This is to log all judicial actions during the course of the demogame. This is not a discussion thread.

Note: When issuing letters of articles, please quote the article so that users clearly know what is being changed/discussed.

DG5JR1
Donovan Zoi has requested a Judicial review concerning the appointment/ election of the Vice President and it's effect on the Chain of Command in regards to Article D. In lieu of any legislation concerning the COC, he requests a ruling on the passing of gameplay.

Therefore, in reference to Article D of our Constitution:

With no laws in place to state the contrary, can an implied Chain of Command be granted by Article D, or is the President free to pass the game on to whomever he wishes?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Judge Advocate's Opinion (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=2059668&postcount=43)

Public Defender's Opinion (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=2058064&postcount=30)

Chief Justice Opinion (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=2059655&postcount=42)

The Majority Opinion on this matter rules with the President. No Chain of Command is granted in Article D.

DG5JR2
Comnenus has requested a Judicial Review of Proposed Ammendment to Article H of the Constitution. To abide by his request, this Court will oversee the writing of this proposed amendment and upon completion, conduct the JR to determine if any conflicts with existing Law exist. If no conflicts exist, this Court will post the Legislative poll for the Proposed Amendment to the Constitution.

Proposed Amendment to Article H of the Constituiton (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=2055952&postcount=42)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Judge Advocate's Opinion (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=2059678&postcount=44)

Public Defender's Opinion (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=2064553&postcount=68)

Chief Justice Opinion (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=2059760&postcount=47)

The Proposed Poll for an Amendment to Article H passed Judicial Review.

DG5JR3
Comnenus has requested a Judicial Review concerning the legality of a Proposed Legislative Poll. The proposed poll is for an Amendment to Article O of the Constitution.

Proposed Poll for Constitutional Amendment to Article O (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=95309)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Chief Justice Opinion (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=2058138&postcount=33)

Judge Advocate's Opinion (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=2059755&postcount=46)

Public Defender's Opinion (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=2060454&postcount=57)

The Proposed Poll passed Judicial Review.

DG5JR4
Comnenus has requested a Judicial Review concerning the legality of a Proposed Legislative Poll. The proposed poll is for an Amendment to Article E of the Constitution.

Proposed Poll for an Amendemnet to Article E (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=95303)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Chief Justice Opinion (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=2061080&postcount=60)

Judge Advocate Opinion (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=2059715&postcount=45)

Public Defender's Opinion (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=2058265&postcount=39)

The Proposed Poll passed Judicial Review.

DG5JR5
Comnenus has requested a Judicial Review concerning the legality of a Citizen holding two Offices at once by virtue of winning two elections simultaneously. The question wraps around the issue of a Candidate running for more than one Office at a time. If a Candidate wins two elections simultaneously, is this a violation of Article H.

Because of the passage of the Amendment to Article H, wording for that Article eliminates the possibility of the above mentioned situation from happening. Article H in its current form is posted below:

Article H.
No person shall hold multiple positions of leadership
(President, Vice-President, Department Leader,
Judiciary, Provincial Governor, Deputy) simultaneously,
nor shall have more than one accepted nomination at the
commencement of the general election.

Because of the change in legislation, this Judicial Review is closed.

DG5JR6

Donovan Zoi has requested a Judicial Review for a Proposed Poll for an Amendment to the Constitution ~ Article I. It can be found here. (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=2064473&postcount=20)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Public Defender's Opinion (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=2066966&postcount=71)

Chief Justice Opinion (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=2067695&postcount=72)

Public Defender's Opinion (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=2070212&postcount=84)

The proposed poll has passed Judicial Review.

DG5JR7

Comnenus has requested a Judicial Review concerning Provinces and Governors in regards to their very existance due to the lack of Legislation in the Constitution. His claim is that due to this lack of Legislation, Provinces and Governors can not exist in the great nation of Japanatica. That said, he ask 2 questions of this Court ~

1. Can Provinces be formed in the nation's territory?

2. Can citizens elected to the Provincial Governor's position make any decisions?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Chief Justice Opinion (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=2067761&postcount=74)

Judge Advocate's Opinion (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=2070259&postcount=85)

Public Defender's Opinion (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=2073261&postcount=89)

In essance, what this Court has ruled is that because laws dealing with these matters are still pending, no full authorization has been approved yet for either entity. However, the Judges split on the questions and authorized Provinces to legally be formed, while at the same time denying Governors control of said Provinces. This ruling allows for Provinces, but puts their control in the hands of the Domestic Department or the President.

