Term 3 Judiciary

[Curufinwe]

Of course, and I like the way he thinks, as he heavily influenced my decision so far. Yes, great suggestion Black hole, I would like to put forward DS as pro-tem justice for my CC case. Hopefully he and Chillaxation accept.

 

[Swissempire]

I can live with Daveshack

 

[Nobody]

Oh just so you know in my post, the bold was stuck on. No reason for the bold. Also Daveshack is great but if he decideds not too accept, i would like to just throw mhcarver name into the mix.

 

[Black_Hole]

Mr. Chief Justice:
Would you please start an absence investigation on Veera Anlai, without a Judge Advocate the CC cannot go on.

Absence Investigations
Absence Investigations are used to determine the status of an elected official who has not posted for an extended period of time and to remove that citizen from office if necessary. Any citizen may initiate an Absence Investigation if an elected official fails to post on the Civilization Fanatics' Forums for 7 days.

If a valid Absence Investigation is called, the Chief Justice is to start the investigation by indicating that an Absence Investigation has started. The Chief Justice must then send a private message to the official against whom the investigation has been called. An e-mail should also be sent if possible. The official will have 48 hours to respond to the private message. At the end of this time, or after a response has been received by the official in question, the Chief Justice may declare the commencement of voting on whether or not the seat should be rendered vacant. Each justice should clearly post their vote on this issue. If a majority of justices vote in favor of declaring the office vacant, the official shall be removed and the President empowered to appoint another citizen to that post.

 

[Curufinwe]

Another few days lost, but fine. I have a feeling all of these cases won't get done until next term, but if tha'ts what's necessary to reach justice, so be it.

 

[Black_Hole]

Another few days lost, but fine. I have a feeling all of these cases won't get done until next term, but if tha'ts what's necessary to reach justice, so be it.

Whats the alternative? Have a court made of a Public Defender and Chief Justice? There really is no fast way of doing this.

 

[Curufinwe]

I know, which is why I say it's a good thing. "but fine" "but if that's what's necessary to reach justice, so be it." I wish things could have gotten done faster, but they can't, so this is the best way.

 

[donsig]

Oh just so you know in my post, the bold was stuck on. No reason for the bold. Also Daveshack is great but if he decideds not too accept, i would like to just throw mhcarver name into the mix.

I would also add Oxtavian X's name. He, too has judicial experience (IIRC) and hasn't been a part of this discussion yet.

I would also like to ask that, just supposing, this complaint is found to have merit and (just for laughs and giggles) a decision is rendered that Curufinwe should recuse himself from the judicial reviews in question - would this pro tem continue on to hear the JRs or would another appointment be made? If another appointment is to be made then would I be correct in assuming that the first pro tem could be re-appointed? Just wondering.

 

[Veera Anlai]

I'm here guys. Now, this whole past couple weeks has been confusing as all heck, so bear with me as I reread everything that has occurred, and try to come to a reasonable conclusion.

Curufinwe, would you kindly forward me any PMs you have that have any bearing on the investigations going on?

 

[Veera Anlai]

I've read and reread the Judiciary thread, and other applicable threads. It was rather confusing, since there is a lot going on very quickly. For my sake, and the sake of anyone reading this thread, here is a summary of what the judiciary needs to deal with at the moment. Please correct me if there are any errors.

• JR5 A judicial review has been requested by Strider, asking whether the method for amending the Code of Laws can also replace the Code of Laws. Curufinwe has determined the review has merit.
• JR6 A judicial review has been requested by Robboo, asking whether offices can be held by more than one person. Curufinwe has determined the review has merit.
• JR7 A judicial review has been requested by Nobody, asking whether Chieftess could have legally appointed him to the vacant position of Chief Justice, and whether the Secretary of State has the right to assume the powers of the presidency in the absence of an elected president. Curufinwe has determined the review has merit.
• JR8 A judicial review has been requested by Chillaxation, asking if provisional appointments become official appointments when the period for a confirmation poll has lapsed. Curufinwe has determined the review has merit.
• CC1 A citizen complaint was filed by Donsig against Curufinwe, citing violation of Article 4, Section 3 of the Constitution.
  The Judiciary will carry out all its tasks in a fair, impartial, public and speedy manner.
• AA2 An absence investigation was filed by Black Hole against Veera Anlai.
• JR9 A judicial review was requested by Swiss Empire for "my actions during the confirmation poll." He later rescinded his request.
• CC2 A citizen complaint was filed by Swiss Empire against Donsig, accusing him of violating CoL.8.C.VIA.
• CC3 A citizen complaint was filed by Swiss Empire against Donsig, accusing him of "impeding the speediness of the judiciary." No law is cited.
• JR10 A judicial review was requested by Swiss Empire asking whether confirmation polls need to be 48 hours long, and whether the confirmation poll of Curufinwe as Chief Justice, posted by Donsig, was legal. No law is cited. Curufinwe has not ruled on the merit of this review.

