The Court of Apolytonia

[notyoueither]

DO NOT POST REPLIES!

This thread is for the members of the court to inform the people of the status of various cases and appeals as they may arise.

You may come here to see the status of each case as it progresses through the process of the court to a decision and then beyond to the appeal (if any).

In each case (or appeal) the senior justice assigned to it will make the one and only post about it in this thread. That post may contain links to other discussion threads and archives as appropriate or needed. The case (or appeal) post will be updated from time to time until such time as that case is closed. So check the same post if you wish to see an update for that case (or appeal).

Franz Kafka
Before the Law stands a doorkeeper. To this doorkeeper comes a man from the country and prays for admittance to the Law. But the doorkeeper says he cannot grant admittance at the monment. The man thinks it over and asks if he will be allowed in later. 'It is possible' says the doorkeeper, 'but not at the moment'. Since the gate stands open, as usual, and the doorkeeper steps to one side, the man stoops to peer through the gateway into the interior. Observing that, the doorkeeper laughs and says 'If you are so drawn to it , just try to go in despite my veto. But take note: I am powerful. And I am only the least of the doorkeepers. From hall to hall there is one doorkeeper after another, each more terrible than the last. The third doorkeeper is already so terrible that even I cannot bear to look at him.' These are difficulties the man from the country has not expected; the Law, he thinks, should surely be accessible at all times and to everyone."...

May the law be open to everyone, although this thread is not.

[notyoueither]

Case 00000

Complainant: A Running Mad Dog [fictional creation]
Respondent: The People of Apolytonia
Other Persons of Standing: Apocalypse appearing for the Complainant, Epistax appearing for the Respondent.
Status: Hearing Complete.
Senior Justice: notyoueither
Justices Attending: notyoueither, Kangaroo, Kid K [the last 2 are fictional creations]

Issue: A Running Mad Dog has complained that "people in these parts are way to deferential to bananas". A Running Mad Dog contends that this has no basis in the constitution and should not be allowed.

Method of Hearing: by thread here
Resolution: Pending
Judgement: Pending


[i]This is an example of a court post about a hypothetical case where a citizen takes exception to some issue or other and PMs one or more justice with a complaint. Once that PM is received the court may begin considering that case.

One of the first steps would be to assign a Senior Justice to preside over the case and to carry out necessary enquires leading up to a determination of whether the court would consider the case and beyond that to conduct any necessary hearings.

The Senior Justice in the case would return here from time to time as the case progresses to update the case post so that interested people may access all relevant public information at will.

[notyoueither]

You can find an outline of the process of a case here.

[Captain]

Case #1

Plaintiff: Timeline, Togas
Respondent: UnOrthOdOx
Status: Closed 08-16-2002, 21:00 EST; Opened 08-10-2002, 12:00 EST
Senior Justice: Captain

Issue:
On the validity and acceptance of the amendment 'Integration of Minister of the Economy' poll: http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...threadid=56344

Method of Hearing: Official Case Thread
Resolution: The Court deems the poll invalid with a 4-0 unanimous vote (Captain, Epistax, jdjdjd, notyoueither), with 1 abstain (Trip).


Judgement:

The Court rules that Spiffor's Amendment poll (Ministry of Finance - Ministry of Trade merger proposal: Opened June 26, Closed July 1) and Timeline's poll (Amendment: Integration of Minister of Economy Opened July 19, Closed July 21), while different, was not sufficiently different to be considered a unique poll. See bolded section of Polling Standards of COL below. It was therefore a repoll.

Repolling:
If someone wants to conduct a repoll, then it must be created at least 3 weeks following the initial poll. If a repoll is created before 3 weeks has passed, then that poll is immediately invalid. If a poll is an alternative poll, offering alternatives to decisions made in a previous poll, then it also must be conducted at least 3 weeks following the first poll, or be immediately deemed invalid. Any poll that's general purpose is the same or similar as another poll will be considered a repoll.

According to the same Polling Standards section of the COL as above, repolls may not be carried out within 3 weeks of the original poll.

While not explicitly defined as such, the Court interprets this section according to its intent, to refer to the 3 week minimum as the time between the closing of the first poll to the opening of the repoll.

