Judicial Log

[Chieftess]

This is to log all judicial actions during the course of the demogame. This is not a discussion thread.

Note: When issuing letters of articles, please quote the article so that users clearly know what is being changed/discussed.

 

[Black_Hole]

DG6 JR#1
Provolution filed a Judial Review questioning the appointment of donsig, a non citizen(at time of JR filing), to Vice President. He asked whether he could be appointed even though was not a citizen.

The following laws were in question:
Article A.

All Civfanatics Forum users who register in the Citizen
Registry are citizens of our country. Citizens have the
right to assemble, the right to free movement, the right
to free speech, the right to a fair and speedy trial, the
right to representation, the right to name units (within
the naming convention), the right to request an
investigation into possible violations of law and the
right to vote.

Section 4.A of the Code of laws

a. For all positions with deputies, the leader may appoint the
citizen of their choice as their deputy.

Majority Opinion
The justices agreed that donsig's appointment was invalid. Thus you must be a citizen to become a deputy. However 2/3 justices mentioned that the President may wait for the person in question to register, and then reappoint him.

Chief Justice Ruling
Public Defender Ruling
Judge Adovcate Ruling

 

[Black_Hole]

DG6 JR#2
Provolution filed a Judial Review questioning if donsig, a deputy, is required to be removed by the Judiciary for not posting for three days.

Now this Judicial Review was created generic, questioning all deputies.

Laws in question:
Section H of CoL

4. Deputies
a. For all positions with deputies, the leader may appoint the
citizen of their choice as their deputy.

5. Vacant Offices
a. An official or Justice may declare themselves to be
Absent for a period of time. This period may not exceed 1
week. During this time, the deputy or pro-tem will act
with all power and duties of that office, surrendering
them to the official or Justice when they return or at
the end of the planned absence, whichever comes first.

b. Should an official fail to post in the DG forum for 3
days in a thread related to their area without prior
notice, the Judiciary may declare that office Vacant.

Basically there are three parts to this.
1. Is the Judiciary required to declare anyone vacant?
2. Are deputies officials?
3. Do deputies have to post acceptance of their nomination?


Majority Opinion
1. The Judiciary is not required to declare anyone vacant, because of the key work "may"
2. Deputies are not officials because of the wording in a few articles.
3. There is no law requiring deputies to post acceptance of their nomination.
Minority Opinion
2. Deputies should be considered officials, because otherwise it would open loopholes.

Chief Justice Ruling
Public Defender Ruling
Judge Adovcate Ruling

 

[Black_Hole]

DG6 JR#3
mhcarver filed a Judial Review on the definition of 'merit', along with 2 questions about deputies.


Questions:
1. What is the definition of "mid term"? this could mean several things such as an initial appointment being rejected, the position becoming vacant by resignation or absence or the appointment being made after the 15th or 16th of the month
2. If the Vice President is confirmed by the consuls is he/she still subject to a confirmation poll by a citizen? if so must that citizen wait until before or after the consuls have voted?
3. are Citizens appointed to positions such as deputy or Vice president immediately after elections subject to confirmation polls?


The following laws were in question:

2. Vice President - Assistant to the President. He/she may
take over the President's tasks when the President is
absent. If the President should be removed from office
for any reason the Vice President will then take the
position of President and appoint a Vice President.
The Vice President must be approved by a majority of
the consuls, if the Vice President is appointed mid-term.

Section 4.A of the Code of laws

a. For all positions with deputies, the leader may appoint the
citizen of their choice as their deputy.

Majority Opinion
1.

A mid term appointment is any appointment after the first "cycle" of appointments, if this first cycle happens within a reasonable amount of time after starts. A cycle is an uninterrupted process of finding a citizen to be appointed, including confirmation polls and a brief period to find candidates. A citizen may be appointed only once in a cycle.

2. Deputies may not be contested by confirmation polls.
3. Deputies may not be contested by confirmation polls.

Minority Opinion
1. After the first appointment

Chief Justice Ruling
Public Defender Ruling
Judge Adovcate Ruling

 

[Black_Hole]

DG6 JR#4
Ashburnham filed a Judial Review questioning the legality of requiring Vice Presidential appointments to be challenged by a consul vote mid term.

