The Apolytonian Court

[Epistax]

Greetings from the court. This thread is to tell you that we are now open for business (only to find people camping out in front of the door).

The court justices that were nominated were all accepted by the public: Captain, jdjdjd, notyoueither, Trip, Epistax.

For those who are unfamiliar with the process

The Court cannot act on any issue until a non-judicial citizen of the nation brings forth an Issue to The Court. Issues to The Court should be posted publicly and must involve a dispute that The Court is empowered to rule upon.

1. The complaint is made...
a) Judge is PMed or otherwise legally notified by plaintiff.
b) Senior Justice Appointed
c) Senior Justice PMs plaintiff and defendant
d) Senior posts in court thread to acknowledge case
2. The court decides whether to hear the case or not... (
a) Senior Justice gathers information
b) Assess validity (general court, 3/5)
c) Repeat if not enough is known
3. Administrative details are settled. Schedule and so forth...
a) Availability of all persons and methods
b) IRC vs Thread, Day / Time
c) Notifications
4. Hearing is held...
a) Creation of thread or start of IRC chat by Senior Justice
b) Plaintiff's Side
b2) Last chance for case to be thrown out
c) Defendant's Side
d/e) Justice offers questions, People ask to the heard, anyone may speak once allowed.
f) Senior justice ends at discretion
5. Deliberation...
a) Senior Justice arranges a private chat or otherwise private meeting with other active judges of the case.
b) A majority vote or as needed by the COL are reached. In the case of a tie, abstaining judges must side.
6. Judgment decided...
a) Senior Justice sees to reports being written and published
7. Appeals are heard...
a) If three judges wish to rehear the case, process can restart at 1.

Feel free to rip this apart. I know I will

Purpose:

The Court is constituted to rule upon: contested disputes involving legal interpretation, validity of polls, violations of the Constitution, or any other legal dispute of national importance.

We will gladly accept suggestions for where the COL stops ( available at http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...threadid=56100 ).

Note: This thread is not to be topped
Note: We do not currently have a senior justice

Cases:

1. On the acceptance of the amendment 'Integration of Minister of the Economy'.
If abstains are accepted as against yea, the amendment fails to reach the 66% needed. Otherwise it passes. Timeline will represent that abstains should be discarded. Opponents to not yet have a speaker.
poll: http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...44&perpage=25&
Status: Pending

2. On the legality of an offical poll by jdd2007 brought against by civman2000
The plaintiff, civman2000, has brought it to the attention of the court that a poll created by jdd2007 violates the COL articles III and IV by creating an official poll laking clarity and denying the right of a citizen to vote.
poll: http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...threadid=56957
case link: http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...threadid=57036
Status: Dead

* We are having a justice meeting soon to determine a method to trials. Feel free to discuss and develop arguments.

PLEASE do not post anything on any specific case in here. PM any member of the justice to get the attention of the court. If you see a typgraphical error here, feel free to PM me, Epistax.

[MrWhereItsAt]

Great to see it going at last!

I have one question - is (are) the issue(s) mentioned in the forum being considered as cases at present? (By any judge?)

[Jon Shafer]

Yes, we are alive and well (and organizing somewhat).
Any suggestions (like he said, non-case related) are welcome.

[GodKing]

Hi. Glad to see you up and running.

Could you post a list of what, if any, known cases the court is looking into?

[Jon Shafer]

Erm, what's case number one? None of the justices know what it is.

[jdjdjd]

We are up and running.

We have one case that I know of, I do not know the case Timeline referred to in civman v jdd2007.

[UnOrthOdOx]

He was referring to validating the results of the ammendment to reword and incorporate the Minister of Economy ammendment. The question is whether abstains should be counted in the official % needed to obtain the needed 2/3. If abstains are counted, it does not pass, if they are not, it does.
Here, for your convenience:http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...threadid=56344

[Captain]

Yes, we are here but we're still organizing. I'm usually online only in the evenings but took a lunch break to check if there was anything urgent Court-related.