EDIT: Because of legislation passed as Article E of the Demogame Constitution, (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=2026857&postcount=1) this ruling is overturned. Governors are now authorized to control all aspects of their elected Office.

DG5JR8

Donovan Zoi has requested a Judicial Review pertaining to Article M of the Constitution, and it's meaning in regards to stopping play.

Under Article M as written, is the Designated Player granted the unique authority to "reverse" irreversible actions while playing the save at turnchat?

In CivGeneral's Dealing with demands from other nations (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=95985) thread, discussion has been raised on what can be done to plan for and offset unplanned demands from rival nations. It was suggested by someone that the DP could view the demand, then stop the game and take his findings back to the forum. Our President responded that it is not within his right to do such a thing and based on precedent, he is correct.

However, is Article M written in such a way to allow him to do just that? Due to the parade of run-on clauses that Article M contains, it is hard for this legislator to tell.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Chief Justice Opinion (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=2067964&postcount=77)

Public Defender's Opinion (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=2073318&postcount=90)

Judge Advocate's Opinion (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=2080847&postcount=99)

The Majority Opinon is that the Designated Player is NOT granted the unique authority to "reverse" irreversible actions while playing the save at turnchat. This action is allowed only in renogiations of Peace.

DG5JR9

President DaveShack has requested a Judicial Review concerning the matter of tied poll results dealing with Official matters. He has asked 2 questions, first dealing with the Domestic Minister in regards to city placement polls, and then dealing with tied polls in general. This court feels that the second question encompasses the first, and therfore negates ruling on it. Thus, DaveShack's request for a Judicial Review (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=2081373&postcount=101) will be reduced to his second question:

Question 2: Does any provision of the constitution give anyone the right to break ties in general?

The "Law" in question will be seen as the entirity of the Constitution.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Public Defenders Opinion (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=2084557&postcount=109)

Judge Advocate Opinion (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=2084782&postcount=110)

Chief Justice Opinion (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=2085074&postcount=111)

Majority Opinion ~ For the purposes of not having an impossibly deadlocked poll, it is within the power of the minister whose jurisdiction encompases the poll in question to break a tie.

DG5JR10
As a citizen, Cyc presented this proposed poll for an Amendment to the Code of Laws to the Court for Judicial Review.

Proposed Poll for an Amendment to the Code of Laws. (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=2087940&postcount=43)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Chief Justice Opinion (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=2091356&postcount=133)

Public Defender's Opinion (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=2092063&postcount=134)

Judge Advocate's Opinion (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=2093624&postcount=137)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The Proposed Poll passes Judicial Review.

DG5JR11
Sir Donald III has requested a Judicial Review for his proposed poll for an Amendment to Artile G of the Constitution. This Article deals with Terms of Office, Deputies, and Vacancies and Appointments to Elected Offices. (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=2092306&postcount=75)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Chief Justice Opinion (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=2095558&postcount=150)

Public Defender's Opinion (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=2096099&postcount=151)

Judge Advocate's Opinion (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=2096600&postcount=154)

The proposed poll has passed Judicial Review and can proceed to polling.

DG5JR12
Black Hole has requested a Judicial Review concerning the legality of a Government Office that is not defined in the Constitution posting legally binding Instructions in the TCIT. His request can be found here. (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=2108682&postcount=158) Black Hole is referencing Articles D, J, and N of the Constitution for this request.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Chief Justice Opinion (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=2109808&postcount=159)

Judge Advocate's Opinion (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=2111370&postcount=165)

Public Defender's Opinion (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=2114147&postcount=167)

Majority Opinion: The instructions posted by offices not mentioned in the constitution or appointed by the president are not binding legal instructions.

DG5JR13
Ravensfire has requested a Judicial Review on the Proposed Polls for Article G and supporting Sections of the Code of Laws (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=2156331&postcount=16).
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Chief Justice Opinion (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=2156957&postcount=19)

Public Defender's Opinion (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=2157963&postcount=20)

Judge Advocate's Opinion (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=2165024&postcount=32)

The Proposed Polls have passed Judicial Review and may proceed to polling.

