This court is now in session :hammer:


This court is:

Chief Justice - zorven
Judge Advocate - CivGeneral
Public Defender - Vander



Our role is defined by our 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 rulebreaking have
been made.

c. The Public Defendant functions in the roll of defense for any
and all accused citizens.



You may use this thread for any legal discussion, questions, requests for Judicial Reviews, or Public Investigations.

Links:

Constitution and Code of Laws (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=51315)
Judicial Log (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=56483)
Term 4 Judiciary (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=60305) Term 3 Judiciary (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=57417) Term 2 Judiciary (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=54846) Term 1 Judiciary (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=52104)

Reserved

Hi-o. Public Defender Publicly showing his face. As I like to say, "Are we ready to have a good time?" Let's rock the socks off this term's judiciary (and all get re-elected!).

Public Defender,
Vander

Judge Advocate reporting in :)

I would like to extend my welcome to all three members of the Judiciary. I would also like to welcome CG to his first term in the Fanatican Judiciary (well...except for a few hours during the Term 3 crisis). This looks like a strong Judiciary and I feel that they can make good decisions. Here's to Term 5! :D

Hear Hear!

Time to stir up some trouble...I was looking at the last Judicial Review conducted (Review DG3-T4-3) and I realized that it itself should come under review. The only review posted before the end of the term was the review by Chief Justice Peri. However, it is still considered binding for some reason. CoL A.1.a states the following: b. Judicial Review is binding if 2 of 3 Judiciary members agree with the review However, only one Judicial member reviewed on it before the term was over. Therefore, I request that the Judiciary strike that review down as nonbinding. The review can be found here (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=60305&pagenumber=3)

Though the term length is not defined in our ruleset, it should be considered to be one calendar month stretching from the beginning of a month GMT to the end of that month GMT because of custom and precident. If the Judiciary reviews that the review is binding because the term length and beginning and end is not set, this will open a large can of worms.

Thank you.

My comment would be that this review is, in fact, binding.

The review was requested prior to the end of the current term, and was accepted by the Judiciary also prior to the end of that term.

The Majority opinion was posted and confirmed by the members of the Judiciary at the time the review was requested. All discussion for the review was conducted prior to the posting of the review. As was noted by the Chief Justice, all members of the Judiciary concurred on their opinion prior to posting.

It is in the best interests of both Fanatica and Justice that review be completed in both a timely manner and a thorough manner. Often, these two goals conflict with each other. Preference should be given to a thorough review of the matter. If we would adopt the reasoning proposed by Boots, there is no reason for any court to accept a Judicial Review posted a few days prior to the end of a term. Justice delayed!

As a corallary to this reasoning, a PI filed prior to the end of a term should be handled by the current judiciary at that point in time. Imagine the chaos if a person files a PI against someone, and then becomes a member of the Judiciary. Under the Boots' reasoning above, the PI MUST become moot as a member of the Judiciary is not permitted to file a PI.

I pray the court finds this arguement persuasive.

-- Ravensfire

The Majority opinion was posted and confirmed by the members of the Judiciary at the time the review was requested. All discussion for the review was conducted prior to the posting of the review. As was noted by the Chief Justice, all members of the Judiciary concurred on their opinion prior to posting.
So, if somebody posts review saying that the Judiciary was unanimous in their ruling, but only one person had posted review and expected the others to confirm it, that is valid whether they confirm it when they are still in the Judiciary or not? The required 2 of 3 members of the Judiciary officially agreed with this review only after their term was up.
It is in the best interests of both Fanatica and Justice that review be completed in both a timely manner and a thorough manner. Often, these two goals conflict with each other. Preference should be given to a thorough review of the matter. If we would adopt the reasoning proposed by Boots, there is no reason for any court to accept a Judicial Review posted a few days prior to the end of a term. Justice delayed!

Of course they could accept it, as long as the review was conducted in a timely manner. And if their review was not complete, they can hand it over to the next Judiciary to review, and they will take into consideration the discussion by the previous Judiciary.
As a corallary to this reasoning, a PI filed prior to the end of a term should be handled by the current judiciary at that point in time. Imagine the chaos if a person files a PI against someone, and then becomes a member of the Judiciary. Under the Boots' reasoning above, the PI MUST become moot as a member of the Judiciary is not permitted to file a PI.
That is not correct. Under my reasoning, the new Judiciary member would have filed the PI in the previous term, and would be able to review it in their term as they became a new Judicial member after filing it. This review was agreed to after the terms of the respective Justices was over. I do not understand how you draw that connection between this review and that PI example.

