1. We have added the ability to collapse/expand forum categories and widgets on forum home.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. All Civ avatars are brought back and available for selection in the Avatar Gallery! There are 945 avatars total.
    Dismiss Notice
  3. To make the site more secure, we have installed SSL certificates and enabled HTTPS for both the main site and forums.
    Dismiss Notice
  4. Civ6 is released! Order now! (Amazon US | Amazon UK | Amazon CA | Amazon DE | Amazon FR)
    Dismiss Notice
  5. Dismiss Notice
  6. Forum account upgrades are available for ad-free browsing.
    Dismiss Notice

Term 3 - The Judiciary - 'The more laws the less justice'

Discussion in 'Civ3 - Demo Game IV: Government' started by Peri, Feb 29, 2004.

  1. Peri

    Peri Vote early and vote often

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2002
    Messages:
    3,261
    Welcome to the Term 3 Judicial Thread.

    I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate everyone who was elected this term and to welcome Octavian and Dave to the bench.

    The Judiciary reserves the right not to accept as a priority Judicial Reviews which are vexatious. Requests for such Reviews will be dealt with as court time permits.

    The objective of this Judiciary is to promote co operation and teamwork and to discourage argumentative and factional behaviour.

    Term 2 - Judicial Branch - The Hut of Justice

    The Court:
    Chief Justice: Peri
    Associate Justice: OctavianX
    Associate Justice: Dave Shack

    The Laws of Fanatica
    Judicial Log

    The Judicial Branch receives its authority and responsibilities from Article F of the Constitution and Section D of the Code of Laws.

    Official Census of Fanatica: 27

    Quorum to Amend the Constitution: 18
    Quorum to Amend the Code of Laws: 14
    Quorum to Amend the Code of Standards: 0

    Current Amendments to our Laws:

    Current Docket and schedule of cases:
    Active - Term 3
    T3-JR1 'Under Article D.1 does the Ministry of Internal Affairs have the authority to discuss, poll and order the change of government for Fanatica? - requested by Ravensfire
    T3-JR2 Amendment to the CoL and CoS - requested by Bootstoots
    T3-JR3 Amendment to the CoL and CoS - requested by Zorven
    T3-JR4 'Concerning the disposition of the unfinished term two JRs, who should complete them? ' - Requested by Donsig

    Active - Term 2
    T2-JR1 Review of Term 1 Special Elections, requested by donsig (Public Discussion is closed. Term 2 Court to produce ruling asap.)

    T2-JR9 When may leaders post instructions?, requested by donsig (Public Discussion is closed. Term 2 Court to produce ruling asap.)

    T2-JR11 Legality of Election Reform poll, requrested by donsig (Public Discussion is closed. Term 2 Court to produce ruling asap.)

    T2-JR12 May a deputy play the save?, requested by zorven (Public Discussion is closed. Term 2 Court to produce ruling asap.)

    T2-CC4 vs Chieftess, requested by zorven
    T2-CC2 vs Rik Meleet, requested by donsig
     
  2. Peri

    Peri Vote early and vote often

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2002
    Messages:
    3,261
    Judicial Discussions
    These are Judicial discussions that have their own thread.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------
     
  3. Peri

    Peri Vote early and vote often

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2002
    Messages:
    3,261
    Active Cases
    These are requested Judicial Actions that have their own thread.

    ---------------------------------------------------------------------
    T3-JR1 - Under Article D.1 does the Ministry of Internal Affairs have the authority to discuss, poll and order the change of government for Fanatica?
    As requested by Ravensfire

    Link to Discussion Thread

    ---------------------------------------------------------------------
    T3-JR2 - Amending CoL G 3, CoS C, CoS E 2
    As requested by Bootstoots

    Link to Discussion Thread

    ---------------------------------------------------------------------
    T3-JR3 - Amending CoS J 1 d
    As Requested by Zorven

    Link to Discussion Thread

    ---------------------------------------------------------------------
    T3-JR4 - Previous Court (Term2) presiding over existing business
    As requested by donsig

    Link to Discussion Thread
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------


    ---------------------------------------------------------------------
    T2-JR1-Special Elections
    As requested by donsig

    Link to public discussion
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------
    T2-JR9-May a leader post instruction prior to their term beginning?
    As requested by donsig

    Link to public discussion thread
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------
    T2-JR11-Legality of Election Reform poll
    as requested by donsig

    Link to discussion
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------
    T2-JR12-May deputies play the save
    as requested by zorven

    Link to discussion
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------
    T2-CC#4-vsChieftess
    as requested by zorven

    Status: Determining Advocates
    Prosecution: Open
    Defense: Strider
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------[
     
  4. Peri

    Peri Vote early and vote often

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2002
    Messages:
    3,261
    Pending Cases
    These are requested Judicial Actions that do not have their own thread yet.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------
    T2-CC2-Citizen's Complaint against Rik Meleet
    As requested by donsig

    ---------------------------------------------------------------------
     
  5. Peri

    Peri Vote early and vote often

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2002
    Messages:
    3,261
    Closed Cases
    These are Judicial Actions that have been resolved.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------
     
  6. zorven

    zorven 12,000 Suns

    Joined:
    May 13, 2003
    Messages:
    1,964
    I hereby request a Judicial Review for the following CoS amendment:

    Code:
    CoS Section J.1.
    d.  A citizen is limited to accepting no more than one 
          nomination in any election cycle.
        1.  The Election Office is responsible for contacting 
            citizens that have exceeded the limit.
        2.  Should the citizen not reduce their acceptances to 
            the limit, the Election Office shall interpret the 
            earliest acceptance as the only valid acceptance  
            when creating the election ballots.
     
