~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*http://www.civfanatics.net/uploads6/CCT1.jpg*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~

The Conseil Constitutionnel was created by the Constitution of the People of Fanatica. For all intents and purposes it shall be known as the Judiciary. Article F of the Constitution states the initial obligations of the members of the Judiciary as tasked with upholding the Constitution and its supporting laws in a fair and impartial manner as prescribed by law.

In democratic societies, Justice, the guardian of individual liberties and the rule of law, ensures the application of the law and guarantees the respect of the rights of all. It is to Justice, which falls the duty of settling conflicts by establishing the law, when the parties before it fail to settle their differences on their own.

Regulations governing the procedure to be followed before the Judiciary in Judicial Reviews can be found in CoL Section D and CoS Section M.

Regulations governing the procedure to be followed before the Judiciary in Citizen Complaints can be found in CoS Section L.

Regulations governing the procedure to be followed before the Judiciary in assistance with Absenteeism can be found in CoS Section K.

If you have any questions not covered by the above Sections of the Three Books, please feel free to post them below and this court will be obliged to assist you in an expedient manner.
__________________________________________________

Chief Justice – Cyc
Associate Justice – Bootstoots
Associate Justice – Peri

Term 1 Census – 38

All decisions made by this court in regards to the Constitutionality of any issues presented before it will be posted in the Judicial Log on the Main Page of these Civ3 Demogame forums.

As soon as our Constitution and supporting books have been completed, a link will be posted here that will take you to them. These will be , The Three Books (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?postid=1411259#post1411259), which will guide our nation in legal matters.

Request for Judicial Review - Term1 - DGIVJR9

I request a Judicial Review on the recent Special Session conducted by the President. I wish the Judiciary to determine if the correct process was followed. The specific law involved in CoS Section C.2.

I do not want to make this a CC - this is a new ruleset with new processes. I would like a determination if the process was followed correctly, and if not, where the discrepencies were.

-- Ravensfire
________________________________________________

Request for Judicial Review - Term 1 - DGIVJR10

Moderator eyrei, as a citizen, has requested a Judicial review. He has included his question within his request, stated below:

I would like to request a judicial review on whether the FA department has the authority to give the instruction that the turn chat should be stopped if we make a contact, when no poll has been posted on the matter.

As for the Law in question, eyrei has chosen CoS Section F.9, which is a Standard. In accepting this Request for a Judicial Review, this Court will be setting precedent for the rest of the game (DGIV), in that legislation from the CoS will be accepted pertinent and allowable for Judicial Reviews. Not only for Requests of Judicial Reviews, but in Rulings and Decisions in Judicial Reviews.

Hence, eyrei's Request - "In light of CoS Section F.9, does the Foreign Affairs Department have the authority to give Instruction to the DP to stop the Turn Chat when new contact is made, when no poll has been posted on the matter?" has been accepted.
_____________________________________________

Request for Judicial Review - Term 1 - DGIVJR11



Request for Judicial Review - Term 1 - DGIVJR12

Zorven has requested a Judicial Review. It is posted below:

I hereby request a review to clarify CoL section C.1.d. Specifically, does the Senate have to post instructions in the Turn Chat thread that the cash request has been approved?




d. The Senate shall meet prior to each turn chat and vote
on all cash requests in a Cash Request poll.
1. These requests should be made in the Senate thread,
or another designated thread indicated in the first
post of the Senate thread.
2. Each request should be considered individually
unless the requestor specified otherwise.
3. Each request should be voted on seperately.
4. Should more requests be approved than funds
available, requests shall be conducted in the order
determined by the Designated Player.

_____________________________________________




_____________________________________________
LINK TO THE JUDICIAL LOG (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?threadid=74295)

There are no Citizens Complaints at this time.

Resrved

I would like to ask our judiciary to make a ruling on the validity of the special election for chief justice.

I maintain that the election was illegal. I am not sure if I should begin to present the case here or not. I await further instructions from the judiciary as to how to proceed.

Originally posted by donsig
I would like to ask our judiciary to make a ruling on the validity of the special election for chief justice.

I maintain that the election was illegal. I am not sure if I should begin to present the case here or not. I await further instructions from the judiciary as to how to proceed.

CoL Section E.2.C states the Judicial Members shall:

C. Initiate and participate in Judicial Review to interpret and clarify
existing amendments, laws and standards.


CoS Section X.1 states:

1. Judicial Review of an Existing Law
I. Request
A. Any citizen may request a Judicial Review by posting the request in
the Judicial Thread or via PM to any Justice.
1. The request should contain the question and the specific law involved.
2. If the request sent via PM, the citizen should remain anonymous unless
they choose otherwise.
B. The Chief Justice shall post a notice in the Judicial Thread that a Judicial
Request has been filed. This post should contain a summary of the Request.


To date, these are the guidelines for Judicial Review. I have noted your request for a Judicial Review, but your request does not fulfill the actual requirements of an official request (Please see CoS X.1.A.1 above). If you could complete your request by stating th specific law involved, we can move forward with this.

Originally posted by Cyc


To date, these are the guidelines for Judicial Review. I have noted your request for a Judicial Review, but your request does not fulfill the actual requirements of an official request (Please see CoS X.1.A.1 above). If you could complete your request by stating th specific law involved, we can move forward with this.

Well, Cyc, it is a complicated matter. For one thing it is not clear what laws are in effect now and what laws were in effect at the time of the election in question. Not knowing exactly what was enacted and when makes it difficult to specify which law was not followed. It seems to me that the only thing in effect when this term started was part of the constitution. It could even be argued that since the whole process of creating our three books is not finished we do no have any laws yet!

The best interpretation I can give of what happened is that term one started and we did not have a CJ due to the tied election. Thus the office was vacant and according to article G of the constitution should have been filled by an appointment. It is upon this view that I requested the judicial review. I hesitate even now to state this as it seems unfair since this will undoubtedly be debated starting now. I have not been able to prepare a full blown case yet (as there are legitimate questions about what laws are or were in effect) yet it seems as though I'm being asked to present the case already.

But, in an effort to resolve this matter quickly, I will state that I believe the special election was in violation of article G of the constitution. I do reserve the right to cite other legal violations regarding this election should it prove that parts of the CoL and/or CoS were in effect at the time.

-edited out-

Assuming we have a valid request for a JR, let's create the review thread and move the discussion there.

-- Ravensfire

To both Associate Justices:

Please refrain from discussing this matter with donsig in an open format. We need to follow procedure here, and asking the citizen who requested the review for proposals of resolution to this matter in this thread violates our guidelines.

The Judiciary is moving forward with donsig's request and procedure will be followed. If either of the Associate Justices have any questions about Judicial Review procedure, I suggest you read the above mentioned legislation.

As donsig has supplied the needed information to fulfill his official request for Judicial Review, I will now begin work on posting his request in the second post of this thread that is reserved for Judicial Reviews. Consider this request officially accepted.

Originally posted by Cyc
To both Associate Justices:

Please refrain from discussing this matter with donsig in an open format. We need to follow procedure here, and asking the citizen who requested the review for proposals of resolution to this matter in this thread violates our guidelines.

The Judiciary is moving forward with donsig's request and procedure will be followed. If either of the Associate Justices have any questions about Judicial Review procedure, I suggest you read the above mentioned legislation.

As donsig has supplied the needed information to fulfill his official request for Judicial Review, I will now begin work on posting his request in the second post of this thread that is reserved for Judicial Reviews. Consider this request officially accepted.

Excellent! Please post the discussion thread so we may begin seeking citizen input and asking our own questions.

-- Ravensfire, Associate Justice

OK, post number two is updated. Is the next step to open a discussion thread in the citizen's forum?

EDIT: WOW that was fast Cyc!:eek:

I think all poll must have an Abstain and a Null (I don't know if this is the best term in english) option.

ABSTAIN means you agree with all options. Any result will be OK.

NULL means you disagree with all options or want another option to be included. So, you will agree with any result of the poll. If, NULL "wins", the poll is invalid.

How can we do this?

I see your point, jorge_roberto, I believe historically the poll systems in our Demogames have used ABSTAIN for both options. By choosing ABSTAIN and then writing in your personal alternative, you are in essence saying you do not agree with the listed options and would rather do something else. To me, this course of action covers a "NULL" option.

I would suggest if you feel strongly about changing the poll system's structure, that you start a discussion thread in the citizen's sub forum. If you can gather enough support for your idea, the next step would be to cast a poll and try to achieve a majority opinion from the citizens.

These would be your first steps, as the Judiciary is powerless in creating new laws. This power lies with the People.

Dear Judicial Branch members.

I'd like your verdict on this case.
2 laws have been ratified. They contradict eachother on the topic of "refusal polls; who posts them?".
Col H2a1 and Cos F3ii

H. Vacant Positions
1. Leader positions that remain unfilled after an election shall
be filled via appointment by the President.
a. Any citizen may post a refusal poll within 24 hours of the
appointment.

2. Deputies
a. Each elected office in the Executive and Legislative branch
shall have a Deputy. This Deputy is appointed by the office
holder.
1. Any citizen may post a refusal poll within 24 hours of the
appointment.
b. No elected official may be appointed a Deputy.
c. A citizen may only be appointed to one Deputy position.
3. Leader positions that become vacant mid-term shall be filled by
appointing the deputy for that position as Leader.
a. A mid-term vacancy in the Judiciary shall be filled by a
triumvirate vote between the President and the other two
Justices determining and approving the replacement.
1. Any citizen may request a refusal poll within 24 hours of
the appointement.

and


3. Refusal Polls
i. Any citizen may request a refusal poll to be posted within 24 hours
of any citizen being appointed to an elected office.
ii. The person who appointed the citizen to the office must create a
poll within 24 hours of the refusal request.
a. Failure to post the poll shall result in the appoinment nullified
b. Poll shall only contain Yes, No and Abstain options.
c. Poll shall run for 48 hours.
d. Header and body of poll should state that this is a refusal poll
and the position in question.
e. Should there fail to be a majority of votes in support of the
appointment, the appointment is immediately nullified upon the
poll closing.
iii. If the appointment is nullified, the person making the appointment
must appoint a different citizent to the office.

Dear Mr. President. Because all of the roadblocks set up during the discussions for rulemaking prior to the begining of the game, along with all the side issues that needed to be hashed out before progress could be made, we ran out of time to do a lot of thing in a coherent manner as for as getting Legislation ratified. As you point out, there are two pieces of Legislation, one in the CoL and one in the CoS, that touch on the refusal poll issue. It is not uncommon to have an issue or topic span 2 or all of the three books.

As far as being contradictory, I must say that upon rereading the two pieces of legislature, they do not contradict each other. In fact the work in a complementary fashion with each other. The word MAY in each piece allows the process to take place either way.

Therefore I don't see a problem. If a citizen wants to do it one way they can. If a citizen wants to do it the other way, the Leader had better respond within the required time parameters.

Can you see this point of view, Mr. President?

Although not a member of the judiciary, I agree fully with Cyc's interpretation of these two articles on refusal polls. The CoL section merely says a citizen may post a refusal poll. The CoS section says that a citizen may request a refusal poll, and if such a poll is requested, the official in question must post it.

I believe our president was requesting a JUDICIAL REVIEW of the legislation in question. Isn't there some sort of PROCEDURE to be followed in such a case? :rolleyes:

Originally posted by donsig
I believe our president was requesting a JUDICIAL REVIEW of the legislation in question. Isn't there some sort of PROCEDURE to be followed in such a case? :rolleyes:

I qualified my post as unofficial. It will give our president a chance to withdraw his request if this explanation is sufficient.

Originally posted by donsig
I believe our president was requesting a JUDICIAL REVIEW of the legislation in question. Isn't there some sort of PROCEDURE to be followed in such a case? :rolleyes:

I'm sorry donsig, but after reviewing the post by the President, I see no request for a Judicial Review. He merely asked for a verdict to a case. I know there is no "case" in particular, so I assumed the President was asking for a "verdict" in a jovial manner. If in deed the President does wish a Judicial Review he may ask for one.

Originally posted by Cyc


I'm sorry donsig, but after reviewing the post by the President, I see no request for a Judicial Review. He merely asked for a verdict to a case. I know there is no "case" in particular, so I assumed the President was asking for a "verdict" in a jovial manner. If in deed the President does wish a Judicial Review he may ask for one.

I see. We may not know how to interpret the meaning of the word vacant but we do know how to interpret the meaning of the word verdict. :rolleyes:

Dear Judiciaries, Peri, VP.

There was talk of a refusal poll for Donsig's appointment as VP. I wanted to be exactly sure who had to take action, eg post the poll. DZ, the requestor, was convinced he wasn't allowed to post a poll, I was convinced he was. Then Raven pointed out an anomaly in 2 ratified laws and just wanted to edit 1 of them. I consider that a change of the constitution, which should not be performed through a one-man-action.

Therefore I requested to take a look at the 2 sections, to decide whether they are indeed contradictory and to determine whether they can be changed this easily.

Originally posted by Cyc

...

I would suggest if you feel strongly about changing the poll system's structure, that you start a discussion thread in the citizen's sub forum. If you can gather enough support for your idea, the next step would be to cast a poll and try to achieve a majority opinion from the citizens.

These would be your first steps, as the Judiciary is powerless in creating new laws. This power lies with the People.

Thank you, Cyc :goodjob:

I just wanted to know the procedure to change this. I will start a discussion thread to know our people's feedback about this point.

Jorge

Originally posted by Rik Meleet
Dear Judiciaries, Peri, VP.

There was talk of a refusal poll for Donsig's appointment as VP. I wanted to be exactly sure who had to take action, eg post the poll. DZ, the requestor, was convinced he wasn't allowed to post a poll, I was convinced he was. Then Raven pointed out an anomaly in 2 ratified laws and just wanted to edit 1 of them. I consider that a change of the constitution, which should not be performed through a one-man-action.

Therefore I requested to take a look at the 2 sections, to decide whether they are indeed contradictory and to determine whether they can be changed this easily.

Rik, you still haven't said the magic words....Judicial Review. So your question may still remain unanswered. :lol:

Cyc, how about granting our President a little leeway until we are all familiar with the process?

Also, how are we doing on the Judicial Review that donsig requested? Was there a meeting in chat yesterday?

DZ, I can certainly procedeed with a Judicial Review of the two existing laws. Although I have already stated my opinion on the matter, We can still reference the Laws involved for changing them.

As far as Judicial Review #1, I have posted in the JR thread in the Citizen's sub forum. I will repost here also.

First, I would like to thank DZ for his appraisal of the situation and his final determination that the Judiciary should remain as is.

Secondly, I would like to list the procedure for the Judiciary’s posting of the opinions for the first Judicial Review for Demogame IV.

Because our communication system seems to have broken down, an alternative plan must be put into action. As for Ravensfire’s involvement in the JR Judicial discussion, he proposed an alternative plan of using a Judicial Chat Room/Message Center he has in Yahoo. Unfortunately, he says that because of work, he cannot access any kind of chat room through his proxy. This is understandable, but this leaves only forum posting for discussion of a decision. During the nighttime hour, Ravensfire is too busy with sports and other activities to commit to any kind of chat room time schedule. Bootstoots has finally read my PM to him about “Arguments Over” in which I ask him to reply with a chat room and a time he could attend. This was over an hour and a half ago, and I still have not gotten any kind of reply from him.

It seems I am dealing with a hostile bench, as the Associate Justices, who are normally online throughout the day and night, have found other things to occupy their time now that I have called Arguments Over. Ravensfire has posted a lengthy Analysis/Opinion (along with the information that DZ has asked for) in the Yahoo site, but that is all. In reading his opinion, it appears that he is resigning.

So, in light of all this, in accordance with Article F of the Constitution stated below:

“…The Chief Justice shall have the additional responsibility to organize and conduct the affairs of the Judicial Branch.”

I will now state the procedure the Judicial Department will use in posting its majority opinion (and minority opinion if needed). Each Justice will their opinion (with notes, if applicable) in the Term 1 Judicial thread, making clear their opinion on the issue at hand. I will then summarize the natural division (if necessary) of a Majority/Minority decision. If all Justices seem to agree, there will be no Minority decision. I will then post these opinions and summary decision(s) in the Judicial Log.

Unless there appears to be a major problem with the mechanics of this procedure, aid procedure will be standard operating procedure for the remainder of the Term, as having Joint discussions seems to be out of the question.

My, I actually have to get some work done, and chaos breaks out. Heaven forbid I have a deadline to deal with. Oh that's right, I do.

I'll try to respond to everything, and unfortunately that does mean putting more personal information into this that I prefer.

First, my priorities are quite clear: family, friends, self, job, entertainment. In case you're wondering, this is in the "entertainment" category.

During the past few weeks, I've been able to participate fairly actively during my work day due to the nature of the tasks I was performing. Basically, I have to run build (compile java code) - this takes about 15 minutes per compile. I'm able to post during that time without impact my work schedule. This week has brought a change to that, especially today and the rest of the week at a minimum.

Also in the past few week, my normal evening demands have been light due to the holiday season. I'm a volleyball player - and fairly competitive. To be exact - I play USAV club ball at the BB level. I run a club of two teams, am the captain for one and play middle hitter. I play 2 nights of leagues, and sometimes sub for more.

In short, I can get pretty busy outside of this. The expectation that I will be continually, instantly and reliably available is not even remotely realistic. As with others, demands upon my time vary drastically.

I am strongly against the "solution" that Cyc posted for this. Essentially, he's advocating a return to the process of old, one that I deliberately crafted the Judicial Review process to avoid. The CoS on Judicial review requires that that Judiciary meet privately to discuss our views on the review, and create a Majority and, optionally, a Minority opinion.

First, as Cyc has discovered, getting everyone available for a chat is difficult. What would he do with a person who had access only through work, and had IRC access blocked from work? This is a forum-based game - we need a forum based solution. I've proposed an option, and asked for any other ideas - no alternatives were proposed until now.

Second, we are tasked to work as a group and in private. Cyc's proposal violates both of those laws. I don't care how we do this, it just needs to be done right. It's not going to happen immediately, and it shouldn't Something like this will take some time - I doubt anyone has a problem with that.

The allegation that this is a "hostile" Judiciary towards him is unwarranted. It is true I don't particular like some of his actions of late, but I have, and always will have, respect for the position and institution of the Judiciary. I don't really care who is there, so long as they perform the duties and tasks assigned to them. Until this, I've been satisfied with what's happened thus far.

The Judiciary is an entity, a group. While the CJ has additional responsibilities and tasks, ultimately their vote is the same as each AJ - it takes 2 people, agreeing, to create an opinion. This approach is more of a dictatorship than anything else - it's not the way the Judiciary should function.

Should this process be used, I will immediately file a Judicial Review on this process, alleging specific violations of the process defined in the Code of Standards. I will also request that both Cyc and I recuse ourselves for that review.

Finally, I am distressed that information communicated privately as part of my analysis of the review, and not intended for public display, was used as part of Cyc's message. In part, Judicial integrity requires that the posts individual justices make, in private, must allowed to stay that way. I am the owner of the yahoo group the last three Judiciaries used in DG3 to discuss matters. After each term, I deleted all messages from that term. The only members of that group were active Judiciary members. When not a member, no messages were accessed by me.

In short, I have a major problem with the process Cyc has listed.

My apologies to all for the length,
-- Ravensfire, Associate Justice

I must say that, citing the CoS, I also disapprove of the process Cyc has outlined. Article F of the consitution says that the Chief Justice shall organize and conduct the affairs of the Judicial Branch. It does not, in any way, give the CJ the power to override rules in lower books. If there were no standard requiring that review be done privately with a posting of opinions by the CJ after it is conducted, I would be all in favor of Cyc's method of conducting review. I have posted review in the Yahoo group for this; the only person remaining to do so is our Chief Justice. I apologize for having a limited amount of time this past day to be very active in this role; hopefully this is only a momentary surge in RL activity (and subsequent lack of forum activity) for me. Cyc, I feel that you should be more patient on waiting for reply; it has been less than 24 hours since discussion was ended on the Judicial Review.

I will not tolerate disagreement within the Judiciary Branch to be expressed in these ways to the outside world. You are to function as a team; or at least you are to appear to do so.

I don't care how you are going to resolve this; but you will resolve this. You 3 have been elected and are "sentenced to eachother" whether you like it or not. You represent the judiciary branch and you speak to us non-judiciaries in 1 voice.

I am offering my help for a solution. I urge you to solve this yourselves (without any more negativity radiating to us), but if you can't, contact me by PM.

The President.

<edit>typo</edit>

I second the President's demands for a timely solution to this matter.

Judging by the current situation, it would seem like parts of CoS Section X may be a bit of a pipedream. Has that much Judiciary discussion really taken place behind closed doors in the past?

