All members of the judiciary share several traditional rights and responsibilities:

Post polls and discussion on interpretations of the Constitution, Code of Laws, and Code of Standards.
Do not have Deputies but may appoint Pro-Tem justicesif they are unable to fulfill their duties. Pro-Tem officials have all of the rights and responsibilities of the officials they are filling in for but are a temporary position and must surrender their pro-tem status upon the request of the official.
Participate in Judicial Review to determine the legality of proposed amendments, laws and standards.
Initiate and participate in Judicial Review to interpret and clarify existing amendments, laws and standards.
Initiate and participate in Judicial Review to dismiss investigations as having "No Merit".
Post Legislative polls that have passed Judicial Review (chief justice only).

Please Accept or Decline any nominations you receive.

Self nominate

Accepted

Nominate CYC for the position.

Once again, the customary nomination of donsig "...so he can preside over his own PI"!

Second for Donsig

A Third for Donsig

I accept. Thank you Immortal. I will second Immortal.

gert-janl has asked me (since he is on holiday now) to nominate him for CJ and accept in his place. So consider gert-janl to be nominated and accepted.

I'll second gert-janl.

2nd Cyc...:D

I nominate my self and accept Good luck to the competition.

Wow, this one is getting crowded fast! I guess I won't follow through on the intent I posted in Cyc's thread to run for this office.

It would be kinda neat if someone nominated eyrei, Chieftess, and Rik Meleet for all 3 judiciary positions -- not that I'm going to do that, but it's a wild idea. :rolleyes:

I nth Cyc.

I nominate Immortal, donsig, and Cyc. I had "fun" legal discussins with them the last 2 months and I think they will know what they are doing :)

Wow, this one is getting crowded fast! I guess I won't follow through on the intent I posted in Cyc's thread to run for this office.

It would be kinda neat if someone nominated eyrei, Chieftess, and Rik Meleet for all 3 judiciary positions -- not that I'm going to do that, but it's a wild idea. :rolleyes:

I nth Cyc.

Strangely enough, the idea of having the mods be a form of a judicial system was tossed around a couple games ago. Unfortunately, I do not have the time, unless your legal system ends up being a lot more simple. Maybe in a couple terms I'll nominate myself. ;)

I nominate myself and accept.

Justice for all!

I'll second blackheart. Good Luck!

I'd like to Nominate ravensfire for CJ.

Question for the candidates:

What principle would you use for a basis in determining whether an investigation had "No Merit"?

Question for the candidates:

How do you plan to organize the affairs of the court?

The Court must be structured in such away to allow maximum transparency, it is my contention that an open court is a legitimate one. In the case of a PI/CC, as the CJ I would be informed of the request either through public domain, through another member of the judiciary, or through a private message, depending on the accusers sentiment. I would respect their anonymity should they request it.

A thread would be opened in the citizens forum where the accused will be named, the charges named, and the request for the other judiciary members to involve themselves. The CJ would then act in an advisory role to the JA and the PD through the proceedings, where they would offer evidence and counterevidence, and allow the accused to respond to the charges.The three judiciary officials can at this time declare the case as having no merit should it be applicable. If not a debate will be conducted for 48 hours or longer between the JA, PD, Accused, and citizenry.

The thread will be closed and a sentencing poll of guilty non guilty will be started by the CJ and last 72 hours. If found guilty a sentencing poll will be conducted by the CJ, also open for 72 hours. The rulings relevent to the PI will be entered into a log for citation at a later date.

IN the case of a CC: This is where my consitutional prowess will serve me best, as I believe consensus among the three judiciary members is required for a constitutional challenge to be ended. It will be a simple debate style between the three judicial members until consensus. Personal sentiments may be entered afterwards by each of the judges.

I hope this clarifies.

Anyway, I'll answer my question first. The Constitution is the law of the land. If someone commited an act which broke a law (from any part of our eventual rulest), and there is clear, or even slight evidence that the accusation is true, I would reccomend an Investigation. The people should demand their voice to be heard in that kind of situation. OTOH, if I look at a complaint and see that no rule has bent bent or broken, I would not want to waste the Court's time or the People's time in dealing with it.

So Immortal, your assumption to the meaning of my question was correct.
_________________________________________

In answer to DaveShack's question, I would try to stay along the same course I took as Chief Justice in Term 1 of DG4. Sticking to procedure was of great importance to me and I tried to run a tight ship as far as my Associates went. I look at the position like I look at the Demogame as a whole. If you follow the rules, we are NOT going to have a problem.