DG5JR14

Sir Donald III has requested a Judicial Review on his Proposed Poll for the ratification of Section O (1) of the Code of Laws (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=2174632&postcount=36)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Public Defender's Opinion (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=2179900&postcount=47)

Chief Justice Opinion (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=2180124&postcount=51)

Judge Advocate's Opinion (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=2182382&postcount=54)

The Proposed Poll has passed Judicial Review and may proceed to polling.

DG5JR15

Sir Donald III has requested a Judicial Review (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=2175594&postcount=40) concerning the powers of the Vice President in regards to creating a Turn Chat Instruction Thread, should the President fail to do so within the 24 hour period prior to a scheduled Turn Chat. He is referencing Article G, Section 2 of the Constitution.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Chief Justice Opinion (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=2181691&postcount=53)

Judge Advocate's Opinion (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=2182382&postcount=54)

Public Defender's Opinion (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=2182720&postcount=56)

Sir Donald III's question was :
Does the Vice President have the right to create Turnchat Instruction Threads if the President has not done so within 24 Hours of the Pre-specified time of the TC?

Majority Opinion: This Court has ruled that the Vice President does indeed have the right to create a Turn Chat Instruction thread under normal and abnormal circumstances. Normal being under the direction of the President or a planned Absense. Abnormal being if the President failed to post a TCIT prior to the 24 hour deadline before a scheduled Turn Chat.

DG5JR16

Civman2004 has requested a Judicial Review of Article N of the Constitution in regards to the question of amending said Article to include the Code of Laws as part of the ruleset referred to in it. Stating:

"Also, we should ammend article N to restrict citizens from disobeying the code of laws, on the basis that the constitution does not forbid it? My understanding is that the COL is a "governing law," not part of the constitution itself, and thus not expressly included in article N. I thus request a judicial review on whether the constitution (article N) actually requires citizens to follow the code of laws."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Public Defender's Opinion (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=2185276&postcount=65)

Chief Justice Opinion (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=2185366&postcount=66)

Judge Advocate's Opinion (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=2185433&postcount=67)

Majority Opinion: Article N does not actually require the citizens to obey/follow the Code of Laws, in answer to Civman2004's question. That is done by Article B. But in answer to the intent of the request for Judicial Review, to protect the integrity of the Code of Laws, an amendment should be drawn up for Article N with the Code of Laws included in the rules that may forbid citizen actions.

DG5JR17

Sir Donald III has submitted a request for Judicial Review (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=2198410&postcount=72) concerning the authority and capabilities of Governors appointed to Office, while a Confirmation Poll has been posted against them. He is referencing Article G.2 of the Constitution. His two questions are:
A: With the exception of Deputy Promotions, (to the full office, given the Article G Section 2 of the Constitution,) would the Apointees under Confirmation be allowed to write instruction threads for any Turnchats during the "Confirmation Period"?

B: And if not, then who would make instructions for Vacant or Newly Established positions?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Public Defender's Opinion (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=2201358&postcount=78)

Chief Justice Opinion (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=2202700&postcount=79)

Judge Advocate's Opinion (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=2204119&postcount=86)

Majority Opinion: This Court has ruled that an Appointee to an elected Office retains all rights and privilages associated with that Office unless a Confirmation Poll closed with negative results. If that situation occurs, then the Office becomes Vacant again.

DG5JR18

Ravensfire has submitted a request for Judicial Review (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=2201223&postcount=77) concerning Article N. He has presented 2 questions to the Court, first asking about the allowances granted to the People through Article N, and the second asking if said Article grants specific rights to the People in naming the Provinces and Cities.

Referencing Article N of the Constitution, Ravensfire's questions are:
1. Does Article N grant unto the People all rights and responsiblities not forbidden to them and not granted to specified leader?

2. Does Article N soley grant unto the People the right to name Provinces and Cities, or does that right lie with the Domestic Minister, under Article D.1 (resonsible for all domestic initiatives...)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Chief Justice Opinion (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=2203172&postcount=83)

Public Defender's Opinion (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=2217222&postcount=111)

Judge Advocate's Opinion (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=2217408&postcount=116)

Majority Opinion: This Judicial Review was requested in response to a Citizen's Discussion on the matter of Naming Rights of a Governor of a Province. No real Law in our ruleset covers Naming Rights specifially, so an overview of our Constitution was used in determining the end result. Because of the questions and Article referenced in the JR, the subject matter became weighed down with a confusing mesh of interpretation. Thus, after all the Opinions were turned in, a Call for Clarification (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=2210551&postcount=90) was submitted by the Chief Justice, in order to better summarize the said Opinions. This Call for Clarification sought to fine-tune the answers given, as the separate Justices seemed to agree in intent, but differ in wording. The resulting Clarifications are the Opinions posted above.