I still prefer the method of each Justice determining on his own Judicial findings and posting them without the knowledge of the other Justices' decision. No corroboration necessary, just post what you feel and have the Chief Justice determine the results where grey areas exist.

However, I am not about to ask for a Judicial review for this when there is so much on your plate already. So the current process stands. I would ask that any Justice that is unable or unwilling to abide by CoS Section X.III to provide a timely resolution to this matter work on appointing a Pro Tem Justice immediately.


For reference here is CoS Section X.III(and IV):

III. Judicial Discussion
A. The Judiciary shall then meet privately to discuss review
B. The Judiciary shall produce a Majority opinion, and if needed, a
Minority opinion.
C. The Chief Justice shall post both opinions, including the signers
of each, in the Judicial Thread and the Judicial Log.
1. Each Justice should post a confirmatory message which may also
include an explanatory note. Any such note is not part of the official record.
D. All Judicial Reviews are part of COUNTRY_NAME’s body of Law, and may
be used for future decisions unless overridden by future Laws.

IV. General
A. All proceedings should go forth in an expedient manner.
B. All proceedings started under one Court shall continue with that Court
through the conclusion of that proceeding.

The current system will work and can work even in a forum only environment. However, it will take time to render these decisions.

I think that if we are to insist on private discussions amongst the judiciary, then we should create a private, closed sub-forum exclusively for the judiciary to conduct their deliberations. Otherwise, we must rely on their ability to meet via IRC or MSN Messenger or work out their opinions via e-mail or PM. Either way, we must be patient and wait for this process to work itself out.

If we opt to forego patience and insist on quick resolutions to these issues, then I fear we must return to a format in which each justice posts his or her opinion independently, or some variety of same.

For the record, and not to imply that my personal opinion should have any influence on this discussion, but I don't care how we resolve this. I just felt obligated to speak up and defend our court that seemingly hasn't had an opportunity to meet in private to discuss the case (as required by law) and yet we insist on immediate satisfaction.

The two Associate Justices have prepared their Majority opinion, and are ready to transfer it from Ravensfire's forum to this one.In fact they have been ready for sometime now. I have instructed them to post their opinion along with the findings that you,DZ have asked for, but they have refused. I have told them I will not publish their opinion (they only have one). I will not sign their document because I so strongly disagree with its content. If they wish to present a document like that to the public, then let them do it. It would be much more appropriate if the signers of the document did this.

Once the Associate Justices post there Majority Opinion, then I can come in and post the Minority Opinion. I will then summarize our decision and post in the Judicial log.

Originally posted by Cyc
I have told them I will not publish their opinion (they only have one). I will not sign their document because I so strongly disagree with its content.

Originally posted by Donovan Zoi

For reference here is CoS Section X.III(and IV):

III. Judicial Discussion
A. The Judiciary shall then meet privately to discuss review
B. The Judiciary shall produce a Majority opinion, and if needed, a
Minority opinion.
C. The Chief Justice shall post both opinions, including the signers
of each, in the Judicial Thread and the Judicial Log.
1. Each Justice should post a confirmatory message which may also
include an explanatory note. Any such note is not part of the official record.


With all due respect to the chief justice, CoS X.III.C requires the CJ to post both opinions. Doing so does not imply agreement with the opinion that the CJ disagrees with. It is merely a method of ensuring stability in the process of rendering judgement. Failure to post the opinions according to the quoted standard would be grounds for a citizen complaint.

Trust me DaveShack, I am very aware of the Laws that guide our nation, as I am aware of the repercussions one might have to endure should he break those laws. That said, I have decided to post the Majority Opinion for the Associate Justices. As you say, doing so does not imply agreement with the opinion. It is merely a method of ensuring stability in the process of rendering judgement. I still feel unsure about this, as I feel that there is something deeply wrong when one man has to ask another to post his resignation for him. I also kind of get the feeling he is trying to make me look like the bad guy here. All that aside, I will now post their opinion, including the findings that ravensfire produced in accord with DZ's request. Let's get to those first.

Facts:12/15 Con Article F (Judiciary) Ratified
12/21 Con Article E (Legislature) Ratified
12/21 Con Article D (Executive) Ratified
12/21 Nomination Threads posted (at least some after D,E ratify)
12/22 Ravensfire comments in several that threads are for positionsthat do not exist. Changes were made to nomination threads toreflect correct positions.
12/27 Election Threads posted
12/28 CoL Election Ratification Poll posted
12/28 CoS Election Ratification Poll posted
12/31 Election Threads close
01/03 Special Election Thread opens
01/05 Special Election Thread closes

Next I will post the Majority Opinion, penned by ravensfire and agree to by Bootstoots.

[begin opinion]> Summary:> This review concerns the legality of the Judicial Elections held in Term 1, specifically the use of a special election to break a tie in the regular Chief Justice elections. In this special election, all citizens in the Chief Justice and the Associate Justice electionswere placed, along with any other citizen who wished to run for office. The previous, uncontested results of Bootstoots and Peri asAssociate> Justices where thrown out. As a result of this, Cyc was electedChief Justice, Bootstoots and Ravensfire were Associate Justices.
Complicating the matter, many parts of our law had not yet been ratified, and thus cannot be used for this review.

Analysis:> The end of the Chief Justice election resulted in a tie, meaning no person was elected to the office, rendering it vacant at the startof the term. Relevant sections of the Code of Laws had not yet been ratified, meaning the only law on point is Article G of the Constitution, in part: "All vacant elected positions shall be filled by appointment of a citizen to fulfill the remainder of the term."No appointment mechanism had yet been created in law.

The ultimate authority for the Demogame resides in the Moderators,as such, their actions must be considered as "appointment". Yet their actions should not undo a previous, legal and uncontested action,the election of Bootstoots and Peri as Associate Justices. Therefore,the special election must be deemed legal with regards to the Chief Justice, and illegal with regards to the Associate Justices.

Therefore, we order that the appointment of Cyc to the position of Chief Justice to be UPHELD. We order that the appointment of Ravensfire to the position of Associate Justice be DENIED, and that he resign immediately. We futher order that immediate appointment of Peri to the position of Associate Justice be GRANTED. This will result in the Judiciary being made of: Cyc, Chief Justice; Bootstoots, Associate Justice; Peri, Associate Justice.
/s/ Cyc, Chief Justice
/s/ Bootstoots, Associate Justice
/s/ Ravensfire, Associate Justice>> [end opinion]
Comments?
-- Ravensfire

This looks good to me. I have no objections to it.
___________________________________________

The last line is Bootstoots' reply to ravensfire, accepting the opinion as his own. Although I am sorry to see such a highly qualified individual leave the bench, considring the situation at hand, it may be the best thing overall. Thank you Gentlemen for your opinion.

I have the Minority Opinion in this Judicial Review. My Associates have gone together on the Majority Opinion, but I could not in all conscience sign their document. I totally disagree with the content of their opinion and the findings that surfaced because of their research.

To start, I will state some of the findings that Moderator Donovan Zoi has asked for. As far as what pertinent legislation was ratified at the commencement of the first elections (12/27/03 2359GMT), only Articles F and G of the Constitution were. As far as what legislation was ratified at the commencement of the Special Election for the Chief Justice (1/3/04 1538GMT), there were CoL Section E (Judiciary), CoL Section X (Elections), CoS Section Y (Elections), as well as the aforementioned Articles. So in a way, regardless of the timing of either election, the Constitution supported the elections of the Judiciary with Article F specifically claiming there will be a Justice Department and Article G generally claiming all elected positions shall have a fixed term.

Article G wound up in its final form ~ All elected positions shall have a fixed term. All vacant elected positions shall be filled by appointment of a citizen to fulfill the remainder of the term.
…after going through many twists and turns of debate and discussion. Some people demanded that the legislation be changed from of stating that elected officials would serve one-month terms, to its present form of also stating that vacant positions would be filled by appointment. All of this is very well documented in the Article G discussion thread and the first poll for Article G, which had no mention of appointments anywhere in the options, just in the debate posted below. donsig, who was totally against appointments, was the driving force behind getting appointments included in Article G, threatening to claim any appointment unconstitutional if they were not mentioned in it. Article G’s final form, by the way was meant to address any Leader position that became vacant mid Term. At that time, a replacement would be appointed for the remainder of the Term. Article G, in its new form would come into play when a Leader position was truly vacant, as in someone leaving the position or no one running for the position. Donsig is using play on words here claiming the Chief Justice position for Term 1 DG IV was vacant, when in fact there were two fully qualified individuals awaiting determination of the true victor. Thus the position was not vacant, but over-crowded. It was very plain to see at the time, as everyone knew the situation. Therefore Article G does not apply to this situation.

Another problem that arose at the time was the mess caused by the Election Office in posting inappropriate Nomination threads for Term 1 DG IV. Because they were all put up haphazardly, a rush to correct the situation, without following the legislation that was being written for the Elections, ensued to the dismay of anyone who was paying attention at the time. I was one of those people. The whole thing was a fiasco, and when the smoke cleared, the legislation covering the Judicial Department had been ratified. Therefore, because of the tie in the Chief Justice race, any new special election covering the Judicial Department would have to abide by the new legislation or be illegal. As time was of the essence, because elections had finished and Creation Day was right around the corner, a makeshift Nomination period was drawn up to allow donsig to self nominate as well as allow others to drop out of the race, if they so desired. All candidates for the Judicial Department were included in the election poll, just as the newly ratified Section Y of the Code of Standards stated. Therefore this poll was not illegal, but fully sanctified by Law. The first set of polls for the Judiciary were much more inappropriate, as were all of the Nomination threads.

In summary, we can see that Article G is totally inappropriate for the purpose that donsig wants to use it. Not only because it was meant to cover mid Term vacancies, but because there was no vacancy in the Chief Justice position. We can also pre-empt any further thought that the special election for the Chief Justice position was illegal, because it followed the newly ratified CoS code written specifically for it. Thank you for taking the time necessary to read this lengthy opinion.

I still feel unsure about this, as I feel that there is something deeply wrong when one man has to ask another to post his resignation for him.

As unfortunate as this may seem, it seems like the letter of the law was followed here. I don't have time to write a lenghty response here, but can say that I will not contest this decision. When I made my moderator ruling, I did not have a full grasp of alll the laws at hand but a decision had to made. Now that the majority opinion has been posted, I will allow it to override my previous orders.

At this time, I will wait for the confirmatory note from both Associate Justices and will return to this courtroom in about 10 hours to get an update on the proceedings.

Thank you all for your promptness in this matter.

As my final act as Associate Justice, I agree with the majority opinion posted above. 'Course, I wrote it, so I'd better agree with it!

I started my analysis with an open mind, examining what was there, not what I wanted to be there. If anything, I was more surprised than anyone at the conclusion I came to. It was, however, the only conclusion I could see. Overturning a valid election for the sake of expedience is more than tragedy, it's a violation of the very core of democracy. Sorry DZ, although all of us, including me, accepted your idea for resolving the problem, it did invalidate a legal election.

The role of the Judiciary is a needed one, and to do a credible job, the integrity of the Judiciary must be absolute. To maintain it, it followed that I had to resign to allow Peri to take his richly deserved place on the bench. Having worked with him in the past, his patience, demeanor and knowledge are sorely needed by Fanatica in this time of transition.

If anyone has any questions on my analysis, please PM me and I'll try to answer. There is no need to clutter up threads now that the Opinions have been posted.

In closing, I would like to remind all that this is a time of transition, of change. Several old ways have been discarded, with new ways and new traditions to follow. We all need to be patient with these changes, and use the laws we have ratified to guide us. We won't always accept those laws, or like what they ask us to do, but those laws make up the foundation of our group. Violating them because we don't like them, or because we don't like how they work will lead to chaos and breakdown.

I wish Cyc, Bootstoots and Peri the best of luck on the bench - 'cause next term I'm coming back!

I remain,
-- Ravensfire, Citizen of Fanatica

Sorry to lose you Ravensfire. Tough choices must sometimes be made.

Rik made a similar choice in the TurnChat, sticking to CivGeneral's posted orders. The consequences were severe and Fanatican lives were lost as a consequence. But Rik stuck with the law. I congratulate Rik on his sticking to the letter of the law as well as the spirit, even though he knew the possible consequnces.

May this be a lesson to all that would post ill-considered instructions in the instruction thread.

Fanatican lives are in your hands!

Long live the Term one Judiciary as well. Congrats Peri

The majority's solution is very illegal.

Ravensfire is more than welcome to resign, but the judiciary is making new law here when they claim that they can order Peri (who I have great respect for, so please do not take this as non-support of the esteemed jurist) to be installed as his replacement. The very definition of vacant that was stretched to remarkably high levels to arrive at the conclusion that he could be installed, is actually violated by this same opinion. The CJ position was not vacant by law any more than the other elected positions were vacant before their elections were legally completed. By that standard, all elections should have been suspended, because all offices were vacant, and someone, apparently the non-existant judiciary, should have appointed all offices.

Nevertheless, the opinion regarding the vacancy is posted, and as such we will have to pursue other methods to redress this gross violation of the law. However, the automatic appointment of Peri is another matter entirely.

If ravensfire resigns, then the position is vacant, and the laws surrounding office vacancy should be followed, and it is definately not in the authority of the judiciary to begin naming replacements in their rulings.

The law is clear on how to proceed following a vacancy. If ravensfire resigns, please follow the law.

There can be no question that the majority opinion must take hold. In fact, such opinions take the effect of law according to our current 3 books.

I believe the point of the majority opinion is this:


A valid (at that point in time) election was held for associate justices, and Peri and Bootstoots won the AJ positions.
A valid (at that point in time) election was held for Chief Justice, and Ravensfire and Cyc tied for 1st.
Article G of the constitution regarding vacant does not apply to the case of a tied election
The law changed between the perfectly valid AJ and CJ elections and the commencement of the special election
The special election was valid with respect to the CJ position, according to the laws in effect at the time it began, but it did not take into consideration that there were already two associate justices. The AJ positions were already filled, so it is logically impossible to fill them again using the 2nd and 3rd place candidates.


Stating that Peri must be appointed to the AJ position is only partially accurate. By the logic of the initial elections being valid, the AJ position was not vacant so it could not have been filled by the special election. This is a compromise position which appears to be motivated by allowing both elections to be valid.

By the current law we'll almost certainly get a refusal poll posted in response to the forced appointment. In effect this will create a 3rd election between Peri and "nobody". If the vote in that poll is a majority for "no", then the President will be free to appoint someone else.

The lessons to be learned from all of this (for DG5, and for future legal changes in DG4) are

Don't start until the rules are in place
Acknowledge in the law somewhere that rule changes are inevitable, and state how such changes are to be handled. One example could be "once an election cycle has started, the rules in effect at the beginning of the cycle will remain in effect until the cycle is completed and all offices are filled".
If we do amendments, we need to specify when they take effect.

If Peri is appointed to the position of Associate Justice without following the law (CoL H.3.a), then I call for a Citizen Complaint against the President, the Chief Justice, and the two Associate Justices for violation of that law.

It is a easy law to follow folks. Please do so.

DaveShack,

Your summary is mostly accurate. We found that, absent other laws, Article G did apply in this case. The election was tied and no mechanism existed in law to break it, thus creating a vacant CJ office.

Of course, there was also no mechanism in our law at that point in time for appointments either - what a dilemma!

Unstated in the opinion, but part of my initial brief (and should have been part of the opinion I now believe, but that's my fault) is that the entire election cycle, from start to finish, is one entity. You cannot use laws passed in the middle of that process to control it - you can only use those laws in place at the beginning. Moving targets are bad for this stuff! Thus, even the special election must use only the laws ratified at the time the election process started.

Your lesson learned points are quite accurate - it's unfortunate that it took something like this to reinforce them.

Finally, as I missed it earlier, quoted from the CJ's post of the opinion,
That said, I have decided to post the Majority Opinion for the Associate Justices. As you say, doing so does not imply agreement with the opinion. It is merely a method of ensuring stability in the process of rendering judgement. I still feel unsure about this, as I feel that there is something deeply wrong when one man has to ask another to post his resignation for him. I also kind of get the feeling he is trying to make me look like the bad guy here.
Cyc, the law very specifically requires that the Chief Justice post the opinions. I strongly believe that an immediate request for review/complaint would have been posted if anyone other than you posted the opinion. The majority opinion is based entirely upon my brief, and was written by me. All I asked during that process is that you follow the duties and responsibilities assigned to you. Anyone that asked or implied that the decisions and opinions were anything other than my own would have resulted in an immediate and direct post to the contrary. So no, in no way am I trying to make you, or anyone else, look like the bad guy here. I just want you to follow the process.

-- Ravensfire, Citizen of Fanatica

Originally posted by Bill_in_PDX
If Peri is appointed to the position of Associate Justice without following the law (CoL H.3.a), then I call for a Citizen Complaint against the President, the Chief Justice, and the two Associate Justices for violation of that law.

It is a easy law to follow folks. Please do so.

Bill is of course correct and after reading this statement from DaveShack:

"Stating that Peri must be appointed to the AJ position is only partially accurate. By the logic of the initial elections being valid, the AJ position was not vacant so it could not have been filled by the special election. This is a compromise position which appears to be motivated by allowing both elections to be valid.

By the current law we'll almost certainly get a refusal poll posted in response to the forced appointment. In effect this will create a 3rd election between Peri and "nobody". If the vote in that poll is a majority for "no", then the President will be free to appoint someone else."
_______________________________________

I was going to quote the law that Bill spoke of verbatim, but Bill had to make me go look it up, just to be sure. ;) Bill is paying attention. So are you Daveshack, and overall I would generally accept your interpretation of this fiasco, because there is no good explanation that covers everything, and we need to move on. But Bill is correct by Law.

Ravensfire's opinion was convienent for us to accept in this time of trouble. It was a gross exaggeration of law to accomplish one thing, a way for Ravensfire to resign from office. He has of course made a mockery of this Judicial Branch to achieve his one personal goals. I have an idea why Bootstoots may have wanted to sign that document as the end result makes the transition into a peaceful Bench more expidient, but certainly not truthful.

Bill and DaveShack, thank you for your opinions. It is an honor to have both of you post in this thread, and I hope you return to post more often, as we need more knowledgable, forthright, and eloquently posted passages here. Bill, I'm not sure how the cards are going to fall on the CoL H.3.a issue, we could just wind up having a Kangaroo Kourt session to get that done in violation of the body of illegal Law that was just created. It seems everytime I try to do something the right way, someone has to tell me I'm wrong. To date, I have yet to be PI'd (or now CC'd), so if that is what must be done to bring this ship to a slow and restful halt, so be it.

Apologies in advance for quoting a partial sentence, I do not wish to promulgate or argue the part which was edited out.

Originally posted by Cyc

Ravensfire's opinion was convienent for us to accept in this time of trouble. It was ... a way for Ravensfire to resign from office.


Well, in truth anyone *can* resign anytime. If you mean a way to resign while not losing face, then that might be accurate, but we'll only know if Ravensfire chooses to acknowledge this point. In any case, it certainly is a brave position to take.

I had originally considered suggesting that all 3 members of the judiciary recuse themselves from the case over the obvious conflict of interest, but we have no way to deal with having 3 justices pro-tem at the same time, nor is it likely we have 3 other qualified candidates who would not also have a conflict of interest.

Originally posted by ravensfire
DaveShack,
Your summary is mostly accurate. We found that, absent other laws, Article G did apply in this case. The election was tied and no mechanism existed in law to break it, thus creating a vacant CJ office.

Of course, there was also no mechanism in our law at that point in time for appointments either - what a dilemma!

-- Ravensfire, Citizen of Fanatica

It is not neccesary to have a mechanism in place. Once it is admitted that the CJ office was vacant due to the tied CJ election then it follows that the office should be filled via an appointment according to our constitution. In the absence of clarifying rules about appointments in the CoL and CoS it would have been appropriate to discuss the matter and form a compromise. What was not appropriate was forming a compromise that not only had no basis from the CoL or CoS but went contrary to the constitution.

I am glad that the majority opinion held that the CJ office was indeed vacant at the start of term one. I am dismayed that the same majority opinion does not have the courage of its own convictions in that it upheld the special election. If the office was indeed truly vacant then only an appointment could fill it.

I applaud ravensfire for resigning and I renew my call to Cyc to do so as well. It is you Mr. Chief Justice who is making a mockery of our judicial system.

Cyc,

Think as you will, your opinion is as such. My preference was, and still is, to stay on the bench - quite frankly I don't trust you there. However, to uphold the laws as they are written, I must follow them.

Your continual attacks, snide remarks and general attitude of late has all but ruined this game for me. If that was your goal, congrats on a job well done.