  7. ravensfire

    ravensfire Member of the Opposition

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2002
    Messages:
    5,281
    Location:
    Gateway to the West
    Under Article D.1 does the Ministry of Internal Affairs have the authority to discuss, poll and order the change of government for Fanatica?

    Should the Court determine that the Ministry of Internal Affairs not have the authority, I further request that they determine who does have that authority.

    I ask that the court consider this matter with the utmost speed.

    Thanks,
    -- Ravensfire
     
  8. zorven

    zorven 12,000 Suns

    Joined:
    May 13, 2003
    Messages:
    1,964
    Please note that I requested a Judicial Review in this thread. This court has not taken office yet, so my intent was that my Judicial Review request become official at the start of the term.
     
  9. Bootstoots

    Bootstoots Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2003
    Messages:
    8,103
    Location:
    Mid-Illinois
    deleted
     
  10. Octavian X

    Octavian X is not a pipe.

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2002
    Messages:
    5,428
    Location:
    deceiving people with images
    I think I speak for all of us when I request that all currently open judicial reviews be closed to public discussion now. They've been silent for long enough, and they deserve a ruling soon.

    Besides, the way this is looking, the court will be busy for some time...
     
  11. ravensfire

    ravensfire Member of the Opposition

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2002
    Messages:
    5,281
    Location:
    Gateway to the West
    Octavian, you are correct - they should have been closed. The T2 Judiciary has been intending to discuss them, but conflicts have prevented that.

    Remember, that the active cases will stay with Term 2. Hopefully, this court won't be as busy.

    -- Ravensfire
     
  12. Sarevok

    Sarevok Civ3 Scenario Creator

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2002
    Messages:
    8,407
    Location:
    Vancouver, WA
  13. donsig

    donsig Low level intermediary

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2001
    Messages:
    12,892
    Location:
    Rochester, NY
    I would like to request a judicial review concerning the disposition of the unfinished term two JRs. Who should complete them? I respectfully ask the court to determine the applicable laws to answer this question. If the court refuses to do so then I will request a judicial review about the judicial review process.
     
  14. donsig

    donsig Low level intermediary

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2001
    Messages:
    12,892
    Location:
    Rochester, NY
    You do not speak for me. I would certianly like to make some comments in those threads. I was unable to do so during term two because our ridiculous laws forbid a sitting justice to speak his or her mind in JR discussion threads. I have requested a judicial review to determine who is responsible for completing the term two JRs. If the court finds that my responsibility ended when term two ended then I would like to exercise my right to participate in those JR discussions.
     
  15. DaveShack

    DaveShack Inventor Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2003
    Messages:
    13,108
    Location:
    Arizona, USA (it's a dry heat)
    Without commenting on the requested JR on who should complete the remaining cases from T2...

    Logically, if the T2 court continues to preside over the unfinished cases, then the judiciary rules should continue to prevail over those discussions with respect to the members of the T2 court. The rules are meant to regulate the discussion, not the people. In a separate example to illustrate what I'm trying to say, a justice who is recused from a case must be allowed to speak freely on that case, especially since in many such cases the recused justice is a party to the case. These rules are intended to promote at least the appearance of impartiality.

    I also believe that justices should be able to say anything they want about a ruling, after the ruling has been made.
     
  16. donsig

    donsig Low level intermediary

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2001
    Messages:
    12,892
    Location:
    Rochester, NY
    I respectfully request that the discussions on the outstanding judicial reviews from term two not be closed pending the Judicial Review I have requested in the hopes of ascertaining who is responsible for completing said judicial reviews.

    It is commendable that both Peri and Ravensfire want to bring closure to these issues but I would like to point out that while *more laws* may mean *less justice*, *less time* definately means *less justice*. There may well be sound constitutional reasons against the term two justices making rulings in term three. Until my constitutional concerns are aired I cannot in good conscience join Ravensfire and Peri in forming judicial opinions on these outstanding JRs. I also feel that my constitutional right to be heard on these issues is in jeopardy because of the premature closing of discussions on these JRs.
     
  17. Peri

    Peri Vote early and vote often

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2002
    Messages:
    3,261
    May I draw your attention to CoS M 1 d 2
    Code:
    All proceedings started under one Court shall 
           continue with that Court through the conclusion of 
           that proceeding.
    This is a pretty clear explanation of the procedure to be followed.

    Judicial Reviews exist to clarify confusion and to provide clear guidance on the rules. Since in this case there is that clear guidance, a review on the matter, although acceptable to the court, cannot be given top priority.

    I hope this helps. :)
     
  18. Peri

    Peri Vote early and vote often

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2002
    Messages:
    3,261
    In response to Zorven's request for a JR I would like to draw the attention of our citizens to the discussion concerning his proposal.
    J.1.d.
    The court will be conducting this review as soon as the discussion has ended (no new posts for 48 hours)
     
  19. donsig

    donsig Low level intermediary

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2001
    Messages:
    12,892
    Location:
    Rochester, NY
    There is quite a bit of confusion. I am quite confused as to how the term two court can still be a court since term too is obviously over. Can we begin by examining this standard against article G of the constitution? After that we can examine it against article F. Then there's articles C and B. I'd also like to examine the Chief Justice's post quoted above against article A.

    Since the proper handling of the unresolved term two cases hinge on the JR I requested it should be given TOP priority.
     
  20. donsig

    donsig Low level intermediary

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2001
    Messages:
    12,892
    Location:
    Rochester, NY
    T3-JR2 Amendment to the CoL and CoS - requested by Bootstoots is listed on the docket but I see no request in this thread. Where is the request and what amendment does this JR concern?
     

Share This Page