This is the Judicial Log for Demogame IV. The Chief Justice for each Term will announce the begining of their respective Term cycle and post all Judicial decisions made during their Term, thereafter.

This is not a discussion thread

This begins the Judicial Log for Term 1. Posted below, you will find all decisions brought about by the Judiciary this Term. CoL Section E.3.B states:

The Chief Justice is responsible for updating and maintaining the Judicial Log.

All of the decisions posted here shall key on the writings of the Judicial thread for Term 1. Any notes posted with any decision will not be posted here, but shall remain in the Judicial thread.

Welcome and read on...

This Judicial Review was requested by donsig, who asked for a ruling from the Judiciary on the validity of the special election for the Chief Justice. Donsig felt this special election was in violation of Article G of the Constitution.

Procedure was followed, a discussion thread was opened, and after Chief Justice Cyc declared Arguements Over (Associate Justice ravensfire concurred), the Judiciary retired to make a decision in the form of a Majority Opinion (and if necessary a Minority Opinion).

As a result of these opinions, this Judicial Review has been declared invalid, as one of the authors involved in writing the Majority Opinion also encapsulated his resignation within it. This brought the decision to a point in which there was no Majority Opinion.

There is no recourse to the invalidation of this Judicial Review, as in his attempt at writing new law with an Opinion, ravensfire, the Associate Justice who resigned, wrote himself out of the Associate's Chair. Therefore, if one claims the Majority Opinion to be legal, then ravensfire has no authority to write an Opinion for the Judiciary.

Final Decision: This Judicial Review has been declared Invalid by the Term 1 Judiciary.

This Judicial Review was requested by President Rik Meleet. His request concerned the fact that two different laws were ratified in the Three Books that stated different ways of handling the same situation. He felt these Laws might be contradictory.

The situation he referred to was in regards to refusal polls and who must post them when a citizen disapproves of an appointment. This situation at hand involved citizen Donovan Zoi requesting a refusal poll from President Rik Meleet, in hopes of recalling the appointment of donsig as Vice President.

The two Laws involved here are CoL H.2.a.1 and CoS F.3.ii, which each state ways that a citizen may request a refusal poll for any appointment. President Rik meleet was basing his opinion on one Law, while Citizen Donovan Zoi was basing his opinion on the other. The President felt that Donovan Zoi should post the poll and Donovan Zoi felt the President should. This debate triggered this Judicial Review, although the President's attempt at requesting the Judicial Review was not made clear to the Judiciary. Therefore Chief Justice Cyc gave an informal opinion about how the two Laws were complimentary to one another in that they both used the word MAY in regards to how a citizen is to initiate the poll. Specifically, a citizen MAY start the refusal process themself, or the citizen MAY request the Leader who made the appointment to start the refusal process. As these two Laws offer a citizen a choice in the matter, they are not contradictory. Following this, then Associate Justice ravensfire gave an informal opinion about the matter. He stated that the second Law was just ratified and that he would be superceding the first Law with the new one.

At this point the President renewed his request for a formal Judicial Review. This time he altered it slightly to include seeking a ruling on the authority of Associate Justice ravensfire to write new laws by himself. This prompted an official Judicial Review request. During the request process, Chief Justice Cyc had conversations with the President via PM's in regards to altering the wording of the Request to suit the President. Chief Justice Cyc assured the President that there were Laws in place that stated the process one must take to change an existing Law, that ravensfire can't just change them by himself. This, along with the knowledge previously gained about the two Laws working together, convinced the President to drop the Judicial Review, as he was now satisfied with the results.

Final Decision: This Judicial Review is closed.