-- Ravensfire

Originally posted by Ravensfire
Your summary is mostly accurate. We found that, absent other laws, Article G did apply in this case. The election was tied and no mechanism existed in law to break it, thus creating a vacant CJ office.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by donsig
[B]

It is not neccesary to have a mechanism in place. Once it is admitted that the CJ office was vacant due to the tied CJ election then it follows that the office should be filled via an appointment according to our constitution.

[edit - wrong stuff]
Donsig, if you look more closely at the 1st quote, Ravensfire said that article G (with respect to vacancy) did not apply. The office was clearly vacant (having no occupant) but article G does not apply until the election process is complete, which it was not.
/edit]

I misread what Ravensfire said and saw a "not" which wasn't there.

Originally posted by Bill_in_PDX
If Peri is appointed to the position of Associate Justice without following the law (CoL H.3.a), then I call for a Citizen Complaint against the President, the Chief Justice, and the two Associate Justices for violation of that law.

It is a easy law to follow folks. Please do so.

Here is a solution. I will resign from the game on the condition that RF is automatically re appointed and everyone else agrees to draw a line under this nonsense and move on.
Remember we are playing Civ for fun, we are not supposed to be trying to upset each other.

Edit.
I just want to add that RF resigned because he thinks more of the game and those playing it than he does of his own standing. I hope the citizens see fit to elect RF as Chief Justice next term. Impartiality and a desire to do what is right for the game is more important than any other quality.

Peri beat me to it. I would also like to commend Ravensfire for his professional, thoughtful, and selfless conduct. He is the example of what a judicial member should be.

Here's a solution. Why don't all 76 of us resign from the game, one at a time. Wouldn't that be a noble thing to do?

Although Ravensfire has done a lot of work for the game, and I'm glad he dicided to stop lurking and contribute as much as he has, I don't place him on the pedastal that you do. Ravensfire attempts to take things he wants to control behind closed doors. This is evident of the Turn Chats and the Judiciary. Because everything was jam packed into the last few weeks as far as the rulset goes, I let go the Standards governing the Judicial Review. In my opinion, everything should be out in the public eye, so that if the citizens (any citizen) wanted to monitor the goings on of the court they could. Each Justice would publish their own opinion on any issue that came before them. This way all citizens would be able to read how each Justice felt. But now that we've move behind closed doors, we're only required to show you what we must according to law. This is wrong, as is closed door sessions for Turn Chats. Everything must be kept open for inspection by the public as we are public servants, who btw must show the citizens why they should vote for us. Keeping everything secretive and under tight control because of it is not a reason to vote for someone. Ravensfire says that he does not trust me, well I've got news for you ravensfire. I've never trusted anyone who felt they needed to keep things behind closed doors just to keep control. If you are the Leader that Peri believes you to be, why don't you make an effort to put the Judiciary back up on the table where everyone can see it? Why not have the Justices post their own opinions instead of writing their opinions for them? Open and honest is the way this Judicial Branch should be and I intend on making it so. No backroom deals for me.

I see nothing wrong with the justices privately writing the majority opinion. I think it allows for a more unrestricted discourse and also serves to give more authority to the publicly posted opinion. The problem with having each justice write an official answer to a Judicial Review is that there are often times no consensus, or worse, conflicting justifications for the same conclusion. Peri, Ravensfire, and myself saw the disorder in DG3 caused by having 3 seperate opinions and thus we developed the system you are using now. I think it is a good system. And if it is good enough for the U.S. Supreme Court, it should be good enough for us.

So when was the last time you voted for a Supreme Court Justice, zorven?

i think both peri and ravensfire have shown that they deserve a place in the judiciary, both by their understanding of the laws and by their personal attitude, and i find cycs reaction a little bit strange.

after all, peri and ravensfire both declared that they would be willing to pass on the AJs postion, so what more can be expected from them?

and about the law: there were two different elections, one for the CJ and one for the AJs. Latter was completed without complications, so its result shouldnt be negated without further decisions by the people!

in my opinion, the whole branch should be reelected ASAP.

not that it matters, anyway...:rolleyes:

Folks - please.

It's done. A Judicial Review was requested and answered. I ask all parties to respect the results of that review, regardless of their agreement of them, and allow the game to continue.

I sincerely hope this situation does not happen again - we got caught in a morass of our own making.

Please, everyone, let this matter drop - nothing good will come from continuing this.

-- Ravensfire

ok ravensfire, but it seems to me Peri has still to accept?

and i hope the election mechanism will work next term...

Peri,

There is no need to do anything that drastic. Your value to the game has been proven over and over. :D

I half expected you to be selected for VP as the one left without a chair -- not that donsig is a bad choice, but his lack of position was more of his own making.

Besides, the procedure that Bill quoted just says that the president is not responsible for making the appointment. The CJ and remaining AJ must join the committee and do a joint appointment.

This was originally immediately under Peri's post, until I was distracted for an hour or so... :)

I was going to accept. However it seems that as soon as I do a refusal poll will be posted and this whole mess will just go on and on and on. I am not so keen to hold office that I would spoil this game for everyone else. It has been made clear to me that cooperation and harmony is not what many want from this game.
Also these personal attacks are really pissing me off.
I want the old Cyc back who inspired us in DG3.
And finally the reason why me Zorven and RF held meetings in private was to avoid people using our separate statements to perpetuate a conflict. We learnt that if you agree a course of action together and stand united then the people would have confidence in the administration of the rules.
The bench has been made a complete laughing stock this term. Primary school children behave with more maturity than some here.

Edit.
Thank you for your kind words Dave. I dont want to leave the game because I really enjoy it and would really miss it. I just dont want to be used to ruin the game for others. If the CJ says he is happy for me to serve with him then I shall do so and I shall expect the people to support him and bring this matter to a close. However if the CJ does not wish me to serve and a refusal poll is posted perpetuating this saga then I would not want to prolong the agony for Fanatica.

I will leave it to the CJ to decide the resolution to this matter.

Yes. It is not my desire to prolong the pain. Nor is it my desire to see Peri go anywhere.

I am merely trying to prevent us from violating yet another law. Peri's appointment is fine with me if raven is resigning. However, I don't think we should break an easily followed law to get Peri in place.

Please, Peri. The laughing stock is not restricted to the Judicial Branch this game.

hm, but if peri and ravensfire both agree how it should be handled and then i dont see why there should be a refusal poll.

PDX: i think there is no law broken when the original election for the AJs is declared valid.

also i think about all this like this:
either the appointment of ravensfire (and boot.) as AJs was correct. then their majority report, written by them as legal AJs, should be accepted!
or they were never correctly appointed. but this would lead basically to the same conclusion, namely that peri and boot are the legal AJs! (or a new election should take place...)

Has anybody seen a turnchat around here? I think we misplaced it somewhere.

Peri, If you check the first post of this thread, you'll see I put your name in as AJ long before Bill posted. I do welcome you to the Bench, I'm just getting really tired of the Cyc-bashing.

i thinkl peri and ravensfire can (they actually are trying to right now) settle this matter now.

cyc, you said u feel the AJs are against you. do you think the situation cannot be settled peacefully now?

Thank you Cyc.
I would be honoured to serve with you.

PS if you look back at DG3 you will see that the same people you accuse of Cyc bashing are actually admirers of your contribution to the game.

--Problem Solved :) --

Originally posted by dreiche2
hm, but if peri and ravensfire both agree how it should be handled and then i dont see why there should be a refusal poll.

PDX: i think there is no law broken when the original election for the AJs is declared valid.



It is not up to Peri and ravensfire to decide for themselves what position they hold. What happens if Rik says, hey, I am fed up with this popping huts crap as President, I want out. Oh, and Octavian, you are now the Prez. After all, Octavian and Rik agree to it, it should be right? No.

The law is broken because the election of Cyc, raven, and boots was already ruled valid by the moderators. Therefore it is time to start following the laws, and not looking for ways around them. Hell people, this is one of the simplest laws on the books. The the remaining AJ, the CJ, and the Prez get together and select someone. What would be so difficult about following it?

My comments were never directed toward Peri, in fact just the opposite, and I am offended that someone would take it that way.

OK, relax. Keep in mind, Bill that I am still going to try to do this legally. dreiche2 has 25 posts under his belt. Let's not get in a huff. Patience. I will be working on it.

My apologies Mr. Chief Justice, and to all. I know what a pain in the butt all this is. I am not trying to stand in the way of a Peri appointment, or a swift completion thereof. As stated many times, I support it.

I am trying to prevent us from skirting laws and setting bad precedents all in the name of trying to right a perceived wrong. Once we set those precedents, there will be people later who will drive trucks through the holes we create now in our laws.

I will post to confirm that I do agree with the majority opinion posted in this thread on the judicial review. As this review states, Peri is to become the new AJ. Simply because one justice and some other citizens disagree with the ruling does not mean that this ruling is invalid; this is simply the interpretation of the existing law by the majority of the judiciary. It followed the procedures established by CoL section X in its entirety. The moderators may have considered the results of that election to be valid, but DZ did not object to our ruling, and as such the moderators appear willing to accept either conclusion. Let's just follow the majority opinion of this legally conducted review, and move on.

Let's not.

The judiciary is NOT above the law themselves. I am all in favor of Peri being appointed. Please follow COL H.3.a to do so.

But, Bill.......

I really don't see it as Ravensfire resigning. I see it as Ravensfire being denied the office. I will read through this info again, but it seems to me that the majority decison is validating the first elections whereby Peri is not appointed here, but elected.

While I can somewhat understand the "vacant office" ruling, I do not understand the basis for Cyc winning the appointment for CJ as I haven't researched that far yet. I will probably not be able to check that out until later.

Understatement of the Year: This is going to be a very busy Judiciary term...........

Originally posted by Donovan Zoi
But, Bill.......

I really don't see it as Ravensfire resigning. I see it as Ravensfire being denied the office. I will read through this info again, but it seems to me that the majority decison is validating the first elections whereby Peri is not appointed here, but elected.

While I can somewhat understand the "vacant office" ruling, I do not understand the basis for Cyc winning the appointment for CJ as I haven't researched that far yet. I will probably not be able to check that out until later.


What are you saying DZ? Your statement seems to imply that you may step in as moderator and somehow overturn part of the judicial ruling that incidentaly overturned one of your moderator decisions! You all need to stop this madness! As moderator you should enforce forum rules and leave the interpreation of our laws to us. The worst part of this whole fiasco is that we're setting a precedent that moderators should be interpreting and enforcing demogame rules! While I think Cyc is holding the CJ spot illegally I would rather he remain there under the auspices of the judicial ruling than see him removed by a moderator decision. I for one can accpet the judicial ruling without agreeing with it.

I see nothing wrong with Peri re-assuming his rightful place without an appointment. I also see nothing wrong with having a formal appointment of Peri to validate his spot on the judiciary. I do not think anyone will object to Peri's appointment.

The big question is would an appointment of Peri be construed as illegal? :confused:

Sorry for muddying the waters, but I am posting here as a citizen, donsig.

As I have said before, I will let this judicial process run its own course. But I will still post how I interpret the law.

Will it help if I use the old [mod powers on][mod powers off] brackets?

It's not illegal, if ravensfire resigns, and the law in CoL H.3.a is followed. It is all so simple! :lol:

DZ, I know what you are getting at. But the election was validated, so raven has to resign. Secondly, the problem here is not really this last election at all. It was with the initial election, already ruled invalid. The second election was held and the results validated.

I disagree with the esteemed donsig on that matter. To me, once you validated the election of Cyc, raven and boots, that was a done deal. If raven leaves office, it is a resignation.

I am merely asking us to at some point follow the law here. I am in agreement that this will be busy judiciary term at this rate. If we continue to skirt the laws when we see fit, or when the judiciary manufactures their own changes to the law as they see fit, then this is just the beginning of the mess.

The law on appoints in the judiciary is clear. As a lone citizen in the wilderness I am calling on my government to follow the law.

Upon further reflection, you are absolutely correct, Bill. I validated the Special Elections in this post (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?postid=1494825#post1494825), so your method is the correct way to go about it.

Of course, I too am acting only as "a lone citizen in the wilderness... calling on my government to follow the law."

People, Bill_in_PDX is exactly right. Waaay back in post...let's see' 42 I think it was, I confirmed Bill's statement. He is the only one to quote the intention of the law successfully here.

(Bill, I doubt you'll be able to get these people to go look up the law...)

Bill's proposal to the small dilema is quite simple. I will try to get the President and Bootstoots to agree to choose and confirm Peri as the next AJ. That's as far as this conversation has to go. Until such time as I get this confirmation, I have Peri's name on the AJ list to replace ravensfire, who has resigned. It's all in the paperwork stage and moving forward. Please cease and desist.

So, is this Judicial Review invalid, and that election ruled valid? If so, the following needs to happen:

-Ravensfire's post should be looked on as a resignation
-The remaining justices plus the president will form a triumvirate to determine a replacement. I will put forward Peri's name as the replacement for ravensfire.

Woot! It is a happy day in our nation. Now let's all go get a beverage together. All of this backseat justicing is making me thirsty. :lol:

I, as 1 of the 3 Fanaticans involved in appointing an AJ replacement, together with the CJ and the remaining AJ, see Peri as a highly qualified member of the Judiciary.

Along with the President of Fanatica, Rik Meleet and Associate Justice Bootstoots, I as Chief Justice do confirm Peri as the new Associate Justice.

CJ Cyc

Originally posted by Bill_in_PDX
Woot! It is a happy day in our nation. Now let's all go get a beverage together. All of this backseat justicing is making me thirsty. :lol:

Sounds like a great idea, as I am a bit parched myself.

I know I that I shouldn't abuse my mod powers, but I must insist on this one last thing:

I'm buying! :D

Congrats to Peri!

seems like the matter itself is settled now, and, at least in the end, exactly the way i wanted it to, so thats over now.

but still i want to defend my (formerly) position. i think i have the right to say what i think is legal and not. its just my opinion. and after all it agreed with the decision first made in the majority report, so even if its wrong, its for sure not totally stupid.

so i dont know why you, Bill, get mad at me at all. and the example you gave for octivian being appointed by rik for prez is (*in my opinion*) something different, because Peri was elected for AJ (!) in an election which just had been declrade valid in the majority decision, ok?

Originally posted by Cyc
dreiche2 has 25 posts under his belt.

NOW THATS WHAT DECIDES WHETHER IM WRONG OR RIGHT, yes?

*grmpf*


let me get this straight: i dont want to start the discussion all over again (though i still have a different opinion)!

but i just feel a little bit... mistreated... as new citizen...

EDIT: oh, and congrats to Peri, anyhow

@ dreiche2. No, I by no means meant that your postcount has anything to do with your statements being right or wrong. It was more of an attenpt to protect you. I understand you're new to the game and may not understand all the ins and outs. I'm also aware that you're not as familiar with our History like some of us with deity postcounts are. Therefore I was asking Bill to lighten up on you somewhat, as I didn't want him to scare you away. Scaring people away is my job. ;)

Anyway I'm sorry you misunderstood what I was trying to say. I'm running into the same problem with people that speak English as a first language. :) Please feel free to post your opinion here anytime.

dreiche2: I was not mad at you at all, this is a game, nothing here to get mad about. :lol:

I was merely arguing against that position, and giving examples of my reasons for it.

As another low post counter, I resented Cyc's post too, but I didn't say anything because I knew that he meant no disrespect.

I have been here since Sept 2003 and my post count is STILL under 300. The reason it is so low is that I like to read as much of the DG forum before I give a reply. I work hard to add new and interesting ideas ( i.e. not just "I agree" posts)

My low count is also a factor of how much time I have to spend on this forum. RL often interferes.

Oops, even though the word count is high in this post, I think it still amounts to

... me too. :lol:

P.S., No reply necessary, let this issue also come to an end.

well, i still dont see were my argument is so faulty that this can only be explainend with my greeness regarding demo games, especially as its is based on ravensfires and bootys argument.

but, Bill, actually i didnt have the feeling you were mad at me till Cyc tried to sort of calm you down, you know ;) ?

and Cyc, i disagree with you in some points, as you can see. but i might well have misunderstood your comment, and as everyone is de-escalating now i will no longer stand in the way of national peace


...for now...
:satan:

As everyone seems to be having so much fun ignoring the rules when convienient ...

I am calling for a Judicial Review on the decision to declare the previous Juducial review invalid. There is no law allowing such a decision. As per the Judicial Review laws (under which I am callinf for this review), the decision was rendered legally and accepted as the Majority Opinion. As such, it should be posted as the Judicial Review. No legal right exists to declare a review invalid.

-- Ravensfire

Perhaps for the benefit of new viewers Cyc could give us a brief summary of where we stand regarding these recent judicial events?

Originally posted by ravensfire
As everyone seems to be having so much fun ignoring the rules when convienient ...

I am calling for a Judicial Review on the decision to declare the previous Juducial review invalid. There is no law allowing such a decision. As per the Judicial Review laws (under which I am callinf for this review), the decision was rendered legally and accepted as the Majority Opinion. As such, it should be posted as the Judicial Review. No legal right exists to declare a review invalid.

-- Ravensfire
Ravensfire, I do see your point and agreed with your review. I think that it should not have been considered invalid. However, DZ posted a moderator ruling that the special election is valid, and as such our review was effectively thrown out the window. However, even though the previous review was invalidated, the effect that the review called for (your resignation and the establishment of Peri on the bench) did occur.

This entire situation is too comical (in the tragic, ancient greek sense of the word) to even comment on.

Maybe we should not only consider rebooting the game, but also the demogame as well. This is getting embarassing.

Originally posted by ravensfire
As everyone seems to be having so much fun ignoring the rules when convienient ...

I am calling for a Judicial Review on the decision to declare the previous Juducial review invalid. There is no law allowing such a decision. As per the Judicial Review laws (under which I am callinf for this review), the decision was rendered legally and accepted as the Majority Opinion. As such, it should be posted as the Judicial Review. No legal right exists to declare a review invalid.

-- Ravensfire

So it is your position that the judiciary is not required to follow the laws of this nation? Specifically laws related to replacement of officials who resign?

EDIT: To add that I look back on that and realize it is very rudely worded. Sorry :lol:

It is a serious question in that some people believe the courts can make their own rules and laws as they go, and others, like me, believe the court should also follow the law first and foremost. There are many folks in real life courts who follow either of the philosophies, so I wanted to see if where you stood, as it would help me understand your concerns.

Originally posted by dreiche2
but, Bill, actually i didnt have the feeling you were mad at me till Cyc tried to sort of calm you down, you know ;) ?



Um... yeah, sure... :crazyeye:

Originally posted by FortyJ
This entire situation is too comical (in the tragic, ancient greek sense of the word) to even comment on.

Maybe we should not only consider rebooting the game, but also the demogame as well. This is getting embarassing.

We are probably still ok until we start getting anecdotes about House of Atreus.

Originally posted by Peri
Perhaps for the benefit of new viewers Cyc could give us a brief summary of where we stand regarding these recent judicial events?

Peri, so as not to get caught up into any kind of sensationalism or media type hype, it may be better for the forums to tell its story rather than the Chief Justice, who has been under a barrage of allegations since taking Office. Under normal circumstances, I would be happy too. But these are dangerous times as I'm sure you're aware. Rather than me giving my personal account of what has happened, I can refer you (and our new viewers) to the Judicial Log as well as this Term1 Judicial thread itself.

If you would like clarification on the status of the Judicial Branch as it currently stands, the only difference between now and its inception is your replacement of ravensfire due to his resignation.

I hope that helps.

Thats all I was after. Thanks.
Since it has taken 90+ posts to reach this stage perhaps we can take a break from being contentious and litigious for a few days and just enjoy the game. :)

Peri, to that end, try reading the CHD threads. It is quite entertaining, if I do say so myself. And not a single mention of the CJ / AJ problems at all.

Perhaps we owe a debt to the Minister of Defense for adding so much spice to the early demogame. Boots said he wanted a challenge :crazyeye:

Originally posted by Peri
Thats all I was after. Thanks.
Since it has taken 90+ posts to reach this stage perhaps we can take a break from being contentious and litigious for a few days and just enjoy the game. :)

That would be nice, Peri. Now that we have the Game play moving along nicely, concentrting on the more enjoyable aspects of this game are called for. But in light of ravensfire's call for a Judicial Review on a Judicial Review, it appears the Judicial Branch will be taking baby-steps as it moves through the first Term.

The Term 1 Judiciary will accept the request by Ravensfire for a Judicial Review on the decision to declare the previous Judicial Review invalid. He is claiming that this act is in violation of CoS Section X.1

This Judicial Review will specifically address the issue of declaring a Judicial Review invalid in light of CoS Section X.1. No reference to the reasoning involved with the Opinions of DGIVJR1 will be introduced into this Judicial Review, as this is not pertinent to the subject matter.

