Office of the Judiciary - Term 4

[Shaitan]

This thread will serve as the central communication point for the 3 Judiciary positions (unless we determine that separate threads are necessary).

Chief Justice: Shaitan
Public Defender: Eklektikos
Judge Advocate: Bill_in_PDX

Term 4 Census: 28 per the Term 4 Presidential Election

The Judicial Log can be found here.

 

[Almightyjosh]

What does the public defender do?? Is it interenting?

 

[Shaitan]

The following is taken from the current standards:

All members of the judiciary share several rights and responsibilities.

• Post polls and discussion on interpretations of the Constitution, Code of Laws, and Code of Standards.
• Do not have Deputies but may appoint Pro-Tem officials (Pro-Tem Justice, Pro-Tem Defendant and Pro-Tem Advocate) if they are unable to fulfill their duties. Pro-Tem officials have all of the rights and responsibilities of the officials they are filling in for but are a temporary position and must surrender their pro-tem status upon the request of the official.
• Participate in Judicial Review to determine the legality of proposed amendments, laws and standards.
• Initiate and participate in Judicial Review to interpret and clarify existing amendments, laws and standards.
• Initiate and participate in Judicial Review to dismiss investigations as having “No Merit”.
• Post Legislative polls that have passed Judicial Review.

The Chief Justice

• Perform as needed in the positions of Public Defender and Judge Advocate in the absence of either official.
• Is responsible for posting the current census at the beginning of each term.
• Is responsible for updating and maintaining the Judicial Log.
• Is responsible for monitoring investigation threads to keep them on topic and accurate.

The Public Defender

• Is tasked with ensuring all public investigations are performed correctly with deference to the presumed innocence of the accused.
• Will ensure that the accused understands the charges against them and what rules were purportedly broken so the accused can mount a valid defense.
• Will perform as defender, if so wished by the accused.

The Judge Advocate

• Is tasked with the mechanics of investigation and trial.
• Will open and close discussions and polls as appropriate to the trial.
• Will perform as prosecutor (gather and present evidence) for anonymous accusers.

 

[Bill_in_PDX]

Judge Advocate Post

This post will be updated as events unfold, or any JA duties become necessary.

================
July 7th

The Code of Laws and Code of Standards are being enforced as Standards at this time.

================
July 8th

Ruling on succession plan impacting a Govenorship and the Trade Department. The JA office supports the ruling of the Chief Justice.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=365582#post365582

 

[Shaitan]

Judicial Review is when the 3 officers of the judiciary decide on a point of law. This can be to make sure a proposed Article, Law or Standard is legal and does not conflict with or duplicate existing Codes or the Constitution, to determine exactly what existing Articles, Laws and Standards mean, or to rule that an investigation is without merit and dismiss it. Let's look at the three types of Judicial Review in more detail.

Review of Proposed New Rules
The primary purpose of this Review is to keep the Constitution and Codes neat and clean and non-contradictory. If a proposed rule conflicts or changes an existing rule, this review should identify exactly what the conflict is so the proposal can be altered to avoid the conflict or include changes to the existing rules. The secondary purpose of this Review is to eliminate the adoption of rules that are already in effect through existing rules. This Review will never consider the merit of a new rule, only the legality of it. This Review is an automatic step between the discussion and approval polling of a proposed rule.

Review of Existing Rules
This Review will serve to clarify and explain existing rules and the affect they have on the game. When a question comes up on what to do in a particular situation or exactly how a particular rule applies, this Review can be used to remove the confusion. The results of these Reviews will be logged so they can be referenced when the same or a similar situation develops. Note that it isn't necessary for an actual situation to occur for this Review to take place. Any noted confusion or questioning on how a rule works can spawn a Review. This Review can be initiated by any judicial officer on their own volition or at the request of a citizen.

Review of Investigations
This Review may close an investigation if the judicial officers determine that it is without merit. When is an investigation without merit? Some examples would be an obviously fabricated accusation, a possible violation that has been retroactively eliminated by rule changes and lack of prosecution or evidence in the investigation. This Review can be initiated by any judicial officer on their own volition or at the request of a citizen. The Judge Advocate is also specifically tasked with considering the calling of this Review before polling for guilt/innocence (after an investigation discussion thread has been completed).

 

[Shaitan]

This clarification and interpretation review was sparked by the current confusion over fephisto resigning leaving Waterz as a Provincial Governor as well as a Department Leader designee. The Review may be found here.

UPDATE: This review is complete and has been entered in the Judicial Log.

 

[Shaitan]

This proposed poll is due for Review. The poll will remove the conditional "Standards" status of the Code of Laws. This Review has three parts: Stucture of the poll, Content of the poll and Cause (Review will confirm that the items in the Code of Laws do not conflict with articles of the Constitution).

 

[Bill_in_PDX]

Judge Advocate news

I will be away from PDX for a much needed vacation after the bloody battle that raged there. During the week July 13 - July 20, I transfer my powers to the Chief Justice as stipulated in the constitution.

Bill
...in PDX

 

[disorganizer]

A few things judicacy should look at:
a) use of a cabinet poll instead of a citizen poll for the decision on putting espionage on the iroquois during the turn chat. no reason was there to not use a citizen poll.
suspect: chieftess

b) why was pdx undefended?
suspect: unknown

both points were brought up by many citizens in forum and in chat.

 

[Octavian X]

I believe that Chieftess took the blame for the lack of PDX's defense.