I definitely did not like the rules about closed door sessions and only one Majority Opinion being posted. I never want to see that in a Demogame. In Term 1 DG4, I almost had a throw down with different factors in the game (including my Associate Justices) about who needed to post wht, when and where. Although I didn't exactly agree with the rules, I always tried to adhere to procedure and make sure those under me did too. All in all, in the end, everything worked out fine.

:lol: I posted in the PD before the other 2 in case I interpreted the question wrong, now that I have been clarified:

Cyc's question:

In terms of what would cause me to do so: Lack of evidence and the relevent constitutional articles, nothing more. Whether an investigation is political in nature or not, it is the job of the judiciary to uphold the constitution, and defend the accused from wrongful investigation. The evidence will determine whether the case has merit, not the accusers personal axe.

:rolleyes: Ah, that's where I saw your answer. Sorry. My mistake. Good answer to DaveShack's question btw.

Three questions I'm going to put in every nomination thread (except FA, as I'm running there):

1. Are you running for multiple positions?

2. If you answered yes to the above question, what positions are you running for, and in what order would you accept them if you win multiple elections?

3. If this position is not your first choice as answered in question 2, why should we vote for you here, knowing that our vote may be wasted if you win another election?

1. Are you running for multiple positions?

2. If you answered yes to the above question, what positions are you running for, and in what order would you accept them if you win multiple elections?

3. If this position is not your first choice as answered in question 2, why should we vote for you here, knowing that our vote may be wasted if you win another election?

I'm running for three positions. Chief Justice, Public Defender, and Judge Advocate. I would take Chief Justice first of course, and it really wouldn't matter which of the other two I would give priority, as I could thrive in both environments just as easily. And number 3, you need me as Chief Justice. :) You need me on the Judiciary. Voting for me on all three positions will benefit you. I am here to protect your rights and make sure things follow procedure. Because of the election process here in the Demogames, we have chosen for people to run for multiple positions at once. This goes against my better judgement, but if the people wish it to be, so be it.

1. Are you running for multiple positions?

2. If you answered yes to the above question, what positions are you running for, and in what order would you accept them if you win multiple elections?

3. If this position is not your first choice as answered in question 2, why should we vote for you here, knowing that our vote may be wasted if you win another election?

1. Yes, The judiciary, FA, Culture, and Science.

2. I have no "order" of preference, I have no idea which elections I stand a chance of being elected in, when I have a better idea of that, then I'll pick a preference. Ive been busy organizing the constitution, I simply am running in the positions I know myself to be the best at.

3. See above. Until Election night I am open to all options.

Boots:

Boots:
1. Are you running for multiple positions?
Yes, Chief Justice, Associate Judge Advocate, Public Defender, Culture Minister

2. If you answered yes to the above question, what positions are you running for, and in what order would you accept them if you win multiple elections?
Already answered. Chief Justice, Culture Minister, Judge Advocate, Public Defender.

3. If this position is not your first choice as answered in question 2, why should we vote for you here, knowing that our vote may be wasted if you win another election?
To ensure I get on as something, hah. Vote for me to ensure your representation in the Judiciary and/or Culture. I'm committed to a synergistic approach to my positions, and to following the will of the people as expressed in a poll, regardless of what I think.

I would like to nominate myself for Chief Justice election. I'll answer your questions soon...
And i accept.

(Note: This post will look very similar when compared to the others in the Judicial Nominations posts)

The reasons to choose me for this Judicial Position are numerous. I have been playing Civ3 since October 28, 2001, and have experience in both PTW and C3C. I know the value of the game, and everything there is to know about it. As far as reviewing rules and cases, I have been one of 3 judges on a local traffic court for teenagers here in Oz. I have experience reviewing facts and making quick yet educated decisions. I also have the practice of reviewing rules set in stone (laws or the Constitution for this game) and deciding if any new action violates the documents. I am also new to the DemoGame system, so I will not be restricted by events of the past games. I will be free to interpret this position and the Constitution with a new freshness to hopefully pump new life into the Game.

Now, to answer all of these questions:

Cyc asks:
What principle would you use for a basis in determining whether an investigation had "No Merit"?