Also, because Associate Justice Bootstoots has once again involved himself in an open format discussion with a person requesting a Judicial Review before a Citizen’s Discussion thread has been opened, this court disqualifies Associate Justice Bootstoots from participating in this Judicial Review. He may, in accordance with CoL E.2.A, appoint a Pro-Tem to cover his responsibilities in this Judicial Review. The requester of this Judicial Review, Ravensfire, is not eligible for this Pro Tem appointment.

I will now post acceptance of this Judicial Review request in the second post of this thread. A citizen’s Discussion thread will be opened shortly.

Originally posted by Cyc
Also, because Associate Justice Bootstoots has once again involved himself in an open format discussion with a person requesting a Judicial Review before a Citizen’s Discussion thread has been opened, this court disqualifies Associate Justice Bootstoots from participating in this Judicial Review.

Talk about the judiciary making things up as they go! There are no legal grounds that I know of for disqualifying a justice from a judicial review. If bootstoots has violated the law then I think a citizen complaint is in order to investigate the matter and hand out punishment if need be.

I also would like to know how our first judicial review got overturned or nullified. I don't recall any judicial procedure that did so. Please enlighten me on mighty chief justice!

Originally posted by donsig


Talk about the judiciary making things up as they go! There are no legal grounds that I know of for disqualifying a justice from a judicial review. If bootstoots has violated the law then I think a citizen complaint is in order to investigate the matter and hand out punishment if need be.

donsig, Bootstoots has endangered the Judicial Review process twice in the last 3 JR's. I warned him the first time he had an open discussion with you when you filed your request for a JR. This is evidenced by his removal of the post containing the conversation with you on the first page of this thread. Now he has completely disregarded my warning and has struck up an open conversation with the person who not only requested the JR, but who wrote the Opinion to which he accepted as his own for the Judicial Review in question. He also stated in this open conversation that he agreed with the requester. There is no way for me to go other than disqualifying Bootstoots. In accordance to Article F of the Constitution, the Chief Justice shall have the additional responsibility to organize and conduct the affairs of the Judicial Branch. This is what I deem to be the practical course of action in light of Bootstoots disregard for Judicial Procedure.

I also would like to know how our first judicial review got overturned or nullified. I don't recall any judicial procedure that did so. Please enlighten me on mighty chief justice!

I would like you to know these things also donsig. That's why I have posted in these forums and in the Judicial Log the appropriate wording. Please feel free to review them.

Originally posted by donsig


Please enlighten me on mighty chief justice!

Also donsig, please. If you can't keep a civil tongue in your head, express your opinions elsewhere, OK?

Originally posted by Cyc


donsig, Bootstoots has endangered the Judicial Review process twice in the last 3 JR's.... There is no way for me to go other than disqualifying Bootstoots.

Wrong. You can file a citizen complaint and follow judicial procedure rather than taking the law into your own hands.

Originally posted by Cyc

I would like you to know these things also donsig. That's why I have posted in these forums and in the Judicial Log the appropriate wording. Please feel free to review them.

OK. I have reviewed the review or the nullification of the review or whatever you want to call it. So what you're saying is that since ravensfire resigned his opinion doesn't count. If that is so (and I'm not saying it is) then it stands to reason that the judicial review should be deliberated under the new judiciary which would include ravensfire's replacement (if he actually is a replacement and wasn't the rightful AJ all along). Of course it became apparent long ago that all reason has left the judiciary.

I renew my request, no, let's make that a demand that you resign from the judiciary Cyc. When I made that request long ago it was simply on the grounds that the special election was illegal. After reading the judicial log it is now clear to me that you have no respect at all for the laws you yourself pushed for. Resign and end this circus you call a judicial branch.

I second you, Donsig.

Cyc, i think you have no right whatsoever to exclude Bootstoots from this. That you justify this with your responsibility to "organize the affairs ...of the judicial branch" is in my opinion just ludicrous. Also i dont understand your motivation, since as far as i can see bootstoots was rather on your side with his comment as he explained the moderator overrule to ravensfire.

Cyc, you displayed severel times now that you are not willing to comply to the law. this was for example the case as you refused to post the majority opinion as stated in the constitution, until you later you "decided" to do it.

Also you sayed that you would be dealing with a hostile bench, and obviously you are not willing to cooperate with Bootstoots.

I dont see how this whole situation is can be solved without new elections taking place.

If the current judiciary cannot resolve this in another 2 days (or at least get a poll that will lead to a resolution up in that time), I am going to resolve it. This is ridiculous, and you are wasting all of our time.

EDIT: -text removed-


I was informend from a reader that what I wrote here could be understood as a "discussion of moderator action", which is not allowed as stated in the forum rules.

Though my comment was neither ment disrespectful nor even ment to start a discussion about this action (wasnt even negative), I deleted it.

Originally posted by eyrei
If the current judiciary cannot resolve this in another 2 days (or at least get a poll that will lead to a resolution up in that time), I am going to resolve it. This is ridiculous, and you are wasting all of our time.

Moderator eyrei, this matter is resolved. I have taken action to safegaurd the court from accusation by disqualifying a member of the Judiciary from participating in this one Judicial Review.

It is my responsibility to oversee the proceedings of this court, as stated by Article F of the Constitution. I have done this. You seem to put as much weight into the voice from someone on the street as you do the Chief Justice. This should not be. This is my court and I should be receiving help from the Moderators, not actions contrary to my writings.

donsig has done nothing but attack my position since I won the election to this Office, but I am the one at fault? We have a former Associate Justice who resigned and is now filing a Judicial Review on a Judicial Review and this is my fault? I have tried to run a tight ship here since taking office, but that attempt seems futile as the popularity of some of our citizens lets them rise above the law. Where does it state in the Constitution that someone on the street gets to regulate the actions of the court? Where does it state that because a Moderator is tired of listening to donsig, he gets to take over the court? All I have done is win the election for Chief Justice. That's it. Since then I've had to defend myself from the attacks of others. For what?

And you're are right about a Judicial Review being called on a Judicial Review being a waste of the People's time. But this is what I've had to put up with since taking office. According to our Laws, if we are allowed to move through this Judicial Review, this should be the end of it, whereas if the attempts by the court to control the situation are circumvented by the Moderators, this may possibly continue. Please let me handle the procedures of the court.

I am happy to announce that our Constitution and Code of Laws are finally published for all to see! Please visit these documents here (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=70898). I will post our Code of Standards as soon as Ravensfire is finished formatting them.

Regarding the Judicial Review cycle, my moderator intervention in two instances regarding the Judicial elections may make this case impossible to resolve. So it is unfortunate that eyrei or myself may have to come in a third time to settle this matter once and for all.

Please do not consider this to be a unilateral move on either of our parts, but as a matter of correcting some of my mistakes. It was foolhardy to open elections at the very same time as we were ratifying the laws for such, but that was my call.

It was also my call to give Ravensfire the opportunity to nullify his very own power by the decision that he made, which in turn opened up a black hole in our judicial system. Finding an end to this mercurial matter while invoking laws both old and new helps no-one and will have us chasing our tails well into the next month.

Because of this, I will stand by eyrei's 2 day deadline but will help in any matter you request. Once again, my apologies for all of this.

Well if we're going to have more Moderator intervention, it should involve removing Judicial Review DGIVJR3 from the slate. If we are correcting the situation with the wave of a hand, then removing this Judicial Review and making sure no other legal actions available in normal situations are directed towards the Judiciary elections. Even though we have had to have the Moderators step in 3 times already, as Moderator eyrei declared the Associate Justice election invalid after the initial elections ended, the people who feel they didn't benefit enough from these Moderator actions have constatntly complained and attacked the Chief Justice position. This has been allowed by the Moderators and this is the reason our problems exist today. Let's address the problem at its core, that problem is citizens rebelling openly against each Moderator action.

Let's also let the Judicial Branch return to a position of authority of interpreting the Law.

As a side note to the existing Judicial Review, no Citizen's Discussion thread will be posted in the Citizen's Sub Forum until Bootstoots has named his Pro Tem Associate Justice for the Judicial Review.

Let's also let the Judicial Branch return to a position of authority of interpreting the Law.

That is what we plan to do within in two days if there isn't some sort of solution. Frankly, I find these legal arguments fascinating. But no one is at fault here but me, Cyc. So please quit trying to assess blame elsewhere.

Cyc, it is obviously not resolved because only a very few people seem satisfied with it. Now, I suggest you stop trying to convince everyone that everything is fine, and do something to resolve the issue.

we've had two people post in oposition of my plan to safegaurd the current JR from further JR's. That is donsig and dreiche2. If this plan is allowed to be cared out, further problems will be curtailed. How can you expect the Judiciary to be successful in its duties if you keep taking away the authority granted to it because a couple of people like to post in opposition of the CJ's writings.

Two days?

I ask the moderators to step in now, and completely resolve the issue. As Donovan points out above, this matter stems all the way back to the initial moderator action which interfered with an election.

Then a new election was held, as directed by a moderator, and some of our more vocal citizens don't feel that was a valid election. Thus leading to turmoil.

A few days back I asked the moderators to simply mandate that the results of that election will stand, so that we could move on. My reasoning was simple, in that the judicary was being asked to determine their own validity, when in fact all three of them had won their election, mandated by a moderator.

Donovan did indeed validate that election. Case closed right? No. Instead, the judicial review of the topic was allowed to go forward, even though in theory, there is no longer an issue to resolve. Instead, two members of the judiciary wanted to right the wrong from the initial election (that is the way I saw it, but obviously they have their own reasons) and came up with a ruling that was both against our own laws, ignored the moderator's ruling, and in fact held a coup in the Judicial Branch of our government.

Now we have already jumbled the members of the judiciary. We still have some calling for Cyc's resignation (even though all he did was win a moderator set up election, so I still cannot fathom why it is Cyc's fault). We have a trusted and valued judiciary member who gave up their seat thinking they were doing the right thing despite it being against the law. We have boots now devoiced in his JR capacity because of a silly law that somehow we created (I will be opening a citizen discussion today to end the practice of private judiciary deliberation). We have Peri, who is by all accounts a fantastic jurist being slapped around in position like a ping pong ball. Finally, we have eyrei asking Cyc to somehow solve all of this mess, and frankly that finger pointing is misplaced.

Where did the problems begin? With the first election, when moderator stepped in.

I respectfully submit that when you decide to moderate, it needs to be a complete solution, and not one that is half way and hangs the CJ and judiciary itself out to dry.

The discussions may be interesting, but again, no matter any outcome of these discussions, they are not going to be legal because they step from an action that was not based in the law.

I think that rather than letting everyone beat each other up over the "non" laws that the Moderator should:

1) Mandate that the initial follow on election that put Cyc, Boots, and Ravensfire in place is official, and the topic is closed.

2) Peri is properly in place as AJ, now that raven has resigned.

3) All reviews and discussion of this issue and related problems are moot given that it was moderator action that started the ball rolling in the first place.

4) Or, in the alternative, dissolve the judiciary and hold immediate new elections for all offices. I don't recommend this one though.

I am sure many will disagree, including the CJ himself, who I can tell wants to solve this problem, but given the convoluted steps taken already, I remain convinced that there is no other way to move on.

As the vocal citizen I will continue to state my objections to moderators stepping in an setting things right. The proper function of moderators is to enforce forum rules, not demogame rules. They should act as referees to ensure there are no low blows but they should not act as judges.

My original call for Cyc to resign was no different than Bill_in_PDX's call to have Peri's position on the judiciary justified by an official appointment. I did not call for Cyc's resignation because I thought he was unfit for the office nor because I felt he had done anything wrong. I called for his resignation because the special election was illegal. Cyc's and ravensfire's resignation at the start of this mess would have avoided the judicial review under question and would have allowed our respected president to appoint a chief justice and associate justice. He would have undoubtedly chosen between Cyc, ravensfire and Peri for the two positions. We will never know who would have been chosen but whoever it would have been would have unquestionably held their positions legally.

I have come to think that my early calls for Cyc's resignation have been construed as meaning I lacked confidence in Cyc in that position. That was not the truth and I have already apologized to Cyc in private for this matter. I now publicly offer the same apology.

Once the majority opinion in the judicial review was released I did not agree entirely with it but accepted it. It gave Cyc some semblence of legality to hold the CJ position. It is somewhat tarnished by the conflict of interest but we move on.

I do not agree with the subsequent overturning of the judicial review and support ravensfire in his request to have that reviewed.

I also do not believe that the Chief Justice's unilateral exclusion of an associate justice fromjudiciary business is legal.

I urge our moderators to let this all be settled via our established demogame rules, no matter how long it takes.

From the Associate Justice.

It is not my custom to post publicy in order to resolve national crises but it appears that I have little alternative. Since Eyrei posted his deadline there have been many subsequent posts by interested parties. However there is not one sign of compromise in any of them. Eyrei WILL step in if we do not reslove this ourselves.

We may not have done everything as we should. We may have said more than was necessary. We may even have made the situation worse with our continual postings. I call upon all those with an interest in the current proceedings to agree to an amnesty for each other.

To clarify I require that we agree to accept the situation as it is and to post no further comment. I also insist that none of what is happened is used as evidence of anything or used as a precedent for any future judicial activity. We are starting again with a clean slate and with no reciminations. All that has gone before is past and will not be mentioned again.

I sincerely hope that the people of Fanatica and in particular all those who have posted in this thread can agree to this compromise.
Please post your agreement so the mods know that they do not have to impose their own and unwanted solution.

Edit.
Just as a hint to those who have yet to realise. Being right isn't what matters anymore.

Originally posted by Peri
I sincerely hope that the people of Fanatica and in particular all those who have posted in this thread can agree to this compromise.
Please post your agreement so the mods know that they do not have to impose their own and unwanted solution.


I find it difficult to agree to the status quo when I'm not even sure what that is!:confused:

If agreeing to the compromise means:

1) the judiciary will not establish the legality or illegality of the Special Election under demogame laws in effect at the time;

and

2) we have to accept unchallenged the Chief Justice's exclusion of an Associate Justice from a judicial review;

then I cannot agree to the compromise.

I am willing to accept whatever judicial rulings are made so long as they are made in accordance with our established laws.

I have warned before that this disagreement and personal attacking was not tolerated in this thread. To no avail.

I have used my presidential vote to co-appoint a new AJ when one AJ resigned. To no avail.

See what this has lead to ? An official Moderator warning. I agree with Peri.

Presidential demand: Use this thread for what is to be used for and end all other nonsense. From now on there will be no more "I am right", "I am hurt", "I don't like XXX" or "I don't like XXX's POV". It's finished, it's over it's done.

The CJ, Cyc and the 2 AJ's, Bootstoots and Peri, are the ones who resolve judiciary issues here posted by citizens. Nothing else is to be posted here from now on. If you see a need to question the legality of the judiciary, it's members or it's rulings you find another way or thread to do this; but not here.

And to the CJ and the 2 AJ's I say this: I expect (and demand) from you to only respond to judiciary matters. Period. No debates or anything else. Period.

In RL the president has sufficient powers to take action. In DG4 my only power is to resign and leave. Please don't make me do that.

Yours truly,
Rik Meleet,
Still President of DG4.

This is not a discussion thread. If you wish to present your case to the judiciary beyond the one post where you request a review, do it privately or in a thread devoted to that subject. All who have posted in the previous 'discussion' should consider themselves warned, and a ban will result if you do not comply.

Eyrei

I have posed question #1 directly to the moderators via PM. If they answer in a way that indicates that they are imposing a moderator level rule on this, then please withdraw Question #1 below.

I would like to follow Peri's approach to these matters, and I am honestly trying to support them here. These questions though will come back to bite us on other issues in the future, so I feel they should be brought up here and now. I formally call for the following Judicial Reviews. Sorry Cyc.

In accordance with Code of Standards, Article X, Section I, I call for the following Judicial Review:

1) Question asked: Are the Government Threads available for discussion and posts by normal citizens?

Specific law involved: Code of Laws, Article A, Section 3. Right to Free Speech. Citizens may post their comments in forum threads wherever appropriate.

It would seem the key word is "appropriate". However, what is missing is any further definition in the code of laws to override or modify this basic game right, which is also guarenteed in the Constitution of our nation. "Appropriate" could well be defined as being on topic and adhering to civfanatics rules. I find no Standard posted, polled, or otherwise, that is approved by the people, which would compromise this right in regards to the game itself.

In fact if a Standard is claimed (and who knows, maybe I missed it), please clarify the laws of our nation regarding the three books and their relationship to each other. Barring a comment in CoL.A.3 indicating that a Standard will be used to clarify it, there is no Standard that can override a Law, or the Constitution for that matter. See Constitution, Article B. (directly on point) and L. (which relates to why I asked the moderators via PM about this).

Now you may think that I am trying to slam a moderator, or generally stomp my feet here. Actually quite the opposite. I should have shut the heck up myself after one post on that other topic. I think the law should be that the government threads are controlled, and they had been in the past. However, I find no such support here in our new laws, and I feel we need a judicial confirmation or we need to write an addendum to the CoL.

In accordance with Code of Standards, Article X, Section I, I call for the following Judicial Review:

2) Question asked: Is the Judiciary subserviant to the Executive Branch, specifically the President?

Related Laws: Constitution, Article C, D, and F. Code of Laws, Article B, Section 1 (responsibility and authority of the President). Code of Laws, Article D, all sections (respnsibilities and authorities of the Judicial Branch)

Clarification: Twice in this discussion/government (definition to be determined above) thread our President has implied that he can dictate what is, and is not appropriate actions by the Judicary, and what commentary is allowed, in their own thread. The most recent being a "Presidential Demand" that intended to dictate to citizen and Judiciary member alike what is, and is not appropriate.

It is my understanding that in our three branch government system the Executive Branch can make no such demands on another Branch of government. Further, the Constitution mandates that our government follow the will of the people, and as such the President cannot be allowed to attempt to stifle that discussion, or direct in ways that he or she sees fit.

I add at the end that I asking for this as a matter of law and proceedure with an eye on the future, when someone not as benevolent as Rik may hold the position. This is not an indictment of our President and his attempts to get the game on track, which I fully support.

Thank you in advance to our esteemed Judical members for their time and consideration of these questions.

Well, after a long chat with some of the key players here, I have decided to close this matter the way it started --- with a Moderator Action. While this will be reviled by some, it is the only possible solution that would keep us from chasing our tails well into the Industrial Age. Because of my previous Mod ruling, I really don't think that we will ever reach an acceptable conclusion to this matter.

That said, I will now validate the Judiciary as it currently stands:

Cyc - Chief Justice
Peri - Associate Justice
Bootstoots - Associate Justice

In the coming days, eyrei or myself may move all pertinent posts here, as well as the first Judicial Review, to a separate thread tied up in a little bow for all to see. This little piece of history will serve as a time capsule for us all to visit any time we'd like. We will look back and laugh at this one day.

Thanks to everyone for your participation in this process. There is obviously an abundance of passion here, and that is not a bad thing if channeled correctly. In the future, let's always keep it constructive and never make it personal.

This matter is closed. If you have any questions or problems with this ruling, please address eyrei or myself by PM. Do not post those issues here.

Hopefully nobody minds me posting here, but I would just like to say that I am glad that this was finally stopped, even if it took eventual moderator action to end. I should have posted here prior to being gone all day yesterday, but I was hoping that the litigation had died down somewhat and that I could be gone for a brief time.

EDIT: I also find it interesting that this whole thing probably wouldn't have happened if somebody had either forgotten to vote or voted a different way in the CJ election. ;)

A request has been posted here (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=74990) for the purpose of determining if the members of the senate are absent, according to the procedure defined in the CoS and ratified in this poll. (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=73818)

DaveShack, your request has been duly noted and PMs have been sent to the three Senators. I have also posted in your Request thread (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?postid=1507326#post1507326) located in the Citizens Sub Forum.

CJ Cyc

I hereby formally request a Judicial Review to determine if CoS section Z applies to our Senators.

It has been almost 17 hours since this Court has accepted donsig's request for a Judicial Review, and posted in the second post of this thread. We have seen no response from donsig. It is this Court's opinion that donsig has made a error in his request for a Judicial Review or that he is again toying with the Laws of Fanatica. The acceptance will remain for a total of 48 hours before a Public Discussion is posted. If in review of the acceptance post (second of this thread) donsig would like to recind his request, it will be done. If this Court gets no reply from donsig within the 48 hour time frame, this will be seen as donsig's acceptance of the wording for the Judicial Review.

Originally posted by Cyc
that he is again toying with the Laws of Fanatica.

Cyc, I believe I made myself clear regarding even veiled insults. I expect you to abide by the rules of this forum.

I respectfully request that the Judicary respond to my requests for two Judicial Reviews posted on January 10th in this thread.

Thanks much!

I wish to retract my previous request for a Judicial Review over the invalidation of the first Judicial Review. Further, I request that no person initiate a Review over the same subject.

