Term 5 - Judiciary: The Hall of Justitia

zorven · Sep 2, 2003

This court is now in session :hammer:

This court is:

Chief Justice - zorven
Judge Advocate - CivGeneral
Public Defender - Vander

Our role is defined by our constitution:

Code:

3. The Judicial Branch will be formed of three Leaders and is tasked 
      with verifying legality of legislation, interpreting rules, and 
      determining when violations occur. Each also has a specific 
      area of additional responsibility.

      a. The Chief Justice is the overall head of the Judiciary and can 
         fill in for either lower position. The Chief Justice is 
         responsible for maintaining the legal books of the country 
         and the mechanics of Judicial Procedure.

      b. The Judge Advocate functions in a role of prosecution and 
         attorney to the state when allegations of rulebreaking have 
         been made.

      c. The Public Defendant functions in the roll of defense for any 
         and all accused citizens.

You may use this thread for any legal discussion, questions, requests for Judicial Reviews, or Public Investigations.

Links:

Constitution and Code of Laws
Judicial Log
Term 4 Judiciary Term 3 Judiciary Term 2 Judiciary Term 1 Judiciary

zorven · Sep 2, 2003

Reserved

Vander · Sep 2, 2003

Hi-o. Public Defender Publicly showing his face. As I like to say, "Are we ready to have a good time?" Let's rock the socks off this term's judiciary (and all get re-elected!).

Public Defender,
Vander

GenMarshall · Sep 2, 2003

Judge Advocate reporting in

Bootstoots · Sep 2, 2003

I would like to extend my welcome to all three members of the Judiciary. I would also like to welcome CG to his first term in the Fanatican Judiciary (well...except for a few hours during the Term 3 crisis). This looks like a strong Judiciary and I feel that they can make good decisions. Here's to Term 5!

Vander · Sep 3, 2003

Hear Hear!

Bootstoots · Sep 6, 2003

Time to stir up some trouble...I was looking at the last Judicial Review conducted (Review DG3-T4-3) and I realized that it itself should come under review. The only review posted before the end of the term was the review by Chief Justice Peri. However, it is still considered binding for some reason. CoL A.1.a states the following:

Code:

b. Judicial Review is binding if 2 of 3 Judiciary members agree with the review

However, only one Judicial member reviewed on it before the term was over. Therefore, I request that the Judiciary strike that review down as nonbinding. The review can be found here

Though the term length is not defined in our ruleset, it should be considered to be one calendar month stretching from the beginning of a month GMT to the end of that month GMT because of custom and precident. If the Judiciary reviews that the review is binding because the term length and beginning and end is not set, this will open a large can of worms.

Thank you.

ravensfire · Sep 6, 2003

My comment would be that this review is, in fact, binding.

The review was requested prior to the end of the current term, and was accepted by the Judiciary also prior to the end of that term.

The Majority opinion was posted and confirmed by the members of the Judiciary at the time the review was requested. All discussion for the review was conducted prior to the posting of the review. As was noted by the Chief Justice, all members of the Judiciary concurred on their opinion prior to posting.

It is in the best interests of both Fanatica and Justice that review be completed in both a timely manner and a thorough manner. Often, these two goals conflict with each other. Preference should be given to a thorough review of the matter. If we would adopt the reasoning proposed by Boots, there is no reason for any court to accept a Judicial Review posted a few days prior to the end of a term. Justice delayed!

As a corallary to this reasoning, a PI filed prior to the end of a term should be handled by the current judiciary at that point in time. Imagine the chaos if a person files a PI against someone, and then becomes a member of the Judiciary. Under the Boots' reasoning above, the PI MUST become moot as a member of the Judiciary is not permitted to file a PI.

I pray the court finds this arguement persuasive.

-- Ravensfire

Bootstoots · Sep 6, 2003

The Majority opinion was posted and confirmed by the members of the Judiciary at the time the review was requested. All discussion for the review was conducted prior to the posting of the review. As was noted by the Chief Justice, all members of the Judiciary concurred on their opinion prior to posting.