No Merit accusations are by far the easiest decisions that could be proposed. If the outcome of an investigation would not affect the game, Citizens, or the Constitution no matter the verdict, the investigation is without merit. Also, If the subject matter at hand is a constitutional matter, my interpretation of the Constituion would be somewhat strict, with a little room for open interpretation. If there is anything that comes up to which no law or document refers to, I feel the only option available would be to assign an investigation with a "No Merit" label, and suggest the other branches of government deal with a solution for any future issues of the same type with a law or amendment.

DaveShack asks:
How do you plan to organize the affairs of the court?.

A court should be the most fluid and simple body in any government. Also, the Chiefe Justice should have all power necissary to structure the court as he sees fit and as long as he sticks to the Constitution. I feel that the judiciary branch should utilize the judicial log on the forums..
Citizen Complaints
On a complains thread, citizens may register any complaints they feel are necissary to be reviewed along with all evidence that would be used. All potential cases would be reviewed by the Chief Justice, Public Defender and Judge's Advocate and upon the consensus of 2 out of 3 of them, the case would become official. If a complaint fails to convince 2 of the judicial staff, it will be ruled without merit. For all non-frivolous cases, the Public defender would carefully review the evidence and all laws available, and in conjunction with the Plaintiff organize a case to support the Plaintiff. The Judge's Advocate would do the same, except with the help of the Defendant (another citizen or the government) organize the reasons why the complaint is pointless. In matters of Citizen Complaints, The Chief Justice would have the final say after reviewing the cases. The decision of the Justice would be final. If any action to be taken has choices, a poll would be presented on the board for citizens to vote on proper action.
Judicial Review
Judicial Review would work in much the same way, except Each member of the court would research the merit of new laws, actions or amendments. After much deliberation and discussion amongst themselves, The justices would vote to uphold the action or rule in unconstitutional. Whichever option has 2 of the justices supporting it would pass.

That was a good question!

Bootstoots asks:
1. Are you running for multiple positions?

2. If you answered yes to the above question, what positions are you running for, and in what order would you accept them if you win multiple elections?

3. If this position is not your first choice as answered in question 2, why should we vote for you here, knowing that our vote may be wasted if you win another election?


1.Yes.
2. Chief Justice, Public Defender and Judge's Advocate. Cheif Justice would be first, then I would try to reach an agreement with a second place finisher if i had to choose between Public Defender and Judge's Advocate to ensure the best candidates fill both positions.
3. Your vote would not be wasted, because votes are never wasted when you vote for the best candidate. But I would say that Having me in any judicial position, since they are all very similar would be a huge benefit to the game, and it would not make too much difference which position I accept.

Thanks everyone!

Ummm, been away awhile. Don't even know if it's too late to accept or decline. :confused: Hmmm... Do we have rules in place? If we're using the judicial rules from last game I want no part of the bench. If we're using only a cnstitution then I'd love to be a candidate for this office.

I'll see if this old dial-up can stay cnnected lng enough for me to find some answers...

I'll see if this old dial-up can stay connected long enough for me to find some answers...

The sticky thread with our constitution says *to be constructed*. Therefore I will decline this nomination. (Thanks for the nomination though CT.)

Since we have no rules I think I'll run for president. :D

I am back earlier than I expected from my holiday, due to unfortunate reasons. That means however that I can make my voice heard in the elections, so that the voters (YOU!) know why to vote for me.

First of all it may be nice to let everyone know that I was Associate Justice in the last term of DG4. There was an overcrowded docket in DG4, which made the work for the Judiciary very hard. But I made a very clear timetable for our Chief Justice to follow, to make sure that every case would be handled fast and adequately. I didn't make that timetable public, and I should've done that :(; it wasn't followed at all. To make sure that the docket of any judiciary this DG will not be as crowded as the last one, we need a very punctual, and above all a dedicated Chief Justice; especially for the first Term. Therefore I nominated myself for this position.

To answer the proposed questions:
1. Are you running for multiple positions?
2. If you answered yes to the above question, what positions are you running for, and in what order would you accept them if you win multiple elections?
3. If this position is not your first choice as answered in question 2, why should we vote for you here, knowing that our vote may be wasted if you win another election?
1. No; I strongly object to participate in more than one election. It shows that the 'to be elected' is not fully dedicated to his/her office, as it may be a second or even third choice. Moreover does it prevent new citizens to win an election. I will be dedicated to the office of Chief Justice, and therefore don't want to participate in any other election.
2./3. Not relevant.

