Term 7- Office of the Judiciary- Poofy Wigs and Flowing Robes

[naervod]

Welcome to the courtroom. Any legal question, query, qualm, concern, comment, or criticism is welcome here. Also, if you are not sure about the legality of an action or poll, always ask here first, as it would be easier for the Judiciary to rule on the matter before the action is carried out than to deal with a PI because something was done wrong.


Officers of the Judiciary
Chief Justice: Naervod
Public Defender: Cyc
Judge Advocate: Donovan Zoi

Judicial References
Laws of Fanatika (Three Books)
The Judicial Log

Census Information
Active Census: 31 (rounded up from 30.83)
Full Census: 38
Standard Poll Quorum: 16 (rounded up from 15.5)
Quick Poll Quorum: 11

Judicial Announcements and Happenings
Announcements
The thread is now open! I wish to congratulate myself, Cyc, and whoever fills the position of Judge Advocate. We have all worked hard for our positions. Let this be the most productive term the Judiciary has ever seen!

The Public Investigation section is now going under a much needed overhaul.

Public Investigations
None at the moment

Judicial Reviews
CoL Amendment: Worker Priorities

how Many Cities Can a Governor Rename?

Legal Questions
None at the moment

Judiciary Goals
Reform the PI procedure to make it more efficient and less time consuming.

To make the three books as clear and definitive as possible.

Previous Judiciary Threads
Term 6- Chief Justice FortyJ presiding
Term 5- Chief Justice Veera Anlai presiding
Term 4- Chief Justice Veera Anlai presiding
Term- 3Chief Justice Bill_in_PDX presiding
Term 2- Chief Justice Bill_in_PDX presiding
Term 1- Chief Justice Octavian X presiding

Again, I urge the citizens to ask any question here, no matter how dumb or small it might be. I hope the Judiciary can provide the answer for any citizen that might be wondering.

Naervod
Chief Justice

 

[FortyJ]

Congratulations, naervod. I'd say you deserve it, but I'm afraid it might be interpreted as an insult.

Seriously, though, it's high time you've sat in that middle chair. Here's to a successful and productive term.

 

[Goonie]

I would like to file a PI against Goonie, for failing to post instructions for Rhineland in the turn chat thread dated for Wednesday February 26th at 6:59 EST.

 

[Noldodan]

Originally posted by Goonie
I would like to file a PI against Goonie, for failing to post instructions for Rhineland in the turn chat thread dated for Wednesday February 26th at 6:59 EST.

Silly Goonie.

 

[naervod]

lol Goonie. Anyways, if you are serious, do it in the Term 6 thread. This thread is up early because I am not sure of my schedule for the weekend a of this moment.

 

[GenMarshall]

I wish to post my Congrats to Naervod early

Congrats Naervod .

 

[Octavian X]

I hate it when these new threads open under my nose...

When I was doing some research about Goonie's admission of guilt, I found some problems with our current standard involving our current turn chat standard...

1. CoS B.2.A states Chat Threads must be in the Government Sub-forum, though CoS A.1.K states that they mut be in the main forum.
2. The current and last chat threads need to be stickied (CoS B.2.D)
3. Those same chat threads should be the only open ones: older ones should be closed (CoS B.2.E)

I ask that the first be amended to allow for our current thread placement, and that the last two either be changed or enforeced.

 

[naervod]

Thanks for bringing this up, however there was no need to bring this up in this thread as we are still using the Term 6 thread for another 18 hours.

 

[Octavian X]

Either way, my post got stuck in a small debate between FortyJ and Cyc...

 

[naervod]

This thread is officially open. I am calculating quorum levels now.

 

[Cyc]

Congratulations Naervod on becoming the Chief Justice. See all that hard work does pay off.

The Public Defender here, just checking in and inspecting my new office. Everything looks great.

 

[naervod]

Thank you all.

Now, to get to business: the PI process needs some SERIOUS reform. I will attempt to rewrite the PI section, leaving sections that work out and reworking sections that need to be fixed. If anyone has any questions or comments or just wants to help out, please say so, as all feedback is welcome and very helpful.

