Official Removal Process - Revision history

Mr Fox at 23:38, 1 August 2026

2026-08-01T23:38:18Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:38, 1 August 2026
Line 80:		Line 80:
	While it may seem counterintuitive to potentially impeach the outgoing senior ''Branch Official'', there is a year or more prior to the newly elected candidate actual filling the seat, so it may be in the best interest of the ''Branch'' personnel to still remove someone early. Additionally, this means there is no place for a lame duck official in the Liminal State, and this system encourages all officials to finish the final years in their seats just as actively as their first.		While it may seem counterintuitive to potentially impeach the outgoing senior ''Branch Official'', there is a year or more prior to the newly elected candidate actual filling the seat, so it may be in the best interest of the ''Branch'' personnel to still remove someone early. Additionally, this means there is no place for a lame duck official in the Liminal State, and this system encourages all officials to finish the final years in their seats just as actively as their first.

	To calculate the grade that each ''Branch Official'' receives every four years, divide the the number of votes against impeachment to the number of votes for. The greater the result, the better that official is doing. If they receive a number less than one, then they lose their seat.		To calculate the grade that each ''Branch Official'' receives every four years, divide the the number of votes against impeachment to the number of votes for. The greater the result, the better that official is doing. If they receive a number less than one, then they lose their seat. This differs from ''Executive Group'' member impeachment in that there is no requirement of a minimum number of voters, as it's expected that ''Branch Elections'' will naturally garner high engagement.
	Example 1: Out of 5000 votes cast, 1000 votes are against impeachment and 250 are for. That means 1000 / 250 = 4 (the seat of this ''Branch Official'' is safe).		Example 1: Out of 5000 votes cast, 1000 votes are against impeachment and 250 are for. That means 1000 / 250 = 4 (the seat of this ''Branch Official'' is safe).

Mr Fox at 22:07, 31 July 2026

2026-07-31T22:07:26Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:07, 31 July 2026
Line 81:		Line 81:

	To calculate the grade that each ''Branch Official'' receives every four years, divide the the number of votes against impeachment to the number of votes for. The greater the result, the better that official is doing. If they receive a number less than one, then they lose their seat.		To calculate the grade that each ''Branch Official'' receives every four years, divide the the number of votes against impeachment to the number of votes for. The greater the result, the better that official is doing. If they receive a number less than one, then they lose their seat.
	Example 1: Out of 5000 votes cast, 1000 votes are against impeachment and 250 are for. That means 1000 / 250 = 4 (the seat of this ''~~Top~~ Branch Official'' is safe).		Example 1: Out of 5000 votes cast, 1000 votes are against impeachment and 250 are for. That means 1000 / 250 = 4 (the seat of this ''Branch Official'' is safe).

	Example 2: Out of 5000 votes cast, 250 votes are against impeachment and 1000 are for. That means 250 / 1000 = 0.25 (this ''~~Top~~ Branch Official'' has lost their seat).		Example 2: Out of 5000 votes cast, 250 votes are against impeachment and 1000 are for. That means 250 / 1000 = 0.25 (this ''Branch Official'' has lost their seat).
	This method is used because it's not good enough to be be okay in this position. If a ''Branch Official'' is only getting by and isn't actively engaging with personnel within their ''Branch'' and generating good will during their tenure, then they will likely get few people to vote against impeachment. That means that even a low number of votes in favor of impeachment can unseat a mediocre official.		This method is used because it's not good enough to be be okay in this position. If a ''Branch Official'' is only getting by and isn't actively engaging with personnel within their ''Branch'' and generating good will during their tenure, then they will likely get few people to vote against impeachment. That means that even a low number of votes in favor of impeachment can unseat a mediocre official.

