Welcome to the Judicial Thread.

Demogame Rules (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=51315)
Term 3 (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?threadid=57417)

The authority and role of this branch of government is enshrined in Article C.3 of the Constitution.

3. The Judicial Branch will be formed of three Leaders and is tasked with verifying legality of legislation, interpreting rules, and determining when violations occur. Each also has a specific area of additional responsibility.

a. The Chief Justice is the overall head of the Judiciary and can fill in for either lower position. The Chief Justice is responsible for maintaining the legal books of the country and the mechanics of Judicial Procedure.

b. The Judge Advocate functions in a role of prosecution and attorney to the state when allegations of rule breaking have been made.

c. The Public Defendant functions in the role of defence for any and all accused citizens

This Term the Fanatican Judiciary consists of:
Chief Justice: Peri
Judge Advocate: Ravensfire
Public Defender: Zorven

I am pleased to welcome Ravensfire, our new Judge Advocate and Zorven, our new Public Defender to the Judiciary. I look forward to serving with you.

All citizens are welcome to discuss any aspect of the Constitution or raise any query they have regarding the working of the Judiciary.

reserved

Did you know that last term's Judiciary thread had 233 posts in it. That is 140 more than the next highest thread. We had 5 Judicial Reviews and countless aborted Public Investigations. In my opinion that is scandalous. We wasted far too much time arguing with each other and demanding satisfaction. This term will be different. I hope that anyone who has a difficulty will first try to work out the problem in a spirit of co operation with the other players. Lets us not seek to limit our fun here by being obsessed with legal minutiae. However let us also not be without regard for the rules. They are here to help the game run smoothly for everyone. So I say let recource to the law be the last resort this term, for the sake of the game, for the sake of Fanatica.

Thankyou.

I would also like to congratulate everyone on their election. Well done. I am posting here so I dont spam up people's Term 4 government threads.
Once again well done to everyone.

Actually, I rather enjoy legal processses and have a lot of fun debating them. I would, however, not like to see the argument of last term, but a few peaceful Judicial Reviews might be a good idea. I remember enjoying Term 2 because we had 5 Judicial Reviews (only four would count under the current ruleset) and they were intelligently discussed without senseless arguing. I hope this term is a term like that.

Last term's Judicial thread is the second-longest Judicial thread and the second-longest government thread of any office in demogame history, btw.

I would like to request Judicial Review on parts of the Constitution. It makes several refrences to the President being the person in charge of playing the save; does this by extension include all DP's, or is the President the only one who can play the save under any circumstance? In several cases this game, notably toward the end of Shaitan's term and at least once under DZ, people lower in the informal Chain of Command have played the save. I would like the Judiciary to rule on whether it is legal for people other than the President to play the save in the President's absence.

My opinion is that, in accordance with custom and precident, other people should be able to play the save in the absence of the President, as according to an informal Chain of Command loosely defined by the DG2 CoL and the City Naming Rights order in this demogame. Though the Constitution says that the President is the person who is in charge of and is allowed to play the save, however, it would be in keeping with the spirit of the Constitution as well as custom and precident to allow other people lower in the Chain of Command to play the save if a President is absent from a turnchat or has announced absence from the game. I will await a ruling by the Judiciary on this issue.

This review is called to preempt any problems caused by this on a later date.

I would like to ask the judiciary's opinion of the legality of the FA instruction post in the current play-session thread. My concern is that it was posted immediately following the last turnchat with no attempt to divine the will of the people whatsoever, and the FA leader who posted it has been unavailable since. As a result we now have a situation whereby citizens have called for the establishment of embassies with other nations, while the FA instructions specifically state that there will be no embassy construction this session.

I apologise for posting this request with such short notice, but I only just noticed his post.

Originally posted by Bootstoots
I would like to request Judicial Review on parts of the Constitution. It makes several refrences to the President being the person in charge of playing the save; does this by extension include all DP's, or is the President the only one who can play the save under any circumstance? In several cases this game, notably toward the end of Shaitan's term and at least once under DZ, people lower in the informal Chain of Command have played the save. I would like the Judiciary to rule on whether it is legal for people other than the President to play the save in the President's absence.

Fanatica's current body of law does not recognize the concept of a "chain of command" (CoC). Rather, it states (Constitution C.1.a) "The President shall be the designated player of the game. " This means the President, and only the President, is assigned the responsibility of being the designated player (DP) of the game.

