15-01-2003 04:28									#1
	A guide to the Apolytonian Judiciary Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

Note: more information will be added later.

Important Links:

OldCon (passed 6/24): http://apolyton.net/forums/showthre...&threadid=53600

Court (proposed 7/4, passed 7/9 (Amendment II OldCon), details worked out 7/12): http://apolyton.net/forums/showthre...threadid=54881, http://apolyton.net/forums/showthre...threadid=54953, http://apolyton.net/forums/showthre...threadid=55189.

Court thread: http://apolyton.net/forums/showthre...&threadid=57495

NewCon (11/4): http://apolyton.net/forums/showthre...&threadid=72122


Cases:
Timeline v. UnOrthOdOx (Case #1, http://apolyton.net/forums/showthre...&threadid=58500)
Constitution: OldCon
Issue: Validity of a poll alleged to be an invalid repoll.
Ruling: In favor of Timeline and Togas. The poll was ruled invalid.
Concurrences: Captain (wrote opinion), Epistax, jdjdjd, and notyoueither
Dissentions: None
Abstentions: Trip
Precedent and Other Importance: First of all, it established the Court's procedures, being the first case. However, the most important precedent was that Abstains were ruled to be not counted in poll results. However, this is part of the NewCon so no precedent (other than the Court Procedures) is in effect today.

skywalker v. Timeline (Case #2, http://apolyton.net/forums/showthre...&threadid=58430)
Constitution: OldCon
Issue: Validity of Timeline's mid-term switching of government position in Term 1.
Ruling: Dismissed but in favor of Timeline.
Concurrences: Captain, Epistax (wrote opinion), jdjdjd, and notyoueither
Dissentions: None
Abstentions: Trip
Precedent and Other Importance: The precedent set was that "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". This was confirmed by the NewCon. However, in light of the ruling in civman2000 v. ManicStarSeed, this could be changed, for the Court refused to rule on the issue of retroactive laws, although in that case it was different becasue it was authorizing rather than condemning a previous action. Either way, it is quite possible that in the near future the Court will rule on the validity of retroactive laws once again.

Trevman v. UberKruX (Case #3, no link)
Constitution: OldCon
Issue: Validity of a poll.
Ruling: Dismissed but in favor of UberKruX.
Concurrences: Captain, Epistax, jdjdjd (wrote opinion), Trip, and notyoueither
Dissentions: None
Abstentions: None
Precedent or Other Importance: The ruling was that unofficial polls never have any legal power and thus are always invalid. With the clear definition of Senate Bills in the NewCon though, this is no longer applicable.

Togas v. MrWhereItsAt (Case #4, no link)
Constitution: OldCon
Issue: President MrWhereItsAt's violation of the orders of Foreign Advisor Togas.
Resolution: In favor of Togas but a consent agreement was made to take no action.
Concurrences: Epistax, jdjdjd, notyoueither (wrote opinion), and Sheik (wrote second opinion)
Dissentions: None
Abstentions: Kramerman
Precedent or Other Importance: Sheik's opinion stated that "any other infractions may be followed up with more severe action," setting a precedent for punishments of presidents violating orders. However, notyoueither stated that "the Court has not examined all possible avenues of argument in this case," suggesting that future similar cases could result in different judgments. Either way, this case's precedent was more or less eliminated by the NewCon's changing of the President's requirements of following orders.

Mr. Orange v. Reddawg (Case #5, http://apolyton.net/forums/showthre...&threadid=66698)
Constitution: OldCon
Issue: The legality of Reddawg's persistent criticism of an analysis done by Mr. Orange.
Resolution: In favor of Mr. Orange on one charge and against on the rest but no action was taken.
Concurrences: kring, Nimitz, notyoueither (wrote opinion), and Sheik (except in libel charge)
Dissentions: Sheik (libel charge only, wrote opinion)
Abstentions: Kramerman
Precedent or Other Importance: This case is most likely the most significant one that has come before the Court since its creation. The majority opinion stated that "accusations of wrong doing which are baseless and persistent shall be actionable against the accusor in this court." Furthermore, the Court ruled that "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." This precedent of common law opens the way for other doctrines not mentioned anywhere in the Constitution to be followed. However, the Court later said that "An official can be impeached only if they have violated the Code of Laws." Whether this would include a violation of common law is uncertain. On the other hand, the Court ruled in favor of Reddawg on another charge and set the precedent that "Being in error" does not violate the Constitutional ban on giving "false information given to the public." The Court also ruled that censure is not a form of punishment, but seemed to implicitly agree with Reddawg that the Court does not have the power to punish people except in impeachment cases. This is also an interesting precedent which does not seem to be overturned anywhere in the NewCon. Lastly, the Court ruled that it has the power to interpret the rules of Apolyton, particularly in the matter of when free speech is protected, saying that "The g0dz do not trouble themselves with all affairs of men; this Court does, so far as they concern the nation of Apolytonia." Overall, the precedents set by this decision are still standing, for nothing addressing any part of it is in the NewCon.