I would request that Curufinwe please provide a docket, to determine which of these cases should be ruled on in which order.

EDITS: Wording changed to be more impartial. Merit/No Merit added. Added case names. Added Absence Investigation of myself.

 

[Swissempire]

Sorry about not citing, For:

A citizen complaint was filed by Swiss Empire against Donsig for impeding the speediness of the jury.

The law supposed to be cited is Article 4, Section 3 of the Constitution.
The Judiciary will carry out all its tasks in a fair, impartial, public and speedy manner.. The hoped for ruling is a public apology

for

A judicial review was requested by Swiss Empire asking whether confirmation polls need to be 48 hours long, and whether the confirmation poll of Curufinwe as Chief Justice, posted by Donsig, was legal. No law is cited.

The law cited was supposed to be CoL.8.C.VIA., and the citzien complaint against Donsig depends on the outcome of this ruling.

and for

A citizen complaint was filed by Swiss Empire against Donsig for violating CoL.8.C.VIA.

the hoped for ruling is a Public Apology

 

[Strider]

Court is all here then. So let's do these JR's in chronological order!

 

[DaveShack]

Veera, welcome back to our little shop of horrors.

I am willing to serve as pro-tem CJ on the matter of Curufinwe's CC and accept the appointment. I will refrain from making any statement on what process might be required to verify a pro-tem appointment, for reasons which should be obvious.

Although I don't yet claim an official right to proceed with any case, I will suggest that things will be speeded along if the JA and PD will proceed with posting their opinion regarding the merit of the charge against Curufinwe. Justices, for now please use your own interpretation of whether such a determination must be made, and the form it is to take.

Again, not to overstep my not yet existent authority, but if the JA and PD think the law allows for an out of court settlement in this matter, please discuss such a settlement with your client(s) and interested parties. As a citizen, I was very happy to see the "remedy" system used in the past, and would welcome its use for this case.

 

[Black_Hole]

I've read and reread the Judiciary thread, and other applicable threads. It was rather confusing, since there is a lot going on very quickly. For my sake, and the sake of anyone reading this thread, here is a summary of what the judiciary needs to deal with at the moment. Please correct me if there are any errors.

• JR5 A judicial review has been requested by Strider, asking whether the method for amending the Code of Laws can also replace the Code of Laws. Curufinwe has determined the review has merit.
• JR6 A judicial review has been requested by Robboo, asking whether offices can be held by more than one person. Curufinwe has determined the review has merit.
• JR7 A judicial review has been requested by Nobody, asking whether Chieftess could have legally appointed him to the vacant position of Chief Justice, and whether the Secretary of State has the right to assume the powers of the presidency in the absence of an elected president. Curufinwe has determined the review has merit.
• JR8 A judicial review has been requested by Chillaxation, asking if provisional appointments become official appointments when the period for a confirmation poll has lapsed. Curufinwe has determined the review has merit.
• CC1 A citizen complaint was filed by Donsig against Curufinwe, citing violation of Article 4, Section 3 of the Constitution.
  The Judiciary will carry out all its tasks in a fair, impartial, public and speedy manner.
• AA2 An absence investigation was filed by Black Hole against Veera Anlai.
• JR9 A judicial review was requested by Swiss Empire for "my actions during the confirmation poll." He later rescinded his request.
• CC2 A citizen complaint was filed by Swiss Empire against Donsig, accusing him of violating CoL.8.C.VIA.
• CC3 A citizen complaint was filed by Swiss Empire against Donsig, accusing him of "impeding the speediness of the judiciary." No law is cited.
• JR10 A judicial review was requested by Swiss Empire asking whether confirmation polls need to be 48 hours long, and whether the confirmation poll of Curufinwe as Chief Justice, posted by Donsig, was legal. No law is cited. Curufinwe has not ruled on the merit of this review.

I would request that Curufinwe please provide a docket, to determine which of these cases should be ruled on in which order.

EDITS: Wording changed to be more impartial. Merit/No Merit added. Added case names. Added Absence Investigation of myself.

Now that you are here, I will drop the absence investigation

 

[Curufinwe]

Okay, here's priority, followed by reasoning

CC1-determines who exactly the judiciary is, necessary to continue work.
JR7-Most contentious, deemed by some to affect composition of judiciary.
JR10-Again, affects the judiciary
CC2&CC3-Affects the matters that affect the judiciary, if tha tmakes sense
JR8-hopefully we can get this solved before appointments begin next time
JR5- Striders trying to do stuff, we should hurry it along so he can begin what he's been trying to do.
JR6-The case that started it all, sadly, to be dealt with last, due to lack of immediate necessity.

If I missed one, please notify me. Now to deal with them in order. I ask the Judiciary to focus on CC1 first of all, and then we can get to work on the other ones when that's done. Daveshack, you will ahve formal authority as a pro-tem justice when Chillaxation assents to your appointment, per the current judicial procedures. Good luck everyone!