It is our opinion that a Leader is permitted to delegate duties to help them in accomplishing their tasks. Note that this does not excuse the Leader from the responsibilities of their position.

We find that the President may designate a person or persons to serve in the role of DP in place of the President. We find that in the event of an unexpected absence of the DP, or the inability of the DP to play the game, there is no legal structure for another person to take over the role of DP, unless explicitly designated to do so by the President.

We note that custom in this, and prior DG's, does recognize a CoC, and the official role of the Deputy position just for such situations. The Judiciary recommends to the Legislature that the issue of Deputies and a Chain of command be considered.

Originally posted by Eklektikos
I would like to ask the judiciary's opinion of the legality of the FA instruction post in the current play-session thread. My concern is that it was posted immediately following the last turnchat with no attempt to divine the will of the people whatsoever, and the FA leader who posted it has been unavailable since. As a result we now have a situation whereby citizens have called for the establishment of embassies with other nations, while the FA instructions specifically state that there will be no embassy construction this session.

I apologise for posting this request with such short notice, but I only just noticed his post.

Thank you for your request. I am sorry that we could not post on this earlier.

The Judiciary finds that a Judicial Review (opinion) cannot be given in this case. The actions of leaders are not subject to Judicial Review.

The Judiciary appreciates that this is of little help but contends that this is not a matter for Judicial Review.

The Judge Advocate agrees with this opinion.

The Public Defender agrees with this opinion.

Originally posted by Eklektikos
I would like to ask the judiciary's opinion of the legality of the FA instruction post in the current play-session thread. My concern is that it was posted immediately following the last turnchat with no attempt to divine the will of the people whatsoever, and the FA leader who posted it has been unavailable since. As a result we now have a situation whereby citizens have called for the establishment of embassies with other nations, while the FA instructions specifically state that there will be no embassy construction this session.

I apologise for posting this request with such short notice, but I only just noticed his post.

The Public Defender agrees that this is not a matter for Judicial Review.

Originally posted by Eklektikos
I would like to ask the judiciary's opinion of the legality of the FA instruction post in the current play-session thread. My concern is that it was posted immediately following the last turnchat with no attempt to divine the will of the people whatsoever, and the FA leader who posted it has been unavailable since. As a result we now have a situation whereby citizens have called for the establishment of embassies with other nations, while the FA instructions specifically state that there will be no embassy construction this session.

I apologise for posting this request with such short notice, but I only just noticed his post.

The Judge Advocate agrees that this is not a matter for Judicial Review.

-- Ravensfire

I object. The matter brought up by Eklektikos is a matter for the Judiciary to look into. The constitution states that that leaders must act in accordance to the will of the people. If a leader is violating an Article G of the constitution, at least a small review of the action is in order.

Be it a PI, or a small look into the matter to absolve or verbally warn the FA leader, some action is called for.

Originally posted by Octavian X
I object. The matter brought up by Eklektikos is a matter for the Judiciary to look into. The constitution states that that leaders must act in accordance to the will of the people. If a leader is violating an Article G of the constitution, at least a small review of the action is in order.

Be it a PI, or a small look into the matter to absolve or verbally warn the FA leader, some action is called for.

Octavian,

You raise some good questions. I'll try to answer them.

First, Eklektikos raised the question as a Judicial Review. As such, that is how we considered it. In a review, the Judiciary is looking at questions of law. Questioning if an action is legal or not is a matter for a PI.

Second, Boots posted in the absence thread that he would be gone from the 3rd to the 7th. He posted his instructions based upon the information he had at the time. There are several other leaders that do not regularly poll for various decisions. The concerns that were raised about using embassies for intelligence were raised after Boots was gone. Also, the matter was noticed only an hour or so prior to the turn chat. Even had boots been online, he could not have posted a poll about embassies. He would have had to rely on the few citizens who posted such ideas.

Finally, the matter appears to be moot. From the chat log, I cannot see where any embassies were established.

Hopefully this helps to explain at least my reasoning on the matter better.

The matter does raise, once again, how to handle the absence of a leader, and all the related questions around that issue.

-- Ravensfire

Originally posted by Octavian X
I object. The matter brought up by Eklektikos is a matter for the Judiciary to look into. The constitution states that that leaders must act in accordance to the will of the people. If a leader is violating an Article G of the constitution, at least a small review of the action is in order.

Be it a PI, or a small look into the matter to absolve or verbally warn the FA leader, some action is called for.


Just to explain things from my point of view. The Judiciary agreed that this matter was not in the scope of a Judicial Review. A JR only looks at interpretations of law. You and Eklektikos allege misconduct. That is an entirely different process. The Judiciary is a reactive organisation. We are not empowered to investigate matters of wrongdoing without a formal request.

Thinking about it some more, only an investigation would be called for in that matter, if any.

Still, there is a procedural question in play with the allegation. To what extent may leaders create orders with or without the will of the people? What is the definition of the will of the people - a full flegded poll, light discussion, opinions expressed in a turn chat?

We can do a JR on the meaning of Article G if you wish.

To be honest I'd not intended my question to be treated as an allegation of wrongdoing. The point behind it was to ascertain whether the instructions should be treated as legal and binding upon the DP without any repercussions upon Bootstoots.

@ Eklektikos

This situation does not fall under the scope of a Judicial Review because a Judicial Review involves verifying legality of legislation and interpreting rules. You seem to have an issue with the quality (whether they are legal) of Bootstoots's instructions. Such an issue would be handled by the Judiciary through the Private Investigation system.

I believe it does fall under the scope of a Judicial Review, as the issue in question is the interpretation of Constitutional article C.1.a given article G. Specifically: if the DP is responsible for following the legal instructions of all Leaders during the play of the game, is he or she entitled to ignore or at least play fast & loose with instructions that do not conform to article G's requirement that elected officials must plan and act according to the will of the people?

Originally posted by Eklektikos
I believe it does fall under the scope of a Judicial Review, as the issue in question is the interpretation of Constitutional article C.1.a given article G. Specifically: if the DP is responsible for following the legal instructions of all Leaders during the play of the game, is he or she entitled to ignore or at least play fast & loose with instructions that do not conform to article G's requirement that elected officials must plan and act according to the will of the people?

It seems to me you want a review to determine if the DP can accuse, try, and convict a Leader of not following Section G of the Constitution, and thus declare the orders illegal.

Is that your request?

Eklektikos,

Would this be an accurate restatement of your request -

Can the DP ignore instructions that they feel do not conform to Article G's requirement that elected officials must plan and act according to the will of the people?


-- Ravensfire

Originally posted by zorven


It seems to me you want a review to determine if the DP can accuse, try, and convict a Leader of not following Section G of the Constitution, and thus declare the orders illegal.

Is that your request?
Not at all. You seem to be working under the assumption that someone will need to be nailed to the wall at some point, which is not what I'm interested in. I would like a review to determine whether the DP can, in cases where instructions have been posted that cannot conceivably conform to Article G by anything other than sheer luck, use his discretion as to how closely they should be followed.

EDIT: Yes that's basically what I'm after, Ravensfire.

Originally posted by Eklektikos

I would like a review to determine whether the DP can, in cases where instructions have been posted that cannot conceivably conform to Article G by anything other than sheer luck, use his discretion as to how closely they should be followed.

We (the Judiciary) will discuss this.

Originally posted by Eklektikos
To be honest I'd not intended my question to be treated as an allegation of wrongdoing. The point behind it was to ascertain whether the instructions should be treated as legal and binding upon the DP without any repercussions upon Bootstoots.

I think you are raising several questions with that statement.
1. Were the instructions legal and binding upon the DP
2. If there instructions illegal, could there be reprecussions against Bootstoots (or any other person)
3. If the instructions were illegal, could the DP ignore them

The problem of were the instructions legal or not is a question of fact. You aren't asking for the law to be clarified, you are asking if the law was followed. A judicial review may be called "whenever a question of rule interpretation arises." What you are asking isn't about interpreting a rule, but if an action violates a rule. Same with the question about reprecussions against a person for violating a rule - that's a PI matter.

The last question is more a rule interpretation, and that is probably open for review.

We're not ignoring or sidestepping your concerns, we don't want to be doing review on whether an action was legal or not. That is a PI matter.

-- Ravensfire

There's another point. We all know what kind of uproar Public Investigations can cause. Could we impleament a system were minor, possibly illegal, actions could be reviewed by the Judiciary, without causing the chaos that surrounds almost every investigation we've had since the first days of the first demogame?

Originally posted by Octavian X
There's another point. We all know what kind of uproar Public Investigations can cause. Could we impleament a system were minor, possibly illegal, actions could be reviewed by the Judiciary, without causing the chaos that surrounds almost every investigation we've had since the first days of the first demogame?

I think that has been proposed every time we tried to redo the PI laws, and shot down because people seem to think they must have satisfaction.

Octavian - I'd love to have that. If for nothing else, it would keep the judiciary busy when we're not doing reviews or pi's.

There are some concerns I can see with it, mostly to do with people's actions with the information that action X is illegal, thus we can file a PI against person Y. I would like to see a mechanism where, if some action was deemed illegal, that action is deemed null and void. No penalty is associated with it. If the action was in a t/c, that action should be reversed if possible. If an action is reviewed under this process, no PI may be filed fot that action.

Basically, keep it short, keep the effects to a minimum, and don't punish for the small stuff - just keep moving.

A possibility with that would be for only one member of the Judiciary to rule (and assign the Justice on a rotating basis, done by the CJ). Decision may be appealed to full court, blah, blah, blah.

Something like that?

Call it, Small Claims Court!

-- Ravensfire

Just saw this. I see no law that was violated. If we wish that everything be determined to be the will of the people, then we should analyze the entire save, decide what actions should be done, and hold 50 polls on each individual thing that could possibly be done, play one turn, repeat with 50 more polls, etc. This is why the leaders are given the power to make instructions without polling the people within reasonable limits. Furthermore, if as was said that a situation with embassies arose an hour before the turnchat, there is no way to satisfactorily poll the people. If the president is allowed to override all unpolled instructions, why don't we just abolish all offices except the President and the Judiciary?

Welcome back Boots!

I'm only going to address part of your comment - we're discussing the other part now.

The situation with the embassies was noticed a short time prior to the turn chat. It actually arose several days ago. With you out, there wasn't an active presence from the FA office that we could see. Do you know if Sir John was aware that you were out?

There was some effort to creating a framework for handling absent leaders. This situation is a good example of why something like that is needed.

-- Ravensfire

I'd like it if the other part of my statement was addressed too...when do leaders have the authority to act without polls and where does this end?

Regarding absent leaders, I think I should probably have refrained from posting instructions just before I left...but I didn't see how any situation could have arisen while I was gone. Sir John, as my deputy, would have no authority to override my instructions.

Regarding a "small claims court", it seems like that would be a good idea for the PI I filed against donsig late last term, where he missed a few of my instructions, except for one thing…what he had mistakenly done was for the most part irreversible…so what would be done in that case? I think that the Judiciary should be able to hand down an official warning for that…and if the same situation happened again, a PI would be initiated due to a repeat offense.

Originally posted by Bootstoots
I'd like it if the other part of my statement was addressed too...when do leaders have the authority to act without polls and where does this end?


Boots, you are basically asking what constitutes a legal instruction. If you remember, the Judiciary considered this question in Term 3. The result was essentially there is a great deal of ambiguity in the matter.

An effort was made to clarify this here (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=57978), but was defeated. The law is extremely vague on this matter, so I ask you - who do you want to determine what a legal instructions is? Personally, I want it to come from the people.

Along with that, we now have several situations where the law is vague or missing. I fully understand that most people really don't care about this law junk, and just want it to go away. So do I.

It's not gonna happen on it's own folks.

The Judiciary in several reviews have noted that the current laws need to be expanded. Well - do it already! You want several issues that really need to be handled, right now?
1. What is a Legal Instruction?
2. Define the Chain of Command (including Deputies)
3. Define Absentee laws

And that's not all, but those are some of the critical issues.

There - I've tossed the gauntlet. Who is going to pick it up?

A rather frustrated Judge Advocate,
-- Ravensfire

EDIT; Typo corrected

It is about time someone was blunt about it.
The Judiciary has higlighted 3 areas of concern.
It is up to the people to sort it out.
The people need to take responsibility for these problems and not expect the Judiciary to do their job for them.

Alright, then, I'll think up a proposal or start a discussion thread about it.

Until the People have resolved the 3 issues highlighted by Ravensfire, The Judiciary will not make any further comment on them. The people need to make laws about these things.
The Judiciary cannot be expected to absolve the people of their legisaltive responsibility by repeatedly ruling on the same areas.
These 3 issues have come up repeatedly throughout this game. Legislation on these would have saved a lot of time. However it is not too late. I challenge you the people to start discussions on these matters immediately.

