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 5 Judiciary

Discussion in 'Civ4 - Demo Game: Government' started by donsig, May 2, 2006.

  1. donsig

    donsig Low level intermediary

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2001
    Messages:
    12,894
    Location:
    Rochester, NY
    Welcome to the Civ4 DemoGame Judiciary for Term 5.

    Chief Justice: donsig
    Public Defender: Cyc
    Judge Advocate: CivGeneral

    Link to Constitution and code of laws

    Link to Judicial Log

    Court docket
    The court docket shall be posted and maintained by the Chief Justice. The docket shall list all cases accepted by the court as well as the current status of each case. The court will decide only one case at a time, in the order listed on the docket. The Chief Justice sets the order of cases in the docket and can change this order at any time using his discretion.

    Recusals

    Recusal from a specific case is at the sole discretion of each justice. If a justice wishes to be recused from a specific case the President will be asked to appoint apro tempore justice for that specific case. The President's appointment is subject to confirmation by the remaining justices. It is not necessary for the Public Defender to recuse himself from Citizen Complaints accepted against him since he is the Public Defender after all. Likewise the Judge Advocate need not recuse himself from Citizen Complaints he files since he is the nation's prosecutor. If a Citizen Complaint is accepted against the Judge Advocate, the Chief Justice will assume the Judge Advocate's duies for that specific case. If a Citizen Complaint is accepted against the Judge Advocate will assume the duties of the Chief Justice for that case.

    Judicial Reviews
    Judicial Reviews are used to resolve questions of the law and to validate proposed amendments. A concurring opinion of at least two of the Justices will be used to resolve the Judicial Review.

    Reviews of existing laws may be requested by anyone. The Chief Justice shall review each request for merit. If the Chief Justice declines the request, either of the other two Justices may accept the request and override the Chief Justice. The Chief Justice will post each accepted request in the court docket.

    Reviews of a proposed law may be requested by anyone. The post must include the proposed law including all changes to made to, and deletions to be made from, existing laws; and a link to the discussion thread of the proposed law. The proposed law must have been conspicuously posted as a proposed poll for at least 24 hours, and the discussion thread open for at least 48 hours. Reviews of proposed laws that meet these criteria will be added to the court docket by the Chief Justice.

    Decisions or rulings on judicial reviews shall include answers to the question(s) posed (in the case of existing laws) or an indication that conflicts have or haven't been found with existing law (in cases of proposed laws). Concurring decisions or rulings by at least two justices will resolve a judicial review. Any justice can request clarification of another justice's decision or ruling.

    All reviews must be finished by the end of the term if at all possible. The Chief Justice may defer a Judicial Review to the next term if it is filed less than 72 hours before the end of this term.

    Citizen Complaints
    Citizen complaints are used to determine if a citizen has violated a rule. They may be requested by any citizen in a post in the Judicial thread. Except as noted, the Justices must act in a fair, impartial, open and speedy manner throughout the process. All citizens are innocent unless determined to be guilty. Citizen Complaints shall be completed by the end of the term, unless the Judiciary finds this to be impossible, in which case the next term’s court may finish the investigation. All evidence, except foreknowledge of the game, must be presented publicly. Evidence of foreknowledge of the game will be reviewed by the Judiciary, and a statement about that evidence posted. Once that evidence becomes irrelevant due to game progress, any citizen may request it to be posted.

    Any citizen who is the defendant of a Citizen Complaint shall have the right to representation throughout the process. The Public Defender shall be tasked with defending each citizen charged with an offense from the moment the Citizen Complaint is filed until the complaint is concluded, unless another citizen is appointed by the defendant to serve as the Defense, with that citizen's consent.

    At any time during a citizen complaint, the citizen making the request may drop the request, ending the citizen complaint unless another citizen wishes to continue the process. Likewise, the citizen under investigation may accept the charges, and move immediately to the Sentencing phase.

    If a citizen has been found innocent of a charge or if the citizen has been found guilty and sentenced appropriately, the citizen may not be charged again with the same violation.

    Review
    Each requested Citizen Complaint will be reviewed by the Judiciary. Justices will gather and look through the evidence presented, including requests for statements from all citizens. If all three Justices determine the request to have No Merit, the basis for that finding will be posted by each Justice and the request is denied. If at least one Justice determines the request to have Merit, a trial on the facts will be conducted. The Judge Advocate will review the request and the relevant law, and determine the specific law the accused citizen is alleged to have violated.