 

[Cyc]

Below are two separate proposals to amend two separate Laws in the CoL. These are not new laws, but additional writings to be added to existing laws. Both would help clarify and define the parent laws. Both have gone through extensive discussion periods, not only in the Senate Forum of Term #6, but also in the Citizen's subforum. I present them now to the Judiciary for Judicial Review.

CoL C.1.g.1 Exception: When a Province produces a worker, that worker can be earmarked 
by the Governor to be used for any one improvement in that Province. The specified 
improvement must be completed before that worker is released to the DP's authority. 
This worker's action is not bound by the Priority Lists.

CoL C.1.g.2 Exception: Improvements specified in the Provincial Priority List must be 
completed before any new tile improvement is begun in that province. New Provincial 
Priority Lists would not supersede the old one, but follow naturally. If a work 
action was in progress, the new List would take effect after the current work action is finished.

___________________________________________________________________



COL D.1.e.1 A governor may organize the Provincial Priority List for his province.

COL D.1.e.1.b Provincial Priority Lists are set by the Governors and posted in their turn 
chat instructions.

COL D.1.e.1.c Provincial Priority Lists may include 3 specific improvements.

 

[Cyc]

In accordance with Fanatika CoL, Section E, point 2, subsection C, the Public Defender submits this review.

The proposed amendments to CoL C.1.G and CoL D.1.E (above) do not conflict with any Articles of the Constitution. As the proposals appear to be legal, I see no problem with them being put into poll form for citizen approval.

 

[naervod]

I have reviewed the Three Books and there are no conflicting articles. This proposal passes my review.

 

[Donovan Zoi]

Good day, naervod and Cyc! Good to be part of the team.

Now let's get down to business........

Judicial reviews

I find that the additions to CoL C.1.G. conflict with no other laws and therefore pass my review. If at all possible, I would still like to see if there is a better way to word CoL C.1.g.2. For instance, a rail for the National Rail Project could be construed as tile improvement, which would become priority 4(or worse if you consider the revolving nature of the Priority Lists) under this law as written.

Keep in mind that I am in total support of this addition. I just want to make sure it is presented to the people with all of our legal bases covered so that we may lower the chance of them sending it back to us.

CoL C.1.g.1 Exception: When a Province produces a worker, that worker can be earmarked 
by the Governor to be used for any one improvement in that Province. The specified 
improvement must be completed before that worker is released to the DP's authority. 
This worker's action is not bound by the Priority Lists.

CoL C.1.g.2 Exception: Improvements specified in the Provincial Priority List must be 
completed before any new tile improvement is begun in that province. New Provincial 
Priority Lists would not supercede the old one, but follow naturally. If a work 
action was in progress, the new List would take effect after the current work action 
is finished.

With a few minor changes, the additions to CoL D.1.E. pass my review(recommendations in bold):

COL D.1.e.1   A governor may organize the Provincial Priority List for his province.

COL D.1.e.1.[b]a[/b] Provincial Priority Lists are set by the Governors and [b]must be[/b] 
posted in their turn chat instructions [b]to be valid[/b].

COL D.1.e.1.[b]b[/b] Provincial Priority Lists may include 3 specific improvements.

 

[Cyc]

Thank you gentlemen for your quick response. I can see this will be a very productive term for the Judiciary.

Welcome aboard Donovan Zoi. I am glad to have you as a member of the bench. I look forwrd to your opinions on matters that concern the Judiciary.

I do have a comment about your review, though Donovan Zoi. As members of the bench, we three have a specific duty to adhere to in Judicial Reviews of proposed additions or changes to our laws. This would be determining the legality of the proposals in regards to the level of rules above them. According to the Constitution, that is the sole purpose of the Reviews for this area of Judicial concerns.

You seem to have included an opinion and a justifcation to changes in the proposals. I believe once you have reviewed a proposal and determined its legality, opinions on the matter would go in a following post. I do agree that the numbering of the sub-sections in CoL D.1.E.1 were posted incorrectly and this would fall under the determination of legality. These letters should be changed when the poll is drawn up.