E_T & GhengisFarb (Issue #1, no link)
Constitution: NewCon
Issue: The results of the Term VI Domestic Minister were tied and the Court investigated as required by the NewCon.
Resolution: E_T was declared the victor.
Concurrences: Sheik (wrote opinion), Nimitz, notyoueither, kring
Dissentions: None
Abstentions: Kramerman
Precedent or Other Importance: The ability to withdraw from an election after the elections are posted was established, for that is what GhengisFarb did. However, the Court did not estblish a system for resolving tied elections.

UnOrthOdOx v. Thud (Case #6, http://www.apolyton.net/forums/show...&threadid=70754)
Constitution: NewCon
Issue: UnOrthOdOx called for the impeachment of Thud for neglecting his duties.
Resolution: Accusation withdrawn.
Concurrences: NA (opinion written by GodKing)
Dissentions: NA
Abstentions: NA
Precedent or Other Importance: The Court did not rule whether Thud's actions were impeachable offenses. Because the game was never delayed, the decision seemed to sympathize with Thud, but no precedent was set.

civman2000 v. ManicStarSeed (Case #7, http://apolyton.net/forums/showthre...&threadid=71705)
Constitution: NewCon
Issue: Constitutionality of a law forfeiting the rights of Senators to bring a case against the Term VI Administration for violating a certain law.
Resolution: In favor of civman2000.
Concurrences: GodKing (wrote opinion), Sheik, Nimitz, notyoueither, and Togas
Dissentions: None
Abstentions: None
Precedent or Other Importance: The Court recognized the right of all citizens to bring a case before the Court, and the illegality of pardoning people by denying this right. However, it did not rule on the issue of retroactive approval of actions (as opposed to retroactive condemnation, which was ruled illegal in skywalker v. Timeline and also in Article V, Section 3, Clause (a) of the NewCon) or the possibility of impeachment of those no longer in office, although the latter was resolved in DAVOUT v. Aggie et al. Lastly, the Court implicitly established a precedent of invalidating an entire law if one section is found unconstitutional.

DAVOUT v. Aggie et al. (Case #8, http://apolyton.net/forums/showthre...&threadid=72175)
Constitution: NewCon
Issue: DAVOUT called for the impeachment of Aggie, Arnelos, and Togas as a result of the decision in civman2000 v. ManisStarSeed.
Resolution: In favor of Aggie et al.
Concurrences: GodKing (wrote opinion), ??Sheik, Nimitz, notyoueither, and Togas??
Dissentions: None
Abstentions: None
Precedent or Other Importance: The Court ruled that officials may not be impeached after they leave office. This resolved an unresolved question of civman2000 v. ManicStarSeed.

skywalker v. Arnelos et al. (Case #9, http://apolyton.net/forums/showthre...&threadid=73076)
Constitution: NewCon
Issue: The legality of a veto alleged to be too late.
Resolution: In favor of Arnelos et al.
Concurrences: jdjdjd (wrote opinion?), Nimitz, and GodKing(wrote second opinion)
Dissentions: Sheik (wrote opinion) and Togas (wrote second opinion)
Abstentions: None
Precedent or Other Importance: First of all, this case is important because it is the first time the Court has ever split 3-2. The closeness of this case could have had interesting repercussions if Aro had decided to not reappoint Nimitz or Sheik, and future judicial appointments could be based on this (as Arnelos's Term VII appointments were partially made to try to overturn Mr. Orange v. Reddawg). The other important precedent involves the supremacy of real life. All five justices, concurring and dissenting, agreed that real life takes precedent over the game. This precedent is thus unanimously set and will most likely stand until the end of the game. However, exactly what real life's supremacy means was interpreted differently. The Majority ruled that "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." Thus it seems that the litmus test for determining whether real life excuses a technical violation of law or the Constitution is whether the spirit of the law and Constitution was violated as well. The dissenters, on the other hand, said that "The veto is invalid because it missed the deadline" and "the veto is invalid, but certainly not illegal." Thus it seems that the veto did not violate the spirit of the Constitution, according to the Minority it violated the letter of it and thus must still be considered invalid. Justice Togas, in a separate dissenting opinion, strengthened this hairsplitting argument by adding that the veto could have been made without Arnelos's presence. One other small precedent that could be set is siding with the defendant on the grounds that a case is frivolous. Although the frivolousness was only one of many reasons cited in the Majority Opinion, it was mentioned. Overall, the only permanent and certain precedent set by this is likely to be the supremacy of real life. Exactly how supreme it is has been shakily established by the "spirit of the Constitution" test, but this is not only a vague criterion that will require court interpretation, but also something only agreed to by 3/5 of the Court, a figure that very well may change as a result of future elections, although with the reappointment of Nimitz it should be here to stay for at least a month.

