Term 3 Judiciary

Don't worry, DZ. No-one is going to secretly change the Judicial Code!

Though I stick to my opinion as stated in my ruling of DG5JR20, we should consider a few more issues now. I thank Cyc and DZ for their response.

The game, however, needs to move on, as DZ just stated. 'The sooner is CC is behind us, the better'. Some mistakes have been made this CC, by mods, by Cyc, and also by me (closing the poll, instead of closing the thread ). After the time of the trial poll is expired, a sentencing poll will be opened.

I can't imagine that the defense of the accused has any additional evidence, and therefore I am convinced that the best option, for both the defending and the accusing party, now is to move on the process.

MOTH has requested a judicial review concerning Constitutional article G.4 and CoL G.1. He likes to see clarified the following questions:

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?

His request will be included in the Court's docket, and a ruling can be expected soon.

1.What constitutes a "vacant office" according to Constitution article G part 4? specifically, is a deputy position and "office" vacant following an uncontested election?
since this question has several parts I am going to split my answer:
The COL says that
Should an official fail to post instructions for 2
consecutive turn chats without prior notice, the
Judiciary may declare that office Vacant.
that is the definition of a vacant office


Is the deputy position "vacant" following an uncontested election?
due to the code of laws mentioned above a deputy cannot be declared vacant in an uncontested election since it does not meet the definition of a vacant office.


2.Who can appoint a citizen to a vacant office, the president or the office holder? this is a complicated one

the Col section on deputies states that: If the election was
not contested, any citizen may be appointed

this leads to the question of what appointment means. the constitution says that :
4. The President will appoint a citizen to any Vacant
office

However the position of Deputy in an uncontested election is not a vacant position in my mind so If an election is uncontested then the power to appoint deputies is in the hands of the department head, furthermore the office holders appointment may still be challenged by a confirmation poll however, if there are no accepted nominations for a position , or a new province has been formed the president has the power to appoint someone to head the office and that the president has the power to appoint a deputy to a postition if that position is declared vacant during a term.

so to sum it up

1.A vacant office is defined in the code of laws and deputy in an uncontested election is not vacant.

2. The office holder may appoint a deputy of his/her own choice after an uncontested election, but not during a term, and the president is charged with appointing deputies declared vacant during a term.

-Office the Judge Advocate

I hope to rule on DG5JR19 later today

Do we have to go through the whole amendment process to change a minor error in the constitution? It would be annoying to have to wait at least five days just to change Fanatika to Japanatica in article L of the constitution (amazing that nobody noticed it until now).

TimBentley said:

Do we have to go through the whole amendment process to change a minor error in the constitution? It would be annoying to have to wait at least five days just to change Fanatika to Japanatica in article L of the constitution (amazing that nobody noticed it until now).

Click to expand...

More amazing that positions have gone uncontested. I agree with TB here, it's just a minor change, do we really need all the paper stamping?

Small adjustments, without altering the contents of the Constitution, such as changing 'Fanatika' to 'Japanatica', doesn't have to follow standard amendment procedure, if you ask me. I think we can view these changes more or less as type-errors, instead of expressing something on purpose.

I suggest that if all judges agree, we can easily change this minor error, and that way stamp all the papers all at once.

While we're at it, I'd like to ask that the current [ code ] tags around the entire document be changed to the newly created [ pre ] tags. If my understanding is correct, the document will retain its current spacing, while removing that rather annoying scrolling box around it.

I see my attempts at rejustifying the defense have gone unanswered. While disappointed, I agree that the game must move on, I understand your reasoning.

On the matter of "Fanatika", I don't see any problem in changing an obvious typographical error.

JR rulings coming soon...

DG5JR19 Submitted by:Sir Donald III
Regarding Galley/Settler combonations.

It seems to me that although a galley carrying a settler is an obvious domestic issue(expansion), we must also remember that a galley is a Military unit, or rather a unit with attack and defense values. The settler, and all movements of the settler are under control of the Domestic ADvisor. All movement of the galley is the responsibility of the war ministry. Since the settler is not actually expending any movement, the actual responsibility for posting the galley movements fall to the War ministry.

