Term 3 Judiciary

gert-janl

Alive!!!
Joined
Dec 29, 2002
Messages
511
Location
The Netherlands
------------------------Welcome to the Term 3 Judiciary------------------------
:hammer:
Could the House please come to order?!

As the third term Chief Justice, I declare this Term 3 Court's Session opened.
:hammer:
The main task of the Judiciary is to uphold the Constitution and its supporting laws in a fair and impartial manner, as prescribed by article F of the Japanatican Constitution.

Members of the Term 3 Judiciary are:
Chief Justice: gert-janl
Judge Advocate:mhcarver
Public Defender: KCCrusader

In accordance with Constitutional article I.1, the official Japanatican census of term 3 is 32.
Hence, the number of votes required for a constitutional amendment/ratification is, in accordance with Constitutitional article I.2.c, 21

It's free to any interested citizens to visit the Judicial Library, where they can find the following documents:


Do not hesitate to approach the Court when needed. It's our task to protect your rights!
 
Term 3 Court Procedures

Ratified by all member of the Judiciary

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 Review 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 Review 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 Review 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. Perform 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 them 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 detail 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. 2 of 3 Justices must agree on the interpretation or clarification, forming a Majority Opinion.
4. 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 ~
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. If the results of the Investigation (defined as input in the Investigation thread) thread are overwhelmingly in favour of the Defendant, the Judge Advocate will submit the case for a brief Judicial Review to determine if the case has "No Merit". If the case is then viewed as having "No Merit" the case is closed.
2. The Trial poll will have the Options of Guilty, Innocent, and Abstain and will remain open for 48 hours.
3. 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:
a. Recommended Moderator action - turned over to the Moderators.
b. Impeachment from Office (if applicable)
c. Final Warning (whether or not a prior warning has been given)
d. Warning
e. No Punishment
f. 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. 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.
4. The guilty party must abide by the results of the Sentencing poll.

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

10. 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.
 
------------------------Term 3 Docket------------------------

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
DG5CC#1
Status: closed. Ruling published in Judicial Log
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Ratification of Court Procedures
Status: ratified by all other member of the Court
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
DG5JR#19
Status: closed. Ruling published in Judicial Log
Submitted by:Sir Donald III
Details:Sir Donald III has requested a Judicial Review concerning who has the authority to post Instructions for the route of a Naval transport carrying a Settler. SD3 is referencing Article O for this JR.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
DG5JR#20
Status: closed. Ruling published in Judicial Log
Submitted by:KCCrusader, Strider
Details: KCCrusader and Strider have requested a judicial review on the trial of president Chieftess. They doubt that Chieftess has access all the rights provided by the Constitution.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
DG5JR#21
Status: closed. Ruling published in Judicial Log
Submitted by:MOTH
Details: MOTH wants the judiciary to define a 'vacant office' in relation to Constitution article G.4 and CoL G.1
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
DG5JR#22
Status: closed. Ruling published in Judicial Log
Submitted by:classical_hero
Details: Classical_hero wants to know which official has the authority over military upgrades. He references Article D.1/D.3 of the Constitution
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
DG5JR#23
Status: closed. Ruling published in Judicial Log
Submitted by:Ashburnham
Details: Ashburnham has requested a Judicial Review, concerning the authority of ministers over governors as provided by the Constitution.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
DG5JR#24
Status: closed. Ruling published in Judicial Log
Submitted by:blackheart
Details: blackheart has approached the Court for amending the Code of Laws. He proposes the addition of a fifth article to the Code of Laws concerning turnchats
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
PRIORITY-DG5JR#25
Status: closed. Ruling published in Judicial Log
Submitted by:Donovan Zoi
Details: Donovan Zoi has approached the Court concerning the Term 4 elections. He wants to know when a nomination thread can be considered closed according to the Constitution.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 
Dear Judges,

This term is only 2 minutes old, and I already have a first request for you. I compiled this term's Court Procedures, and I want you to discuss any issues you can't agree with. If it's already agreeable with you, please announce, and we can start working along the published Procedures.

Regards,
gert-janl

(O, one more thing. Cyc has done a tremendous job composing his Procedures, and I thankfully almost copied it for use this term. :goodjob: Cyc!! Thanks very much!)
 
I have no problem with court procedures and vote yay on ratifying them BTW the previous court did not reach judicial quorom on DG5JR19, :eek: only CJ Cyc ruled on the matter, which leaves the question what do we do? I believe that it is clear that me and KCcrusader should rule but does the new CJ have the right to put out a new opinion if he believes one is needed?