So, if somebody posts review saying that the Judiciary was unanimous in their ruling, but only one person had posted review and expected the others to confirm it, that is valid whether they confirm it when they are still in the Judiciary or not? The required 2 of 3 members of the Judiciary officially agreed with this review only after their term was up.

It is in the best interests of both Fanatica and Justice that review be completed in both a timely manner and a thorough manner. Often, these two goals conflict with each other. Preference should be given to a thorough review of the matter. If we would adopt the reasoning proposed by Boots, there is no reason for any court to accept a Judicial Review posted a few days prior to the end of a term. Justice delayed!

Of course they could accept it, as long as the review was conducted in a timely manner. And if their review was not complete, they can hand it over to the next Judiciary to review, and they will take into consideration the discussion by the previous Judiciary.

As a corallary to this reasoning, a PI filed prior to the end of a term should be handled by the current judiciary at that point in time. Imagine the chaos if a person files a PI against someone, and then becomes a member of the Judiciary. Under the Boots' reasoning above, the PI MUST become moot as a member of the Judiciary is not permitted to file a PI.

That is not correct. Under my reasoning, the new Judiciary member would have filed the PI in the previous term, and would be able to review it in their term as they became a new Judicial member after filing it. This review was agreed to after the terms of the respective Justices was over. I do not understand how you draw that connection between this review and that PI example.

Peri · Sep 6, 2003

As the Chief Justice for last term, I can swear in all honesty that the judiciary was unanimous in that review as I indicated in my ruling. The matter was discussed and the exact form of wording agreed in private session before our mandate expired. I trust this ends the matter.

GenMarshall · Sep 6, 2003

Darn you Boots

. Just when I was starting my Algebra Homework

.

Vander · Sep 6, 2003

Yea man. I get out of bed (after a fun night, let me tell ya! :crazyeye:

) To this?
Oh well. Bring it on!!

ravensfire · Sep 6, 2003

I wish to remind any interested party that zorven does not generally have internet access over the weekend. He should see this on Monday.

-- Ravensfire

zorven · Sep 8, 2003

Code:
Originally posted by Bootstoots
Time to stir up some trouble...I was looking at the last Judicial Review conducted (Review DG3-T4-3) and I realized that it itself should come under review. The only review posted before the end of the term was the review by Chief Justice Peri. However, it is still considered binding for some reason. CoL A.1.a states the following:

Code:

b. Judicial Review is binding if 2 of 3 Judiciary members agree with the review

However, only one Judicial member reviewed on it before the term was over. Therefore, I request that the Judiciary strike that review down as nonbinding. The review can be found here

Though the term length is not defined in our ruleset, it should be considered to be one calendar month stretching from the beginning of a month GMT to the end of that month GMT because of custom and precident. If the Judiciary reviews that the review is binding because the term length and beginning and end is not set, this will open a large can of worms.

Thank you.

Ok, Bootstoots, we will give you our opinion soon....

GenMarshall · Sep 8, 2003

@Zorven - Pleae check your PM box

zorven · Sep 10, 2003

This post represents the ruling of the full Judiciary. The opinion within was unanimously agreed to by:

Chief Justice zorven
Judge Advocate CivGeneral
Public Defender Vander

Judicial Review Request

Code:
Originally posted by Bootstoots
Time to stir up some trouble...I was looking at the last Judicial Review conducted (Review DG3-T4-3) and I realized that it itself should come under review. The only review posted before the end of the term was the review by Chief Justice Peri. However, it is still considered binding for some reason. CoL A.1.a states the following:

Code:

b. Judicial Review is binding if 2 of 3 Judiciary members agree with the review

However, only one Judicial member reviewed on it before the term was over. Therefore, I request that the Judiciary strike that review down as nonbinding. The review can be found here

Though the term length is not defined in our ruleset, it should be considered to be one calendar month stretching from the beginning of a month GMT to the end of that month GMT because of custom and precident. If the Judiciary reviews that the review is binding because the term length and beginning and end is not set, this will open a large can of worms.