To PM all members of the Court at the same time, you need to add each of us to your buddy list (even if you don't consider us your buddies). Then you can send a PM to Buddies, up to 5, which is how many Judges there are. If you PM all of us, you'll likely get a quicker response.

Title it "COURT BUSINESS: your description" to get our attention. One or more of us will get back to you. Probably whoever is online first. Once we get a Senior Judge, that'll likely be his duty.

Thanks in advance for being patient.

[jdjdjd]

Originally posted by UnOrthOdOx
He was referring to validating the results of the ammendment to reword and incorporate the Minister of Economy ammendment. The question is whether abstains should be counted in the official % needed to obtain the needed 2/3. If abstains are counted, it does not pass, if they are not, it does.
Here, for your convenience:http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...threadid=56344

Oh I see, though no case has been filed as yet.

[BigRed515]

As far as procedural matters go, I do have one suggestion.

Now, I'm not in court as often as Togas, but I have enough experience with legal matters to think that having some sort of fixed format for each side's arguments in a case would be a really good idea.

After you work out all the PM stuff about the court buissness, but before the court actually posts the thread, both sides of the case should format their arguments in an easily-readable way that will make the cases more accessible to the average person while also fixing things like what the exact charges in the claim are, the exact parts of the COL or Consitution violated, and the exact requests of the claim so far as the resolution of the case goes (what is wrong, what was broken, how the person wants it fixed). The other side should submit a mirror form so that both arguments are clear and the conflicting points/interpretations can be easily identified.

I think this would be good in cutting down the length of the courtroom threads, by ensuring that one side couldn;t come up with a new charge in the middle of the argument, doubling the length of the thread as the new point was covered and recovered.

[Kramerman]

Woohoo! I finally feel a sense of law and order. We can now call ourselves a civilization and keep a straight face.

Kman

[notyoueither]

Hello everyone.

I thank you all for your support and ask for your patience as we get things set up.

[Epistax]

*bump*

Heyo we have a general list of proceedings. It is above, and down here. Please rip these apart and give opinions.

* Note, we might make a manner of "rapid progression" through steps 1-3

1. The complaint is made...
a) Judge is PMed or otherwise legally notified by plaintiff.
b) Senior Justice Appointed (by interest or turn)
c) Senior Justice PMs plaintiff and defendant
d) Senior posts in court thread to acknowledge case
2. The court decides whether to hear the case or not...
a) Senior Justice gathers information
b) Assess validity (general court, 3/5)
c) Repeat if not enough is known
3. Administrative details are settled. Schedule and so forth...
a) Availability of all persons and methods
b) IRC vs Thread, Day / Time
c) Notifications
4. Hearing is held...
a) Creation of thread or start of IRC chat by Senior Justice
b) Plaintiff's Side
b2) Last chance for case to be thrown out
c) Defendant's Side
d/e) Justice offers questions, People ask to the heard, anyone may speak once allowed.
f) Senior justice ends at discretion
5. Deliberation...
a) Senior Justice arranges a private chat or otherwise private meeting with other active judges of the case.
b) A majority vote or as needed by the COL are reached. In the case of a tie, abstaining judges must side.
6. Judgment decided...
a) Senior Justice sees to reports being written and published
7. Appeals are heard...
a) If three judges wish to rehear the case, process can restart at 1.

[jdd2007]

sounds good to me. a little complicated though

[jdd2007]

about your first post: civman has backed down about his trial against me, so ... erase it from the files ... forever ...

[Jon Shafer]

Originally posted by jdd2007
sounds good to me. a little complicated though

You think that's complicated, you should have seen the process we went through to create that thing.

But it's a good system, and it will prove useful later on, so that we have something down where we can access it and refer to it.

[notyoueither]

... and thanks to Epistax for a useful summary of much discussion. It may and will be refined, but at least you all now have an idea of where things are going.

[notyoueither]

This might make things easier to follow.

