and Octavian X. Falcon02 provided the erroneous instructions and Octavian should have known better than to follow the instructions, especially since there were other valid instructions on the turn-chat thread. I will open two separate PI threads either tonight or tomorrow morning.

I think the PI's are a joke. Even though they may techincally guilty, building a different military unit does not take any benefits away from those cities. It's obvious that the general would more likely know what unit to produce than a governor. The VP and the general are very good officials, and I personally think they made the right decision. I don't know why these PI's were even set up. If something like this can happen, then maybe we should start to question this law.

The quorum levels are correct as they are Naervod, but I apologize for not editing the post about you being JA previously. As you say, the term has been very quiet and I haven't been spending much time in the Judiciary thread.

I agree that there is a case against Falcon and Octavian, and I thank the Judge Advocae for taking the initiative in creating the PI thread. However, I don't see why the issue couldn't have been handled privately before being forced into the hands of the Judiciary. There was a valid reason for the military change, the change had little to no impact on upcoming items in the build queue, and the law violated is a minor technicality. A vote may have been taken for an official override, but with the only department leader present being Falcon, a vote in favor of the Queue changes would have been a foregone conclusion.
Donsig, please remember that a Public Investigation should be used as a *last* resort, not a first resort. PI's cause too much dissension and arguments in the community to be thrown about lightly. I'm tired of the Judiciary department being used as your personal complaint box.

Originally posted by Zarn
I think the PI's are a joke. Even though they may techincally guilty, building a different military unit does not take any benefits away from those cities. It's obvious that the general would more likely know what unit to produce than a governor. The VP and the general are very good officials, and I personally think they made the right decision. I don't know why these PI's were even set up. If something like this can happen, then maybe we should start to question this law.
The point is that it was not their decision to make. If the military leader wants particular units built he should bring this up with the governor or governors in question before the turn chat instead of arbitrarily changing them during the turn chat. Equally, the DP should not indulge such unsanctioned changes without an official override vote having been held first.

@Zarn: Well, I don't think we've had a PI (in this game or the first) that wasn't downright silly. Unfortunately these are the rules that were adopted and these are the rules we must follow. I feel it would be a bad precedent to let this go by without anything being said or done. Unfortunately with the rules we have we can only PI individuals and of course that puts things on a personal level and the PIs become popularity contests rather than discussions about whether rules were followed or not. As I said in my request for the PIs I have no wish to see either VP Ocatavian X or General Falcon02 punished. I'm out for no one's head but I do feel both should be reminded (via a warning) of the proper procedures that should be followed.

@Veera: I do not mean to cause the Judiciary undue work. Another flaw in our rules is that there is no legal process for wrapping up a PI swiftly should the accused plead guilty. Despite this I do feel the PIs are warranted. As I said above, it would be a bad precedent to set if we allowed governor's queues to be changed in such an informal fashion. As for PI's being a last resort, I would say that once a deed is done that cannot be undone, a PI is justified. Despite the fact that the last turn chat was only one turn a musketman was built in New Falcon's Nest. That represents ten turns of production in that city that cannot be regained. Had I known the Military Leader did not need any more cavalry I would have devoted the accumulated shields in NFN to a badly needed aqueduct. The damage is done, talking with the General or the VP now will not rectify the matter.

@Octavian X: An over-ride was never formally requested by either the General or yourself as DP. If you had asked for an over-ride vote and it had passed with only the General's vote then there would not have been grounds for a PI. I would instead have brought up the issue of whether it is wise to hold chats at times when the cabinet will not be present. As for no damage being done I put forth the arguement that we would have been better off switching NFN to an aqueduct rather than building a musketman.

As for PI's being a last resort, I would say that once a deed is done that cannot be undone, a PI is justified.
...
That represents ten turns of production in that city that cannot be regained. Had I known the Military Leader did not need any more cavalry I would have devoted the accumulated shields in NFN to a badly needed aqueduct. The damage is done, talking with the General or the VP now will not rectify the matter.


A public investigation will not regain those ten turns either. If you wish to pose a warning to the defendants, or remind them that they had made a mistake, a private message would have sufficed just as well.

In the interest of holding a fair and impartial trial, I would ask that discussion of these matters cease. Parts of this are germaine to the defense of the accused and/or prejudicial to them.

Thank you,
Public Defender

Originally posted by Shaitan
In the interest of holding a fair and impartial trial, I would ask that discussion of these matters cease. Parts of this are germaine to the defense of the accused and/or prejudicial to them.

Thank you,
Public Defender

Well, if you and Octavian would reply in the PI threads we could discuss it there! ;)

Originally posted by Veera Anlai
A public investigation will not regain those ten turns either. If you wish to pose a warning to the defendants, or remind them that they had made a mistake, a private message would have sufficed just as well.

I'm flattered that you think a PM from me carries as much weight as an official warning from the Judiciary. :D

@donsig - I'd love to, but have not received a response from either of my clients. If they don't respond to me I will defend them in absentia.

Shaitan, you can post your defense for them in about five hours if you wish. That is the time when the threads will be open to discussion.

Also, I will write an amendment to the CoS later tonight that lets a PI proceed directly to the sentencing phase should the defendant pleads guilty.

Originally posted by naervod
Shaitan, you can post your defense for them in about five hours if you wish. That is the time when the threads will be open to discussion.

I think the Public Defender can post in the PI threads any time. It's the rest of us who have to wait five hours.

Shaitan, hasn't the General already pleaded guilty in the PI thread?

they said they are guilty just drop the complaint so we can give them their slap on the wrist

Both defendants have pleaded guilty.

Also, I think the Public Defender can post in the thread after the defendant has given consent for him to do so.

Originally posted by FionnMcCumhall
they said they are guilty just drop the complaint so we can give them their slap on the wrist

If you understood the rules you'd know that the PI process has to run it's course in order for them to get their official wrist slapping. :rolleyes:

then i propose we write in NEW RULES in case a defendant pleads quilty. and honestly donsig i think you just like seeing PI's. I think each term you have at least asked for one.

Everybody calm down please.

I could have posted in the thread at any time as I am the Public Defender. I prefer to wait until I have conferred with the accused. I have posted my position in Octavian's defense. Falcon02's will take a bit longer and I will post that tomorrow.

@Fionn- As I stated above, I am going to write a new rule for that within a few hours.

@Shaitan- That works for me, just remeber that with Falcon's thread, there will be people who have already posted in it.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=42463 i posted a discussion for it :)

Originally posted by FionnMcCumhall
then i propose we write in NEW RULES in case a defendant pleads quilty. and honestly donsig i think you just like seeing PI's. I think each term you have at least asked for one.

Rather than propose new rules why don't you write 'em Fionn?

I think the only other PI I asked for was last term when I requested that eyrei be investigated for using quick polls improperly. I seem to recall that he realized he was guilty as well. I'd say the PI's I've requested have not been frivolous ones merely for my enjoyment. If I was doing this for fun I'd PI someone I didn't like.

I agree a rule change is needed, but we need to stop ragging on donsig. He is a bit angry that his queues got overridden(Dont worry donsig. Only 1 turn was played.) donsig is doing what he finds right and lets refrain from personal attacks!

