Judicial Log

This is the Judicial Log for Demogame IV. The Chief Justice for each Term will announce the begining of their respective Term cycle and post all Judicial decisions made during their Term, thereafter.

This is not a discussion thread

This begins the Judicial Log for Term 1. Posted below, you will find all decisions brought about by the Judiciary this Term. CoL Section E.3.B states:

The Chief Justice is responsible for updating and maintaining the Judicial Log.

All of the decisions posted here shall key on the writings of the Judicial thread for Term 1. Any notes posted with any decision will not be posted here, but shall remain in the Judicial thread.

Welcome and read on...

This Judicial Review was requested by donsig, who asked for a ruling from the Judiciary on the validity of the special election for the Chief Justice. Donsig felt this special election was in violation of Article G of the Constitution.

Procedure was followed, a discussion thread was opened, and after Chief Justice Cyc declared Arguements Over (Associate Justice ravensfire concurred), the Judiciary retired to make a decision in the form of a Majority Opinion (and if necessary a Minority Opinion).

As a result of these opinions, this Judicial Review has been declared invalid, as one of the authors involved in writing the Majority Opinion also encapsulated his resignation within it. This brought the decision to a point in which there was no Majority Opinion.

There is no recourse to the invalidation of this Judicial Review, as in his attempt at writing new law with an Opinion, ravensfire, the Associate Justice who resigned, wrote himself out of the Associate's Chair. Therefore, if one claims the Majority Opinion to be legal, then ravensfire has no authority to write an Opinion for the Judiciary.

Final Decision: This Judicial Review has been declared Invalid by the Term 1 Judiciary.

This Judicial Review was requested by President Rik Meleet. His request concerned the fact that two different laws were ratified in the Three Books that stated different ways of handling the same situation. He felt these Laws might be contradictory.

The situation he referred to was in regards to refusal polls and who must post them when a citizen disapproves of an appointment. This situation at hand involved citizen Donovan Zoi requesting a refusal poll from President Rik Meleet, in hopes of recalling the appointment of donsig as Vice President.

The two Laws involved here are CoL H.2.a.1 and CoS F.3.ii, which each state ways that a citizen may request a refusal poll for any appointment. President Rik meleet was basing his opinion on one Law, while Citizen Donovan Zoi was basing his opinion on the other. The President felt that Donovan Zoi should post the poll and Donovan Zoi felt the President should. This debate triggered this Judicial Review, although the President's attempt at requesting the Judicial Review was not made clear to the Judiciary. Therefore Chief Justice Cyc gave an informal opinion about how the two Laws were complimentary to one another in that they both used the word MAY in regards to how a citizen is to initiate the poll. Specifically, a citizen MAY start the refusal process themself, or the citizen MAY request the Leader who made the appointment to start the refusal process. As these two Laws offer a citizen a choice in the matter, they are not contradictory. Following this, then Associate Justice ravensfire gave an informal opinion about the matter. He stated that the second Law was just ratified and that he would be superceding the first Law with the new one.

At this point the President renewed his request for a formal Judicial Review. This time he altered it slightly to include seeking a ruling on the authority of Associate Justice ravensfire to write new laws by himself. This prompted an official Judicial Review request. During the request process, Chief Justice Cyc had conversations with the President via PM's in regards to altering the wording of the Request to suit the President. Chief Justice Cyc assured the President that there were Laws in place that stated the process one must take to change an existing Law, that ravensfire can't just change them by himself. This, along with the knowledge previously gained about the two Laws working together, convinced the President to drop the Judicial Review, as he was now satisfied with the results.

Final Decision: This Judicial Review is closed.