Since it did not meet the minimum time spacing required (July 1st to July 19 < 21 days), the repoll is invalid. Therefore Timeline's Amendment did not pass. Note that the original Amendment voted upon in Spiffor's poll, has already passed so no changes to current play is required.


In resolving this case, another issue had great prominence. The Court rules that Abstain is neutral and should not be counted either for or against a decision. Where defined within the first post of a poll, that definition of Abstain (or any other term) will take precedence over this default definition. In general, the Court advises that any terms other than yes and no, which are vague or undefined, should be discounted when considering poll results.


Additional Comments:

The Court thanks all participants for their involvement and effort in the legal process. In particular, we want to thank both Togas and UnOrthOdOx for their hard work in presenting us both sides of the issue. We also wish them all the best in their endeavours now as ministers in term 3. We also want to thank everyone else who participated in the Court thread and hope you will be as publicly active in the future as you have been now.

Lastly, from this learning experience, we hope to improve the speed and smoothness of our Court procedures in the future. Thank you for your patience and for choosing orderly legal resolution over vigilanteism.

Regards,
Captain, Senior Justice of Apolytonian Court Case #1

[Epistax]

Case #2

Plaintiff: Skywalker
Respondent: UnOrthOdOx
Defendant: Timeline
Status: Closed.
Senior Justice: Epistax

Issue: The defendant's conduct during the first term in respect to the words of the Code of Laws have come into question. A possible violation of Article II, "Length of Office Terms",

A member can run for a different office at the end of his term, but he cannot change offices during it.

.

Method of Hearing: Court-thread
Resolution: Dismissed as invalid.
Judgment: After the court was asked to reevaluate the validity of the case, new information was brought to light which the court considered important. Having originally taken this trial, we established the Court may rule within the law on an event that occurred at any time, including before the court's conception. The court exists to ensure the fair and unbiased application of all laws. The case was invalidated because the law stated wasn't ratified until after the defendant committed said infraction. No one may be held responsible for an action undertaken which violates a law which is not in force as of the time of that action.

For dismissal: Epistax (sr), notyoueither, jdjdjd, Captain.
Against dismissal: .
Abstain: Trip.

(quick note, we aren't positive on our terminology yet, 'dismissal' and 'invalid' words may not be final)

[jdjdjd]

Case #3

Docket No.: 0003
Plaintiff: Trevman
Respondent: UberKruX

Status: Closed.
Senior Justice: jdjdjd

Issue: On the vailidity of this poll.

http://www.apolyton.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=58149

Method of Hearing: None, case dismissed.
Resolution: Case is dismissed by unanimous vote, 5-0, the Respondent indicated that the poll is Unofficial. Since the poll is Unofficial, The Court has no reason to review the case. While The Court has jurisdiction over the validity of Official Polls, none exists for Unofficial Polls nor should it. The poll is not binding.
Judgement: The poll is Unofficial, therefore validity of the poll does not need review.

[notyoueither]

Case #4

Complainant: Togas
Respondent: MrWhereItsAt
Other Persons of Standing: NA
Status: Closed
Senior Justice: notyoueither
Justices Attending: Epistax, jdjdjd, Kramerman, notyoueither, Sheik

Issue: Togas asked the court "is the President required to follow the express orders of a minister?" Togas had "posted orders for the 210 BC turnchat that were not followed during the turnchat."

Method of Hearing: NA
Resolution: Consent Judgement (agreed to by all parties)
Judgement: Agreed to by Epistax, jdjdjd, notyoueither, and Sheik. Kramerman in abstention (subject to revision).

As stated in the Code of Laws the Foreign Advisor is granted the power to make peace. The Court finds no reason at this point to interpret this section in light of any other sections.

During the turn chat of Sept 1, the President did unwittingly contravene that section of the Code of Laws and accepts that he did so. The Foreign Advisor had left orders that peace with France was to be made at a certain time and was to include certain terms. Peace was made at an earlier point and did not include those terms.

All parties of this case accept that the infraction did not and does not warrant any further action. All parties are in agreement about the proper interpretation of the law. The Court is also in agreement and no case thread needs to be created, as there is no issue in dispute.

Consented to by Togas and MrWhereItsAt

Opinions of the Court: There are two.