Therefore, this Court finds in answer to the questioned asked,
1. Yes, Article N grants unto the People all rights and responsiblities not forbidden to them and not granted to specified Leader.
2. No, Article N does not soley grant unto the People the right to name Provinces and Cities, nor does that right lie with the Domestic Minister, under Article D.1.

In essance, it was determined that all rights and responsibilities not forbidden by our ruleset or delegated to any person(s) are within the rights of all citizens and brought to fruition by their actions. The second question was a bit more difficult to summarize, but basically, even though Province and City Naming are not forbidden to the people, nor granted to a specific Leader by the Constitution, the right of Naming Provinces and Cities is not ultimately in the hands of the people, but granted to them under certain restrictions.

The Public Defender stated that Naming Rights for Provinces and Cities fall under the supervision of the Domestic Advisor. The Judge Advocate stated that the ultimate authority for naming Provinces and Cities lies with the citizens, but the various Governors and the Domestic Advisor are to determine their will. The Chief Justice stated that Governors are responsible for giving the Provinces their permanent names and that citizens are responsible for City Naming as per their place in the Citizen Registry.

These restrictions are not a major deterent in making the ruling. These restrictions can be worked out in future Judicial Review. Hopefully, there will be new laws passed that help answer the questions raised here.

DG5JR19

Sir Donald III has requested a Judicial Review (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=2218670&postcount=121) concerning who has the authority to post Instructions for the route of a Naval transport carrying a Settler. SD3 is referencing Article O for this JR. His question is:

Who is in control of a Naval Transport containing a Settler?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Chief Justice Opinion (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=2222800&postcount=127)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Due to the fact that no Opinions were posted by the Public Defender or the Judge Advocate, this Judicial Review has been transferred to the Term 3 Judiciary. The Term 2 Chief Justice Opinion will become null and void at this time.

DG5CC1 ~

Minister Black_Hole has, as a citizen, filed a Citizen's Complaint (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=2214459&postcount=91) against President Chieftess. He claims Chieftess violated Article D of the Constitution by ignoring legally posted Instructions in the Turn Chat Instruction thread (TCIT) in the Turn Chat today. She compounded this act by over-stepping her authority as President/DP in calling a tied Cultural Poll in favor of he option she voted for, even though Minister snipelfritz was present at the chat. When she did this act, it would have meant that Zojoji was changed to a Colosseum (as Deputy-Governor RegentMan has posted), but instead switched it a Swordsman on her own.

This Citizen's Complaint was filed and accepted 4 days prior to the end of this Term. An Investigation Thread was opened, but due to posts made by Citizen's that were against Court Procedures, that was closed by Moderator eyrei. A new Investigation Thread was opened in order to let the process run through and allow the Defense to enter a plea as well as uphold the rights of Minister Black_Hole according to Article A of the Constitution. After 60 hours of Investigation and debate, a Trial Poll was opened. This Trial Poll will bridge Term 2 and Term 3. Term 3 Judiciary will then take control of this Citizen's Complaint and finish the process. At the end of Term 2, this Judiciary will relinquish control and responsibilty of this Court action.

DG5CC#1

President Chieftess has been found guilty by the Japanatican Citizens, of violating Article D of the Constitution. The result of the trial poll can be found here (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=101119).

More specificially, she is found guilty, during the Sept. 26, 2004 Turn 170 A.D. Turn Chat, of violating legally posted orders of the Province of Zarnia's Deputy Governor RegentMan. The President, according to the people, set the city of Zojoji to build a swordsman, rather than the stated instruction to build a colosseum.

The public sentence poll (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=101263) ended in a three-way tie. Article J.3. of the Term 3 Judicial Code (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=2224221&postcount=2) demands the Judiciary to decide about the punishment.