-Mhcarver
 
Congratulations to the Term 3 Judiciary. In addition to transferring you the Citizen's Complaint DG5CC1, as you have posted above, the Term 2 Judiciary must also transfer the Judicial Review DG5JR19 over to the Term 3 Judiciary. I have posted such in the Judicial Log

I have stated there that the Chief Justice Opinion is null and void. The honorable Chief Justice gert-janl should replace it with his own in a new Judicial Log listing for DG5JR19.

Thank you for the compliment on the procedures. If you need any help before I take off for vacation, let me know. :)

Mayor Cyc
 
I second the motion to ratify the court procedures. I will post opinion on JR as soon as our JA makes it.
 
As soon as quorum is met and the procedures are agreed upon, please include this JR on our list of cases:

I, KCCrusader, as a member of the House, am requesting a judicial review regarding the recent trial of accused President Chieftess. The Law that shall be the focus of the review shall be Articles A and F of the constitution which state:

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 trial, the right to
representation, the right to seek to redress grievances
and the right to vote.

Article F. 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. 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.

Specifically regaring the right of all citizens to have a fair trial and the right to representation. It appears to me that Chieftess was stripped of these rights in the recent trial. I shall post evidence in support of overturning the any results obtained by this trial in a separate post.
 
Simplified Argument for my JR: (if you don't want to read everything I wrote, this is better organized anyway)

1. Controversial closing of investigation and reopening it without notifying the defense.

2. Lack of 24-hour period for the defense to post on EITHER investigation or even a total of 24 hours of the investigation being OPEN before citizens were allowed to post.

3. Lack of defense in general before the trial moved to polling

4. Violation of several judicial proceedings. While not law, the proceedings are established to ensure a fair trial. Thus when broken, a fair trial Cannot be administered.

5. All aspects added together make for a BLATENTLY unfair trial.

The reasons, explained at length, for my judicial review are as follows:

1. Chieftess had a single post of input. And no more in her defense. Although this can be partly to blame on the President herself, more explanation and defense should be presented by the accused before a trial poll is posted.

2. The Public Defender was not given a chance to respond free of previous opinion in support of defending the accused. When I came to the investigation poll to post a defense I found it had been open for approximately 14 hours, yet due to the fact that citizens had posted before the defense it was closed.

There was no investigation thread, which the Term 2 Judicial procedures specifys must be created by the Judge Advocate.

A second investigation was opened without the knowlege of the defense(violating court procedures by the way), and after 38 hours this poll was labeled as "closed" before any relevant defense was presented. The fact of the matter is the 24-hour span in which a defense was ready to be presented did not line up with the timing of the posting of the trial polls. I was unable to post a relevant defense without the already present commentary, nearly all of which was AGAINST Chieftess. Chieftess was barred of her right to representation in court, which violates Article A.

Also, there was no 24-hour period given on this new thread. Within one hour of being opened, the new investigation thread was opened to the public, blatenly violating the 24-hour defense clause in the judicial procedings.

Had the Public Defender been aware of the the opening of a new investigation so soon, he would have issued his statements within a

The trial poll was posted based upon a timeline set forth by an essentially illegal investigation poll. The Investigation was posted by Cyc. Cyc's own procedure requires the JA accomplish this task. While one my think, "Who cares who opens the thread?", think about this. If the Chief Justice opens the thread, there is a 24 hour time period in which the defense has to respond to charges posted by a supposed neutral justice. The purpose of the JA opening the thread is to enable the justice to establish the opening case of charges against the accused. The defense should require 24 hours from the posting of the charges BY THE JA to respond. In my attempts to accomplish this, I found the thread had already been closed!

If one looks at the so-called "Investigation" thread, he will see that there is almost no debate in support of Chieftess. She has no defense, and is destined by this investigation poll to be found guilty no matter what for the reason of a simple lack of debate.

In sum, the trial should be restarted from the beginning in order to make sure this "closed" investigation, allowing the prosecution extra time to have their arguement heard, including the illegal posts of citizens does not influence the outcome of the trial. The fact that an investigation was halted and restarted should be enough evidence to support ruling the trial null and void. Either way, it would be best to be right, even if it takes another trial!
 
KCCrusader has requested a Judicial review regarding the trial of President Chieftess. Did the defendent have acces to all rights she should have, provided by law?

This request has been placed in the Docket.

I thank mhcarver and Cyc on their input about DG5JR#19. This request will also be placed in the court's docket.
 
With a vote of 3-0-0 this term's procedures have been accepted by the judges. From this moment I declare the procedures official(:hammer: ), and the Court shall do its utmost best to follow the procedures.
 