Mr Fox at 22:07, 31 July 2026

2026-07-31T22:07:02Z

Show changes

Mr Fox at 17:34, 31 July 2026

2026-07-31T17:34:51Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:34, 31 July 2026
Line 19:		Line 19:
	=== '''Path 2: Death, Loss of Mental Facilities, Missing Person, etc.''' ===		=== '''Path 2: Death, Loss of Mental Facilities, Missing Person, etc.''' ===
	# The two remaining ''Top Branch Officials'' must be in agreement and ''Record'' their vote to proceed. Following a successful vote, their request will be automatically presented to the ''Enforcement Agency'' of the ''Justice Branch''.		# The two remaining ''Top Branch Officials'' must be in agreement and ''Record'' their vote to proceed. Following a successful vote, their request will be automatically presented to the ''Enforcement Agency'' of the ''Justice Branch''.
	# The ''Enforcement Agency'' of the ''Justice Branch'' will provide an ''Independent Investigation'' of the situation. Their focus will be to ensure the situation meets the criteria for this ''Resignation Path'', which is that the person is physically or mentally unable to fulfill their role and it is unlikely that resolution will come within 10 days. They may include the expertise of any ''~~Lateral~~ Branches'' or ~~other~~ specific ''Departments'' to support the investigation.		# The ''Enforcement Agency'' of the ''Justice Branch'' will provide an ''Independent Investigation'' of the situation. Their focus will be to ensure the situation meets the criteria for this ''Resignation Path'', which is that the person is physically or mentally unable to fulfill their role and it is unlikely that resolution will come within 15 days. They may include the expertise of any ''Branches'' or specific ''Departments'' to support the investigation.
	# Based on the evidence gathered from the ''Independent Investigation'', the three ''Top Justice Branch Officials'' will vote, with a simple majority deciding the outcome.		# Based on the evidence gathered from the ''Independent Investigation'', the three ''Top Justice Branch Officials'' will vote, with a simple majority deciding the outcome.
	## This assumes the official to be removed does not belong to the ''Justice Branch''.		## This assumes the official to be removed does not belong to the ''Justice Branch''.

Mr Fox at 23:34, 30 July 2026

2026-07-30T23:34:20Z

Show changes

Mr Fox at 19:04, 29 July 2026

2026-07-29T19:04:50Z

Show changes

Mr Fox at 20:01, 28 July 2026

2026-07-28T20:01:45Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:01, 28 July 2026
Line 42:		Line 42:

	=== '''Path 4: Defiance of Guidance''' ===		=== '''Path 4: Defiance of Guidance''' ===
	The Executive Group can only recommend the removal of Top Branch Officials for unlawfully defying guidance, therefore this method does not apply to ~~independent branches~~, such as the Justice Branch.		The ''Executive Group'' can only recommend the removal of ''Top Branch Officials'' for unlawfully defying guidance, therefore this method does not apply to ''Independent Branches'', such as the ''Justice Branch''.

	# The first step requires at least four members of the Executive Group to vote in favor of removing a ~~branch~~'s Top Branch Officials.		# The first step requires at least four members of the ''Executive Group'' to vote in favor of removing the ''Top Branch Officials'' from a ''Branch.''
	# Upon as successful vote, the Justice Branch'~~s Enforcement Agency~~ is tasked with investigating the matter in a neutral way. They must determine ~~two~~ parts to continue:		## They may only remove all ''Top Branch Officials'' at the same time.
	## The directions of the Executive Group were lawful, clear, possible, and should have been able to be followed by the Top Branch Officials.		## The ''Executive Group'' may not single out specific ''Top Branch Officials'' to remove.
	## The directions of the Executive Group were not carried out, either intentionally, by inaction, not in spirit, or otherwise in such a way as to circumvent the express directions of the Executive Group.		# Upon a successful vote by the ''Executive Group'', the ''Enforcement Agency'' of the ''Justice Branch'' is tasked with investigating the matter in a neutral way. They must determine the following parts to continue:
	# If ~~both~~ parts are true:		## There was one or more specific directions by the ''Executive Group'' that were not followed.
	## The Justice Branch'~~s Enforcement Agency~~ next investigates the actions and ~~voting reports~~ of each of the indicted Top Branch Officials.		## The directions of the ''Executive Group'' were lawful, clear, possible, and should have been able to be followed by the ''Top Branch Officials''.
	## They will also interview the ~~Top~~ Branch Officials and compile additional evidence to support the justification of the Top Branch Officials actions or inactions.		## The directions of the ''Executive Group'' were not carried out, either intentionally, by inaction, not in spirit, or otherwise in such a way as to circumvent the express directions of the ''Executive Group'' - the ''Top Branch Officials'' are solely responsible for ensuring their ''Branch'' follows the directions of the ''Executive Group.''
	# Following the completion of these steps, all information compiled by the Justice Branch'~~s Enforcement Agency~~ will be made available to ~~all~~ Top Branch Officials, along with ~~details~~ of the Executive Group's indictment.		# If all parts are true:
	## The Top Branch Officials will have 30 days to review all the information, independently ask any additional questions of the Executive Group or the indicted Top Branch Officials (though ~~they~~ are forbidden from discussing ~~among~~ themselves, ~~even~~ with the ~~other Top Officials within their own branch)~~.		## The ''Enforcement Agency'' of the ''Justice Branch'' next investigates the actions and ''Decision Basis'' of each of the indicted ''Top Branch Officials''.
	## At the conclusion of the 30 days, all Top Branch Officials, excluding the ~~accused branch~~, will cast their votes to determine what actions, if any, will take place.		## They will also interview the T''op Branch Officials'' and compile additional evidence to support the justification of the ''Top Branch Officials'' actions or inactions.
	### ~~The fate of each indicted Top Branch Official will be individually considered.~~		# Following the completion of these steps, all information compiled by the ''Enforcement Agency'' of the ''Justice Branch'' will be made available to the ''Top Branch Officials'' of all ''Branches'', along with entirety of the ''Executive Group's'' indictment through a ''Informed Vote Archive.''
	~~### The aggregate vote of each branch will count as one~~ vote~~, with all the votes for or against each indicted Top Branch Official tallied upon completion.~~		## The ''Top Branch Officials'' of each ''Branch'' will have 30 days to review all the information, independently ask any additional questions of the ''Executive Group'' or the indicted ''Top Branch Officials'', though the indicted ''Top Branch Officials'' are forbidden from discussing amongst themselves, with the ''Executive Group'', or via any linked personnel.
	~~### A simple majority~~ in favor of removal will cause ~~that~~ Top Branch ~~Official~~ to immediately lose their ~~seat~~.		## At the conclusion of the 30 days, all ''Top Branch Officials'', excluding those of the indicted ''Branch'', will cast their votes using the ''Aggregated Vote'' method to determine what actions, if any, will take place.
	### Per procedure, ~~the~~ Top Branch Officials ~~must officially record~~ their ~~reason for approval or descent with each vote cast~~.		### A vote in favor of removal will cause those ''Top Branch Officials'' to immediately lose their seats.
			### Per standard procedure, all ''Top Branch Officials'' will provide the ''Decision Basis'' for their votes.