civman2000 v. Thud (Case #10, http://apolyton.net/forums/showthre...&threadid=73973)
Constitution: NewCon
Issue: The consitutionality of a law allowing Senate meetings to make laws and the laws created in one such meeting.
Resolution: In favor of civman2000 but in favor of Thud in that "poll" can be interpreted loosely.
Concurrences: Togas (wrote opinion), Sheik (except on definition of a poll), jdjdjd (wrote second opinion), and GodKing
Dissentions: Sheik (only on definition of a poll, wrote opinion)
Abstentions: Nimitz
Precedent or Other Importance: First of all, the Court ruled in favor of Thud (though Sheik dissented on this) and said that "The Constitution is not requiring that only the Apolyton boards be used" to make polls. This opens the way for future new methods of making laws, even though the specific one in question was invalidated. Indeed, given that the Court's only reason for invalidating Thud's bill was that the bill did not include all the Constitutional requirements, it would be quite easy to make a new bill for Senate Meetings that required the proposed bills to be posted 72 hours in advance and specified "a viable 'write in' system to allow senators who cannot attend the meeting casting their votes" that would be legal, although requiring 72 hours of advance notice would defeat the purpose of having meetings. Overall, although the Court shot down Thud's Senate Meeting law, it actually facilitated future similar measures by saying what wouild be required and validating general definitions of "polls."

Last edited by civman2000 on 22-01-2003 at 23:19

	15-01-2003 04:49									#2
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

Civman this is awesome!

	15-01-2003 06:31									#3
	Support Apolyton

Excellent work civman - though there were other matters found in favor of Reddawg, and I consider a win for our team, even though the Court found it to be libel. There was the thing about ministers having to distinguish official threads from unofficial threads, too.

No its not an ego thing...or is it...

	15-01-2003 07:22									#4
	Full PM-box? Change here!

In Case #1, Unorthodox was the party asking that the poll be found invalid as a repoll. The Court ultimately sided with him and passed on the abstain issue entirely.

This is a very interesting thread that took a lot of work to produce I can't say you're dead-on with all of your analysis, but you do a good job of spelling out all of the old cases.

One thing you should do is include the Case # of each case, as naming the cases by the parties hasn't really been used in the past and the names of the cases are somewhat confusing ... in many cases the actual party didn't argue the case, a representative for the party did. As in case #1, Unorthodox brought suit against Timeline. I took up the defense, but wasn't a party to the suit.

--Togas

	15-01-2003 07:25									#5
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by jdjdjd Excellent work civman - though there were other matters found in favor of Reddawg, and I consider a win for our team, even though the Court found it to be libel.

I wouldn't have found it libel ... it'll be interesting to see what would happen if a similiar case came before The Court with jdjdjd and myself now as judges.

--Togas

	15-01-2003 07:47									#6
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

civman2000,
Great work . This is an excellent resource, and it was quite enjoyable reading your analysises of each case. I can't wait to see your writeup of case 9, whatever the result may be .

quote: Originally posted by Togas I wouldn't have found it libel ... it'll be interesting to see what would happen if a similiar case came before The Court with jdjdjd and myself now as judges. --Togas

I personally suspected as much. I think it'll be very interesting when the next libel case comes to the court .

-- adaMada

	15-01-2003 08:05									#7
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by Togas I wouldn't have found it libel ... it'll be interesting to see what would happen if a similiar case came before The Court with jdjdjd and myself now as judges.

Yes... considering that that was a precipitating reason why I appointed you and jdjdjd to the Court... it would be interesting to see how a similar case would be handled.

	16-01-2003 03:24									#8
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

perhaps this should be put in the directory...

BTW, after the upcoming busy weekend (for me) I hope to add things like a list of all the justices and their votes.

	16-01-2003 03:57									#9
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by civman2000 perhaps this should be put in the directory...

Done.

	16-01-2003 18:58									#10
	Got spare money?

hi ,

this should be put in the top of the court

thanks civman

have a nice day in court

	18-01-2003 07:36									#11
	Get a bigger avatar today!

Analysis of Case 9 is up! Comments? Questions? And yes, I do realize that I'm going to have to rewrite it after the election and the upcoming judicial (re-)appointments.

Last edited by civman2000 on 18-01-2003 at 07:59

	19-01-2003 12:35									#12
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

One thing that we could really use is a listing showing which Judges were appointed (and reappointed) by which Presidents in which terms. Seems like every month we have to scramble through the threads to find out who's term is up and who's serving the tail end of someone else's term.