In response to KCCrusader's allegations against me, I am re-posting the response I made in the Citizen's sub-forum. His accusations are way out of line with what actually happened. The Court needs to realize just what took place and the efforts made to stay within procedure. Posted below is my response:

KCCrusader said:
While I initially posted against the idea in the judicial thread, I have seen by the travesty of the latest Citizen Complaint that it would protect the citizens and the game if these procedures were legalised so that trials would have to be fair in order to be accepted. Also, It seems that the affairs of the court can be "organized" by the judiciary even if the actual procedure is coded. This will also prevent the Chief Justice, or any member of the bench from setting up a system weighted against any defendant (innocent until proven guilty)

In the last (and first) CC, I encountered numerous challenges in trying to uphold my duty to defend the accused Chieftess. In Cyc's organization of the trial, as mandated by the law, the posted proceedings of the court were blatantly violated. I list the offenses here to bolster support for making court procedures official:
Broken Judicial Procedures(list can be found here) :

8.D: At no point in this CC was I contacted by the honorable Octavian X
with regards to the charges brought against Chieftess, but rather was
left to stumble upon the charges in the judicial thread.


Sept. 27th 8:23pm
Completed. Also, my clarification is done. I for one am much happier with the result. I shall begin looking at Cheiftess's innocence soon .

Finally Thank you for your two terms as Chief Justice. You really helped me get into the groove of this demogame when I had no idea what I was supposed to do! I look forward to further participation later in the game as either CJ or an advisor post. Thanks again!
-PD KCC
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyc
Also, Public Defender KCCrusader, could you post as to whether or not the CC has merit? We need to move this up to the next level.
Thanks,CJ Cyc


As you can easily see from the PM posted above, the Chief Justice PMd you about the CC. My statement at the bottom indicates further discussion, so it's plain to see you were notified. Your opinion of "Merit" for the CC came before the chronological order of the JA sending you a PM. So you didn't stumble upon it. You had already worked on it. As you know JA Octavian X had a habit of slow work in our matters, that's why I had to cover for him sometimes.

8.F:While the original investigation thread was opened by Octavian X, Chief
Justice Cyc opened the second (flawed) version.

When I saw the fiasco caused by the Defense in the first Investigation Thread, I tried for a long time to get the situation taken care of. The only reason Black_Hole had posted was inexperience. He felt he needed to clarify the charges. True he should have used the Judicial Thread for this, but as I say, he has no experience with CCs. Chieftess on the other hand was the second person to have a PI filed against them in DG1. So she has lots of experience. She posted twice in the begining of this thread claiming 3 reasons for her defense in the first post.

I had made several posts in different locations trying to get the situation rectified. Finally Rik Meleet came back and said he would delete the posts in 4 hours. What was I to do. As soon as he did this people started posting again, even through the Instructions were clearly posted at the top of the thread. I even went into the chat rooms looking for a Mod, but they never answered my requests for help. After I signed off, Moderator eyrei came to the Investigation Thread. This Investigation Thread which was opened at 11:33pm 9/27, was then closed by Moderator eyrei at 6:29pm 9/28. Post is shown below:
Moderator eyrei ~ 6:29pm 9/28

Thread closed. I hate to inconvenience the judiciary, but it will just be easiest if you open another. Please note that the 24-hour rule will be enforced by myself.


I didn't come back till later and saw the thread closed for the first time. I also noticed you had shown up and were unable to post in it because it was closed. So I opened a new thread and PMd you right away. You will notice that from the time the first thread was opened to the time it was closed, 19 hours had elapsed. This meant that the initial 24-hour period had only 5 hours left in it. The Defendant had posted twice and 8 out of the first ten posts were for the defendant. This also means that you never checked the Investigation Thread for the first 22 hours or so. None of this was planned by the Chief Justice and, in fact, I tried my best to keep within procedure. The Defense was mostly to blame for the first thread's problems (check the thread) . Had you returned to the new Investigation Thread, as my PM asked you to, our had even come back to the forums, I'm sure you could have done a lot better job at defending CT. In the mad rush, I did my best to re-construct the first post of the second thread, I'm sorry you weren't happy with it.

8.F.1:The first two posts of the investigation thread are obviously not a
Combonation of Chieftess and myself. When I arrived to post an opening
defense, I found the invevtigation already cluttered and closed due to
the fact that people had violated this very clause (F.1). Cyc opened a
new thread dedicated to the investigation, but once again, the defense
was disenfranchised the right to present an arguement. Before a 24 hour
period had passed, the Chief Justice opened the thread to the public.
When I arrived with arguments in mind, I found the investigation cluttered
yet again! The opinion was already completely biased towards a guilty
verdict, and there was no ability to submit a defense.