1. The complaint is made... 
    a) Judge is PMed or otherwise legally notified by complainant. 
    b) Senior Justice Appointed (by interest or turn) 
    c) Senior Justice PMs complainant and respondent 
    d) Senior posts in court thread to acknowledge case 
2. The court decides whether to hear the case or not... 
    a) Senior Justice gathers information 
    b) Assess validity (general court, 3/5) 
    c) Repeat if not enough is known 
3. Administrative details are settled. Schedule and so forth... 
    a) Availability of all persons and methods 
    b) IRC vs Thread, Day / Time 
    c) Notifications 
4. Hearing is held... 
    a) Creation of thread or start of IRC chat by Senior Justice 
    b) Complainant's Side 
    b2) Last chance for case to be thrown out 
    c) Respondent's Side 
    d/e) Justices ask questions, People ask to the heard, anyone may speak once allowed. 
    f) Senior justice ends at discretion 
5. Deliberation... 
    a) Senior Justice arranges a private chat or otherwise private meeting with other active judges of the case. 
    b) A majority vote or as needed by the COL are reached. In the case of a tie, abstaining judges must side. 
6. Judgment decided... 
    a) Senior Justice sees to reports being written and published 
7. Appeals are heard... 
    a) If three judges wish to rehear the case, process can restart at 1.

/Edit. I have changed plaintif to Complainant and defendant to Respondent. It should be very uncommon that any one should be accused of misdeeds. I feel that the word 'defendant' is too charged to be used casually. Where ideas are concerned, no one need defend themselves. Witness jdd's recent distress.

OTOH, from time to time, the term 'defendant' may be appropriate. We should be careful in it's application though.

4 d/e also edited. Justices ask questions...

[jdjdjd]

Originally posted by notyoueither
This might make things easier to follow.

Code:

1. The complaint is made... a) Judge is PMed or otherwise legally notified by complainant. b) Senior Justice Appointed (by interest or turn) c) Senior Justice PMs complainant and respondent d) Senior posts in court thread to acknowledge case

Just to point out that the word "interest" does not mean that the Justice has interest in the case, such as a witness, pltf, or defendant, or that it involves him in some way; but that the case appears to be a valid case the Justice believes should be heard.
If I am wrong in that interpretation, then it should be changed.

/Edit. I have changed plaintif to Complainant and defendant to Respondent. It should be very uncommon that any one should be accused of misdeeds. I feel that the word 'defendant' is too charged to be used casually. Where ideas are concerned, no one need defend themselves. Witness jdd's recent distress.

pltf and defendant are legal terms used in civil cases, pltf is one who brings forth a complaint, and defendant is one who must defend the complaint. They are acceptable terms. I agree we should not use terms like suspect, accused, victim; as they imply a crime has been perpetrated, and of course this is not a criminal court.

Anyway, I wish I had been available more to assist in creating these rules, they are excellent.

[Epistax]

I hate to drag a case in here, but take the Abstain issue. No one is being accused of wrong doing, but someone must represent the counter. If no one does, then I think the hearing will go
---Complaintant/Plaintiff
---Judges Questions / Public
If there is no single voice for the plaintiff, then there is no case.
Additionally if there is no defendant, before the hearing we would publicly look for one (but not over too much time, maybe just a day).

[kring]

I would disagree about there being no case just because there isn't a voice for the plaintiff/defendant. The issue is valid. In real courts, a city atty., the DA's office, the state Atty. General office; one of this would be the plaintiff. I realize we don't have one. This is a great case because we need to know how abstains are to be handled in all elections, not just ones where they prevent a majority. Check out the thread about abstain voting. I have always voted abstain as supporting neither side or saying that you didn't like the options presented. If you say that abstain votes don't count for the majority issue (in other words whether or not a majority is reached), then there is no point in having an abstain. What happens if you have a situation where the abstains win with 2/3 vote (or whatever is needed in that poll if different). Do we discount those 2/3 votes and just go with the yes/no votes? Same principle applies, whether it is only 1 abstain vote, or a 2/3 majority vote.

For the record, I support that amendment, but I don't see it getting 2/3 of the vote.

I would do it, but my plate is plenty full enough as it is.

