The Court of Lemuria

H Tower · December 30, 2002, 15:47

Do Not Post Here!

This thread is to record the result of cases presented before the Court. Only Justices of the court should post here.

File your cases here.

List of Cases
Case 001 - Presiding Judge: H Tower
Case 002 - Presiding Judge: mapfi
Case 003 - Presiding Judge: mapfi
Cases 004 & 005 - Presiding Judge: mapfi
Case 006 - Presiding Judge: mapfi

List of Amedendments
Amendment 001

List of Resolutions
Resolution 001
Resolution 002

H Tower · December 30, 2002, 15:52

Case: 001

Case Status: Closed

Complaint: The election polls of mid December 2002 are unconstitutional.

Ruling of the Court: The election results stand.
It is the opinion of the court that while the election polls for the January cabinet of 2003 came close to violating the constitution, they were in fact legal election polls despite the absence of the abstain option. The Court reasons that the writers of the Constitution wrote the abstain option in the yes/no type of poll so that those who do not wish to decide one way or the other on the question may vote for abstain so that it is mearly shown that Lemuria has a vibrant voting population. An election is decided soley on whether a candidate receives more votes than any other candidate, or if running unopposed, more yes votes than no votes. All abstain votes are ignored when deciding the election.
Furthermore, the Court believes that the authors of the Constitution wrote it to benefit our
nation, not to hinder its progress. Throwing out the election results would cripple our country's progress and leave us leaderless. Such a power vacuum would prove dangerous for our small country. The Constitution is not a suicide pact, and the Court has decided that ultimately, its duty is to the country.

Punishment: H Tower is ordered to gain a better understanding of the Constitution by typing up the entire document.

Punishment Status: Completed

mapfi · January 13, 2003, 16:04

Case 003

As stated in the constitution article V, section 2-b the court has to vote to determine if there are proper and legal grounds for impeachment. Since Gilgamensch is member of the court he shall not take part in this decision but is replaced by our President Pedrunn for this issue only, article V, section 2-c.

This court has convened and has come to the following conclusions:

A Democracy Game like ours relies on its elected officials. If they disappear without notice the game cannot function. While article II, section 1-f clearly requires executive members to appoint delegates when they are not around, the constitution says nothing like this about judges. If two judges do not show up though, the court would be rendered dysfunctional. It is the conviction of this court, that the intent in the constitution is clear: Elected officials are required to act in their positions and fulfill their duties throughout their term. If they do not the game is slowed down unnecessarily and can be seriously damaged. Therefore the court is stating that by not showing up for more than two weeks, Gilgamensch has infringed the constitution. We confirm that there are proper and legal grounds for the impeachment of Gilgamensch. It will be up to the people of this country to decide now.

Resolution Poll: Gilgamensch is removed from office effective January 16th, Frozzy has been appointed by the court as temporary replacement.

mapfi · January 14, 2003, 17:13

Case 002

Status: Closed

Complaint: The Austria poll of the Minister of Diplomacy, Trade and Science is unconstitutional in 2 ways: it's a multiple choice poll and it deals with 3 different topics in a single poll

Ruling of the court: The poll is invalid. The court has requested our moderator to close the thread but move the interesting discussion in a new foreign policy thread.

The constitution states quite clear, that in official polls only one option can be selected (article IV, section 2-e) and that the only polls allowed to be multiple-selection polls are unofficial ones (article IV, section 3-V-c). Multiple selection polls were forbidden on purpose because they can return ambigous results. The court decides, that from now on upon request of any judge our moderator shall close down any multiple-selection poll that is not labeled unofficial.
The court sees however no problem in having 3 topics in the same poll, as long as the poll remains clear and unbiased.

Punishment: None

Public Hearing was held here

The poll in question: here

mapfi · January 18, 2003, 16:46

Answering Dale's complaints:

The constitution distinguishes cases of legal disputes and impeachment. Since Dale is filing for both, there are actually two cases to be handled.

Case 004

Status: dismissed

Complaint: The poll is invalid because of (1) the president doesn't have the right to post such poll and (2) the poll doesn't cover all options.

(1)
Since the Minister of Diplomacy, Science and Trade assured me, that he is willing to abide the outcome of the poll, there's no need to declare it invalid.

(2)
The constitution does not require poll makers to include every faintly possible or seriously harmful course of action in the poll.

Article III, section 3-b gives the Senior Justice the right to dismiss cases. There's nothing required but an explanation.
I officially dismiss Dale's case, the poll remains valid.

I am wondering if our constitution is too complicated and restrictive. I am not willing to go and discuss every poll that is put up - can we just play the game please...
I ask all citizens to please read the polling part of the constitution carefully before posting a poll!

Case 005

Call for impeachment of President Pedrunn on the basis that he acted outside of his powers.

Ruling of the court: There are no proper and legal grounds to impeach Pedrunn.

