Court Case 1: Term IV

[Nimitz]

Hear ye Hear ye the court is in session.

Now to lay down some ground rules.

Rules of the Court

1. No one will post any message within this thread until invited explicitly by the Senior Justice, or as allowed by these rules.
2. The case will begin with the Complainant or their representative being invited to post. He or she may then take as many posts as are required to present their case. The Complainant would be advised not to go on indefinitely and to be respectful of the court's time.
3. The Complainant will expilicitly state when they are finished.
4. The Senior Justice will then invite the Respondent or their representative to post.
5. The Respondent may begin by asking the court to dismiss the case. If such motion is made, the Senior Justice will communicate with the other justices. Once 3 justices have agreed, the Senior Justice (or another appointed by him or her) will post that decision. Assuming the case continues...
6. The Respondent will be invited to post their defence. The Respondent will follow the same guidelines as the Complainant.
7. The Respondent will explicitly state when they are finished.
8. At the conclusion of the Respondents case the Complainant will be invited to rebut their arguments. The Complainant will state when they are finished.
9. The Respondent will always be given the last word, so after the Complainant is finished rebuttal, the Respondent will be invited to reply to what the Complainant has said in rebuttal. The Respondent will state when they are finished.

10. The cases are finished.
11. Justices may now freely ask questions of the Complainant and the Respondent. Members of the public may request to be heard. Any such hearing granted to the public must be invited by the Senior Justice or by a direct question addressed to them by any justice.
12. Any member of the public may request being heard by PM to the Senior Justice, or by a simple statement of 'May I be heard?' within the thread. Do not be surprised if the Senior Justice requires you to PM him with your concern before allowing you to post in the thread.

* No one will post in the thread prior to being invited by the Senior Justice or as explicitly allowed within these rules. In other words, other justices and those directly addressed by them may respond without invitation at appropriate times.
* The Senior Justice may interrupt at any time to make a point of order. All persons with no exceptions will respect his or her orders.
* The Complainant and the Respondent may ask permission to make motions during any point of the proceedings after the Senior Justice establishes the thread. Such motions will be preceded by the moving party posting 'Motion'. At that point others will stop posting. The Senior Justice will recognize the party and the motion will be made. The Senior Justice will rule and will invite any parties interrupted to resume.
* The Senior Justice may appoint any other justice to stand in his or her stead if an absence requires it. That justice will be the Senior Justice from that point until the original Senior Justice returns.
* The Senior Justice is the law and the only law within this thread and under the gOdz. He or she may make any relevant decision at any time in accord with our established rules and laws. All people without exception will respect his or her decisions and the order of this court.

This court will be in session until declared closed by the Senior Justice.

[Nimitz]

Requester: Ministery/Fed
Status: Being Heard
Senior Justice: Nimitz
Justices Attending: Nimitz, Couerdelion, Smelly

The Issue:
Fed and Couerdelion have brought to my attention

Respectfully I ask the Court to put the under point clear:

At 16 July, in the thread "Permission to declare war on Germany at the

appropriate time" MOS started a project of Resolution to legally

declare war on Germany.

The Resolution was passed and,later, war declared.

At 30 July, peace was declared. But, as better can be seen in 31th

chat turn thread, everybody intention was just a temporary break for

10turns.

As so, MOS put an advice in each turn, counting the said 10 peace

turns.

But, today in the 32th chat turn thread, Justice Couerdelion advices

against an "unnaproved war".

So, it looks necessary the Court says if his understanding is said

Resolution that legalise the war still stands or, conversaly, was

voided by war declaration and subsequent, while intented

temporary, peace.

And is this explanation that is respectfully asked.

The response from Zoid

But is there really a problem? Said war with Germany is just on a hiatus and will be resumed asap. And the war IS sanctioned by the people. Am I missing something here?

Do we need another resolution to sign a cease fire? It´s all part of the war after all...

and RobWorham

The same series of events occured when we were at war with Kublai, all those years ago.

I do not recall any mention of an 'illegal war' then, so why now? Is the court so fickle as to distinguish one from the other? If this war is soon to be illegal, then so should have been the Mongolian Wars. Can we have some consistancy amongst our judicial brothers please?

[Nimitz]

Ok we will open the case and start as soon as I get conformation from Couerdelion and the Ministry they are ready or 24 hours which ever comes first.

Ok when we start the case we are going to follow a slightly different format after the court opens the case the Ministeries will put forth there arguement for why they think the war is still good. The court will then ask question which the Gov will answer. Then we will open it up to questions from the public and then give a chance for the Gov to make a closing argument. After which we the court will render a desision and opinion.

[rjmatsleepers]

'May I be heard?'

As a friend of the court?

RJM

[Nimitz]

You may but remember this is at the courts leisure and the case has not started quite yet. Which it will soon BTW.

E.T.S.: Delayed pending rjm's post

[rjmatsleepers]

Sorry - I thought you wanted me to wait.

The constitution specifies which cases the court may consider. "Cases must involve a dispute that the Court is empowered to rule upon" (Article III 3 a). Clarification of which disputes the court may rule on is given in Article III 4 b: "If the Court rules that the actions of certain Citizens are in violation with the Constitution ...". Further clarification is given in Article III 4 c: "The Court is empowered to declare Resolutions or Elections void, to close threads or polls or to delete or editing posts or threads." (sic)

In this case, there is no complaint about the action of a citizen, nor is the court being asked to declare a resolution or election void. Nor is it being asked to close a thread or to delete a post or to edit a post or thread.

The court may (presumably) issue an injunction to prevent an action by citizen that would be in violation of the constitution.

In this case, no such injunction is necessary since the results of the poll posted by RobWorham will determine the constitutional validity of war with Germany, irrespective of the status of the previous resolution. This poll offers an administrative precedent that it is prudent for the government to seek fresh approval for a possible declaration of war rather than rely on a previous resulution whose validity might be questioned.

