The Court

[H Tower]

Let's go with what locutus said. It's basically what i've been trying to get across but failing at.

So all we need to do know is get the article dealing with the judges written up in legalise so that the peopel can vote on whether or not to accept it.

[Pedrunn]

Locutus (after all you posted the last update and was the one that most commented this article),
An update would be nice

[Locutus]

Bah, I started writing an update but I don't think I'll be able to finish it tonight. Will post it later or tomorrow...

[Gilgamensch]

sounds OK for me as well

But we should really start to define a term............

For keeping track for the cases:

Why not having a seperate thread with your social solution? All cases will be put on there with the result. Any dismissed cases will be removed...... This way nobody would really need to keep track off, just one place to look for

[Locutus]

That was what I had in mind:

Originally posted by me about 2 weeks ago
Just post in the first post of the judicial thread that it's not allowed to discuss matters, just to file cases (after which the senior justice will be the only one that's allowed to respond). Posts that violate this rule (which will no doubt apply to a bunch of other threads as well) are deleted. Repeat offenders will face punishment (people get banned for doing something they were told not to do all the time, Ming won't hesitate to use his banning rod there). I don't foresee any problems there.

[...]

We probably need to have 2 judicial threads anyway: one to file and respond to cases, one to keep a log of the cases and other important activities of the court (several cases and other activities can be filed at once so doing both in one thread would be messy). So you have a whole thread dedicated to dealing with this issue, might as well use it If the Court explains the rules for submitting cases in the thread, I don't expect that much will go wrong. It's not like people will be filing cases on a daily basis (I hope).

Article update will follow in a few minutes (unless something comes up)...

[Locutus]

Article: The Court

1. Purpose:

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

2. Construct of the Court:

(a) The Court is composed of 3 Judges who will serve a three month term of office. There is no limit to the number of terms a Judge may serve.
(b) Each Judge has to be elected by the people in a seperate election poll. Every month one of the Judge positions shall be open for election. This positition shall be the one of the Judge who has reached the end of his term.
(c) The moment the election of a Judge position starts, shall be the moment on which the Judge who enters the last month of his term becomes the Senior Justice.
(d) Section 2(c) only applies to regular elections at the end of a Judge's term. It does not apply to elections that take place to replace impeached Judges. Impeached Judges shall serve for the remainder of the term that their predecessor was serving. If the Senior Justice was impeached, the new Judge shall become the Senior Justice. If another Judge was impeached, the Senior Justice shall keep his position.
(d) A Judge may not serve in other governmental posts.

3. Cases:

(a) The Court can only rule on cases filed. A case may be filed by any citizen who is not a Judge, by publically notifying the Senior Justice. This case must involve a dispute that the Court is empowered to rule upon.
(b) The Senior Justice will either accept or deny the case. This decision cannot be appealed. If the case is denied, the Senior Justice will publically inform the filer of the case, explaining the reason for the denial.
(c) Upon acceptance the Senior Justice is to open a thread with the description of the case. A public hearing will be held in that thread lasting three days.
(d) After three days, the thread will be closed and the Senior Justice will organize the Court's ruling. At least two Judges must vote on any ruling that is made. All rulings are immediately official and final as soon as two Judges have voted in favour of it.
(e) The only possibilty of an appeal is a lawsuit poll put up by the citizen that filed the case or by a Minister or by the President. In that case, the current verdict is placed on hold until after the appeal is voted upon. The ruling of the Court is declared void if 2/3 of the votes disapproves of it.
(f) If a ruling is declared void by appeal, a new public hearing will be held in accordance with sections 3(c), 3(d) and 3(e), with the exception that the public hearing may be closed in less than three days if the Court deems this appropriate.

4. Rights and responsibilities:

(a) The Court may make its own rules of procedure and enforce them upon citizens who are before it.
(b) The Court will keep a record of all disputes, issues, and hearings before the Court. The Court will also keep a public record of the Constitution in its most current form. The Court may appoint a Clerk of the Court to keep these records.
(c) If the Court rules that the actions of certain Citizens are in violation with the Constitution or other rules of Lemuria|Apolymuria, it may hand out punishments to these Citizens if it deems this appropriate. The Court will determine for itself what kind of punishment is applied, the punishment must fit the crime. However, no punishments may permanently affect a Citizens participation in the Democracy Game and the Court may not dismiss active members of government (although it is allowed to start up impeachment procedures as described in Article V).
(d) Punishments the Court hands out must include but are not limited to: warnings, impeachment procedures, barring Citizens from specific or any government offices in future elections, banning Citizens from the Democracy Game, declaring resolutions void, closing threads or polls, deleting or editing posts or threads, declaring polls invalid. Punishments which require action from the CtP2-Democracy Game forum moderator must be approved by this moderator, who shall offer an explanation to the Court if approval is not given.
(e) The Court may issue an injunction to halt any aspect of the game for up to 72 hours if at least two Judges agree to do so. Injunctions may only be issued for good cause. An injunction may only be continued beyond 72 hours if all three Judges agrees to do so. An injunction may be overturned at any time by a majority of the Court.

