Term 2 - Judicial Department - You may now be seated

Chief Justice: donsig
Public Defender: bootstoots
Judge Advocate: Peri

Demogame rules

Judicial Department - Term 1

The purpose of the Judiciary is spelled out in Article C of our constitution:

From the Office of the Judge Advocate

Thanks for the welcome Boots. I look forward to working with you all

When not working for the SPQF, I am available to the citizenry for pro bono legal work.
I can handle divorces, conveyancing, litigation, contracts, etc so please call on me in the forum of Penguidaua. My office is next to Moe's caupona

I offer a free Saltatrix with every case won.

The Public Defender takes his seat for the third time. I welcome you, Peri, to the Judiciary. I would like to announce that I will be absent from June 17-27 and will need a Pro-Tem Defender to take my place for that time.

I will be happy to apply for the job for Pro-term PD .

Congratulations go out to all in the Judicial Department. A parade is called for. A toast to donsig.

Originally posted by Cyc
Congratulations go out to all in the Judicial Department. A parade is called for. A toast to donsig.

Click to expand...

I hope the parade goes down donsig avenue.

I'm very glad to continue on as CJ. I'd hate to give up the JDH and that great Judical Bench that Gladiatus put together for me!

I'll add my name both to the list of people lining up to congratulate our Judiciary on their new & continued tenures, and to that of applicants for the post of Public Defender Pro-tem

I will appoint CG as Pro-Tem Defender, as he has no Judicial experience and this would give him some. He will take office at around noon on June 17 (possibly earlier or later, I'll say so if necessary) and leave when I return, probably on June 27.

Originally posted by bootstoots
I will appoint CG as Pro-Tem Defender, as he has no Judicial experience and this would give him some. He will take office at around noon on June 17 (possibly earlier or later, I'll say so if necessary) and leave when I return, probably on June 27.

Click to expand...

There is no constitutional authority for you to do this. Please see this post.

I am calling for Judicial Review on the issue of whether to allow a Judicial member to appoint a pro tem justice to take their place over a period of absence. The part of the Constitution in question is section C.3.a, which is displayed here:
I hereby find that each Judicial member can appoint a pro-tem judicial member to take their place during a leave of absence. Simply because the CJ can take over for the lower offices doesn't mean that each lower office can't appoint a pro-tem justice to take their place. This also doesn't allow the CJ to be the sole person who can appoint pro-tem justices. There is much precident for the appointment of pro-tem justices in the previous demogames, and the ability of each Judicial member to appoint pro tem judicial members is outlined in the Demogame II CoL. Also, to not allow the Judicial members to appoint a pro-tem justice to take their place is also in effect denying that other positions such as Deputies, Mayors, and other offices in departments exist at all, simply because the Constitution doesn't say that they exist. We adopted a smaller ruleset because the people were to use common sense, doesn't this imply that things not included in the Constitution but also not forbidden should exist? I am calling on our Judiciary, particularly our Judge Advocate, to allow us the right to appoint pro-tem justices.

Double post.

From the Office of the Judge Advocate

Firstly I would like to see more evidence presented on the need to appoint temporary justices.
Is it not more logical and in keeping with the letter of the Constitution to consider such an appointment only when and if the need arises?
Also would not the head of the judiciary consider extra appointments to his department?

Bootstoots has formally requested a Judicial Review regarding the appointment of pro tem justices. Article C.3 of our constitution charges the Judicial Branch with "interpreting rules" and the following Judicial Review is submitted under the authority of that constitutional clause.

Article C.3.a states that The Chief Justice is the overall head of the Judiciary and can fill in for either lower position. This clause specifically covers the absence of the Public Defendant and Judge Advocate. It is my opinion that this clause was entered into the constitution by the framers to preclude both judicial deputies and pro tem justices as I see no other reason for this clause to exist. Therefore I find the appointment of pro tem justices unconstitutional.

Article D of the constitution states that All offices will be filled via elections to serve fixed terms. It is my opinion that this clause also renders the appointment of pro tem justices unconstitutional.

I request a PI for Donovan_Zoi. He left a settler ungarrisoned and it was killed by an Egyptian warrior. The previous turnchat, I had used a legion escort for that settler. The same settler lost 2 turns since he didn't read my latter instructions. The chat log can be found in the Turn Chat thread.