I would like to request an investigation into the the legality of the actions of Fionn McCumhall, after witnessing the following in the chat this evening:

<Goonie> Is there a way to find out how long a reviolution will take before clicking revolution!
*** Falcon02_clone (client@=2Rhm-hexrzqr-cudv1-e5q-144.wmnsmd.adelphia.net) has joined #civfanatics
<Falcon02_clone> Macroeconomics - The study of the overall aspects and workings of a national economy, such as income, output, and the
interrelationship among diverse economic sectors.
<Chieftess> I think there might've been a strategy article on it..
<Falcon02_clone> ~sigh~
<Goonie> Is it illegal to clikc revolution?
<Falcon02_clone> DIE Falcon02 shell
<Falcon02_clone> ??
<Goonie> Because I am curious as to how long it will tkae
<Goonie> in the DG
<Chieftess> That would be playing the turn...
<Fionn696_> yes its illegal
<Fionn696_> i think i might be able to as domestic leader tho
<Falcon02_clone> no FIonn!
<Eklektikos> I think not
<Chieftess> I'll search for anarchy in Strat' & tips
<Falcon02_clone> bad Domestic Leader... BAD
<Goonie> That is a stupid law
<Goonie> actually no it isn'y
<Goonie> Now that I think about it
<Falcon02_clone> it's an irreversible move
<Fionn696_> not really
<Fionn696_> not if you dont press enter
<Goonie> a player doesn't know in a regular game
<Falcon02_clone> it doesn't ell you how many turns it will take
<Fionn696_> it might
<Fionn696_> never know
<Falcon02_clone> "You say you want a revolution?" Yes or no... NO TURN #'s
<Civanator> Yes, no
<Civanator> no, yes
<Fionn696_> let me check with one of my game
<Fionn696_> s
* Falcon02_clone is surprised Fionn never noticed that
<Falcon02_clone> it tells you AFTER you get into anarchy
<Goonie> Every citiy on my main continent is over size 16 except two thundra cities
<Fionn696_> technically your in anarchy after you say yes
<Fionn696_> right?
<Chieftess> http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=35547&highlight=anarchy
<CivGeneral> yes
Then shortly after that:

<Fionn696_> 4 turns
<Fionn696_> right now
<Fionn696_> wanna know how i found out
<Goonie> ya
<Stuck_as_a_Mac> how?
<Fionn696_> without pressing enter
<Goonie> ya
* Stuck_as_a_Mac jumps on the PI button
<CivGeneral> 12Laugh 12Out 12Loud
<CivGeneral> We dont want to get Veera craysy now ;)
<Fionn696_> well first things first i used an older save file
<Fionn696_> so it doesnt affect the game
<Falcon02> uhh...
<CivGeneral> Fionn: k
* Stuck_as_a_Mac is ready to pounce, but have someone else write up the charges
<Fionn696_> then i pressed revolution and clicked on more where the advisor is
<Falcon02> that's shakey ground there Fionn...
<Chieftess> ...
<Fionn696_> an older save is not playing the game and i did nt press enter
<Falcon02> Very shakey...
* Stuck_as_a_Mac asks CT to pounce for him
<CivGeneral> 12Laugh 12Out 12Loud
<Fionn696_> PI me if neccessary then
And then a little later still:

<Goonie> How old is the save?
* Stuck_as_a_Mac is leaving now, but I feel a PI will be here tomorrow morning
<Fionn696_> 2 turns ago
As you can see from the above chat-log extracts, Fionn took a recent past save and began a revolution in order to look at the number of turns of Anarchy that would have to pass before we could enter a new form of government. This in my opinion constitutes an irreversible in-game action that would certainly warrant a PI were it carried out using the current save. However, since it was a past save, rather than demanding a PI straight out I would like to submit the issue for Judicial Review. If this action is found by that Review to be covered by the game play restriction set out in CoL Section B I would then I will wish to start Public Investigation proceedings immediately.

A fuller copy of the chatlog from the start of the issue up until the point at which I decided to request judicial action may be found here (http://www.civfanatics.net/uploads3/FionnPI.txt).

Aside from a Judicical Review i request a full rerview into the power domestic advisor actually has within the game. Since i beleive the domestic leader should be able to check anarchy period among other things

I am very tired right now so reviews will come tomorrow. Just when the Judiciary thinks they can get off easy this term, we get the workload right before the end. :)

Call for Judicial Review

All Judiciary members should post their opinions on the questions below:
Does the law forbidding the altering of the save game also forbid altering the saves of previous turns?
Does determining the length of a period of anarchy constitute changing the state of the saved game?

The law in question is below.CoL.B.1
It is unlawful to play through actions, move troops, make deals or take any other action that would change the state of the playing game from that of the saved game.

Judge Advocate Opinion

In my opinion, playing the saved games is legal as the law says playing game which to me means the most current save game. I believe that anyone who plays a previous saved game can do so, but only to a certain extent because a person can get a previous game and a copy of the instruction thread and chat log and easily replicate a saved game.

As for the second question, I believe you may check the length of anarchy periods on an older save, but doing it on a current save is an irreversible action.

Naervod
Judge Advocate

Is it just me, or does this resemble (slightly) the Penguin PI?

Almost... ;)

Chief Justice Opinion
I must disagree with the opinion of our Judge Advocate here. It is too difficult for the Judiciary Department to determine just how far playing ahead from an old save is too far. I interpret the phrase 'playing game' as 'the game the user has opened from the save file,' and indeed, I don't really see how it could be interpreted differently.
One reason it must be interpreted this way is illustrated in the following example. If we have a turn spread over two TC's, someone could play the previous save and have it be considered legal. The suggestion that a player can't play past the current turn is difficult to enforce, difficult to prove, and opens the door for easy abuse. Having the Judiciary Department determine which types of playing ahead in the game is safe would be opinionated at best, and totally arbitrary at worst. The only safe way to interpret the law is to stop all playing of all previous save games.

It is also my opinion that entering revolution in a save game to determine the period of anarchy constitutes an irreversible change of the playing game from that of the saved game.

I agree with the Chief Justice. Do not take any irreversible actions in a any save, current or past, unless you are the DP playing during the turn chat.

As a former Chief Justice, I feel it best to throw my opinion into the fray. :D

The only time a save game may be actively modified is in a public turn chat. We cannot hold a double standard for old and current saves. The only time we should take exception is after this demogame is over.

As for the revolution matter, this is another item that should not be altered. As an irreversable action, we should never check this by actually using a save to delcare revolution. I would NOT object to someone researching how the game determines revolution lenghth through other games, and applying that formula here. (Wait, that a good idea...)

Public Defendant's Opinion

Absolutely not. The rule could possibly be clearer but it specifically does not mention that the playing ban is only for the current save. That rule covers all saves. Note the terminology:

It is unlawful to play through actions, move troops, make deals or take any other action that would change the state of the playing game from that of the saved game.

Playing Game is the game you are running. Saved Game is the save that you loaded. Whether you loaded the current save or the 4000bc save you cannot take actions that change it from the save that you loaded.

I have to agree with the CJ and the PD here. I think Fionn McCumhall has far over stepped his Leadership boundries. He also took this information gained from over-stepping these boundries boldly into the chat room, as was the case with the Penguin PI (thank you for highlighting that Stuck). I believe what FM has done is a serious offense in both areas and do not believe that he should get off as easily as Stuck did. Stuck's case was a big "WARNING" to all the new echelon Leaders to take note of CoL.b.1. Playing a turn save from a few turns ago could be looked at as playing a save from the last t/c, although there is a technical work-around here.