---


Changes: section 2 and 4 were radically changed, in section 3(f) I added a line to deal with appeals faster if the outcome is obvious.

This hasn't been updated in ages and I had to fill in a lot of the details on my own, so I'm sure there will be a lot to discuss...

[Gilgamensch]

Good job Locutus,

But for 3 b:
Why not giving the 'leader' the possibility/power to overrule the court, meaning a case will have to be opened anyway.

For punishment: Should we not give the 'leader' the possibility to (sh.... missing the right word here) 'free' the convict?

Otherwise (again) good job

[J Bytheway]

Originally posted by Locutus
Article: The Court

1. Purpose:

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

Possibly I'm being overly picky, but I think we should really only be considering legal disputes which are internal to the game, rather than all those involving it.

2. Construct of the Court:

(d) Section 2(c) only applies to regular elections at the end of a Judge's term. It does not apply to elections that take place to replace impeached Judges. Impeached Judges shall serve for the remainder of the term that their predecessor was serving. If the Senior Justice was impeached, the new Judge shall become the Senior Justice. If another Judge was impeached, the Senior Justice shall keep his position.

I assume you really mean:

(d) Section 2(c) only applies to regular elections at the end of a Judge's term. It does not apply to elections that take place to replace impeached Judges. The replacement for an impeached Judge shall serve for the remainder of the term that their predecessor was serving. If the Senior Justice was impeached, the new Judge shall become the Senior Justice. If another Judge was impeached, the Senior Justice shall keep his position.

4. Rights and responsibilities:

(a) The Court may make its own rules of procedure and enforce them upon citizens who are before it.

It shouldn't be necessary really, but it might be a good idea to clarify this by adding "so long as such rules are in accordance with the constitution".

(b) The Court will keep a record of all disputes, issues, and hearings before the Court. The Court will also keep a public record of the Constitution in its most current form.

You don't need to say most current, there can only be one current form.

(e) The Court may issue an injunction to halt any aspect of the game for up to 72 hours if at least two Judges agree to do so. Injunctions may only be issued for good cause. An injunction may only be continued beyond 72 hours if all three Judges agrees to do so. An injunction may be overturned at any time by a majority of the Court.

This power goes beyond the purpose as set out in section 1, doesn't it?

You might also wish to add a note that the court may not alter the constitution (which they might concievably wish to do as a punishment).

[Locutus]

Regarding 1 and 4(b) and 4(e), those are straight copy-pasts from the C3DG Constitution, so I blame adaMada for that

2(d): obviously, will change that.

4(a): good point, will change that.

Good point on the altering of the Constitution, will add that.

I think it would be good to keep the injunction in place though, so that the President can be prevented from playing the game if people think he's out of line and needs to be stopped before he does irrepairable damage. But that's just my opinion, I don't know how others feel about it.

I'm not sure what you mean with the difference between 'involving' and 'internal to' the game (or how injunctions fit in), could you elaborate on that?

[J Bytheway]

Originally posted by Locutus
I'm not sure what you mean with the difference between 'involving' and 'internal to' the game (or how injunctions fit in), could you elaborate on that?

I mean, a case involving, but not internal to the game might be when the government of Lemuria emerges from the mythical past and sues us for stealing their name. It's not totally inconcievable that there might be a real world lawsuit involving the game, and a citizen could rightly require that the court make a ruling on it according to this constitution. Of course, that's pretty unlikely, so I think I'm being overly picky

[H Tower]

I like it, especially with all the little fixes proposed, i was going to comment on those myself but the others got to it first.

However, I think the judges should be able to strike down a new version of the constitution if they feel it contradicts itself or if for some reason, a dictatorship kind of constitution is voted for, which would violate the whole spirit of the game

[Pedrunn]

CTP2DG Constitution draft
(c) The moment the election of a Judge position starts, shall be the moment on which the Judge who enters the last month of his term becomes the Senior Justice.