Section 4.A of the Code of laws
The following laws were in question:

4. Deputies
a. For all positions with deputies, the leader may appoint the
citizen of their choice as their deputy.

2. Vice President - Assistant to the President. He/she may
take over the President's tasks when the President is
absent. If the President should be removed from office
for any reason the Vice President will then take the
position of President and appoint a Vice President.
The Vice President must be approved by a majority of
the consuls, if the Vice President is appointed mid-term.

Majority Opinion
Consul votes are required for mid term vice president appointments, because the constitution overrules the Code of Laws, if they ever contradict.

Chief Justice Ruling
Public Defender Ruling
Judge Adovcate Ruling

 

[Black_Hole]

DG6 JR#5
ravensfire filed a judicial review over legislation adding ratifacation procedures of the constitution and CoL, along with allowing deputies to be subject of confirmation polls.

Constitution Changes
CoL Changes


Summary
The laws passed Judicial Review and passed in polling(note: by their own standards)

 

[DaveShack]

DG6T3JR1.
President Furiey requested a review of special play sessions in light of Article J:
Article J. All irreversible game actions must progress during a scheduled game session while reversible game actions (i.e. build queues) that adhere to legal instructions can be prepared offline before the scheduled game session.

1. An instruction thread must be created at least 3 days before the scheduled turnchat.

The court was asked two questions:
1. Are special sessions subject to the same timeframe requirements as regular sessions?

2. Is the proposed session actually a special session?

The court ruled unanimously as follows.

On question 1, there is no special provision for special play sessions, so all TCITs must be opened at least 3 days before the scheduled time.

On question 2, the law does not have the concept of a special session, therefore the proposed session cannot be a special session.

 

[mhcarver]

In this Judicial review Bootstoots came to the court asking if the provision in article L of the constitution that prevents irreversible actions by any non demoplayer applies to moving units along railroads

Request for Judicial review

the court did not speak with one voice on this ruling. In this case CJ mhcarver and JA Civgeneral formed a 2-1 majority opinion ruling that the movement of units along railroads did not violate article L of the constitution as long as the units did not leave the railroad and returned to the point of origin. PD Nobody ruled in a dissenting opinion that movements along railroads are not irreversible actions because "you are just making another action of moving the Unit back" which he concluded meant that it required two actions and was therefore instantly irreversible.

Majority Opinion
1.Movement along railroads is legal as long as the units do not leave the railroad and end at their point of origin

2.Because units that are moved must end at the point of origin the demoplayer cannot move the units to new positions offline.

Minority Opinion

1.Movement along railroads before the turn by a non-designated player under any circumstances is illegal

Chief Justices Opinion

Judge Advocates Opinion

Public Defenders Opinion

 

[mhcarver]

In this JR Classical hero requested clarification on what constituted a valid discussion

Request for Judicial Review

Mhcarver was absent from this judicial review because of a vacation so Pro-tem chief justice Black Hole presided over the precedings. In this ruling the court determined that article A of the constitution gave meant that a discussion must be open for 24 hours to be considered valid.

Majority opinion

1.A valid discussion must be at least 24 hours in length

2.Citizen input is not required to make the discussion valid

Minority Opinion
1.There must be at least one other opinion expressed for a discusison to be valid

Chief Justice opinion

Judge Advocates Opinion

Public Defenders Opinion

 

[mhcarver]

In this JR ZYXY requested clarification on what the rights granted to citizens in article A meant.

Request for Judicial review

Chief Justices Opinion

Judge Advocates Opinion

Public Defenders Opinion

 

[mhcarver]

In this Judicial review Regentman asked the court wether or not playing saves from previous turnchats violated the constitution

Request for Judicial review

In this review the court had what may have been it's first consensus ruling the entire term. All three justices clearly stated that it was in violation of the constitution to play a previous turnchat because it created to many negative possibilities

Chief Justice's Opinion

Judge Advocates Opinion

Public Defenders Opinion

Majority Opinion
Playing any previous saves is in violation of the constitution.