Term 4 Judiciary part 2-Monster Overdrive

mhcarver

Newspaper Mogul
Joined
Jun 21, 2004
Messages
768
Location
In the Press room
here is BH's docket, I will be fixing the links and editing it after I've finished reviewing the term 4 thread

Term 4 Judicial Review Docket

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Term 4 Judicial Review Docket

DG1JR11
Question: Does Section 8.A.II and Section 8.A.I include appointed no-power duties like Chief Bureau's for the Information Department?
Submitted by: Strider
Status: Completed, Ruling published in Judicial log

DG1JR12
Question: Are Initiatives considered Official polls, and thus subject to verification by the Censor?
Submitted by: ravensfire
Status: To be ruled upon

DG1JR13
Questions:
1) Is there a required place for the office filling the position to post that they are looking for candidates?
2) Must the office filling the position wait 72 hours after that request to fill the office, or may someone be appointed before that time period?
3) If only one citizen applies during that 72 hour period, must the office filling the position appoint that citizen?
Submitted by: ravensfire
Status: To be ruled upon

DG1JR14
Question: Proposed col amendment
Submitted by: ravensfire
Status: Completed


DG1JR15
Question: Proposed col amendment
Submitted by: Strider
Status: To be ruled upon
 
Term 4 Judicial Procedures

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Common Rights and Duties of all Citizens
Participate in all Judicial discussions
Request that any Judicial discussion be moved to its own thread in the Citizen's forum
Post requests for Judicial Review of existing law. These requests should contain a specific question and the section of law in question
Post requests for Judicial Review of proposed amendments. This request should contain the exact text to be reviewed and a link to the discussion thread
Post requests for clarification. This is an unofficial question about the rules that does not create a finding, but may lead to a Judicial Review
Post requests for Citizen Complaints. This is a request to determine if a citizen has violated a rule. This request must be posted in the Judicial thread. There are no anonymous requests.
Appoint a pro tem justice in the event of official absence or recusal from specific CCs or JRs. Either of the remaining two judiciary members can veto this appointment within 72 hours. Citizens can also post a confirmation poll within 72 hours (said confirmation poll to be open 72 hours). In case of a conflict between a judicial veto and a citizen confirmation poll, the citizen confirmation polls takes precedence.
Shared duties and responsibilities of all Justices
Conduct the business of the court in a fair, impartial, open and speedy manner
Review and discuss any questions about our laws
Review all proposed Amendments to our laws
Review all requested Citizen Complaints to determine if the charge has merit
Participate in all Citizen Complaints in a fair and impartial manner
Post clear and decisive opinions on all questions. Abstentions are not allowed
Notify the Judiciary during any Absence, and arrange for a Pro-Tem replacement
Discuss and ratify these Judicial Procedures
Recuse themself from any Citizen Complaints that they are involved in as either the citizen requesting the CC, or as the citizen under investigation.
Rights and Duties of the Chief Justice
Post polls for amendments once they pass review
Post any valid Recall poll
Oversee all Judicial Proceedings
Maintain the Judicial Log
Request that other justices post an opinion promptly
Maintain the docket and decide the priority level of cases
Maintain the Constitution and Code of Laws threads
Rights and Duties of the Judge Advocate
Serve as the Prosecution during any trial of a citizen. In this role, the Judge Advocate need not act impartial as they are arguing for a specific side
Post polls for amendments and recalls
Rights and Duties of the Public Defender
Serve as the Defense during a trial of a citizen, unless requested otherwise by the citizen. In this role, the Public Defender need not act impartial as they are arguing for a specific side
Post polls for amendments and recalls
Changes to Judicial Procedures
The Judicial Procedures may be changed at any time by a majority decision of the court.

Judicial Reviews
Judicial Reviews are used to resolve questions of the law and to validate proposed amendments. The opinion of a majority of the Justices will be used to resolve the Judicial Review.

Reviews of existing laws may be requested by anyone. The Chief Justice shall review each request for merit. If the Chief Justice declines the request, either of the other two Justices may accept the request and override the Chief Justice. The Chief Justice will post each accepted request, clearly denoting the questions. After at least 24 hours, each Justice may post their finding. This post should clearly answer the questions as posed by the Chief Justice. The Chief Justice may request that the justices post their opinion promptly, requiring all justices to make a ruling within 72 hours. The Chief Justice may request clarification of these findings as needed.

Reviews of a proposed law may be requested by anyone. The post must include the proposed law, and a link to the discussion thread. The proposed law must have been conspicuously posted as a proposed poll for at least 24 hours, and the discussion thread open for at least 48 hours. The Justices will review the law for any conflicts with current law, and post their findings. Any Justice may post the poll for all proposals that pass Judicial Review.

