Term 2 Judiciary - Clockwork Orange Court

Provolution

Sage of Quatronia
Joined
Jul 21, 2004
Messages
10,102
Location
London
TERM 2 JUDICIARY- THE CLOCKWORK ORANGE COURT

CHIEF JUSTICE PROVOLUTION
JUDGE ADVOCATE ASHBURNHAM
PUBLIC DEFENDER BLACK HOLE

nominated Pro Term Justice in case I want some help is MHCarver, being closer to me in terms of legal interpretation.

In line with the vacancy laws, my absence was notified by the "Eye in the Sky", and since my term started April 1, I was well within the one weeks notified absence.

JUDICIAL PROCEDURES (SAME AS LAST TERM)

1. The Judiciary is comprised of three members, the Chief Justice, the
Public Defender, and the Judge Advocate.

2. All members of the Judiciary shall share certain rights and
responsibilities.
A. Discuss the Court Procedures, as composed by the Chief Justice,
in a most constructive way, and ratify when reaching consensus.
B. Post polls and discussions on interpretations of the Constitution, and
any lower laws.
C. Do not have Deputies, but may appoint Pro-Tem officials
(Pro-Tem CJ, Pro-Tem PD, and Pro-Tem JA) if they are unable
to fulfil their duties.
Pro-Tem officials have all 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.
The pro-tem status may be given for individual assignments or for the
entirety of the official (this must be declared).
D. Initiate and participate in Judicial Reviews to determine the legality
of proposed Constitutional Amendments and any other form
of lower law. Any citizen may request a JR for this purpose.
E. Initiate and participate in Judicial Reviews (JRs) to interpret and
clarify existing Constitutional Articles and any other form of lower
law. Any citizen may request a JR for this purpose.
F. Initiate and participate in Judicial Reviews to examine whether
or not all investigations should be considered as having "No Merit".
G. Post Legislative polls that have passed Judicial Review.

3. The Chief Justice ~
A. Performs as needed in the positions of Public Defender and Judge
Advocate in the absence of either official. This duty shall only apply
if said officials have not appointed a Pro-Tem official.
B. Is responsible for posting the current Active Census in the Judicial
thread at the beginning of the Term.
C. Is responsible for updating and maintaining the Judicial Log.
D. Is responsible for monitoring investigation threads to keep them on
topic and procedurally accurate.
E. If the situation arises where the actions of a Leader (Advisor) of a
Department fall within the parameters of being absent from a position,
as set forth by CoL Section G.3, the Chief Justice may declare said
Office vacant.

4. The Public Defender ~
A. Is tasked with ensuring all Citizens’ Complaint investigations are
performed correctly, with deference to the presumed innocence
of the accused.
B. Will ensure that the accused understands the charges brought
against him and what rules were purportedly broken so the accused
can mount an effective defence.
C. Will perform as defender, unless the accused wishes otherwise.

5. The Judge Advocate ~
A. Is tasked with the mechanics of Citizen's Complaint investigations
and trial.
B. Will open and close discussions and polls as appropriate to the trial.
C. Will perform as Prosecutor (gather and present evidence) for any
anonymous accusers.

6. All Judicial Review and Investigations will be held publicly. Public
communication between the Justices will be posted in the Judicial thread
or the Investigation threads.