This Judicial Review was requested by ravensfire. His request concerned the legality of this court invalidating donsig's first request for a Judicial Review (see DGIVJR1 above) on the grounds that ravensfire's Majority Opinion posting was unacceptable. ravensfire's request is stated below:

I am calling for a Judicial Review on the decision to declare the previous Judicial review invalid. There is no law allowing such a decision. As per the Judicial Review laws (under which I am callinf for this review), the decision was rendered legally and accepted as the Majority Opinion. As such, it should be posted as the Judicial Review. No legal right exists to declare a review invalid.
________________________________________________

As stated above in the DGIVJR1 ruling:

There is no recourse to the invalidation of this Judicial Review, as in his attempt at writing new law with an Opinion, ravensfire, the Associate Justice who resigned, wrote himself out of the Associate's Chair. Therefore, if one claims the Majority Opinion to be legal, then ravensfire has no authority to write an Opinion for the Judiciary.
________________________________________________

Not only was any recourse to this ruling eliminated by the bizarre Majority Opinion, which supposedly wrote ravensfire out of the Associate Justice chair days before he posted the opinion, but also the tactic he chose to go about creating the "new law" was totally illegal.

In CoS Section X.III.D it is stated:

D. All Judicial Reviews are part of COUNTRY_NAME’s body of Law, and may
be used for future decisions unless overridden by future Laws.
_________________________________________________

Therefore any conclusions made by a Majority Opinion posted for a Judicial Review would effect ONLY future decisions and future laws. These means that by posting a Majority Opinion on a current Judicial Review, an Associate Justice (or any Justice for that matter) cannot enforce any kind of law that demands immediate action. This brings up the second point in this ruling, which bears the fact that ravensfire's posted Majority Opinion was illegal.

Article I of the Constitution, CoL Section J, CoL Section A.5, and CoS Section N all support the fact that it is up to the citizens of Fanatica to create or ammend the laws and/or rules that we have/will laid/lay down in the Three Books. ravensfire's Majority Opinion tried to create law in its writing. ravensfire wanted to have his Opinion take precedence not only over existing law, but to over-rule Moderator action in several instances. This is highly inappropriate for an Associate Justice, especially one that was so involved with the process of documenting the Three Books for use in this game.

Beyond these two laws, which not only disqualify ravensfire's Majority Opinion as illegal, but also preclude further legal procedure on the matter, a fourth Moderator action was brought into play squelching any further consideration on the Special Election that took place at the begining of this game, just recently. Therefore DGIVJR3 was proclaimed null and void by a Moderator.

Final Decision: This Judicial Review has been declared Invalid by the Term 1 Judiciary.

donsig has requested a Judicial Review. Below is his request.

I hereby formally request a Judicial Review to determine if CoS section J applies to our Senators.

In summary, it appears donsig is asking for a ruling on whether CoS section K applies to our Senators. The Section donsig refers to started out as J, then was considered Section X during ratification, and has since been assigned the letter K in the CoS. For the purposes of this Ruling, both Letters shall be noted to keep the integrity of the JR and to keep current with said changes.
________________________________________________

The Term 1 Judiciary has produced a Majority Opinion for DGIVJR4. There is no Minority Opinion.

It is this Court’s opinion that Article H of the Constitution states that Governors, and therefore Senators, are in deed Leaders. According to CoL Sections C.1.a, C.1.c, and C.1.d the intentions of the lawmakers were for the Senate to come to conclusions on their responsibilities (via Polls) and post instructions in the Senate thread for the President of the Senate (the Vice President) to transfer to the Turn Chat Instruction (TCI) thread. In the wording for these Laws, the word SHALL is used liberally, indicating that these actions MUST be carried out in this manner. These Laws lead the Court to believe that the intention of the lawmakers was for this action to be carried out by these Leaders, just as other Leaders must also carry out similar Turn Chat requirements. Therefore, this Court's opinion is that Section J (K) of the CoS applies to Senators.

As a note to the above Majority Opinion, this Court would recommend that the Congress draw up a revision to these Laws that would eliminate the need for interpretation of intent and clarify in a stricter manner the guidelines for procedure on Senatorial duties.

Final Decision: This Court's opinion is that Section J (K) of the CoS applies to Senators. When referencing this Decision, please keep in mind that the DGIVJR12 Majority Opinion discusses Instructions concerning the Cash Requests,whereas this Majority Opinion discusses the Science Slider.