This Judicial Review was requested by ravensfire. His request concerned the legality of this court invalidating donsig's first request for a Judicial Review (see DGIVJR1 above) on the grounds that ravensfire's Majority Opinion posting was unacceptable. ravensfire's request is stated below:

I am calling for a Judicial Review on the decision to declare the previous Judicial 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.
________________________________________________

As stated above in the DGIVJR1 ruling:

There is no recourse to the invalidation of this Judicial Review, as in his attempt at writing new law with an Opinion, ravensfire, the Associate Justice who resigned, wrote himself out of the Associate's Chair. Therefore, if one claims the Majority Opinion to be legal, then ravensfire has no authority to write an Opinion for the Judiciary.
________________________________________________

Not only was any recourse to this ruling eliminated by the bizarre Majority Opinion, which supposedly wrote ravensfire out of the Associate Justice chair days before he posted the opinion, but also the tactic he chose to go about creating the "new law" was totally illegal.

In CoS Section X.III.D it is stated:

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.
_________________________________________________

Therefore any conclusions made by a Majority Opinion posted for a Judicial Review would effect ONLY future decisions and future laws. These means that by posting a Majority Opinion on a current Judicial Review, an Associate Justice (or any Justice for that matter) cannot enforce any kind of law that demands immediate action. This brings up the second point in this ruling, which bears the fact that ravensfire's posted Majority Opinion was illegal.

Article I of the Constitution, CoL Section J, CoL Section A.5, and CoS Section N all support the fact that it is up to the citizens of Fanatica to create or ammend the laws and/or rules that we have/will laid/lay down in the Three Books. ravensfire's Majority Opinion tried to create law in its writing. ravensfire wanted to have his Opinion take precedence not only over existing law, but to over-rule Moderator action in several instances. This is highly inappropriate for an Associate Justice, especially one that was so involved with the process of documenting the Three Books for use in this game.

Beyond these two laws, which not only disqualify ravensfire's Majority Opinion as illegal, but also preclude further legal procedure on the matter, a fourth Moderator action was brought into play squelching any further consideration on the Special Election that took place at the begining of this game, just recently. Therefore DGIVJR3 was proclaimed null and void by a Moderator.

Final Decision: This Judicial Review has been declared Invalid by the Term 1 Judiciary.

donsig has requested a Judicial Review. Below is his request.

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

In summary, it appears donsig is asking for a ruling on whether CoS section K applies to our Senators. The Section donsig refers to started out as J, then was considered Section X during ratification, and has since been assigned the letter K in the CoS. For the purposes of this Ruling, both Letters shall be noted to keep the integrity of the JR and to keep current with said changes.
________________________________________________

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 (K) 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.

Final Decision: This Court's opinion is that Section J (K) of the CoS applies to Senators. When referencing this Decision, please keep in mind that the DGIVJR12 Majority Opinion discusses Instructions concerning the Cash Requests,whereas this Majority Opinion discusses the Science Slider.

Bill_in_PDX has requested the following Judicial Review:

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 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.

Final Decision: It is this Court’s opinion is that any Citizen may in deed post in any Government thread when the content of their post is appropriate.

Bill_in_PDX has requested the following Judicial Review:

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.
_________________________________________________

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.

Final Decision: 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.

CivGeneral requested the following Judicial Review:

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

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.

Final Decision: This Judicial Review is closed.

Associate Justice Peri requested this Judicial Review. It is posted below:

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.
________________________________________________

As Peri is a member of the Judiciary and had contacted Chief Justice Cyc about this issue via PM, procedure could still be upheld during this phase of the process even though in posting Peri did not ask a question or state a law involved. Therefore a question was posed for him, that covers all the points he made.

Can a member of the judiciary take an active role in the CC defense or prosecution roles while still holding their office?
*Thanks to Bill_in_PDX for wording that question.

As Peri has stated there is no law that specifically states that a Justice is forbidden to be an Advocate in a Citizen Complaint, nor any law that says it can be done. Therefore no Law was quoted here.
_________________________________________________

Just for reference, the following note was added in regards to the Citizen Complaint that prompted this JR:

This Judicial Review will complete all of its phases before the Citizen Complaint DGIVCC1 will continue, as this JR will help lay the groundwork for that CC.
_________________________________________________

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.