What happenned to the poll among the two veteran to be senior?
Although i do believe this way is better. After all the court cant have this kind of dispute among them. They have to be friends. I am for it!

CTP2DG Constitution draft
(a) The Court can only rule on cases filed. A case may be filed by any citizen who is not a Judge, by publically notifying the Senior Justice. This case must involve a dispute that the Court is empowered to rule upon.
(b) The Senior Justice will either accept or deny the case. This decision cannot be appealed. If the case is denied, the Senior Justice will publically inform the filer of the case, explaining the reason for the denial.

What you mean by publically notify? Post in the Court's thread. You should be more specific. How many threads will the court have?

CTP2DG Constitution draft
(e) The only possibilty of an appeal is a lawsuit poll put up by the citizen that filed the case or by a Minister or by the President. In that case, the current verdict is placed on hold until after the appeal is voted upon. The ruling of the Court is declared void if 2/3 of the votes disapproves of it.

I think you mean a resolution poll as discribed in the Article II of the constitution. If so much of the info here is not needed. Otherwise we need more info about this poll (Will this be a totally new type of poll?).

[H Tower]

locutus, could you get a final draft of this ready for the people to vote on? it seems that the people want to install a court before the rest of the elections take place, so that the court could rule over the first elections and help make a fix if something goes wrong, a tie, cheating by DL's, etc. So the article about the court needs to be done so that the court and the people can point to it.

i figure we need to finish up the rest of the connie so that people can vote on that and have it finish up right before the general elections take place

[Pedrunn]

And please answer my questions
They are only misunderstoodments. Not really to be debated (tey can became though).

[Locutus]

However, I think the judges should be able to strike down a new version of the constitution if they feel it contradicts itself or if for some reason, a dictatorship kind of constitution is voted for, which would violate the whole spirit of the game

Hmm, but how should this be enforced without allowing 3 people to completely take over the game? The way I see it, anyone can propose changes to the Constitution at any point in the game (Judge or no Judge), the changes will be accepted as soon as 2/3 of the voters agree with them... I get the idea, but I don't think it's needed with our current system. Correct me if I'm wrong though...

Originally posted by Pedrunn
What happenned to the poll among the two veteran to be senior?
Although i do believe this way is better. After all the court cant have this kind of dispute among them. They have to be friends. I am for it!

John proposed this new system and I liked it Glad you agree

What you mean by publically notify? Post in the Court's thread. You should be more specific. How many threads will the court have?

Yes, post it in a Court thread, that's what I had in mind, as long as everyone can see it. That way the Court doesn't have to treat 20 similar cases at once when a problem presents itself and everyone informs the Court at the same time but in private. I think 1, maybe 2 Court threads should be enough (1 for filing and accept/refuse cases and 1 to keep an official record of events), but basically it's up to the discression of the Court, as far as I'm concerned.

I think you mean a resolution poll as discribed in the Article II of the constitution. If so much of the info here is not needed. Otherwise we need more info about this poll (Will this be a totally new type of poll?).

Hmm, a remnant of the past Yes, a resolution poll sounds good enough. Will change that.


I will make a new draft later today or tomorrow at the latest. I think for the first elections it might be best to just have me as moderator organize those and have the game start only once the entire Constitution is in place. Not sure how others feel about this though...

[Pedrunn]

John proposed this new system and I liked it Glad you agree

I agreed, it looks fine but i still have one foot steped back.

Hmm, a remnant of the past Yes, a resolution poll sounds good enough. Will change that.

Glad to hear that. I didnt want to start a "We have enough poll types already" discussion.

I think for the first elections it might be best to just have me as moderator organize those and have the game start only once the entire Constitution is in place.

I thougth that was it from the beginning

This leaves me with one doubt only:
How will the first election for the judges? One election for 1 month term, Another for the 2 month term and another for the three month term?

Or a single election which the less voted of the three chosen will have 1 month term, the most voted three month term, and the mddle one 2 month term?

Or a single election which the most voted will choose the lenght of his term, followed by second most voted and the less voted will have to accept the term left to him?

Or any other thing you have in your mind.

