Any questions regaurding the court?

notyoueither · July 30, 2002, 23:50

http://www.apolyton.net/forums/showt...threadid=57495

Please ask them here.

Thank you.

jdd2007 · July 30, 2002, 23:51

who is your chief justice?

Epistax · July 30, 2002, 23:53

Rotates based on avaiability for trials. This also makes it easier to tackle multiple trials at once. Any message sent to any justice will be relayed to the rest.

notyoueither · July 30, 2002, 23:53

The Senior Justice rotates on a case by case basis running alphabetically through the user names of the various justices.

Thus Captain has been assigned the first case. Epistax will get the next, then jdjdjd, and so on.

Each justice will be responsible in turn for making sure that each case is fully looked into and receives a fair hearing if necessary.

Ninot · July 31, 2002, 00:02

ooh yeah, when do we get to try our first impeachment procedures?

jdd2007 · July 31, 2002, 00:02

ok, that makes sense. and its 'senior' not chief, then

notyoueither · July 31, 2002, 00:05

Impeachment? Are you in a hurry? File a complaint against your self.

Yes. We have adopted the term Senior for the moment. Of course, practices may change with time.

Epistax · July 31, 2002, 00:10

Is there a chance the track could bend?

What about us brain dead slobs?

The ring came of my pudding can.

Were you sent here by the devil?

jdjdjd · July 31, 2002, 11:52

Senior is the label from the constitution. We may call the acting Senior, "Chief", but only as a friendly nickname.

Oh and to our President, you may try impeachment at any time, however, the court has no jurisdictions in such matter at this time. That discussion has stalled, maybe I'll revise it, but I'm afraid that it may be used against me at some time.

finally to Epistax:

yes, tracks bend all the time.
yes, brain dead slobs also bend at times
is that a question?
close, I was sent by Timeline

Donal Graeme · July 31, 2002, 12:00

Question:

If there is a case in which members of the court may have a conflict of interest, such as an official poll, for elections, where a case is brought forth, will the judges in question remove themselves from the case and let the unbiased judges decide?
Furthermore, is it decided by the judges in question, or the whole court?

notyoueither · July 31, 2002, 13:07

Very good question Donal Graeme.

We currently do not have a code of conduct for the judges. Once we get the basic functions nailed down, one of those might be a very good idea.

However, I have faith in all of the people on the court at this time. I am sure that anyone of us would inform the others of any conflicts and behave appropriately (recuse himself).

It would be a personal decision.

Donal Graeme · July 31, 2002, 13:09

Ok, thanks, and sorry of the poor wording of that question. Sleep Deprivation has its drawbacks.

Epistax · July 31, 2002, 13:11

Reports are drawn up for each case, and judges on both sides of the ruling must explain why they voted the way that they did. This should hopefully dull conflict of interest. Of course we do hope that judges that have a large opinion on the case already either don't partake, or pay attention only to what is presented.

jdjdjd · July 31, 2002, 14:40

Originally posted by Donal Graeme
Question:

If there is a case in which members of the court may have a conflict of interest, such as an official poll, for elections, where a case is brought forth, will the judges in question remove themselves from the case and let the unbiased judges decide?
Furthermore, is it decided by the judges in question, or the whole court?

Just point out, a case only needs three justices to be heard (that would be a quorum). That is in case some one is away, or possibly in case they feel they have a conflict and remand themselved from the case.

Edrix · July 31, 2002, 14:47

Is there a chance the track could bend?

Not on your life, my Hindu friend.

What about us brain dead slobs?

You'll all be given cushy jobs.

The ring came of my pudding can.

Use my pen-knife, my good man.

Were you sent here by the devil?

No good sir, I'm on the level.

...sorry, I couldn't resist responding to that.

Epistax · July 31, 2002, 15:03

I now respect edrix. As for the rest of you dead beats....

jdjdjd · July 31, 2002, 15:08

oh, now I get it....

Monorail!! Monorail!! Monorail!!

ThePlagueRat · July 31, 2002, 15:16

Oh, the court has been sat already?
Anyone on trial?

I have been gone for a while, but I clearly remember the discussions we had prior to the court amendment.
It was fun, and I think a lot of people learned a bit.
At least I did!

So the judges have been appointed, and everyone is satisfied?
Did the president have anything to do with this?
Ninot still El presidente, right?

Epistax · July 31, 2002, 15:31

Judges were appointed between the P, VP, and I think two ministers. All were approved by vote over 80%.

One case sort of pending is on the passability of an amendent where less than 66% vote as yes if abstains are counted. This might never come to trial, we'll know shortly.

ThePlagueRat · July 31, 2002, 16:20

So that's Captains case now, Epitax?
And the next case is yours?

I did not see that turn system come into the discussions we had earlier. So I guess it was voted upon during the holiday...
Also, attempting to find unclearities in the constitution, solving formulation problems, possible holes, etc. could be a nice job for you now!

After it's done there must be a poll...

BTW: How did you become appointed for this court?

mtgillespie · August 1, 2002, 05:23

3 judges are required for a quorum. When all are available, will you be advocating using all 5 judges , using 3 on a rotation basis, or will it depend on the seriousness/complexity of the case?

notyoueither · August 1, 2002, 05:33

All judges may participate in, reveiw and vote on any case. Only 3 are required.

The meaning of quorum is the minimal number of officers and members of a committee or organization, usually a majority, who must be present for valid transaction of business. Note that it defines the minimum, but does not exclude any number above that.

mtgillespie · August 1, 2002, 06:17

I understand that. I am asking whether you have decided what you will be doing in practice .

jdjdjd · August 1, 2002, 13:11

Originally posted by mtgillespie
I understand that. I am asking whether you have decided what you will be doing in practice .

Now, we have not decided it. Right now, please assume all who are available or not conflicted out will sit on a case, or at least three will sit.

Panag · August 3, 2002, 11:33

Originally posted by notyoueither
All judges may participate in, reveiw and vote on any case. Only 3 are required.

The meaning of quorum is the minimal number of officers and members of a committee or organization, usually a majority, who must be present for valid transaction of business. Note that it defines the minimum, but does not exclude any number above that.

hi ,

there should have been 5 , ....

have a nice day

jdd2007 · August 3, 2002, 11:37

question: personally, would u rather have a case all the time (and something to do), or not have any cases...

*Glory to Country through Strength and Honor!*