I would like to answer some of the points raised by my brother Justices.

the ability of each Judicial member to appoint pro tem judicial members is outlined in the Demogame II CoL

Click to expand...

(bootstoots)

The DG2 CoL carries little weight in DG3. It was not adopted in our land because it contains much that we (as a group) decided we did not want to continue.

not allow the Judicial members to appoint a pro-tem justice to take their place is also in effect denying that other positions such as Deputies, Mayors, and other offices in departments exist at all

Click to expand...

(bootstoots)

Mayors have no political authority and are therefore not relevant to the discussion. While deputies are not specifically authorized in the constitution there is also no constitutional back up plan for executive department leaders as there is for the judicial department. Also, deputies are chosen through the process of our elections and they are not appointed.

Also would not the head of the judiciary consider extra appointments to his department?

Click to expand...

(Peri)

As head of the judiciary I am not in favor of appointments as this contradicts our tradition of having elected officials.

I would like to see more evidence presented on the need to appoint temporary justices.

Click to expand...

(Peri)

I see no need for the appointment of pro tem justices. In cases of investigation regarding the breaking of rules the judicial department can operate if either or both the PD and JA are absent. It is only in rule interpretations that opinions may be needed from all three justices. In many cases such interpretations will not be so time sensitive that a ruling cannot await the return of an absent justice.

Chieftess has formally requested a public investigation into the loss a settler. The President stands accused of not following the instructions of the Domestic Leader. The Judicial Branch is empowered with determining when violations occur under article C.3 of our constitution.

Under article C.3.a the Chief Justice is responsible for the mechanics of Judicial Procedure.
Under article C.3.b the Judge Advocate functions in a role of prosecution.
Under article C.3.c the Public Defendant functions in the roll of defense for any and all accused citizens.

As a first step I request the Judge Advocate, in consultation with Chieftess (the citizen who has initiated this investigation), determine if there is any plausible evidence that a specific article of our constitution has been violated by the President. If the JA finds that there is plausible evidence of a constitutional violation then the investigation will proceed. If the JA finds no plausible evidence then these charges will have to be dismissed.

I also request that the Public Defendant confer with the President (the accused) in order to start preparing possible defenses should these charges not be dropped.

Finally, I request that everyone bear in mind that Chieftess is well within her rights to invoke this investigation and that Donovan_Zoi is to be presumed innocent until found otherwise through our judicial process.

Originally posted by donsig



As head of the judiciary I am not in favor of appointments as this contradicts our tradition of having elected officials.

(Peri)

I see no need for the appointment of pro tem justices. In cases of investigation regarding the breaking of rules the judicial department can operate if either or both the PD and JA are absent. It is only in rule interpretations that opinions may be needed from all three justices. In many cases such interpretations will not be so time sensitive that a ruling cannot await the return of an absent justice.

Click to expand...

Thats what I thought but thanks for ruling on it

Here's the evidence:

Turnchat thread
There's a settle by the Dyes, and another by Noshuret. The settler on the dyes is with the Legion. Take him south to the port location.
.
.
.
Settler/Legion pair by Regia: Take this to "The Fog". This is 1 north of the iron south of Regia.

Click to expand...

[19:22] <@DX_Zoi> I am in BIG TROUBLE
[19:22] <+cyc1> they don't have coat "buttons". Otherwise there would be a translation for the buttons
[19:22] <@Chieftess> That was its' origanal intent...
[19:22] <@Chieftess> uh oh, what?
[19:22] <+Noldodan> ah
[19:22] <+CivGeneral> What happened DZ?
[19:22] <@DX_Zoi> I didnt send the settler escort to the Fog and there is an Egyptian warrior there
[19:22] <@DX_Zoi> *^$&

Ok, I will begin formulating a defense. One thing, if DZ is found guilty, do we go under last game's sentencing options?

Originally posted by bootstoots
Ok, I will begin formulating a defense. One thing, if DZ is found guilty, do we go under last game's sentencing options?

Click to expand...

Let's take one step at a time here. The first step is the JA's decision on whether there is plausible evidence that a specific article has been violated. I ask our Domestic Advisor to submit evidence to the JA via PM. I also ask the PD to confer with the accused via PM.