Bill_in_PDX has requested the following Judicial Review:

In accordance with Code of Standards, Article X, Section I, I call for the following Judicial Review:

1) Question asked: Are the Government Threads available for discussion and posts by normal citizens?

Specific law involved: Code of Laws, Article A, Section 3. Right to Free Speech. Citizens may post their comments in forum threads wherever appropriate.
______________________________________________

It is this Court’s opinion that Article A of the Constitution affords Free Speech to all citizens of Fanatica. CoL Section A.3.a supports that Article by stating that a citizen can post anywhere in these forums where appropriate. CoS Section B.2.L (newly ratified) specifically states that any citizen may post in the Government threads, so it supports the Article also.

All of this is seen through the eyes of a Judicial Branch, which also considers CoL Section E.2 to have considerable weight. Forum rules, enforced by Moderators, do welcome posts that dislike or disagree with other posts in their content. If a situation gets out of hand in any thread anywhere in these forums, Moderator action can be called for.

As noted in the first post of the Term 1 Judicial thread, citizens are encouraged to post with any concerns they may have that are not already addressed there. All participation is welcome. In consideration of the legislation above, this Court’s opinion is that any Citizen may in deed post in any Government thread when the content of their post is appropriate.

Final Decision: It is this Court’s opinion is that any Citizen may in deed post in any Government thread when the content of their post is appropriate.

Bill_in_PDX has requested the following Judicial Review:

In accordance with Code of Standards, Article X, Section I, I call for the following Judicial Review:

2) Question asked: Is the Judiciary subserviant to the Executive Branch, specifically the President?

Related Laws: Constitution, Article C, D, and F. Code of Laws, Article B, Section 1 (responsibility and authority of the President). Code of Laws, Article D, all sections (respnsibilities and authorities of the Judicial Branch)

Clarification: Twice in this discussion/government (definition to be determined above) thread our President has implied that he can dictate what is, and is not appropriate actions by the Judicary, and what commentary is allowed, in their own thread. The most recent being a "Presidential Demand" that intended to dictate to citizen and Judiciary member alike what is, and is not appropriate.

It is my understanding that in our three branch government system the Executive Branch can make no such demands on another Branch of government. Further, the Constitution mandates that our government follow the will of the people, and as such the President cannot be allowed to attempt to stifle that discussion, or direct in ways that he or she sees fit.

I add at the end that I asking for this as a matter of law and proceedure with an eye on the future, when someone not as benevolent as Rik may hold the position. This is not an indictment of our President and his attempts to get the game on track, which I fully support.
_________________________________________________

The Term 1 Judiciary has produced a Majority Opinion for DGIVJR5. There is no Minority Opinion.

It is this Court’s opinion that there are no Laws pertaining to this subject matter. Throughout the Constitution and Supporting Books, it is implied that all three Branches of the Government form a system of checks and balances on each other. Each Branch having its own strengths and weaknesses in certain areas. Therefore, it is this Court’s opinion that no Branch of Government is subservient to any other Branch, just as no Branch is superior to any other Branch.

In the situation that sparked this request (President Rik Meleet’s post in the Judicial thread), the President’s post can be seen as a request, not a demand.

Final Decision: it is this Court’s opinion that no Branch of Government is subservient to any other Branch, just as no Branch is superior to any other Branch.

CivGeneral requested the following Judicial Review:

I am asking the Judicary if they can review on whether or not its legal to have changes to instructions in the middle of the turn chats (Either via #turnchat or the Turn Chat instruction thread so long as the DP is notified in #turnchat first)
_____________________________________________

During the request process for DGIVJR7, Chief Justice Cyc had conversations with CivGeneral via PM's in regards to altering the wording of the Request to suit CivGeneral. During these conversations Chief Justice Cyc assured CivGeneral that there were Laws in place that stated the process one must take to post legally binding Instructions. This convinced CivGeneral to drop the request for a Judicial Review, as he was now satisfied with the results.

Final Decision: This Judicial Review is closed.

Associate Justice Peri requested this Judicial Review. It is posted below:

I would like to request a Judicial Review.
Since I cannot in good conscience adjudicate on my own request I recuse myself and ask Cyc to appoint someone in my place for the purpose of this review.