As I said above, I PMd you right away. You took your time coming back, even though you knew the first thread had been closed. :rolleyes: And I copied the defense's first post to the second thread immediately following the charges. So CT's statement was covered.

8.I: Honorable Justice Cyc issued a message on the investigation thread
issuing the debate closed. No where in the procedings is anyone given
the power to close the investigation
, especially after essentially NO
defense has been presented at all! While the thread is technically still
open, newcomers to the thread will cease reading after the "closed"
message, hindering the defendants right to a fair trial.


In the Court Procedures you worked within for two Terms and have just submitted your approval of for Term 3 is Procedure 8H. 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.
There's one example of the CJ closing the Investigation Thread. So you're mistaken there. The reason I closed it was so that the citizens knew it went on to the next phase. The thread had gone past the 24 hour period for the PD and Defendant to post, yet only the Defendant showed enough interest to do so. The thread had been open far beyond the minimum 48 hours required of it. I would have thought that if you had wanted to participate AT ALL in CT's defense, you would have done so by then. :rolleyes:

These digressions from procedure currently cannot be challenged because the proceedings are not written into law. Obviously, a defendant cannot recieve a fair trial when the procedure is allowed to be manipulated by the bench.

The procedure was manipulted by the Defense, as shown in the first thread. Strider calls his posts outright a fillibuster. He meant to disrupt the proceedings on behalf of CT. This is not my fault.

The period of time in which the investigation was closed happened to be the time I had to post my defense. The thread was not open for 48 hours continuously, therefore barring the defense (who checks in at least every 24 hours) from issuing any statements to help Chieftess.

I did not close the first thread and opened the second as soon as I could. I also PMd you right away, to which you never answered. This is not the CJ's fault either. I did the best I could considering the circumstances. Look what Strider did to the Trial Poll, the same thing.

It is in my opinion, after this egregious infringement of Chieftess's rights as listed in Article A, the procedure MUST be scribed into law.

You may be right. The Procedures may need to be coded to stop people like Strider from doing the things he did. But CT's rights were not violated, except maybe from lack of help by the PD. ;)

Thank you.
 
CJ's opinion DG5JR#20

When reviewing the term 2 Judicial Guide articles on the procedures of a Citizen Complaint

Code:
F. If the charge(s) are found to have "Merit", the Judge Advocate opens an Investigation thread detailing the alleged violation(s).
Code:
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.
Code:
I. When discussion has petered out and at least 48 hours have passed, the Judge Advocate will post a Trial poll.

I come to the conlusion that several points were not exactly followed this CC as specified in the Judicial Guide.
The investigation thread was not opened by the appointed official, but by the CJ himself. Whatever reasoning was behind this, it's not exactly as outlined in the judicial guide.
Article G was followed and every citizen did have the chance to post their opinions on the charges. So here are no violations.
Article I however is not followed. The former CJ closed the discussion thread 10 hours early without a clear reasoning.

Concluding from all this can I say that the trial didn't quite follow the judicial guide well. The former CJ did some things without legal back-up. Therefore it's a good thing that this case is now back in the discussion phase, to ensure the rights of the accused.
 
Honorable Chief Justice, in your point about Article F, you claim the thread was not opened by the appropriate official. This is not true. Judge Advocate Octavian X did open the Investigation thread. But after procedure had been broken, I tried to rectify the problem. This worked once with Moderator Rik Meleet, albeit on a 4 hour delay, but when it happened again, I once again went on a search for help in correcting the problem. It was at this time that one of the Defendant's fellow Moderators closed the initial Investigation Thread. Closing the thread was not what the Court had requested/instructed. The Moderator took it on his own to close the thread. This is called Moderator Action and there is nothing you or I can do about it, except deal with it the best way you can. So the closing of the initial Investigation Thread, which had been open for 19 hours, was not caused by the Court. Because the CJ noted the PD had come to the forums during the time after the thread had been closed, I opened up a new thread, in hopes of again rectifying the problems that had been created beyond the control of the Judiciary. So the inital thread WAS opened by the JA. The replacement thread (an administrative action) was done by the CJ, after Moderator Action eliminated the possibility of the first thread serving its purpose.