As the Chief Justice for last term, I can swear in all honesty that the judiciary was unanimous in that review as I indicated in my ruling. The matter was discussed and the exact form of wording agreed in private session before our mandate expired. I trust this ends the matter. :)

Darn you Boots :p. Just when I was starting my Algebra Homework :p.

Yea man. I get out of bed (after a fun night, let me tell ya! :crazyeye: :groucho: :D) To this?
Oh well. Bring it on!!

I wish to remind any interested party that zorven does not generally have internet access over the weekend. He should see this on Monday.

-- Ravensfire

Originally posted by Bootstoots
Time to stir up some trouble...I was looking at the last Judicial Review conducted (Review DG3-T4-3) and I realized that it itself should come under review. The only review posted before the end of the term was the review by Chief Justice Peri. However, it is still considered binding for some reason. CoL A.1.a states the following: b. Judicial Review is binding if 2 of 3 Judiciary members agree with the review However, only one Judicial member reviewed on it before the term was over. Therefore, I request that the Judiciary strike that review down as nonbinding. The review can be found here (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=60305&pagenumber=3)

Though the term length is not defined in our ruleset, it should be considered to be one calendar month stretching from the beginning of a month GMT to the end of that month GMT because of custom and precident. If the Judiciary reviews that the review is binding because the term length and beginning and end is not set, this will open a large can of worms.

Thank you.

Ok, Bootstoots, we will give you our opinion soon....

@Zorven - Pleae check your PM box

This post represents the ruling of the full Judiciary. The opinion within was unanimously agreed to by:

Chief Justice zorven
Judge Advocate CivGeneral
Public Defender Vander

Judicial Review Request

Originally posted by Bootstoots
Time to stir up some trouble...I was looking at the last Judicial Review conducted (Review DG3-T4-3) and I realized that it itself should come under review. The only review posted before the end of the term was the review by Chief Justice Peri. However, it is still considered binding for some reason. CoL A.1.a states the following: b. Judicial Review is binding if 2 of 3 Judiciary members agree with the review However, only one Judicial member reviewed on it before the term was over. Therefore, I request that the Judiciary strike that review down as nonbinding. The review can be found here (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=60305&pagenumber=3)

Though the term length is not defined in our ruleset, it should be considered to be one calendar month stretching from the beginning of a month GMT to the end of that month GMT because of custom and precident. If the Judiciary reviews that the review is binding because the term length and beginning and end is not set, this will open a large can of worms.

Thank you.


Facts:

Judicial Review DG3-T4-3 was initiated August 30 GMT.
Chief Justice Peri posted the opinion of the Judiciary on August 31 GMT.
Chief Justice Peri's post included the text:


The Judiciary were unanimous in this ruling.

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


Judge Advocate ravensfire posted in the forums on Sep 1 GMT and Public Defender zorven on Sep 2 GMT that they did, in fact, agree with the opinion as posted by Chief Justice Peri.

Our Opinion:

Section A.1.b of the Code of Laws states that a Judicial Review opinion is binding if 2 of 3 members of the Judiciary agree with said opinion. The Code of Laws is silent on the method in which this agreement is to be communicated to the citizenry. It was the practice of the Judiciary in Term 4 that the Chief Justice make one post in the forum on behalf of the full Judiciary when posting the opinion of the Judiciary in response to a request for Judicial Review. It was also the practice that the Judge Advocate and Public Defender post messages in the forum, after the Chief Justice's post, to publicly state that the post made by the Chief Justice was accurate. It is our opinion that the post made by the Chief Justice on behalf of the full Judiciary is sufficient to communicate the agreement of the remaining members of the Judiciary. The posts made by the Judge Advocate and the Public Defender are "after the fact". They are not necessary, but rather function as a polite confirmation of the Chief Justice's post. Therefore, we rule that the Judiciary's opinion was posted before the term expired and Judicial Review DG3-T4-3 stands.