Thank you.

Facts:

Judicial Review DG3-T4-3 was initiated August 30 GMT.
Chief Justice Peri posted the opinion of the Judiciary on August 31 GMT.
Chief Justice Peri's post included the text:

The Judiciary were unanimous in this ruling.

Chief Justice: Peri
Judge Advocate: Ravensfire
Public Defender: Zorven

Judge Advocate ravensfire posted in the forums on Sep 1 GMT and Public Defender zorven on Sep 2 GMT that they did, in fact, agree with the opinion as posted by Chief Justice Peri.

Our Opinion:

Section A.1.b of the Code of Laws states that a Judicial Review opinion is binding if 2 of 3 members of the Judiciary agree with said opinion. The Code of Laws is silent on the method in which this agreement is to be communicated to the citizenry. It was the practice of the Judiciary in Term 4 that the Chief Justice make one post in the forum on behalf of the full Judiciary when posting the opinion of the Judiciary in response to a request for Judicial Review. It was also the practice that the Judge Advocate and Public Defender post messages in the forum, after the Chief Justice's post, to publicly state that the post made by the Chief Justice was accurate. It is our opinion that the post made by the Chief Justice on behalf of the full Judiciary is sufficient to communicate the agreement of the remaining members of the Judiciary. The posts made by the Judge Advocate and the Public Defender are "after the fact". They are not necessary, but rather function as a polite confirmation of the Chief Justice's post. Therefore, we rule that the Judiciary's opinion was posted before the term expired and Judicial Review DG3-T4-3 stands.

Bootstoots · Sep 10, 2003

I would appreciate it if the Chief Justice will post each of the other two opinions in a quote of the PM, chat log, or other method of recording them. When Judicial Review DG3-T4-3 was conducted, I had no way of seeing the other opinions. I was simply told that they had agreed unanimously with Peri's post. I had not seen that method of review used before

zorven · Sep 10, 2003

There are no "other" opinions. We all wrote one opinion together.

ravensfire · Sep 10, 2003

Originally posted by Bootstoots
I would appreciate it if the Chief Justice will post each of the other two opinions in a quote of the PM, chat log, or other method of recording them. When Judicial Review DG3-T4-3 was conducted, I had no way of seeing the other opinions. I was simply told that they had agreed unanimously with Peri's post. I had not seen that method of review used before

As zorven stated, there was only a single opinion, the wording of which was discussed internally prior to posting. The only official ruling was posted in the Term 4 thread, and copied into the Judicial Log.

-- Ravensfire

Peri · Sep 10, 2003

Originally posted by Bootstoots
I would appreciate it if the Chief Justice will post each of the other two opinions in a quote of the PM, chat log, or other method of recording them. When Judicial Review DG3-T4-3 was conducted, I had no way of seeing the other opinions. I was simply told that they had agreed unanimously with Peri's post. I had not seen that method of review used before

I posted that the Judiciary was unanimous in the official decision because it was. There was no dissenting opinion. Only the form of words was discussed. Since this review was the third conducted in this way there had been plenty of opportunity to raise your concerns. We believed that this method of posting a Review was the most sensible. We did not anticipate that the validity of the method would be questioned. If my ruling had not reflected the opinion of the the other two members, I am certain they would have posted to that effect long before you called for a Review.

Regards

Term 5 - Judiciary: The Hall of Justitia

12,000 Suns

12,000 Suns

Privateering in Idaho

High Elven ISB Capt & Ghost Agent

Deity

Privateering in Idaho

Deity

Member of the Opposition

Deity

Vote early and vote often

High Elven ISB Capt & Ghost Agent

Privateering in Idaho

Member of the Opposition

12,000 Suns

High Elven ISB Capt & Ghost Agent

12,000 Suns

Deity

12,000 Suns

Member of the Opposition

Vote early and vote often

Similar threads