Sheik notes that this case serves as a precedent for any further infractions and that any other infractions may be followed up with more severe action.

notyoueither notes that the Court has not examined all possible avenues of argument in this case since the agreement of the complainant and the respondant make any further examination pointless.

Special Note: Many people may have questions and or opinions about this case. Posting in this thread would not be appropriate I have started a thread specifically for discussion about Case 4. Please post any questions or comments there. Thank you.

[notyoueither]

Case #5

Complainant: Mr. Orange
Respondent: Reddawg
Other Persons of Standing: jdjdjd representing the Respondent
Status: Closed
Senior Justice: notyoueither assisted by Sheik
Justices Attending: kring, [Kramerman], Nimitz, notyoueither, Sheik

Issue: Mr. Orange complains

Firstly that in the thread Apolytonia Defense Review (580 AD - Vol. I), the Respondent did accuse Mr. Orange of breaking the rules of this Democracy Game. That accusation is very serious and the Complainant asks the court to rule on whether he, Mr. Orange, did or did not break the rules of this Democracy Game against playing ahead.

Secondly the Complainant is very disturbed by the behaviour of the Respondent as a minister of the government of Apolytonia. The Complainant maintains that he has been slandered by the Respondent, and that his, Mr. Orange's, reputation has been unfairly effected by the accusations of the Respondent.

Thirdly the Complainant maintains that the Respondent may have violated the Code of laws of Apolytonia himself by persistently insisting that Mr. orange has cheated. The Complainant maintains that by his posts, the Respondent has given false information to the people of Apolytonia. The Complainant further maintains that the Respondent attempted to deprive him, Mr. Orange, of his right to free speech under the Code of Laws.


Method of Hearing: by Thread
Resolution: Judgement rendered
Judgement: As follows:

Why did we hear this case?

Quite simply, we had an accusation of a breach of the Code of Laws leveled by Reddawg against Mr. Orange. It was not entirely clear that he had completely withdrawn that accusation in the thread. Then, we had an accusation of Ministerial misconduct stemming from the statements in that same thread leveled by Mr. Orange against Reddawg. There were accusations of 2 people having breached the Code of Laws. That deserves a hearing if the accusors cannot come to an understanding and present us with that fact after the complaint is received. No such understanding was ever jointly submitted to us.

Furthermore, some members of the court felt that Reddawg's behaviour may have fallen well short of the standards we all have come to expect of the citizens of this game, let alone Ministers. Some members of the court felt that it would be prudent for us to examine the issue of our behaviour towards one another and to determine if there is in fact a standard, heretofore uncodified, which applies to how we all behave in this game.

We wonder, what if Mr. Orange were not a new citizen? What if Mr. Orange were a newly elected President? What kind of anarchy would result if the enemies of this new President launched accusations of breaches of the Code of Laws based on nothing? What if they persisted? What if when they were shown how baseless their accusations were, they declined to fully apologize and withdraw? What if they then maintained that the acts in question of the President were of no value or were detrimental anyway? What if they maintained that they thought the President was wrong, so they had no responsibility? Should the President and the public have recourse to the court as a remedy against such chicanery? To that last question the court answers, yes.

Be he the greatest noble, or the newest citizen, accusations of wrong doing which are baseless and persistent shall be actionable against the accusor in this court. We have already laid out the possible remedies we feel are appropriate if the issue is severe enough that we agree to hear it.

We fully intend to uphold the right to free speech of all citizens. However, that right does not over ride the rights of others to the peaceful enjoyment of this game. If you seek to harm their reputation, if you seek to besmirch them or their actions, if you seek to disrupt a peaceful gathering of other citizens; if you do these things without just cause or in a malicious manner, then this court will very likely levy the highest sanction available to us.

However, we do not see that Reddawg meant malice with his posts. His expressions were unfortunate, and rooted in ignorance, but they were not sufficient to justify severe sanction. We also acknowledge that Reddawg seemed to withdraw the worst of his accusations, however he never entirely withdrew the barb. We do not feel that censure, beyond that contained in this ruling is warranted.

Reddawg did libel Mr. Orange. This action is not in violation of the Code of Laws. It is however something which we have just ruled upon and enunciated as common law. It is applicable in this case and in future cases. 3 to 1. kring, Nimitz, notyoueither for; Sheik against.