[Locutus]

Yup, 3 seperate Judge polls will be needed: one for a 1-month term as Supreme Judge, one for a 2-month term and one regular 3-month term. However, I don't think these short terms should count towards the limit of the number of terms though, since they're not really full terms. I considered allowing a 4-month term for the Judge who normally does 1 month but that seems too long and is bound to create all sorts of problems (who would be Senior Justice when, for example?)

Edit: no, I think there should be seperate polls, not just 1 poll. That way everyone knows exactly how long he will serve (impeachment aside) and can take this into aco**** when deciding if they want to run or not (holidays and stuff might make it impossible for people to be in office at certain times). However, people *should* IMHO be allowed to run for more than 1 Judge poll if they want to (and if they are the winner in more than 1, they have to give up one of the positions and #2 will get the seat instead).

[Locutus]

*bump*
Pedrunn, I edited my post, in case you missed it...

[Pedrunn]

No i havent missed

And it looks great this way

[Gilgamensch]

for the limit, we'll have to wait for the result of the poll

And three polls sounds best, but we shouldn't forget to mark the Senior poll as Senior, so that people keep it in mind.......

I wouldn't have any problem if Locutus as a mod would inititiate the first 'round'

[H Tower]

I figured it would be locutus from the begining too, although pedrunn would be my second choice for posting.

Could you explain how you think that a judge could run in more than one election? Wouldn't all the judges just run in every election? Because that's what I wold do then...

Another way to do it is to just have one election, and have the judges draw straws to decide who become senior, and junior grade judges. Something random.

[Gilgamensch]

For the first round, I would say:

If Locutus is being elected by the people we make him as the Senior Judge and afterwards we follow the normal procedures.......Reason being, he is 'our' mod and shall be quite neutral towards the rest of us.......

[Locutus]

I think this is just about the last update. Unless there's criticism on this or people have suggestions for grammar/spelling improvements (I'm sure there's a lot that can still be done in this area), this Article seems pretty much ready for approval. If you still want any of the contents changed, speak now... (or forever hold your peace )

---

Article: The Court

1. Purpose:

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

2. Construct of the Court:

(a) The Court is composed of 3 Judges who will serve a three month term of office. There is no limit to the number of terms a Judge may serve.
(b) Each Judge has to be elected by the people in a seperate election poll. Every month one of the Judge positions shall be open for election. This positition shall be the one of the Judge who has reached the end of his term.
(c) The moment the election of a Judge position starts, shall be the moment on which the Judge who enters the last month of his term becomes the Senior Justice.
(d) Section 2(c) only applies to regular elections at the end of a Judge's term. It does not apply to elections that take place to replace impeached Judges. The replacement for an impeached Judge shall serve for the remainder of the term that their predecessor was serving. If the Senior Justice was impeached, the new Judge shall become the Senior Justice. If another Judge was impeached, the Senior Justice shall keep his position.
(d) A Judge may not serve in other governmental posts.

3. Cases:

(a) The Court can only rule on cases filed. A case may be filed by any citizen who is not a Judge, by publically notifying the Senior Justice. This case must involve a dispute that the Court is empowered to rule upon.
(b) The Senior Justice will either accept or deny the case. This decision cannot be appealed. If the case is denied, the Senior Justice will publically inform the filer of the case, explaining the reason for the denial.
(c) Upon acceptance the Senior Justice is to open a thread with the description of the case. A public hearing will be held in that thread lasting three days.
(d) After three days, the thread will be closed and the Senior Justice will organize the Court's ruling. At least two Judges must vote on any ruling that is made. All rulings are immediately official and final as soon as two Judges have voted in favour of it.
(e) The only possibilty of an appeal is a Resolution poll put up by the citizen that filed the case or by a Minister or by the President. In that case, the current verdict is placed on hold until after the appeal is voted upon. The ruling of the Court can be declared void by means of a Resolution poll.
(f) If a ruling is declared void by appeal, a new public hearing will be held in accordance with sections 3(c), 3(d) and 3(e), with the exception that the public hearing may be closed in less than three days if the Court deems this appropriate.