Chief Justice Verdict (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=2232676&postcount=55)
Public Defender Verdict (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=2233391&postcount=62)
Judge Advocate Verdict (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=2232966&postcount=59)

The Term 3 Judiciary unanimously decided that the accused should be punished with a 'Warning'. Specific reasoning can be found in the links above. The main reason for this punishment is the tied poll, and by interpreting the poll, the way we did it in DG3, we hope to have involved as much citizens as possible in the decision.
The Term 3 Judiciary also unanimously decided that this punishment suits the actual crime the best. Impeachment from office would be too severe for a first-time violation of the Japanatican Constitution, while letting the accused go without any punishment, would be a flagrant insult to our Constitution.

The Term 3 Judiciary now considers this case closed.

DG5JR#19

Sir Donald III has requested a Judicial Review (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=2214567&postcount=92) concerning who has the authority to post Instructions for the route of a Naval transport carrying a Settler. SD3 is referencing Article O for this JR. His question is:

Who is in control of a Naval Transport containing a Settler?

As the term 2 ruling voided, here is the term 3 Judiciary ruling regarding this Judicial Review.

Chief Justice Opinion (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=2229635&postcount=37)
Public Defender's Opinion (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=2229145&postcount=30)
Judge Advocate's Opinion (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=2229820&postcount=41)

DG5JR#20

KCCrusader (via forum) and Strider(via PM) have requested a judicial review (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=2225229&postcount=11) on the trial of president Chieftess. They doubt that Chieftess has access all the rights provided by the Constitution.

Were all rights, as provided by the Constitution, well ensured to the Accused of DG5CC#1?

Chief Justice Opinion (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=2226042&postcount=16)
Public Defender's Opinion (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=2225266&postcount=12) / Conclusion (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=2229150&postcount=31)
Judge Advocate Opinion (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=2226886&postcount=18)

The opinions of the Judiciary regarding this JR were widely scattered. The Majority opinion of the Judiciary (by CJ gert-janl & JA mhcarver) reasons that the accused have been given enough rights for a fair trial. CJ gert-janl however, doesn't think that the trial haven't been taken properly care of by the previous Judiciary, and finds PD KCCrusader in this opinion. His minority opinion states that the DG5CC#1 accused right's were not ensured, and that a lot of procedural mistakes have been made.

The Court decides that DG5CC#1 can continue, although it hasn't been a perfect CC. The accused have been given enough basic rights, to have a fair trial.

DG5JR#21

On October 2nd MOTH requested a Judicial Review (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=2227305&postcount=19) about Constitution article G.4 and CoL G.1.
He asked the Court to define the following points:

1. What constitutes an "Vacant office" according to Constitution article G. part 4? Specifically, is a Deputy position and "office" and is it "vacant" following an uncontested election?
2. Who can "appoint" a citizen to a vacant office? President of Office holder?

Chief Justice Opinion (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=2229638&postcount=38)
Public Defender's Opinion (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=2229204&postcount=34)
Judge Advocate Opinion (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=2227957&postcount=23)

The Court unanimously came to the conclusion that a Deputy position cannot be called office, until the Office holdel is absent. Therefore it cannot be called 'vacant' following an uncontested election.
The Court also unanimously concluded that it's the president who appoints a citizen to a vacant office, but the office holder who appoints his deputy.

On October 9th classical_hero requested a Judicial Review (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=2244930&postcount=81), concerning article D of the Constitution.

He wants to know which official does have the authority over military upgrades.

Chief Justice Opinion (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=2247377&postcount=86)
Public Defender's Opinion (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=2247411&postcount=87)
Judge Advocate Opinion (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=2247746&postcount=88)

The Court unanimously decided that every upgrade request must be filed by the minister of Defense, but also must be approved by the Domestic Minister. Hence, an upgrade-instruction posted solely by either the Domestic Minister or the Defense Minister is considered illegal. Both official have to post the request. The Domestic Minister has the right to deny the military to upgrade

On October 16th Ashburnham has requested a Judicial Review concerning the authority of ministers over governors as provided by the Constitution.

He wants the Court to clarify the Constitution concerning the following question:

Can a ministry override the instructions of a governor when it comes to city production?

Chief Justice Opinion (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=2264554&postcount=94)
Public Defender's Opinion (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=2279663&postcount=109)
Judge Advocate Opinion (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=2264789&postcount=95)

The Court doesn't speak with one voice concerning this issue. A majority opinion, consisting of Judge KCCrusader and gert-janl, believes that governors are ultimately responsible for buildqueues and that any minister is crossing the line when overriding instructions, already posted by governors. A minority opinion of Judge mhcarver however, believes that a minister can issue binding instructions overriding a Governors buildqueue, as long as it is the proven will of the people.