--Togas

	19-01-2003 13:54									#13
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by civman2000 Analysis of Case 9 is up! Comments? Questions?

I made some comments in the threads Citizens against Court case 9.

	19-01-2003 18:48									#14
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Case 9 summary changed because of end of elections and DAVOUT's comments.

Plans: By Wednesday I hope to have the vote of each decision and who wrote the opinions up. By Saturday I hope to have a list of the judges, when they served, who they were appointed by, the decisions they were involved in, and if they're no longer in office why they left the court.

	20-01-2003 02:31									#15
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by Togas One thing that we could really use is a listing showing which Judges were appointed (and reappointed) by which Presidents in which terms. Seems like every month we have to scramble through the threads to find out who's term is up and who's serving the tail end of someone else's term. --Togas

- Sheik's term is up, as I think he was appointed by MrWIA
- I think GodKing was appointed my Aggie, meaning his term is up in a month
- I think Nimitz was also appointed by Aggie, meaning his term is up in a month
- Togas was appointed by myself, meaning he has 2 more months
- jdjdjd was appointed by myself, meaning he has 2 more months (he's completing the term of notyoueither, also appointed by me)

So, to sum up:

Sheik (appointed by MrWIA) - term is up
GodKing (appointed by Aggie) - one month
Nimitz (appointed by Aggie) - one month
Togas (appointed by Arnelos) - two months
jdjdjd (appointed by Arnelos) - two months

Aro can either re-appoint Sheik or appoint his replacement. I already PMed Aro with this information yesterday, so he knows what's up.

Let me know if the list above is wrong, but I think I got it right.

We might very well be more on top of things than you thought

	20-01-2003 02:48									#16
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

My list (which is derived from the Term 7 Directory, and will be going in the Term 8 Directory) says Nimitz's term is also up this month. Don't know which is correct; but I got the list for the Term 7 Directory from GodKing.

Edit: And IIRC, last turnchat I was attended, Nimitz himself said his term was ending along with Sheik's, so this definitely needs to be worked out.

	20-01-2003 02:54									#17
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Kloreep My list (which is derived from the Term 7 Directory, and will be going in the Term 8 Directory) says Nimitz's term is also up this month. Don't know which is correct; but I got the list for the Term 7 Directory from GodKing. Edit: And IIRC, last turnchat I was attended, Nimitz himself said his term was ending along with Sheik's, so this definitely needs to be worked out.

This can be resolved very quickly... I'm just going to look back about ~60 days and see if Nimitz was appointed at the same time as GodKing or not.

Looking now...

	20-01-2003 02:57									#18
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Easy enough to find out.

http://www.apolyton.net/forums/show...&threadid=65818
Nimitz was appointed by MWIA, meaning that this is his last term. MWIA and Arnelos double appointments, so Aggie made a single one. Since we have five justices, every third term there will only be a single appointment. The next single appointment term will be next month.

(I might be wrong about the above, but that's what I think -- I'm very unsure)

-- adaMada

EDIT: Was incorrect about some of single/double appointment terms after reviewing what Arnelos posted; fixed now.

Last edited by adaMada on 20-01-2003 at 03:13

	20-01-2003 03:01									#19
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Found 'em...

Sheik was appointed by MrWIA 3 months ago (his term is up) in this thread

Nimitz was appointed by MrWIA 3 months ago (his term is up) in this thread

GodKing was appointed by Aggie 2 months ago (1 month left) in this thread

Togas was appointed by myself 1 month ago (2 months left) in this thread

jdjdjd was appointed by myself within the past month in this thread to finish the term of notyoueither, who I appointed 1 month ago in this thread. jdjdjd thus has 2 months left of what was originally notyoueither's term.

----------------

So, yes, Nimitz's term is indeed up.

Last edited by Arnelos on 20-01-2003 at 03:08

	20-01-2003 03:13									#20
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

If civman2000 wants to use those links I just dug up, no problem. Same if someone wants to put them in the Court thread or the directory.

	21-01-2003 02:56									#21
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

Votes and opinion authors are up! I have two questions though:
1. Was Case 8 unanimous? It seems to be implied in the decision, but there may have been an abstention so please someone in the court let me know about this.
2. Who wrote the primary concurring opinion in Case 9, jdjdjd or Nimitz?

	22-01-2003 07:14									#22
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

Bump, i still need the above questions answered. Also, Case 9 has been updated because of Aro's reappointments of Sheik and Nimitz.

	22-01-2003 23:20									#23
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

Case 10 is up! Comments?

	23-01-2003 08:11									#24
	Got spare money?

You won! Pointlessly! Yah!

	26-01-2003 18:51									#25
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

I've been busy so I haven't been able to put information on the judges up (for the old ones it takes a lot of drudging through old threads, though the old directories are helpful)...hopefully sometime this week I'll get that done.