I also agree strongly with Octavian's comment. This rule or standard refers to the current Demogame. Even Shaitan's post alludes to this thought.

FM, as I stated before I believe you have over-stepped your boundries on this one, please don't step off the deep end on this one.

As Governor of the Southwest, I formally request a Public Investigation of Vice-President Octavian X. The charge is unlawfully changing a governor's build queues, to wit, the build queues for the cities of Bremershaven, Civanatoria and New Falcon's Nest (in the Southwest Province) were changed from cavalry to musketmen. This was done by the VP, as DP, Octavian X. The VP/DP changed the build queues by Presiential decree that was not supported by an Administrative council vote. Specificaaly, the VP/DP is charged with having violated section D.1.C.1 of our Code of Laws.

I offer the following in evidence:

CoL: D.1.C.1 (Legislative Branch)


A governor’s build queues may be preempted under certain circumstances:
a. Presidential decree supported by Administrative Council Vote.
b. Military Leader decree during invasion of the province.
c. Cultural Leader decree for cultural border expansion or defense.


In an attempt to limit the legal technicality maneuvoring of our astute and esteemed Public Defender I also offer the following in evidence:

CoL: C.2G.7 (Military Department)

Can supercede a provincial build queue with military units or improvements during time of invasion.
Invasion is the presence of offensive troops belonging to a country we are at war with inside the borders of the province to be superceded.


The military leader did request these queue changes but he had not authority to change them since there were no enemy troops within the Southwest Province. In the absence of a legal military over-ride the only way these changes could have been legally made was through an Administrative council vote and this was not done.

1000 AD turn chat instruction thread. (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=42023)
This thread has the governor's queues, the saves from 1000 AD and 1010 AD as well as the chat log. An examination of the saves will show that no Indian, Babylonian or Persian units were or are in the Southwest Province.

Southwest Province thread. (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=40940) The first post in this thread contains a map of the Southwest Province.

Here is the excerpt from the chat log (edited):

[23:07] <@Falcon02> we need more muskets
[23:07] <+DX_Zoi> ya think?
[23:08] <@Octavian_X> then both Strum and hunt would be undefended
[23:09] <@Falcon02> so once the Pike gets to Strumandrang, send the Musket.... gonna take a while, but I don't wanna leave a city undefended now
[23:09] <@Octavian_X> I see
[23:09] <@Octavian_X> Waht about the musket outside serenity?
[23:12] <@Octavian_X> Shimonoseki musket?
[23:13] <@Falcon02> Tlax, NFN, Highlands, Strider's Haven, Civanatoria, Bremershaven, switch to Musket please
[23:13] <@Octavian_X> waste 6 sheilds in muskets?
[23:13] <@Falcon02> send it to Kyoto
[23:14] <@Falcon02> any which are gonna waste, don't switch


I request that the Judiciary act on this request in a timely manner since there is a short time between turn chats and the issues of over-rides may well be an important one for the upcoming chat.

I do not file this charge in an attempt to remove our Vice-President from office nor to tarnish his reputation. I do ask for the PI in order that all our officials will be more cognizant of the rules we have in place. I also do this to highlight the silliness of some of our rules. This is the second PI I've had to request for the same violation. While it is clear that the rules were not followed the Judiciary has been no help at all in bringing the violations to light. I think we set up the Judical Department to be balanced in that the Public Defender would help the accused with a legal defense while the Judge Advocate would help the accuser to file the correct charges and gather evidence. If that was our intent then we have surely missed our mark. Another frightening issue brought up in the first abortive PI request is the question of whether the DP should blindly follow instructions or verify that instructions are legal.
I do hope this PI will not be thrown out on a technicality so that we may explore these important issues.
Thank you,
donsig
Governor of the Southwest Province

Exactly, donsig. A well-worded PI. I'm glad you did this, as it saved me from doing it. I believe you are correct about the Justice Dept. Not only about the CJ's stance on the issue, but the effort that has been put into helping the legal system flow. Had you not drawn up a second PI for this incident, I would have.

So Octavian will have two PI's against him or will one be dropped?

The first one was thrown out naervod.

donsig, while I understand you are angry, I must question your reasoning for launch on all out PI against me. You state that you are not out to tarnish my reputation; however, I feel that this does very much tarnish it. My record certainly isn't as spotless as it once was.

If you are looking for an apology, I am truly sorry if my actions offended you in any way. While I now this my actions were also a breach of the law, and your intentions are not to kick me out, could you please bring these actions to light in a less serious matter? I must question the the necesity of an entire PI if the only point is a slap on the wrist. This entire recent debacle will deter such actions enough.

Lastly, if it's from that 24 or so gold you still claim I owe you from that Equirias share transaction, I'd gladly give it back if your message was a PM rather than a PI. :)

I will close the first PI and open the second later tonight. This will be a very long few days...

And also, vote for me for Chief Justice.

I would like to reiterate my formal request for a PI of Fionn for violation of CoL Section B, just in case that aspect of my original post on the matter has slipped the JA's mind. :)

What are you trying to do kill me with posting PI's? ;)
OK, I will do that, just need to finish up some homework since I will have no time tomorrow. (Church, Super Bowl, partying after the Raiders wil [which they will])

The Judiciary has determined that a previous saved game is subject to all restrictions noted in CoL.B. You can see the full ruling in the Judicial Log thread below.
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?postid=730321#post730321

"OK, I will do that, just need to finish up some homework since I will have no time tomorrow. (Church, Super Bowl, partying after the Raiders wil [which they will])"

Who watches American Football :)!?

Originally posted by Octavian X
donsig, while I understand you are angry, I must question your reasoning for launch on all out PI against me. You state that you are not out to tarnish my reputation; however, I feel that this does very much tarnish it. My record certainly isn't as spotless as it once was.

If you are looking for an apology, I am truly sorry if my actions offended you in any way. While I now this my actions were also a breach of the law, and your intentions are not to kick me out, could you please bring these actions to light in a less serious matter? I must question the the necesity of an entire PI if the only point is a slap on the wrist. This entire recent debacle will deter such actions enough.

Lastly, if it's from that 24 or so gold you still claim I owe you from that Equirias share transaction, I'd gladly give it back if your message was a PM rather than a PI. :)

First of all I am not angry about this and never have been angry about it. Second this is not an all out PI. The only reason I requested the second PI is because the first was thrown out by the judiciary. I do not see your reputation tarnished because the Judiciary chose not to do its job.

I am not looking for an apology and your actions did not offend me. The whole point of the PI is an attempt to keep our officials and DPs cognizant of the rules. Sure, I could get angry and rant and rave till I'm blue in the face but will that do half as much as a formal slap on the wrist right now? Look at the Penguin PI. Even that did not prevent Fionn from playing with an old save. It is my hope that since you have acknowledged the rules were not followed that you would join me in keeping an eye on our officials for the betterment of the demogame.

No, this is not about the 24g. If I held a grudge about that do you think I would have hired you as CEO of the DFZ where you can make 5 times that amount for making one post? But now that you've reminded me, when do you plan to pay me back? ;)

Donsig, please stop accusing the Judiciary of not doing our job. We have done nothing but do what we are legally charged to do by the three books. You cannot prosecute someone for a law they didn't break, and it isn't our fault that you picked the wrong law to charge him on.