4. Rights and responsibilities:

(a) The Court may make its own rules of procedure and enforce them upon citizens who are before it, so long as such rules are in accordance with the constitution.
(b) The Court will keep a record of all disputes, issues, and hearings before the Court. The Court will also keep a public record of the Constitution in its most current form. The Court may appoint a Clerk of the Court to keep these records.
(c) If the Court rules that the actions of certain Citizens are in violation with the Constitution or other rules of Lemuria|Apolymuria, it may hand out punishments to these Citizens if it deems this appropriate. The Court will determine for itself what kind of punishment is applied, the punishment must fit the crime. However, no punishments may permanently affect a Citizens participation in the Democracy Game, the Court may not dismiss active members of government (although it is allowed to start up impeachment procedures as described in Article V) and the Court may not alter the Constitution (although it is allowed to start an Amendment poll, as described in Article IV).
(d) Punishments the Court hands out must include but are not limited to: warnings, impeachment procedures, barring Citizens from specific or any government offices in future elections, banning Citizens from the Democracy Game, declaring resolutions void, closing threads or polls, deleting or editing posts or threads, declaring polls invalid. Punishments which require action from the CtP2-Democracy Game forum moderator must be approved by this moderator, who shall offer an explanation to the Court if approval is not given.
(e) The Court may issue an injunction to halt any aspect of the game for up to 72 hours if at least two Judges agree to do so. Injunctions may only be issued for good cause. An injunction may only be continued beyond 72 hours if all three Judges agrees to do so. An injunction may be overturned at any time by a majority of the Court.

[H Tower]

under duties you need to add that the court is responsible for posting election polls, as defined in the article on polls. i checked, and there is no rule on who posts nomination threads, perhaps that should be added to the court's responsibilities

and when I refer to the court, i really mean that the senior judge is responsible for posting the polls unless otherwise delegated to another judge

I. Election polls:
(a) These polls must be started by the Court. They serve to elect the persons who will fulfill the official positions of the executive and judicial branches of the government, as defined in Article IV and Article V of this Constitution.
(b) The subject line must contain the word 'ELECTION', written in capital letters, and the name of the office for which the election is held.
(c) They have to be multiple choice polls with only the names of the candidates as options. They can only be decision-making polls, they cannot be used for not information gathering.
(e) They must follow the rules as defined in Article III of this Constitution.

other than that, it looks great

[Gilgamensch]

Sorry Locutus,

I found some points to complain about ( )

(d) After three days, the thread will be closed and the Senior Justice will organize the Court's ruling. At least two Judges must vote on any ruling that is made. All rulings are immediately official and final as soon as two Judges have voted in favour of it.

Why only in favour, if a case went into a trial and the judges still decided again, it is also decided. So shouldn't we replace in favour with in favour/against it?

3f) After rethinking, I don't like the earlier closure anymore. Let's be extreme and take the situation, that somebody succeeded in the resolution poll and the court decides to close it down, like 1 hour later???? Would be according to the connie........

only a thought

4b)

Why didn't you mentioned your 'social' solution?

Thread deicated to the court only and no one else is allowed to post there?

Otherwise, no complain

[Locutus]

Gilga,
You can view rulings in 2 ways: "guilty" vs "not guilty" on the one hand and "guilty and the following action will be taken/punishment will be enforced" vs "not guilty and no action will be taken" on the other. In the former case, it's sufficient if 2 judges vote against a proposal, in the latter case, if one form of action/punishment is rejected by 2 judges, it doens't mean it's an automatic "not guilty". It could still be guilty, but with some other form of action. If it's a simple yes/no matter, a no-vote is identical to a yes vote for the opposite proposal and 2 no-votes thus equal 2 yes-votes (for the opposite proposal). If the matter is more complicated, only 2 actual yes-votes are needed. The way I see it, Judges will have to agree on (i.e. vote in favour of) a final statement, whether this is a simple "not guilty" or a whole 3-page document with explanations, recommendations and action plans.


re: social solution:

"(a) The Court may make its own rules of procedure and enforce them upon citizens who are before it, so long as such rules are in accordance with the constitution."

This includes the social solution and about a gazillion other situations in which the Court may need to lay down some basic rules to organize stuff properly. It gives the Court all the freedom it needs to do their job properly and uninterrupted (as long as they don't break any existing rules in the process).

---

Article: The Court

1. Purpose:

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

2. Construct of the Court:

(a) The Court is composed of 3 Judges who will serve a three month term of office. There is no limit to the number of terms a Judge may serve.
(b) Each Judge has to be elected by the people in a seperate election poll. Every month one of the Judge positions shall be open for election. This positition shall be the one of the Judge who has reached the end of his term.
(c) The moment the election of a Judge position starts, shall be the moment on which the Judge who enters the last month of his term becomes the Senior Justice.
(d) Section 2(c) only applies to regular elections at the end of a Judge's term. It does not apply to elections that take place to replace impeached Judges. The replacement for an impeached Judge shall serve for the remainder of the term that their predecessor was serving. If the Senior Justice was impeached, the new Judge shall become the Senior Justice. If another Judge was impeached, the Senior Justice shall keep his position.
(e) A Judge may not serve in other governmental posts.

