This is the official office of the Judiciary for Term 4.

Our task is to uphold the Constitution and its supporting laws in a fair and impartial manner as prescribed by law.

The Laws of Fanatica (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=70898)
Judicial Log (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=74295)

This court is comprised of:

Chief Justice: zorven
Associate Justice: Vander
Associate Justice: DaveShack

If you are interested in serving on the Judiciary this term, contact our President for an appointment to the bench.

Official Census of Fanatica: 19

I believe these are all the open cases from prior terms. If you notice one missing, or one on the list that has already been closed, please let me know.

Open Cases:

---------------------------------------------------------------------
T2-JR11-Legality of Election Reform poll
as requested by donsig

Link to discussion (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=79662)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
T2-JR12-May deputies play the save
as requested by zorven

Link to discussion (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=80093)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
T2-CC#4-vsChieftess
as requested by zorven
---------------------------------------------------------------------
T2-CC2-Citizen's Complaint against Rik Meleet
As requested by donsig
---------------------------------------------------------------------
T3-JR1 - Under Article D.1 does the Ministry of Internal Affairs have the authority to discuss, poll and order the change of government for Fanatica?
As requested by Ravensfire

Link to Discussion Thread (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?threadid=80409)
---------------------------------------------------------------------



Closed Cases:
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Judicial Review - Term 4 - Request 1 (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=83807) - Ruling (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=1741802#post1741802)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
T3-JR3 - Amending CoS J 1 d - Passed Judicial Review, Poll is here (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=85568)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Judicial Review - Term 4 - Request 2 (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=1744530#post1744530) - Passed Judicial Review - Poll is here (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=85570)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
T2-JR1-Special Elections - Ruling (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?postid=1799910#post1799910)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
T2-JR9-May a leader post instruction prior to their term beginning? - Ruling (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?postid=1801390#post1801390)
---------------------------------------------------------------------

I would like to request a judicial review to determine who should be handing down decisions on previously requested JRs that have not yet been finished. :sleep:

[wipes off dusty old judicial robe] I have been appointed as an associate justice. How 'bout we get this thing going?

Originally posted by Vander
[wipes off dusty old judicial robe] I have been appointed as an associate justice. How 'bout we get this thing going?

Do you know CPR?

This court accepts donsig's request for a Judicial Review. Specificially, donsig is questioning the legality of CoS M.1.d

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


This term's discussion can be found here (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=83807).

Prior discussion on this issue can be found in this thread (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=80698).

I think I'll resist the urge to call a JR on the legality of an incomplete court deciding a JR, at least for now. :rolleyes:

I also find it questionable that this court can ignore a ruling by the previous court and thereby take up the exact same question for consideration.

Originally posted by DaveShack
I think I'll resist the urge to call a JR on the legality of an incomplete court deciding a JR, at least for now. :rolleyes:


Can you point to the law that says you need 3 members to rule on a case?


I also find it questionable that this court can ignore a ruling by the previous court and thereby take up the exact same question for consideration.

As posted where you brought this up before, the post by Peri did not meet the criteria in CoS M.1.c.3:
3. The Chief Justice shall post both opinions, including
the signers of each, in the Judicial Thread and the
Judicial Log.

Originally posted by zorven (but directed at DaveShack)


Can you point to the law that says you need 3 members to rule on a case?
Better yet, can you get a third person to be in the judiciary in the first place? ;)

Originally posted by Bootstoots
Better yet, can you get a third person to be in the judiciary in the first place? ;)

Well, I did my part by saying over in the Presidential thread that I'd be willing to serve if appointed. :)

Please conduct a Judicial Review of a Proposed Law on this proposal (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?postid=1736380#post1736380).

Remember to post in that thread that you are conducting a review and the text that you are reviewing.

Also, as the previous Judiciary did not do so, please conduct a review of the 1 race per citizen law. Sorry, I don't have a link immediately available.

Thanks,
-- Ravensfire

Originally posted by ravensfire
Please conduct a Judicial Review of a Proposed Law on this proposal (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?postid=1736380#post1736380).

Remember to post in that thread that you are conducting a review and the text that you are reviewing.

Also, as the previous Judiciary did not do so, please conduct a review of the 1 race per citizen law. Sorry, I don't have a link immediately available.

