Term 4 - Judiciary: Co-operate! Dont Litigate

[Peri]

Welcome to the Judicial Thread.

Demogame Rules
Term 3

The authority and role of this branch of government is enshrined in Article C.3 of the Constitution.

3. The Judicial Branch will be formed of three Leaders and is tasked with verifying legality of legislation, interpreting rules, and determining when violations occur. Each also has a specific area of additional responsibility.

a. The Chief Justice is the overall head of the Judiciary and can fill in for either lower position. The Chief Justice is responsible for maintaining the legal books of the country and the mechanics of Judicial Procedure.

b. The Judge Advocate functions in a role of prosecution and attorney to the state when allegations of rule breaking have been made.

c. The Public Defendant functions in the role of defence for any and all accused citizens

This Term the Fanatican Judiciary consists of:
Chief Justice: Peri
Judge Advocate: Ravensfire
Public Defender: Zorven

I am pleased to welcome Ravensfire, our new Judge Advocate and Zorven, our new Public Defender to the Judiciary. I look forward to serving with you.

All citizens are welcome to discuss any aspect of the Constitution or raise any query they have regarding the working of the Judiciary.

 

[Peri]

reserved

 

[Peri]

Did you know that last term's Judiciary thread had 233 posts in it. That is 140 more than the next highest thread. We had 5 Judicial Reviews and countless aborted Public Investigations. In my opinion that is scandalous. We wasted far too much time arguing with each other and demanding satisfaction. This term will be different. I hope that anyone who has a difficulty will first try to work out the problem in a spirit of co operation with the other players. Lets us not seek to limit our fun here by being obsessed with legal minutiae. However let us also not be without regard for the rules. They are here to help the game run smoothly for everyone. So I say let recource to the law be the last resort this term, for the sake of the game, for the sake of Fanatica.

Thankyou.

 

[Peri]

I would also like to congratulate everyone on their election. Well done. I am posting here so I dont spam up people's Term 4 government threads.
Once again well done to everyone.

 

[Bootstoots]

Actually, I rather enjoy legal processses and have a lot of fun debating them. I would, however, not like to see the argument of last term, but a few peaceful Judicial Reviews might be a good idea. I remember enjoying Term 2 because we had 5 Judicial Reviews (only four would count under the current ruleset) and they were intelligently discussed without senseless arguing. I hope this term is a term like that.

Last term's Judicial thread is the second-longest Judicial thread and the second-longest government thread of any office in demogame history, btw.

 

[Bootstoots]

I would like to request Judicial Review on parts of the Constitution. It makes several refrences to the President being the person in charge of playing the save; does this by extension include all DP's, or is the President the only one who can play the save under any circumstance? In several cases this game, notably toward the end of Shaitan's term and at least once under DZ, people lower in the informal Chain of Command have played the save. I would like the Judiciary to rule on whether it is legal for people other than the President to play the save in the President's absence.

My opinion is that, in accordance with custom and precident, other people should be able to play the save in the absence of the President, as according to an informal Chain of Command loosely defined by the DG2 CoL and the City Naming Rights order in this demogame. Though the Constitution says that the President is the person who is in charge of and is allowed to play the save, however, it would be in keeping with the spirit of the Constitution as well as custom and precident to allow other people lower in the Chain of Command to play the save if a President is absent from a turnchat or has announced absence from the game. I will await a ruling by the Judiciary on this issue.

This review is called to preempt any problems caused by this on a later date.

 

[Eklektikos]

I would like to ask the judiciary's opinion of the legality of the FA instruction post in the current play-session thread. My concern is that it was posted immediately following the last turnchat with no attempt to divine the will of the people whatsoever, and the FA leader who posted it has been unavailable since. As a result we now have a situation whereby citizens have called for the establishment of embassies with other nations, while the FA instructions specifically state that there will be no embassy construction this session.

I apologise for posting this request with such short notice, but I only just noticed his post.

 

[Peri]

Originally posted by Bootstoots
I would like to request Judicial Review on parts of the Constitution. It makes several refrences to the President being the person in charge of playing the save; does this by extension include all DP's, or is the President the only one who can play the save under any circumstance? In several cases this game, notably toward the end of Shaitan's term and at least once under DZ, people lower in the informal Chain of Command have played the save. I would like the Judiciary to rule on whether it is legal for people other than the President to play the save in the President's absence.

Fanatica's current body of law does not recognize the concept of a "chain of command" (CoC). Rather, it states (Constitution C.1.a) "The President shall be the designated player of the game. " This means the President, and only the President, is assigned the responsibility of being the designated player (DP) of the game.

It is our opinion that a Leader is permitted to delegate duties to help them in accomplishing their tasks. Note that this does not excuse the Leader from the responsibilities of their position.

We find that the President may designate a person or persons to serve in the role of DP in place of the President. We find that in the event of an unexpected absence of the DP, or the inability of the DP to play the game, there is no legal structure for another person to take over the role of DP, unless explicitly designated to do so by the President.

We note that custom in this, and prior DG's, does recognize a CoC, and the official role of the Deputy position just for such situations. The Judiciary recommends to the Legislature that the issue of Deputies and a Chain of command be considered.

