Term 1 Judiciary - the Areiopagos

[ravensfire]

Welcome to the Areiopagos*!!

This is the site of the first term of the DG VII Judiciary. Here, the three Justices resolve any disputes that arise and make sure than any new laws don't conflict with existing ones. We're available to answer any questions you have - just let us know!

The Court:

Chief Justice - Ravensfire
Judge Advocate - Black Hole
Public Defender - mhcarver

The Chief Justice coordinates the efforts of the court, and keeps everything on schedule. They create the Judicial procedures, and make sure that the othe Justices follow them. At the conclusion of each judicial proceding, they create an entry in the Judicial Log summarizing what happened.

The Judge Advocate represents the interests of the State. During investigations, they work with the Public Defender to find evidence and determine if there's a reasonable chance something wrong was done. If there was, the Judge Advocate argues the side of the State in the ensuing trial.

The Public Defender represents the interests of each citizen. During investigations, they work with the Judge Advocate to find evidence and determine if there's a reasonable chance something wrong was done. If there was, the Public Defender argues the side of the accused in the ensuing trial.

During reviews, the Justices work together to discuss the situation. Along with comments from interested citizens, the Justices determine how to interpret sections of the laws that aren't clear. These interpretations are considered part of the law. At the end of each review, the Chief Justice is responsible for making sure that the Judiciary has clearly answered the questions, and put the summary in the Judicial Log.

Thanks!
-- Term 1 Judiciary

* The Areiopagos is one of the oldest courts of Ancient Greece. Rumoured to be originally a homicide court, it was given the power of apophasis, allowing it to investigate any matter involving public security, and present a report on the matter to the ekklesia, or the public assembly.

 

[ravensfire]

The Constitution

The Code of Laws

The Judicial Log

The Ruleset FAQ

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 Investigations. 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

Shared duties and responsibilities of all Justices

• Conduct the business of the court in a fair, impartial, open and speedy manner unless otherwise required
• Review and discuss any questions about our laws
• Review all proposed Amendments to our laws
• Review all requested Investigations to determine if there is need
• Participate in all Investigations in a fair and impartial manner
• Post clear opinions on all questions
• Notify the Judiciary during any Absence, and arrange for a Pro-Tem replacement
• Discuss and ratify these Judicial Procedures
• Recuse themself from any Investigation that they are involved in as either the citizen requesting the investigation, 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
• Determine and post the official Census
• Oversee all Judicial Proceedings
• Maintain the Judicial Log
• Appoint all Pro-Tem justices and seek confirmation by the President

Rights and Duties of the Judge Advocate

• Post any valid Recall poll if for the Chief Justice
• 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

Rights and Duties of the Public Defender

• Serve as the Defense during as 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

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, the other two Justices may both 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 clarification of these findings as needed.

Reviews of 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. The Chief Justices will post the poll for all proposals that pass Judicial Review.

Investigations
Investigations 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. 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.

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

Review
Each requested Investigation 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 an investigation 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)
• Final Warning
• Warning
• No Punishment
• Abstain

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 there is a tie, the Judiciary will break the tie through a majority vote, with each vote, and the reasoning, posted in the sentencing poll thread.

 

[ravensfire]

Pending Matters (link will go to request post)

• DG7JR6 - What happens on a Confirmation Poll if the action has already occurred and is irreversible
• DG7JR7 - What does the phrase "majority of citizens" in H.5 mean

Completed Matters (link will go to ruling post)

• DG7JR1 - Will a 4-2 vote by the Governors meet the 67% requirement?
• DG7JR2 - Is the ability of the Governors to overrule the Assembly in CoL F.2 constitutional?
• DG7JR3 - Who names the a city - the first Governor or the Governor when the city is founded?
• DG7JR4 - Who controls the actions of workers?
• DG7JR5 - Review of Proposed Amendment - CoL F.2

 

[ravensfire]

I'd like to welcome all citizens to the Term 1 court!

Welcome also to my fellow Justices Black Hole and mhcarver. Our lovely hilltop has a fine view of the city, nice shade and a handy stream for when debates get heated!

-- Ravensfire, Chief Justice

 

[Black_Hole]

Excellent, this hill shall serve nicely.
I wish to congratulate ravensfire and mhcarver on their elections, this should be a great term!

 

[Bootstoots]

Though the rules are still technically being polled, it's a safe bet that they'll pass, and I have a non-urgent review to call regarding two questions I had on them.

1. According to Section F.2 of the CoL:

Section F.2 Declaration of War
To declare a war, the Minister of Foreign Affairs will create a normal poll for the House, and a thread poll for the Senate. If more than 50% of the voters, not counting abstain, in both polls support the declaration, war can be declared. If either poll gains a 67% majority in support of war, war may be declared regardless of the other poll.