	=== '''Path 5: Impeachment''' ===		=== '''Path 5: Impeachment''' ===
	The normal branch election cycle is not only used to elect a new Top Branch Official, but also an opportunity to grade all the existing Top Branch Officials on their performance thus far, and impeach if necessary. All existing Top Branch Officials are graded in this way, including the outgoing ~~Senior~~ Top Branch ~~Officials~~.		The normal branch election cycle is not only used to elect a new ''Top Branch Official'', but also an opportunity to grade all the existing ''Top Branch Officials'' on their performance thus far, and impeach if necessary. All existing ''Top Branch Officials'' are graded in this way, including the outgoing senior ''Top Branch Official''.

	While it may seem counterintuitive to potentially impeach the outgoing senior Top Branch Official, there is a year or more prior to the newly elected candidate actual filling the seat, so it may be in the best interest of the ~~branch~~ personnel to still remove someone early. Additionally, this means there is no place for a ~~Lame Duck~~ official in the Liminal State, and this system encourages all officials to finish the final years in their seats just as actively as their first.		While it may seem counterintuitive to potentially impeach the outgoing senior ''Top Branch Official'', there is a year or more prior to the newly elected candidate actual filling the seat, so it may be in the best interest of the ''Branch'' personnel to still remove someone early. Additionally, this means there is no place for a lame duck official in the Liminal State, and this system encourages all officials to finish the final years in their seats just as actively as their first.

	To calculate the grade each Top Branch Official receives every 5 years, divide the the number of votes against impeachment to the number of votes for. The greater the number, the better that official is doing. If they receive a number less than one, then they lose their seat.		To calculate the grade each ''Top Branch Official'' receives every 5 years, divide the the number of votes against impeachment to the number of votes for. The greater the number, the better that official is doing. If they receive a number less than one, then they lose their seat.
	Example 1: Out of 5000 votes cast, 1000 votes are against impeachment and 250 are for. That means 1000 / 250 = 4 (this Top Branch Official'~~s seat~~ is safe).		Example 1: Out of 5000 votes cast, 1000 votes are against impeachment and 250 are for. That means 1000 / 250 = 4 (the seat of this ''Top Branch Official'' is safe).