How is it our fault? We did exactly what you requested. We did exactly what is requested of us by the citizens and the Three Books. Again, it isn't my fault or anybody's fault for you choosing the wrong law. In fact, by choosing the wrong law you created more work for me. Did I complain? No, because it is my duty and you shouldn't complain because you made a mistake like this.

Originally posted by Veera Anlai
Donsig, please stop accusing the Judiciary of not doing our job. We have done nothing but do what we are legally charged to do by the three books. You cannot prosecute someone for a law they didn't break, and it isn't our fault that you picked the wrong law to charge him on.

I'll stop the remarks when you do your job. It is crystal clear that a governor's build queue's were changed illegally. The judiciary has done nothing but stand on technicalities. (Once again the demogame amazes me at how much like real life it is!) Unfortunately the original PI against Octavian X was squashed by the judiciary before the people could have their say on just exactly which rule was broken.

Originally posted by naervod
How is it our fault? We did exactly what you requested. We did exactly what is requested of us by the citizens and the Three Books. Again, it isn't my fault or anybody's fault for you choosing the wrong law. In fact, by choosing the wrong law you created more work for me. Did I complain? No, because it is my duty and you shouldn't complain because you made a mistake like this.

I don't think I chose the wrong law, that's the whole point. You and Veera got snookered by Shaitan in his zealousness as Public Defender. If the incident is treated as a military over-ride then Octavian X is guilty of breaking that rule. The DP is the one who changed the queues and he supposedly did so under the military over-ride clause. As I said earlier, the judiciary pre-empted the people's right in the first PI. I also do not think there is a clause in the Three Books that allows the Judiciary to close a PI after it has started. I will be looking into this and if need be I will ask for a PI of the whole Judiciary for summarily closing that PI.

The laws clearly state that the Judiciary can dismiss a case as having no merit. Check CoL.H.7.A. It states that a case can be dismissed *after* the Investigation thread has been opened.
As for the rest of your allegations, do not get angry at the Judicial department for having a dissenting opinion.

I am sorry to say it donsig, but the law is correct and you are incorrect. As Veera said, you can check CoL: H.7.A and see that the Judiciary can dismiss cases as having no merit.

Originally posted by Veera Anlai
The laws clearly state that the Judiciary can dismiss a case as having no merit. Check CoL.H.7.A. It states that a case can be dismissed *after* the Investigation thread has been opened.
As for the rest of your allegations, do not get angry at the Judicial department for having a dissenting opinion.

CoL.H.7.A? Section H of the Code of Laws deals with appointed positions and only has five clauses not seven. Perhaps you are talking about the Code of Standards? (I cannot resist pointing out that the members of the judiciary should know the difference between the CoL and the CoS.)

I quote this section of the CoS:

7.When discussion has petered out and at least 48 hours have passed the Judge Advocate will post a trial.
A. If the results of the investigation thread are overwhelmingly in favor of the defendant the Judge Advocate will submit the case for Judicial Review and possible dispensation as a "No Merit" case.

Please note that this clause says that 48 hours must pass and discussion must peter out and then there can be a Judicial Review.

Well, I guess my next post will be a PI of the Judiciary.

The law specifies a requirement for overwhelming support for the defendant. As we havent gotten to the point where support has become evident, it is advised to withold dismissing the case until such opinions have become clear.

I formally request a PI of Chief Justice, Veera Anlai, Judge Advocate, naervod, and Public Defender, Shaitan, for violating section H.1.A of our Code of Standards, which reads:

7.When discussion has petered out and at least 48 hours have passed the Judge Advocate will post a trial.
A. If the results of the investigation thread are overwhelmingly in favor of the defendant the Judge Advocate will submit the case for Judicial Review and possible dispensation as a "No Merit" case.

A PI (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=42380) was opened and then summarily dismissed by the Judiciary in violation of the clause listed above.

The PI was opened here. (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?postid=725355#post725355)
The Public defender called for a no merit dismissal here. (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?postid=727080#post727080)
The Judge Advocate called for a no merit dismissal here and also opened the PI thread for discussion here. (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?postid=727113#post727113)
The Chief Justice called for a no merit dismissal here. (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?postid=729319#post729319)

Please note that the Public Defender called for the no merit dismissal 18 hours and 38 minutes after the PI thread was opened. The Judge advocate called for the no merit dismissal 18 hours and 50 minutes after the PI thread was opened. The Chief Justice called for the no merit dismissal 43 hours and 16 minutes after the PI thread was opened. The 48 hour requirement of the clause was violated.

Had discussion petered out? The Public defender called for the no merit dismissal 12 minutes before the JA officially opened the thread for discussion. The Judge Advocate called for the no merit dismissal at the same time he opened the thread for discussion. The Chief Justice called for the no merit discussion 24 hours and 26 minutes after the thread was officially opened for discussion. This effectively squashed the discussion before it could even begin.

With hardly any discussion due to the Judiciary's actions it can hardly be said that the results of the investigation thread are overwhelmingly in favor of the defendant. In fact, the only two non-Judiciary citizens who posted (donsig and Falcon02) certainly did not post in favor of the defendant.

Finally, in order to legally dismiss the case for having no merit the Judge Advocat must submit the case for Judicial Review. There is no judicial review in the Judiciary thread. (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=40523)

Here is the Judge Advocate's post in the Judiciary thread announcing the closing of the PI. (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?postid=731171#post731171)
Here is the post in the PI thread where the JA closed the PI. (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?postid=731183#post731183)

This evidence clearly shows that the PI was closed improperly. I ask that the Judiciary conduct these public investigations promptly and according to our Three Books. (http://www.civfanatics.net/~demogame/constitution_of_fanatika.htm#COS)

Thank you,
donsig
Governor of the Southwest Province

Donsig---> may I ask how you intend to conduct such a PI?

Originally posted by Immortal
Donsig---> may I ask how you intend to conduct such a PI?

It is not up to me to conduct them. That is the job of the Judiciary. Perhaps if they read the Three Books they will be able to these properly. ;)

I will try to get this up tonight, although I am swamped by homework. It will be interesting how this plays out.

Originally posted by donsig


It is not up to me to conduct them. That is the job of the Judiciary. Perhaps if they read the Three Books they will be able to these properly. ;)

I dont mean in the usual method of things, I mean how do we deal with the obvious problems of conflict of interest and impartiality.

:mad: Alright! This is getting rediculous! This is a game, not some farcical political circus! I think someone needs to step in and put an end to this specticle. I really think someone forgot the *game* in demo*game* and replaced it with demo*bureaucracy*. Just to let you know, eyrei asked me (in the chatroom) to watch you guys...

there should be a special coucil appointed

@donsig. Bit PI happy or what, did you forget its a game, get your head out of the rules and just play the game

I believe Donsig is upset that his PI's are not being taken seriously. Whats the point of having these rules if people aren't going to follow them? I believe technically Donsig's PI's are warranted. The questions is when, if we do, are we going to move away from all this bureaucratie.