In enunciating this law we cite The Court has the power to rule upon contested disputes involving legal interpretations; validity of polls and elections; violations of the Constitution, law, or Executive orders; and any other dispute of national importance. From which we maintain that Ministerial Conduct, the peaceful enjoyment of the game by all, and the common good as can be expressed in common law are legal interpretations of national importance.

Reddawg did not breach the Code of Laws in regard to false information given to the public. He genuinely believed what he posted. He was wrong. He was in error. Being in error is not against the Code of Laws. The proper place to take up a Minister's errors is at the ballot box. Lies would be another matter. Charge dismissed. 4 to 0. kring, Nimitz, notyoueither, Sheik agree.

Reddawg did not deprive Mr. Orange of his right to free speech. This is a vibrant society. There will be disagreements. Some of them will become mildly warm or warmer. It is the right of every citizen to stand up for his or herself and argue their position within the boundaries laid down by the g0dz and a civil society. At no time did Reddawg attempt to interfere with Mr. Orange's ability to post, therefore at no time did Reddawg interfere with Mr. Orange's right to free speech. Charge dismissed. 4 to 0. kring, Nimitz, notyoueither, Sheik agree.

We levy no sanction against Reddawg regarding the charge of libel. We feel that he has paid enough already. Furthermore, we do not feel the charge warrants the application of a penalty retroactive to a pronouncement of law.

In closing, we feel it is very unfortunate that a Minister of the capabilities of Reddawg found himself caught up in this case. However, we observe that it was fully within his power to extinguish this issue at an early date. An apology, without equivocation would have in all liklihood stemmed this issue near the source. That did not happen. Now we are here, although we all regret where we are.


Additional comments:
jdjdjd argued that as far as restrictions on free speech are concerned the bounds we have set, are Apolyton Rules. This is very specific, not like other democracies where the bounds of free speech are vague and must be decided by the Court. We have no ambiguity, we do not need the Court to interpret what is acceptable free speech.

The court points out that personal attacks are against Apolyton rules. Baseless accusations of wrong doing are personal attacks. The g0dz do not need to notice them. The g0dz do not trouble themselves with all affairs of men; this Court does, so far as they concern the nation of Apolytonia.


jdjdjd argued that regarding Censure, the Court has no right to punish any citizen in anyway... they are only allowed to rule upon an issue or resolve a dispute.

Censure is not punishment. Censure is an expression of strong disapproval or harsh criticism. That is surely within the bounds of a Court ruling. Courts are constituted to find fact. Fact may include wrong doing of a serious nature. Wrong doing of a serious nature may deserve an expression of strong disapproval or harch criticism with or without taking the additional step of proceeding to impeachment, a Removal from Office hearing, and a Removal from Office poll for a minister.


jdjdjd argued regarding impeachment that the Court does not even have the right to consider it in this case; because, as is specified in the Impeachment Amendment, a citizen must bring a case for Impeachment to the Court for the Court to consider Impeachment. No one has done this. Additionally, Reddawg can not be told midway through his trial that he now is up for possible Impeachment, that would not be fair.

The court points out that we were outlining all possible consequences for a serious issue, such as one we would hear. We also point out that Mr. Orange, or any other citizen, could have moved at any time for impeachment proceedings and the opening of a Removal from Office hearing. The Court would have reviewed much of this thread as well as one or more additional submissions from the filer and yourself before proceeding to that hearing. Once that hearing is granted, there must be a poll for Removal from Office at the end of the process. It is out of the hands of the Court. We grant that a more narrow set of guidelines applies. An official can be impeached only if they have violated the Code of Laws. We would have to find a violation of the Code of Laws to grant impeachment and proceed to a Removal from Office hearing and hense to a Removal from Office Poll.

Minority opinion regarding the issue of Libel by Sheik. I do believe that Reddawg’s comments where rude and were not within the spirit of the game, however I find that he in no way broke the Code of Laws. Everyone has the right to free speech and that right is only limited by Apolyton rules.

Remember that replies in this thread are not appropriate.

[Sheik]

Issue #1

Complainant: None
Respondent: None
Other Persons of Standing: None
Status: Closed
Senior Justice: Sheik
Justices Attending: Sheik, Nimitz, notyoueither, kring

Issue: A tied election for Domestic Minister Term 6

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=67503

Judgement: As follows:

GhengisFarb has withdrawn from the Democracy Game and therefore E_T is declared the winner.