On October 22nd, blackheart approached the Court for amending the Code of Laws. He proposes the addition of a fifth article to the Code of Laws. That proposed article consists of the following.

CoL G.5 - Turnchat Schedule
A. At least 4 days between Turnchats is required. The time, however, of
the TC does not have to be exactly 96 hours from the previous Turnchat.
Some latitude will be given (+/- 5 hours). This latitude is up to the
discretion of the DP.
B. There must be played at least one full Turnchat every week; one full
turnchat usually constitutes of at least 10 turns, but this does not have
to be fully played as the DP can stop the turnchat early as the need
arises.
C. If required, the DP can decide to hold more turnchats, limited to one turn,
as needed to decide in matters of trade or any other one turn actions.
During these one turn TCs no more than one turn can be played, but no
turns (effectively pressing the turn button) are needed to be played, just
the instructions are required to be carried out as dictated by the
ministers and governors.

The Court finds no conflicts with the present legislation and presented the proposal to the House of the People.

On October 27th, Donovan Zoi requested a Judicial Review concerning the Term 4 elections. He therefore asked the following question to be reviewed by the Court:

Can a nomination be considered accepted so long as it is posted before the commencement of the General Election?

Donovan Zoi also requested the Court to handle this review with priority. The Court recognises the need for a priority case because of the upcoming elections.

Chief Justice Opinion (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=2290344&postcount=124)
Public Defender's Opinion (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=2292160&postcount=152)
Judge Advocate Opinion (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=2291394&postcount=129)

The Court unanimously decided that a nomination thread is only to be considered closed when the elections on that particular position start. Constitution Article H provides the main guidance in this decision.

As a result of this ruling, elections on the position of Minister of Foreign Affairs will be conducted by the Judiciary. The candidates are CivGeneral and Donovan Zoi.

On November 2nd, Strider approached the Court for amending Constitution Article K.

The original Article K reads:All irreversible game actions must progress during a public turnchat,
while reversible game actions(ie build queues) that adhere to legal
instruction can be prepared offline.

He proposed to amend this article into:

Article K.
All irreversible game actions must progress during a public turnchat, while
reversible game actions(ie build queues) that adhere to legal instruction can
be prepared offline.
1. A turnchat instruction thread must be created at least 3 days before
the chat.
a. All instructions created by leaders must be posted inside of the
current turnchat instruction thread.
Instructions must be clear and defined.
b. A leader must post their instructions at least one hour before the
Turnchat. However, a leader may make changes to their instructions up
to an hour before the chat, so long as those changes are noted.
2. The designated player shall be charged with the creation of a date and
time for all public turnchats.

The Court cannot find any conflicts with the present legislation and presented this amendment to the House of the People.

On November 4th, Sir Donald III requested a Judicial Review concerning absence of officials. His exact question to the court is as follows.

If an Officer and his/her Deputy are unable to post in the TCIT, for whatever reason, then how should the DP proceed with the affairs of that Office?

He also provided the Court conveniently with some sub-questions regarding this issue.

1. If an Officer and his/her Deputy are unable to post in the TCIT, for whatever reason, then can the Turnchat proceed?

2. And, if so, Can the DP change standing orders relating to that Office? (Standing orders are items that can be continued such as Slider Settings, orders regarding Demands, and Build Queues.)

Chief Justice Opinion (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=2312782&postcount=46)
Public Defender's Opinion (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=2312939&postcount=47)
Judge Advocate Opinion (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=2313003&postcount=48)

The Court rules unanimously that Turnchat instructions are the only valid source of giving instruction to the DP. Therefore the 'not-posting' of instructions by officials will result in an authority of the DP on the office of the absent official. Hence, a Turnchat can never be cancelled for the sole reason of a lack of instruction.
On the issue of governors, who sometimes set long-term buildqueues, the CJ and JA ruled in a majority opinion that previously posted instruction on buildqueues remain valid untill the buildqueue is empty. The buildqueue then falls under the authority of the DP.

On the 14th of November Ashburnham has requested a Judicial Review regarding article D of the Constitution.

More specifically he wants to know who, according to the Constitution has the final say on embassy and espionage missions?