Trivial things, like a change in the build queue, or a delay in a thread shouldn't take 6-9 days of discussion. It takes away everyone's time for discussion of the game. Something like Fionn playing a previous save is warrented IMHO. Aside from that, there seems to be ill tempers between certain people. (and they know who they are) Let's stop making things so political and play the game.

Originally posted by Chieftess
:mad: Alright! This is getting rediculous! This is a game, not some farcical political circus! I think someone needs to step in and put an end to this specticle. I really think someone forgot the *game* in demo*game* and replaced it with demo*bureaucracy*. Just to let you know, eyrei asked me (in the chatroom) to watch you guys...

And just how do you (or anyone else) plan to step in and put an end to these legal procedings? Fist the Judiciary flaunts our laws and now we have moderators threatening to do the same?

@CT. Although I do not believe these PI's are the most productive things, by our laws, Donsig has the right to do what he is doing, and no citizen can take that right away.

Originally posted by Chieftess
Trivial things, like a change in the build queue, or a delay in a thread shouldn't take 6-9 days of discussion. It takes away everyone's time for discussion of the game. Something like Fionn playing a previous save is warrented IMHO. Aside from that, there seems to be ill tempers between certain people. (and they know who they are) Let's stop making things so political and play the game.

Hmmm... wonder how Governor Chieftess would be talking had her build queues been wrongly changed.....

We should stop worrying about the laws so much and give more of a damn towards the game. Ill say this again, its not like it hurt anything by changing the queue a bit we couldve fixed it back since only one turn was played.

It's not just that. It's the bickering that it's causing, and that's what is disrupting the game.

Originally posted by Chieftess
It's not just that. It's the bickering that it's causing, and that's what is disrupting the game.

Then why don't you all stop bickering and just let things runs its PROPER course. If the first PI against Octavian hadn't been squelched there would be four less PIs right now. Both Fionn (as domestic leader) and Chieftess (as governor) set build queues. you both should be standing beside me (like Governor Goonie) in protecting the rights of governors and the domestic leader.

Originally posted by FionnMcCumhall
We should stop worrying about the laws so much and give more of a damn towards the game. Ill say this again, its not like it hurt anything by changing the queue a bit we couldve fixed it back since only one turn was played.

And I'll say it again: If I had known the Military leader did not want anymore cavlary I would have changed my build queues to agueducts. Even though only one turn was played, a rifleman was produced in New Falcon's Haven. Those shields would have gone to an aqueduct had the queues not been changed illegally. As the domestic leader who has been calling for infrastructure, again, you should be standing on my side on this issue Fionn. But you'd rather take the other side since you can't bear to admit I just might be right in this case!

Im sorry, but Donsig is right, if the first PI had been dealt with in a timely and orderly manner, we would not be in the position we are now.

Again I stand by Donsig. If you guys dont like this, then propose a rule change.

As a wise man once said- Dont worry be happy.

Lets let these PI's run their course ok:)!

I dont mean to be condescending of anyone, but is the Judiciary allowed to conduyct investigations while the judiciary itself is under investigation? if not I think we should either hold off sentencing and the starting of new PI's until after the next election.

Originally posted by donsig


And I'll say it again: If I had known the Military leader did not want anymore cavlary I would have changed my build queues to agueducts. Even though only one turn was played, a rifleman was produced in New Falcon's Haven. Those shields would have gone to an aqueduct had the queues not been changed illegally. As the domestic leader who has been calling for infrastructure, again, you should be standing on my side on this issue Fionn. But you'd rather take the other side since you can't bear to admit I just might be right in this case!

While i may agree that you did the right thing asking for PI i think the move you made after the fact was completly wrong. Going around calling for a PI just because YOU failed to get it RIGHT the first time doesnt gove you the right to blame the judiciary for a job they did. Rather i think you need to sit back, take a deep breath and think before acting. You have shown your actions to be more immature than anything else. There isnt a need to PI the judiciary because you failed to cite proper laws. Grow up please. Also do remember this is a game, this game isnt about laws and such, its about having fun and being able to work together as a team.

Do not continue to use this thread for this 'discussion' you are having. Take it elsewhere, and one more instance of name calling or insults WILL result in a 3 day ban for the offender.

now i know we dont have conversation here but quick question. shouldnt there be an independent council on this since the PI is against the juduciary as a whole?

I fully agree with donsig, Immortal, and Goonie. The original PI's were merely attempting to document a wrong-doing. Because of a number of reasons, all of this has been blown out of proportion. The PI process in these matters in legal and justified. Trying to rightously snuff out traditional legal procedure because of your personal views is not the way to do things. The Judiciary over-stepped its legal boundries, just as Fionn did, and should be called on it. As a matter of fact, eyrei, as the only uninvolved Moderator should appoint the special council, as Fionn has suggested. Letting the existing Judiciary handle its own case WOULD be a travesty. I find nothing wrong with any of donsig's complaints, but I do see error in the ways of the accused.

Edit: Sorry, eyrei. I posted this after finishing the previous page and hadn't seen your request. I don't believe there is another place to post this comment. Above and beyond the discussion at hand, I feel that the content of this post applies directly to the Judiciary.

Alright, Cyc, I appoint you to present the public's case against the judiciary. I don't think there is any need to take any further action to prevent this case from being dismissed, as it would be political suicide to do so.

Hmmm. Interesting development. Too bad my final is scheduled for tomorrow....

Well, I didn't need any sleep anyways. :) Accepted. Does this mean that all results of this trial will be strictly done by poll? (conviction/dismissal/sentencing) That all existing Judicial rulings on this case (just the PI against the Judiciary) are suspended?

Originally posted by FionnMcCumhall
now i know we dont have conversation here but quick question. shouldnt there be an independent council on this since the PI is against the juduciary as a whole?
Note: Fionn's post was moved here from the PI thread. I'm too busy to defend him against another PI for violating the posting restrictions during the first 48 hours of a PI.

To answer the question: Absolutely not. There is no procedure or rule to do any such thing and if anybody tries to strip me of my judicial power I will PI them (just after the elections so they won't have the benefit of me as their defense).

@eyrei - There is no need of any special council. The PI threads are open to anybody who wants to post for or against the case. Nor is there ever a need for a prosecutor except when the charges are filed anonymously. The rules were written that way specifically. I will also definitely be trying to get the charges dismissed. Political suicide only matters to politicians. ;)

I can't help but notice that this thread appears to be suffering from wanderlust... :mischief:

So what you're saying Shaitan is that this is a Kangaroo Court. Even when the Judiciary flubs up their job and some one calls them on it in the form of a PI, said Judiciary can dimiss it out of hand. Executive Privilage for the Judicial Branch now, huh? Or is this Mod power bullying in on the Demogame? Demogame politics. Crooked as ever. Don't tell me you're not a politician, Shaitan.

Originally posted by Cyc
So what you're saying Shaitan is that this is a Kangaroo Court. Even when the Judiciary flubs up their job and some one calls them on it in the form of a PI, said Judiciary can dimiss it out of hand. Executive Privilage for the Judicial Branch now, huh? Or is this Mod power bullying in on the Demogame? Demogame politics. Crooked as ever. Don't tell me you're not a politician, Shaitan.
None of the above. It's my tribute to ridiculous PI's. ;)

I suppose I should have put smilies in there. It was intended as humorous sarcasm. :(

Originally posted by Eklektikos
I can't help but notice that this thread appears to be suffering from wanderlust... :mischief:
My fault. I had to merge this thread to a temporary thread to get Fionn's post over here and I didn't realize that when it merged, it also went into the other forum. Thanks for the catch.