CivGeneral has asked me to represent him. However as a member of the Judiciary there is a clear conflict of interest. Neverheless there is no Article, Law or Standard which prohibits a member of the Judiciary from representing someone in a CC.
________________________________________________

As Peri is a member of the Judiciary and had contacted Chief Justice Cyc about this issue via PM, procedure could still be upheld during this phase of the process even though in posting Peri did not ask a question or state a law involved. Therefore a question was posed for him, that covers all the points he made.

Can a member of the judiciary take an active role in the CC defense or prosecution roles while still holding their office?
*Thanks to Bill_in_PDX for wording that question.

As Peri has stated there is no law that specifically states that a Justice is forbidden to be an Advocate in a Citizen Complaint, nor any law that says it can be done. Therefore no Law was quoted here.
_________________________________________________

Just for reference, the following note was added in regards to the Citizen Complaint that prompted this JR:

This Judicial Review will complete all of its phases before the Citizen Complaint DGIVCC1 will continue, as this JR will help lay the groundwork for that CC.
_________________________________________________

As part of Code of Laws, Article D, the responsibilities of the judiciary are clearly communicated, and one of those responsibilities is to appoint a Pro Tem Justice when a member is not able to carry out their duties. Duties that all stem from the Constitution, Article F.

As such, in Code of Standards, Section L, dealing with the conduct of a Citizen Complaint, the accused and accuser are encouraged to choose their advocates. The advocates investigate the complaint and report to the court on their findings. The court evaluates and votes on the merit of this becoming a trial case.

Therefore, in answer to the question, NO, this Court feels that allowing a sitting Justice to take an advocate role in the case, and then vote on the outcome, is a basic violation of the principles outlined in Article F, requiring impartiality by the Court. If the Justice wishes to take an advocate role in the case, they should appoint a Pro Tem for the entire Citizen Complaint process. Once the entire process is completed, and the final outcome known, the Justice returns to fulfill his normal duties. According to the same Article F of the Constitution of Fanatica, there shall only be one Chief Justice and two Associate Justices at any time. Therefore if a Justice appoints a Pro Tem to fulfill their duties in a Citizen Complaint process, they relinquish their position until the Citizen Complaint is complete.

Final Decision: No Justice may represent a client in a Citizen Complaint unless they step down temporarily after appointing a Pro Tem Justice to replace them for the duration of the Citizen Complaint.

On January 19, 2004, President Rik Meleet filed a Citizen Complaint with Chief Justice Cyc via a Private Message (PM). His complaint was against Military Leader CivGeneral and stated that CivGeneral had twice not posted the Turn Chat Military Instructions before the time limitations for those Turn Chats ran out. Rik Meleet quoted CoL Section I.1 as verification of the illegality of CivGeneral’s actions. During conversations via PM, Rik Meleet expressed to Cyc that he did not need to remain anonymous during the proceedings, that he filed via PM to adhere to standards. Chief Justice Cyc then filed the Citizen Complaint (CC) in the Judicial thread officially. Three hours later, a PM was received from Associate Justice Peri stating the Peri & Hutz had been named as Defense Council for CivGeneral in the CC. CJ Cyc denied Peri the opportunity to serve as CivGeneral’s representative, saying he was a member of this Court and Peri’s responsibilities were to this Court, not to an outside interest. Peri filed a Judicial Review on this, DGIVJR8, and recused himself from the Bench, allowing Cyc to name the Pro Tem replacement. Chief Justice Cyc named the honorable Bill_in_PDX as Peri’s replacement, and proceeded with the Judicial Review (JR). On January 21, 2004, the JR concluded with the Decision that a sitting Justice may not represent a client in a CC unless they relinquished the seat on the Bench to a Pro Tem Justice for the duration of the CC.