    Trial
    The Judge Advocate or Chief Justice will create a thread for the trial in the Citizen's forum. This initial post should contain the specific violations and the evidence for those accusations. The next two posts are reserved for the citizen accused and the Public Defender - until they post, or 24 hours from the initial post, no other citizen may post in the thread. All citizens are encouraged to post in this thread, but are reminded to respect the rights of all citizens.

    Once the at least 48 hours have passed, and discussion has petered out, the Chief Justice or Judge Advocate can declare the discussion closed, and post a Trial poll.

    The Trial poll will be a private poll, with the options Innocent, Guilty and Abstain. It will run for 48 hours. The option receiving the most votes will determine the result. In the event of a tie, the members of the Judiciary will determine the result by posting clear opinions in the Trial thread.

    Sentencing
    If a citizen under investigation during a Citizen Complaint has accepted the charges, the citizen, the accuser and the Judiciary may determine and assign a sentence if they all unanimously agree to the arrangement. Failure to uphold that arrangement will result in full sentencing poll posted as if the citizen were found guilty in a Trial.

    If an arrangement cannot be made, or the citizen was found Guilty, the sentence will be determined by the citizens through a poll. The Chief Justice will post the poll, marked as private with a duration of 48 hours. The options for the poll will include:
    • Suspension from Demogame
    • Removal from Office (if applicable)
    • Public Apology
    • Final Warning
    • Warning
    • Abstain
    Other options may be included through unanimous consent of the Judiciary.

    Once the poll closes, the Chief Justice or Judge Advocate will determine the sentence imposed using cumulative voting. The most severe option that a majority of citizens support will be imposed. If a Warning is issued, a warning will be posted by the Chief Justice in the Judicial thread and may be reposted in that person’s government thread, if they hold an office. If a citizen is given a Final Warning, the above procedure will be used, but with stronger language. Additionally, the options “Warning” and “Final Warning” will not appear on a sentencing poll if that citizen is charged with a similar offense in the future. If a citizen is sentenced to a Public Apology, a thread apologizing for the actions taken must be posted by the defendant within 48 hours of the close of the sentencing poll. If the citizen is removed from office, they are barred from holding that office for the remainder of the term. The length of a suspension is to be determined by the Judiciary, with the required consent of the moderators.[/QUOTE]

    Changes to Judicial Procedures
    The Judicial Procedures may be changed at any time by a concurring decision of at least two justices.

    Current Status: A full court is in session. :hammer:
     
  2. donsig

    donsig Low level intermediary

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2001
    Messages:
    12,894
    Location:
    Rochester, NY
    Case #5-3: Proposed CoL amendment.
    Status: Case closed. The judiciary ruled 3-0 that the proposed amendment is not eligible for ratification.

    Case #5-2: Judical Review requested by GeorgeOP regarding the 72 hour clause and its effect on appointments. Status: Case closed. The judciciary ruled 3-0 that YES 72 hours must elapse from the time a call is made for applicants to a vacant office before an appointment can be made to the office.

    Case #5-1: Confirmation of robboo as Secretary of State. Status: Appointment confirmed by all three justices, added to judicial log.
     
  3. Nobody

    Nobody Gangster

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2001
    Messages:
    5,411
    Location:
    Wellington New Zealand
    Hi new judges, there was a lot of confusion at the end of last term. So i was just wondering what ever happened to striders JR. I think i made my ruling and wondering if you can point me in the directions of the rest. If it passed it should go to vote soon. if not then well it shouldnt. (not asking for a rant just a answer)


    also off topic. Mr GVOTIAIP shouldnt you drop the IP yet? or do we need another city burning to get the point across.
     
  4. donsig

    donsig Low level intermediary

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2001
    Messages:
    12,894
    Location:
    Rochester, NY
    I ruled that Strider's amendment was in conflict with the constitution. I do not think the CJ ruled on the matter.

    Off topic. It is merely a hereditary title and one I'm quite proud of. No need to get worked up about it. :)
     
  5. DaveShack

    DaveShack Inventor Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2003
    Messages:
    13,108
    Location:
    Arizona, USA (it's a dry heat)
    Appointments have been announced in the Presidential thread. CivGeneral has been appointed as Judge Advocate. Per the CoL, the Judiciary needs to confirm the appointment of robboo as Secretary of State. His resignation from the governorship will be effective upon confirmation.