In the requested change you have for CoL D.1.E.1.a:

COL D.1.e.1.a Provincial Priority Lists are set by the Governors and must be
posted in their turn chat instructions to be valid.

I believe the existing sentance already covers the requested changes. It states that Priority Lists are set by the Governors (meaning that they are Not set by anyone else) and posted in their turn chat instructions (meaning that if they are not posted in the turn chat instructions, they do not exist). The proposals just say that in a quicker manner.

I also believe that in regards to your wish for better wording of CoLC.1.G.2, National Priorities were addressed in the lengthy discussions in both the Term 6 Senate Forum and the "CoL changes" thread in the Citizen's subforum. I will take a few quotes from Shaitan to help me explain more fully:

"National Priorities would be things that the Pres is discussing on the forums for overall development of the nation. Generally this would be the trade network (road/rails) but could also include tile improvements, especially when planning for wonders/forbidden palace, other big improvements."

and........

"Changes made to simplify the rules. There's no need to call out National override as there is already a mechanism for that (Pres Override) defined in the rules."

By Presidential Override, Shaitan is refering to the two ways a President can call a Council Vote to override. CoL C.3.B - Administrative Council Vote, and CoL C.3.G - Spot Council Vote. Both of these actions, if passed would supersede the Instructions left by the Governor. They would also signify the President's wish to override these Instructions with a National Priority, not just a whim. If the President were quick enough to see a National Priority being a concern in a Province before the turn chat, an Administrative Council Vote could be called. If a similiar problem arose during a t/c, a Spot Council Vote like "Should the main line rails be completed in The North Province before attending to the Governor's Priority List - yes, no, abstain" could be called.

This sets up two definites. 1. The Governor posting the Priority list for work to be completed in the Province before any other work is started, and 2. The President making a change to worker actions because of a National Priority. Having these two definites removes a lot of grey area in this matter.

So, as Shaitan has said, as the concerns of an override are already addressed by two other rules in the CoL, they don't need to be addressed here.

I hope I have expressed my feelings clearly enough and that you have understood what I am trying to say. That is, as the Judiciary Branch, we must adhere to the rules of a Judicial Review, and that your wishes and opinions have pretty much been taken care of already.

 

[Donovan Zoi]

Sorry, Cyc.....I will be taking a crash course on the Judiciary this week to ensure that I am doing everything correctly. In my haste to give my review and get things rolling, I may not have followed proper procedure.

That said, let me make it official in a separate post that I have reviewed the Three Books for conflicting articles and state here that these two proposed additions pass my review(once the subsections of D.1.e.1 are numbered correctly).

 

[Donovan Zoi]

Now, in regards to my proposed changes in CoL D.1.e.1.a:

I don't think the extra verbage hurts anything here. If anything, it fully clarifies what is needed to ensure that the DP adheres to a governor's Priority List. My modification merely adds legal binding to the original statement.

In regards to your C.1.G. proposal:

I concur with your response. A Presidential override can be called if necessary, so both of these exceptions are fine as-is.

 

[Cyc]

Sir Donovan - I agree with you that the extra verbage would be a good addition and I would not object to the addition of words you have proposed:

COL D.1.e.1.a Provincial Priority Lists are set by the Governors and must be
posted in their turn chat instructions to be valid.
____________________________________________

As the proposal will have to be altered/edited slightly for the numbering problem, maybe we we could add those words also. As long as we don't experience any slippage in the process of getting these proposals to the polls, I say it's a fine idea.

According to Octavian X, the last member of the Judiciary that posts in a Judicial Review of this nature also posts the legislative poll to follow. This would mean you in this case. For me, I have no problem with you writing the above changes into the poll (numbering and added words for CoL D.1.E.1.a). If the Chief Justice will condone the 11th hour change, then let it be done, as the wording does not change the intent of the proposal, in fact, as you say, it helps to clarify it.

Chief Justice Naervod...?