Some citizens believe that it took to long to resolve this issue. Regarding the original concession of GhengisFarb:
It is the opinion of The Court that GhengisFarb did not clearly withdraw completely from the race until 19-11-2002 07:26. Because GhengisFrab said that would serve if we was found to have won the race:

if it is determined that I won the election (I highly doubt this will be the result) then I am prepared to serve

he was still being considered a candidate. The Court would like it noted that a system needs to be established to deal with tied elections in the future.

****************

E_T is declared the new Domestic Minister: Sheik, Nimitz, kring, and notyoueither agree.

The game is now to continue from the place where it previously left off before the injunction: Sheik, notyoueither, kring, and Nimitz agree.

****************

Please remember that replies in this thread are not appropriate.

[GodKing]

Court Case #6
UnOrthOdOx's call for the impeachment of Thud.

Thud is SMC, term 6. Unortho called for his impeachment do to the fact that he has not been around making posts and therefore causing a delay to the game. It took a long time for us justices to get together into a chat. By the time that occurred, Unortho had withdrawn his complaint. He withdrew it because a) it took the courts so long to agree to hear the case, that Thuds time as SMC was over and b) he was withdrawing from the DG due to personal reasons (RL), and would not be available.

In our judicial research, we discovered that although Thud was lacking in how he performed his duties (a computer failure being a major contributor) the fact was that the game never was delayed due to it. Both President Aggie and VP Togas had taken up the slack. Also, as we were not at war, there was in truth very little for Thud to do. The court never did decide whether or not this was impeachable as the motion was withdrawn before that could occur.

No actions were taken by the court.


GodKing, senior justice for this case.

[GodKing]

Court Case #7
civman2000 vs. ManicStarSeed


Background: At the end of term 6 administration, the executive made a few moves within the game that were illegal. The illegality is not an issue, as all who have witnessed what did occur indicate they would have done the same (or similar). In order to pardon the members of the administration, ManicStarSeed started a poll
here asking the senate to officially pardon the term 6 administration. civman2000 objected. His objection is not based on anything to do with the term 6 administration or their actions, but rather in the wording of the poll which if passed, would prohibit a citizen from going to the court.

Procedures: Plaintiff civman2000 had jdjdjd assist him in making his case. ManicStarSeed had DAVOUT assist him in his defense. Both sides were given quite a bit of leeway in procedures due to the following a) holiday season, and peoples schedules were rather odd because of it; b) neither side was ‘angry’ at the other, this case was perceived by both sides as being one in which the Constitution of Apolytania needed to be clarified. Additionally, both sides agreed to have the Court look into this mater and rule directly based upon the arguments as presented by each side. For a summery of these arguments, please look here. We recognize a procedural right to a fair and full hearing, and that both parties waived such hearing in this case.

Court Proceedings: We the Justices after reviewing all the documentation relevant to this court met in a chat. Justices notyoueither and Sheik were unable to attend said chat, but did make their opinions known through the use of PM’s prior to us starting the chat. Justices Godking, Togas and Nimitz did meet and discuss the case, coming up with a unanimous decision.

Court Findings: We the Court of Apolytania find for the plaintiff, civman2000. We hereby determine that the poll is invalid. The first part of the poll ”We the Senate of the Apolytonian Republic waive rights to bring about any court action against any member of the Term 6 administration for entering into MMPs with Russia, Greece or Japan” is invalid as it violates the Constitution of Apolytania. This significantly changes the intent of said poll such that it can no longer be deemed valid. The poll may be redone without the aforementioned portions if so desired.

Court Reasoning: Per the argument made by the plaintiff’s representative, jdjdjd,

“Article V, Section 1 of the Constitution of Apolytania: Any citizen may bring the case of impeachment of an elected Minister, President, or Judge to a member of the Court.

The bill in question would remove the right to bring a case of impeachment for the MPPs signed with Russia, Greece, and Japan. This right is protected in the constitution and may not be taken away by a Senate bill.”