Chief Justice Opinion (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=2336119&postcount=54)
Public Defender's Opinion (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=2337454&postcount=63)
Judge Advocate Opinion (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=2336737&postcount=58)

In a majority opinion Chief Justice gert-janl and Judge Advocate mhcarver rule that according to the exact wording of the Constitution at the moment the President is responsible for conducting spy/embassy missions. Both Judges post a recommendation to the House of Representatives to change the constitution here, so that this task becomes part of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
In a minority opinion Public Defender ravensfire ruled that it should be still the Minister of Foreign Affairs who deals with these matters, since the authors of the Constitution intended so. He also calls his fellow justices to interpret the Constitution more broadly if the need arises.

On November 18th, mhcarver approached the Court as a citizen to amendment Constitutional Article D.6.

The original Article D.6 reads:
The Minister of Culture shall be responsible for the keeping of
the peace and the construction of wonders.
The proposal is to amend this into:
The Minister of Culture shall be responsible for the construction of
wonders, as well as the analysis and maintenance of cultural borders.
This official shall also be responsible for monitoring Japanatica's cultural
level against that of all rival nations.

The Court finds no conflicts with the present legislation and presented the proposal to the House of the People.

Ashburnham approached the term 5 court shortly before the start of the term with a proposed amendment to article D of the constitution
He has proposed Changing it from

1. The Minister of Domestic Affairs shall be
responsible for all domestic initiatives, worker allocation,
as well as the distribution of funds, as prescribed by law.
2. The Minister of Foreign Affairs shall be responsible
for matters involving treaties with foreign nations,
as prescribed by law.
3. The Minister of Defense shall be responsible for all
military strategy and troop activities, as
prescribed by law.
4. The Minister of Trade shall be responsible for all
trade, domestic and foreign, and the use of resources,
as perscibed by law.
5. The Minister of Science shall be responsible for all tech
acquisition, as prescribed by law.
6. The Minister of Culture shall be responsible for the construction
of wonders, as well as the analysis and maintenance of cultural
borders. This official shall also be responsible for monitoring
Japanatica's cultural level against that of all rival nations.


to

1. The Minister of Domestic Affairs shall be
responsible for all domestic initiatives, worker allocation,
as well as the distribution of funds, as prescribed by law.
2. The Minister of Foreign Affairs shall be responsible
for matters involving treaties with foreign nations as well
as all espionage and embassy missions as prescribed by law.
3. The Minister of Defense shall be responsible for all
military strategy and troop activities, as
prescribed by law.
4. The Minister of Trade shall be responsible for all
trade, domestic and foreign, and the use of resources,
as perscibed by law.
5. The Minister of Science shall be responsible for all tech
acquisition and construction of spaceship parts as prescribed by law.
6. The Minister of Culture shall be responsible for the
construction of wonders, as well as the analysis and
maintenance of cultural borders.This official shall also be
responsible for monitoring Japanatica's cultural level
against that of all rival nations.

The court finds that the proposed leglislation does not conflict with the constitution in any way and may proceed to the house for polling

On november the First Nobody(the person) approached the court with a question over who had power over espionage missions, specifically

who has responsibility over Trade Embargo,. Trade or Foreign Affairs?



All three of the justices ruled that the power of Trade Embargoes falls under the Foreign affairs department. CJ Mhcarver ruled that an embargo was a treaty and by definition fell under the jurdistiction of the Foreign affairs department. Judge Advocate Black Hole agreed and ruled with the Chief Justice saying that the only thing that even hinted at the trade department having control was the word trade before embargo. Public Defender Ravensfire agreed with the CJ and JA that Foreign affairs had control but also ruled in a minority opinion that the FA minister must get permission from other ministries(mainly trade and domestic) , should those ministries be affected.

Chief Justice Opinion (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=2382252&postcount=24)
Public Defender Opinon (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=2383543&postcount=29)
Judge Advocate Opinion (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=2382443&postcount=25)

As a citizen, Mhcarver approached the Judiciary about adding an Article H to the Code of Laws dealing with election reform. The proposed leglislation reads

Code of Laws Section H:
1. Nominations
a. Nomination threads shall be normally be opened 8 days
before the end of the month at approximately 00:00 GMT (this is 7 or 8 PM Eastern time of the 23rd.) in the main DG forum
by a representative of the Election Office though any citizen may open a pre-nomination thread in the main forum to post a self-nomination and acceptance for any office up to one week ahead of the normal nomination threads."
b. The initial post for each office will describe the office and
the relevant dates for the election process.
c. A citizen may nominate any citizen(s), including themself, for
each election.
d. A nomination is considered Declined until the nominated citizen
posts that they accept the nomination. All self-nomination are
considered accepted unless posted otherwise.
e. Nomination threads are open until the first election poll is
posted.

