Term 1 - Nominations for Chief Justice

[Immortal]

I posted in the PD before the other 2 in case I interpreted the question wrong, now that I have been clarified:

Cyc's question:

In terms of what would cause me to do so: Lack of evidence and the relevent constitutional articles, nothing more. Whether an investigation is political in nature or not, it is the job of the judiciary to uphold the constitution, and defend the accused from wrongful investigation. The evidence will determine whether the case has merit, not the accusers personal axe.

 

[Cyc]

Ah, that's where I saw your answer. Sorry. My mistake. Good answer to DaveShack's question btw.

 

[Bootstoots]

Three questions I'm going to put in every nomination thread (except FA, as I'm running there):

1. Are you running for multiple positions?

2. If you answered yes to the above question, what positions are you running for, and in what order would you accept them if you win multiple elections?

3. If this position is not your first choice as answered in question 2, why should we vote for you here, knowing that our vote may be wasted if you win another election?

 

[Cyc]

1. Are you running for multiple positions?

2. If you answered yes to the above question, what positions are you running for, and in what order would you accept them if you win multiple elections?

3. If this position is not your first choice as answered in question 2, why should we vote for you here, knowing that our vote may be wasted if you win another election?

I'm running for three positions. Chief Justice, Public Defender, and Judge Advocate. I would take Chief Justice first of course, and it really wouldn't matter which of the other two I would give priority, as I could thrive in both environments just as easily. And number 3, you need me as Chief Justice. You need me on the Judiciary. Voting for me on all three positions will benefit you. I am here to protect your rights and make sure things follow procedure. Because of the election process here in the Demogames, we have chosen for people to run for multiple positions at once. This goes against my better judgement, but if the people wish it to be, so be it.

 

[Immortal]

1. Are you running for multiple positions?

2. If you answered yes to the above question, what positions are you running for, and in what order would you accept them if you win multiple elections?

3. If this position is not your first choice as answered in question 2, why should we vote for you here, knowing that our vote may be wasted if you win another election?

1. Yes, The judiciary, FA, Culture, and Science.

2. I have no "order" of preference, I have no idea which elections I stand a chance of being elected in, when I have a better idea of that, then I'll pick a preference. Ive been busy organizing the constitution, I simply am running in the positions I know myself to be the best at.

3. See above. Until Election night I am open to all options.

 

[Curufinwe]

Boots:

Boots:
1. Are you running for multiple positions?
Yes, Chief Justice, Associate Judge Advocate, Public Defender, Culture Minister

2. If you answered yes to the above question, what positions are you running for, and in what order would you accept them if you win multiple elections?
Already answered. Chief Justice, Culture Minister, Judge Advocate, Public Defender.

3. If this position is not your first choice as answered in question 2, why should we vote for you here, knowing that our vote may be wasted if you win another election?
To ensure I get on as something, hah. Vote for me to ensure your representation in the Judiciary and/or Culture. I'm committed to a synergistic approach to my positions, and to following the will of the people as expressed in a poll, regardless of what I think.

 

[KCCrusader]

I would like to nominate myself for Chief Justice election. I'll answer your questions soon...
And i accept.

 

[KCCrusader]

(Note: This post will look very similar when compared to the others in the Judicial Nominations posts)

The reasons to choose me for this Judicial Position are numerous. I have been playing Civ3 since October 28, 2001, and have experience in both PTW and C3C. I know the value of the game, and everything there is to know about it. As far as reviewing rules and cases, I have been one of 3 judges on a local traffic court for teenagers here in Oz. I have experience reviewing facts and making quick yet educated decisions. I also have the practice of reviewing rules set in stone (laws or the Constitution for this game) and deciding if any new action violates the documents. I am also new to the DemoGame system, so I will not be restricted by events of the past games. I will be free to interpret this position and the Constitution with a new freshness to hopefully pump new life into the Game.

Now, to answer all of these questions:

Cyc asks:

What principle would you use for a basis in determining whether an investigation had "No Merit"?

