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.

:nono:, CT. As per the results of this poll, (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=93998) we will have a JA and a PD instead of associate justices.

It hasnt been ratified yet, and I asked CT about this in the chatroom and she said that they are placeholder names until they are ratified.

I was waiting on the correct terms as so not to incur the wraith of certain, self-professed demogame lawyers. ;)

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

2nd Cyc...

Second both candidates...

I nominate Ankka.

Me? Whoa...!

I accept. :)

Pending legality. I nominate myself and Accept

I nominate myself.

Justice for all.

I'll second Ankka, Curu, and blackheart.

Question for the candidates:

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

I'll Third Ankka, Curu, and blackheart.

Questions for the candidates:

1. For Judicial Reviews, what facts will you use to interpret the laws? If you have contradicting pieces of information from different sources, how do you reconcile the differences?

2. In PI / CC proceedings, does the motive of the complaintant have any bearing on how you decide if the case has merit.

I will address number 2 first as it is a simpler matter: The movtive of an accuser, while important, is secondary to the evidence presented. If the evidence is solid, I will proceed with the investigation. However, if the evidence is circumstantial, and the conversations relevent involve great heresay, the motive behind the case WILL be taken into account to protect the accused.

Now the first point:

Laws must be interpreted based upon not only their wording, but their SPIRIT. Many laws have been broken, in this game and in real life, by people who use the wording of the law to bend it. This is where the spirit of the law must be considered, as a formulator of this constitution I consider the spirit of the laws contained to be extremely apparent to me. The differences between the information must be reconciled on what can be legitimized to a greater extent. If two pieces of information about an individual come forward, the one which can be verified by the greatest number, and in more detail, will be the information that is considered most important.

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 person axe.

Questions for the candidates:

1. For Judicial Reviews, what facts will you use to interpret the laws? If you have contradicting pieces of information from different sources, how do you reconcile the differences?

As our ruleset is still in the gelling stage, the first part of this question is a difficult one. At this point, I'm assuming that above and betond our Constitution, we will have a set of lower laws to help articulate the Articles of the Constitution. But our eventual ruleset will be the facts I use to guide me in determining a ruling. The second part of the question is tricky also, as I have been trying to keep contridictions out of the picture as we go along in our writings. As these rules are now being voted on, the formulation period is over, but this is just in regards to the Articles being polled at this time. There will still be amendments made to the Articles, I'm sure. There are also other areas of Demogame law that have not been addressed yet. So more Articles and probably that book of lower laws is still to come. As we step through this process, contridictions will be found and removed (hopefully). If this is not the case in your question, then I would say common sense deliberation among the 3 Justices (and perhaps a poll) would find the solution.

2. In PI / CC proceedings, does the motive of the complaintant have any bearing on how you decide if the case has merit.

Let me put a time frame or chronological order to this question as a way of answering it properly (for me anyway). If I am looking at a complaint that would lead to a PI/CC, there is no complaintant. There is just a complaint that I have to deal with. I'm not in a case yet where I have to consider motive. That's not part of my job yet. I just have to read this complaint, and determine whether it's feasible that person "A" broke law "B", "C", and/or "D". I couldn't careless if Person "A" was called a ninny by Person "Q" or visa-versa. The workload I experienced in Term 1 DG4 as CJ meant that My Bench was putting out a decision/ruling every two or three days. :lol: We didn't have time to get into daily soap operas happening in the forums. We did our jobs the best we could, and we stuck to procedure. :) I hope I explained my point of view well enough.

edit: Changed "every three days" to "every two or three days" as there was a period when it averaged out to two days.

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?

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:
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 AJA and accept. I'll begin my campaign soon...

Another one... wow. We sure don't have a lack of candidates. Best of luck, KCCRusader.

(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:
1. For Judicial Reviews, what facts will you use to interpret the laws? If you have contradicting pieces of information from different sources, how do you reconcile the differences?