I appointed Cyc primarily to present the charges against the judiciary, as it seems ludicrous to have the judge advocate charge himself. I see no need for appointments of a temporary Chief Justice or Public Defender, as I do not see how this case can avoid going to a public poll anyway, so I am not worried about it simply being dismissed. I do think there is a need to have the charges brought by someone that does not sit on the judiciary.

The posting of the charges is simply copying what the accuser posted and adding in the particulars regarding time and reservations as specified in the PI rules. Naervod did a fine job doing this.

I don't disagree with that sentiment, but it is definately absurd for him to continue in the role of prosecutor for the remainder of the trial.

That's the point I'm trying to make. The JA is NOT a prosecutor. Naervod's job is only to open and close the discussions and polls and keep them focused according to the ruels. Any prosecution falls to the accusor.

Regardless, the main reason I felt it was necessary to appoint a citizen who is not a member of the judiciary to act as Judge Advocate here is to prevent the semblance of impropriety, and to avoid the possibility that the case is dismissed as having no merit by the same people that are on trial. Personally, I think the judiciary was guilty of very little wrongdoing, if any.

These are overall comments, concerned with the overall issue, and how it has been handled, so I will post them here. I am not looking to step over the threatened ban line.

I feel that donsig was making reasonable legal requests here, and am disappointed in the breakdown in communications displayed.

Further, if a Moderator, especially a well respected one such as CT is going to post in RED, then please do take a moderator action.

I think one of the problems here is that there are Moderators involved but the lines are not always clear.

I know that Shaitan is acting within the game, and is always clear about when he is being a Mod or not. That is a good thing, even though I completely disagree with his argument in this case.

Eyrei, you have appointed a special prosecutor in effect, which I happen to agree with. I recommend that you do so as a Moderator though, because otherwise there is no precedent or law to support such an action.

This lack of clarity from a game perspective CAN and DOES lead to an implied threat.

As to the myriad of charges presented here, I will add my comments to those threads. But please folks, lets not argue just for winning and losing, and remember that in reality, the laws were broken... it is very, very clear.

I formally request a Judicial Review for the purpose of interpreting clause C.2.G.7 of the Code of Laws:

7. Can supercede a provincial build queue with military units or improvements during time of invasion.
a. Invasion is the presence of offensive troops belonging to a country we are at war with inside the borders of the province to be superceded.

Specifically, is foreign held territory within the pre-defined borders of a province considered to be inside the borders of the province? On a side note, just what is the definition of offensive troops?

I request that this Review be conducted promptly as it will impact the public investigations against both General Falcon02 and Vice-President Octavian X.

Thank you,
donsig
Governor of the Southwest Province.

Judge Advocate Opinion

The foreign territory is legally not inside the province, as in my opinion, a province cannot have foreign territory in it. An offensive unit is any unit that can bombard or has a higher offense than defense.

Good point, Bill. I should have posted my appointment in red. Let it be known that I appointed Cyc as temporary Judge Advocate to oversee the PIs of the members of the judiciary.

Chief Justice Opinion
This is a difficult question to ponder. What about our lost cities in the Northern Province? No one would deny that they belong to us, yet they remain under enemy control. If we were to lose a city in a province, and Indian elephants remained in that city radius and our provincial borders, there would be no doubt that those units would constitute an invasion force. Because of this, I will take the definition of 'Province' to mean all lands within our official provincial borders as mapped in the Cartographic office.

As for the second part:
Offensive troops can mean a few things...
Troops marked as Offensive in the Editor
Troops that have the ability to damage our nation
or troops that pose a threat to Fanatikan lands, units, or cities.

Although I believe that the last option would be the most useful to our country, it is also difficult to judge consistently. I can imagine polls now where citizens debate about whether a unit is a threat or not :rolleyes:
I'll need to think further on this second point.

All territory within a defined Provincial border is part of that province. This has historically been our take on the matter. Governors even post foreign controlled cities in their provincial threads.

The definition of "offensive" unit is a bit more difficult. As Veera noted in her decision there are several definitions that could fit the word. For my decision I look to the intent of the rule in question. The intent is to allow the military commander the power to protect a province from harm and to prosecute war on the enemy. Therefore, I define "offensive" in this context to mean a unit that can cause harm. Units that can pillage or attack would be classified as offensive units. The AI regularly uses spearmen, pikemen, riflemen, etc for offensive purposes. Not only for pillaging but also for attacking. Although explorers can pillage there is (to my knowledge) no documented case where the AI has used an explorer to such effect. I would classify them as not offensive. Units such as settlers, workers, leaders and scouts would all be non-offensive units.

Even though it was a split decision, the Judiciary has ruled in effect that Izibia was a part of the Southwest Province even before it came under Fanatikan control. In light of this I respectfully request that the PI against General Falcon02 and the second PI against Vice-President Octavian X be withdrawn. I believe this to be within my rights as the accuser and I'm sure I could cite PI's that have been previously withdrawn if need be.

I would also withdraw the first PI of Octavian X but this one has been summarily (and illegally) dismissed already. If the Judiciary sees fit to admit that PI was closed improperly and reopens it I would certainly withdraw the PI and those lodged against the members of the Judiciary. If the Judicary does not remedy its error concerning the first PI of Octavian X I feel bound to have the Judiciary PIs continued.

I would also like to publicly offer my apologies to both the revered General and our esteemed Vice-President for causing them such difficulties with these investigations. I do point out that this matter was clear to no one, not even the defendants. Please accept my apologies. :)

It takes character to admit publically you are wrong. I congratulate you Donsig!

In light of this new development and offer by donsig, the Temporary Judge Advocate will wait to hear from the Judicial Branch. This offer from donsig would be an easy way to resolve this problem and allow us all to get back to our game. I see no point in continuing this investigation if the whole problem can be resolved with some administrative paperwork.

Cyc, there is no temporary Judge Advocate. There is only one Judge Advocate, in this case, me. You were appointed not as a temporary Judge Advocate, but something elase, like the head of a comission to investigate the Judiciary. No hard feelings, just wanted to point that out.

Also, I have reread the laws and am ready to admit that the first PI against Octavian X was improperly closed.

Lastly, is it legal to close the PI against Falcon02 when we are already in the trial stage. Right now, I think the best bet is to let the trial poll run its course and if he is guilty, just vote no punishment as it is too late to submit the case for a "No Merit" review.

Originally posted by naervod
Lastly, is it legal to close the PI against Falcon02 when we are already in the trial stage. Right now, I think the best bet is to let the trial poll run its course and if he is guilty, just vote no punishment as it is too late to submit the case for a "No Merit" review.

The Judiciary should probably rule on this but I'll add my two cents anyway. The accuser dropping a PI is not the same as dropping it for no merit. I'm not sure if we've ever had a PI dropped that had already reached verdict poll stage. In any event, I voted in that poll after the Judicial Review concerning foreign held territory inside a province and I'm happy to report that the vote at that point was 15 innocent to 13 guilty. If the case isn't dropped at least it looks as though the General will be (rightfully) acquitted.