I initiated the review objecting to the invalidation of a Majority Opinion by the Chief Justice. I feel, and still do feel, this sets a dangereous precedent for an action not supported by law. Whether a person agrees, or disagrees with that Opinion, it was accepted by two members of the Judiciary. Ironically, it did mandate that I, as the author, direct myself to leave office to allow another to take it.

It is interesting to note that, if the Opinion is invalidated, so would my resignation as that is part of the Opinion …

Regardless of the final decision, my resignation is final (as noted by DZ’s post above) and would have been regardless of the end result. The Court is as it should be.

Thank you,
-- Ravensfire

Originally posted by Cyc
It has been almost 17 hours since this Court has accepted donsig's request for a Judicial Review, and posted in the second post of this thread. We have seen no response from donsig. It is this Court's opinion that donsig has made a error in his request for a Judicial Review or that he is again toying with the Laws of Fanatica. The acceptance will remain for a total of 48 hours before a Public Discussion is posted. If in review of the acceptance post (second of this thread) donsig would like to recind his request, it will be done. If this Court gets no reply from donsig within the 48 hour time frame, this will be seen as donsig's acceptance of the wording for the Judicial Review.

I based my request for a judicial review on this poll. (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=73818) It is the section of our CoS dealing with absenteeism. It is the old section J but the title of the poll indicates it will be section Z of the new CoS.

The thread with our rules (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=70898) does not even have the CoS posted so it is difficult to know what is in the CoS. Every time I try to look something up in the CoS I have to hunt for the ratification poll.

I will quote the specific clause in question here if it will help:

J. Absenteeism
1. The Deputy for a position may post instructions for that position should no instructions be posted within 24 hours of the scheduled start of the game play session.
a. The office holder may not post instructions should they return once the deputy has posted instructions.

2. Should an Executive or Legislative leader fail to post instructions for 2 consecutive game play sessions, without posting in the official absence thread, any citizen may request that the office be declared abandoned by creating a thread in the Citizen forum.
a. The Chief Justice shall then send a PM to the office holder, notifying them of the request.
b. The Chief Justice shall then post in the request thread that the PM has been sent.
c. Should the office holder fail to reply by posting in the request thread within 96 hours of the PM, the office holder is removed and the office is considered vacant.
3. Should a Judicial leader fail to respond to an official post or message within 96 hours, without posting in the official absence thread, any member of the Judiciary may request that the office be declared abandoned by creating a thread in the Citizen forum.
a. A member of the Judiciary shall then send a PM to the office holder, notifying them of the request.
b. The Justice that made the request shall then post in the request thread that the PM has been sent.
c. Should the office holder fail to reply by posting in the request thread within 96 hours of the PM, the office holder is removed and the office is considered vacant.
4. Should an office holder post that they will be absent for a certain time period, the Deputy is empowered with all duties and responsibilities of the position for that period.
a. The Deputy shall relinquish all such powers upon return of the office holder.
b. Should the Deputy fail to post instructions while so empowered, the Designated Player shall perform the actions of that office as they deem to be within the Will of the People, using such information as is available to them.
c. A member of the Judiciary, subject to approval by the other members of the Judiciary, may appoint any citizen, not already an elected official or deputy to an elected official, to serve in their office until they return.

I find it hard to believe, donsig that you where able to find the appropriate legislation without realizing that it was indeed Section J of the CoS. In the very first post of this thread, I inform everyone how to go about initiating the absenteeism process. As you requested a Judicial Procedure on the first day this thread was open, I’m sure you read it. If you secured your copy of the legislation from the poll in the Poll Sub Forum, then you surely read the few posts under it and found where zorven asked ravensfire if he was going to change the “Z” in the title to a “J”, as “J” was the appropriate letter. To which Ravensfire said it would be changed later, as he hadn’t felt like guessing the correct letter at the time. Had you clicked on the relevant discussion thread that Ravensfire had posted in the first post of the poll, you would have found that it was in deed Section J this legislation belonged to. So that makes all 3 Sub forums that had documentation confirming that this legislation you posted in DaveShack’s thread (which I called “appropriate” in the same thread) was Section J and not Section Z.

As that poll was drafted by ravensfire before he became part of the Judiciary, it is a citizen’s poll and not part of the Judiciary’s responsibility to follow up on when the author claimed they would do it. I’m sure that as DZ was updating his CoS thread for the Three Books, he would not have been foolish enough to post two Sections of Z. At that time he probably would have asked for clarification, if ravensfire had not fixed the problem before then.

It’s becoming obvious to this Court that because there was so much information available to the citizens that indicates this legislation is Section J of the CoS, you are posting frivolous requests for Judicial Reviews.

Moderastor eyrei, that was in no way an insult to donsig. It seems donsig wants to use an official court procedure to tell us that ravensfire forgot to change the title of the CoS Section J ratification poll. What would you call this? Correct procedure?

Bill in regards to your requests for Judicial Reviews, the matter was apparently handled by another Moderator action. Last Saturday night (Sunday morning for some) some of us got together to try and work a compromise to resolve this mess. During that meeting I proved that ravensfire’s Majority Opinion was, in deed illegal. We came so close to a solving of the problem with a mutual agreement, but donsig pulled out at the end.

Therefore, DZ said he would step in again and resolve it with Moderator action. This would end all previous problems caused by the election and the Judicial Review. I was under the impression that this included your contribution also, as it pertained to those subjects.

I believe we should now ask DZ if we should continue with your requests for both Judicial Reviews.

I find it hard to believe, donsig that you where able to find the appropriate legislation without realizing that it was indeed Section J of the CoS. In the very first post of this thread, I inform everyone how to go about initiating the absenteeism process. As you requested a Judicial Procedure on the first day this thread was open, I’m sure you read it. If you secured your copy of the legislation from the poll in the Poll Sub Forum, then you surely read the few posts under it and found where zorven asked ravensfire if he was going to change the “Z” in the title to a “J”, as “J” was the appropriate letter. To which Ravensfire said it would be changed later, as he hadn’t felt like guessing the correct letter at the time. Had you clicked on the relevant discussion thread that Ravensfire had posted in the first post of the poll, you would have found that it was in deed Section J this legislation belonged to. So that makes all 3 Sub forums that had documentation confirming that this legislation you posted in DaveShack’s thread (which I called “appropriate” in the same thread) was Section J and not Section Z.

That does seem like quite a few hoops for donsig do jump through, so why don't you give hime the benefit of the doubt on this one, Cyc. Finding things in the CoS right now is a painstaking task.

Actually, since Ravensfire is the most familiar with the parsing of our ruleset(what with Zs and Js......), I am having him forward me the completed CoS when it is finished. We are waiting for one ratification poll and then it will be posted. My apologies for the inconvenience.

As an informative post to everyone, as I've been formatting the laws for DZ to post, I have, in some cases, rearranged the sections. No words have been changed, even typos in the original poll are still there. A more logical grouping was used, putting related sections next to each other. This will be especially apparent in the CoS, where all sections related to Turn Chats are now listed together.

Chief Justice, I believe that donsig is not looking for something so minor as what title should be used. Rather, his question is fairly clearly do the procedures outlined in the Absenteeism section of the Code of Standards apply to Senators.

-- Ravensfire

ravensfire, your request has been duly noted, but as the initial request was alreday accepted AND processed, there's really nothing that can be done at this time.

I would be happy to change the Official request by donsig so that it includes the appropriate Section of the CoS. I can't see running a Judicial Review on the information now posted.

Originally posted by Cyc
Bill in regards to your requests for Judicial Reviews, the matter was apparently handled by another Moderator action. Last Saturday night (Sunday morning for some) some of us got together to try and work a compromise to resolve this mess. During that meeting I proved that ravensfire’s Majority Opinion was, in deed illegal. We came so close to a solving of the problem with a mutual agreement, but donsig pulled out at the end.

Therefore, DZ said he would step in again and resolve it with Moderator action. This would end all previous problems caused by the election and the Judicial Review. I was under the impression that this included your contribution also, as it pertained to those subjects.

I believe we should now ask DZ if we should continue with your requests for both Judicial Reviews.


DZ says you may proceed with Bill's requests. :)

In my opinion, Bill's requests fall outside the specific scope of the Special Election and are therefore vaild.

The only JR I will not allow is the one pertaining to the validity of The Special Elections.

So be it. I will begin work on them now.

Originally posted by Cyc
It has been almost 17 hours since this Court has accepted donsig's request for a Judicial Review, and posted in the second post of this thread.

Note: this is just a little constructive criticism, nothing personal. ;)

Editing a previous post does not seem a very good way of accepting a Judicial Review. I would have expected, at a minimum, a new post at the bottom the thread saying the review was accepted. Many, if not most, people would have thought that you were ignoring the request because no new posts appeared, including myself. Now that this has been cleared up I'm looking forward to taking a peek in the citizens forum and see how it is progressing.

Let me be very clear about this subject again. On the first page of this thread there are specific posts at the very begining that are reserved for special functions. This we made clear when the thread was first created, and in donsig's case he was specifically told that post #2 was reserved for Judicial Reviews. In fact, while he was going through the process of his first Judicial Review this Term he made a post in this thread referencing the second post and that now that I had completed that part of the process, I should move on to the next, which I had already done. So donsig is well aware of how the Judicial Review procedure for this Term works.

Originally posted by Cyc
Let me be very clear about this subject again. On the first page of this thread there are specific posts at the very begining that are reserved for special functions.

Let me be perfectly clear as well, my request is that in addition to this procedure, which is a good one I might add, please also append a new post indicating the review status has changed. :D

For informational purposes only, not for further discussion in this thread...

A poll has started regarding possible updates to the election process for the judiciary. The poll can be found here. (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=75147)

Originally posted by DaveShack


Let me be perfectly clear.....

That was Nixon, wasn't it DS? :D j/k.

____________________________________

To Bill_in_PDX:

Judicial Reviews DGIVJR5 and DGIVJR6 have been initiated and are posted in the second post of this thread. I will put up the Public Discussion threads later today.

In order to save on Judicial bureaucracy on rule interpretation I have created a special non discussion thread for the posting of ruleset problems.
The purpose is for citizens to post any problems they encounter with our ruleset and then steps willl be taken to rectify them.
Here (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?threadid=75256)

Thank you

I appreciate the Judiciary's attention to my questions, and DZ's approval to move forward. The two issues are most definately intended to apply to future consideration, and were not directly focused on the issues now well behind us.

I am asking the judicary if they can revew on weather or not its legal to have changes to instructions in the middle of the turn chats (Eather via #turnchat or the Turn Chat instruction thread so long as the DP is notified in #turnchat first)

Thank you for your efforts

CivGeneral, I am out of town at the moment, so I can't put as much time as I'd like into your request. When I return home, I will see to it that your request is handled in the appropriate method. My apologizies for the delay, please be patient. Thanks,

CJ Cyc

During the request process for DGIVJR7, Chief Justice Cyc had conversations with CivGeneral via PM's in regards to altering the wording of the Request to suit CivGeneral. During these conversations Chief Justice Cyc assured CivGeneral that there were Laws in place that stated the process one must take to post legally binding Instructions. This convinced CivGeneral to drop the request for a Judicial Review, as he was now satisfied with the results.

Therefore, this Judicial Review is closed. I will post this result in the Judicial Log after the conclusion and posting of DGIVJR4 through DGIVJR6.

The Term 1 Judiciary has produced a Majority Opinion for DGIVJR4. There is no Minority Opinion.

It is this Court’s opinion that Article H of the Constitution states that Governors, and therefore Senators, are in deed Leaders. According to CoL Sections C.1.a, C.1.c, and C.1.d the intentions of the lawmakers were for the Senate to come to conclusions on their responsibilities (via Polls) and post instructions in the Senate thread for the President of the Senate (the Vice President) to transfer to the Turn Chat Instruction (TCI) thread. In the wording for these Laws, the word SHALL is used liberally, indicating that these actions MUST be carried out in this manner. These Laws lead the Court to believe that the intention of the lawmakers was for this action to be carried out by these Leaders, just as other Leaders must also carry out similar Turn Chat requirements. Therefore, this Court's opinion is that Section J of the CoS applies to Senators.

As a note to the above Majority Opinion, this Court would recommend that the Congress draw up a revision to these Laws that would eliminate the need for interpretation of intent and clarify in a stricter manner the guidelines for procedure on Senatorial duties.

The Term 1 Judiciary has produced a Majority Opinion for DGIVJR5. There is no Minority Opinion.

It is this Court’s opinion that Article A of the Constitution affords Free Speech to all citizens of Fanatica. CoL Section A.3.a supports that Article by stating that a citizen can post anywhere in these forums where appropriate. CoS Section B.2.L (newly ratified) specifically states that any citizen may post in the Government threads, so it supports the Article also.

All of this is seen through the eyes of a Judicial Branch, which also considers CoL Section E.2 to have considerable weight. Forum rules, enforced by Moderators, do welcome posts that dislike or disagree with other posts in their content. If a situation gets out of hand in any thread anywhere in these forums, Moderator action can be called for.

As noted in the first post of the Term 1 Judicial thread, citizens are encouraged to post with any concerns they may have that are not already addressed there. All participation is welcome. In consideration of the legislation above, this Court’s opinion is that any Citizen may in deed post in any Government thread when the content of their post is appropriate.

The Term 1 Judiciary has produced a Majority Opinion for DGIVJR5. There is no Minority Opinion.

It is this Court’s opinion that there are no Laws pertaining to this subject matter. Throughout the Constitution and Supporting Books, it is implied that all three Branches of the Government form a system of checks and balances on each other. Each Branch having its own strengths and weaknesses in certain areas. Therefore, it is this Court’s opinion that no Branch of Government is subservient to any other Branch, just as no Branch is superior to any other Branch.

In the situation that sparked this request (President Rik Meleet’s post in the Judicial thread), the President’s post can be seen as a request, not a demand.

I'll post here to confirm my approval of all three reviews.

A Citizen Complaint has been filed by President Rik Meleet. It is posted below:

I officially want to file a Citizens Complaint against Our Minister of Defense; CivGeneral.

Despite my warning in the military-thread: link (post 42) and in the presidential thread: link (post 46) he hasn't posted military instructions on time.

The scheduled TC time was: Sunday Januari 18th 23:00 RMT = 22:00 GMT = 17:00 EST (5pm). While his posting was done: Jan 18, 2004 11:03 PM (= 23:03 RMT = 22:03 GMT = 17:03 EST (5.03pm).

The TC before that he also posted too late. The TC-start time was: Thursday Januari 15th 21:00 RMT/CET = 20:00 GMT = 15:00 EST (3pm). He posted there: Jan 15, 2004 08:54 PM = 20:54 RMT = 19:54 GMT = 14:54 EST (3.54 pm).

The cut-off time for instructions are 1 hour prior to the start of the Turnchat. He has twice failed to meet that time.

As described in Col I 1, he broke our law twice.
I. Legal Instructions
1. A legal instruction is any instruction, posted in the
turn chat instruction thread at least one hour prior
to the start of the turn chat, by a citizen empowered
to do so, within the limitations of the office the
citizen is representing.


I hereby file a citizen's complaint.

Rik Meleet
President of DG4,
Also a citizen.
_______________________________________________

This CC was filed via PM. In accordance with CoS Section L.1.c and L.1.d, the Court has asked the accuser if they wish to handle their own representation or have the Court appoint council for them. Also, the Accused has been notified and asked about representation. Once the Court receives word from both parties and representation is secured, the Court will await the results of each parties investigation, to include interviews, etc., as per CoS Section L.1.f.

The Term 1 Judicial Branch is posting this public notice to inform all parties that CivGeneral has attempted to secure representation in the CC against him by hiring Peri, Hutz and Associates.

Because of a conflict of interest, this Court is denying the opportunity for Peri to represent CG. As Peri is an Associate Justice serving this Court, his responsibilities lie here, not in the interest of a client.

Originally posted by Cyc
A Citizen Complaint has been filed by President Rik Meleet. It is posted below:

I officially want to file a Citizens Complaint against Our Minister of Defense; CivGeneral.

Despite my warning in the military-thread: link (post 42) and in the presidential thread: link (post 46) he hasn't posted military instructions on time.

The scheduled TC time was: Sunday Januari 18th 23:00 RMT = 22:00 GMT = 17:00 EST (5pm). While his posting was done: Jan 18, 2004 11:03 PM (= 23:03 RMT = 22:03 GMT = 17:03 EST (5.03pm).

The TC before that he also posted too late. The TC-start time was: Thursday Januari 15th 21:00 RMT/CET = 20:00 GMT = 15:00 EST (3pm). He posted there: Jan 15, 2004 08:54 PM = 20:54 RMT = 19:54 GMT = 14:54 EST (3.54 pm).

The cut-off time for instructions are 1 hour prior to the start of the Turnchat. He has twice failed to meet that time.

As described in Col I 1, he broke our law twice.
I. Legal Instructions
1. A legal instruction is any instruction, posted in the
turn chat instruction thread at least one hour prior
to the start of the turn chat, by a citizen empowered
to do so, within the limitations of the office the
citizen is representing.


I hereby file a citizen's complaint.

Rik Meleet
President of DG4,
Also a citizen.
_______________________________________________

This CC was filed via PM. In accordance with CoS Section L.1.c and L.1.d, the Court has asked the accuser if they wish to handle their own representation or have the Court appoint council for them. Also, the Accused has been notified and asked about representation. Once the Court receives word from both parties and representation is secured, the Court will await the results of each parties investigation, to include interviews, etc., as per CoS Section L.1.f.



I would like to request a Judicial Review.
Since I cannot in good conscience adjudicate on my own request I recuse myself and ask Cyc to appoint someone in my place for the purpose of this review.

CivGeneral has asked me to represent him. However as a member of the Judiciary there is a clear conflict of interest. Neverheless there is no Article, Law or Standard which prohibits a member of the Judiciary from representing someone in a CC.

Judicial Review - Term 1 - DGIVJR4
Judicial Review - Term 1 - DGIVJR5
Judicial Review - Term 1 - DGIVJR6

I as an Associate Justice post my formal agreement to the findings of this Court.

Apologies if I am violating Judicial Review procedure but I would like to point something out with CoL D.2.a:
a. Do not have Deputies but may appoint Pro-Tem
officials if they are unable to fulfill their duties.
Pro-Tem officials have all of the rights and
responsibilities of the officials they are filling
in for but are a temporary position and must
surrender their pro-tem status upon the request of
the official.
I believe that, under this article, Peri could be considered unable to perform his duties as AJ due to conflicts with being the representative of CG. It would stand to reason that he should be allowed to recuse himself and appoint his own Pro-Tem AJ to serve until the end of this CC.

I will allow Peri to recuse himself and appoint a Pro Tem for this Judicial Review. This would fall under the same legislation as I quoted to you, Bootstoots, when you were disqualified earlier. I have no problem with this.

I do have a problem extending the voluntary absence from his elected duties to envelop to CC brought upon by Rik Meleet. This borders on infringement of the rights of the people who elected him to office. To drop ones responsibilities to the public for personal gain seems beyond my comprehension of what a Judicial Member represents. Depending on the outcome of this JR, I will reconsider, but it doesn't look good.

Originally posted by Cyc
I do have a problem extending the voluntary absence from his elected duties to envelop to CC brought upon by Rik Meleet. This borders on infringement of the rights of the people who elected him to office. To drop ones responsibilities to the public for personal gain seems beyond my comprehension of what a Judicial Member represents. Depending on the outcome of this JR, I will reconsider, but it doesn't look good.

Although I totally agree with this sentiment, I also feel that this should be clarified for future terms. The old PD used to defend people and sit on the bench at the same time so it is not impossible. However it is important that the court rule on this matter. I thank Cyc for the opportunity to appoint my on replacement but as it his Court I feel that he should select him.

Originally posted by Cyc
I do have a problem extending the voluntary absence from his elected duties to envelop to CC brought upon by Rik Meleet. This borders on infringement of the rights of the people who elected him to office. To drop ones responsibilities to the public for personal gain seems beyond my comprehension of what a Judicial Member represents. Depending on the outcome of this JR, I will reconsider, but it doesn't look good. I don't understand how Peri would receive personal gain from defending CG.

Well Peri and Hutz would naturally charge a fee. ;)

Originally posted by Bootstoots
I don't understand how Peri would receive personal gain from defending CG.

I feel that because this is one of the truly justifiably called for Judicial Reviews, the magnitude of creditability given Peri, Hutz, and Associates would entice our Associate Justice to sway one way or the other on his decisions. This will undoubtably be the defining JR this Term, therefore Peri's Law firm could only gain from participation in it.

:lol: I just read Peri's response. Yeah, that too!

EDIT: I just re-read this post and it doesn't really say what I wanted to say. Above it seems like I'm talking about the JR, and I am really, but I meant to talk about the CC, which will be directly related to the JR. Anyway, we'll go with Peri's explanation just to keep it short.