Thanks,
-- Ravensfire

I'm still waiting on JR's that I filed in term one. Would the court please give the older cases priority? As a reminder, there are also a couple outstanding CCs to be completed.

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.

Originally posted by DaveShack


Well, I did my part by saying over in the Presidential thread that I'd be willing to serve if appointed. :) Sorry, I didn't see that. You're appointed. :)

Originally posted by ravensfire
Please conduct a Judicial Review of a Proposed Law on this proposal (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?postid=1736380#post1736380).


This JR is accepted as Judicial Review - Term 4 - Request 2.

In what order will the court be handling the backlog of cases?

I wouldn't be surprised if this demogame were over before the backlog was finished. :/

Originally posted by donsig
In what order will the court be handling the backlog of cases?

One way to get movement on outstanding cases is to raise the court's awareness of such cases, by pointing out specific ones you want to see addressed as a priorities.

Our plan is to handle the outstanding cases in the order in which they were filed. I would also like to handle JR's of proposed laws concurrently.

I have updated the second post in this thread with what I believe are all the open cases from prior terms. If you notice one missing, or one on the list that has already been closed, please let me know.

T3-JR1 was closed, with a ruling that the Minister of Internal Affairs has the authority to post instructions on changes of government. That ruling didn't make it into the judicial log for some reason.

That is because I monumentally screwed up on that and many other issues during my term. I sincerely apologise for it and will spend the next few terms sitting in the corner facing the wall. I have been absent for the last fornight at least, due to the effects of the world out there. I hope I did not mess it up too much for everyone and if I did feel free to whip me through the streets of DR or start a public stoning thread.

Regards

Originally posted by Peri
That is because I monumentally screwed up on that and many other issues during my term. I sincerely apologise for it and will spend the next few terms sitting in the corner facing the wall. I have been absent for the last fornight at least, due to the effects of the world out there. I hope I did not mess it up too much for everyone and if I did feel free to whip me through the streets of DR or start a public stoning thread.

Regards

I think a more fitting punishment would be to put you back on the bench. :eek:

Discussion has been reopened on several of the pending cases from prior terms. I have suggested to citizens that it would be a good idea to comment within the next 2-3 days. After that point if there is no continuing discussion we should think about closing debate (again) and an expedited ruling.

Originally posted by DaveShack
T3-JR1 was closed, with a ruling that the Minister of Internal Affairs has the authority to post instructions on changes of government. That ruling didn't make it into the judicial log for some reason.

I then ask is it an official ruling? It has not met the requirements set forth in CoS M.1.c.3. However, considering our ruling JR 1 of this term, can I complete the process of CoS M.1.c.3 already begun by a prior term?

donsig has stepped up to act as the prosecution in this case. Chieftess has asked for a volunteer to act as the defense. Please post or PM me if you are interested.

Please disregard - my apologies.

-- Ravensfire

donsig has stepped up to act as the prosecution in this case. Rik Meleet has asked for a volunteer to act as the defense. Please post or PM me if you are interested.

Please conduct a Judicial Review of the Fanatican Sunshine Law (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=84832). Please use the text noted Final Proposal.

Thanks,
-- Ravensfire

I wish to start a CC for ranvensfire for not creating a Term 4 Internal Affairs thread.


Code of Standards(Sections A - G)


2. Government Sub-forum - Government related information
a. Government Thread Index (all branches) (sticky)
b. Offices Index (appointed/created positions) (sticky)
c. City Index and Registry (sticky)
d. Creative History Department (sticky)
e. Creative History Department - Storyline (sticky)
f. Senate
g. Government Threads

Originally posted by Chieftess
I wish to start a CC for ranvensfire for not creating a Term 4 Internal Affairs thread.


Code of Standards(Sections A - G)


2. Government Sub-forum - Government related information
a. Government Thread Index (all branches) (sticky)
b. Offices Index (appointed/created positions) (sticky)
c. City Index and Registry (sticky)
d. Creative History Department (sticky)
e. Creative History Department - Storyline (sticky)
f. Senate
g. Government Threads


Read the Presidency thread CT - I have resigned.

-- Ravensfire

Then who's Internal Affairs?


*looks at Bootstoots*...

