Term 2 Judicial Thread ~

It appears that, in an attempt not to CC the President for ignoring his Instructions in the last Turn Chat, Domestic Advisor Sir Donald III has chosen to defuse the situation by filing a Request for Judicial Review concerning the authority for determining the route taken by a naval transport carrying a Settler. SD3 is referencing Article O for this JR and his question is:

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

This request has been accepted and listed in post #4 of this thread as DG5JR19.

Sir Donald III HAS chosen to CC several citizens of Japanatica for posting in the Investigation thread of DG5CC1, prior to the posting by the Public Defender and defendant Chieftess or the expiration of the 24 hour period reserved for them.

Unfortunately, SD3 in order to file a Citizen's Complaint against another citizen properly, you must state the Article of the Constitution (or lower form of Law) that the accused have alledgedly violated. You have not done this. The perps, as you call them have only gone outside of this Courts procedures and nothing more. It is my duty to correct this situation and I have done so. As DG5CC1 is the very first Citizen's Complaint for a lot of Japanatica's citizens, we may want to be a little lenient in filing Court actions against these people, as they have no experience in CCs and some are not native English speakers.

Therefore you filing of this Citizen's Complaint has been rejected. Hopefully, in the near future, the Codification of Court Procedures will standardize these actions and hold the citizens accountable for their actions.

I was actually hopping you'd go ahead and accept my CC and Ravensfire (or someone else) would respond with a JR as to whether or not a CC pertaining to violations of the "Judicial Guide" would be valid given that the Guide had not been codified.

I'd better get the ball rolling on possible codification procedures. Especially since I'm not contesting for Reelection or against possible Impeachment...

Sir Donald III said:

I was actually hopping you'd go ahead and accept my CC and Ravensfire (or someone else) would respond with a JR as to whether or not a CC pertaining to violations of the "Judicial Guide" would be valid given that the Guide had not been codified.

I'd better get the ball rolling on possible codification procedures. Especially since I'm not contesting for Reelection or against possible Impeachment...

Click to expand...

the way i see it, all that needs to happen is a vote on this and if it wins then it can become a 'lower law', and thats all thats really needed, or it could become hardcoded somewhere

Sir Donald III said:

I was actually hopping you'd go ahead and accept my CC and Ravensfire (or someone else) would respond with a JR as to whether or not a CC pertaining to violations of the "Judicial Guide" would be valid given that the Guide had not been codified.

I'd better get the ball rolling on possible codification procedures. Especially since I'm not contesting for Reelection or against possible Impeachment...

Click to expand...

Actually, it would be a very interesting discussion that probably would fail.

However, I'm pretty sure (since they did) that the mods would be willing to ensure that the procedures are being followed.

-- Ravensfire

Sir Donald III said:

I was actually hopping you'd go ahead and accept my CC and Ravensfire (or someone else) would respond with a JR as to whether or not a CC pertaining to violations of the "Judicial Guide" would be valid given that the Guide had not been codified.

I'd better get the ball rolling on possible codification procedures. Especially since I'm not contesting for Reelection or against possible Impeachment...

Click to expand...

The matter you wished Ravensfire (or someone else) to respond to should be a discussion, possibly followed by a Judicial Review, just like the issues we've had involving naming rights. Filing a CC is not a good way to initiate a JR. Citizen Complaints are filed when someone breaks the Law, not for discussing one's philosophy. I know you understand that your CC couldn't be filed because there was no Law from our ruleset broken, that's not my point. My point is, no one should use the CC as a stepping stone to a JR. I want to call that a backwards approach but that doesn't quite fit it. Let's call it a totally incorrect approach.

DG5JR19

In response to Sir Donald's request for Judicial Review, I have read his question and searched for help in the links he provided. The only link that helped me was the last one to the Constitution. The only help I really found in the Constitution was the Article that SD3 referenced with his request, Article O, stated below:


The last sentance seemed to be the answer. As the Domestic Advisor normally gathers the input from the citizens for City Placement as part of his job (Article D), and the Military Advisor controls the activities of our units, as part of his job (Article D), Article O seems to hold the key.

As the WOTP determines the City locations, and the Domestic Advisor gathers this information, then a pre-determined area is designated for a Settler's use in creating a City. In such a case where the WOTP decide to utilize a Naval Transport in bringing a Settler to a desired location, even as a matter of exploration, I believe the DA would post instructions for the Transport once the Settler was aboard. The Military Advisor would probably take control of the Transport once it reached the blackness of the Fog of War, as that would be the extent of the DA's knowledge of the transportation. Therefore:

Chief Justice Opinion: The Domestic Advisor should give Instructions for a Naval Transport carrying a Settler, but only to the extent of his knowledge. Once the Transport entered unknown seas, that vessel would be come under the authority of the Military Advisor, until such time that the WOTP chose to land and settle or land and pursue some other course.

I ask this court to close the current Investigation thread for the CC on Chieftess. There is insufficient time remaining in the term for this case to conclude. Please continue this to the next court.