No Merit accusations are by far the easiest decisions that could be proposed. If the outcome of an investigation would not affect the game, Citizens, or the Constitution no matter the verdict, the investigation is without merit. Also, If the subject matter at hand is a constitutional matter, my interpretation of the Constituion would be somewhat strict, with a little room for open interpretation. If there is anything that comes up to which no law or document refers to, I feel the only option available would be to assign an investigation with a "No Merit" label, and suggest the other branches of government deal with a solution for any future issues of the same type with a law or amendment.

DaveShack asks:

How do you plan to organize the affairs of the court?.

A court should be the most fluid and simple body in any government. Also, the Chiefe Justice should have all power necissary to structure the court as he sees fit and as long as he sticks to the Constitution. I feel that the judiciary branch should utilize the judicial log on the forums..
Citizen Complaints
On a complains thread, citizens may register any complaints they feel are necissary to be reviewed along with all evidence that would be used. All potential cases would be reviewed by the Chief Justice, Public Defender and Judge's Advocate and upon the consensus of 2 out of 3 of them, the case would become official. If a complaint fails to convince 2 of the judicial staff, it will be ruled without merit. For all non-frivolous cases, the Public defender would carefully review the evidence and all laws available, and in conjunction with the Plaintiff organize a case to support the Plaintiff. The Judge's Advocate would do the same, except with the help of the Defendant (another citizen or the government) organize the reasons why the complaint is pointless. In matters of Citizen Complaints, The Chief Justice would have the final say after reviewing the cases. The decision of the Justice would be final. If any action to be taken has choices, a poll would be presented on the board for citizens to vote on proper action.
Judicial Review
Judicial Review would work in much the same way, except Each member of the court would research the merit of new laws, actions or amendments. After much deliberation and discussion amongst themselves, The justices would vote to uphold the action or rule in unconstitutional. Whichever option has 2 of the justices supporting it would pass.

That was a good question!

Bootstoots asks:

1. Are you running for multiple positions?

2. If you answered yes to the above question, what positions are you running for, and in what order would you accept them if you win multiple elections?

3. If this position is not your first choice as answered in question 2, why should we vote for you here, knowing that our vote may be wasted if you win another election?

1.Yes.
2. Chief Justice, Public Defender and Judge's Advocate. Cheif Justice would be first, then I would try to reach an agreement with a second place finisher if i had to choose between Public Defender and Judge's Advocate to ensure the best candidates fill both positions.
3. Your vote would not be wasted, because votes are never wasted when you vote for the best candidate. But I would say that Having me in any judicial position, since they are all very similar would be a huge benefit to the game, and it would not make too much difference which position I accept.

Thanks everyone!

 

[donsig]

Ummm, been away awhile. Don't even know if it's too late to accept or decline. Hmmm... Do we have rules in place? If we're using the judicial rules from last game I want no part of the bench. If we're using only a cnstitution then I'd love to be a candidate for this office.

I'll see if this old dial-up can stay cnnected lng enough for me to find some answers...

 

[donsig]

I'll see if this old dial-up can stay connected long enough for me to find some answers...

The sticky thread with our constitution says *to be constructed*. Therefore I will decline this nomination. (Thanks for the nomination though CT.)

Since we have no rules I think I'll run for president.

 

[gert-janl]

I am back earlier than I expected from my holiday, due to unfortunate reasons. That means however that I can make my voice heard in the elections, so that the voters (YOU!) know why to vote for me.

First of all it may be nice to let everyone know that I was Associate Justice in the last term of DG4. There was an overcrowded docket in DG4, which made the work for the Judiciary very hard. But I made a very clear timetable for our Chief Justice to follow, to make sure that every case would be handled fast and adequately. I didn't make that timetable public, and I should've done that ; it wasn't followed at all. To make sure that the docket of any judiciary this DG will not be as crowded as the last one, we need a very punctual, and above all a dedicated Chief Justice; especially for the first Term. Therefore I nominated myself for this position.

To answer the proposed questions:

1. Are you running for multiple positions?
2. If you answered yes to the above question, what positions are you running for, and in what order would you accept them if you win multiple elections?
3. If this position is not your first choice as answered in question 2, why should we vote for you here, knowing that our vote may be wasted if you win another election?