	Example 2: Out of 5000 votes cast, 250 votes are against impeachment and 1000 are for. That means 250 / 1000 = 0.25 (this Top Branch Official has lost their seat).		Example 2: Out of 5000 votes cast, 250 votes are against impeachment and 1000 are for. That means 250 / 1000 = 0.25 (this ''Top Branch Official'' has lost their seat).
	This method is used because it's not good enough to just do okay in this position. If a Top Branch Official is only getting by and isn't actively engaging with personnel within their branch and generating good will during their tenure, then they will likely get few people to vote against impeachment. That means that even a low number of votes in favor of impeachment can unseat a mediocre official.		This method is used because it's not good enough to just do okay in this position. If a ''Top Branch Official'' is only getting by and isn't actively engaging with personnel within their branch and generating good will during their tenure, then they will likely get few people to vote against impeachment. That means that even a low number of votes in favor of impeachment can unseat a mediocre official.

	On the other hand, an exceptional Top Branch Official will not only be doing a great job, but the staff of their ~~branch~~ will know it and be supportive of their continued term.		On the other hand, an exceptional ''Top Branch Official'' will not only be doing a great job, but the staff of their ''Branch'' will know it and be supportive of their continued term.

			In the Liminal State it's not just enough to get to the top. Those with power are expected to do great things with that power, not just hoard it. In the Liminal State only exceptional individuals that are exceptional leaders will make it to the top and stay at the top, and that's good for the entire nation.

	In the Liminal State it's not just enough to get to the top. Those with power are expected to do great things with that power, not just hoard it. In the Liminal State only exceptional individuals will make it to the top and stay at the top, and that's good for the entire nation.
	=== '''Site Navigation''' ===		=== '''Site Navigation''' ===
	''Continue Reading:''		''Continue Reading:''

Mr Fox at 19:00, 28 July 2026

2026-07-28T19:00:13Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:00, 28 July 2026
Line 31:		Line 31:
	## The ''Charging Documentation'' is anonymized.		## The ''Charging Documentation'' is anonymized.
	## All three ''Department Heads'' of all ''Charging Departments'' have voted affirmative for holding a ''No-Confidence Vote,'' with clear and valid reasons within their ''Decision Basis''.		## All three ''Department Heads'' of all ''Charging Departments'' have voted affirmative for holding a ''No-Confidence Vote,'' with clear and valid reasons within their ''Decision Basis''.
			## The ''Justice Branc''h will have 30 days to review the documentation, but should work as quickly as possible to present it to the indicted ''Top Branch Officials''.
	# The ''Justice Branch'' will present the indicted ''Top Branch Official(s)'' with the ''Charging Documentation'' only.		# The ''Justice Branch'' will present the indicted ''Top Branch Official(s)'' with the ''Charging Documentation'' only.
	~~## The ''Justice Branc''h will have 30 days to review the documentation, but should work as quickly as possible to present it to the indicted ''Top Branch Officials''.~~
	## No ''Top Branch Officials'' within the affected ''Branch'', whether indicted or not, shall be made aware of which ''Departments'' are bringing the indictment.		## No ''Top Branch Officials'' within the affected ''Branch'', whether indicted or not, shall be made aware of which ''Departments'' are bringing the indictment.
	## There will be no further interviews or communication regarding this matter between any personnel, ''Department Heads'' or ''Top Brach Officials'' within this window.		## There will be no further interviews or communication regarding this matter between any personnel, ''Department Heads'' or ''Top Brach Officials'' within this window.

Mr Fox at 18:43, 28 July 2026

2026-07-28T18:43:26Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:43, 28 July 2026
Line 14:		Line 14:

	=== '''Path 3: Department No-Confidence''' ===		=== '''Path 3: Department No-Confidence''' ===
	~~Any branch that has~~ three or more ~~permanent~~ or ~~temporary departments~~ can propose a ''~~Department~~ No-Confidence Vote''.		The ''Departments'' of a ''Branch'' with three or more ''Permanent'' or ''Temporary Departments'' can propose the removal of one or more ''Top Branch Officials'' through the process called a ''No-Confidence Vote.''