Incase you don't know, I have been asked by CG to represent him, and I've agreed upon the request to do so.

Thank you for participating, Strider. Your involvement is welcome.

Please familarize yourself with CoS Section L, as this relates to the Citizen Complaint Procedure.

Originally posted by Cyc
Thank you for participating, Strider. Your involvement is welcome.

Please familarize yourself with CoS Section L, as this relates to the Citizen Complaint Procedure.

Already have familarized myself with all the sections I need to know. (including CoS Section L)

Originally posted by Peri


I thank Cyc for the opportunity to appoint my own replacement but as it his Court I feel that he should select him.

OK, great! This will be an exciting time for the Judiciary. I thank Peri for allowing me to select the Pro Tem for his duties in the Judicial Review that he has called for. My first choice for filling this position has accepted.

This Court welcomes Bill_in_PDX to the Bench as Pro Tem for Peri. For this Judicial Review, he will be considered an Associate Justice.

While I cannot fill the exaulted shoes of Peri, I will do my best to complete my work in a very timely manner so that we can return our judiciary to full strength.

This Judicial Review Request has been accepted and is posted in the second post of this thread.

Will a discussion thread be posted soon?

A Public Discussion thread for DGIVJR8 has been posted in the Citizen's Sub Forum. Please express your feelings on the subject matter only, while abiding by the rules listed in the first post.

May I ask when the investigation of the Citizen Complaint vs CG will begin, or am I free to post my investigation?

As I stated in the second post of this thread, the current Judicial Review will complete all of its phases before we continue on with the Citizen Complaint in question. This JR is directly related to the CC. That's just the way it turned out.

As the Public Discussion thread for this JR has been open for 10.5 hours and only two people have posted in it (one of them me, the other the rquestor of the JR), Arguements Over may be called soon. There doesn't seem to be a lot of interest in it. Therefore, the Private Discussion could take place tomorrow and everything could be done by tomorrow evening. Optimistically, the Defense and the Prosecutor for the CC could begin posting their results of investigation tomorrow evening. At this point in time, that's the best guess-timate I can give you, Strider. :)

Point of Order (or something like that).

The Associate Justice Pro Tem (that'd be me), notes that good citizen Strider has assumed the role of Defense Advocate for the accused, CivGeneral, in the matter of the citizen complaint in question, where Associate Justice Peri rightly claimed a conflict of interest. If it is true that Strider is now the Defense Advocate, and Peri is no longer involved, then Peri is no longer in a conflict, and must be considered able to fill his duties by law.

Therefore, in accordance with Code of Laws, Section D, 2.a, I will surrender my Pro Tem status as soon as requested by the Court.

Thank you, Bill, but the wheels of Justice have already begun to turn in these proceedings. I don't think changing horses mid-stream is a wise thing to do here. Peri initiated the current JR and due to the situation at the time, his stepping down was appropriate. As the JR is in full swing now, I think it's best to keep it as is, and move onto the CC afterwards. Thanks for your offer, though.

Bill the reason why I chose not to judge this JR is because I initiated it and so therefore have an interest in the result. Your appointment was to ensure an impartial conclusion.

EDIT: Sorry - wrong forum!

-- Ravensfire

Just stepping in and saying I will not be filing any charges in regards to not stopping after meeting Hammy.

Much appreciated

In regards to DGIVJR8, this Court has produced a Majority Opinion. There is no Minority Opinion. This Court would now like to thank Bill_in_PDX for not only serving as Pro Tem in Associate Justice Peri's stead, but for writing the bulk of this Majority Opinion.

In reviewing this judicial question, this Court called upon three areas of our law:

Constitution, Article F
Code of Laws, Article D
Code of Standards, Section L

The question posed is: Can a member of the judiciary take an active role in the CC defense or prosecution roles while still holding their office?

This Court reviewed the arguments posted in the discussion thread, found many well thought out opinions, and feels the issue is quite straightforward.

Our Constitution, Article F demands that the Judiciary is tasked with “… upholding the Constitution and its supporting laws (if any) in a fair and impartial manner as prescribed by law.”

As part of Code of Laws, Article D, the responsibilities of the judiciary are clearly communicated, and one of those responsibilities is to appoint a Pro Tem Justice when a member is not able to carry out their duties. Duties that all stem from the Constitution, Article F.

As such, in Code of Standards, Section L, dealing with the conduct of a Citizen Complaint, the accused and accuser are encouraged to choose their advocates. The advocates investigate the complaint and report to the court on their findings. The court evaluates and votes on the merit of this becoming a trial case.

Therefore, in answer to the question, NO, this Court feels that allowing a sitting Justice to take an advocate role in the case, and then vote on the outcome, is a basic violation of the principles outlined in Article F, requiring impartiality by the Court. If the Justice wishes to take an advocate role in the case, they should appoint a Pro Tem for the entire Citizen Complaint process. Once the entire process is completed, and the final outcome known, the Justice returns to fulfill his normal duties. According to the same Article F of the Constitution of Fanatica, there shall only be one Chief Justice and two Associate Justices at any time. Therefore if a Justice appoints a Pro Tem to fulfill their duties in a Citizen Complaint process, they relinquish their position until the Citizen Complaint is complete.
__________________

I agree with this majority opinion.

Good, this means we can continue on with the CC.

Yes, Strider. I was just waiting for Justice Pro Tem Bill_in_PDX to sign off on this Judicial Review. I was then going to post, stating that the CC was officially open. Hold on for just a bit please.

Originally posted by Cyc
Yes, Strider. I was just waiting for Justice Pro Tem Bill_in_PDX to sign off on this Judicial Review. I was then going to post, stating that the CC was officially open. Hold on for just a bit please.

Hey give me a break, I had a car accident today, prolly going to wake up bruised and sore, and I want to get this over with. If I seem excited, it's just because I had to much soda today.

I also signoff on the DGIVJR8 Review, and thank the Court for indulging my commentary during our deliberations.

At this time, with no further responsibilities to this review, I immediately relenquish my Pro Tem status to Associate Justice Peri.

As DGIVJR8 has come to a close, the matter of representation by a Justice in a Citizen Complaint has been ruled upon. This matter was pertinent to Citizen Complaint - Term 1 - DGIVCC1, as a Justice of this Court was involved. This condition no longer exists, therefore this Court does not need to hold up the process of this CC any longer because of the situation or the Judicial Review.

DGIVCC1 is now officially open. The Prosecution and the Defense for the parties involved may now post the results of their investigations below.
Both parties will be allowed to make numerous posts stating their case, until the time when this Court will retire to discuss the evidence and take a vote on the further processing of the Complaint.

Report of Prosecution Investigation to the Court

Citizen Complaint – DGIVCC1
Complainant: Rik Meleet, President, Term 1 (filing as a citizen of our nation)
Accused: CivGeneral, Military Leader, Term 1

I have been appointed to serve as Prosecution Advocate by Chief Justice Cyc, via the submitter of this Complaint, Rik Meleet.

As duly appointed Prosecution Advocate, my duties are defined in our laws, Code of Standards, Section L, 1 and 2. This report fulfills the requirements of 1.e. and f., and this officer of the Court stands ready to fulfill further obligations as outlined in that document.

I take my duties seriously, and will perform them to the best of my ability in a fair manner, noting that my job is to be an advocate for the Prosecution. As such, I want all parties to understand that my own feelings in this matter are secondary, and may or may not agree with the charges. I have great respect for both Rik and CG, however, I will perform my duty as an advocate aggressively and thoroughly within the laws.

Preamble out of the way, this case is clear, and the following is the results of my initial work.

The Complaint:

President Rik Meleet has filed this complaint lawfully in accordance with Code of Standards, Section L, 1.a. The complaint was filed via PM, though Rik has not exercised his legal right to remain anonymous, and instead publicly stands behind the complaint.

The complaint accuses Military Leader, CivGeneral, with violations of the law, and failure to fulfill his duties legally.

Code of Laws, Section I, 1 – Legal Instructions. That CivGeneral did, on two occasions, fail to post legal instructions in accordance with the referenced legal code, in the turn chat instruction thread within the timeframe allowed. Yet CG did post instructions after that time limit had expired, and did so with intent to pressure the Designated Player into following what would be illegal instructions.

My Investigation:

This matter is quite straightforward, and the evidence is in the public record of our forum system. Therefore, extensive interviews are not necessary. However, I have accorded both the accuser, and the accused, the opportunity to comment on my investigation, and their statements will be included as they are provided.

The key points of law here surround the times at which instructions were posted by CivGeneral. As noted above, CivGeneral posted illegal instructions on two occasions. Those times were:

Turn Chat - Thursday January 15th, 21:00 RMT/CET = 20:00 GMT = 15:00 EST (3pm).

CivGeneral posted his instructions: Jan 15, 2004 08:54 PM = 20:54 RMT = 19:54 GMT = 14:54 EST (3.54 pm). In other words, 6 minutes before the chat began.

See this link for direct evidence: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=74969

Turn Chat - Sunday January 18th 23:00 RMT = 22:00 GMT = 17:00 EST (5pm).

CivGeneral posted his instructions: Jan 18, 2004 11:03 PM (= 23:03 RMT = 22:03 GMT = 17:03 EST (5.03pm). In other words, 3 minutes AFTER the chat began.

See this link for direct evidence: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=75470

It is further noted that CivGeneral demanded in open turn chat that our President follow these illegally posted instructions on multiple occasions, and in one instance, threatened to file complaint against the President for not giving in to his demand to break the law, as noted in this exchange:


[23:06] <@CivGeneral> The Instriuctions are posting
[23:06] <@RikMeleet> I mean no slider instructions posted.
[23:06] <@CivGeneral> Please allow this for one time
[23:06] <@RikMeleet> DP takes control of that as well as of the military.
[23:07] <@CivGeneral> Here is the latest map from the Military Department. I encoutage all citizens to partisipate in this discussion.
[23:07] <@CivGeneral> Military Map: Exploration Routes
[23:07] <@CivGeneral>

EDIT: Removed attached jpg

[23:07] <@CivGeneral> legend for the map
[23:07] <@CivGeneral> Blue Astricks (*) Indicate that this warrior is escourting the Settler and will fortify at the city location
[23:07] <@CivGeneral> Yellow Astricks (*) incicate that this warrior can go through this route so long as the Russian warrior is not there. If the Russian warrior is still there, take a detor around the Forgen Warrior.
[23:07] <@CivGeneral> Red and Green Astricks (*) and the double yellow astricks (**) indicates alternate path movements IF the warrior encounters a Ocean/Land border. The path is to be determaned by the Military Leader and the DP should ask which direction to go when the warrior hits the predetermaned spots. :).
[23:07] <@CivGeneral> NO!!!!!!
[23:07] <@CivGeneral> The DP does not controll the military
[23:07] <@CivGeneral> I am posting the instructions
[23:08] <+Bootstoots> CG, you failed to post them earlier, they are not legal under our current ruleset
[23:08] <+Stuck_as_a_Mac> the DP does if instructions are not posted within a timely manner
[23:08] <@CivGeneral> NO!
[23:08] <@CivGeneral> Thats it
[23:08] <@CivGeneral> I am posting it NOW!!!!
[23:08] <@CivGeneral> And I am going to PI RiK!!!!


Please see the following link for the entire chat transcript, which contains numerous other requests to stop. In fairness to CivGeneral, he later withdrew any such threats of a PI (now Citizen Complaint). However the point of the exchange is to show that demands were made of the President, from an executive branch member, which would require violations of the law.

Link: http://www.civfanatics.net/uploads6/%23turnchat_180104.txt

Further Statement of the Complainant

None at this time.

Further Statement of the Accused (to the Prosecution)

No response to PM request at this time.

Conclusions

I have concluded that additional, and perhaps more on point charges could be applied via Code of Standards, Section K.2, Absenteeism, in that the Military Leader failed to post legal instructions for two consecutive turn chats. However, it is my opinion that such a charge would first require the Court to confirm that the wording of that article is referring to “legal” instructions, as opposed to any instructions.

Not withstanding the evidence to be presented by the advocate of the Accused, and the additional issue noted above, I am convinced that a violation, in fact violations, of the law did occur, and that the evidence presented here is sufficient for the Court to determine that this matter should be accepted for trial in accordance with Code of Standards, Section L, 1.G.

Respectfully submitted,

Bill_in_PDX
Prosecutor, DGIVCC1

Ok, the defense:

Code of Laws
2.B.5 Convey these policies, plans and agendas to the President for play in the game.

This rule does not state how or when the leader has to convey the "policies, plans, and agenda's to the president for play in the game." As CG did convey his "policies, plans, and agenda's" to the president for play in the game, he did not break this law.

Code of Standards
D. Turn Chat Instruction Thread
1. All instructions to be played out in the turn chat
must be entered in the turn chat instruction thread.
a. Any instructions that are not posted to the turn
chat instruction thread before the start of the turn
chat are not considered official.

This standard simply states that if an instruction is to be played out in the turnchat and be legal, it has to be entered in the turn chat instruction thread, which CG did. Then it goes on to state that if the instruction is to be considered official it has to be posted before the start of the turn chat, which may I point out, CG failed to do, but not in any place in this law does it say that he HAS to post the instruction to begin with. So the only thing this law proves is that CG's instructions were illegal/unofficial, or in technical terms, void.

Code of Laws
I. Legal Instructions
1. A legal instruction is any instruction, posted in the
turn chat instruction thread at least one hour prior
to the start of the turn chat, by a citizen empowered
to do so, within the limitations of the office the
citizen is representing.

Now this law states that a "legal instruction is an instruction posted in the turn chat instruction thread at least one hour prior to the start of the turnchat, by the citizen empowered to do so." Now, strange thing is is that the standard posted above says that a legal instruction is any instruction posted before the start of the turn chat, while this one says that a legal instruction is any instruction posted one hour before the turn chat. So the Code of Laws goes against the Code of Standards, and one of these two needs to be revised. Now that I've pointed that out, this law is about the same as the standard above. It just says what a legal/official instruction is, and does not state that the leader HAS to post the instruction. So simply enough, section I.1 of the Code of Laws and section D.1.A of the Code of Standards merely defines what a legal instruction is, and as such can only be applied to instructions and not the individual, IF (yes, if) the instructions were posted late, then they were illegal and the president would be free to disregard them.

Now with this information put forward I must also ask, "What is an instruction?" It is mentioned throughout the constitution several times, but it is never from my knowledge defined within the constitution. Now this may very well be the "policies, plans, and agenda's" mentioned in the Code of Laws, section 2.B.5. (Also posted above), or it could be instructions on how to make a snow cone. Sense the word instruction is not linking to any certain thing that may discribe it's meaning, section I of the Code of Standards and section D of the Code of laws, is invalid, or void.

So, technically CivGenerals actions were legal in terms of our const. These three laws are the only one's that has anything to do with the turn chat instruction thread, and all of them make CivGeneral's actions perfectly legal.

Anyway, may I point in forum time CG's plans were posted at 4:03 (Central United States). The turnchat my time was suppose to start at 4:00. So if we were following the forum time then CG would have been 3 minutes late posting his plans. Now, the forum time for me is off 4 minutes. So in reality when CG posted his instructions, it was exactly 3:59 pm. 1 minute before the "official" start of the turnchat.

So, according to all of the clocks in my house, the turnchat was started at 3:57 pm. 3 minutes before the scheduled start of the turnchat. So according to my logs. I could file a citizen complaint against Rik for starting the turnchat before the scheduled time.

Of course, my clocks may be off, as well as Riks and CG's. As far as we know, according to CG's home clock he was posting his departments plans 5 minutes before the "official" start of the turnchat, while according to Riks it is 3 minutes after the "official" start of the turnchat. So this leaves us with two options

1. Rik Meelet started the turnchat before the scheduled time.
2. CivGeneral posted his instructions after the mentioned time.

Also, as the margin of error is so small in this case, and as the constitution does not state exactly whose clock we are to follow, a fair decision can not reasonably be made.

To prove my point though, I'll paste the following:

[15:49] *** RikMeleet (~DsPro2@RikMeleet.Users.irc-chat.net) [joined] #turnchat.
[15:49] *** ChanServ [ops] RikMeleet
[15:49] *** CT_Away [voices] RikMeleet
[15:49] <@RikMeleet> ° I got the Powwa stick! °
[15:49] <@RikMeleet> ° Whoa! a nifty lookin' + thingie!! °
[15:49] * Chieftess is back after 43m: auto-away after 30m idle
[15:50] <+cyc1> welcome Mr. President
[15:50] <@RikMeleet> Thank you
[15:51] <+Bill_in_PDX> Hello Mr. President. Good luck and good hunting today
[15:52] <@RikMeleet> Thank you
[15:52] <+Bootstoots> hi Mr. President :)
[15:52] <@RikMeleet> Thank you
[15:52] <+Paalikles> hy rik mel eet
[15:52] <@RikMeleet> Thank you
[15:53] <@RikMeleet> Just testing the log; it works.
[15:53] <Chieftess> [16:51:02] <+Paalikles> american rugby?
[15:53] <Chieftess> haha! That's a good way to put it.
[15:53] <+Paalikles> yep - since it is not football :p
[15:53] <Chieftess> Similar except for the point system, and they don't run around as much. :p
[15:54] <@RikMeleet> Are you all ready ?
[15:54] <+Paalikles> yea - the rugby players run like crazy
[15:54] <+Paalikles> yea boiie
[15:54] * Chieftess doesn't really care who wins... The Colts used to be our team, though.
[15:54] *** Furiey (~jirc@2aac9c3e.f8171.cable.ntl.com) [joined] #turnchat.
[15:54] *** Chieftess [voices] Furiey
[15:55] <@RikMeleet> Welcome Back
[15:55] <+Furiey> hi everyone
[15:55] <+Paalikles> hei
[15:56] <@RikMeleet> It seems my pleas for instructions got a deaf ear to the Minister of Defense. No instrictions.
[15:56] <+cyc1> hey furiey
[15:56] <@RikMeleet> That'll be a citizens complaunt (AKA PI)
[15:56] * Chieftess screams. :p
[15:56] <+Paalikles> :eek:
[15:56] <@RikMeleet> 23:00
[15:57] <@RikMeleet> [ Fanatican News Flash - 2850 BC ] Welcome to the turnchat all
[15:57] <@RikMeleet> [ Fanatican News Flash - 2850 BC ] The TC has started
[15:57] <@RikMeleet> Starting Civ 3

15:57 is exactly 3:57 my time, 3 minutes before the start of the chat, like I said (note the central timezone). This in turn allows me, by my right as a citizen, to launch a citizen complaint against Rik Meleet for changing the time of a turnchat, which is against our const.

Code of Standards Section C
C. Once set, the schedule may not be changed expect for:
1. Correct a minor typing error. This change must be
done within 12 hours of the initial post for that
turn chat.
2. Extenuating circumstances within the game requiring
additional discussion time. This change must be
done within 24 hours of the end of the turn chat
producing the circumstance, and may only delay
the turn chat.
3. Extenuating circumstances outside of the requiring
additional discussion time. This change shall only
be done by the Judiciary acting unanimously.
d. All changes shall be posted in the Schedule thread,
the Presidential thread and as a new thread in the
Citizen's sub-forum.

Now, as Rik Meleet failed to correct a "minor typing error" within 12 hours of the initial post for that turnchat, and also as both C.C.2 and C.C.3 was not in action, Rik Meleet broke the laws of our const.

Of course, this has all be posted to further prove my point. I checked Rik's logs, and according to his logs he started the chat on time, and did not break any laws. Are we to expect CG to know the exact time that Rik Meleet's clock reads? No, we can not.

So, like I pointed out above, the margin of error within this case is so small, that it would be unfair to both parties if any decision is made.

I must also stress and make this clearer. As the Code of Laws Section I.1 and The Code of Standards Section D.1 only applies to the instruction and not the individually within itself, that in return as CivGeneral is not an instruction (that I know of anyway), both of the laws be dismissed as not being an issue within this case. Also, as the prosecution by Rik Meelet posted one of these two (forget which one) as the law in question, this case has no merit.

Also, I am forced to ask the defendent CivGeneral and question to clear matters up alittle bit more. Are you or are you not an instruction?

Edit: 9,164 characters long... uh.. this is gonna be an all nighter. (9225 now.)

Edit2: 9,247 now. (ok, I'll stop it now)

Originally posted by Strider
Also, I am forced to ask the defendent CivGeneral and question to clear matters up alittle bit more. Are you or are you not an instruction?

In Reply to Strider's question, I am not an instruction.

Prosecution Response 1
DGIVCC1

The Prosecution congratulates the Defense Advocate on a very professional and quality response. CivGeneral is fortunate to have Strider as his defense council.

My response to the points Strider has made is outlined below.