All reviews must be finished by the end of the term if at all possible. The Chief Justice may defer a Judicial Review to the next term if it is filed less than 72 hours before the end of this term.

Absence Investigations
Absence Investigations are used to determine the status of an elected official who has not posted for an extended period of time and to remove that citizen from office if necessary. Any citizen may initiate an Absence Investigation if an elected official fails to post on the Civilization Fanatics' Forums for 7 days.

If a valid Absence Investigation is called, the Chief Justice is to start the investigation by indicating that an Absence Investigation has started. The Chief Justice must then send a private message to the official against whom the investigation has been called. An e-mail should also be sent if possible. The official will have 48 hours to respond to the private message. At the end of this time, or after a response has been received by the official in question, the Chief Justice may declare the commencement of voting on whether or not the seat should be rendered vacant. Each justice should clearly post their vote on this issue. If a majority of justices vote in favor of declaring the office vacant, the official shall be removed and the President empowered to appoint another citizen to that post.

Citizen Complaints
Citizen complaints are used to determine if a citizen has violated a rule. They may be requested by any citizen in a post in the Judicial thread. Except as noted, the Justices must act in a fair, impartial, open and speedy manner throughout the process. All citizens are innocent unless determined to be guilty. Citizen Complaints shall be completed by the end of the term, unless the Judiciary finds this to be impossible, in which case the next term’s court may finish the investigation. All evidence, except foreknowledge of the game, must be presented publicly. Evidence of foreknowledge of the game will be reviewed by the Judiciary, and a statement about that evidence posted. Once that evidence becomes irrelevant due to game progress, any citizen may request it to be posted.

Any citizen who is the defendant of a Citizen Complaint shall have the right to representation throughout the process. The Public Defender shall be tasked with defending each citizen charged with an offense from the moment the Citizen Complaint is filed until the complaint is concluded, unless another citizen is appointed by the defendant to serve as the Defense, with that citizen's consent.

At any time during a citizen complaint, the citizen making the request may drop the request, ending the citizen complaint unless another citizen wishes to continue the process. Likewise, the citizen under investigation may accept the charges, and move immediately to the Sentencing phase.

If a citizen has been found innocent of a charge or if the citizen has been found guilty and sentenced appropriately, the citizen may not be charged again with the same violation.

Review
Each requested Citizen Complaint will be reviewed by the Judiciary. Justices will gather and look through the evidence presented, including requests for statements from all citizens. If all three Justices determine the request to have No Merit, the basis for that finding will be posted by each Justice and the request is denied. If at least one Justice determines the request to have Merit, a trial on the facts will be conducted. The Judge Advocate will review the request and the relevant law, and determine the specific law the accused citizen is alleged to have violated.

Trial
The Judge Advocate will create a thread for the trial in the Citizen's forum. This initial post should contain the specific violations and the evidence for those accusations. The next two posts are reserved for the citizen accused and the Public Defender - until they post, or 24 hours from the initial post, no other citizen may post in the thread. All citizens are encouraged to post in this thread, but are reminded to respect the rights of all citizens.

Once the at least 48 hours have passed, and discussion has petered out, the Chief Justice can declare the discussion closed, and post a Trial poll.

The Trial poll will be a private poll, with the options Innocent, Guilty and Abstain. It will run for 48 hours. The option receiving the most votes will determine the result. In the event of a tie, the members of the Judiciary will determine the result by posting clear opinions in the Trial thread.

Sentencing
If a citizen under investigation during a Citizen Complaint has accepted the charges, the citizen, the accuser and the Judiciary may determine and assign a sentence if they all unanimously agree to the arrangement. Failure to uphold that arrangement will result in full sentencing poll posted as if the citizen were found guilty in a Trial.

If an arrangement cannot be made, or the citizen was found Guilty, the sentence will be determined by the citizens through a poll. The Chief Justice will post the poll, marked as private with a duration of 48 hours. The options for the poll will include:
Suspension from Demogame
Removal from Office (if applicable)
Public Apology
Final Warning
Warning
Abstain
Other options may be included through unanimous consent of the Judiciary.

Once the poll closes, the Chief Justice will determine the sentence imposed using cumulative voting. The most severe option that a majority of citizens support will be imposed. If a Warning is issued, a warning will be posted by the Chief Justice in the Judicial thread and may be reposted in that person’s government thread, if they hold an office. If a citizen is given a Final Warning, the above procedure will be used, but with stronger language. Additionally, the options “Warning” and “Final Warning” will not appear on a sentencing poll if that citizen is charged with a similar offense in the future. If a citizen is sentenced to a Public Apology, a thread apologizing for the actions taken must be posted by the defendant within 48 hours of the close of the sentencing poll. If the citizen is removed from office, they are barred from holding that office for the remainder of the term. The length of a suspension is to be determined by the Judiciary, with the required consent of the moderators.
 
oh no...cant we just let it go like this.