 

[robboo]

slight clarification..to JR6. It should read "whether an office" just to be very specific.

 

[Veera Anlai]

JR5
1) Does the amendment process given in Section 10 of the Code of Laws apply to a complete overhaul? Explain your reasoning.
Yes, section 10 of the Code of Laws allows a complete overhaul. An amendment, according to the dictionary definition of the word 'amendment,' can add, alter, or delete parts of the document it is amending. In this case, the amendment would delete all of the document, and add a whole new document. There is no law in the Code of Laws limiting the size of the changes made in an amendment.

2) Is this amendment process consistent with the Constitution?
The amendment process violates no laws in the Constitution.

Therefore, I rule that the Code of Laws can be entirely rewritten as proposed using the current laws for amendments.

JR6
1) Does the intent of the authors of the Code of Laws and the Constitution have relevancy to the meaning of the same?
Since I, nor any other judiciary members have mind reading powers, we should interpret the laws as written. Although we can ask the authors of the laws what their intent was, we would then be delegating judicial duties (interpretation of the law) to members outside of the judiciary.

2) If so, was it the intent of those authors that all named offices be held by a single person?
Not applicable, since I do not believe the intent of the authors is relevant.

3) If so to question 2, what effect would this have on the legality of jointly holding offices?
Not applicable, since I do not believe the intent of the authors is relevant.

4) In general, explain other relevant issues to the legality of jointly holding offices, in both the Code of Laws and the Constitution, and if the former is consistent with the latter. Should, if necessary, any words be read in to either of them to clarify this in the future and ensure constitutionality?
The Code of Laws and the Constitution make numerous references to individuals running for election. Not pairs. As such, I rule that citizens can not hold joint office. This can be remedied with an amendment, but that is beyond the scope of this judicial review.

JR7
1) In the Presidency is vacant, may the Secretary of State assume the Presidency, acting as a quasi-Vice President?
The Secretary of State is not given the power to assume the presidency anywhere in the Constitution or Code of Laws. The Secretary of the State only has the power to nominate a citizen to the Presidency.

2) If so, then must the Secretary of State resign in order to be consistent with Section 8, sub-section B of the Code laws? Is this consistent with the Constitution?
Not applicable, since the Secretary of State does not have the power to assume the presidency.

3) If so to all of the above, then were the procedures in Section 8, sub-section V, sub-sub-sections VA and VB followed? In what cases, if any, will these have different meanings? Are there any words that need to be read into the Code of Laws to ensure constitutionality, and, if so, what are they?
Not applicable.

4) Was Nobody's resignation, if he was appointed, legal? What, if any, words need to be read into the Code of Laws to clarify this and ensure constitutionality?
Nobody's appointment to the office of Chief Justice was not legal, since Chieftess was not legally allowed to assume the presidency and make such appointments. Since Nobody was never appointed to the office of Chief Justice, there was no resignation.

JR8
1) What, if at all, does the Code of Laws say to refer to the time an appointed office is considered provisional? Is this the same time period that that appointment is subject to a confirmation poll?
There is clearly an error in the Code of Laws: the laws clearly state that an appointee is provisional until a confirmation poll votes for approval, or the deadline for a confirmation poll passes. However, although this deadline is mentioned in the laws, the laws do not say how long this deadline is.

2) What, if any, words need to be read in to the Code of Laws to clarify this and ensure constitutionality?
I'm afraid I don't understand this question.

I can not arbitrarily set a time limit not mentioned in the Code of Laws, since that would be giving myself legislative powers. Because of this, all appointees shall be considered provisional for an indefinite period of time, unless a confirmation poll approves them.

To rectify this, someone should propose a correction to the laws immediately, setting a deadline for confirmation polls. Proposals to change the laws are beyond the scope of this Judicial Review.

CC1
I believe this complaint has merit. Impartiality is critically important to the judiciary, and I believe the citizens should have a chance to have their say in this matter.

AA2
Obviously, I'm here now. However, according to the Judicial Procedure, the Chief Justice must begin voting on this issue.

CC2
My ruling on this citizen complaint depends on the judiciary's ruling on JR10.

CC3
I rule that this complaint has no merit. The laws in this section apply to the judiciary, not to citizens. There is no law declaring impeding the speediness of the judiciary is illegal: instead, the law says the judiciary itself is responsible for making certain it hears cases in a timely manner. In addition, Donsig is perfectly within his rights to call for judicial reviews and citizen complaints: merely calling for them does not impede the speediness of the judiciary.

JR10
The ruling on this judicial review depends on the final judiciary ruling on JR8.

 

[Curufinwe]

Hmm, according to judicial procedures the Judiciary is supposed to vote on whether or not veera's seat should be declared vacant. I say NO, the seat is not vacant, as veera is here.

 

[Veera Anlai]

**Laughs** Obviously, now that Curufinwe opened voting, I vote 'NO' on AA2, since I am quite clearly here.

 

[Curufinwe]

Hopefully no one claims that is a conflict of interest, hah.