It is my opinion that a PI can only be dropped during the discussion phase. Hopefully, the results of the poll are in Falcon's favor.

No hard feelings naervod. I just didn't know what title to use myself. I got tired of using Special Council as it was too vague and didn't seem to fit. BTW, thank you for your input.

Originally posted by donsig
I would also withdraw the first PI of Octavian X but this one has been summarily (and illegally) dismissed already. If the Judiciary sees fit to admit that PI was closed improperly and reopens it I would certainly withdraw the PI and those lodged against the members of the Judiciary. If the Judicary does not remedy its error concerning the first PI of Octavian X I feel bound to have the Judiciary PIs continued.
For myself I respectfully refuse to admit any fault whatsoever. My position has absolutely no authority to close a PI and the charges filed against me are spurious.

Well actually, Shaitan, if you read COL:E.2.E you would realize that all members of the judiciary share the responsibility of participating in the Judicial Review to dismiss investigations as having "No Merit". Of course I kind of agree with you that you are correct.

That is correct. The PD is required to give an opinion on the merit of a case when the Judge Advocate requests such a review. My position still has no authority or power to open or close any PI.

I don't know what spurious means! :confused: If the PD has no authority to open or close a PI then who does? The CJ or the JA? Someone did it.

Originally posted by donsig
I don't know what spurious means! :confused: If the PD has no authority to open or close a PI then who does? The CJ or the JA? Someone did it.
Spurious: "Lacking authenticity or validity in essence or origin; not genuine; false."

Here are the applicable sections of the rules:
Code of Laws, Section E: The Judicial Branch
1 All Members
e Initiate and participate in Judicial Review to dismiss
investigations as having "No Merit".

5 The Judge Advocate
a Is tasked with the mechanics of investigation and trial.
b Will open and close discussions and polls as appropriate
to the trial.

6 Judicial Review
e Dismissal of investigations
1) 3 of 3 must agree that the accusation shows "No Merit".
2) Specific reasoning for a judgement of "No Merit" must
be provided.

Code of Standards, Section H: Investigations
7 When discussion has petered out and at least 48 hours have
passed the Judge Advocate will post a trial.
a If the results of the investigation thread are overwhelmingly
in favor of the defendant the Judge Advocate will submit the
case for Judicial Review and possible dispensation as a
"No Merit" case.
Note that every member of the Judiciary is tasked with initiating a review on the merits of a case (when they believe it has no merit). The only restriction on when any member of the Judiciary may do so is that it must be in the investigation phase (COL E6e). The JA is additionally tasked with calling for a review of the case's merit if the populace responds overwhelmingly for the defendant, whether he believes it is a no merit case or not.

That's why I feel that the charges are spurious. In fact, upon reviewing that thread the only Judicial error I see was Veera saying the thread must remain open for 48 hours. It should have been closed immediately.

I think you're stretching things too far Shaitan. You are saying that Section E of the COL has nothing to do with Section H of the CoS. If I remember correctly, the CoS defines the CoL, therefore section H of the CoS is defining when and how the Judiciary can go about invoking section E of the CoL to dismiss a case as having no merit.

Now you can still uphold your argument and say that section H of the CoS is not meant to be all inclusive in defining section E of the CoL. That's fine but we'd need a Judicial Review about that. If it gets to that point I'd prefer to wait until the next term for such a review.

In the meantime I would like to point out the dangers of giving the Judiciary free reign in dismissing PIs. If we interpret section E as you have done Shaitan then it is only necessary for the three Judiciary members to agree a case has no merit and to give a reason for doing so. We could have a case where a defendant has admitted guilt, is overwhelmingly found guilty in the verdict poll only to have the Judiciary step in and drop the case for no merit! It matters not the reason they give so long as they give one. While this could be a good counter to the mob mentality that might surface in a trial if we are to keep it in place it must be exercised with extreme caution.
PIs have a bad reputation in the demogames. This is unfortunate as our most controversial PIs generally help us all to understand our own rules. PIs have upheld the right of the DP to end a turn chat, reminded us what quick polls are to be used for and reminded us that we do not play the saves. The most recent has shed new light on the military over-ride in a way none of us expected. The current PIs will help us to define the proper role of the Judiciary. The closed PI has the potential to clarify how good a defense ignorance of the law is as well as the extent to which the DP is responsible for actions taken while playing the game. These are very important issues above and beyond the PI that was closed but the PI is an integral part of the debates. The PI is the vehicle which drives the debates. If more of us looked at PIs in this way rather than as personal attacks or contests to be won or lost the PIs would end sooner and much more constructively.
In closing the first PI against the VP the Judiciary took it upon themselves to decide the extent to which the DP is responsible for actions taken while playing the game. This is a decision that the people of Fanatika should be able to make. It is one thing to give the Judiciary the power to save defendants from the mob, it is quite another to let them make political decisions.
Do my PIs of the Judiciary members still sound spurious?

Yes, donsig. They do still sound spurious. The first Octavian PI was judged to have no merit because he was accused of breaking a rule that in no way could have applied to him. It was not a comment that he did or did not break any rules, only that the one he was being charged with was completely invalid. That rule was a defining rule for the Military Leader.

The ancillary benefits you are attributing to PI-Oct#1 (how's that for a reference convention?!), namely of arguing the DP's responsibility to verify Leader instructions, was occuring in the second PI so no benefit was lost. In any case, I think it would be manifestly unfair to keep somebody on a false trial simply to spark discussion.

The Code of Laws states that every member of the Judiciary is responsible for calling and participating in reviews on case merit. The Code of Standards requires that one particular member of the Judiciary call such a Review under a particular circumstance. No other definitions are present in the Code of Standars regarding Reviews of Merit because none are needed. There are no restrictions, just the one requirement.

I agree that there is a danger that a corrupt Judiciary could dismiss a PI that actually does have merit. That's why we have elections every month. Leaders who abuse their powers don't get reelected. I think it's far more important that a check against the mob mentality that you mentioned be in place. It is also important that cases like PI-Oct#1 be axed quickly and cleanly. Taking that PI through the entire process of a PI would have been a monumental waste of time and effort by all involved as the accusor filed incorrect charges. By forcing closure of that PI the Judiciary was able to force another PI with the correct charges listed. The system worked correctly.

Originally posted by Shaitan
[B]Yes, donsig. They do still sound spurious. The first Octavian PI was judged to have no merit because he was accused of breaking a rule that in no way could have applied to him. It was not a comment that he did or did not break any rules, only that the one he was being charged with was completely invalid. That rule was a defining rule for the Military Leader.

I see you refuse to accept my point in this matter. To your way of thinking the DP cannot break that rule. I do not agree with your reasoning here. If Octavian X, as DP, cannot be charged with breaking the rule specifed in PI-Oct#1 and there is the strong possibility that he could have been acquitted in PI-Oct#2 because he was following orders from the military leader then we are left with a DP who is unaccountable for many of his or her actions. I may be the only person in Fanatika who thinks the DP should not accept military or cultural over-rides without first verifying their legality. I don't know because the judiciary stepped in and decided for us before we could debate the matter.

I'm all for giving the Judiciary the power to prevent the mob from running amok as long as the people have the power to keep the Judiciary from running amok.