While some may think that this infringes on the right of the Domestic minister to be "responsible for all domestic initiatives," the ruling on this case should make no difference. Because of Article J and Article O (Guaranteeing all actions by leaders follow the WOTP, including city settlement sites), if the people vote to found a city on a foreign continent or further up the coast of our own, it will be the domestic and war ministry's top priority to accomplish the WOTP.

I hope that the Domestic and War ministers will always work together to decide on the best route, and I suggest if they do not agree with each other to not be afraid to poll the house regarding the movement of a galley with a settler.
If the war minister refuses to supply a galley for settler transport, again use the tool of the poll to make sure the WOTP is clear.

Decision on DG5JR19: The responsibility for posting instructions regarding the movement of a galley, no matter what the cargo is, will be granted to the War ministry. The instructions must comply with the will of the people.

DG5JR20 Submitted by:The handsome, honorable, wise and charming KCCrusader

Although this case is already decided by the fellow justices, I shall speak for a moment.

My reasoning is posted above. Feel free to review it.

Decision on DG5JR20: President Chieftess was convicted under a trial constantly slanted towards accused, with no viable "Grace" period for the defense to post as required by the former judicial procedure. The results of the Trial poll should be thrown out a new trial should begin promptly.

May it Please the Court!

It usually takes the occurance of an injustice, or a imminent one, in order for thought to prevent the injustice occurs.

Such is the case with how the Procedures outline Sentencing polls. At this time, should an option in the sentencing poll gain a Plurality of votes, it takes effect. At this point, there is 1 vote separating "Impeachment" from "No Punishment" in the poll for CC1. 1 Vote separating two polar opposite factions... and as many votes for Impeachment as are for the two "Warning-Level" options combined.

Because I forsee a tragedy, whether "Impeachemnt" or "No Punishment" should prevail by plurailty but without Majority, I hereby advance this sugestion to alter Section 9, Subsection J "Sentencing Poll." Removed text in strikeout, added text in bold.

J. If the accused is found guilty through the Trial poll, a Sentencing poll is posted by the Judge Advocate.
1 The Sentencing poll will remain open for 48 hours, and have the following Options:
a. Recommended Moderator action - turned over to the Moderators.
b. Impeachment from Office (if applicable)
c. Final Warning (whether or not a prior warning has been given)
d. Warning
e. No Punishment
f. Abstain
2. If the guilty party has previously received a final warning for the current offence, the Judge Advocate will post that in the Sentencing poll narrative.
3. If the charge involved an abuse of powers by an Officer in any Branch, then the following procedure will be used:
a. If "Recommended Moderator Action" receives a Majority of votes, then that sentence takes effect.
b. Otherwise, the Sentence shall be the Median vote along this Spectrum: Impeachment, Final Warning, Warning, No Punishment.
4. If the charge involved a violation of Procedures or Laws or Forum Rules by a Citizen, then this procedure will be used:
a. If the Guilty Party is an Officer and Impeachment receives a Majority of votes, then that sentence takes effect.
b. Otherwise, the Sentence shall be the Median vote along this Spectrum: Recommended Moderator Action, Final Warning, Warning, No Punishment.
5. In the event the Sentencing poll ends in a tie the Median is between two options, the members of the Judiciary will determine the Sentence from the options nearest the Median by posting independent and clear Opinions at the end of the Sentencing poll.
6. The guilty party must abide by the results of the Sentencing poll.

Click to expand...

If it is needed to add the definition of Median, the Justices may do so.

For odd-numbered vote totals, it is the option that holds the vote that is exactly (n+1)/2 from either extreme.

For even-numbered Totals, it is the option that is inbetween the two that are exactly n/2 away from the extremes. If these votes are not the same value, it then goes to the Justices.

I support all changes submitted by Sir Donald III, especially since an impeachment should never be possible with only a third of the vote.

Also, I feel we should add a quorum required to convict and sentence a citizen.

DG5JR21 Sumbitted by:MOTH
Regarding Vacancies

A vacant office shall be defined as any office in in which the officer has been declared absent by not posting in 2 consecutive turn chats.

Therefore, deputy positions in an uncontested election are not "Vacant offices." The elected official is granted the right to appoint a citizen to the deputy position. Since Deputies are recognized by the constitution, the appointment may be challenged in the standard way.