Final Decision: No Justice may represent a client in a Citizen Complaint unless they step down temporarily after appointing a Pro Tem Justice to replace them for the duration of the Citizen Complaint.

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, DGIVJR8, 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, the Citizen Complaint has been officially dismissed.

Final Decision: As the Remedy was carried out, this Citizen Complaint is dismissed.

After examining the process that the President followed to use a Special Session Turn Chat to secure a trade, ravensfire filed this Judicial Rview:

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.
________________________________________________

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.
________________________________________________

Final Decision: The Special Session Turnchat put together by the President did not follow the correct procedure, as stated above.

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.
_____________________________________________

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.

Final Decision: 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.

Minister of Internal Affairs DaveShack, as a citizen has requested a Judicial Review. It is stated below:

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.


DaveShack adds:

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.

This is a rather vague request, as almost any instruction given by a Minister will have an ancillary (subordinate, secondary, delayed) effect on their department. But we shall endeavor to work up a question, regardless. ;)

"In review of CoL Section I.1, would Instructions for in-game actions not specifically identified by Law as pertaining to the responsibilities of an office (Dept.), but would impact or effect that office (Dept.) in some way, be within the limitataions of that office (Dept.)?"
_______________________________________________

The Term 1 Judiciary has produced a Majority Opinion for DGIVJR11. There is no Minority Opinion.

In proceeding with this JR, this Court needed to search for additional Law(s) to substaniate our answer, our answer by the way was immediate and unanimous. CoL I.1 deals with Legal Instruction, and although Instructions need to be legal in nature to require adherance by the DP, this question needed Law that was able to be broad enough to encompass the entire scope of the question, yet could focus on the almost hidden partitions of Executive Offices. After some debate on how to approach this, we finally concluded our Discussion with this Majority Opinion.

Final Decision: Yes, as long as the instructions given do not fall specifically and directly within the responsibilities of another leader or leaders, as prescribed by CoL B.2.e-h

CoL Section B.2.e through CoL Section B.2.h are posted below:

e. Ministry of Internal Affairs
1. Is responsible for settler placement.
2. Is responsible for wonder building, including
prebuilds.
3. Governor of cities that do not have a provincial
governor.
4. Is responsible for the mapping of Provincial
Borders.
5. Evaluate Cultural needs of all cities.
6. Monitor overall happiness of COUNTRY_NAME.
7. Coordinate efforts of Governors on national
projects.
f. Ministry of Defense
1. Is responsible for troop movements.
2. Is responsible for defensive plans.
3. Is responsible for offensive plans.
4. Is responsible for troop upgrades and terminations.
5. Track relative strength of foreign nations
g. Ministry of Foreign Affairs
1. Is responsible for declarations of war.
2. Is responsible for peace treaties.
3. Is responsible for construction of embassies.
4. Is responsible for rights of passage.
5. Is responsible for trade embargoes.
6. Is responsible for mutual protection pacts.
7. Is responsible for placement of spies.
8. Is responsible for intelligence gathering,
spying and sabotage.
9. Track world-wide diplomatic situation.
h. Ministry of Trade and Technology
1. Is responsible for tech research queue.
2. Is responsible for tech trades.
3. Is responsible for tech espionage.
4. Is responsible for trade deals.
5. Is responsible for tracking the status and
expiration of established deals.

Zorven has requested this 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.

_____________________________________________

As the final Judicial Review of Term 1, the Judiciary was rather pleased that DGIVJR12 was one of the quickest and easiest of all the JRs. This Opinion was discussed and agreed upon almost immediately.

As stated above in CoL Section C.1.d, the Senate is required to approve or deny cash requests via a Cash Request Poll. This entire Law is the only procedural legislation for Cash Requests on our Books. Therefore, this Court can find no reason for the Senate to be posting Instructions in the TCIT.