I would appreciate it if the Chief Justice will post each of the other two opinions in a quote of the PM, chat log, or other method of recording them. When Judicial Review DG3-T4-3 was conducted, I had no way of seeing the other opinions. I was simply told that they had agreed unanimously with Peri's post. I had not seen that method of review used before

There are no "other" opinions. We all wrote one opinion together.

Originally posted by Bootstoots
I would appreciate it if the Chief Justice will post each of the other two opinions in a quote of the PM, chat log, or other method of recording them. When Judicial Review DG3-T4-3 was conducted, I had no way of seeing the other opinions. I was simply told that they had agreed unanimously with Peri's post. I had not seen that method of review used before

As zorven stated, there was only a single opinion, the wording of which was discussed internally prior to posting. The only official ruling was posted in the Term 4 thread, and copied into the Judicial Log.

-- Ravensfire

Originally posted by Bootstoots
I would appreciate it if the Chief Justice will post each of the other two opinions in a quote of the PM, chat log, or other method of recording them. When Judicial Review DG3-T4-3 was conducted, I had no way of seeing the other opinions. I was simply told that they had agreed unanimously with Peri's post. I had not seen that method of review used before

I posted that the Judiciary was unanimous in the official decision because it was. There was no dissenting opinion. Only the form of words was discussed. Since this review was the third conducted in this way there had been plenty of opportunity to raise your concerns. We believed that this method of posting a Review was the most sensible. We did not anticipate that the validity of the method would be questioned. If my ruling had not reflected the opinion of the the other two members, I am certain they would have posted to that effect long before you called for a Review.

Regards :)

I would prefer it if the Judiciary went back to the ordinary review style where each Judicial member posts his/her own opinion separately. I do not doubt that the Judiciary was unanimous but I do think that the Judiciary should go back to the old style of reviews as mentioned above. I think that it would show more subtle differences in the reviews as well, things that could be left open to further interpretation and discussion.

Just my two gold. :)

Originally posted by Bootstoots
I think that it would show more subtle differences in the reviews as well, things that could be left open to further interpretation and discussion.

And there Boots, you have exactly stated why a Judicial Review should NOT be done in that manner.

Consider the first review in Term 3. Go ahead, read it, I'll wait. No, you don't need a link to it - it's in the Judicial Log.

Read it? Good. What was the Majority Opinion? What was the Minority Opinion? Pretty tough to find those. In fact, you have three responses that are marginally related to each other.

That's bad.

A Judicial Review is the opportunity for the Judiciary to respond to a question of Law posed by a citizen. It is the duty of the Judiciary to provide that citizen with a clear and definite answer to that question. At least, a clear answer of law. Anything less than that should be regarded as a failure by the citizen, with a push for a single, clear answer.

Look at the 2nd review of Term 4. We had the verbage nailed down, and it clearly stated our opinion. There was some concern raised about how the opinion would be interpreted. To ensure that any interpretation would go exactly (or at least mostly) the way we wanted, a commentary was added to the opinion that did make things very clear.

The comment "subtle differences" you made leads to nothing more than more Judicial Reviews and Public Investigations. When it come to interpreting the Law, citizens should expect clear guidelines and responses from the Judiciary that define exactly what the law is. Anything less and, as we've shown in this game, we have chaos.

I strongly support discussing Judicial issues, and in fact there was a brief discussion about this exact issue early in the review process. This IS was is needed - commentary by citizens directed towards the Judiciary prior to their analysis. When the Judiciary posts their Opinions (both Majority and Minority), I expect the Majority Opinion to state in very clear terms the answer to the questions posed by the citizen.

I understand you and I have different viewpoints on this subject. I know you enjoy the political aspect of this game, of which these Judicial Requests are a part of it. I hope you understand my viewpoint though, that of providing those who wish to play the game, and the roles within it, with a clear set of rules and with clear answers when there is a question.

-- Ravensfire

Originally posted by ravensfire


And there Boots, you have exactly stated why a Judicial Review should NOT be done in that manner.

Consider the first review in Term 3. Go ahead, read it, I'll wait. No, you don't need a link to it - it's in the Judicial Log.

Read it? Good. What was the Majority Opinion? What was the Minority Opinion? Pretty tough to find those. In fact, you have three responses that are marginally related to each other.