Originally posted by Bootstoots
Just saw this. I see no law that was violated. If we wish that everything be determined to be the will of the people, then we should analyze the entire save, decide what actions should be done, and hold 50 polls on each individual thing that could possibly be done, play one turn, repeat with 50 more polls, etc. This is why the leaders are given the power to make instructions without polling the people within reasonable limits. Furthermore, if as was said that a situation with embassies arose an hour before the turnchat, there is no way to satisfactorily poll the people. If the president is allowed to override all unpolled instructions, why don't we just abolish all offices except the President and the Judiciary?
My issue with the instructions had nothing whatsoever to do with whether they had been polled on or not. It was with the fact that they were posted immediately following the preceding turnchat and that with you gone, any subsequent suggestions made by the citizenry could not be put into action - regardless of their merit - since your instructions tied the hands of the DP.

Originally posted by Eklektikos

I would like a review to determine whether the DP can, in cases where instructions have been posted that cannot conceivably conform to Article G by anything other than sheer luck, use his discretion as to how closely they should be followed.

This was requested before the moratorium.

The Judiciary were unanimous in this ruling.

Chief Justice: Peri
Judge Advocate: Ravensfire
Public Defender: Zorven

From the Constitution, Article C.1.a - "The President shall be the
designated player of the game. The President is responsible for
following the legal instructions of all Leaders during play of the
game."

The President (and by extention the DP) must follow all legal
instructions while playing the save. As the DP, they are responsible
for all decisions that they make.


Commentary

We understand our ruling isn't quite as blunt as some might like. We
have included this commentary to make sure everyone understands what
the ruling means.

The DP is responsible for following the legal instructions given to
them. If they feel an instruction is not legal, they have three
options.

One, follow the instruction anyway. They cannot be faulted for this,
only the person giving them the instruction.

Two, ignore the instruction. They are potentially exposing themself
to a PI over this.

Three, stop the turn chat and take the question to the forum.

The Judge Advocate agrees with this opinion.

The Public Defender agrees with Judicial Review DG3-T4-2.

I was hoping that this term was going to be a peacefull term and then retire to the Judicary Branch. But apperently there are already cries of the DP Ignoring the instructions. I have only done a few TC as DP in the past when I was Military Leader. All ready these "Salem Witch" trials is already hurting my ego and making me reconsider just droping out of the DG compleately after this term. I dont deserve this angst. As Ravensfire said "This is CG's first run as President. It's been a while since we've had a total newbie.".

Now with these witch trials and pinger pointings. I doubt Ill ever retire into the Judicary.

A Very Discuraged Aspiering Judicary Memeber,
President CivGeneral

Mr. President,

As a member of the Judiciary, we've had three JR requests already, all of which were related to issues raised in previous terms. Given the disruption of last term, of which you were very involved in, I would have thought you would have been more than willing to encourage, at a minimum, some discussion on the issues raised.

Yet there was none.

After the call from the Chief Justice to fix the problem, there was minimal response. One issue was discussed, soley because the Judge Advocate, acting as a citizen of this fine land, took it upon himself to define a proposal and guide the resulting debate.

Other than that, we've had a bump post on the issue. Yeah, like that really helps a lot.

As a member of the Judiciary, I would hope that the Executive branch would take notice of the calls of alarm raised by the Judiciary, and at least attempt to address them.

Yet there was silence.

I said the comments about cutting a new President some slack, and I meant them and still mean them. I do, however, expect some leadership on the issues and desires of the country. Regretably, I am not seeing enough of it. I'm hoping that experience is helping you turn that record around. Your discussion about the wonder race is perfect - THAT'S what we elected you to do.

The witch trials were last session. The issues causing them are still there. Will you take the lead in correcting them, to ensure that they won't happen again?

-- Ravensfire

@Ravensfire - I would like to appologise for attacking at you due because of all of this topics if ignored instructions and such. I was afraid that I would lose my chance to become a Public Defender next term. Since I am planing to retire into the Judicary Branch after this term is over.

I will make sure that everything will be corrected so that this whole fiasco will not happen again. I will make sure the Excecutive branch would take head of the alarms.