1. No; I strongly object to participate in more than one election. It shows that the 'to be elected' is not fully dedicated to his/her office, as it may be a second or even third choice. Moreover does it prevent new citizens to win an election. I will be dedicated to the office of Chief Justice, and therefore don't want to participate in any other election.
2./3. Not relevant.

What principle would you use for a basis in determining whether an investigation had "No Merit"?

In principle the duty of the Judiciary is to handle every case which it's presented with. The Chief Justice however has to prioritise every request for Judicial Action. I think that every review which has to be handled for a certain turnchat (we saw that in DG4 sometimes) should be top priority. After that the 'lower-priority' cases should follow. And to answer the question what principle I would like to use, I want to answer with two words: 'The Constitution'. That should be the main principle for the Judiciary.

Then DaveShack's question:

How do you plan to organize the affairs of the court?

First of all do I want to say that I hope that some basic guidelines concerning the affairs will be written down, to make sure that the different Chief Justices this DG will be using more or less the same procedures, to keep things running smoothly.
I have to agree with most of the other competitors that the Judiciary has to be as transparent as possible. With me as Chief Justice there won't be any private discussions, or invisible minority opinions! Every voice will be heard, considered and published!
I also believe that citizens have a voice in legal discussions. I will try to keep the number of legal discussions at a good measured rate. (a good measured rate means: not overflowing citizens with unnecessary boring legal discussions, while making sure that any citizen who cares about legal discussions has the room to ventilate his feelings and views.)
It's also important that all cases/affairs are handled quickly and efficiently. Therefore I will follow a more or less strict time schedule (which has some room for emergency cases of course) to make sure that any Public Investigations started in Term 1 will be finished in term 1 and not in Term 5 or even worse, never (DG4 anyone..???).

Concluding, I want to remind every citizen that I will be running for the Chief Justice only, while most others have numerous other nominations accepted. Therefore voting for me will give DemoGame 5 the most dedicated and transparent Chief Justice it can wish.

 

[blackheart]

I withdraw my run for candidacy for this position due to the complexities of the job.

 

[Curufinwe]

Daveshack:

As head of the Court I'd focus on three things. Simplicity, Accountability, Transparancy. Without those, the Judiciary ceases to be the protector of the Constitution and instead becomes a closed oligarchy.As well, we can not let PI, or CC, or whatever else choose to call them, to wait for month after month. They must be dealt with in a timely, efficient manner. As well, should on emember of the court disagree with teh decision, he/she/it will have the choice of saying their opinion.

 

[Cyc]

Since we have no rules I think I'll run for president.

Well said, donsig. You haven't changed a bit.


Are there any questions or concerns about my candidacy I can address for you? I will be happy to help in lighting any of the dark areas of the Judicial system for you.

 

[donsig]

Are there any questions or concerns about my candidacy I can address for you? I will be happy to help in lighting any of the dark areas of the Judicial system for you.

Well, in the absence of rules how would you run the judiciary? I know you have a bit of experience here but please enlighten us.

 

[Cyc]

Well, in the absence of rules how would you run the judiciary? I know you have a bit of experience here but please enlighten us.

Well, donsig. I'm going to take my time and build a proper answer for you. It will take me some time to do this, as I'll need to do a little copy/paste work. So hold on while I put this together. K?
___________________________________________________

At this point in time we have ratification polls running to bring about our Constitution. In the Proposed Article C which sure to be ratified (as are most if not all), it is stated that the Judiciary will be part of our Government. This would give the Court the authority to procede with judgements over the land. Then, in Proposed Article F it states that not only will " The Judicial Branch will consist of one Chief Justice, one Public Defender and a Judge Advocate. These three justices are tasked with upholding the Constitution and its supporting laws (if any) in a fair and impartial manner as prescribed by law.", but that "The Chief Justice shall have the additional responsibility to organize and conduct the affairs of the Judicial Branch. The Public Defender will act as council to an accused individual. The Judge Advocate will act as the prosecution.

