Term 4 - Judiciary

gert-janl

Alive!!!
Joined
Dec 29, 2002
Messages
511
Location
The Netherlands
------------------------Welcome to the Term 4 Judiciary------------------------
:hammer:
Could the House please come to order?!

As the fourth term Chief Justice, I declare this Term 4 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 4 Judiciary are:
Chief Justice: gert-janl
Judge Advocate:mhcarver
Public Defender: ravensfire

In accordance with Constitutional article I.1, the official Japanatican census of term 4 is 35.
Hence, the number of votes required for a constitutional amendment/ratification is, in accordance with Constitutitional article I.2.c, 26
In order to amend the Code of Laws a quorum of 13 voters is required to make the poll valid.

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 4 Docket------------------------

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Ratification of Court Procedures
Status: ratified by all members of the Term 4 Judiciary
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
DG5JR#26
Status: closed. Ruling published in the Judicial Log
Submitted by:Strider
Details:Strider proposed a Constitutional Amendment. He proposes to expand Article K. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
DG5JR#27
Status: closed. Ruling published in the Judicial Log
Submitted by:Sir Donald III
Details:Sir Donald III wants to know how to act as DP, without valid instructions
by an official, either governor or minister.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
DG5JR#28
Status: closed. Ruling published in the Judicial Log
Submitted by:Ashburnham
Details:Ashburnham wants to know who has, according to the Constitution the final word in conducting spy/embassy missions. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
DG5JR#29
Status: closed. Ruling published in the Judicial Log
Submitted by:mhcarver
Details:mhcarver proposed a constitutional amendment to Article D.6.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 
Term 4 - Court Procedures

Code:
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. 2 of 3 Justices must agree on the interpretation or clarification, 
         forming a Majority Opinion.
      5. 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. 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.

[i][indent]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.[/indent][/i]
      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.
 
Fellow Judges,

Congratulations to your appointment by the people to serve the Judiciary.
Like my previous term as Chief Justice, I would like to ask you to read the Judicial Code thoroughly, and if you accept, to ratify the document.
Some changes were made in comparison to the Term 3 Procedures. Most importantly are the interpretations of a sentence poll changed back to the way the Demogame has always done it with success.

Except for that I changed some format issues.

Thank you in advance,

Chief Justice gert-janl
 
Moving into my desk right now. The procedures look good to me, I accept them.

The Public Defenders office is now open!

-- Public Defender Ravensfire
 
In the Court Procedures for this Term, you have added lines to the Section about Judicial Reviews (Section 7) that enable the Chief Justice alone to throw out Requests for Judicial Review because the CJ arbitrarily feels they have "No Merit". While I personally feel this addition is not warranted or politically correct, the post does not deal with the restrictions on a citizen's right to Request a JR. I merely want to point out that Section 7.C has 2 lines in it that are labeled with the number 1. Can we get this changed? Typographical errors in Court Procedures can lead to other problem done the line. :) Please see below:

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".
1. Specific reasoning must be given by the Chief Justice for a judgement of "No Merit".
4. 2 of 3 Justices must agree on the interpretation or clarification, forming a Majority Opinion.
5. The interpretation/clarification is then entered into the Judicial Log for reference.
 
um as has been pointed out before the preamble to our constitution still says Fannatika, members of the court , do you believe it should take an amendment to change this or can we just say that a cosmetic change like that doesn't matter and ask CT to edit it?

I personally believe it is entirely cosmetic and should just be edited
 
2. The Minister of Foreign Affairs shall be responsible
for matters involving treaties with foreign nations,
as prescribed by law.
6. The Minister of Culture shall be responsible for the
keeping of the peace and the construction of wonders.

This has to do with the Culture Minister's powers. It states that he/she is responsible for keeping of the peace, does this mean the constitutional power to declare peace with a nation we are currently at war with?
 
I would think that would refer to domestic peace, due to the nature of the culture ministry. They use happiness imps and wonders to keep citizens from rioting.

The Foreign Ministry is clearly responisble for peace treaties, as stated in the constitution.
 
also, any chance the chief justice could be overruled by the other two justices if done so unanimously? As it stands (Although it would probably rarely be a problem) the Chief justice has complete control over what will go on the docket.

Just a suggestion :D
 
as I said in the term 3 thread I have no idea why that is there but In my mind at least(I invite my colleagues to disagree) it means nothing at all and gives the culture minister no power whatsoever to declare peace and just to be clear the foreign affairs minister has power over all treaties with foreign nations.
 
mhcarver said:
as I said in the term 3 thread I have no idea why that is there but In my mind at least(I invite my colleagues to disagree) it means nothing at all and gives the culture minister no power whatsoever to declare peace and just to be clear the foreign affairs minister has power over all treaties with foreign nations.
I have no idea why that blurb about keeping the peace is in there either. I didn't write it. You might want to review the Article D thread posted at the begining of the game to find an answer, but I believe KCCrusader has already reckoned the appropriate answer.
 
I completely agree. The culture minister may advocate peace, just as any other citizen. He has however no authority on 'demanding' peace or signing treaties.
 
I submit the following amendment proposal to the Judiary to check:

Article K.
All irreversible game actions must progress during a public turnchat, while reversible game actions(ie build queues) that adhere to legal instruction can be prepared offline.
  1. A turnchat instruction thread must be created at least 3 days before the chat.
    • All instructions created by leaders must be posted inside of the currentturnchat instruction thread. Instructions must be clear and defined.
    • A leader must post their instructions at least one hour before the Turnchat. However, a leader may make changes to their instructions up to an hour before the chat, so long as those changes are noted.
  2. The designated player shall be charged with the creation of a date and time for all public turnchats.
 
Cyc said:
I have no idea why that blurb about keeping the peace is in there either. I didn't write it. You might want to review the Article D thread posted at the begining of the game to find an answer, but I believe KCCrusader has already reckoned the appropriate answer.

I looked in the article D thread and after skimming through it here is what I can tell:
that it was part of Epithemus original 6 ministers proposal and was never looked at and discussed. Perhaps a judicial review here would be helpful since it would allow us to strike that language from the books?
 
As others have said, correcting a typo in a law isn't amending it, just request it!

-- Ravensfire, Public Defender
 
Top Bottom