Other Issues: The court recognizes that there are several items that were not addressed. The court only looked at and judged the first part of this poll, as that was the portion the plaintiff brought to the court. No judgment regarding the constitutionality or legality of the other portions of this poll was made. The term poll was used within this brief. It can be interchanged with the term Bill as the poll in question was in fact a proposed Senate Bill. Truthfully, the term Bill is probably more accurate, however in sticking with standard Apolyton nomenclature I choose to use poll in case those who read this are unfamiliar with how we do things at this time in the demo game. One item directly involving this poll is the issue whether officials can be impeached after their term of office has expired. We recognize this issue but leave it to future courts to make any such decision.

GodKing – Senior Justice for this hearing
notyoueither
Sheik
Togas
Nimitz

edit - typos

[GodKing]

Court Case #8
DAVOUT calling for the impeachment of Aggie, Togas & Arnelos.


Background: At the end of term 6 administration, the executive made a few moves within the game that were illegal. Court Case #7 was brought about due to the senate trying to excuse the Executive. That case revolved around the ability of the senate to remove the right of an individual (any individual) to bring a case in front of the court. The Court found the portion of said Bill illegal under the constitution. DAVOUT thus brought charges against the executive, Aggie (President), Togas (VP) and Arnelos (FAM) as they were not immune.

Procedures: DAVOUT started a thread, per direction of justice Sheik. All actions by defendants and plaintiff occurred within this thread. Several communications were passed by the Justices via the use of PM’s.
See the thread here.

Court Findings: The court ruled in favor of all three defendants.

Court Reasoning: The cases against Togas and Arnelos were simple, as they did nothing wrong. The case against Aggie was a bit more difficult. He did violate the constitution, and admitted such. However, he has been out of office for 2 weeks now. The court ruled in favor of Aggie for several reasons, the main one being: His term of office had expired and he was no longer in office. One point in heavy consideration is that it appeared DAVOUT did not understand the issues as looked at in Court Case #7, but only the inconsistencies inherent within (which in my personal opinion are pretty common when it comes to law, wherever you are from). Therefore the Court ruled to dismiss any charges against Aggie due to the fact that he was no longer in office.

Please note, Justice notyoueither was lead on this case, and he was keeping all the records. With his premature departure, he asked me to write up this report. As I was not keeping notes I hope I got the pertinent information regarding this case down. If anybody feels I left out something important, please PM me and I will see what I can do.

GodKing

[Togas]

Case #9: Skywalker v. Arnelos, Panag, ManiacStarSeed, and Spiffor

Judges Involved: Togas (cheif), jdjdjd, Godking, Nimitz, Sheik.

Issue: Whether a veto issued by these members of the Executive Branch was valid

Facts: The Senate passed "Senate Bill: Forbidding the assimilation of foreign workers." President Arnelos contacted the other Executive Ministers to see if there was enough support to Veto the Bill. However, before support could be organized a close friend of the President's died in a real life bicycle accident, which caused the President to take a sudden and unexplained leave of absence to deal with this tragedy. Upon his return he again polled the cabinet, received enough votes for a Veto and posted the Executive Veto to the public 7 hours past the 72 hour Constitutional Deadline.

Several citizens protested. MJW posted an incorrect Court Thread. Soon thereafter Skywalker took up the case as Plaintiff and alleged:

I contend that the veto was illegal and so the original law should stand! I think that the law (in the constitution) requiring that all cabinet vetoes happen withing 72 hours of the timeout of the law they're vetoing.

I am requesting that the veto be declared null and void (basically, it doesn't do anything).

Defense replied that:

Firstly, that there is an existing understanding that the needs of Real Life outweigh by far the artificial restrictions of this game.

Secondly, that the Veto did not infringe upon the intent of the seventy-two hour limit

Thirdly, that the court clarify that nothing illegal has occurred.

MJW was added as a Party of Interest for the Plaintiffs due to his unofficial call for this case to be heard. E_T was included as a Party of Interest for the Defense due to being a part of the Cabinet, but one who voted against the Veto.

The matter was decided by a Court Thread which begun on January 5, 2003 in which all parties were allowed to post their arguments and evidence. The Defendants were represented by adaMada in this Thread. Plaintiff represented himself. This thread closed on January 13th.