What principle would you use for a basis in determining whether an investigation had "No Merit"?
In principle the duty of the Judiciary is to handle every case which it's presented with. The Chief Justice however has to prioritise every request for Judicial Action. I think that every review which has to be handled for a certain turnchat (we saw that in DG4 sometimes) should be top priority. After that the 'lower-priority' cases should follow. And to answer the question what principle I would like to use, I want to answer with two words: 'The Constitution'. That should be the main principle for the Judiciary.

Then DaveShack's question:
How do you plan to organize the affairs of the court? First of all do I want to say that I hope that some basic guidelines concerning the affairs will be written down, to make sure that the different Chief Justices this DG will be using more or less the same procedures, to keep things running smoothly.
I have to agree with most of the other competitors that the Judiciary has to be as transparent as possible. With me as Chief Justice there won't be any private discussions, or invisible minority opinions! :hammer: Every voice will be heard, considered and published!
I also believe that citizens have a voice in legal discussions. I will try to keep the number of legal discussions at a good measured rate. (a good measured rate means: not overflowing citizens with unnecessary boring legal discussions, while making sure that any citizen who cares about legal discussions has the room to ventilate his feelings and views.)
It's also important that all cases/affairs are handled quickly and efficiently. Therefore I will follow a more or less strict time schedule (which has some room for emergency cases of course;)) to make sure that any Public Investigations started in Term 1 will be finished in term 1 and not in Term 5 or even worse, never (DG4 anyone..???).

Concluding, I want to remind every citizen that I will be running for the Chief Justice only, while most others have numerous other nominations accepted. Therefore voting for me will give DemoGame 5 the most dedicated and transparent Chief Justice it can wish.

I withdraw my run for candidacy for this position due to the complexities of the job.

Daveshack:

As head of the Court I'd focus on three things. Simplicity, Accountability, Transparancy. Without those, the Judiciary ceases to be the protector of the Constitution and instead becomes a closed oligarchy.As well, we can not let PI, or CC, or whatever else choose to call them, to wait for month after month. They must be dealt with in a timely, efficient manner. As well, should on emember of the court disagree with teh decision, he/she/it will have the choice of saying their opinion.

Since we have no rules I think I'll run for president. :D

:lol: Well said, donsig. You haven't changed a bit. :lol:


Are there any questions or concerns about my candidacy I can address for you? I will be happy to help in lighting any of the dark areas of the Judicial system for you.

Are there any questions or concerns about my candidacy I can address for you? I will be happy to help in lighting any of the dark areas of the Judicial system for you.

Well, in the absence of rules how would you run the judiciary? I know you have a bit of experience here but please enlighten us. :D

Well, in the absence of rules how would you run the judiciary? I know you have a bit of experience here but please enlighten us. :D

Well, donsig. I'm going to take my time and build a proper answer for you. It will take me some time to do this, as I'll need to do a little copy/paste work. So hold on while I put this together. K?
__________________________________________________ _

At this point in time we have ratification polls running to bring about our Constitution. In the Proposed Article C (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=94831) which sure to be ratified (as are most if not all), it is stated that the Judiciary will be part of our Government. This would give the Court the authority to procede with judgements over the land. Then, in Proposed Article F (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=94832) it states that not only will " The Judicial Branch will consist of one Chief Justice, one Public Defender and a Judge Advocate. These three justices are tasked with upholding the Constitution and its supporting laws (if any) in a fair and impartial manner as prescribed by law.", but that "The Chief Justice shall have the additional responsibility to organize and conduct the affairs of the Judicial Branch. The Public Defender will act as council to an accused individual. The Judge Advocate will act as the prosecution.

The reason that I bring up these two Proposed Articles is because they are by their very nature laws that will help us determine how are Judiciary is run. Note also in Article F, it says "These three justices are tasked with upholding the Constitution and its supporting laws (if any) in a fair and impartial manner as prescribed by law." This would imply that lower forms of law may be written to help articulate the procedures of the Court. Current citizen discussion holds that a tightening up of the Constitution will start immediately upon the start of this new Demogame, to possibly include a CoL and a CoS. :cool: Yes, we could wind this Term (or game) up with 2 additional books of law. We'll see what happens. But regardless, until such time when we have specific code on the procedures of the Court, Proposed Article F continues with, "The Chief Justice shall have the additional responsibility to organize and conduct the affairs of the Judicial Branch." This allows the CJ the authority to outline and deploy procedures to be used by the Court in it's handling of the Nations legal issues.