(note: The court for the ruling on case 005 consists of Senior Justice mapfi, judge H Tower, and temporarily appointed judge Frozzy)

mapfi · January 18, 2003, 18:38

Case 006

Status: closed

Complaint: The president's poll on naming the capital violates the polling rules.

Ruling: The poll is valid.
The point poll that was held in advance was unofficial, thus it's not binding at all. The president is free to choose whatever name he wants and only is obliged to have it evaluated in an official poll. The court would appreciate it though if the reasoning in the opening post made some sense...

Public Hearing was held here
Poll in question: here

mapfi · January 21, 2003, 19:10

Resolution 001

The third item to be built in the game must be a settler.

poll thread

mapfi · February 4, 2003, 13:07

Resolution 002

The newly built settler is to settle on the river tile south of the potato.

poll thread

mapfi · February 4, 2003, 13:10

Amendment 001

the constitution has been rewritten, look into the poll thread

Gilgamensch · February 15, 2003, 10:26

Case 007:

Status: closed

Complaint: H Tower questioning resolution poll http://apolyton.net/forums/showthre...&threadid=77081, as being unconstitutional.

Ruling: No public hearing was hold, as all judges agreed that this poll, is in direct violation with our constitution.

The constitution is saying in Article IV, 3, III, h:

(h) Resolution polls shall expire in three days and the citzen who started the poll must include the expiring day in its first post.

This has not been done in this poll, therefore it is declared invalid and has to have no outcome in official matters.

The court in the name of the constitution and the people of Apolemuria.

Gilgamensch · March 7, 2003, 10:47

Status: closed

Complaint: MrBaggins was complaining about, that the President/government was withholding information.

Public hearing was hold here.

Ruling of the court:

The court rules that while the president did withhold information from the people, but it was unknowingly as caused by technical problems, and not in violation of the Constitution, as the Constitution only prohibits knowingly hiding information from the people. In this case the president posted what he believed to be a perfectly functioning copy of the save game to fullfill his duty as proscribed in Article I, section 5 of the constitution. The court believes that in future, it would be best to first contact to the President in such a situation so that he or she may have a chance to remedy the problem before the issue is presented to the court.

The court in the name of the constitution and the people of Apolemuria.

Gilgamensch · March 7, 2003, 10:52

Status: closed

Complaint: MrBaggins/H Tower complained about off-topic discussion being hold in th election-thread for MoDA.

Public hearing was hold here.

Ruling of the court:

It is the opinion of the court that the original topic of the thread was sufficiently muddled by the addition of another related topic that action should have taken place to remedy the situation and bring the thread back to its original topic. However, it is the belief of the court that the off topic/non-thread related discussion did not heavily influenced the election in question and the results will stand. The court believes that this case is special in that it deals with electing officials and is therefore subject to more stringent rules than other threads may be. Election threads should be subject to rules that limit the scope of discussion so that the election process will not be interrupted by other conversation. However, the court will hold other threads to the same limited scope of topic, they will be left to evolve in whatever direction they may. Due to the extended period of time over which this case lasted and that the thread in question is now inactive, the court chooses to not perform any action at this time.

The court in the name of the constitution and the people of Apolemuria.

Frozzy · March 24, 2003, 01:16

Resolution 003:

RE: The positon of Wombatoon --- Passed 9 votes to 0.

Relevant Thread

Frozzy · March 24, 2003, 01:24

Case 010
RE: Legitimacy of postions during nomination extensions

Case Status: Public Hearing

Plaintiff: Citizen mapfi

Complaint:

Quote:

A:
Locutus is still MoDST and will stay that according to article V,Ic) if noone announces his candidacy for a while. Is he allowed to run for President then? ( article V,If) ) If yes, will he be allowed to hold both offices at one time? Or does he have to resign from the position of MoDST? At which moment?
(@Loc this is in no way a request for you to resign!)

B:
If an executive position can't be filled because noone wants it, what happens? Can the president play along making orders like he sees fit? Or does the game have to stop? (article II,2Id) )

C:
Can a judge hold a delegate position like we've done it before, or does article III,2e) make that illegal?

Punishment: N/A

Public Hearing

mapfi · May 17, 2003, 13:47

Case 010 is closed

Ruling:
A - It's clear that the constitution wants to prohibit someone holding two offices simultaneously. Therefore if you're already holding an office you can't seek a new one. In the case of general elections however, this interpretation makes no sense, since noone could be reelected. In Locutus case he therefore would have to resign from the position of MoDST the moment he is elected president.

B - If an executive position can't be filled with a willing citizen by the court then the game has to stop.

C - The court decides not to rule on this, since a newly passed amendment clarifies the issue.

mapfi · May 17, 2003, 13:49

Amendment 002

The quorum for resolutions and amendments has been changed.

Poll thread

mapfi · May 17, 2003, 13:52

Amendment 003

Judges as ministers and delegates

poll thread

mapfi · May 17, 2003, 13:53

Amendment 004

Abolishing of the position of Minister of Infrastructure

poll thread