 

[Peri]

Originally posted by Eklektikos
I would like to ask the judiciary's opinion of the legality of the FA instruction post in the current play-session thread. My concern is that it was posted immediately following the last turnchat with no attempt to divine the will of the people whatsoever, and the FA leader who posted it has been unavailable since. As a result we now have a situation whereby citizens have called for the establishment of embassies with other nations, while the FA instructions specifically state that there will be no embassy construction this session.

I apologise for posting this request with such short notice, but I only just noticed his post.

Thank you for your request. I am sorry that we could not post on this earlier.

The Judiciary finds that a Judicial Review (opinion) cannot be given in this case. The actions of leaders are not subject to Judicial Review.

The Judiciary appreciates that this is of little help but contends that this is not a matter for Judicial Review.

 

[ravensfire]

The Judge Advocate agrees with this opinion.

 

[zorven]

The Public Defender agrees with this opinion.

 

[zorven]

Originally posted by Eklektikos
I would like to ask the judiciary's opinion of the legality of the FA instruction post in the current play-session thread. My concern is that it was posted immediately following the last turnchat with no attempt to divine the will of the people whatsoever, and the FA leader who posted it has been unavailable since. As a result we now have a situation whereby citizens have called for the establishment of embassies with other nations, while the FA instructions specifically state that there will be no embassy construction this session.

I apologise for posting this request with such short notice, but I only just noticed his post.

The Public Defender agrees that this is not a matter for Judicial Review.

 

[ravensfire]

Originally posted by Eklektikos
I would like to ask the judiciary's opinion of the legality of the FA instruction post in the current play-session thread. My concern is that it was posted immediately following the last turnchat with no attempt to divine the will of the people whatsoever, and the FA leader who posted it has been unavailable since. As a result we now have a situation whereby citizens have called for the establishment of embassies with other nations, while the FA instructions specifically state that there will be no embassy construction this session.

I apologise for posting this request with such short notice, but I only just noticed his post.

The Judge Advocate agrees that this is not a matter for Judicial Review.

-- Ravensfire

 

[Octavian X]

I object. The matter brought up by Eklektikos is a matter for the Judiciary to look into. The constitution states that that leaders must act in accordance to the will of the people. If a leader is violating an Article G of the constitution, at least a small review of the action is in order.

Be it a PI, or a small look into the matter to absolve or verbally warn the FA leader, some action is called for.

 

[ravensfire]

Originally posted by Octavian X
I object. The matter brought up by Eklektikos is a matter for the Judiciary to look into. The constitution states that that leaders must act in accordance to the will of the people. If a leader is violating an Article G of the constitution, at least a small review of the action is in order.

Be it a PI, or a small look into the matter to absolve or verbally warn the FA leader, some action is called for.

Octavian,

You raise some good questions. I'll try to answer them.

First, Eklektikos raised the question as a Judicial Review. As such, that is how we considered it. In a review, the Judiciary is looking at questions of law. Questioning if an action is legal or not is a matter for a PI.

Second, Boots posted in the absence thread that he would be gone from the 3rd to the 7th. He posted his instructions based upon the information he had at the time. There are several other leaders that do not regularly poll for various decisions. The concerns that were raised about using embassies for intelligence were raised after Boots was gone. Also, the matter was noticed only an hour or so prior to the turn chat. Even had boots been online, he could not have posted a poll about embassies. He would have had to rely on the few citizens who posted such ideas.

Finally, the matter appears to be moot. From the chat log, I cannot see where any embassies were established.

Hopefully this helps to explain at least my reasoning on the matter better.

The matter does raise, once again, how to handle the absence of a leader, and all the related questions around that issue.

-- Ravensfire

 

[Peri]

Originally posted by Octavian X
I object. The matter brought up by Eklektikos is a matter for the Judiciary to look into. The constitution states that that leaders must act in accordance to the will of the people. If a leader is violating an Article G of the constitution, at least a small review of the action is in order.

Be it a PI, or a small look into the matter to absolve or verbally warn the FA leader, some action is called for.

Just to explain things from my point of view. The Judiciary agreed that this matter was not in the scope of a Judicial Review. A JR only looks at interpretations of law. You and Eklektikos allege misconduct. That is an entirely different process. The Judiciary is a reactive organisation. We are not empowered to investigate matters of wrongdoing without a formal request.

 

[Octavian X]

Thinking about it some more, only an investigation would be called for in that matter, if any.

Still, there is a procedural question in play with the allegation. To what extent may leaders create orders with or without the will of the people? What is the definition of the will of the people - a full flegded poll, light discussion, opinions expressed in a turn chat?

 

[Peri]

We can do a JR on the meaning of Article G if you wish.

 

[Eklektikos]

To be honest I'd not intended my question to be treated as an allegation of wrongdoing. The point behind it was to ascertain whether the instructions should be treated as legal and binding upon the DP without any repercussions upon Bootstoots.

 

[zorven]

@ Eklektikos

This situation does not fall under the scope of a Judicial Review because a Judicial Review involves verifying legality of legislation and interpreting rules. You seem to have an issue with the quality (whether they are legal) of Bootstoots's instructions. Such an issue would be handled by the Judiciary through the Private Investigation system.