1) To the other laws mentioned, which the accused may, or may not have, legally followed. CivGeneral is not accused of violating CoL 2.B.5, therefore he should be relieved to know that I find no evidence of violating that law, and concur that he did not.

However, that fact has nothing to do with the issue at hand, which is the violation of CoL, Section I.

2) Strider claims that CivGeneral is not guilty of violation Code of Standards, Section D, 1.a. I once again note that he is not charged with violating that code.

However, that code is subservient to the Code of Laws violation he is in fact charged with. The Code of Laws defines clearly what a legal instruction is. The Code of Standards cannot create exceptions outside of that law, as Standards are not on the same legal level as a Law.

3) Strider points out the timer on the turn chat may have indicated a chat started early, and as such, CivGeneral may have actually posted his instructions 1 min before chat began.

The Prosecution agrees, that had this been a matter of 3 mins late, then the data on when chat started is on point. However, the question presented by Strider is actually irrelevant in that even if the Prosecution agrees the chat was a few minutes early, and we are not agreeing with that, then instructions were still very late, and the issue of 59 mins late versus 63 mins late is not a key matter. Late is late, and I note that with this argument, the defense has conceded that CG was late posting orders.

4) Strider references the laws surrounding scheduling of Turn Chats.

The Prosecution has no evidence that the Turn Chat was started earlier than posted, as the chat system itself is separate from the Civfanatics time clock, and the times are so close that the issue is moot.

In either event, that issue is also not a topic of this investigation, and in any case, would have no bearing on CivGeneral’s guilt.

In summary, the defense presents several facts into evidence, however, none of the issues brought up directly refute the evidence of guilt against CivGeneral.

The Prosecution remains certain that the evidence showing CivGeneral’s violated CoL, Section I, is as of yet, unchallenged, and the Court should vote for this matter to be bound over for trial.

Bill, as I pointed out above, CoL Section I, deals with only the legality of instructions, and as such does not apply to the individual. A such, CivGeneral's instructions were illegal, but the act in itself was not. It does not say that the act of posting instructions late are illegal, but that the act of posting the instructions late make the instructions illegal.

Also, I request a Judicial Review over what an instruction is.

As far as I can tell, nothing within our const. define's an instruction, and what makes up one.

Prosecution Response 2
DGIVCC1

The Prosecution notes that the arguements of the Defense, but feels our basic case is still not refuted.

The Prosecution makes two key points:

1) That CivGeneral did in fact violate the law on two occassions, resulting in illegal instructions being posted. Further, that CivGeneral might also be in violation of the the Absenteeism laws of our nation.

2) That CivGeneral did in chat make demands of the President, backed by threats to launch a complaint, if the President did not agree to violate the law by following illegal orders.

As of this point, neither of those issues are contested by the defense. In fact, the defense has confirmed number 1 through their own arguements.

Now it appears that the Defense is turning to a "what is the meaning of the word "is"" type of argument. The question of what an instruction is, or isn't is also irrelevant to the idea of were instructions posted in time. It is the timeline that matters, not the definition of an instruction. Further, it is the Military Leader's attempted coersion that makes this issue even more applicable.

The Prosecution has clearly shown the violations of existing law that have occured. It is not my job to assess what the magnitude of those violations are in terms of appropriate action to take following a trial.

It is my job to clearly show the violations of law, and the evidence supporting those violations, such that the Court can decide if trial is necessary. The Prosecution has clearly demonstrated our case, and welcomes the defense response to the 2 issues above.

:hammer: These Citizen Complaint proceedings will continue for 7 more hours, in which time we will hear one more rebuttal/response from the Defense. At the end of that time, this phase of the Complaint will have been open for 24 hours. This will also be the appropriate time for both parties to make their Final Statement. After the Defense and the Prosecution have made their Final Statement, the Presentation phase will close. This Court will then discuss the case in an open format, here in the Term 1 Judicial thread. Discussion by the Justices, of the evidence presented, will culminate in an Acceptance Vote. The results of this vote will determine if this Complaint is accepted by this Court and processed further. At that time, this case will be Accepted, Partially Accepted, or Dismissed.

Bill, I repeat this AGAIN, the evidence you showed was a link to the Code of Laws Section I.1 over legal Instructions:


A legal instruction is any instruction, posted in the
turn chat instruction thread at least one hour prior
to the start of the turn chat, by a citizen empowered
to do so, within the limitations of the office the
citizen is representing.

As I pointed out above, this law clearly applies ONLY to the legality of instrustrictions and does not apply to the individual. As such Civgeneral can not be prosecuted under this law (unless he is an instruction).

Sense, the instructions were posted late, the ONLY thing that applies under this law is that the instructions are illegal, and Rik Meelet has the choice to ignore the instructions.

So to sum it up, this law does not apply to the individual (in this Case Civgeneral), and as such CivGeneral can not be prosecuted under this law.

In the way of Absenteeism, the Code of Standards Section K.2. over Absenteeism:


Should an Executive or Legislative leader fail to post
instructions for 2 consecutive game play sessions,
without posting in the official absence thread, any
citizen may request that the office be declared
abandoned by creating a thread in the Citizen forum

Now, may I point out that this law only stats that if they fail to post the instructions at all, it does not say:


Should an Executive or Legislative leader fail to post
legal instructions for 2 consecutive game play sessions,
without posting in the official absence thread, any
citizen may request that the office be declared
abandoned by creating a thread in the Citizen forum

As such, CivGeneral did post instructions though they were illegal, but this law only says instructions in general, which promptly includes both illegal and legal instructions.

Also, this law does not apply in this case as no citizen posted a thread in the Citizen forum requesting the office be declared abandoned.

:hammer: Thank you Gentlemen. This ends the Presentation of results for both parties. There is still 4 hours left in the Presentation Phase (24 hrs), but if you choose to, you may forego the time limitation and post your Final Statement earlier. You are not required to do this, you may wait the 4 hours before posting your Final Statement, the choice is yours. If you have no Final Statement or do not wish to make one, you can merely post ~ "Defense Rests" or "Prosecution Rests".

Keep in mind this phase is only for Presentation of Results in your Investigation. If this Complaint is accepted and then goes to Trial, further discussion (including public opinion) will then take place in the Citizen's Sub Forum.
:hammer:

Final Statement – Prosecution
DGIVCC1

I appreciate the Court’s indulgence in these posts, and state again my respect for the defense provided by Strider on behalf of CivGeneral. It has been an honor to stare across the table at you.

That said, the Prosecution case is clear, and this is a matter that should be immediately voted over for trial.

To summarize, the Prosecution has provided unchallenged evidence that CivGeneral did in fact violate the law on two occasions, and did in fact attempt to coerce the Designated Player into acting on illegal instructions during open turn chat, including threatening to file a complaint against the President if he was unwilling to break the law. We are very fortunate that we have a President who stood up to such pressures for the good of all citizens.

Honored members of our Judiciary, these facts are NOT challenged by the defense, nor should they fall short of the burden to convince you of their validity.

Please note that while I have attempted to focus this investigation purely on the evidence of guilt or innocence in regards to the defendant, CivGeneral, his defense has chosen to attempt to change the topic so to speak by questioning the law itself, bringing in other laws not directly related to the issue, and then questioning the meaning of the term instruction.

None of those arguments serve to disprove the clear and convincing evidence presented by the Prosecution. Nor do I consider it the job of the investigator to look to obscure the laws in order to shift the blame to some other person or document. No, the job of the investigator is to evaluate the evidence available compared to the law allegedly being violated. I have done so here.

However, should the Court be inclined to consider the tangential nature of the defense position, please remember that Code of Laws, Section B.2.5 REQUIRES the members of the executive branch to clearly convey policies, plans, and agendas to the President in time for game play. There is no question that CivGeneral, as Military Leader, is a member of the executive branch, and that he had a duty to file his turn chat instructions in accordance with the timeline listed in Code of Laws, Section I. He did not, and thus is charged with violating that law.

Further, Code of Laws, Section I, clearly shows what one must do to meet the their legal requirement for post instructions, as required by multiple laws, including the one listed above, and others referenced by the defense themselves. CivGeneral is charged with violating CoL Section I because he has clearly done so, however his negligence has impacted several other laws as well, and the Prosecution feels that bringing other laws on to the table does not diminish the violation at all. In fact, it highlights the magnitude of the total disregard for our laws this case demonstrates.

I am not evaluating the seriousness of these violations, simply showing that violations did occur, and I take no pleasure in presenting the evidence. However, I feel that the prosecution has met its burden of proof sufficient for the Court to find a trial justified in this matter.

In closing, the Prosecution case, again largely unchallenged, provides multiple facts for your consideration. Those facts clearly illustrate the sad reality that CivGeneral violated the law. The elected leaders of our nation carry a high burden of trust. Trust that they will act according to the will of the people, and perhaps more importantly, trust that they will carry out their duties within the law. The simple truth is that the trust was broken.

CivGeneral, is a long time honored citizen of our nation, and deservedly honored for his efforts in the past. I myself have great respect for CivGeneral. Unfortunately, that past and reputation should not give him a free pass on breaking the law. For the Court, or the people, to do so would diminish our laws to meaningless. The Court must act in this matter, and it should go to trial.


Respectfully submitted,

Bill_in_PDX
Prosecutor

My intent was to find any law that concerns this matter, and to eliminate all possibilities of it proving CivGeneral to be guilty. My intent was not to question or go against the prosecution, but to run a completely differant investigation and not question the others.

I believe that I managed to bring up every law pretaining to this issue, including Section I.1 of the Code of Laws, which was the prosecutions grounds for, well, the prosecution.

Though I think my final issue was not clearly stated, so I must press the matter further.

Section I.1. of the Code of Laws, over Legal Instructions, defines what characterize's a legal and illegal instruction. This is all the law does, and as such only applies and only can be applied to instructions. The only mention of any individual is the "by a citizen empowered to do so," which would make any instruction posted by a non-empowered leader, illegal.

The only thing that can be proven, by the effect of this law, is that CivGenerals instructions were illegal, and at the worst, Rik Meelet could ignore the instructions and do what he wants to, in the military department.

Now, as I've stated many times, this law applies on to instructions, and not the individual, any individual can not be trialed by this law, as it does not apply to them.

I am not questioning laws, but merely stating the obvious. This law was designed to define what an illegal/legal instruction is, and what makes up one. It does not mention that failing to post legal instructions by a citizen empowered to do so, may be cause for a Citizen Complaint. In sense it does not say that it is wrong at all to post an illegal instruction.

Also, I must point out once again, that nothing define's an instruction within our const., and that this needs to obvious fixed, and I would also like to point out that Section I.1. of the Code of Laws states something differant and opposing to the Code of Standards Section D.1.A., over the same issue, and that one of these two needs to be revised.

Continuing on, Section B.2.5. does not state that an executive offical has a time limit on posting instructions, just that he has to "convey them for play in the game," also as I pointed out in my very first post, CG clearly conveyed his plans to Rik Meelet for play in the game. As this laws similarite with Section I.1. is only that they are within the same book, there is no link between them.

Yes, CG is required to convey his policies, plans, and agenda's to the president for play in the game, but it does not say how long he may take to make plans, policies, and agenda's, he did nothing wrong in posting them late.

Strider
Defense

:hammer: We have ended the Presentation phase an hour early due to Final Statements being made by both parties. Discussion about the disposal of the Complaint by the Judiciary will now begin. Each member of this Court will then vote on whether to Accept, Partially Accept, or Dismiss the Complaint.
:hammer:

It appears that the law that the defendant was accused of violating, I.1, does not state that a leader must post his instructions, but it instead defines what a legal instruction is. CivGeneral's late instructions were not valid, but it would be impossible for him to violate a CoL section that merely defines what a legal instruction is. CoL B.1.c.5 is another matter; that article can be interpreted both ways, that a leader must convey an instruction to the president in a legal and binding manner, or that a leader must only convey these instructions to the president period, whether it is posted on time or not. The final rule that was brought up is CoS D.1.a, which is irrelevant as CoL I.1 contradicts it.

May I ask that the Judiciary meet in an open chat room to discuss this. There are a large number of points that need clarifying.

I'm trying to find you, which room did you go to? :cool: <--- blind man...

Semi-Official IRC-Chat notice: If you do go into the chatroom, don't use the hostzero server. They're working on it right now, and that means frequent splits.

I've set up a room (not registered) called: #judiciary

EDIT: Hmm, lemme see if this works:

irc://irc.irc-chat.net:6667/judiciary



Cyc, get off of hostzero! :) That one's under construction. Type /server rollergirl.*.irc-chat.net 6667.

After some brief clarification of procedure, we now continue with the Judiciary Discussion concerning this Citizen Complaint.

First off, I would like to thank Bill and Strider for their courteous, timely and professional manner in dealing with this Citizen Complaint. It is greatly appreciated.

In regards to our first Citizen Complaint, I have to look at the over-all picture keeping in mind that procedure is paramount. As this is our first “CC”, I must remain true to the procedures laid out in the CoS Section L. I’m also looking at the fact that the Accuser does not use English as his first Language. This could make some of our well meaning, but often repetitive or redundant rules difficult to fathom. I myself found it a bit hard to keep up with all the changes in Lettering and Numbering in our Ruleset. I also keep in mind that the Articles, Laws, and Standards were compiled into the Three Books thread on the main page less than two weeks ago. Our last Standard made it to the CoS a couple of days ago. So, let’s begin with the actual Complaint ~

I officially want to file a Citizens Complaint against Our Minister of Defense; CivGeneral.

Despite my warning in the military-thread: link (post 42) and in the presidential thread: link (post 46) he hasn't posted military instructions on time.

The cut-off time for instructions are 1 hour prior to the start of the Turnchat. He has twice failed to meet that time.

As described in Col I 1, he broke our law twice.
I. Legal Instructions
1. A legal instruction is any instruction, posted in the
turn chat instruction thread at least one hour prior
to the start of the turn chat, by a citizen empowered
to do so, within the limitations of the office the
citizen is representing.

I hereby file a citizen's complaint.

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

President Rik Meleet is, in accordance with Article A of the Constitution, seeking to redress a grievance. His grievance is that, as stated in the second paragraph of the Complaint, CivGeneral hasn’t posted Military Instructions on time, even after the two warnings that the President gave to his Cabinet Member and Military Leader CivGeneral. That is the President’s grievance. He then goes on to clarify the act (or lack of action) committed by CivGeneral in the third paragraph. As a reference to solidify his claim that CivGeneral’s lack of action was not legal, he then quotes CoL Section I.1.

I see the grievance as CivGeneral not keeping up with his responsibilities as Military leader on two different occasions, with the stated Law justifying this alleged neglect of responsibilities. I do not see the grievance as being that CivGeneral broke the stated Laws twice. The stated law is simply a reference point to which the President is using to illustrate the neglect.

This brings to mind that our CoS Section L, which dictates procedure for a Citizen Complaint, does not require a Law to be stated as broken in the Complaint. It says the Complaint should simply detail the circumstances for the
accusation, and include some evidence.

Therefore, because of these last two points, I cannot now put a lot of weight into disqualifying any part of this Complaint on the grounds that CoL Section I.1. is just a definition and wasn’t actually a Law broken by CivGeneral. I can see a myriad of other Articles, Laws, and Standards that were broken, but I will not address them in this post.

As Chief Justice, I look upon this Complaint as a justifiable grievance, one that should be accepted by this Court for further processing.

I agree to accept this Complaint.

Although we have a Majority Opinion for accepting this Complaint for further processing, I am still waiting for Bootstoots' Vote to officially end this phase of the Complaint procedure.

Thank you for your vote Peri, although this was the discussion phase for the vote. I'm glad to get your vote, but I would liked to have read your reasons why you voted that way. ;)

Anyway, as soon as Associate Justice Bootstoots votes on this we can move onto the Remedy phase. It's in the wind that a Remedy is ripe for plucking, so this may not see a trial phase.

Looking through our ruleset, I find that there is enough evidence to proceed with this case. CoL I.1 has not and cannot be violated, but there is evidence that other laws may have been violated, and as such I vote that this case be Accepted.

:hammer: This Complaint now has a unanimous vote of Acceptance for Trial. According to CoS Section L.G this Complaint is desposed as follows:

2. Accepted
a. Complaint accepted for Trial.

From here this Court will determine if a Remedy can be brought forth that will satisfy both parties, thus eliminating the need for a Trial. Procedure for this is as follows:


H. If the complaint is Accepted, the Court should determine if there is a
specific action that can significantly remedy the harm caused.
1. The Prosecutor, the Defense and the Accused meet to determine a
proposed remedy.
a. If they unable to determine a remedy, the complaint is Accepted.
2. The court then votes on the proposed rememdy. If a majority of the Court
agrees with proposal, the remedy is accepted.
a. If not accepted, remedy discussions should continue, with guidance
from Court.
3. The Chief Justice shall post all instructions needed to carry out the
remedy for the next turn chat.
4. Failure by the Accused to carry out remedy, or make every effort to see
that the remedy is carried out, is treated as Guilty plea.
5. The Complaint treated as Dismissed if remedy is carried out.
I. If the complaint is Dismissed for any reason, including the Accused carrying
out the rememdy, the Chief Justice shall post the disposition and reasoning
in the Judicial Thread and the Judicial Log. Any remedy should be included
in this post.

What this means is, that now the Complaint has been accepted for Trial, the Prosecution, the Defense, and the Accused have an opportunity to discuss and devleop an agreement between the two parties, whereby the Accused will carry out action(s) that satisfy said parties in resolving the Complaint. If they are unable to determine a Remedy, the Complaint goes to Trial. If a Remedy is determined, this Court votes to approve the proposed Remedy. If the Remedy does not pass this vote, it is returned to the afore-mentioned parties for more refinement. If it passes the vote, the Remedy is accepted and the Chief Justice shall post all instructions needed to carry out the remedy for the next turn chat.

If the Remedy is carried out, the Complaint is dismissed. If the Remedy is not carried out, it is seen as a guilty plea.

So now if the Prosecutor, the Defense, and the Accused will PM me with the first available time they can meet in chat (the sooner the better!) we can get this under way. Hopefully, a Remedy can be found and a Trial avoided. I await your PMs.

:hammer:

Notice of Preliminary Remedy Agreement
DGIVCC1

I am please to report to the Court that defendant CivGeneral, and the Prosecution, have entered into a remedy agreement this afternoon. A remedy agreement is allowed following the Court’s acceptance of the case for trial in accordance with Code of Standards, Section L.

This Remedy Agreement is submitted for public confirmation by CivGeneral, and for final approval by the Court.

REMEDY – DGIVCC1

Wherein for exchange of the Prosecution agreeing to forgo trial, the defendant, CivGeneral agrees to the following:

1) That CivGeneral posted instructions not within the required time frame of 60 minutes or greater before the beginning of turn chat. He did so on two occasions, despite warnings from the President.

2) That he will publicly pledge to submit his instructions on time in the future.

END OF REMEDY

President Rik Meleet and Prosecution are not looking to sully the good name of CivGeneral, and feel that this remedy meets both the needs of the accuser (who wishes only to have his request for instructions on time to be followed), and that of the people, who are best served having their leaders focusing on the state of our naton.

By law, CivGeneral must adhere to both terms of the agreement going forward, or legal consequences outlined in Code of Laws, Section L, immediately take effect.

Respectfully submitted,

Bill_in_PDX
Prosecutor

Originally posted by Bill_in_PDX
Notice of Preliminary Remedy Agreement
DGIVCC1

I am please to report to the Court that defendant CivGeneral, and the Prosecution, have entered into a remedy agreement this afternoon. A remedy agreement is allowed following the Court’s acceptance of the case for trial in accordance with Code of Standards, Section L.

This Remedy Agreement is submitted for public confirmation by CivGeneral, and for final approval by the Court.

REMEDY – DGIVCC1

Wherein for exchange of the Prosecution agreeing to forgo trial, the defendant, CivGeneral agrees to the following:

1) That CivGeneral posted instructions not within the required time frame of 60 minutes or greater before the beginning of turn chat. He did so on two occasions, despite warnings from the President.

2) That he will publicly pledge to submit his instructions on time in the future.


I accept the conditions of the Remedy.

Thank you, Gentlemen. This proposed Remedy is now up for Vote of Approval by this Court.

I vote to approve this Remedy.

I vote my approval of this remedy.

I also approve this remedy.

The Prosecution then considers it's work done in this matter. I thank Rik Meleet and CivGeneral for their excellent cooperation, and for setting a great example of how to work through these issues professionally.

Thank you Strider for an excellent defense, and to the Court for handling this matter swiftly.

I am off to Las Vegas tomorrow morning. woot! Oh darn, it is for work...

:hammer: This Court has approved the Remedy and awaits CivGeneral's post. If the Remedy described above is carried out, this Complaint is dismissed.
:hammer:

I will post all of my instructions ontime before the dead line. I will make sure that all of my instructions will be on the turn chat instruction thread.