The Senate does not request any funds for rushing improvements or for upgrading units. Ministers and Governors make these requests. Any Instructions posted in the TCIT should be posted by the Minister or Governor who was granted the gold by the Senate. This legislation does not even require the President of the Senate to post any kind of notification of any funding approval in the TCIT. Therefore, any Instruction posted by said Leader or Governor should have a LINK embedded within it for the DP to use as quick verification of the approval.

Final Decision: No - The Senate does not have to post instructions in the Turn Chat Instruction thread that the Cash Request has been approved.When referencing this Decision, please keep in mind that the DGIVJR4 Majority Opinion discussed Instructions concerning the Science Slider,whereas this Majority Opinion discusses Cash Requests.

Placeholder

This Majority Opinion was unanimous.

The Term 2 Judicial Elections results were ambiguous as multiple citizens declined the position of Associate Justice. Responding to requests, the Election Office stated that Ravensfire was elected as Chief Justice, Bootstoots as Associate Justice and Octavian as Associate Justice. The Election Office then determined that Bootstoots and Octavian resigned from the office, resulting in both positions being vacant.

We find that this determination is invalid. The Election Office is there to ensure the election process functions smoothly, by determining the dates, creating threads, tracking nominations, determining the vote totals and posting them. The Election Office has no mandate to interpret election results.

The question then becomes which citizens were elected to the Judiciary. From Section F.5 of the Code of Laws, “The citizen gathering the most votes in an election is deemed the winner of that election.” (Also, note Section J.3.d from the CoS.) There are no exceptions to this rule, nor are there any provisions within Fanatican law to support withdrawing from an election once the Election Poll has been posted.

We therefore find that Ravensfire, Bootstoots and Octavian X were elected to the Judiciary. We note that this does match what the Election Office determined.

The elected Associate Justices subsequently declined the office. There is no provision in our laws for the election winner to be chosen from the next highest vote winner on the ballot. This resulted in a vacancy according to Section H.1 of the CoL, “Leader positions that remain unfilled after an election shall be filled via appointment by the President”. The President, in accordance with Section H.1 of the CoL, then filled these vacancies.

The Judiciary for Term 2 is therefore found to be: Ravensfire as Chief Justice, Peri as Associate Justice and donsig as Associate Justice.

The need for this review came in part from multiple candidates being elected simultaneously to other positions by receiving the most votes for that election. The law stipulates that only the person with the most votes is the winner. (Section F.5 of the CoL). This puts those citizens clearly in conflict with Article H of the Constitution. It is Section J.1.d of the CoS which allows this conflict to happen and encourages electoral confusion. It allows citizens to run for multiple offices simultaneously and does not provide a mechanism to relieve this conflict within the election process.

Therefore, Section J.1.d of the Code of Standards is stricken from the laws of Fanatica.

This Majority Opinion was unanimous

I request a Judicial Review to determine which cities are in the Province of Berry. The relevant sections of the CoL are C.2.b.2 and C.2.b.3. Specifically, since no provincial borders have ever been set, are the cities of Vandelay and Vo Mimbre within the province of Berry?
This judicial review was made much easier by the recent establishment of provincial borders by the Congress:

Provincial borders ratification poll. (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=78377)

Using the newly set borders the judiciary finds that the city of Vandelay is not in Berry province while Vo Mimbre is indeed in Berry province. Other cities in Berry province at this time are Dieux Rivieres, Montpellier, Huntington and Santa Lucia.

The judiciary also finds that Vandelay and St. Octaviansburg are in Province #2 and all other cities (Groton, Sanction and Mûre) are outside our established provinces and therefore under the auspices of the Ministry of Internal Affairs (MIA).

The judiciary would like to point out that any cities subsequently founded that fall outside of established provincial borders will also fall under the direction of the MIA.