In this regard, I have already stated that I will "run the Judiciary" in the same manner that I did in Term 1 DG4 (without the secret/closed door policy). In this post, in answer to DaveShack's question, (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=2033820&postcount=20) I stated just that, again disallowing the closed door sessions. Anyone who witnessed that first Term of DG4 knows that Term was the only one in which the Judicial Branch finished all of it's work and posted in the Judicial Log. This didn't happen by accident, donsig. It took a lot of hard work, planning, and following procedure. Once the Term 1 Judiciary got the initial snags worked out (caused by starting Nominations without the ruleset in place) and finalized the Bench, things went pretty smooth. You witnessed my work, donsig. If I'm elected this Term, I will operate under the same procedures, without any closed door discussions. I will post an outline at the begining of the Term and setup the appropriate threads necessary to work within that outline. Everything will be above board and according to procedure.

Anyone wishing to check out Term 1 Judiciary of Demogame IV, please click this link. (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=74283) :)

OK, I'm done.

Before I go further I'd like to mention that even though I am posing these questions directly to Cyc I hope the other candidates will answer as well.

The only thing about your reply that I'm worried about Cyc is your remark that you'd run the judicary as in DGIV but without the closed door sessions. Does this mean you intend to institutionalize all the the other judicial rules from the old books? That would seem difficult since we're going back to a judiciary with a judge advocate and public defender. Can you clarify this statement of yours?

Here's the other question. You mention the possibility of lower laws being passed the first term. Assuming the proposed constitutional amendments all pass, what position as CJ would you take regarding what is needed to pass these laws?

Uh, no, donsig. It doesn't mean that. I was referring to the basic structure of the documentation and adherance to procedure. The people have voted to go back to the original Judicial Branch, as you stated, of a Chief Justice, Public Defender, and Judge Advocate. In returning to this format, we would also return to the procedures used in the games when this Judicial Branch style was used. The same basic PI/CC routines, where the Judge Advocate would post the charge/discussion thread, the Public Defender would help the Defendant (unless refused), and the Chief Justice would ensure that the PI/CC stayed on topic and followed procedure. Judicial Reviews would follow the original routines, but as I said, all discussion would be posted in the Judicial thread. I'll answer your second question in a bit. :)

You mention the possibility of lower laws being passed the first term. Assuming the proposed constitutional amendments all pass, what position as CJ would you take regarding what is needed to pass these laws?

Probably reclined or prone, but who knows. :cooool:

Seriously, if I understand your question, I favor the 2/3 majority of the active citizenry being needed to alter the Constitution, half of the active citizenry to alter the Code of Laws (CoL), and a simple majority to alter the Code of Standards (CoS). For those of you not familiar with those books, the CoL contains rules (laws) that are less vague than the Constitution and help define that document. The CoS contains rules (laws) less vague than the CoL and help define it, while also laying out detailed procedures for most game functions. I'm not saying all of this will be done, but during the discussions/writings of the proposed Articles the need for lower laws came up repeatedly.

Initially, the discussion threads for new laws would be opened and an appropriate law formulized. After the law writing was done, the Judiciary would review it for any contridictions with higher law. If none were found, the CJ or other Justice would post a poll seeking approval from the people. If the above quorums were met, the proposal would become law.

Is that what you were looking for? Keep in mind that new laws should be written that would encapsulate all the Judicial actions, so the procedure I just described may not be as the end result.

I know this sounds horrible, but I agree with cyc on that last post, entirely. At least, for now that is, hah.

I knew that was going to happen. :lol: :rolleyes:

I'll do my best to adapt those questions to me :-D

Since I have never been in the judiciary position, I think It gives me a lot of freedom to set new precedents for the court. While on one hand I don't have the experience of ANY of the other candidates, I also don't have the mentality to run the court as seen in any previous DGs. Personally I've always been the lurker, and never paid as much attention to the court as i did to the government discussion on what to do next in the game. For this reason, the court under my leadership would be fresh and able to adapt to any other new ideas added to the game this time around.

As far as lower laws are concerned, I don't feel the Judicial department needs to become involved until any new laws are in their final wording and ready to come to vote from congress. At this point I feel it is the judiciary's job to read each word of any new law carefully and using past law and precident, ensure that the law does not violate any past actions without replacing them. Then of course a justice would initiate a vote in the polls. As to how much support a law would need to pass, that would have to be handled in the constitution when the CoL and CoS are created.