Meanwhile, CivGeneral named Strider as his representative, releasing Peri, who returned to the Bench at the conclusion of the JR. Bill_in_PDX then went on to represent Rik Meleet in the CC. The CC was officially started later that day (the 21st) and the Presentation Phase, which was to last 24 hours, ended an hour early as both parties had made their Final Statement by then. The Judiciary discussing the merits of the Complaint and voting affirmatively to Accept the Complaint for further processing then followed. This brought the Complaint to the Remedy Phase. The Prosecution did then offer the Defense an alternative to Trial in the form of a Remedy. The Remedy is posted below:

REMEDY – DGIVCC1

Wherein for exchange of the Prosecution agreeing to forgo trial, the defendant, CivGeneral agrees to the following:

1) That CivGeneral posted instructions not within the required time frame of 60 minutes or greater before the beginning of turn chat. He did so on two occasions, despite warnings from the President.

2) That he will publicly pledge to submit his instructions on time in the future.

END OF REMEDY

The Defense accepted this Remedy and afterwards the Judiciary voted to Accept this Remedy as appropriate for the Complaint. CivGeneral later posted the following statement:

I will post all of my instructions on time before the dead line. I will make sure that all of my instructions will be on the turn chat instruction thread.

As this Remedy was carried out, the Citizen Complaint has been officially dismissed.

Final Decision: As the Remedy was carried out, this Citizen Complaint is dismissed.

After examining the process that the President followed to use a Special Session Turn Chat to secure a trade, ravensfire filed this Judicial Rview:

I request a Judicial Review on the recent Special Session conducted by the President. I wish the Judiciary to determine if the correct process was followed. The specific law involved in CoS Section C.2.

I do not want to make this a CC - this is a new ruleset with new processes. I would like a determination if the process was followed correctly, and if not, where the discrepencies were.
________________________________________________

The Term 1 Judiciary has produced a Majority Opinion for DGIVJR9. There is no Minority Opinion.

The request for this Judicial Review (JR) asked the Judiciary to review the recent Special Session conducted by the President and determine if the correct process was followed. The specific law involved is CoS Section C.2.

First of all this Court would like to thank ravensfire for requesting this JR, as this Court was unaware of the processes taken by the President and the Trade and Technology (T&T) Minister. By requesting this JR, you have illuminated our eagerness to accept, sometimes without question, the actions of our Leaders.
In reviewing the proceedings of the Special Session brought on in hopes of taking advantage of newly afforded trade deals, this Court has determined that although good effort and good intentions were put into the makings of this Special Session, towards the end of it, our President and T&T Minister did veer a bit too far from the rules.

In bringing up the CoS Section C.2 rules, ravensfire has opened the door to another, more serious violation. CoS Section C.2.a and .b were adhered to by the Leaders. They had a single task to go after with the Special Session, they ran a discussion that had definite support for the idea, and they polled both the trade and the Special Session idea. All of this was done according to procedure, and done very well, in the eyes of this Court.

The actual dynamics of the chat and the trappings that were supposed to accompany it is where the problems start. Section C.2.c states:
c. The chat shall be scheduled no earlier than 24 hours
from when the chat was added to the schedule.

The chat was never added to the schedule; therefore it could not have adhered to the rule of being “scheduled no earlier than 24 hours from when the chat was added to the schedule”.

Section C.2.d states:

d. A turn chat instruction thread must be posted for
this special session, and shall include only:
1. The date and time of the chat, in GMT;
2. A link to the save to be used;
3. The reasons and the support for the chat;
4. The specific action to be take.
5. No other instructions from the Executive or
Legislative branches shall be posted.

There was no Turn Chat Instruction thread posted for this Special Session, therefore none of C.2.d was adhered to.

Failure to follow the procedure laid out in these two Standards, means that an open and public Turn Chat was not used for the Special Session. This violates Article K of the Constitution, showing us that even some of the most insignificant things are usually attached to something larger.