2. In PI / CC proceedings, does the motive of the complaintant have any bearing on how you decide if the case has merit.

1. Judicial Reviews will require using a conjuction of the Constitution and other laws/documents to decide if:
A. There is any contradiction without replacement of the contradicted law.
B. There is no infringement on any goals set forth in the Constitution.
or
C. The law at hand is a blatant attempt to undermine the game, the Demogame community or the citizens themselves.
For the most part this would be a straightforward job. Because this is the first term, I hope contradictions will be kept to a minimum right from the bat. in the case there is some disagreement, the best way i have found to solve problems is an open discussion with all parties involved to find out what each side or judge feels. Then you can begin to piece together a solution using information of what each party is comfortable agreeing to.

2. In my opinion, motive means nothing. Whether someone is trying to make a point, or gain something personally, the LAW is LAW. There should be no difference in a case simply because of the motive for the complaint. If I am elected to the court, frivolous suits will never have merit. And serious concerns presented to the court will always be considered, no matter what state the complaintant will end up in after the verdict. Facts presented by the complaintant, the Constitution and laws will be the only consideration in making a fair judgement.

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!

Wow, on seeing the complexity of this position, I withdraw my run for candidacy.

DaveShack asks:

1. For Judicial Reviews, what facts will you use to interpret the laws? If you have contradicting pieces of information from different sources, how do you reconcile the differences?

2. In PI / CC proceedings, does the motive of the complaintant have any bearing on how you decide if the case has merit.

To answer 1. I say only anything solid. I do not accept "eyewitness" evidence as evidence, due to the flawed nature of it, and th ecapacity for lieing. I may give it some weight, if it's from an independent third party, but I prefer something more solid. Fora posts, chat logs, saved games, etc. That is the principle that I follow, only real evidence that is grounded in fact.

2. No. You may stand to gain personally, but a case has merit or lacks it beside that, and that is the important thing. I stand for the Constitution, and if it has been violated, then it is my job to try to enforce it.

This is my direct campaign question to the position of the Judge Advocate

If there is a pending law that is about to be voted on implemented and then ratified, and the executive is preparing a transition into a new polito-legal reality by putting into motion organizational reforms WITHIN the legal ramifications of the Constitution, and a political adversary of the executive department in question seeks to make these preparatory organizational reforms non-valid, before the game turns have actually played out (this are de facto and de jure redeemable pre-turn actions that can be changed before they are actually played out), would you then do the following:

1.
Apply the principle that the executive has the right to reorganize within the Constitution in order to reform in advance of the passing of a new law.

2.
Apply the principle that all action must be frozen until investigations are concluded on what had been in violation of the law

3. Apply the principle that due suspicion allow the judiciary to force the ministry to resign immediately and
a) be replaced by deputy
b) be replaced by Presidential nominee
c) be replaced Governor Council Nominee
d) be replaced by congress nominee
e) be replaced by a judicial nominee
f) be replaced by a the winner of a civ multiplayer tournament
g) make another department take over the scuttled department

4. Develop a poll, on initiative from the Dept. in question, on getting support for the organizational reform, and make the Dept abide by that poll.

5. Vote of Confidence for the entire Cabinet

6. Investigate the case thororughly for
a) 2 days
b) 5 days
c) 2 weeks
d) month
e) 2 months

7. Call for Special Branch to eliminate the problem

What venues would you actually consider?

I will withhold my answer for a while giving the other candidates ample time to answer first.

Until rules contrary to the existing constitution are implemented, they are NOT valid. The lone exception to this is when we have no constitution yet, in which case the about to be implemented rules can be considered legal, under some circumstances.
In our constitution, we are voting to implement a clause saying that any action done outside the definition of the constitution is considered valid until it contradicts one of the articles. It sounds like the example in question does violate the article, whether the article is 24 hours from destruction or not.

In this case, from my interpretation, it is the amending of a new constitutional rule, but has not yet been ratified. This is a direct contradiction of the CURRENT rule, and must be prosecuted.

Hense, i would proceed with option 2, freezing these contrary actions until an investigation is conducted.

The "rivalry" between the two has been taken into avvount, but it is irrelevent due to the nature of the rule being broken. Evidence from the definition of the example exists, prosecution moves forward.