    The governor appointments will be interesting. I don't see anything in the CoL which defines who organizes the Governor's Council, and would appreciate an informal opinion from the court regarding that, either a confirmation that it is not specified, or help finding where it is specified. If it's not specified, then I will assume it falls under the blanket "anything not specified goes to the President" rule. It will be helpful to the game if this is the case. ;)
     
  6. donsig

    donsig Low level intermediary

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2001
    Messages:
    12,894
    Location:
    Rochester, NY
    I would like to welcome CivGeneral as our the newly appointed Judge Advocate. :)

    I would also like tp welcome Cyc, our Public Defender. It is good to see you on the bench again! :cool:

    Time to get to work guys! Please note I have updated the first post of this thread with the judicial procedures for this term. I know in the past these procedures were not posted until agreed upon by all justices but I thought it best to get things up and running and IIRC I am authorized (as CJ) to set court procedures. Please also note that the posted procedures can be changed if two justices agree to a proposed change.

    Our first case has been added to the docket and I encourage all justices to post their ruling on this matter without delay. Since it is a routine case I don't think it is necessary for us to confer on it.

    I would also direct my fellow justices's attention to our President's informal question. I have not added it to the docket since it is an informal question. Please respond if you have an answer. Citizen's are also invited to post their thoughts on this question if they have relevent information.
     
  7. Cyc

    Cyc Looking for the door...

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2002
    Messages:
    14,736
    Location:
    Behind you
    Thank you honorable Chief Justice donsig for the warm welcome. It is an honor to serve with you and CivGeneral on this bench. May our rulings be just and swift.
     
  8. Cyc

    Cyc Looking for the door...

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2002
    Messages:
    14,736
    Location:
    Behind you
    Case # 5-1: The Public Defender's Office confirms the appointment of robboo to the Office of Secretary of State. It is felt this is a well deserved appointment.
     
  9. Cyc

    Cyc Looking for the door...

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2002
    Messages:
    14,736
    Location:
    Behind you
    In answer to DaveShack's informal question, it is apparent there is no easy answer.

    It is mentioned that the Secretary of the Interior would organize the Governor's Council if one were not formed (by asking for interested volunteers), but I'm going to have to re-read the passage to see if this applies when other Governor's exist. If the SoI would not be the appropriate solution, then I believe the President's involvement would be called for.
     
  10. CivGeneral

    CivGeneral Valkyrie Grand General

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2002
    Messages:
    42,448
    Location:
    Solitude, United Systems of Nova Terra
    The Judge Advocate confirms and blesses the appointment of robboo to the Office of Secretary of State . I feel that robboo is well prepared to be the SoS :).

    Case # 5-1: (Tally)
    Chief Justice: Approves appointment
    Judge Advocate: Approves appointment
    Public Defender: Approves appointment
     
  11. donsig

    donsig Low level intermediary

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2001
    Messages:
    12,894
    Location:
    Rochester, NY
    The office of Secretary of State was vacant as no one accepted a nomination to run for that office. The President called for applicants and robboo was the only citizen who expressed interest within 72 hours. Therefore I vote to confirm the appointment of robboo as Secretary of State.
     
  12. robboo

    robboo Chieftain

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2002
    Messages:
    4,123
    Location:
    Cajun Country
    The way you wrote that donsig..makes me wonder if that is a half hearted confirmation.

    Thanks guys for making this quick.
     
  13. GeorgeOP

    GeorgeOP RF Bleachers

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2005
    Messages:
    1,428
    Location:
    RF Bleachers
    As citizen of this fair contry I request a Judicial Review and interpretation of Section 8CIIIB and 8CIV (A and B). There is confusion in our populace on what those words mean. I would like the court to rule what should be the official interpretation.
    Does this mean that there must be 72 hours between the request for aplications and the appointment of officials, or does the 72 hour wait only apply for people who want a second job? I don't want any changes made to our government now, I just want an offical rulling going forward. This should effect no one and should not result in a recusal.
     
  14. donsig

    donsig Low level intermediary

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2001
    Messages:
    12,894
    Location:
    Rochester, NY
    It's not. That's just my official legal-businesslike voice. One of the main reasons I like being on the judiciary is I get to use that voice :)

    I am quite happy to see you in the post since you have been very active for a few terms. I see you've also been invoved in your first controversy (war plan approval) so you've earned your wings. :goodjob:

    My instinct tells me that it would be up to the members of the council to organize themselves. This is consistent with other offices - including multi-person groups (like the judiciary) - setting their own procedures. Cyc has pointed out that the MoI can organize the council in certain situations. I'd like to hear if Cyc's further reading confirms his initial opinion.
     
  15. donsig

    donsig Low level intermediary

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2001
    Messages:
    12,894
    Location:
    Rochester, NY
    GeorgeOP's request for a judicial review is found to have merit and has been added to the docket.