-- Ravensfire

You are correct in stating that the Term will soon be over, Ravensfire. This Citizen Complaint was filed around four days ago (88 hours ago), therefore we were given ample time to prep for the case and get the ball rolling, so to speak. In this Court's opinion, closing this case now, after the Investigation Thread has reached a point of rehashing evidence given in the opening statements, would be a travesty of Justice. It would also be denying Black_Hole his Constitutional rights according to Article A of the Constitution:


As Chieftess has already presented evidence to her defense, closing this case now would also be infringing on the President's rights afforded to her by the same Article of the Constitution. (the right to a fair trial, the right to representation)

This Court, nor ANY Court, should be in the practice of denying citizens the rights they are gauranteed in the Constitution. No Chief Justice should be breaking the Law according to Article A of the Constitution, and I will not place myself in that position.

Therefore this case will continue on into the next Term and hopefully, our next Chief Justice, gert-janl will sufficently provide Black_Hole and Chieftess their rights in this matter. The Trial poll will bridge the two Terms and the Sentancing Poll will be generated in Term 3, should the defendant be found guilty.

CJ Cyc

Cyc said:

You are correct in stating that the Term will soon be over, Ravensfire. This Citizen Complaint was filed around four days ago (88 hours ago), therefore we were given ample time to prep for the case and get the ball rolling, so to speak. In this Court's opinion, closing this case now, after the Investigation Thread has reached a point of rehashing evidence given in the opening statements, would be a travesty of Justice. It would also be denying Black_Hole his Constitutional rights according to Article A of the Constitution:

Code:

Article A.  All Civfanatics Forum users who register in the Citizen 
            Registry are citizens of our country. Citizens have the 
            right to assemble, the right to free movement, the right 
            to free speech, the right to a fair trial, the right to 
            representation, [b]the right to seek to redress grievances[/b] 
            and the right to vote.

As Chieftess has already presented evidence to her defense, closing this case now would also be infringing on the President's rights afforded to her by the same Article of the Constitution. (the right to a fair trial, the right to representation)

This Court, nor ANY Court, should be in the practice of denying citizens the rights they are gauranteed in the Constitution. No Chief Justice should be breaking the Law according to Article A of the Constitution, and I will not place myself in that position.

Therefore this case will continue on into the next Term and hopefully, our next Chief Justice, gert-janl will sufficently provide Black_Hole and Chieftess their rights in this matter. The Trial poll will bridge the two Terms and the Sentancing Poll will be generated in Term 3, should the defendant be found guilty.

CJ Cyc

Click to expand...

You aren't denying the president her rights. She can have a fair trial next term. You wouldn't be denying her that, if she still gets it, anyway.

You aren't being impartial here, Cyc. That's a trait the Chief Justice must have despite personal views. In other words, don't show your bias so much.

Zarn said:

You aren't denying the president her rights. She can have a fair trial next term. You wouldn't be denying her that, if she still gets it, anyway.

You aren't being impartial here, Cyc. That's a trait the Chief Justice must have despite personal views. In other words, don't show your bias so much.

Click to expand...

Sorry, Governor Zarn. I disagree. For a Chief Justice to close a Citizen's Complaint that has been on going for over 4 days (Black_Hole had come to me via PM for help a while before he posted the actual CC) would be an overt act of trouncing someone's rights. The Complaint has been made, the Investigation has been done, and the people have spoken. Ending this now for scheduling reasons would be a violation of Article A of the Constitution. Period.

It seems my PMs are not being returned by the PD and JA. Maybe they're the kind of Leaders that like to take the last days of a Term off. Regardless, as we have an active Judicial Review, which niether have acted upon in almost 2 days (47 hours) and an active, 4 day old Citizen's Complaint, for which my PMs go unanswered, I must assume this is such. Earlier in this Term, the Public Defender and myself were on the brink of claiming Judge Advocate Octavian X absent from his position for similar reasons. Taking all this into consideration and in order to correctly process the current Citizen's Complaint, I will now assume the duty of the Judge Advocate in posting the Trial Poll. I will supply a link when finished.

though this appears to have been cleared up I would like to state that I feel the trial should be turned over to the term 3 court. CT will still have the same public defender,the evidence will remain the same and regardless of the verdict I feel that it would be better to get this trial over with so the game can continue one way or another. BTW cyc if you end up declaring Octavian X absent in the next few hours feel free to give me an early start at my new position.

-Mhcarver
Judge Advocate Elect

So noted, Judge Advocate (elect) mhcarver. And thank you for the offer.

I would like to thank my learned and esteemed colleagues, KCCrusader and Octavian X, for their participation in Term 2 Judicial matters. I would also like to thank the citizens who became involved in not only the discussions about these matters, but in the filing of them too.

By working our Judicial system, we have enhanced our game in countless ways. The Courts can help fine-tune the rough edges of a Demogame, as long as procedures are abided by.

I wish the Term 3 Judiciary good luck!

Term 3 Judiciary