The ancillary benefits you are attributing to PI-Oct#1 (how's that for a reference convention?!), namely of arguing the DP's responsibility to verify Leader instructions, was occuring in the second PI so no benefit was lost. In any case, I think it would be manifestly unfair to keep somebody on a false trial simply to spark discussion.

Again, the sole reason for calling it a false trial is the assumption that the DP is not bound by the clause in question. Looking at it from the other side of the coin, does the DP have to always blindly follow a military over-ride? Can the DP refuse to follow an ove-ride order that is known to be illegal? These are political questions that are not within the scope of the Judiciary to decide.

Just as we need to clarfy when a DP should verify the legality ofoders given, we must clarify when the Judiciary should exercise it's power to dismiss cases out of hand. It is unfortunate that the current Judicary seems to want no limits placed on its power.

Originally posted by donsig
I see you refuse to accept my point in this matter. To your way of thinking the DP cannot break that rule.
No. To our way of thinking. The Judiciary unanimously declared that they felt your case was without merit. That includes the Judge Advocate. 100% of the Judiciary felt that the charges you filed did not apply. The DP, unless he happens to be the Military Leader, could not be charged with breaking that rule. There was no concievable way that Octavian could have been construed to be the Military Leader.
I'm all for giving the Judiciary the power to prevent the mob from running amok as long as the people have the power to keep the Judiciary from running amok.
Of course they do. They have PIs and elections, to name a couple.
Again, the sole reason for calling it a false trial is the assumption that the DP is not bound by the clause in question. Looking at it from the other side of the coin, does the DP have to always blindly follow a military over-ride? Can the DP refuse to follow an ove-ride order that is known to be illegal? These are political questions that are not within the scope of the Judiciary to decide.
It is not an assumption. It is an established fact, verified through our legal process of Judicial Review. The DP never has to blindly do anything. Every citizen is responsible to refuse orders that they know are illegal. These are not political questions, they are common sense.
Just as we need to clarfy when a DP should verify the legality ofoders given, we must clarify when the Judiciary should exercise it's power to dismiss cases out of hand.
An excellent idea. Open a discussion thread.
It is unfortunate that the current Judicary seems to want no limits placed on its power.
Your last comment is very inflammatory. Lately it seems that every discussion has to end with a derogatory or sarcastic statement. Generally it's one that is also untrue and done in that mein so the target of the attack cannot respond to it. Therefore half truths and outright falacy begin to be taken as truth. It's quite disheartening. In any case, the Judicary does not have the power to create laws to limit their own power or anybody else's. If you want to tie down or place limits on any position, including the Judicial ones, make the laws to do so.

Originally posted by Shaitan
No. To our way of thinking. The Judiciary unanimously declared that they felt your case was without merit. That includes the Judge Advocate. 100% of the Judiciary felt that the charges you filed did not apply. The DP, unless he happens to be the Military Leader, could not be charged with breaking that rule. There was no concievable way that Octavian could have been construed to be the Military Leader.

My whole point is that the opinions of the three people sitting on the bench should not outweigh the opinions of the citizens taken as a whole. The Judiciary still has not allowed us to get to the point where we can find out what the opinions of the citizens are. It could very well be argued that C.2.G.7 of the CoL merely specifies the conditions under which military over-rides may legally take place and therefore the DP can be held accountable under that clause for innapropriately taking the actual action of changing a build queue according to that clause. Whether the Judciary looked at it from this angle and rejected the arguement I do not know. There was a time when Judicial Reviews were preceeded by a citizen discussion.
Whether PI-Oct#1 was dismissed according to our rules or not remains to be determined as there are pending public investigations concerning the matter. The question of whether the Judiciary acted within the laws or not is only part of the picture. Even if it is assumed that the Judicary had the right to act as they did there is the question of whether they should have exercised that right. Just as the military leader is not bound to over-ride a governor's build queues every time a province is invaded the judiciary is not bound to dismiss cases everytime the possibility arises. Given the defense first posted in PI-Oct#1 and the fact that the Military Leader even objected to the case being thrown out on those grounds I feel it would have been best had the PI been allowed to proceed.
Once again, I appeal to the Judicary to exercise some wisdom and re-open PI-Oct#1.
I apologize if my earlier remarks seemed inflammatory. They were not meant to be, though I must admit to some frustration here.

The Judiciary cannot reopen a PI. There is absolutely no power to do so granted to any member of the Judiciary in our rules. If any of us tried, that person would be subject to a PI.

Given the rules that I pointed out here (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?postid=736118#post736118), are you still charging every member of the Judiciary with illegal closure of PI-Oct#1?

Originally posted by Shaitan
The Judiciary cannot reopen a PI. There is absolutely no power to do so granted to any member of the Judiciary in our rules. If any of us tried, that person would be subject to a PI.

Given the rules that I pointed out here (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?postid=736118#post736118), are you still charging every member of the Judiciary with illegal closure of PI-Oct#1?

There is also no rule that says the Judiciary cannot reopen a public investigation. When the law is silent on a subject it can be interpreted either way.

I think I stated earlier that I believe the CoS clause you quoted defines the CoL sections you quoted. Under that assumption I am fully prepared to go ahead with the public investigations I initiated against the members of the Judiciary. Since there is a chance we may have a completely new Judicary in the coming term I am hoping that a Judicial Review (the old fashioned way with a prior citizen discussion) to interpret the very laws you have quoted (specifically, does the CoS clause define the CoL clauses) would help shed some light on whether or not I should drop the charges.

I am also exploring the matter further to see if there are other clauses of the CoL that were violated so I reserve the right to call for further public investigations of this matter.

Once again, my offer to drop the PIs if PI-Oct#1 is reopened is still on the table. As I said earlier, there is no law that forbids reopening an aborted PI.

Well, since there's no rule against it, I'll officially reopen PI-Oct#1 on the condition that you immediately drop the charges against Octavian.

n/m

Originally posted by Shaitan
Well, since there's no rule against it, I'll officially reopen PI-Oct#1 on the condition that you immediately drop the charges against Octavian.

I agree to your condition since the new evidence warrants it. Please post in the the PI-Oct#1 thread that is has been re-opened and I will post there that I would like to drop the charges. Once that is done I will also request that the public investigations against the members of the Judiciary be dropped as well. I see no point in continuing an investigation once the violation in question has been reversed. :)

The Special Prosecutor concurs.

All set, donsig.

Originally posted by Shaitan
All set, donsig.

I can't post in the PI-Oct#1 thread because it is closed. :(

She's open now.

I have formally requested (in the PI threads) that PI-Oct#1 and the PIs against naervod, Shaitan and Veera Anlai be withdrawn. :)

@naervod - Please officially post that PI-Oct#1 is reclosed.

@Cyc - Please officially post that the 3 Judicary PI's will not be posted.

Actually, since those PI's have not been started and there are no longer any charges to post I guess they just fade away. Still, an official post to that affect would be good for closure.

As my last act as Special Prosecutor in the Judiciary Public Investigations, I am posting an announcement that donsig has dropped the charges against the Judiciary, therefore no new Public Investigations will be drawn up for this case.

It turned out to be a good day after all. :)

This is just my poke in the side to remind the judiciary it's duties. :D

Remember, Veera, to post the Review that cleared my name in the Judicial Log for future reference.

I will Octavian. I was still considering my position on what constitutes an offensive unit... I'll post it tonight.