-- Ravensfire, Chief Justice of Fanatica

This Majority Opinion was unanimous
I would like a Judicial Review of CoL B.2.e7. Specifically, does this section of the CoL give the ministry of Internal Affairs the authority to over-ride gubernatorial and Senate instructions on land use and slider settings given that: 1) article E of our constitution charges our Senators / governors the responsibilty for the care and mangement of our cities; and 2) C.1.c of the CoL grants control of the slider settings to the Senate.? this JR request is filed in the hope of determinig if the recent instructions posted by DaveShack (see below) are legal.

Where confusion exists, it is appropriate to give priority to the higher authority of law. In this case Article E is clear that Provincial Governors are responsible for the care, management and use of the cities and lands of a province. CoL C.1.b supports this.
Also CoL C.1.b-d specifies that the Senate alone is responsible for Slider Instructions.

Col B.2.e specifies the roles and responsibilities for the Internal Affairs Minister. Items 1-4 specific duties that are to be undertaken. Item 5-7 outline areas where the IAM has a supervisory interest. Although this section of the CoL is clear that the IAM is tasked with monitoring happiness, he is not tasked with acting upon his observations.

Therefore it is the opinion of this court that the Provincial Governor has the sovereign rights of care, management and use of cities and land within the province. Correspondingly the Minister of Internal Affairs cannot post legal instructions to change slider settings nor to reallocate city laborers or hire entertainers.

T2-JR9 Placeholder

Cyc filed a Judicial Review on the question if the Judiciary has the power to invalidate an existing law. The Judiciary affirms that it has this power, and details what actions should be taken when an existing law is invalidated.

This review was unanimous for the first part, and divided for the second part.

The Judiciary derives it’s powers from the Constitution and the Code of Laws. From Article F of the Constitution, “…tasked with upholding the Constitution and its supporting laws…” From Section D.2.c of the Code of Laws, “…participate in Judicial Review to interpret and clarify existing amendments, laws and standards.”

The conflict creating this Judicial Review is over the actions of the Judiciary in T2-JR4 in invalidating Section J.1.d of the Code of Laws. As Article F states, the Judiciary is charged with upholding the laws of Fanatica. However, Article B of the Constitution states that “No rule shall be valid that contradicts these Articles, excepting an Amendment specifically tasked to do so.” Clearly, the Articles of the Constitution are the primary source of Law for Fanatica – all other laws must prevent conflicts with those Articles.

In T2-JR4, the Judiciary found that J.1.d did create a conflict with a higher body of law, and did not have a means to resolve that conflict. A lower body of law cannot create a conflict with a higher body of law without a means existing within law to resolve that conflict. Given the conflict, the decision to invalidate the law was both proper and within the powers of the Judiciary.

We affirm that the Judiciary has the power to invalidate existing law if the existing law is interpreted to conflict with an higher law where no means exists within law to resolve that conflict.

The second, ancillary question concerned the actions that should be taken once a law is invalidated.

The Court differed in its opinion on this matter. Per the request of the dissenting Justice, both opinions are detailed here.

All Justices concur that once a law is invalidated, it no longer has any power over Fanatica. We further agree that this information needs to be clearly made noticeable to the Citizens of Fanatica. Part of the duties of the Judiciary from Section D.2.c is to clarify existing law. By extension, this includes the presentation of the books of law for the Citizens of Fanatica.

Justices Ravensfire and donsig prefer the removal of any invalidated law from the books of Fanatica. The primary reason for this is clarity – a citizen should be able to review the books of law, and know that all laws listed are in force. Any other method could leave open the chance of a mis-interpretation by a citizen.

Justice Peri prefers that all laws remain on the books of Fanatica, including invalidated laws. All invalidated laws should be clearly and conspicuously denoted as invalid.

By a 2-1 vote, dissenting opinion above, the Court clarifies that all invalidated laws should be removed from the books of Fanatica.

As requested by Chieftess
Ok, I guess by virtue of Shalashaska's very post, a CC is in order. I hearby request a CC against Shalashaska for the following: <Multiple alledged violations of Article M of the Constitution
Prosecutor: Strider
Defense: Bootstoots

The Citizen's Complaint filed against Shalashaska by Chieftess has been resolved.