Decision of the Majority of The Court:

The Court recognizes that Real Life propels sudden and unexpected events our way and The Game must take a back seat. This is what happened in the present case. Arnelos was going to poll the cabinet, but then he had a tragic and unexpected Real Life Event. No other cabinet member knew about it and therefore, could not poll in his stead. This event took Arnelos from the Game for two days and by the time he polled the cabinet and had the vote for the veto, it was several hours past the deadline. The event was sudden and unexpected and took Arnelos from the Game without any warning to any other member of the Game. The majority of the Court believes the delay was brief and is within the spirit of the Constitution and the Game.

This decision does not null and void the 72 hour veto deadline in Article I, Section 7(c) of the Constitution, it merely recognizes that events can occur that may allow this deadline to be extended for a short period of time due to a Real Life event when the event is sudden and unexpected, and keeps a member of the Game away from a responsibility without notice to other members of the Game.

The Court finds for the Defense, therefore the Veto was issued legally and it remains in effect.

-- Justice jdjdjd, Justice Nimitz agrees; Justice Godking joining in the Majority Opinion.

Concurring Opinion of Justice Godking:
In my opinion, the issue adaMada has raised is by far the more significant. The constitution is a guideline for how we are to play this game. The key word in this is game. It is my opinion that in recognizing that this is in fact a game, to be played for the fun and enjoyment of all the members, we must by necessity recognize the fact that other items or issues may in fact emerge that may prohibit the game from being played, and that these issues are often more important than the game itself.

The guideline in the constitution requiring the posting of the veto within 72 hours is in the constitution to help prevent unwarranted delays to the game. Looking at the amount of delay (minimal) and the causes behind it (the sad RL situation Arnelos experienced) I find that the spirit of the constitution was not violated.

I do recognize the importance of following the rules. I also recognize that this could be setting a dangerous precedent. However, the fact that issues outside the game take priority within the life of someone playing the game (as an elected official) needs to be recognized as well. The facts of this case indicate that Arnelos, despite the situation that caused him to be absent for 2 days, did come back and work very hard for the betterment of us all.

One other concern of mine is the frivolous nature of this complaint. We have experienced more court cased in the past 2 months than at any other time in the entire glorious history of our nation. Many of these cases have in my opinion not served the nation, but rather the people involved who enjoy the legal processes more than the game itself. The court was set up to handle issues that arise within the game, not to be a game unto itself. I know that I will not be seeking re-appointment next month as I am more interested in the game, not the sideshow this court has become.

--Justice Godking

Opinion of the Minority of The Court:
The Minority believes that real life does take precedance over the game, however, by allowing the veto to stand we will set a bad precedant for future cases. The veto is invalid because it missed the deadline. The Court should not be put in a position where it must decide whether every excuse is valid or not. The deadline is there for a reason. And in the opinion of the Minority of The Court, the veto is invalid, but certainly not illegal.

-- Justice Shiek; Justice Togas joining in the Minority Opinion.

Concurring Opinion of Justice Togas
I can agree with the Majority that in situations where Real Life has prevented an individual from complying with a deadline that we can grant some good cause for a minimal delay... so long as the individual shows that he was trying in good faith to comply and makes a showing that he was prevented. However, in the present case there is no evidence that Arnelos was prevented from meeting the deadline and certainly Arnelos's Real Life event did not affect the ability of the other Cabinet members from meeting the deadline. The Constitutional Veto power is shared by 5 individuals and any three of them may use it with or without the President's presence.

I also agree with Justice Sheik that The Court should not be put in a position where it must decide whether every excuse is valid or not. This case sets a bad precedent that is only going to cause further cases to clarify what is and what isn't a legitamate excuse for missing deadlines. I dissent for this reason as well.

-- Justice Togas

[Togas]

Current Terms of Judges

This post should be updated whenever there is a change in The Court's membership

Term 1: Up for reappointment in January, April, July, & October.
Term 2: Up for reappointment in February, May, August, & November.
Term 3: Up for reappointment in March, June, September, & December.

Unorthodox (term 1) appointed term 9 to fill seat of Nimitz
Sheik (term 1) first appointed term 5?
civman2000 (term 2) first appointed term 9
Togas (term 3) first appointed term 7
jdjdjd (term 3) first appointed term 2, reappointed term 7, taking the spot of retired Judge NotYouEither

[Togas]

Case #10: civman2000 v. Thud

Judges Involved: Togas, jdjdjd, Godking, Sheik. (Nimitz abstained)

Issue: Whether a law changing the polling procedures by the Senate is valid.