3. Cases:

(a) The Court can only rule on cases filed. A case may be filed by any citizen who is not a Judge, by publically notifying the Senior Justice. This case must involve a dispute that the Court is empowered to rule upon.
(b) The Senior Justice will either accept or deny the case. This decision cannot be appealed. If the case is denied, the Senior Justice will publically inform the filer of the case, explaining the reason for the denial.
(c) Upon acceptance the Senior Justice is to open a thread with the description of the case. A public hearing will be held in that thread lasting three days.
(d) After three days, the thread will be closed and the Senior Justice will organize the Court's ruling. At least two Judges must vote on any ruling that is made. All rulings are immediately official and final as soon as two Judges have voted in favour of it.
(e) The only possibilty of an appeal is a Resolution poll put up by the citizen that filed the case or by a Minister or by the President. In that case, the current verdict is placed on hold until after the appeal is voted upon. The ruling of the Court can be declared void by means of a Resolution poll.
(f) If a ruling is declared void by appeal, a new public hearing will be held in accordance with sections 3(c), 3(d) and 3(e), with the exception that the public hearing may be closed in less than three days if the Court deems this appropriate.

4. Rights and responsibilities:

(a) The Court may make its own rules of procedure and enforce them upon citizens who are before it, so long as such rules are in accordance with the constitution.
(b) The Court will keep a record of all disputes, issues, and hearings before the Court. The Court will also keep a public record of the Constitution in its most current form. The Court may appoint a Clerk of the Court to keep these records.
(c) If the Court rules that the actions of certain Citizens are in violation with the Constitution or other rules of Lemuria|Apolymuria, it may hand out punishments to these Citizens if it deems this appropriate. The Court will determine for itself what kind of punishment is applied, the punishment must fit the crime. However, no punishments may permanently affect a Citizens participation in the Democracy Game, the Court may not dismiss active members of government (although it is allowed to start up impeachment procedures as described in Article V) and the Court may not alter the Constitution (although it is allowed to start an Amendment poll, as described in Article IV).
(d) Punishments the Court hands out must include but are not limited to: warnings, impeachment procedures, barring Citizens from specific or any government offices in future elections, banning Citizens from the Democracy Game, declaring resolutions void, closing threads or polls, deleting or editing posts or threads, declaring polls invalid. Punishments which require action from the CtP2-Democracy Game forum moderator must be approved by this moderator, who shall offer an explanation to the Court if approval is not given.
(e) The Court may issue an injunction to halt any aspect of the game for up to 72 hours if at least two Judges agree to do so. Injunctions may only be issued for good cause. An injunction may only be continued beyond 72 hours if all three Judges agrees to do so. An injunction may be overturned at any time by a majority of the Court.
(f) The Court is responsible for organizing elections. It shall posting election polls and nomination threads whenever this is needed, as defined in Article III and IV.

[Gilgamensch]

Locutus,

Yes and no.

This would the case for normal cases. But what about if the court has to make a general statement? This decision they take might be against the claim, but still might change the existing law a bit, or give a different aspect.

That's why I suggest it..........

[J Bytheway]

Originally posted by Locutus
(c) The moment the election of a Judge position starts, shall be the moment on which the Judge who enters the last month of his term becomes the Senior Justice.

Are you sure about this timing? Surely it should be when the current Senior Justice leaves office or, equivalently, when the new Judge takes up his position.

[Gilgamensch]

If I understood it right we'll have the following:

We have judges 1,2 and 3; 3 being the Senior.

Now it is time to re-elect 1
3 still is Senior
1 is replaced by 4

Now it is time to re-elect 2
3 stays Senior
2 is replaced by 5

Now it is time to re-elect 3
4 get's Senior
3 is replaced by 6

Now it is time to re-elect 4
5 get's Senior
4 is replaced by 7

and so on

So where is the problem ??????

PS: re-elect means not bringing the same person in, but to re-elect the office, might be the wrong word here......

[J Bytheway]

The problem is that it says the senior justice changes when the election starts, which is a week or so before the new judge is elected. It's not even clear when an election starts. Is that the beginning of the nominations, or of the election poll?