Sort of.

After examining the results of the Investigation, the Court determine that there was enough evidence for a reasonable chance that the Accused did break Fanatican law as detailed in the Complaint, thus the Court has Accepted the Complaint. The Court did have reservations about the possible knowledge of future or alternative events that would be part of the trial. With this in mind, a remedy was discussed that would have forbidden Shalashaska from communicating any information gained from playing the save.

Unfortunately, all means of communication have been disabled by Shalashaska. Even the efforts of a moderator were met with no results.

Therefore, the case against Shalashaska is hereby postponed indefinitely. Should he wish to continue to participate as a Citizen of Fanatica, and the Court sincerely hopes he does, this case will be reopened by the Court at that point in time. The Complaint has been Accepted, so the next step will be to determine if a remedy is acceptable to all involved. As a starting point, the following Remedy was accepted by the Prosecutor, the Defense and the Court. We offer this merely as a suggestion.
1. Shalashaska will promise to never, ever, play any non-reversible action in any Demogame save.
2. Shalashaska will promise to not reveal any information gleaned from playing ahead in the save.
3. Shalashaska will create a new thread in the Citizen’s sub-forum and apologize for playing the save, and posting game-related information.

Should Shalashaska abide by these restrictions, the complaint will be considered dismissed. Should Shalashaska fail to do so, he will immediately be considered guilty of the accusation and will be sentenced accordingly.
The Court gratefully thanks Strider and Bootstoots for serving as Advocates in this case. We also thank those citizens serving as witnesses for their honesty and willingness to act without the use of the knowledge gained in participating in discussion.

This matter is now closed, pending the return of Shalashaska to the DG.

donsig requested a Judicial Review questioning the legality of CoS M.1.d.2:

2. All proceedings started under one Court shall
continue with that Court through the conclusion of
that proceeding.

If CoS M.1.d.2 were followed, Judiciary members would serve an indeterminable term. It is not know how long they will serve until they finish the cases that were presented to them. It is possible that, given a case of sufficent magnitude, a Judicary could serve well beyond it's fixed date to end.

This presents a conflict with Article G of the Constitution which specifies that all elected positions shall have a fixed term. This court finds this Article to mean that a term's length is known and quantifiable at any time. Under CoS M.1.d.2, this is not the case.

Therefore, we find CoS M.1.d.2 to be in violation of the Constitution and thus null and void.

This ruling was supported by a 2-0 vote of Justices zorven and Vander.

edited reference to CoS section to be more accurate.

Donsig has requested the following Judicial Review:

I would like to request a Judicial Review of the special election that was held for Chief Justice in term one. I would like a review of it's legality, specifically in light of (though not limited to) Article G of our constitution.

This court took the perspective of what laws were in effect when the various elections began. The original elections for Chief Justice (CJ) and the Associate Justices (AJ) were begun after Article G was in force.


Article G:
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.

At the end of this election (Dec 31), a tie for CJ existed. CoL F and CoL H deal with vacant positions and tied elections, but they did not become law until Jan 1 and Jan 5 (respectively).

CoL F.5.a:
a. Should more than one citizen tie with the highest
totals, a run-off election lasting 2 days shall be
immediately posted listing only the tied citizens.
CoL H.1:
1. Leader positions that remain unfilled after an election
shall be filled via appointment by the President.

At this point the CJ position is vacant as there was no winner, and 2 people cannot hold one office. Therefore, the CJ should have been appointed according Article G. However, Article G did not specifiy who should make the appointment and thus cannot be carried out. So we now have a vacant position and no law dictating how to fill a vacant position. The next thing to happen is that CoL F becomes law (Jan 1). It specifies that tied elections are to be decided using a special election. But this does not apply to our situation because at the time CoL F becomes law the elections are over. CoL cannot be applied retroactively to the election. We still have a vacant office. Next, CoL H becomes law (Jan 5). CoL H says that Leader positions that remain unfilled after an election are to be appointed by the President. This can be applied to the current situation, and thus the CJ should be appointed by the President.