That's bad.
What would a review be like if the Judiciary could not agree on something privately? Would it not be similar? I do acknowledge that there should be some private discussion on this to help formulate a consensus, but if I were a Judicial member, I would not be kept from posting my review publicly.

A Judicial Review is the opportunity for the Judiciary to respond to a question of Law posed by a citizen. It is the duty of the Judiciary to provide that citizen with a clear and definite answer to that question. At least, a clear answer of law. Anything less than that should be regarded as a failure by the citizen, with a push for a single, clear answer.
As a citizen, I would not regard that as a failure, but instead I would see it as an area where the ruleset is unclear, and probably subject to an amendment.

Look at the 2nd review of Term 4. We had the verbage nailed down, and it clearly stated our opinion. There was some concern raised about how the opinion would be interpreted. To ensure that any interpretation would go exactly (or at least mostly) the way we wanted, a commentary was added to the opinion that did make things very clear.
That makes perfect sense. I have no objections.

I have run out of time to post right now; I'll post the other part of my response tomorrow.

I see there has been some good discussion while I was offline. First off, Bootstoots, as CJ I will continue to run Judicial Reviews as we have been this and last term. Second, I believe ravensfire outlined the reasons very well. The Judicial Review is a tool used to clarify vague or ambiguous sections of the Constitution or Code of Laws. Providing 3 seperate opinions only leads to more uncertainty and confusion. That is not the intended outcome of the Judicial Review process.


What would a review be like if the Judiciary could not agree on something privately? Would it not be similar? I do acknowledge that there should be some private discussion on this to help formulate a consensus, but if I were a Judicial member, I would not be kept from posting my review publicly.


If at least 2 members of could not agree on a Judicial Review request, then there would be no Opinion given by the Judiciary. I would see no problem in that case with having each member write their opinion, but there would be no official, binding Opinion by the Judiciary in the matter.



As a citizen, I would not regard that as a failure, but instead I would see it as an area where the ruleset is unclear, and probably subject to an amendment.


A citizen requests a Judicial Review precisely because the ruleset is unclear. If the Judiciary responds with an unclear ruling, then that is a failure on the part of the Judiciary. The Judiciary needs to provide clear, concise guidance on matters involving unclear rulesets. Providing 3 seperate opinions does not accomplish this. If the Judiciary cannot agree on a matter, then there is definetly a need to amend the laws.

Ill join in this discussion When I return from School.

Also DZ requested that I do a Judicial Review, Im not sure what he is talking about since it has already been posted here (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?postid=1226410#post1226410) by our CJ :confused:. If DZ wants a Judicial Review from me, he would have to wait untill I get back around 4:00pm. And If I have to do one, then we would have to hunt down Vander and tell him to post also.

CivGeneral - if you are referring to the chat, I believe he was joking about what was being said at the time.

Originally posted by CivGeneral
Ill join in this discussion When I return from School.

Also DZ requested that I do a Judicial Review, Im not sure what he is talking about since it has already been posted here (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?postid=1226410#post1226410) by our CJ :confused:. If DZ wants a Judicial Review from me, he would have to wait untill I get back around 4:00pm. And If I have to do one, then we would have to hunt down Vander and tell him to post also.

I suspect he's referring to the current custom, of the JA and PD posting their concurrence (or not) after each ruling posted by the CJ.

It was a pleasure to serve in the Judiciary this term with CivGeneral and Vander. Everyone within the Judiciary and those who posted here were intellectually engaged, civil, and in the end, interested in what was best for Fanatica. I would also like to thank Bootstoots for giving us something to do ;)

And so, I say farewell to the Hall of Justitia in Noshuret and hello to the Governor's Mansion in Thebes.

Originally posted by zorven
It was a pleasure to serve in the Judiciary this term with CivGeneral and Vander. Everyone within the Judiciary and those who posted here were intellectually engaged, civil, and in the end, interested in what was best for Fanatica. I would also like to thank Bootstoots for giving us something to do ;)

And so, I say farewell to the Hall of Justitia in Noshuret and hello to the Governor's Mansion in Thebes.
Oh, no problem, I love giving the Judiciary things to do. ;) BTW, looking back through the thread, I would also like to apologize to ravensfire; it looks like I forgot to reply to the other part of his post. :crazyeye: