Term 1 - Judiciary

[Blkbird]

My request was not specific, but of general nature, as the situation is too complex to name a specific subject of the investigation.

But it was not regarding Alphawolf's position as President. I, too, was planning to file that as a seperate request in 12 hours from now, by which time he will be absent for 7 days.

 

[DaveShack]

The court isn't quite ready to hear cases just yet, we must first agree on judicial procedures.

I think it would be appropriate to mention up fron that it would be unproductive to hear an absense case before ruling on whether the position actually exists or not. There isn't really any hurry on getting that request submitted.

 

[donsig]

Please let me know if I can stop wasting my time on common sense solutions.

Common sense is never a waste of time. Neither is patience, Donvan San. The key to patience is doing something else in the mean time.

Here's a thread tha might interest you: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=62057

The court isn't quite ready to hear cases just yet, we must first agree on judicial procedures.

I'm not quite ready to do this yet. I'm still trying to sort this whole election thing out in my head. I'm asking myself if I have a legally valid claim to act as Judge Advocate.

 

[Blkbird]

Here's a thread tha might interest you: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=62057

He did you something - by changing his sig...

 

[Chieftess]

This is getting ridiculous. Our government is being ground to a halt due to one member? Then why don't you guys just unilaterally impose the Flexible government on us and set the start date for Feb 1st?

I am not sure what Blkbird's request was, but tomorrow morning I plan on asking the Judiciary to rule on our President's 7-day absence. As far as I know, the subject does not have to be present for a ruling on that. Or does the ban put the 7-day law on hold as well?

Please let me know if I can stop wasting my time on common sense solutions.

Rik's and my hands are tied on that one. We can't leave a member of the demogame unbanned even if he has DLs. We have to ban people regardless of their participation in any forum activity. The forum rules supercede that of the demogame, and thus, DLs required that he be banned.

 

[mhcarver]

fellow justices I have a request for judicial review;
my question pertains to article7 a of the code of laws

Section 7 Impeachment

A) Impeachment of the Triumvirate
I. The Citizens Assembly may bring a No Confidence Vote against the Triumvirate as a whole

my question is; must the whole triumvirate be impeached or can the citizens assembly impeach individual members without removing the entire triumvirate?

 

[Rik Meleet]

Wrong thread ?? You are no member of this Judiciary ...

 

[donsig]

I've read the constitution, the forum rules, Triumvirate v6.2 (aka, the Code of Laws, aka CoL) and the proposed judicial procedures (not necessarily in that order). I've satisfied my own questions as to the validity of the revised election results and I'm ready to begin my duties as Judge Advocate.

A quick check of the proposed judicial procedures didn't turn up any glaring constitutional confllicts. The CoL is mute on judicial procedures though it does say judges can't be impeached. (Who would have thunk I could get elected to a position that can't be impeached?!?) But seriously folks, since there are some very fundamental questions waiting to be brought before the court I suggest we not spend a lot of time trying to hammer out perfect procedures. I would be willing to accept the proposed procedures if we included a clause stating the process to be used to change judicial procedures. I'd rather get the ball rolling and adjust our procedures as we go along if we find it necessary.

If my collegues are of a similar mind it would seem the only question to answer is this:

Should changes to judicial procedures require unanimous consent of the sitting judiciary or is a majority sufficient?

 

[DaveShack]

I have (finally) reviewed the judicial procedures and find them sufficient for our current needs, except for the issue already raised by Donsig. I don't have a strong preference on whether a change in judicial procedures should require a majority or a unanimous decision, but I lean towards majority unless someone wants it to be unanimous.

 

[Black_Hole]

Wrong thread ?? You are no member of this Judiciary ...

mhcarver can still submit JR requests

 

[Blkbird]

mhcarver can still submit JR requests

Yes, but not starting with the words "fellow justices" as he did...

 

[ravensfire]

Reviewing procedures now...

One note, I suggest that we add the DG group membership requirement to the Citizenship section in the Constitution. As this is the result of an extraordinary situation, this should be simply made. This also falls under the "Rules of CFC trump all" clause.

-- Ravensfire

 

[ravensfire]

I'll second the comment by donsig - add a provision for changing the procedures. I think a majority decision is acceptable.

-- Ravensfire

 

[ravensfire]

Public Defender Ravensfire, reporting for duty!

I've got this odd feeling that we could have a wild term, but I'm ready! DaveShack, donsig - good to serve with you both again. May our words be guided with wisdom, wrought of justice, and tempered with mercy.

-- Ravensfire, Public Defender

 

[DaveShack]

By a 3-0 decision, the court has approved Judicial Procedures to be used for this term, with an added provision to permit the procedures to be changed.

At present the procedures post has language for changes to procedures needing only a majority of the judiciary. If JA Donsig requests this provision to require a unanimous decision, then it will be updated accordingly.

Court is now in session. All those having business with the court may now enter and state their request.

The court will recognize and consider requests entered prior to this point.

 

[DaveShack]

I hereby formally request a Judiaciary Review of the current situation regarding our Code of Law.

I like to point out that this request of mine is granted by the Constitution itself and therefore independent from the CoL. See:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?p=3546067#post3546104

Unfortunately this request is a bit too vague. It wouldn't be fair to other citizens for the court to just start making up questions. Please rephrase your request as one or more clear questions.

 

[Blkbird]

Unfortunately this request is a bit too vague. It wouldn't be fair to other citizens for the court to just start making up questions. Please rephrase your request as one or more clear questions.

All right. Then I have - for starters - the following detailed requests.

1. I respectfully ask the Board to confirm that the ruleset known as "Triumvirate 6.2" has been ratified as the Code of Law through this poll in a constitutional manner and is therefore effective and binding since its ratification.

2. I further respectfully ask the Board to confirm that the elections for various offices of the Government - including the office of the President - of the first Term has been in accordance with the Constitution and the Code of Laws, and their results updated here are therefore effective and binding.

 

[mhcarver]

umm technically I can use the term fellow justices since I am the CJ of the civ 3 demogame 7 and I've served with everyone accept Donsig before

 

[Black_Hole]

All right. Then I have - for starters - the following detailed requests.

1. I respectfully ask the Board to confirm that the ruleset known as "Triumvirate 6.2" has been ratified as the Code of Law through this poll in a constitutional manner and is therefore effective and binding since its ratification.

2. I further respectfully ask the Board to confirm that the elections for various offices of the Government - including the office of the President - of the first Term has been in accordance with the Constitution and the Code of Laws, and their results updated here are therefore effective and binding.

In my opinion this JR has no merit, ofcourse they are both valid, they are not breaking a single law, there is no confusing part...

 

[donsig]

At present the procedures post has language for changes to procedures needing only a majority of the judiciary. If JA Donsig requests this provision to require a unanimous decision, then it will be updated accordingly.

I think majority decision is best so I wholeheartedly accept the judical procedures as posted in this thread.

umm technically I can use the term fellow justices since I am the CJ of the civ 3 demogame 7 and I've served with everyone accept Donsig before

You are quite correct.

I've got this odd feeling that we could have a wild term, but I'm ready! DaveShack, donsig - good to serve with you both again. May our words be guided with wisdom, wrought of justice, and tempered with mercy.

Should be a fun time for all. Glad to be part of this team. I expect great things given the amount of judicial experience between us. The only other thing I can add is: Judge Advocate donsig reporting for duty! (When do I get to use the little hammer thingy?)