Term 5- Judiciary: Law and Sleepless Nights

[Cyc]

Originally posted by donsig
For the record: 1) I am not on medication; and 2) yes, I have had my coffee today Cyc. It is good to see that you are still with us my old friend. I took a look at the judicial log and must admit that you are correct - A grand total of zip, zilch, zero rulings of the Term 1 Judiciary were erased. But, one was INVALIDATED a process not only unsupported by our laws but unsupported by common sense as well.

Then I suggest you cut back on your coffee intake and get back on the medication, old friend donsig. I have just been through the Judicial Log and the Term 1 Judicial thread. I can not find one instance where any of the Term 1 rulings were declared invalid. Let me put that another way.... No Term 1 Judicial rulings were INVALIDATED!

If you still feel that you have some proof to the contrary, please state so below, quoting the ruling that you say was invalidated plus the ruling that caused the invalidation (please use exact ruling titles). After listing the above rulings, you can give a very detailed summary of why you still think a Term 1 ruling was invalidated. Then we can discuss this fantasy further.

 

[donsig]

Here's the link to the review in question. I'm also reprinting the log post here. Please note the final line of the post which you bolded Cyc.

Judicial Review - Term 1 - DGIVJR1
This Judicial Review was requested by donsig, who asked for a ruling from the Judiciary on the validity of the special election for the Chief Justice. Donsig felt this special election was in violation of Article G of the Constitution.

Procedure was followed, a discussion thread was opened, and after Chief Justice Cyc declared Arguements Over (Associate Justice ravensfire concurred), the Judiciary retired to make a decision in the form of a Majority Opinion (and if necessary a Minority Opinion).

As a result of these opinions, this Judicial Review has been declared invalid, as one of the authors involved in writing the Majority Opinion also encapsulated his resignation within it. This brought the decision to a point in which there was no Majority Opinion.

There is no recourse to the invalidation of this Judicial Review, as in his attempt at writing new law with an Opinion, ravensfire, the Associate Justice who resigned, wrote himself out of the Associate's Chair. Therefore, if one claims the Majority Opinion to be legal, then ravensfire has no authority to write an Opinion for the Judiciary.

Final Decision: This Judicial Review has been declared Invalid by the Term 1 Judiciary.

 

[tao]

I request a Judicial Review of CoL.B.2.e.2, especially after the ruling T5-JR1: "Ministry of Internal Affairs ... Is responsible for wonder building, including prebuilds."

Does "wonder" refer to Great Wonders or does it include also Small Wonders?

 

[Cyc]

donsig, the Majority Opinion was illegal in that JR, plus it cancelled itself out. There was no ruling to invalidate. The entire Judicial Review was invalidated.

Here I was thinking that you meant one of the Term 1 Judiciary RULINGS were invalidated. None of those were. The JR you speak of was.

 

[donsig]

Originally posted by Cyc
donsig, the Majority Opinion was illegal in that JR, plus it cancelled itself out. There was no ruling to invalidate. The entire Judicial Review was invalidated.

Here I was thinking that you meant one of the Term 1 Judiciary RULINGS were invalidated. None of those were. The JR you speak of was.

A majority opinion of the judiciary is by definition legal. Furthermore, there is no way an entire judicial review can be invalidated. A judicial review is in essence a mechanism to clarify and / or interpret a given law or laws. It's a question about how the laws should work. You can't invalidate a question. You can invalidate the answer (the ruling handed down) but in so doing you still have to go back and answer the original question. The term one chief justice simply did not want to do that. But, don't worry about it Cyc. A subsequent court FINALLY made a valid ruling on the matter.

 

[Zarn]

Justice gert-janl is temporarily relieving himself of duty for both T2-CC2 and T2-CC4 to become the defender.

Cyc will be his replacement for those cases.

 

[Cyc]

I am truly honored in accepting the Associate Justice duties temporarily for gert-janl. It has been over 3 Terms since I've served on the Bench, but one of the CC's offenses took place on my watch and the other happened when my participation level was still quite high. I will serve on this Bench to the best of my ability and strive for impartiality. Thank you gentlemen, for this opportunity.

AJ Cyc ~ Pro Tem

 

[Cyc]

Chief Justice Zarn, I would like to request that you post an outline of the procedure this Court will use in processing the two CCs I will be assigned to. Will we be using the same "by the book" procedures in each? If not how will they differ? What time schedule will we be using for each? And will you be posting updates as each process is complete?