    I invite any and all interested citizens to post any legal briefs regarding this case here in the judicial thread. Please do not use this as an invitation to discuss the case here. If you have a viewpoint you wish the court to consider please feel free to present it here in one post. If you want to update your brief please edit the post you make rather than making a new post to add a point or two.

    I would llike to refer everyone (including the PD and JA) to the ruling I posted on this matter last term. That JR was never completed.

    I would like to ask that the justices confer with each other on this JR before posting any rulings. In the past justices have communicated through chats or private messages concerning pending JRs. This is a good practice as it allows us to see legal points we may have missed and gives the court a better chance of reaching a unanimous decision.
     
  16. DaveShack

    DaveShack Inventor Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2003
    Messages:
    13,108
    Location:
    Arizona, USA (it's a dry heat)
    I would like to repost my semantics argument on the so-called 72 hour rule for appointments. Yes, I know the CJ is well aware of this argument, but the other two justices may not be.

    As for objectivity on the matter, I'm using English grammar and semantics, and logic, to interpret what I wrote according to the rules of the language.

    Let's take an example and work it through. The same logic applies to every place this 72 hours appears in the relevant law.

    IIIB. If there is no deputy, the President must request interested citizens that do not currently hold office to contact them. If no such citizen contacts the President within 72 hours of the office being declared Vacant, the President may appoint any citizen to the office.

    The sentence in blue filters the people who can apply for a vacant position to include only those people who do not have an office. This is the independent condition, defining what happens if no other modifiers are applied.

    The portion in red defines a 1st dependent condition, that no person who does not hold a position contacts the President. The magenta portion further restricts the red portion, by placing a time delimiter. Together, the red and magenta parts modify the blue part, setting the conditions under which the restriction of "do not currently hold office" is lifted.

    The black part is the condition which results if the red + magenta conditions become effective, overriding the blue restriction.

    Now, I have just broken down the law as written, using the semantic rules of English, in this case the canonical method of dividing paragraphs, sentences, and phrases into independent and dependent parts. Once the law is parsed correctly, it is clear that the 72 hours is a time modifier on who can apply, and not on when the appointment can be made. In fact, the law itself does not specify either a minimum or a maximum time for an appointment to be made.

    If you try to break down the example using this method to isolate the 72 hours and thereby to show that it applies to the last part in black, you will find that extraneous bits remain which are not part of any other construct.
     
  17. DaveShack

    DaveShack Inventor Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2003
    Messages:
    13,108
    Location:
    Arizona, USA (it's a dry heat)
    :old: wakes from nap... finds himself in the spectator area of the courtroom

    Wow, it sure got quiet in here. [checks ear trumpet for mice and cleans glasses with the last grime-free spot on a mostly dirty rag]

    Nope, nobody here... guess I'll just leave a note. [Tacks a short note to the bench using the CJs hammer (gavel) and a nail conveniently left behind by the BW Builders]

    Dear Justices, hope your "deliberations" haven't been too strenuous. I'll be down the street getting a :beer: while I wait. Don't be too long or the only thing left will be the :coffee:.

    Good thing that Strider kid didn't manage to get his 3 day absence rule passed, or we'd be sending out search parties. :lol:
     
  18. Cyc

    Cyc Looking for the door...

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2002
    Messages:
    14,736
    Location:
    Behind you
    :eek: Whoa! That's some explaination, DS! Although I didn't need the grammar lesson, as I understood the passage the first time around (even without coffee).

    But even with the lesson :crazyeye:, the law still seems pretty clear. I will send the other jurors a PM (as the CJ has requested) and post a ruling.

    CJ donsig, in answer to your other request, the blurb about the MoI organizing the Council still appears a little confusing, but my initial statement was made because of lack of time, not comprehension. Still, now it appears that the Governors are negligent in their duties, therefore allowing the MoI his opportunity for organizing. BUT, in my re-read of the law, I tend to think the situation it describes is one in which there are no Governors, not one in which the Governors are too confused to appoint one of their one to post a Council thread. ;)

    EDIT: PMs sent!
     
  19. CivGeneral

    CivGeneral Valkyrie Grand General

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2002
    Messages:
    42,448
    Location:
    Solitude, United Systems of Nova Terra
    Be paitent Mr. President, some of us have to give this much thought to put into this issue :). I have sent PMs to my Judicary Couleuges (spelling?) about my viewpoints on this issue. :).
     
  20. DaveShack

    DaveShack Inventor Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2003
    Messages:
    13,108
    Location:
    Arizona, USA (it's a dry heat)
    I didn't expect everyone to need the explanation, just a certain one who claims to not understand it. ;)
     

Share This Page