HOWEVER, before CoL H became law, the moderators authorized a special election to fill the CJ position. This special election began and ended before CoL H became law and thus the CJ position was not vacant when CoL H became law.

OPINION
At the time of the special election was held, we had an unfilled leader position that could not be resolved under the current laws. The moderators made a decision to hold a special election in order for the game to continue. As the actions of the moderators were not contradicting existing law, and the moderators were acting in their official capacity to ensure a functioning game, we find that the special election for Chief Justice stands.

This opinion is supported by a 3-0 vote of Justices zorven, Vander, and DaveShack.

donsig has requested the following Judicial Review:

I would like to ask for a Judicial Review of Section I of the CoL. Specifically, can newly elected leaders legally post game play instructions before their term actually begins?

This review was prompted by the well-intentioned efforts of one president to orchestrate a transfer of power to the next term's president, by scheduling a turn chat which spanned the end of one term and beginning of the next. Some equally well-intentioned leaders-elect decided that if turns would be played while they were responsible, they would be duty bound to provide instructions, thus instructions were posted before the preceeding term ended.

Looking more closely at the law, it is apparent that posting of instructions before a term begins is logically impossible, if all pertinent laws are followed.

CoL F.3:
3. The following offices shall have one calendar month
terms, beginning on the first day of that month
a. President
b. Minister of Internal Affairs
c. Minister of Defense
d. Minister of Foreign Affairs
e. Minister of Trade and Technology
f. Chief Justice
g. 2 Associate Justice
h. 1 Provincial Governor per Province
i. At-Large Govenors, if needed
CoL I:
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.

OPINION
According to CoL F.3, a Leader's term does not begin until the 1st day of the month. It is at this time that the citizen becomes empowered to post legal instructions. Any posts made by this citizen prior to the 1st of the month are merely posts by a citizen and carry no weight of the office to which the citizen has been elected, even if the content of the post was meant to be valid after the beginning of the month.

This opinion is supported by a 3-0 vote of Justices zorven, Vander, and DaveShack.

donsig has requested the following Judicial Review:

I would like a Judicial Review regarding the recently *passed* section J.1.d of the CoS. Specifically, was the ratification poll done in accordance with Section N.1 of the CoS?

Section N of the Code of Standards:

1. Polls to amend the Code of Standards shall be posted by

The question presented by donsig is whether or not a Judicial Review was performed before this proposal was posted. For this, we must also look to CoS M.2:

2. Judicial Review of a Proposed Law
a. As citizens, the members of the Judiciary should be
active during any discussion of a new law.
b. Once a final proposal has been made and agreed upon
for a proposed Law, the Chief Justice should post in
the discussion thread that the Judiciary will review
the law and the text of the law to be reviewed.
c. The Judiciary will then meet privately to discuss the
law.
d. If the proposed law passes review, the Chief Justice
shall post the poll for the proposed law in the Poll
sub-forum.
1. A majority of Justices must agree that the proposed
law does not conflict with any existing law or
constitutional article for it to pass review
e. If the proposed law does not pass review, the Chief
Justice shall post in the discussion thread the
reasons for the rejection.
1. Should a poll already be posted for this proposal,
the poll is deemed void.

Majority Opinion
CoS N requires a proposed law pass Judicial Review before being posted by the Judiciary. CoS M.2 requires that proposed laws that pass Judicial Reveiw be posted as a poll by the Chief Justice. CoS M.2 lists no other requirements for passed JR's. The fact that the Chief Justice posted the poll is implicit evidence that the Judicial Review passed. The only exception to this would be if both Associate Justices declared that the proposed law did not pass Judicial Review, which did not happen in this case. The poll cited by donsig stands.

This opinion is supported 3-0 by justices Zarn, Zorvan, and gert-janl.

zorven has requested the following Judicial Review:


Can CoS K.4 allow a deputy to play the save in light of the specific nature of CoL G.3? Put another way, can CoS K.4 expand the Chain of Command beyond what is defined within CoL G.3?