The court is being asked to issue a hypothetical ruling. There is no constitutional basis for such a ruling.

If the court were to make such a ruling, it would have no short term effect. The current position is already covered by the RobWorham resolution. It might be argued that in the longer term, a ruling would provide guidance for future governments, but this is falacious. There is no constitutional provision requiring the court to follow previous rulings. Any future case would (in principle) be heard by different judges who would base their decision on the facts of that case (and the constitution at the time of the case). A more effective way to gain guidance would be to post a poll or a constitutional amendment.

I humbly submit to the court that there is no case to answer and that no action by the court is required.

[Nimitz]

I would disagree the court has been asked to rule on the possible actions of a person or persons in this case the Gov. Further the constitution does not state the action the court is ruling on has to of occurred for the court to determine its legality if that was the case the court would be powerless to stop actions such as somethings done in the save that are not reversible. Further more it does not matter if there is a resolution being passed 1) this is a hypothetical situation we have been asked to rule on the legality of and 2) if it had occurred and the government had gone to war before the resolution the resolution does not change how said action occurred before the resolution pass and also there is no guaranty that it will pass. So it is the opinion of the Supreme justice that the court is well within its constitutional bounds and may rule in this case. If any of my fellow justices disagree they are free to state so in there opinions at the end of the case.

Justice Nimitz

[Nimitz]

The court will now start.

The case will be divided into three issues

1 Would the Pause in the war be considered a peace.

2 Even if said pause is a peace does the Resolution allow for the resumption of war

3 What is the legality of said Resolution.

The Government may start its arguments when ready.

[RobWorham]

Re: Court Case 1

Originally posted by Nimitz
Hear ye Hear ye the court is in session.

Now to lay down some ground rules.

Rules of the Court

1. No one will post any message within this thread until invited explicitly by the Senior Justice, or as allowed by these rules.
2. The case will begin with the Complainant or their representative being invited to post. He or she may then take as many posts as are required to present their case. The Complainant would be advised not to go on indefinitely and to be respectful of the court's time.
3. The Complainant will expilicitly state when they are finished.

Can the court please clarify who the Complainant is, and whether we are following the rules of court, and they will be lodging their complaint first?

[Nimitz]

As I said the rules are being changed a bit for the current situation Fed is technically the complainant but just wants us to set down the legality of all this so as we wont have some one arguing for the complaint and I don't want to do a summery ruling. I'm am giving the Government a chance to argue there point. Then the court will question you and you can answer the court. We will provide judgments on each of the issue as we feel they are settled and give an opinion at the end of it all after one last argument from the Gov.

Edit: Also from now on if you are not giving the argument for the government you must ask permission of the court to speak and be recognised.

[Nimitz]

BTW if no argument has been made in 3 days the court will rule without it.

[Zoid]

Nimitz, IMO you´re building a mouantain out of a molehill here. But to answer your questions.

1) No, it isn´t peace. It´s a cease fire (however the game mechanics consider it). And as such it´s a pause in the war. We´re still at war mind you, we´re just not shooting at each other right now.

2) As it isn´t peace the question is moot.

3) The validity of the poll is beyond reproach (as I assume you´re talking about the original poll).

[RobWorham]

Some dictionary definintions:

ar·gu·ment Audio pronunciation of "argument" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (ärgy-mnt)
n.

1. A discussion in which disagreement is expressed; a debate.
2. A quarrel; a dispute.




farce Audio pronunciation of "farce" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (färs)
n.

1. A light dramatic work in which highly improbable plot situations, exaggerated characters, and often slapstick elements are used for humorous effect.
2. The branch of literature constituting such works.
3. The broad or spirited humor characteristic of such works.
2. A ludicrous, empty show; a mockery: The fixed election was a farce.
3. A seasoned stuffing, as for roasted turkey.

[MMC]

Originally posted by RobWorham
farce Audio pronunciation of "farce" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (färs)
n.

1. A light dramatic work in which highly improbable plot situations, exaggerated characters, and often slapstick elements are used for humorous effect.
2. The branch of literature constituting such works.
3. The broad or spirited humor characteristic of such works.
2. A ludicrous, empty show; a mockery: The fixed election was a farce.
3. A seasoned stuffing, as for roasted turkey.

1-2-3-2-3? Shouldn't that be 1-2-3-4-5? Or is that definition a farce? Also no 2 (should be 4) should read: 'A ludicrous, empty show; a mockery: The court case was a farce.'

[fed1943]

Your Honours:

Just to say the same our President already said:

1) The Constitution and all the rules are not adressed to any

computerprogram, but to a group of people. So, current Pause

cannot be a peace, because in the same, and only, decision was

wanted to have and concede a break of exactly 10 turns to receive

the possible advantage (tech and/or gold) and to strenghen our

troops. These turns passed war should (shall) be reassumed

without need of more considerations.

This was never considered to be peace.

2) Even if peace it is (and is not) the terms of the passed Resolution

cover resumption of war: "at appropriated time". If war would

always go on, there would be no doubts. But to be always war is

more than war with a peace in the middle.

And who allow the more allow the less.

3) The legality of said Resolution question can only be connected

with the permission "at appropriated time". Citizens themselves are

the top power of Concordia. They can, when they see fit, pass any

Resolution, about any subject, to bind all Officers. But if they do not

decide so, there is no binding, with just one exception: declaration

of war( or action that triggers war).

Being,as is, an exceptional rule its understanding must not be

enlarged, as to want the opposite would force to estabelish in

advance the precise begin and end of war, with obvious detriment

to the group the rule is adressed to.


But the wise shall say better and the Court shall decide in due time.