Facts: Thud proposed and the Senate passed a bill that allowed for "Senate Chats" that could take the place of posting Senate Bills on some issues, particularly issues that needed to be resolved quickly.

This bill will authorise decisions reached in any meeting of the Senate posted on the forum at least 24 hours in advance and meeting quorum to have all of the constitutional authority of a normal threaded Senate Bill.

This bill was proposed on 1/10/03. A "Senate Chat" was held a day later.

Senator civman2000 contends that:

Although the Constitution does not explicitly define what "posting a poll" means, it is a commonsense understanding that this refers to posting a new thread and using the poll tool available on this forum. The laws made under the said bill would not be/were not posted in a poll and therefore are invalid.
2. From Article II of the Constitution:

... (d) The poll must be open for at least 72 hours.

This argument only applies to the laws passed in the meeting that has been held already. Even in teh bills proposed counted as "polls," these polls were not open for 72 hours and thus are invalid. Note that the principle of a meeting is still legal in respect to this argument, but the meeting must be open long enough for all bills proposed to be voted on for 72 hours, and that would deny the whole point of such meetings, though legally they would be possible.

to which Thud responded (in summary):

A poll (the first) was posted at the chat, which was worded correctly, and the results were all a standard yea, nay, or abstain, collected by a member of the cabinet, and counted and verified by Justice Nimitz. ... the first bill ... is a clear instruction that the game must be continued in the very near future, and gives the cabinet authorization to take whatever action necessary to do so. The second poll is simply a suggestion to the cabinet on what that course of action should be.

That this is a clear case of the freedom of the Senate to make laws regarding their own procedure.

The poll was in fact open for 72 hours. There was certainly a 72-hour period in which absentee ballots could have been sent in to SMC E_T or Justice Nimitz. Everyone had the opportunity to vote. Obviously, had swift action been taken immediately after the chat, this would not be the case. However, this law had yet to be enacted and used until the time of this writing [1/14/03].

The matter was decided by Court Thead that was opened on 1/14/03 and closed on 1/19/03. This is the decision of The Court:

The Court wishes to state that the Senate has a right to control their own proceedings and procedures, and The Court will give the Senate the benefit of the law when questioning the Constitutionality of Senate procedural laws that have been lawfully passed. The Constitution is not meant to be a stumbling block to progress, nor does the Court wish to dictate to the Senate how they are to handle their affairs.

The Court finds that Art II, Sec 2(a) - (e) may also include "polls" taken in a Senate chat, so long as those "polls" are open to the people for a period of 72 hours by giving allowances for write-in votes for those who cannot attend. Such polls must also conform to quota.

The Court believes that the 72 hour requirement and quota requirements are there to protect the people, and these protections must not be infringed upon. However, "posting a poll" is merely stating the most common means that the Senate can be polled, and The Constitution is not requiring that only the Apolyton boards be used for this purpose.

That being said, The Court finds that the defendant's law does not conform to the Constitutional requirements as the law would make the waiting period only 24 hours, 2 days less than the Constitution mandates, and the law does not create a viable "write in" system to allow senators who cannot attend the meeting casting their votes in the "poll".

Therefore we find for the Plaintiff and nullify this law. As this law is nullified the laws and/or decisions made at the subsequent "Senate Chat" are void. The Court encourages the defendant to redraft this law for amendment consideration.
-- Judge Togas, Judge jdjdjd agrees, Judge Godking agrees, Judge Sheik joining but dissenting in part, Judge Nimitz abstains.

I must point out again, that Thud' bill was started 1/10, and was up for 72 hours. It was not passed until after the Senate chat and therefore can not apply to the Senate chat as no bill or law can apply retroactively. The bill does state "This bill expires in 72 hours", it does not violate the Constitution in that respect. It follows then that we must decide whether the Senate chat bills are valid or not. I think not for reason set forth above.
-- Judge jdjdjd concurring.

Although the constitution may not clearly define many terms I believe that posting a poll means using the forum's poll option in a new thread. A chat poll is not a thread poll and therefore I find that Thud's bill and all the laws passed subsequently are invalid.
-- Judge Sheik dissenting in part.