Section G of the Code of Laws


G. Chain of Command
1. Determines the Designated Player if the President is
unavailable for the turn chat.
a. If no citizen in the CoC is present at the game play
session, the session shall be ended.

2. Settles departmental jurisdiction conflicts.

3. COC
a. President
b. Vice President
c. Minister of Internal Affairs
d. Minister of Defense
e. Minister of Foreign Affairs
f. Minister of Trade and Technology


Section K of the Code of Standards


K.
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.


Majority Opinion
CoL G explicity defines only those Leaders that are allowed to play the save game. It thus excludes all other Leaders, positions, and citizens. While CoS K grants Leader duties and responsibilites to a deputy, this would directly conflict with the explicit listing in CoL G in regards to playing the save game. When a conflict arises between the 3 Books, the "higher" Book takes precedent. In this case that would mean that the explicit list in CoL G cannot be expanded upon by CoS K. Therefore, deputies of Leaders in the Chain of Command may not play the save game.

This opinion is supported 3-0 by justices Zarn, Zorvan, and gert-janl.

Ravensfire has requested a judicial review:

Under Articles D and J (most especially J) of the Constitution, and Section B. 2.e.2 of the Code of Laws, is this* a valid instruction?

*A governor requested a great wonder to be put on the queue, doing the Ministry of Interior's job. Citizens were not calling for the wonder build, but did not go against it.

The Constitution

Article D. The Executive branch is responsible for determining
and implementing the will of the People. It is headed
by thePresident 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.
1. The Minister of Internal Affairs shall be
responsible for all domestic and cultural
initiatives, as prescribed by law.


Article J. Elected officials must plan and act according to the will
of the people.


The Code of Laws- Section B. 2.e.

2. (The Ministry of Internal Affairs) Is responsible for wonder building, including prebuilds.


Majority Opinion
Governors do not have the power to change queues to wonders, as that is under jurisdiction of the Ministry of Internal Affairs and the governor. Since the Ministry of Internal Affairs has posted a similar instruction, it is allowed in this case; however, if the Ministry of Internal Affairs is against building the wonder, then the governor cannot put it into queue. They both must agree on building the wonder. The only way a governor can override the Minister of Internal Affairs is when the governor has citizen support through a poll as the Ministry of Internal Affairs would not be going by the will of the people.

The people have not voiced approval of the governor’s decision, but the governor has given the people four days to discuss it, and there was not a dissenting voice. If there was a dissenting voice, it would have been appropriate for the governor to poll the queue. A citizen has to dissent to force the governor to open a poll.

Minority Opinion
A wonder build requires both the governor and MIA to post the instruction. It is not illegal for a governor to post the instruction if the MIA does not, it just becomes an invalid order.

The will of the people should be determined in CC’s not through judicial reviews and therefore abstain.

This case was decided in a 2-1 vote with Justice Zarn and Justice gert-janl in the majority and Justice Zorvan in the minority.

Peri:

Article A of the Constitution guarantees the right of any
citizen to discuss any issue. Similarly anyone may post a poll on
any topic. However the crucial aspect of this Judicial Review
is 'who may order the change of government in the TCIT'?
Responsibility for this is not specified in the 'Three Books'.
However it is an issue which is solely 'Domestic' in nature. Article
D.1 of the Constitution provides for this. Also the preamble for
Article D articulates that the President takes instruction from the
4 Leaders. Nevertheless CoL B.1.f is clear that the President
assumes responsibility for all initiatives not specified as the
responsibility of another leader.

This court (Term 3) rules that the the Minister of Internal Affairs has the
authority to post turn orders, in accordance with the will of the
citizenry of Fanatica, specifying when a revolution may be held,
and the type of government that should be chosen when that
revolution is over.

This was supported by Justices Peri and Daveshack of Term 3.