The Organization of Laws in the CoL and CoS has worked very well in the past, and I would uphold or at least suggest to congress to uphold the documents in a constitutional amendment. I favor a simple majority to pass non-amendment laws, but what ever the first congress drafted and the peopl vote on will have to do.

Have fun

Donsig: of course I'll answer your questions :)!

Well, in the absence of rules how would you run the judiciary?

In that absence of rules it should be the first priority of the judiciary to formulate it’s own rules. After these rules are finished and accepted, the judiciary can focus on it’s actual task: to uphold the constitution during the course of the DemoGame. It will be mainly the task of the Chief Justice to formulate/create these rules, but I want to have good discussions with both the 2 other judges and citizens. I believe it is very important that the rules are less tight than in DG4. The Court should have some room to consider how to handle every case, and I want to reflect that in the procedures (CoL/CoS, Judicial Guideline, whatever we’ll call it)

That is about the absence of rules concerning Judicial procedures, but you may also refer to the fact that we haven’t really finished our constitution yet, and don’t have any additional ‘Codebooks’.
First the Constitution. Since we agreed during constitutional discussions to amend the constitution later on, to get the game started, I will do anything I can to get the first drafted version ratified in the first days of August, so that the Demogame at least has some legal backbone.
Then the ‘Codes’. Although I think that the Demogame should have some clear rules and regulations, I doubt the effectivity of endless Codes of Law/Codes of Standards. Therefore I would suggest to keep these books at a minimum. Every governmental branch should get its main tasks in the Constitution. For the Judiciary it’s necessary to write down some rules to avoid random or ad hoc rules (=chaos). We will find along our way what institutions will need some extra rules next to the constitution, and I will have the Judiciary play an important role overseeing this ruleset process.

Here is your second question:
Assuming the proposed constitutional amendments all pass, what position as CJ would you take regarding what is needed to pass these laws?
As already said by Cyc, and numerous times agreed on by citizens: Constitutional amendments 2/3 majority of the active citizenry. All other laws a simple majority.

And now short and crispy for those who hate to read long posts: 'Why should I vote gert-janl for Chief Justice?'

There are a lot of reasons for that, but I promised to keep it short and crispy.
You should vote gert-janl because he:

is experienced in the judiciary (associate justice in DG4 term 5)
is very punctual, which is very important for a Chief Justice, to keep the docket from overflowing.
wants a transparent Judiciary, without private discussions between judges or invisible minority opinions.
will try to get as many citizens involved in judicial discussions as possible, by measuring the need for discussion, instead of overflowing citizens with boring legal discussions, or having no discussion at all.
wants to keep the CoL/CoS to a minimum to ensure everyone can just have fun playing the DemoGame.
accepted only this nomination, while other candidates can also be voted on the bench by voting for them as Public Defender/Judge Advocate.

Nominate and accept, myself.

I'd like to Nominate ravensfire for CJ.

Thanks, Cyc. I appreciate the nomination, but will decline, and offer any and all support towards your efforts. May the difficulties of T1-3 never return!

-- Ravensfire

I would back up Cyc, Immortal and Donsig on this one, since we are running a new made consitution, and it is critical too see how they would administer the law they voted on for themselves. I do not know howe the elections turn out, but at least one or two of them should run the judiciary for housekeeping purposes for the sake of continuity.

May I remind you that 'for the sake of continuity' (:))none of the people you mentioned were part of the last judiciary? I was, with Zarn and Zorven.

Easily refuted gert-janl.

This judiciary is different from the last one, it does not have 3 justices, instead it has a JA, a PD, and a CJ each with clearly defined positions. The last games judiciary is irrelevent to this one.

;) And if we're going to talk about continuity, we should probably mention here that only two of the CJ Candidates are key to the current writings of the soon to be passed Constitution. None of the other candidates (who probably all have good excuses) contributed to the proposed Articles at all.

BTW, those two candidates are Immortal and myself.

And if Im not mistaken, wasnt the judiciary of DG4 considered an unadulterated mess?

Cyc, excellent detective work on the Constitutional ban on politcal parties, and being og a pragmatic intelligence background, we could even apply our variation of the Chinese Communist Party Model mixed with the Swiss Referendum Model, adding a hint from the two chamber parliamentarian model. Still , we are now talking of a One party state, which
some might even define as anarcho-syndicalism.