If you've read my statement above, you know that your thoughts on the Article I issue are also incorrect. As the initial Investigation thread was opened at 2330 PDT on 9/27 by the JA and closed 1830 PDT 9/28 by Moderator eyrei (with the announcement that the 24 hour rule was still in force and would be enforced by himself), that the thread was legally open for 19 hours. During this time the Public Defender made no attempt to post in the thread. The second thread was opened 3.5 hours after the first one was closed. Luckily, I had come back to the forums, as Moderator had taken it on his own to close the thread (aginst my wishes) and not notify me. This second thread, as you can see by the times posted above, was open for 38 hours. You know this. That means the total time for an Investigation thread to have been open and accessable by the prosecution AND the defense (as noted by Chieftess' multiple postings) was 57 hours. That's 57 hours. That was plenty of time for the defense to be presented to the people.

As you can see the fiasco caused by experienced and inexperienced players was dealt with in appropriate manners by the Court. Inappropriate Moderator Action caused a need for a second thread, again not the fault of the court. An Administrative Action, deemed necessary by the CJ, solved the problem caused by the Moderator. Total time for the Investigation threads to be open went far beyond the required 48 hours. This was plenty of time for PD KCCrusader to present the Defense, which he chose not to.

If you move forward with this Judicial Review agreeing with the Public Defender, what you will be saying to the People of Japanatica is "Our legal system is so incompetant that if the Public Defender purposely screws up the defense in a Citizen's Complaint, he can get his client off on a technicality".

This would never happen in the real world and shouldn't happen here. It shouldn't happen anywhere.
 
I have come to the conclusion that the case against President Chieftess should not be restarted. The public defender has done his job and has returned to put up a passionate fight for his client, I agree with that. But the fact that the Public Defender and the accused each had ample time to post their opinions and a lack of objection by the defendant to the proceedings against her cannot be ignored. Therefore I find that the defendant had access to all the rights she should have provided by law.
Mhcarver
Office office of the Judge Advocate
 
Honorable members of the Judiciary,
Please consider the following request for clarification.

Three questions regarding Constitution article G part 4 and Code of Laws G.1

1. What constitutes an "Vacant office" according to Constitution article G. part 4? Specifically, is a Deputy position and "office" and is it "vacant" following an uncontested election?
2. Who can "appoint" a citizen to a vacant office? President of Office holder?

Some thoughts:
The constitution (G.4.) does specify that "the president will appoint a citizen to any Vacant office" There is however no definition of "office" or "Vacant". The c.o.l (G.1) states how deputies are determined and states that when a election was not contested that any citizen may be appointed. It goes on to say that the office holder may seek any citizen if the runner up(s) does not accept. It does not specify who does the appointing.

My personal opinion is that a deputy position is an office and it is vacant following an uncontested election. Also, only the president may appoint a citizen to a vacant office.
 
Concluding from all this can I say that the trial didn't quite follow the judicial guide well. The former CJ did some things without legal back-up. Therefore it's a good thing that this case is now back in the discussion phase, to ensure the rights of the accused.

Chief Justice gert-janl,

I disagree with your assessment of the actions of former CJ Cyc. The Chief Justice has plenty of latitude when it comes to keeping a judicial process on course, including stepping in to open a thread in the place of a wayward judge.

That said, this matter needs to be put behind us, and the sooner the better. There is no law in our books, or prescribed by the Court, that states that a new term of judges can interrupt an investigation in progress. So in roughly 14 hours, this investigation needs to move directly from the trial phase to the sentencing phase, with no more discussion needed.

If the above is not carried out as prescribed, or if the Court Procedures post is editted sometime after the time of this post to allow cross-term meddling, this court will be treated as hostile and will be dealt with accordingly. I am posting a copy of the current procedure for cross-reference to any such act.

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 Review 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 Review 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 Review 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. Perform 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 them 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 detail 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. 2 of 3 Justices must agree on the interpretation or clarification, forming a Majority Opinion.
4. 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 ~
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. If the results of the Investigation (defined as input in the Investigation thread) thread are overwhelmingly in favour of the Defendant, the Judge Advocate will submit the case for a brief Judicial Review to determine if the case has "No Merit". If the case is then viewed as having "No Merit" the case is closed.
2. The Trial poll will have the Options of Guilty, Innocent, and Abstain and will remain open for 48 hours.
3. 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:
a. Recommended Moderator action - turned over to the Moderators.
b. Impeachment from Office (if applicable)
c. Final Warning (whether or not a prior warning has been given)
d. Warning
e. No Punishment
f. 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. 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.
4. The guilty party must abide by the results of the Sentencing poll.

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

10. 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.
 
Back
Top Bottom