:hammer: The approved Remedy has been carried out by CivGeneral, Therefore, Citizen Complaint DGIVCC1 is dismissed.

A summary will follow and be recorded in the Judicial Log.

This Court is adjourned.

:hammer:

Finaly I can get out of these Jail clothes :p

On January 19, 2004, President Rik Meleet filed a Citizen Complaint with Chief Justice Cyc via a Private Message (PM). His complaint was against Military Leader CivGeneral and stated that CivGeneral had twice not posted the Turn Chat Military Instructions before the time limitations for those Turn Chats ran out. Rik Meleet quoted CoL Section I.1 as verification of the illegality of CivGeneral’s actions. During conversations via PM, Rik Meleet expressed to Cyc that he did not need to remain anonymous during the proceedings, that he filed via PM to adhere to standards. Chief Justice Cyc then filed the Citizen Complaint (CC) in the Judicial thread officially. Three hours later, a PM was received from Associate Justice Peri stating the Peri & Hutz had been named as Defense Council for CivGeneral in the CC. CJ Cyc denied Peri the opportunity to serve as CivGeneral’s representative, saying he was a member of this Court and Peri’s responsibilities were to this Court, not to an outside interest. Peri filed a Judicial Review on this and recused himself from the Bench, allowing Cyc to name the Pro Tem replacement. Chief Justice Cyc named the honorable Bill_in_PDX as Peri’s replacement, and proceeded with the Judicial Review (JR). On January 21, 2004, the JR concluded with the Decision that a sitting Justice may not represent a client in a CC unless they relinquished the seat on the Bench to a Pro Tem Justice for the duration of the CC.

Meanwhile, CivGeneral named Strider as his representative, releasing Peri, who returned to the Bench at the conclusion of the JR. Bill_in_PDX then went on to represent Rik Meleet in the CC. The CC was officially started later that day (the 21st) and the Presentation Phase, which was to last 24 hours, ended an hour early as both parties had made their Final Statement by then. The Judiciary discussing the merits of the Complaint and voting affirmatively to Accept the Complaint for further processing then followed. This brought the Complaint to the Remedy Phase. The Prosecution did then offer the Defense an alternative to Trial in the form of a Remedy. The Remedy is posted below:

REMEDY – DGIVCC1

Wherein for exchange of the Prosecution agreeing to forgo trial, the defendant, CivGeneral agrees to the following:

1) That CivGeneral posted instructions not within the required time frame of 60 minutes or greater before the beginning of turn chat. He did so on two occasions, despite warnings from the President.

2) That he will publicly pledge to submit his instructions on time in the future.

END OF REMEDY

The Defense accepted this Remedy and afterwards the Judiciary voted to Accept this Remedy as appropriate for the Complaint. CivGeneral later posted the following statement:

I will post all of my instructions on time before the dead line. I will make sure that all of my instructions will be on the turn chat instruction thread.

As this Remedy was carried out, this Citizen Complaint DGIVCC1 has been officially dismissed, as of January 23, 2004.

Originally posted by CivGeneral
Finaly I can get out of these Jail clothes :p

Just make sure you put on your suit and tie and show up for work in the morning. ;)

I would like to request a judicial review on whether the FA department has the authority to give the instruction that the turn chat should be stopped if we make a contact, when no poll has been posted on the matter.

Originally posted by eyrei
I would like to request a judicial review on whether the FA department has the authority to give the instruction that the turn chat should be stopped if we make a contact, when no poll has been posted on the matter. I'd like this to not be limited to the FA, but to include all branches.

FYI, I have posted a poll on this, not to avoid the JR, but as it was brought up, it sounded like a good idea.

A ruling on this matter would be much appreciated - as it will give people more knowledge of what they are supposed to do in office, which in light of recent events is important afaik

I request a Judicial Review on the recent Special Session conducted by the President. I wish the Judiciary to determine if the correct process was followed. The specific law involved in CoS Section C.2.

I do not want to make this a CC - this is a new ruleset with new processes. I would like a determination if the process was followed correctly, and if not, where the discrepencies were.

-- Ravensfire

Originally posted by eyrei
I would like to request a judicial review on whether the FA department has the authority to give the instruction that the turn chat should be stopped if we make a contact, when no poll has been posted on the matter.

This request is presented in the same manner as the one by Strider days ago. Although it is a very good question, the request does not fulfill the requirements of an official request. This problem first surfaced in DGIVJR1. A Judicial Review needs to be based on one of two things ~ 1. Review of an existing Law. 2. Review of a proposed Law.

No Law has been stated in either Request. Therefore, I can see combining the two Requests into one, but only if the Request is submited properly.

:hammer: Officially my 5000th post!:hammer:

I'm glad you saw my post to eyrei and Strider, ravensfire. Thank you for correcting your request, and not making me add you to the list. :goodjob:

Originally posted by Cyc


This request is presented in the same manner as the one by Strider days ago. Although it is a very good question, the request does not fulfill the requirements of an official request. This problem first surfaced in DGIVJR1. A Judicial Review needs to be based on one of two things ~ 1. Review of an existing Law. 2. Review of a proposed Law.

No Law has been stated in either Request. Therefore, I can see combining the two Requests into one, but only if the Request is submited properly.

:hammer: Officially my 5000th post!:hammer: Several of the requests for Judicial Reviews this term did not cite any law, and they were reviewed anyway. Eyrei's request for a JR can be considered to be review of existing laws, though that law was not stated in his post.

Originally posted by Bootstoots
Several of the requests for Judicial Reviews this term did not cite any law, and they were reviewed anyway. Eyrei's request for a JR can be considered to be review of existing laws, though that law was not stated in his post.


You're right about this Court being lenient in the past, AJ Bootstoots. It was done in DGIVJR3 for ravensfire, DGIVJR7 for CivGeneral, and DGIVJR8 for Peri. JR3 was declared invalid, JR7 was closed, and JR8 concerned Judicial matters. All were very important issues at very key times. JR3 was directly related to the Judiciary, JR7 was concerned with a future CC, and JR8 was directly related to a current CC.

But this Term is nearing the end of its cycle, and we don't have time for reactionary JR's on a ruling like this JR is sure to produce. CoS Section M.1.a.1.A states that a Law Must be part of the Request. In order to concisely address this issue, the official Request should have all official requirements met.

I suggest eyrei and Strider get together and find a Law to use for their JR, or either one came submit a Law to use with their Request.

I hate to do this, but in order to get some requests handled sooner rather than later...

I would like to request a Judical Review of CoL section I relative to the range of in-game actions which can be the subject of instructions by any official. The law in question reads:


I. Legal Instructions
1. A legal instruction is any instruction, posted in the
turn chat instruction thread at least one hour prior
to the start of the turn chat, by a citizen empowered
to do so, within the limitations of the office the
citizen is representing.



At issue is whether instructions for in-game actions which are not specifically identified in law as pertaining to the responsibilities of an office, but which have an ancilliary effect on that office, are "within the limitations of the office".

A finding that instructions not specifically associated with an office, and with ancillary effects on an office, are within the responsibilities would have the effect of confirming that stop instructions are valid.

The only relevant section of the law I can find is Code of Standards, Section F:

9. The Designated Player retains the right to end the
chat turn at their discretion.

This is the only mention of ending the turn chat in our laws, except for that 10 is the maximum number of turns, which does not really apply.

Since it is not explicitly stated, I ask that the judiciary make a ruling regarding whether anyone other than the DP can call an end to a turn chat that is under 10 turns without having polled the populace.

Both ravensfire's Request concerning the Special Session and eyrei's Request concerng the FA giving Instruuction to stop the chat have been accepted and have been posted in the second post of this thread. Each party should review the posting and let this Court know if there is a problem with the wording of their specific Request.

DaveShack's Request for a Judicial Review concerning Instructions for in-game actions has been accepted and posted in the second post of this thread. DaveShack should review the posting and let this Court know if there is a problem with the wording of their Request.

I have posted 4 Public Discussion threads in the Citizen's Sub Forum. As we only have 3 Judicial Review's, This means that I posted the first one twice as it has dissappeared. Now only two exist.

There is nothing to see here. Move along...

Thank you for your time. :hammer:

Well, I certainly didn't delete anything. Maybe there is an issue with the server.

Now that I've Settled down a bit, I will withdraw my resignation. Because the title of the threads were the same, the stupid spamming law probably came into effect to stop stupid spammers.

As I could not get more than two threads posted with the same title, I assumed my threads were being deleted. Coincidently, eyrei, you were in the Citizen's Sub Forum at the time.

I have changed the titles and will repost the missing thread.

I hereby request a review to clarify CoL section C.1.d. Specifically, does the Senate have to post instructions in the Turn Chat thread that the cash request has been approved?


d. The Senate shall meet prior to each turn chat and vote
on all cash requests in a Cash Request poll.
1. These requests should be made in the Senate thread,
or another designated thread indicated in the first
post of the Senate thread.
2. Each request should be considered individually
unless the requestor specified otherwise.
3. Each request should be voted on seperately.
4. Should more requests be approved than funds
available, requests shall be conducted in the order
determined by the Designated Player.

zorven's Request for a Judicial Review has been posted in the second post of this thread. zorven should review the posting and let this Court know if there is a problem with the wording of his Request.

Originally posted by Cyc
zorven's Request for a Judicial Review has been posted in the second post of this thread. zorven should review the posting and let this Court know if there is a problem with the wording of his Request.

Looks fine to me.

Public Discussion threads for Judicial Reviews DGIVJR9 through DGIVJR12 have been posted in the Citizens Sub Forum. Please abide by the rules posted in these threads when expressing your views on the subject matter.

The Term 1 Judiciary has produced a Majority Opinion for DGIVJR9. There is no Minority Opinion.

The request for this Judicial Review (JR) asked the Judiciary to review the recent Special Session conducted by the President and determine if the correct process was followed. The specific law involved is CoS Section C.2.

First of all this Court would like to thank ravensfire for requesting this JR, as this Court was unaware of the processes taken by the President and the Trade and Technology (T&T) Minister. By requesting this JR, you have illuminated our eagerness to accept, sometimes without question, the actions of our Leaders.
In reviewing the proceedings of the Special Session brought on in hopes of taking advantage of newly afforded trade deals, this Court has determined that although good effort and good intentions were put into the makings of this Special Session, towards the end of it, our President and T&T Minister did veer a bit too far from the rules.

In bringing up the CoS Section C.2 rules, ravensfire has opened the door to another, more serious violation. CoS Section C.2.a and .b were adhered to by the Leaders. They had a single task to go after with the Special Session, they ran a discussion that had definite support for the idea, and they polled both the trade and the Special Session idea. All of this was done according to procedure, and done very well, in the eyes of this Court.

The actual dynamics of the chat and the trappings that were supposed to accompany it is where the problems start. Section C.2.c states:
c. The chat shall be scheduled no earlier than 24 hours
from when the chat was added to the schedule.

The chat was never added to the schedule; therefore it could not have adhered to the rule of being “scheduled no earlier than 24 hours from when the chat was added to the schedule”.

Section C.2.d states:

d. A turn chat instruction thread must be posted for
this special session, and shall include only:
1. The date and time of the chat, in GMT;
2. A link to the save to be used;
3. The reasons and the support for the chat;
4. The specific action to be take.
5. No other instructions from the Executive or
Legislative branches shall be posted.

There was no Turn Chat Instruction thread posted for this Special Session, therefore none of C.2.d was adhered to.

Failure to follow the procedure laid out in these two Standards, means that an open and public Turn Chat was not used for the Special Session. This violates Article K of the Constitution, showing us that even some of the most insignificant things are usually attached to something larger.

Although ravensfire has noted that he does not want to proceed with a Citizen Complaint based on the results of this Review, it should be noted that both the President and the T&T Minister have by these actions, set themselves up for just that. During the Investigation of this Review, it was also noted that after the event of this Special Session, during the normally scheduled Turn Chat, the President did not carry out the Instructions of the T&T Minister as written in the Turn Chat Instruction thread. This again, sets up the President for another CC. Because of ravensfire’s request, this Court will suppress these Citizen Complaints and not allow them to take hold. But this Court would like to stress the potentially serious trouble people might find themselves in by not following the rules, even a Standard.

I support fully the above statements.

Ignorance is never an excuse.

My only defense to DGIVJR9 is that I wasn't aware of the exact steps to follow. My intensions were to grant sufficient time for the nation to review the situation after the Extra Turn was played.

However it seems I did make an error. I take full responsibility of this. Octavian_X followed his leader and shouldn't held responsible for my mistakes. During the Investigation of this Review, it was also noted that after the event of this Special Session, during the normally scheduled Turn Chat, the President did not carry out the Instructions of the T&T Minister as written in the Turn Chat Instruction threadI don't understand, can you be more specific? Which (part of the) instructions exactly and in which turnchat?

Originally posted by Rik Meleet
During the Investigation of this Review, it was also noted that after the event of this Special Session, during the normally Instructions of the T&T Minister as written in the Turn Chat Instruction thread
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't understand, can you be more specific? Which (part of the) instructions exactly and in which turnchat?
_______________________________________________

In the Turn Chat Instruction thread, Octavian X, Trade and Technology Minister posted the following Instructions to be cared out in the Turn Chat:

Ministry of Trade and Technology

I apoligize for the situation I worked myself into here. The one-hour rule is tough, and due to school, I won't be back in time before the TC to post instructions.

Basically...

Should the Senate specifically approve my request for 27g, please contact Babylon and exchange this 27g for their worker.

Should my request be denied, or should the Senate not act at all, please trade Iron Working to Babylon in exchange for Mysticism, 35g, and their worker.

Everything is detailed in this thread.

~Minister Octavian X
___________________________________________

The link in that Instruction lead to the Secret Session thread detailing the Session with the Russians and the trades to come of it in the scheduled Turn Chat, the President did not carry out the Instruction. At the end of that thread, Octavian X posted this:

01/24/04 1030pm

This is my plan, then. I will file the 27g request with the Senate. Should the Senate approve, and post it's instructions in time, we will go through will deal three. Should the Senate withhold the gold, or fail to approve it in time, we will go through with deal one. ~ Octavian X

We Want... We Offer...
Deal 1------------------------
Mysticism Iron Working
35g
Worker (Babylon)

Deal 2------------------------
35g Alphabet
Worker (Babylon)

Deal 3------------------------
Worker (Babylon) 27g
____________________________________________

In supporting this post, Octavian then went to the Senate and requested funding for Deal 3, as shown below:

The Ministry of Trade and Technology urgently requests 27 gold coins for the purchase of a Babylonian worker. Details may be found here.

Note that should the Senate refuse this request, or fail to act in time, the Ministry of Trade and Technology will order that another deal, result in the acquisition of Mysticism, the worker, and 35g, in exchange of Iron Worker, be made.

So yes, this is in your hands.

~Minister Octavian X
_______________________________________________

The funding issue was never addressed by the Senate and the Vice President never posted the non-existant approval in the TCI thread.

Therefore, as Octavian X posted the actions to be taken by the Office of Trade and Technology in three separate threads, in three separate sub forums, adequate notice was given. The main post, that being the one in the Turn Chat Instruction thread should have been enough. The additional documentation only verifies the wishes of the T&T Minister. Even if additional, backroom deals were worked out between you and the T&T Minister to nullify the posted Instruction, Octavian X would still have had to delete to first posted Instruction one hour before the start of the Turn Chat. Bottom line is: The legal Instruction we find in the Turn Chat Instruction thread was not followed by you in Gameplay.

I agree with the Majority Opinion posted by Chief Justice Cyc.

EDIT: BTW, this thread is the second-longest Judicial thread in DG history, having surpassed DG3 T3's thread and is only 13 posts away from DG2 T3's thread in length. This has certainly been a busy term ;)

I thank the Court for undertaking this JR, and am satisfied with the reasoning and statements.

I am especially satisfied by the willingness to surpress any CC related to this matter. You correctly interpreted my intent as illumination.

Rik, I got a bit busy at work (slight understatement there), and did not post or PM you about the special session stuff as that option was being discussed as I intended. As I said earlier, this is but one of several new ideas, and change isn't always easy. You are a great person for doing things right, this was an unusual circumstance complicated with absences and short on time. I doubt anyone holds any ill towards you. If anything, your willingness to hold a special session is exemplary!

Also, I would suggest to citizens that sometimes, a JR such as this is an excellent way to point out a problem with how something was done. No punishment can be given out, not even a warning, but the point is made. It's also less taxing on everyone involved.

Again, my thanks to the Court!

-- Ravensfire

Originally posted by Cyc

The funding issue was never addressed by the Senate and the Vice President never posted the non-existant approval in the TCI thread.


The Vice President would not post anything that is *non-existant*. :rolleyes: Furthermore, the Vice President has no authority to post expenditure approvals in the game play instruction thread. I would ask for a Judicial Review of the matter but I'd have to specify which law I want reviewed. Since there is no law regarding who will post expenditure approvals there is no law to review. :wallbash:

:lol: Well, I'm glad we got that squared away.:lol:

The Term 1 Judiciary has produced a Majority Opinion for DGIVJR10. There is no Minority Opinion.

The request for this Judicial Review (JR) asked the Judiciary examine the legality of a Minister posting Instructions for the DP to stop the Turn Chat if certain conditions arose, without first having run a poll.

eyrei's Request - "In light of CoS Section F.9, does the Foreign Affairs Department have the authority to give Instruction to the DP to stop the Turn Chat when new contact is made, when no poll has been posted on the matter?"

Because of the scope of the issue that this question covers, this Court had to go beyond the single law that eyrei stated above. The answer to this question would certainly entail circumstances well beyond just the Foreign Affairs Minister. It would envelop any Department Minister in posting legal Instructions for the DP. Therefore this Court found it necessary to review a myriad of different legislation, high and low, to justify an answer. We also took into consideration DaveShack’s comment in the Public Discussion for the JR, about the permissive and restrictive nature of the language.

I won’t list all eight rules here that were discussed by the Judiciary, but I will try to present the key rules used to form this Opinion. I will start off with the Constitution and work my way down.

Article D - The Executive branch is responsible for determining
and implementing the will of the People. It is headed
by the President who shall be the primary Designated
Player. The President shall take direction from a
council of 4 leaders and from other elected and appointed
officials via the Turnchat instruction thread.

This Article of the Constitution plainly states, of course, that the President/DP will abide by the Instructions given them by our Ministers.

Article D.2. The Minister of Foreign Affairs shall be responsible
for matters involving treaties with foreign nations,
as prescribed by law.

Part of the same Article, this verbiage states the Foreign Affairs Minister is, by all means responsible for the Affairs of the Nation in regards to foreign entities.

Article J. Elected officials must plan and act according to the will
of the people.

This is difficult prose to define, but basically understood by all. This was a key issue in the Opinion.

CoL I.1 and CoS D.1 basically state what a legal Instruction is and that all Instructions to be played out in the Turn Chat will be posted in the TCI thread.

And finally, CoS F.9. The Designated Player retains the right to end the turn chat at their discretion.

Here we applied DaveShack’s comment on the permissive wording and intent of the Standard. We took this legislation at face value, in that the DP does retain the right to end the chat at their discretion. Beyond this implication that it is not an exclusive right of the DP, or that this right may be taken away from others, this allows the DP the ability to end the chat at the Instruction of a Minister.

With all of the different facets of law above reflecting the different points of view in many areas of Gameplay, this Court found that DGIVJR10 was one of the most difficult and time-consuming Judicial Reviews to date. After much debate and tossing about of ideas, this Court unanimously agreed that a Council Minister can indeed instruct the DP to stop the chat, if conditions arise that require forum discussion. This Opinion also states that the Minister should have due cause for such an Instruction, as they are putting themselves at risk of a Citizen Complaint if they cannot show verifiable backing of the People. This backing may not have to be in the form of a poll, but it should at least be favorable discussion on the subject matter with little dissent.

Therefore, any Minister may give Legal Instruction to the DP to stop a Turn Chat if circumstances arise and citizen approval justify such an Instruction. If either one of these matters are not present, the Minister who gives such an Instruction is at risk of a Citizen Complaint.

Originally posted by Cyc


Therefore, any Minister may give Legal Instruction to the DP to stop a Turn Chat if circumstances arise and citizen approval justify such an Instruction. If either one of these matters are not present, the Minister who gives such an Instruction is at risk of a Citizen Complaint. [/B]

I would like to thank the court for the time spent on this review.

Since my only reason for calling for this review was that it was not clear, I would like to make sure I understand the language in the ruling.

What definition of 'citizen approval' did the court intend. Is it to mean that a poll must be posted, or that the Minister may simply make an educated guess.

I honestly don't care which way you rule, but I do believe this should be very clear.

Thank you again for you hard work.

I agree to the Majority Opinion of this review.