[Epistax]

The plaintiff is the accuser. If there is no single voice for the accusations, I don't think a court should be forced to listen to what will amount to the ranting and raving of a group. If there is no defendant however, it's easier to substitute a group.

Remember the justice would like to hear a formal list of complaints from someone, and by them sending the list, they pretty much are the plaintiff.

[notyoueither]

In such a case where a citizen is asking for clarity re the code of laws, the respondent could quite properly be considered the government itself.

Someone (who may or may not be in government) files the complaint as a citizen. The ministers themselves decide on some one to represent the government as the respondent.

[Panag]

hi ,

would 5 judges not have a more clear view , ....

have a nice day

[Kuciwalker]

I see you haven't added my case to this list yet.

[notyoueither]

skywalker, this is a discussion thread, not the official court thread. Look in the topped thread.

Yes panag, having all 5 for most cases would be a good idea.

[Panag]

Originally posted by notyoueither
skywalker, this is a discussion thread, not the official court thread. Look in the topped thread.

Yes panag, having all 5 for most cases would be a good idea.

hi ,

the reason to have 5 would be so that they can do more work , and have a more or less better view , when its 3 against 2 the court shoul look at that , when its 5 against 0 , its clear , when its 4 against 1 its something intresting

anyway , the original idea was for at least 5 , .....

have a nice day

[Epistax]

Case #2 will be held in a case-thread starting 4:00 PM EST <> 9:00 PM GMT on Friday the 9th of August, 2002.

The case-thread will last however long is necessary for the justices to come to a decision on the matter as stated in Case #2.

The rules for the case-thread will be in the first post to the thread. A quick overview:
The plaintiff gives the first post after the senior justice opens the thread to the case. The plaintiff may use as many posts as necessary to present their side, however their argument should be as condensed as possible.
After the plaintiff has signaled that he/she is done, the respondent may post as many posts as necessary to counter the plaintiff, again as condensed as possible.
When the defense has signaled they are done, Justices may ask questions. If people other than the defendant and plaintiff wish to speak, they must get permission from the Senior Justice. This Q/A section could last from a few hours, to days, depending on many factors.
At any time, the Senior Justice may close the case, and fall into deliberations with other justices. All messages after the closing of the case will be ignored.

Current justices involved include Epistax (senior), notyoueither, and jdjdjd. Any justices prepared for the case may decide to take part.

[notyoueither]

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 is 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.

-----

The preceding would be posted at the beginning of any court thread.

They are rules for the orderly conduct of a hearing.

They are a work in progress and may be revised. They may very well be fine tuned prior to the case beginning on Friday. Please review them before replying in any hearing thread.

Any questions?

A demonstration may be found:
http://www.apolyton.com/forums/showt...threadid=58274

[Togas]

Originally posted by BigRed515
As far as procedural matters go, I do have one suggestion.

After you work out all the PM stuff about the court buissness, but before the court actually posts the thread, both sides of the case should format their arguments in an easily-readable way that will make the cases more accessible to the average person while also fixing things like what the exact charges in the claim are, the exact parts of the COL or Consitution violated, and the exact requests of the claim so far as the resolution of the case goes (what is wrong, what was broken, how the person wants it fixed). The other side should submit a mirror form so that both arguments are clear and the conflicting points/interpretations can be easily identified.

I think this would be good in cutting down the length of the courtroom threads, by ensuring that one side couldn;t come up with a new charge in the middle of the argument, doubling the length of the thread as the new point was covered and recovered.

I missed this previous post but BigRed is right (wish I would have brought this up sooner)...

The first hearing involving the Integration of the Minister of Economy will be held this weekend and I feel as though I'm going in blind. I know why I believe this poll is valid and should, therefore, be adopted, but I do not know what my opponent will be arguing, so the real "argument" is going to happen in rebuttal.

For future consideration, both arguments should be posted a couple days prior to the thread being opened for argument. This is how we do it in the real world. Both sides know the other side's arguments and legal support. No surprises. Both sides also know what areas they do not need to argue over. Things go efficiently and focus only on the areas of disputed interpretation.

--Togas