7. Judicial Review
A. A quorum requires the attendance of all three members of the Judiciary.
B. Review of proposed legislation.
1. Any member of the House may present proposed legislation to the
Judiciary after following procedure for proposing amendments and
laws.
2. The request will be included in the Court’s Docket.
3. 2 of 3 Justices must agree that the amendment or law does not
conflict with existing rules.
4. If a proposal is rejected due to conflict(s), it is returned to the
House with details of the conflict(s) noted. This proposal may then
be edited and resubmitted for Review.
5. If the proposal is approved through Judicial Review, it is posted as
a ratification poll by a member of the Judiciary.
C. Interpretation and clarification of existing Law.
1. Any member of the house may request a Judicial Review for
interpretation or clarification of an existing Law. The existing Law
must be clearly stated in the request.
2. The request will be included in the Court’s Docket.
3. The Chief Justice has the right to dismiss a Judicial Review,
if the Chief Justice deemes a Judicial Review to have "No Merit".
i. Specific reasoning must be given by the Chief Justice for a
judgement of "No Merit".
ii. If the Judge Advocate and the Public Defender believe that the
Judicial Review has merit, while the Chief Justice dismissed a
Judicial Review, the Majority Opinion will be followed.
4. Anyone, including justices, may request the Judicial Review to receive
a thread in the Citizen's Forum. This thread will be posted by the
Chief Justice.
5. 2 of 3 Justices must agree on the interpretation or clarification,
forming a Majority Opinion.
6. The interpretation/clarification is then entered into the Judicial
Log for reference.
D. Dismissal of Investigations deemed as having "No Merit".
1. 3 of 3 Justices must agree that the accusation shows "No Merit".
2. Specific reasoning must be given by each Justice for a judgement
of "No Merit".

8. Citizen's Complaint

NO ANONYMOUS CCs will be filed.


A. If any citizen believes that someone has violated an Article of the
Constitution or any other lower form of law, they can report this
suspected violation for investigation and trial.
1. The allegation can be posted in the Judicial thread.
2. The allegation can be made privately to the Chief Justice via
Private Message.
B. Allegations of misconduct must include:
1. Name of the defendant.
2. The Article(s) or lower Law(s) suspected of being violated.
3. When and where the suspected violation(s) occurred.
C. The Citizen's Complaint will be included in the Court’s Docket.
D. The Judge Advocate notifies the Public Defender and the accused
of the charge(s).
E. A brief Judicial Review of the charge(s) is done (see 7.D above)
to determine if the charges have "No Merit".
F. If the charge(s) are found to have "Merit", the Judge Advocate
opens an Investigation thread detailing the alleged violation(s).
1. The first two replies to this thread are reserved for the Public
Defender and the accused to respond publicly to the charge(s)
(Defence). Either may post first, and both may say what they wish
(within forum rules). If their replies/responses have not been
posted within 24 hours of the thread's posting, they lose these
reserved spots and anyone can post.
G. Citizens can post in this thread their opinions on the charge(s),
whether they think the accused is guilty of the infraction or not, and
if the case should go to Trial.
H. If the accused pleads guilty, the Trial is skipped and the case moves
to the Sentencing Process. The Chief Justice may close the
investigation thread early if this occurs.
I. When discussion has petered out and at least 48 hours have passed,
the Judge Advocate will post a Trial poll.
1. The Trial poll will have the Options of Guilty, Innocent and Abstain
and will remain open for 48 hours.
2. In the event the Trial poll ends in a tie, the members of the
Judiciary will determine if the defendant is innocent or guilty by
posting independent and clear Opinions at the end of the Trial poll.
J. If the accused is found guilty through the Trial poll, a Sentencing poll
is posted by the Judge Advocate.
1. The Sentencing poll will remain open for 48 hours, and have the
following Options:
i. Recommended Moderator action - turned over to the Moderators.
ii. Impeachment from Office (if applicable)
iii. Final Warning (whether or not a prior warning has been given)
iv. Warning
v. No Punishment
vi. Abstain
2. If the guilty party has previously received a final warning for the
current offence, the Judge Advocate will post that in the Sentencing
poll narrative.
3. Once the poll has been closed, the Chief Justice shall determine the
sentence for the accused.
i. Each vote shall be determined as a vote for the option selected,
and all less-severe options.
ii. The sentence selected shall be the most severe sentence that a
majority of the citizens supported.

Example:Option A- 4 Votes
Option B - 12 Votes
Option C - 13 Votees
The sentence carried out is option B.