The president is still granted the right to fill and Vacant office, an office in which the elected official has been removed from office by force.

Opinion on DG5JR21: A vacant office is an office that is vacant due to the absence of a previously elected/appointed official. The president has the power to fill these positions. In an uncontested election, the deputy position is NOT a vacant position and therefore may be filled by the elected leader of the department. It would follow that the Chief Justice may appoint the Public Defender or Judge Advocate should no one run, and the President may appoint the VP should no one run. If no one runs for a standard position(advisor/chief justice) the president may appoint an official.

KCCrusader said:

I support all changes submitted by Sir Donald III, especially since an impeachment should never be possible with only a third of the vote.

Also, I feel we should add a quorum required to convict and sentence a citizen.

Click to expand...

And this of course would be a true sign of a Kangaroo Kourt. "Let's change the rules after the game has started! That way we're sure to win! Won't that be fun?"

CJ gert-janl posted above that this sort of thing wouldn't happen. I can't believe that this court would even consider a low-life move like that. You ALL just approved these rules. Now because they don't suit your immediate needs in punishing someone, you're considering changes to the rules mid-process. Don't you see? It's not the point that your want of changing the rules is to make you look more humanitarian. What if you wanted to change the rules so you could go the other way? Would you allow that too? "Say, according to the Court Procedures, we can only give this person a warning or less, let's change the Court Procedures mid-process so we can really nail this person." I doubt you would, so why would you allow the court to degrade itself by changing the rules mid-process at all? Are you some kind of Savior? Or are you a Judiciary that follows procedure?

As Cyc outlines in his statement above, we can't change the Judicial Code while in the middle of a trial. When this trial is closed we may get back to this issue, but altering it now would not be fair for any citizen, including the accused. I therefore postpone this discussion to held later. We are using the current Judicial Code.

Ruling DG5JR#19

The movement of a settler cannot be included in the instruction of a Defense Minister, as the constitution prescribes in article D.3 that the minister of defense is responsible for all military strategy and troop activities. A settler cannot qualify for that.

A galley on the other hand cannot be regarded as a ‘domestic initiative’, nor worker allocation, as prescribed by article D.1.

In my opinion this is a clear example where the Japanatican officials should cooperate closely. The settlers falls under a domestic initiative, hence under the Domestic Minister, while the galley can be regarded as a ‘troop activity’, hence as the responsibility of the Defense Minister. In this situation, the domestic official should approach the defense minister in the government thread, or any other method, to deliberate about the naval transport of the settler.
So, according to the constitution, the settler remains under the responsibility of the Domestic Minister, while the galley still falls under the responsibility of the Defense Minister.

Ruling DG5JR#21

The Japanatican Code of Laws article G.3, clearly explains when an officle is called vacant:

"Should an official fail to post instructions for 2 consecutive turn chats without prior notice, the judiciary may declare that office vacant."

However, Governor MOTH seems to be looking from a different point of view, and refers to the after-election period, when there is not deputy.
First of all, the deputy falls under the same office as his minister. That means that when a minister/governor occupies an office the office is not vacant and a deputy position can only be referred to as ‘office’ when the official is absent.

Article G.2 however, demands that every official shall have a deputy. So, although the lack of a deputy cannot be called a vacant office, it requires to be filled.

To fill an vacancy of a deputy position, CoL section G.1 requires an appointment, if elections don’t provide a deputy. This article also gives the authority of an office holder to appoint a deputy:

(Note that the text between the brackets is my own, but it reflects the previous sentences.)

"[if the elections don’t provide the office-holder with a deputy] the office-holder may seek any citizen for the position"

gert-janl said:

As Cyc outlines in his statement above, we can't change the Judicial Code while in the middle of a trial. When this trial is closed we may get back to this issue, but altering it now would not be fair for any citizen, including the accused. I therefore postpone this discussion to held later. We are using the current Judicial Code.

Click to expand...

but would the effect of the changes alter CT's punishment?
or would it have to stay because that happened before it was changed?

Yes, we'll be using this Judicial Code, as all judges agreed to use this Judicial Code. It's irrelevant to consider whether changes in the Code alter CT's punishment.
Only when this case is closed, and we know, by experience, to point some flaws in this Code, we may change it.