 

[Shaitan]

Disorganizer - Do you wish to press charges? Remember that the purpose of the Judiciary is to organize investigations and trials, not to initiate charges. That is the responsibility of the Legislature (citizens).

Your first point (A) references Standards, Section E (Chat Turn Rules). However, I see a very obvious and legitimate reason for the President to have called a Council Vote. A Council Vote is required when overriding a Leader's instructions. Chiefpaco's instructions were to not place a spy. A Council Vote, and not a citizen poll, was required to override this instruction.

Point B is unfortunate, but it is not a question of law. It was an obvious error but there are no laws against making mistakes. If there is more information here that I am unaware of (for example, if Chieftess ignored an instruction to garrison PDX) then there may be something that applies.

Please post or PM me if you wish to press charges.

 

[disorganizer]

well, the sense of your department is also constitutional clarification which is your job. this was a question of clarification which part of the constitution is worth more: the rules for inclusion of citizens in decision whereever possible (there were citizens available in the chat) or the cabinet-vote rules.
sometimes i wonder wheter we still are a democracy from the basic means of our first rules, setup by DOF, or wheter our leaders even gained more controll than before.

 

[donsig]

Originally posted by disorganizer
A few things judicacy should look at:
a) use of a cabinet poll instead of a citizen poll for the decision on putting espionage on the iroquois during the turn chat. no reason was there to not use a citizen poll.
suspect: chieftess

b) why was pdx undefended?
suspect: unknown

both points were brought up by many citizens in forum and in chat.

a) There was no reason not to use a cabinet vote. As one of the citizens present at that chat (and the one agitating for the placement of the spy) I saw nothing improper about the president's call for a council vote. The FA Leader took an official stance against planting the spy and the President called for a vote to overturn that decision. Not only was the action legal and proper is was wise and I applaud the President for her actions.

b) PDX may have been undefended since term three. As President during the start of the Greek war I left most of Normandy and Istar undefended in order to have troops on the front lines. I do not see our curent President's actions as being negligent. If anyone is to be blamed for the attack on PDX it is Hiawatha!

 

[Cyc]

Question for the Chief Justice - How is this thread to be used? Is it just for the Justice officials to post in and for citizens to post an incident they wish to press charges about? Or can this be used for a discussion thread also. I have been tempted to post here as part of a discussion several times. If this is not to be used as a discussion thread, what process will be available to citizens to post our opinions officially?

 

[Shaitan]

I'd prefer that discussions spawn to dedicated threads to keep this fairly clean but feel free to respond here to any comments here, especially if a dedicated thread has not been started.

(Wow: a run-on sentence, dangling participle, phrase ending in a preposition...my old 8th grade English teacher would kill me if she saw that! )

 

[Chieftess]

Shaitan, a question about the naming rights. We have 1 city that needs a name, but the passage in the constitution is utterly confusing.

Point 1 Naming rights for new cities will be given following the Chain of Command. When more than one citizen has the same spot in the COC (example - "Elected Officials" group) rank will be determined by their seniority as a citizen (who signed the Registry first). This priority chain will be rearranged by elections as different people move up and down the Chain of Command.

Not to mention the fact that there's no easily accessable thread to see who named what cities. Second, the CoC changes with every term. So, do we start at the top of the CoC again with each new term?

 

[Shaitan]

Everbody gets to name a city before anybody gets to name a second one. When the COC changes, anybody who's already named a city is skipped when determining who gets to name the next one.

I think that the Naming Rights - Term 4 thread you started has been updated to be fairly current.

 

[donsig]

There is a council vote here to change J of the Code of Standards.

I am unable to find a judicial review of this propsed change. I hereby formally request a judicial review of this proposed change to the Code of Standards.

I also respectfully request that the Chief Justice, being the author of the change in question, be excluded from the process of judicial review in this case.

Since a council vote is already underway to enact this change it may be passed before the judicial review is completed. Once passed it cannot possibly be revoked until the judicial review is completed. Since the Judge Advocate is away until the 20th said review may not be complete until his return. Since he is also the member of the judiciary who is task(ed) with the mechanics if investigation he is the one citizens or removed officials would turn to in order to initiate any investigations felt necessary while the judicial review is in progress. Quite a quandry.

 

[Shaitan]

Donsig, there is no Judicial Review yet. Standards may progress and be enacted pending Review. I will agree to hold my Review of the Standard until the Judge Advocate and Public Defender have both rendered their opinions. Both of those officers should perform their Reviews as soon as possible.

In the absense of the Judge Advocate, I am responsible for his duties, including managing investigations.

 

[donsig]

Originally posted by Shaitan
Donsig, there is no Judicial Review yet. Standards may progress and be enacted pending Review. I will agree to hold my Review of the Standard until the Judge Advocate and Public Defender have both rendered their opinions. Both of those officers should perform their Reviews as soon as possible.

In the absense of the Judge Advocate, I am responsible for his duties, including managing investigations.

Thanks for verifying that no judicial review has occurred on this proposed change. I understand that standards can be changed without first under going judicial review but it is my impression that citizens can request a judicial review at any time.

Here's the rub: If this proposed change is enacted and if the president decides to replace an absent leader I would challenge that based on my feeling that the change is unconstitutional. If that happens before the Judge Advocate returns then it is the Chief Justice (who wrote the proposed change) who would handle the investigation as well as take part in the judicial review. Again, I do not wish to imply that you (Shaitan) would abuse your official position, but can you truly be unbiased about a proposed change that you want enacted?