Although ravensfire has noted that he does not want to proceed with a Citizen Complaint based on the results of this Review, it should be noted that both the President and the T&T Minister have by these actions, set themselves up for just that. During the Investigation of this Review, it was also noted that after the event of this Special Session, during the normally scheduled Turn Chat, the President did not carry out the Instructions of the T&T Minister as written in the Turn Chat Instruction thread. This again, sets up the President for another CC. Because of ravensfire’s request, this Court will suppress these Citizen Complaints and not allow them to take hold. But this Court would like to stress the potentially serious trouble people might find themselves in by not following the rules, even a Standard.
________________________________________________

Final Decision: The Special Session Turnchat put together by the President did not follow the correct procedure, as stated above.

Moderator eyrei, as a citizen, has requested a Judicial review. He has included his question within his request, stated below:

I would like to request a judicial review on whether the FA department has the authority to give the instruction that the turn chat should be stopped if we make a contact, when no poll has been posted on the matter.

As for the Law in question, eyrei has chosen CoS Section F.9, which is a Standard. In accepting this Request for a Judicial Review, this Court will be setting precedent for the rest of the game (DGIV), in that legislation from the CoS will be accepted pertinent and allowable for Judicial Reviews. Not only for Requests of Judicial Reviews, but in Rulings and Decisions in Judicial Reviews.

Hence, eyrei's Request - "In light of CoS Section F.9, does the Foreign Affairs Department have the authority to give Instruction to the DP to stop the Turn Chat when new contact is made, when no poll has been posted on the matter?" has been accepted.
_____________________________________________

The Term 1 Judiciary has produced a Majority Opinion for DGIVJR10. There is no Minority Opinion.

The request for this Judicial Review (JR) asked the Judiciary examine the legality of a Minister posting Instructions for the DP to stop the Turn Chat if certain conditions arose, without first having run a poll.

eyrei's Request - "In light of CoS Section F.9, does the Foreign Affairs Department have the authority to give Instruction to the DP to stop the Turn Chat when new contact is made, when no poll has been posted on the matter?"

Because of the scope of the issue that this question covers, this Court had to go beyond the single law that eyrei stated above. The answer to this question would certainly entail circumstances well beyond just the Foreign Affairs Minister. It would envelop any Department Minister in posting legal Instructions for the DP. Therefore this Court found it necessary to review a myriad of different legislation, high and low, to justify an answer. We also took into consideration DaveShack’s comment in the Public Discussion for the JR, about the permissive and restrictive nature of the language.

I won’t list all eight rules here that were discussed by the Judiciary, but I will try to present the key rules used to form this Opinion. I will start off with the Constitution and work my way down.

Article D - The Executive branch is responsible for determining
and implementing the will of the People. It is headed
by the President who shall be the primary Designated
Player. The President shall take direction from a
council of 4 leaders and from other elected and appointed
officials via the Turnchat instruction thread.

This Article of the Constitution plainly states, of course, that the President/DP will abide by the Instructions given them by our Ministers.

Article D.2. The Minister of Foreign Affairs shall be responsible
for matters involving treaties with foreign nations,
as prescribed by law.

Part of the same Article, this verbiage states the Foreign Affairs Minister is, by all means responsible for the Affairs of the Nation in regards to foreign entities.

Article J. Elected officials must plan and act according to the will
of the people.

This is difficult prose to define, but basically understood by all. This was a key issue in the Opinion.

CoL I.1 and CoS D.1 basically state what a legal Instruction is and that all Instructions to be played out in the Turn Chat will be posted in the TCI thread.

And finally, CoS F.9. The Designated Player retains the right to end the turn chat at their discretion.

Here we applied DaveShack’s comment on the permissive wording and intent of the Standard. We took this legislation at face value, in that the DP does retain the right to end the chat at their discretion. Beyond this implication that it is not an exclusive right of the DP, or that this right may be taken away from others, this allows the DP the ability to end the chat at the Instruction of a Minister.

With all of the different facets of law above reflecting the different points of view in many areas of Gameplay, this Court found that DGIVJR10 was one of the most difficult and time-consuming Judicial Reviews to date. After much debate and tossing about of ideas, this Court unanimously agreed that a Council Minister can indeed instruct the DP to stop the chat, if conditions arise that require forum discussion. This Opinion also states that the Minister should have due cause for such an Instruction, as they are putting themselves at risk of a Citizen Complaint if they cannot show verifiable backing of the People. This backing may not have to be in the form of a poll, but it should at least be favorable discussion on the subject matter with little dissent.