IT is his duty and right to start his own thread under our freedom of info thing in the CoL.
 
Kinda confuses me with what i have ruled on and what i havent, i think DG1JR13 is the only case that i havent ruled on.
 
donsig said:
Nice thread. But why can't we just continue on in the old one?
While I could run the court through the old thread the problem is that I can't edit BH's posts, meaning that it would be hard for citizens to find information in some cases since they would have to go to the end of the thread
 
Judicial Reviews by nobody(for reference)
nobody said:
DG1JR11
Question: Does Section 8.A.II and Section 8.A.I include appointed no-power duties like Chief Bureau's for the Information Department?
Submitted by: Strider
Judge Advocates Ruling:

First of all you have cited section 8.A.I and the nonexistent 8.A.II while providing an example of section 8.B.I and 8.BII. I think this is a mistake But I will look at all of them none the less.





Quote:
Originally Posted by Code of Laws
Section 8 - Office Limits and Vacancies
A) Limits to Running for Offices.
I. No Citizen may run for more than one office during an election cycle.

B) Limits to Holding Office
I. No member of the Triumvirate or the Judiciary may hold a second office.
II. Governors and Members of the Cabinet may hold up to two offices at the same time.


The Code of laws does not set a clear Definition of the term “office.” Therefore for this Judicial Review I shall interpret Office as any position within the Demogame to which you are normally elected. This includes positions appointed because of a vacancy but normally would be elected. I do this because it is what it appears to mean in context of the law. For example “8.A.I. No Citizen may run for more than one office during an election cycle.” This clearly implys that an Office is a position up for election.

Section 8 subsections B says no Triumvirate of Judiciary may hold a second normally elected position, and members of cabinet and governors may hold no more than two normally elected positions. It makes no reference to appointed no-power positions.

Section 8 of the code of law does not include appointed no-power.
nobody said:
DG1JR12
Question: Are Initiatives considered Official polls, and thus subject to verification by the Censor?
Submitted by: ravensfire
Judge Advocates Ruling:

The right to make an initiative is protected in the constitution because it is citizens guaranteed way to make decisions. These are fundamental to our democracy. An initiative is legal order of what should be done. As well as being a tool of democracy the Initiative is also very powerful.

Polls are made Official because they are legally binding, because they have an effect game. Because this is a Democracy anything that has an effect on the game must be fair and true. This is why we have a censor to ensure all game decisions are fair and true. So that Democracy takes its course.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Daveshack
The original intent was to use "official" and "binding" as synonyms.


As citizen shack has pointed out, an initiative is a legally binding poll that directly affects the game. As such the censor has a legal responsibility to ensure that these polls are fair and true.

This means that is an initiative is an official poll and is subject to verification by the censor

nobody said:
DG1JR14

I find the proposed legislation does not conflict with current laws and is formatted correctly

nobody said:
DG1JR15
Question: Proposed col amendment
Submitted by: Strider
I find that the proposed ammendment does not conflict with our laws. But remeber to make it clear it is replace the COL.
 
robboo said:
IT is his duty and right to start his own thread under our freedom of info thing in the CoL.

I don't think it's his DUTY to start a new thread. I do see his point about not being able to edit Black_Hole's posts but we need all the information in one thread. If the new CJ wants to copy and paste everything we need over here then he's welcome to do it. I just thought it would be easier on him (and the rest of us) if he didn't have to do that.

BTW, I sent you a couple pms MR. CJ.
 
I'll have more posted later, but for the moment I can safely say that JR 14 is completed, and the previous CJ had ruled on 11, though I'm still looking for a ruling on the matter by donsig(not saying it isn' their, just that I haven't found it quite yet)
 
Black holes ruling on Jr11

black hole said:
Chief Justice Ruling on JR # 11
Question:

Quote:
Does Section 8.A.II and Section 8.A.I include appointed no-power duties like Chief Bureau's for the Information Department?



Relevant articles:

Quote:
B) Limits to Holding Office
I. No member of the Triumvirate or the Judiciary may hold a second office.
II. Governors and Members of the Cabinet may hold up to two offices at the same time.



Constitution Article B.2.C:

Quote:
The Right to be Eligible to hold Public Office



I actually have found two questions in Strider's single question. I have found that there is a conflict between the Code of Laws and Constitution about whether or not term limits can be allowed.
The other question is whether the article applies to non power holding positions.