These questions (and more) have been running through my mind and by answering them, you will help me in fulfilling my responsibilities. Thank you,

AJ Cyc ~ Pro Tem

 

[donsig]

OK, so a sitting member of the judiciary opts to defend these open CCs thereby *disqualifying* him or her from hearing tha cases. Then all of a sudden we have a replacement (i.e., non-elected) justice whom God only knows who installed (i.e, was it the CJ or the AJ that opted to be the defender?) and we're supposed to continue on like everything is hunky-dory.

Give me a break people!

I thought the judiciary had reached the pinnacle of conflict of interest with the first two judiciaries sitting in judgement of the validiaty of their own elections. Now I'm not so sure. I think this justice swapping is on the same level. I am (and have been) disgusted, no - make that Disgusted (with a capital "D") at the way the judiciary has been handled this whole game. Furthermore I am ashamed to be a part of this farce.

As prosecutor I formally ask that Cyc not act as a justice in these cases. Given the history between Cyc and myself this game I have concerns about his ability to remain objective.

 

[Zarn]

OK, so a sitting member of the judiciary opts to defend these open CCs thereby *disqualifying* him or her from hearing tha cases. Then all of a sudden we have a replacement (i.e., non-elected) justice whom God only knows who installed (i.e, was it the CJ or the AJ that opted to be the defender?) and we're supposed to continue on like everything is hunky-dory.

Give me a break people!

I thought the judiciary had reached the pinnacle of conflict of interest with the first two judiciaries sitting in judgement of the validiaty of their own elections. Now I'm not so sure. I think this justice swapping is on the same level. I am (and have been) disgusted, no - make that Disgusted (with a capital "D") at the way the judiciary has been handled this whole game. Furthermore I am ashamed to be a part of this farce.

As prosecutor I formally ask that Cyc not act as a justice in these cases. Given the history between Cyc and myself this game I have concerns about his ability to remain objective.

A justice is allowed to let someone take his place, if need be. It is within the law.

As for Cyc being impartial, he has to give Zorven and I reason for his verdict, else we would not agree with him. I don't hold long grudges, and I doubt Cyc does, either.

 

[donsig]

A justice is allowed to let someone take his place, if need be. It is within the law.

Yes, it is with in the law. One more example of just how really bad our laws are.

Once again,as prosecutor, I formally call for Cyc to recuse himself from these cases.

 

[Bootstoots]

I have made a request that the governorship of Province #8 be declared vacant. Please send a PM to the office holder, anarchywrksbest, in accordance with CoS K.2.

 

[Furiey]

You beat me to it Bootstoots. I agree with this request.

 

[Cyc]

Once again,as prosecutor, I formally call for Cyc to recuse himself from these cases.

Too funny, donsig. Once again, as a friend, cut back on the coffee and increase your medication.

 

[Zarn]

Donsig, I will not have this behavior in my courtroom. You have to the 22nd this month to gather what you need.

 

[tao]

Since this request was not yet addressed, I want to expand it with actions from the 1490AD turnchat. In this tc, the DP decided to build a (Small) Wonder, The Pentagon.

The argument was "the governor failed to give building instructions; thus the DP is free to act and decided to queue The Pentagon.

Was it allowed, because it was only a Small Wonder? Or is the DP also allowed to start building a Great Wonder without MIA instructions, if no instructions are given for a city?

 

[zorven]

Since this request was not yet addressed, I want to expand it with actions from the 1490AD turnchat. In this tc, the DP decided to build a (Small) Wonder, The Pentagon.

The argument was "the governor failed to give building instructions; thus the DP is free to act and decided to queue The Pentagon.

Was it allowed, because it was only a Small Wonder? Or is the DP also allowed to start building a Great Wonder without MIA instructions, if no instructions are given for a city?

Isn't this a bit like asking if a brown horse is a horse?

 

[donsig]

Donsig, I will not have this behavior in my courtroom. You have to the 22nd this month to gather what you need.

For your information I did my work on this about three terms ago.

But, since you've given me till the 22nd I will use the time to request a judicial review of this silliness. This judicial seat swapping is disgraceful, makes a mockery of the demogame's judicial process and it can't be too difficult to show how unconstitutional it is.

 

[Zarn]

For your information I did my work on this about three terms ago.

But, since you've given me till the 22nd I will use the time to request a judicial review of this silliness. This judicial seat swapping is disgraceful, makes a mockery of the demogame's judicial process and it can't be too difficult to show how unconstitutional it is.

We have a judicial review on justices taking a different role in CC's, but the justices agreed to hold that after these two trials, because participation is far too low.

 

[Cyc]

We need another Judicial review on this subject? What about DGIVJR8 from Term 1? Shouldn't that still be a suitable ruling?