Option A has 4 total votes.
Option B has 16 total votes.
Option C has 29 total votes.
A total of 29 citizens voted, making Option B is the most severe
sentence that a majority of the citizens support with a total of 16
votes in support and 29 votes overall.
4. In the event the Sentencing poll ends in a tie, the members of the
Judiciary will determine the Sentence by posting independent and
clear Opinions at the end of the Sentencing poll.
5. The guilty party must abide by the sentence as determined in the
Poll by the Chief Justice.

K. The Judicial Log may be referenced for further interpretation or
clarification, but may not be used for criteria for review of proposed
legislation.

L. For any Judicial Review ruling or issue involved with a Citizen Complaint,
each Justices must post independently their opinion on the matter. In
essence, they must answer the question asked by the Judicial Review
in a Yes or No fashion (have "Merit" or "No Merit" also applies here).
Specifically, there will be no "fence-riding". Each Justice will come down
on one side of the issue or the other, clearly.
 
Judicial Docket

DG6 JR#6
Filed by: Strider
Status: Merit Approved by Court
Regarding: Legislation to Change Election CoL

DG6 JR#7
Filed by: ravensfire
Status: Merit Approved by Court
Regarding: Chain of Command Legislation, in CoL

DG6 JR#8
Filed by: LeeT911
Status: Merit Approved by CJ
Regarding: Mandate for Declaration of War

DG6 JR#9
Filed by: mad-bax
Status: Merit Approved by CJ
Regarding:Separation of mandates and powers External Consul-Commander

DG6 JR#10
 
Request for Judicial Review by LeeT911


Declarations of war fall under the purview of which office?

Relevant articles from the Constitution:
Code:

D. 4. Consul for External Policy - Oversees long term planning of policy regarding other nations. This includes military plans, long term foreign affairs, and long term trading goals.

E. 1. Commander of Armed Forces - Micromanages the military operations against foreign countries and unit (excluding worker, settler, and non-military transport) movements.

E. 2. Director of Commerce - Decides on foreign affairs and trading. Sets exact tech queue. Manages budget. Adjusts slider and approves/denies requests from leaders regarding the use of gold. Also decides on espionage missions.




As we can see, the External Consul is responsible for long term plans relating to "foreign affairs" as well as "policy regarding other nations". Do declarations of war consist of long term plans?

The Director of Commerce "decides on foreign affairs". Wars are most certainly foreign affairs.

And the Commander of the Armed Forces is included since he/she manages the military might of our nation as well as "military operations against foreign countries". I believe war fits that definition.

So, seeing as Fannatannia will most likely be at war soon, who is in charge of deciding when that time has come?
 
Chief Justice rules that Lee'T911s request for JR8 does have merit.
I will give my ruling as soon as the other Judges posted their merit approvasl.
 
Mr. Chief Justice, welcome back! I hope your stay at the CivFanatica Country Club was a cleansing and enlightening experience. :)

I believe the judicial procedures need to be agreed upon, even if the plan is to keep the procedures from the last term.
 
Judicial Procedures:

# Keep Spectrum voting on CC sentencing poll?

No, speculative, future CC rulings need a unified Court sentence. In real legal systems, we do not spectrum vote Juror rulings. Thus, we may rather repoll ties or unclear sentences.
Possibly I would go for simple absolute majority here.

# Stricter regulations on filing CCs?

CC's are a means for a citizen to complain about unfair treatment or a violation of rules by an official, and should not be regulated. In fact, I do not see a problem with using CCs as a means to settle an issue, and I will not chastise, mock or berate citizens filing in a complaint based on my personal preference, but will rather respect these regardless for their grounds to file a complaint. I am not going to split the people in an A and B team legally, but treat everyone in exactly the same manner.
I think we will see an improvement with this Court.

# "Merit" defined somewhat?

A Merit is defined when a law is not defining a mandate for issuing instructions in the instruction thread as well as posting official threads and polls influencing in-game decisions.

# Allow CCs to be filed anonymously?

No, the accuser must be known, so that the JA cannot disown his client or misrepresent his client, but let statements of the accuser and JA be observed as separate and individual statements. No one to hide behind.