Would a 4-2 vote in the Senate (or similar two-thirds vote in the Assembly) authorize war regardless of the consent of the other legislative house? In other words, can 2/3 be rounded to 67% for legal purposes, or does "67%" mean slightly greater than 2/3?

2. Is it even constitutional for war to be declared if the Senate votes for it (by a supermajority) while the Assembly votes against it? After all, article J states:

Article J. Will of the Assembly
Elected Officials must plan and act according to the Will of the Assembly. The Will of the Assembly is the aggregate wish of the citizens of our Fanatikos. It is determined by unanimity in a completed discussion, or by the majority vote in an official poll.

Is the Senate, a group of elected officials, subject to the Will of the Assembly in this matter?

 

[Black_Hole]

From my point of view Question 1 does not have merit, simply because 2/3 is not 67%
2/3 is 66.666 repeating, I believe the idea was slightly more than 2/3; of course I do not rule on merit(based on last games Judicial Procedures)

We also need to get procedures in place before officially reviewing the judicial review.

 

[ravensfire]

We also need to get procedures in place before officially reviewing the judicial review.

Almost done with 'em!

-- Ravensfire

 

[RegentMan]

From my point of view Question 1 does not have merit, simply because 2/3 is not 67%
2/3 is 66.666 repeating,

That's what he was asking. Since 4/6 is technically 66.66...%, and the constitution requires 67%, does that mean that five senators need to approve?

We intended it to be a 2/3 majority, but Bootstoots found an error with it.

 

[ravensfire]

Judicial procedures approved with one edit (changed Refer to Moderators sentence option to Suspension from Demogame).

Text removed to save space ...

-- Ravensfire, Chief Justice

 

[Black_Hole]

hmmm in early demogames "Refer to Moderators" was "Suspension from Demogame", I believe it should return to this because thats the only thing mods can do, and keeping it the other term allows mods to basically overrule the citizenry and give no punishment

thats all I noticed....

 

[mhcarver]

I agree with BH's reasoning for merit on question one and on a thought about the procedures: shouldn't justices being the subjects of investigation be required to recuse themselves? If not I believe that the potential for a conflict of interest exists since any member could find that charges against themselves have not merit a Judge advocate could not prosecute to the fullest extent and in the event of a tie any member could rule in her or her own favor

 

[Bootstoots]

Why would question 1 have no merit? Though technically 66.666%... =! 67%, I'm asking for the intent of the law here. Is 67% supposed to mean 2/3, or is it supposed to follow its literal mathematical definition?

 

[Black_Hole]

Why would question 1 have no merit? Though technically 66.666%... =! 67%, I'm asking for the intent of the law here. Is 67% supposed to mean 2/3, or is it supposed to follow its literal mathematical definition?

because, if it was meant to be 2/3, 2/3 would have been said in the law not 67%, the constitution can't be interpereted to what its intent was...
It clearly says 67% not 2/3, we don't need a JR to find that out

 

[RegentMan]

So does that mean we need five senators to vote for war to make it happen?

 

[Black_Hole]

So does that mean we need five senators to vote for war to make it happen?

yes, 5/6... if that is a problem for anyone start an amendment to change it, but the current law is quite blunt, 67%

 

[DaveShack]

A point of order, the esteemed justice Black_Hole is ruling on the substance of the case and not its merit to be heard. The Chief Justice should first determine whether the JR request has merit. Furthermore the JR request had two parts, and the court does not appear to be considering the 2nd part.

 

[DaveShack]

I would like to request a Judicial Review of CoL H.2, Designated Player Pool.

Question: Is the President required to allocate play sessions to people in the Designated Player Pool, or is this an optional feature which the President can use or not use according to whether he/she wants to play the turns personally?

To save double posting on this request, I'll just give my opinion here.

Personal observation: As the original source of this idea (or at least one of the original sources) I can state with considerable authority that the intent was for the DP Pool to be optional and that any President would have the authority to play every turnset if so desired. The intent was never to strip the President of this important position, but to provide an alternative which allows those citizens with too little time to play every session a means of being assured that someone is available to take up the slack.

 

[mhcarver]

A point of order, the esteemed justice Black_Hole is ruling on the substance of the case and not its merit to be heard. The Chief Justice should first determine whether the JR request has merit. Furthermore the JR request had two parts, and the court does not appear to be considering the 2nd part.

I can't speak for the esteemed Judge Advocate but I have witheld any comment on issue two because I am waiting for the CJ to give his thoughts since he was one of the original framers of this constitution and could help provide perspective to what may end up being a controversial ruling

 

[Black_Hole]

I was actually giving points why it should have no merit, merit comes when their is a conflict or question in the law, not when someone thinks it should be a different way

if we have to rule on those types of JRs, it will be a very long term

P.S. I approve of the Judicial Procedures