2. Debates
a. Debate threads shall be opened at the same time the nomination
threads are opened, and be placed in the Citizens forum by a
representative of the Election Office.
b. Any citizen may post a question for the candidates to answer.
c. Debate threads are open until the election polls close.
3. Elections
a. Election polls shall be opened approximately 3 days after the
nomination threads are opened, and be placed in the main forum
by a representative of the Election Office.
b. Election polls shall set as "private" polls, and set to close
after 3 days (72 hours).
4. Election Office
a. The Election Office shall be comprised of those citizens
willing to assist the election process. These citizens are
nominated by the President, and are subject to a confirmation
poll.
b. The Election Office shall determine before each election who
will post the threads for that election.
c. The Election Office shall maintain on the initial post of their
thread the dates for the current and next election cycle.
d. The Election Office shall solicit and maintain a common list of
debate questions for each office. This list shall be posted as
soon as possible in each debate thread.
e. Any non-trivial differences in the dates/times threads are posted
from the scheduled time should be noted by the Election Office
official posting the thread.

In a consensus ruling the court finds the leglislation does not conflict with the constitution in any way and may proceed to polling in the house for acceptance or rejection
:hammer:

an anymous citizen approached the judiciary wishing to file a Citizen Complaint against Epithemus for alleged violations of article N while head of the City Naming office(CNO). The text of the complaint can be found here (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=2386730&postcount=42). After receiving the complaint the Chief Justice and Judge Advocate each found that the case had merit while the public defender disagreed. An investigation thread was opened up here. During the investigation it became clear there was overwhelming public support for Epithemus. The Judiciary re-considered the Merit of this case and the Judge Advocate and Chief Justice shifted their positions from the case having merit to no merit. The case is hereby considered closed.

Rulings on dismissal

Chief Justices Opinion (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=2392612&postcount=68)

Public Defenders Opinion (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=2387614&postcount=54) Note: the Public defender cited this as the reason for dismissial on re-evaluation

Judge Advocate Opinion (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=2392416&postcount=65)

Classical Hero has requested a JR on who has power over giving gifts to other nations, the Trade or FA departments. In a unaimous deciscion the court rules that giving gifts is essentially a trade with nothing in return and therefore the power of gift giving goes with the trade ministereo

Chief Justice opinion (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=2412567&postcount=84)

Public Defender Opinion (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=2411777&postcount=82)

Judge Advocate Opinionp (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=2412448&postcount=83)

Addendum
Classical hero approached the court after it's ruling to ask if the ruling applied to cities also. The court ruled 3-0 that a trade minister makes the instructions to gift a city but must receive the consent of the Domestic ministry or the Governor, whoever the cities control falls under

Chief Justice Addendum (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=2414184&postcount=86)

Public Defender Addendum (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=2415000&postcount=88)

Judge Advocate Addendum (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=2414979&postcount=87)

mhcarver, as the Chief Election Officer has requested a judicial review over CoL H.4. He is asking 2 questions:
1.Are election officials terms indefinite?
2.Can election officials be declared absent? if so how?

All three justices were in agreement on this JR.

Chief Justice Opinion
Public Defender Opinion
Judge Advocate Option

Majority Opinion
The President may remove and replace election officers if they are absent. Also the election officer remains in ofice until he/she wants to leave or is removed by the President.

Moth, as a citizen has requested a judicial review over an undisclosed law. The question is:
Does any elected position include the responsibility to determine what victory condition we should accept?

However Moth did not specify a law/laws that need specifacation, so as Chief Justice I requested clarifacation. Cyc came forward and submitted article J, and shortly after Moth verified article J and also added article N.

The judiciary was in agreement on this JR.

Chief Justice Opinion
Public Defender Opinion
Judge Advocate Opinion

Majority Opinion
No, there is no office that has responsibilty to determine the victory condition. This obligation lies solely with the people, and the people only.