# Create discussion threads for JRs?

Depends on the scope of the law, if it is a minor clarification it is not needed, but if there is a JR influencing major in-game decision mandates, a separate thread may be needed.

# Allow judiciary to declare a turn chat instruction illegal?

We got the CC mechanism to handle such violations, but these may be initiated by the Judiciary in a separate manner. I do not see the problem with a civic CC as long as we can avoid general mudthrowing other places. I really do not see the drama with CCs,, as the people has never shown resolve in meting out real punishments.
 
Provolution said:
Chief Justice rules that Lee'T911s request for JR8 does have merit.
I will give my ruling as soon as the other Judges posted their merit approvasl.
according to last term judicial procedures, ashburnham and I do not need to rule on merit, unless we disagree with it. I also would prefer if we pass judicial procedures before the JRs get ruled upon
 
provolution said:
nominated Pro Term Justice in case I want some help is MHCarver
Thank you provo, I accept with honor
 
Chief Justice Provolution,

When may we expect to see the full judicial procedures that will allow all citizen to know exactly how this court will operate?

-- Ravensfire
 
Citizen Ravensfire

The Procedures from Term One are adopted and put up, I see no need to change these.
 
Welcome back provoluzo, they finally let you out the big house. *slips provo 50 grand as a coming out of jail present.* congratulations on your new job same goes for the rest of the court.

At least we know that the Cheif Justice will always here to help the citizens, because if he leaves the courthouse his leg braclet will go off.
 
Re JR8: Just for Info.

The external consulate has taken the view that the consulate is responsible for deciding who we should target for war, in what circumstances and what the aims of such hostilities should be. We have taken the view that the Commander of the Armed forces is responsible for the tactical battlefield plan. We have taken the view that the Director of commerce decides the exact date of any declaration and what resource allocation to divert to the effort.

The courts ruling on this is very important and I hope that, if it pleases your honour, that this is resolved before the next turnchat.

I have also requested a JR in the Temporary Judicial thread. This is also urgent your honour.

FWIW I am thinking of tabling a change to the constitution to clarify the demarcation between Strategic war plans and tactical war plans. The current wording is ambiguous IMO.
 
Honorable External Consul Mad Bax

I would prefer a citation of the exact Article to be reviewed and the reasoning you mentioned. I am aware that the Articles C-E are ambigious, and would actually prefer a fully fledged amendment proposal in place of interpreting this in all perpetuity.

Please review Court Procedures Mad Max, in that you find the citation of the Article in question to be needed for the formal part.
 
Article D

4. Consul for External Policy - Oversees long term planning
of policy regarding other nations. This includes
military plans, long term foreign affairs, and long term
trading goals.


Article E

2. Director of Commerce - Decides on foreign affairs and
trading. Sets exact tech queue. Manages budget. Adjusts
slider and approves/denies requests from leaders
regarding the use of gold. Also decides on espionage
missions.

I request a JR to clarify the above sections of the constitution.

Does the Director of Commerce have a veto on all actions requested by other departments that require expenditure?

My specific example.

If I were to require a gift to a foreign civ of 10g + 1gpt in order to improve that civs attitude towards us, could the Commerce Director

A. refuse this request outright - and therefore prevent a gift being made.
B. Allocate a different sum, even though the amount requested is the minumum hardcoded value in the game that will give the maximum hardcoded improvement in attitude through gifting. In other words - a smaller gift would not acheive the same result, whilst a larger gift would be unnecessary.

From my reading, it appears that the commerce director can veto any expenditure related activity, but is not permitted to change the amount. He can only say yes or no.

Secondly, what is the difference between foreign affairs and long term foreign affairs?

Who decides on Embassies, ROP, embargoes, MA's etc? Do Embassies qualify as espionage missions?
 
Chief Justice find that External Consul Mad Bax request Judicial Review does have merit, and this will now be added to the docket.
 
Back
Top Bottom