The reason that I bring up these two Proposed Articles is because they are by their very nature laws that will help us determine how are Judiciary is run. Note also in Article F, it says "These three justices are tasked with upholding the Constitution and its supporting laws (if any) in a fair and impartial manner as prescribed by law." This would imply that lower forms of law may be written to help articulate the procedures of the Court. Current citizen discussion holds that a tightening up of the Constitution will start immediately upon the start of this new Demogame, to possibly include a CoL and a CoS. Yes, we could wind this Term (or game) up with 2 additional books of law. We'll see what happens. But regardless, until such time when we have specific code on the procedures of the Court, Proposed Article F continues with, "The Chief Justice shall have the additional responsibility to organize and conduct the affairs of the Judicial Branch." This allows the CJ the authority to outline and deploy procedures to be used by the Court in it's handling of the Nations legal issues.

In this regard, I have already stated that I will "run the Judiciary" in the same manner that I did in Term 1 DG4 (without the secret/closed door policy). In this post, in answer to DaveShack's question, I stated just that, again disallowing the closed door sessions. Anyone who witnessed that first Term of DG4 knows that Term was the only one in which the Judicial Branch finished all of it's work and posted in the Judicial Log. This didn't happen by accident, donsig. It took a lot of hard work, planning, and following procedure. Once the Term 1 Judiciary got the initial snags worked out (caused by starting Nominations without the ruleset in place) and finalized the Bench, things went pretty smooth. You witnessed my work, donsig. If I'm elected this Term, I will operate under the same procedures, without any closed door discussions. I will post an outline at the begining of the Term and setup the appropriate threads necessary to work within that outline. Everything will be above board and according to procedure.

Anyone wishing to check out Term 1 Judiciary of Demogame IV, please click this link.

OK, I'm done.

 

[donsig]

Before I go further I'd like to mention that even though I am posing these questions directly to Cyc I hope the other candidates will answer as well.

The only thing about your reply that I'm worried about Cyc is your remark that you'd run the judicary as in DGIV but without the closed door sessions. Does this mean you intend to institutionalize all the the other judicial rules from the old books? That would seem difficult since we're going back to a judiciary with a judge advocate and public defender. Can you clarify this statement of yours?

Here's the other question. You mention the possibility of lower laws being passed the first term. Assuming the proposed constitutional amendments all pass, what position as CJ would you take regarding what is needed to pass these laws?

 

[Cyc]

Uh, no, donsig. It doesn't mean that. I was referring to the basic structure of the documentation and adherance to procedure. The people have voted to go back to the original Judicial Branch, as you stated, of a Chief Justice, Public Defender, and Judge Advocate. In returning to this format, we would also return to the procedures used in the games when this Judicial Branch style was used. The same basic PI/CC routines, where the Judge Advocate would post the charge/discussion thread, the Public Defender would help the Defendant (unless refused), and the Chief Justice would ensure that the PI/CC stayed on topic and followed procedure. Judicial Reviews would follow the original routines, but as I said, all discussion would be posted in the Judicial thread. I'll answer your second question in a bit.

 

[Cyc]

You mention the possibility of lower laws being passed the first term. Assuming the proposed constitutional amendments all pass, what position as CJ would you take regarding what is needed to pass these laws?

Probably reclined or prone, but who knows.

Seriously, if I understand your question, I favor the 2/3 majority of the active citizenry being needed to alter the Constitution, half of the active citizenry to alter the Code of Laws (CoL), and a simple majority to alter the Code of Standards (CoS). For those of you not familiar with those books, the CoL contains rules (laws) that are less vague than the Constitution and help define that document. The CoS contains rules (laws) less vague than the CoL and help define it, while also laying out detailed procedures for most game functions. I'm not saying all of this will be done, but during the discussions/writings of the proposed Articles the need for lower laws came up repeatedly.

Initially, the discussion threads for new laws would be opened and an appropriate law formulized. After the law writing was done, the Judiciary would review it for any contridictions with higher law. If none were found, the CJ or other Justice would post a poll seeking approval from the people. If the above quorums were met, the proposal would become law.

Is that what you were looking for? Keep in mind that new laws should be written that would encapsulate all the Judicial actions, so the procedure I just described may not be as the end result.

 

[Curufinwe]

I know this sounds horrible, but I agree with cyc on that last post, entirely. At least, for now that is, hah.