Ok then, I request a CC against Bootstoots for not appointing an IA leader.

Constitution of Fanatica

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.

CoL H.1
H. Vacant Positions
1. Leader positions that remain unfilled after an election
shall be filled via appointment by the President.


And I have a question... Why do we have 2 sections in the laws that essentially say the same thing? :confused:

CoL H.1 and Article G I believe refer to positions that remain unfilled as a result of an election. CoL H.3 states:
3. Leader positions that become vacant mid-term shall be
filled by appointing the deputy for that position as
Leader.
No provision is made for leaders who have not appointed a deputy. CoL B.1.b states:
b. Each department shall have a deputy.
Therefore, ravensfire violated this part of the CoL.

I posted a thread on appointing an IA minister, however I doubt that it is valid. To clarify this point, I hereby request a judicial review, calling into account the laws cited, asking if the President is empowered to appoint a leader if there is no deputy.

The lower books must comform to the constitution. In other words, if the constitution says to do something then the CoL or CoS cannot say that something cannot be done. Article G says that vacant positions shall be filled via appointment. Step up to the plate Mr. President and appoint someone already. That would be much more productive than giving the court more CC's to deal with.

The constitution says that the position must be filled by appointment, however it does not say who must make the appointment. I will, however, appoint somebody if there is a person interested in filling the position, but I will leave it up to the court to determine whether my appointment is valid or not.

T3 JR 3 - Proposed CoS Amendment had passed Judicial Review. A poll has been established here (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=85568)

Request for Judicial Review

Please determine if this post (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?postid=1777472#post1777472) is a valid, legal instruction under Section I of the CoL, Section I of the CoS and Section C.1.b of the CoL.

Although the idea is admirable, and I support it, I am strongly opposed to the Governor of one province creating instructions that bind Governors of other instructions. This is far outside the responsibilities of the Governor. The poll used to justify this should have been labeled an Informational poll, as the matter under consideration was not totally within the duties of the Governor. This is in direct contrast to the polls used by the MIA in the previous term for Wonders. Wonders are explicitly within the duties of the MIA, and thus instructions may be issued for them.

Citizen participation is good, and key, but this goes beyond that.

I apologize for the length of this request, but I will be out of town for several days starting tonight, thus must include my arguement. I pray it is found persuasive. The poll for this also includes some remarks from me on this matter that, if possible, should also be considered by the Court.

My thanks, as always, to the Court.
-- Ravensfire

Ravensfire asks a very good question on which I would like to elaborate:

Was it legal to post the poll in question?
Was it legal to post the post in question in the turnchat instruction thread?
Was it legal for the President/DP to follow the instructions?
Where they contradicted instructions of a governor not present in the turnchat?
Where they contradicted instructions of a governor present in the turnchat but not complaining?
Where they affected cities for which the responsible governor failed to give instructions?

Note: I have adopted the habit of posting in dark blue when I post as governor. I did not do this for either the poll nor the post. Thus I spoke as a citizen. I was not as governor intruding in other governors' competencies.
Please look also at the turnchat log:
[16:30:54] <+tao> Question? What has priority: queues by the governors or by The People's poll decision?
[16:31:10] <!Chieftess> Probably people's poll decision.

Originally posted by Chieftess
Then who's Internal Affairs?


*looks at Bootstoots*...

Ok then, I request a CC against Bootstoots for not appointing an IA leader.

Constitution of Fanatica

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.

CoL H.1
H. Vacant Positions
1. Leader positions that remain unfilled after an election
shall be filled via appointment by the President.


And I have a question... Why do we have 2 sections in the laws that essentially say the same thing? :confused:

Which, if any, of these CC's do you want to continue with?

Ravensfire's 2 JR requests have been added to the docket.

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.

I confirm the ruling in T2-JR1-Special Elections

DaveShack
Associate Justice, Term 4

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.

I confirm the ruling in T2-JR9.

DaveShack
Associate Justice

Well, it looks time has run out for us just when we getting a head of steam on us! I would like to thank Vander and DaveShack for volunteering their services this term - they both acted in a professional and courteous manner in our discussions and I enjoyed working with them both.

Ghost Justice (me): I also agree with my collegues as to the rulings in T2-JR1-Special Elections and T2- JR9.