Final Decision: Any Minister may give Legal Instruction to the DP to stop a Turn Chat if circumstances arise and citizen approval justify such an Instruction. If either one of these matters are not present, the Minister who gives such an Instruction is at risk of a Citizen Complaint.

Minister of Internal Affairs DaveShack, as a citizen has requested a Judicial Review. It is stated below:

I would like to request a Judical Review of CoL section I relative to the range of in-game actions which can be the subject of instructions by any official. The law in question reads:


DaveShack adds:

At issue is whether instructions for in-game actions which are not specifically identified in law as pertaining to the responsibilities of an office, but which have an ancilliary effect on that office, are "within the limitations of the office".

A finding that instructions not specifically associated with an office, and with ancillary effects on an office, are within the responsibilities would have the effect of confirming that stop instructions are valid.

This is a rather vague request, as almost any instruction given by a Minister will have an ancillary (subordinate, secondary, delayed) effect on their department. But we shall endeavor to work up a question, regardless.

"In review of CoL Section I.1, would Instructions for in-game actions not specifically identified by Law as pertaining to the responsibilities of an office (Dept.), but would impact or effect that office (Dept.) in some way, be within the limitataions of that office (Dept.)?"
_______________________________________________

The Term 1 Judiciary has produced a Majority Opinion for DGIVJR11. There is no Minority Opinion.

In proceeding with this JR, this Court needed to search for additional Law(s) to substaniate our answer, our answer by the way was immediate and unanimous. CoL I.1 deals with Legal Instruction, and although Instructions need to be legal in nature to require adherance by the DP, this question needed Law that was able to be broad enough to encompass the entire scope of the question, yet could focus on the almost hidden partitions of Executive Offices. After some debate on how to approach this, we finally concluded our Discussion with this Majority Opinion.

Final Decision: Yes, as long as the instructions given do not fall specifically and directly within the responsibilities of another leader or leaders, as prescribed by CoL B.2.e-h

CoL Section B.2.e through CoL Section B.2.h are posted below:

Zorven has requested this Judicial Review. It is posted below:

I hereby request a review to clarify CoL section C.1.d. Specifically, does the Senate have to post instructions in the Turn Chat thread that the cash request has been approved?



_____________________________________________

As the final Judicial Review of Term 1, the Judiciary was rather pleased that DGIVJR12 was one of the quickest and easiest of all the JRs. This Opinion was discussed and agreed upon almost immediately.

As stated above in CoL Section C.1.d, the Senate is required to approve or deny cash requests via a Cash Request Poll. This entire Law is the only procedural legislation for Cash Requests on our Books. Therefore, this Court can find no reason for the Senate to be posting Instructions in the TCIT.

The Senate does not request any funds for rushing improvements or for upgrading units. Ministers and Governors make these requests. Any Instructions posted in the TCIT should be posted by the Minister or Governor who was granted the gold by the Senate. This legislation does not even require the President of the Senate to post any kind of notification of any funding approval in the TCIT. Therefore, any Instruction posted by said Leader or Governor should have a LINK embedded within it for the DP to use as quick verification of the approval.

Final Decision: No - The Senate does not have to post instructions in the Turn Chat Instruction thread that the Cash Request has been approved.When referencing this Decision, please keep in mind that the DGIVJR4 Majority Opinion discussed Instructions concerning the Science Slider,whereas this Majority Opinion discusses Cash Requests.

Placeholder

This Majority Opinion was unanimous.

The Term 2 Judicial Elections results were ambiguous as multiple citizens declined the position of Associate Justice. Responding to requests, the Election Office stated that Ravensfire was elected as Chief Justice, Bootstoots as Associate Justice and Octavian as Associate Justice. The Election Office then determined that Bootstoots and Octavian resigned from the office, resulting in both positions being vacant.