Lets start with the second one. Nowhere in the Code of Laws or Constitution is there a non elected/appointed position. The Code of Laws obviously states as official as the Judiciary, Triumvirate, Cabinet, and Governors. Thus I find the power to create non power holding offices part of every citizen's freedom of speech as guaranteed by the constitution.

Second, the constitution clearly states that all citizens are eligible for office, so the Code of Laws has no authority to define term limits.

So to summarize:
1. The word official does not refer to non power holding offices.
2. The entire section 6 of the Code of Laws is unconstitutional.

I have my ruling for JR # 12 ready, however I will hold off ruling on it until we figure out whats going on.
 
Does Section 8.A.II and Section 8.A.I include appointed no-power duties like Chief Bureau's for the Information Department?

Section 8.A.I states that No Citizen may run for more than one office during an election cycle. It is reasonalbe and consistent to interpret section 8.B.I & II in light of section 8.A.I. In so doing the term office refers specifically to one which is elective in nature. It is furthermore entirely reasonable to interpret elective offices as those which confer some legal authority upon a citizen. This legal authority consists of posting binding game play instructions, validating polls or conducting official judicial business. Ad hoc offices, such as the Information Bureau, which confer no such legal authority and are not elective in nature should not be considered offices under sections 8.B.I & II.

Therefore it is my finidng that Section 8.A.II and Section 8.A.I does not include appointed no-power duties like Chief Bureau's for the Information Department.

donsig
Public Defender
 
Public Defender donsig,

The poll over your recusal for JR12 has been closed for several days. I trust you have your ruling on the matter ready for posting?

-- Ravensfire
 
ravensfire said:
Public Defender donsig,

The poll over your recusal for JR12 has been closed for several days. I trust you have your ruling on the matter ready for posting?

-- Ravensfire

Well, I've been waiting for the Censor to pass judgement on that poll. Then I have to think about whether it's right and proper for a Censor to validate his own polls or not. It might be worth a polling whether the Censor should recuse himself from that kind of thing and let his deputy handle it. Then there's another JR to think about - the one about the Strider Amendment. Am I the only one left to rule on JR12? I don't recall seeing a ruling from the CJ. :hmm:
 
donsig,

That's rather disappointing to see those words.

-- Ravensfire
 
ravensfire said:
donsig,

That's rather disappointing to see those words.

-- Ravensfire

Too bad. I was going for a laugh. Guess my material needs a little work. Or maybe it was my delivery?
 
DG1JR12
Question: Are Initiatives considered Official polls, and thus subject to verification by the Censor?




Quote:
Originally Posted by Daveshack
The original intent was to use "official" and "binding" as synonyms.

Because of the nature of an initiative as a legally binding poll, I therefore find that it is official and thus subject to verification by the office of the Censor since as justice nobody pointed out "paraphrasing", anything that can have that level off effect on the game should be certified by the censor to ensure that all game decisions are fair and true
 
Sorry for the resignation and everything, stuff comes up fast. Thank-You mhcarver for taking this place over.

Regarding JR11, did the other two justices think about the constitutionality problems of the term limits article?
 
Black_Hole said:
Sorry for the resignation and everything, stuff comes up fast. Thank-You mhcarver for taking this place over.

Regarding JR11, did the other two justices think about the constitutionality problems of the term limits article?

I did and chose not to include that in my ruling. Carrying your argument forward it could be argued that citizens also be allowed to run for more than one office at once. It all seems to hinge on how the phrase eligible for office is interpreted. I'd rather not interpret that unless we had a formal request for a JR on it.
 
mhcarver said:
DG1JR12
Question: Are Initiatives considered Official polls, and thus subject to verification by the Censor?




Quote:
Originally Posted by Daveshack
The original intent was to use "official" and "binding" as synonyms.

Because of the nature of an initiative as a legally binding poll, I therefore find that it is official and thus subject to verification by the office of the Censor since as justice nobody pointed out "paraphrasing", anything that can have that level off effect on the game should be certified by the censor to ensure that all game decisions are fair and true

I am very, very disappointed that my fellow justices have decided to slap together a quick ruling on this issue. I had asked as a sort of professional courtesy that the three of us confer on this (and all JRs) before publicly posting our rulings. Not only am I dismayed that my request for courtesy wasn't even acknowledged I am downright flabbergasted that two citizens whom we had enough faith in to place on the bench can so easily disregard our constitution.

I don't give a rat's behind for what DaveShack intended to say. We must first go by what is clearly written in our constitution. Only when what is written is not clear should we consider what was intended.

I would like to publicly and formally ask both the Chief Justice and Judge Advocate if they are willing to rescind their rulings on JR12 until such time as the three of us can confer on this case.
 
Top Bottom