Bah! I'm more trying to push you than anything. You've got the ability, you just need a push to ensure you're doing your best.

Lose your chance to become PD - never! You'll make an excellent PD when elected. zorven might have a few things to say about that though...

Please, continue your efforts - Fanatica is poised to achieve tremendous growth over the next few turn chats, especially with Steam Power in sight!

-- Ravensfire

I would like to ask for a Judicial Review on the validity of the poll posted to remove the Culture Department. I am curious to see if the elimination of the Culture Department violates Section C.1 of the constitution:
1. The Executive Branch is headed by the President, the overall
Leader of the land, and shall include a Council of Leaders, each of
whom heads a department that is responsible for one major facet of
the country. Each of these Leaders will be generally responsible for
the items found under the respective Advisor in the Civilization III
game and esoteric aspects that fall under their department name.
I would be of the opinion that an elimination of the Culture Department does not violate that part of the Constitution because it does not specifically define what offices there should be in the Executive Branch. It does state that each department is responsible for the items under the respective Advisor in the game but not that all Advisors have to have an office cover them. The Cultural Leader's responsibilities can be assumed by the respective governors without violating the Constitution.

I will await the response of the Judiciary.

The result of the poll itself does not abolish the Culture Department. It is only informational.
This poll asks whether we think it should be.
If people think it should be abolished then we have to sit down and work out the best way to do it.

Peri, I still think Bootstoots has a good question. We should review it just for clarification whether or not we want to abolish Culture.

Please do review my question, if only to see if the Culture Department can be abolished by simple poll or if a constitutional amendment is required.

Originally posted by Bootstoots
I would like to ask for a Judicial Review on the validity of the poll posted to remove the Culture Department. I am curious to see if the elimination of the Culture Department violates Section C.1 of the constitution:
1. The Executive Branch is headed by the President, the overall
Leader of the land, and shall include a Council of Leaders, each of
whom heads a department that is responsible for one major facet of
the country. Each of these Leaders will be generally responsible for
the items found under the respective Advisor in the Civilization III
game and esoteric aspects that fall under their department name.
I would be of the opinion that an elimination of the Culture Department does not violate that part of the Constitution because it does not specifically define what offices there should be in the Executive Branch. It does state that each department is responsible for the items under the respective Advisor in the game but not that all Advisors have to have an office cover them. The Cultural Leader's responsibilities can be assumed by the respective governors without violating the Constitution.

I will await the response of the Judiciary.

The Judiciary were unanimous in this ruling.

Chief Justice: Peri
Judge Advocate: Ravensfire
Public Defender: Zorven

This section of the Constitution states that EACH Leader is responsible for ONE major component of government and that each Leader's responsibilities are represented by the corresponding Advisor in the game proper. This text, when considered with the orginal purpose behind the drafting of the Constitution, and the so far uncontested interpretation of it, demands that we declare that there shall be six Leaders, one for each Advisor in the game
proper.

Where are the other reviews?

Huh?

I don't see ravensfire's review on this issue, and zorven has signaled that he'll review against it but hasn't posted it here AFAIK.

Well give them time and they will post in support of the ruling. :lol:

My apologies, it completely slipped my mind, even after telling Peri that I agreed with the verbage.

And now, as my last act as Judge Advocate,

The Judge Advocate agrees with this ruling.

-- Ravensfire

EDIT: zorven does not have internet access after about noon on Saturday. Due to the holiday, he will also probably not have it on Monday. It will probably be Tuesday before he, as the Public Defender during the term this review was called for, can post his opinion. However, as the verbage Peri has posted is zorven's, I think you can guess what his opinion will be. ;)

To Peri and zorven,

I thank you both for an excellent term in the Judiciary. I'm looking forward to the next term and the changes it will bring.

Thanks!
-- Ravensfire

Link to the Term 5 Judicary Department
Thread comming soon, awaiting for Zorven to post the thread

I would like to say to say that it was a pleasure to work with two such dedicated people this term. I congratulate you both on your election to well deserved higher office. :goodjob:

As my last act as Public Defender for Term 4, I hereby state that I support the opinion as posted by Peri for Judicial Review DG3-T4-3.

And I would also like to say it was a pleasure working with Peri and ravensfire. They both showed enthusiasm for the game and care, deep thought, and professionalism in their roles in the Judiciary. Congratulations to both of you in your Term 5 elections.