We find that this determination is invalid. The Election Office is there to ensure the election process functions smoothly, by determining the dates, creating threads, tracking nominations, determining the vote totals and posting them. The Election Office has no mandate to interpret election results.

The question then becomes which citizens were elected to the Judiciary. From Section F.5 of the Code of Laws, “The citizen gathering the most votes in an election is deemed the winner of that election.” (Also, note Section J.3.d from the CoS.) There are no exceptions to this rule, nor are there any provisions within Fanatican law to support withdrawing from an election once the Election Poll has been posted.

We therefore find that Ravensfire, Bootstoots and Octavian X were elected to the Judiciary. We note that this does match what the Election Office determined.

The elected Associate Justices subsequently declined the office. There is no provision in our laws for the election winner to be chosen from the next highest vote winner on the ballot. This resulted in a vacancy according to Section H.1 of the CoL, “Leader positions that remain unfilled after an election shall be filled via appointment by the President”. The President, in accordance with Section H.1 of the CoL, then filled these vacancies.

The Judiciary for Term 2 is therefore found to be: Ravensfire as Chief Justice, Peri as Associate Justice and donsig as Associate Justice.

The need for this review came in part from multiple candidates being elected simultaneously to other positions by receiving the most votes for that election. The law stipulates that only the person with the most votes is the winner. (Section F.5 of the CoL). This puts those citizens clearly in conflict with Article H of the Constitution. It is Section J.1.d of the CoS which allows this conflict to happen and encourages electoral confusion. It allows citizens to run for multiple offices simultaneously and does not provide a mechanism to relieve this conflict within the election process.

Therefore, Section J.1.d of the Code of Standards is stricken from the laws of Fanatica.

This Majority Opinion was unanimous

I request a Judicial Review to determine which cities are in the Province of Berry. The relevant sections of the CoL are C.2.b.2 and C.2.b.3. Specifically, since no provincial borders have ever been set, are the cities of Vandelay and Vo Mimbre within the province of Berry?

Click to expand...

This judicial review was made much easier by the recent establishment of provincial borders by the Congress:

Provincial borders ratification poll.

Using the newly set borders the judiciary finds that the city of Vandelay is not in Berry province while Vo Mimbre is indeed in Berry province. Other cities in Berry province at this time are Dieux Rivieres, Montpellier, Huntington and Santa Lucia.

The judiciary also finds that Vandelay and St. Octaviansburg are in Province #2 and all other cities (Groton, Sanction and Mûre) are outside our established provinces and therefore under the auspices of the Ministry of Internal Affairs (MIA).

The judiciary would like to point out that any cities subsequently founded that fall outside of established provincial borders will also fall under the direction of the MIA.

-- Ravensfire, Chief Justice of Fanatica

This Majority Opinion was unanimous

I would like a Judicial Review of CoL B.2.e7. Specifically, does this section of the CoL give the ministry of Internal Affairs the authority to over-ride gubernatorial and Senate instructions on land use and slider settings given that: 1) article E of our constitution charges our Senators / governors the responsibilty for the care and mangement of our cities; and 2) C.1.c of the CoL grants control of the slider settings to the Senate.? this JR request is filed in the hope of determinig if the recent instructions posted by DaveShack (see below) are legal.

Click to expand...

Where confusion exists, it is appropriate to give priority to the higher authority of law. In this case Article E is clear that Provincial Governors are responsible for the care, management and use of the cities and lands of a province. CoL C.1.b supports this.
Also CoL C.1.b-d specifies that the Senate alone is responsible for Slider Instructions.

Col B.2.e specifies the roles and responsibilities for the Internal Affairs Minister. Items 1-4 specific duties that are to be undertaken. Item 5-7 outline areas where the IAM has a supervisory interest. Although this section of the CoL is clear that the IAM is tasked with monitoring happiness, he is not tasked with acting upon his observations.

Therefore it is the opinion of this court that the Provincial Governor has the sovereign rights of care, management and use of cities and land within the province. Correspondingly the Minister of Internal Affairs cannot post legal instructions to change slider settings nor to reallocate city laborers or hire entertainers.

T2-JR9 Placeholder