Cyc, that detective work earned you my vote on the Chief Justice.
Immortal is also getting one of my 3 justice votes, question is how I decide on the third one.

True, Provolution. That comparision has been mad before. Believe me...

@ Immortal - I would agree with you if it wasn't for the well orginized and efficiently run Term 1 of DG4. ;)

]None of the other candidates (who probably all have good excuses) contributed to the proposed Articles at all.

Of course those people all have good excuses. :D No, seriously: I tried to participate as much as possible in the constitutional discussions, and I definitely posted numerous times in constitutional discussions. You can't say I participated at all! Sometimes I wasn't as active as Cyc and Immortal due to mainly 2 reasons. Holiday is the first, and secondly I sometimes had (and many citizens with me) the impression that the discussions were starting over ánd over again, without getting to the point whatsoever.
By the way, I want to remind everyone that Daveshack was the primary force behind the discussions, and only posting all ratification polls doesn't make you a constitutional debater 'out of a sudden'!

And if Im not mistaken, wasnt the judiciary of DG4 considered an unadulterated mess?
I completely agree. And because several judiciaries incredibly messed up in the first terms of DGIV, it was hardly impossible to clear all the mess in my term: the last term of DGIV. Especially for me, since I wasn't Chief Justice in that Judiciary. As I said earlier I proposed time schedules, and many reminders to my CJ to continue handling cases, but the judicial engine slowed down again.

And that's mainly why I participate in this election. I know how to prevent this DG to become 'an unadulterated judicial mess'.

Cyc, that detective work earned you my vote on the Chief Justice.
Immortal is also getting one of my 3 justice votes, question is how I decide on the third one.

Well, if I can be of any help, Provolution, if you voted for me as Chief Justice and Immortal as Judge Advocate (I strongly recomend both votes), thean as Public Defender you would only have to choose between Curufinwe and KCCrusader. I hope that helps. ;)

After much thought I am withdrawing from the Chieft Justice race, as I wish to vote Cyc as Chief Justice whilst focusing on other candidacies within the judiciary and Science Minister. I urge anyone who considered voting for me into the position of Chief Justice to do the same.

I believe through this move the two contributors to the constitution who are running for the judiciary (myself and Cyc) stand a far better chance of being elected.

Therefore I have Declined this nomination.

I just read through the DG Term 5 of the Judiciary, and I found some very entertaining posts, in fact, I wonder why not you had a satirical thread (most political figures must accept public satires, which could be done gently and entertaining),

Especially the statement in legal and formal writng

"The Court should be skeptical of all allegations,
requiring a reasonable chance the allegation is
true and determining that, if the allegation is
true, a violation of Fanatican law has occurred."

I found hilarious...

However, as a neutral bystander in what happened historically, I must say that gert-jani has some valid points, and should probably try to sign up for one of the other posts in the Judiciary. There has been problems on all sides in the past through DG4 and before, and I think that some of the problems actually can be remedied by gert-janis qualified input, obviously we talk about a reflected and legall adept person, and in small demogame like this, I would hate to see good talent lost.
So Gert-Jan, please sign up in time on the other two justice positions, and we may achieve some of your objectives.
Yet, Cyc proved his talent by finding a solution to the Constitutional error on the political party formation ban within the free assembly definition. I identified the problem, but Cyc actually solved it conceptually with the right paragraph.
For me, the combination of poliltical balancing and legal problem solving skills is essential for such a position.

I would certainly vote for gert-janl as Public Defender. He is knowledgeable of Judicial proceedings and it was gert-janl that asked me to come on as Associate Justice late in DG4 in an attempt to get a couple of the CCs finished. He has made an effort to move the Judiciary in the right direction.

Hi everyone.

I have been thinking on my mention of being a never-elected player bringing freshness and new direction to the court. I feel that this is a true statement, but that the Chief Justice position should be held by a past player who knows the ropes and is knowledgeable about all past game decisions. For these reasons I am withdrawing from the race for chief justice inorder to focus on the Judge Advocate and Public Defeneder races, and am considering dropping one of those races as well.

As i realize my chances of becoming chief justice we slim anyway, I hope my resignation from the race of this very important position will help the game get off to a better start Good luck to all candidates, and don't forget to consider me for Public Defender and Judge Advocate.

Thank You
-KCC

Just in time too. Immortal is finalizing the nominations just before election threads are going up. This thread, and others will be closed.