	# The ''Department Heads'' of two or more ~~departments~~ must vote in ~~unanimous agreement, along with their standard required vote reasoning~~.		''Top Branch Official No-Confidence Vote''. A ''Department'' that votes in favor of proposing a ''Top Branch Official No-Confidence Vote'' are a ''Charging Department'', and their affirmative votes result in a ''Proposed No-Confidence Vote''.
	# Each ~~charging department must compile all relevant evidence for their argument~~ of no-~~confidence~~.
	# All ~~participating departments~~ must present ~~their evidence~~ to the Justice Branch within 30 days of the conclusion of the ~~charging~~ vote~~. This information must include~~:		# The ''Department Heads'' of two or more ''Departments'' within the same ''Branch'' must vote in favor of holding a ''No-Confidence Vote.''
	## ~~Which~~ Top Branch Officials are being ~~charged~~.		## Each ''Department'' voting in favor of holding a ''No-Confidence Vote'' are called a ''Charging Department.''
	## ''Charging ~~documentation~~'' ~~that outlines the reason(s)~~ for the ~~proposed no~~-~~confidence vote~~.		## It is permissible and expected for ''Department Heads'' to communicate for this action.
	### This ~~document~~ should not include any information that identifies the ~~charging departments~~.		# All ''Charging Departments'' must present the following documentation to the ''Justice Branch'' within 30 days of the conclusion of the successful vote in favor of holding a ''No-Confidence Vote'':
	### ~~As much anonymized evidence as possible~~ should ~~be included to support~~ the ~~charge~~.		## Identify which ''Top Branch Officials'' are being indicted.
	## The ~~written basis for~~ each Department Head'~~s vote in affirmative of proposing~~ the no-~~confidence vote~~.		## ''Charging Documentation'' - compiled relevant evidence for the basis of holding a ''No-Confidence Vote.''
	# The Justice Branch will ensure the following before moving on to the next step.		### This documentation should not include any information that identifies the ''Charging Departments''.
	## The Top Branch Official(s) have been clearly identified.		### This documentation should not include any information that directly or indirectly identifies any personnel, outside the indicted ''Top Branch Officials''.
	## The ''~~charging documentation~~'' is anonymized.		## The ''Decision Basis'' from each ''Department Head'' behind the ''Proposed No-Confidence Vote.''
	## All three Department Heads of all ~~charging departments~~ have voted affirmative with clear and valid reasons.		# The ''Justice Branch'' will ensure the following before moving on to the next step:
	# The Justice Branch will present the ~~charged~~ Top Branch Official(s) with the ''~~charging documentation~~'' only.		## The indicted ''Top Branch Official(s)'' have been clearly identified.
	## The Justice ~~Branch~~ will have 30 days to review the documentation, but should work as quickly as possible to present ~~the charges~~ to the ~~affected~~ Top Branch Officials.		## The ''Charging Documentation'' is anonymized.
	## ~~The~~ Top Branch Officials ~~will~~ not be made aware of which ~~departments~~ are bringing the ~~charges~~.		## All three ''Department Heads'' of all ''Charging Departments'' have voted affirmative for holding a ''No-Confidence Vote,'' with clear and valid reasons within their ''Decision Basis''.
	# ~~The charged~~ Top Branch ~~Officials~~ will have 30 days to compile evidence and respond to the ~~charging documentation~~.		# The ''Justice Branch'' will present the indicted ''Top Branch Official(s)'' with the ''Charging Documentation'' only.
	# No later than 30 days from the ~~charging documentation~~ being presented to the ~~affected~~ Top Branch Official(s) ~~there will be a vote among all the Departments Heads within the branch to decide the outcome of the no-confidence vote~~.		## The ''Justice Branc''h will have 30 days to review the documentation, but should work as quickly as possible to present it to the indicted ''Top Branch Officials''.
	## The ~~charging documentation~~ and the Top Branch Official(s) ~~response~~ will be put in a ~~Branch archive~~ for review by all Department Heads.		## No ''Top Branch Officials'' within the affected ''Branch'', whether indicted or not, shall be made aware of which ''Departments'' are bringing the indictment.
	## ~~The~~ Heads ~~of all departments~~ within that ~~branch~~ will ~~vote, with~~ the ~~aggregated decision~~ of each ~~department counting as one vote towards~~ the ~~total tally~~.		## There will be no further interviews or communication regarding this matter between any personnel, ''Department Heads'' or ''Top Brach Officials'' within this window.
	## ~~A simple majority of of all branch departments must~~ vote in ~~favor of the no-confidence decision for~~ the immediate removal of ~~the~~ Top Branch Official~~(s)~~.		# Each indicted ''Top Branch Official'' will have 30 days to compile evidence and respond to the provided ''Charging Documentation''.
			# A ''No-Confidence Vote'' will be held no later than 30 days from the ''Charging Documentation'' being presented to the indicted ''Top Branch Official(s).''
			## The ''Charging Documentation'' and the response(s) of the ''Top Branch Official(s)'' will be put in a ''Informed Vote Archive'' for review by all ''Department Heads'' prior to the vote.
			## All ''Departments Heads'' within that ''Branch'' will decide the outcome of each indicted ''Top Branch Official'' using the ''Aggregated Vote'' method.
			## Each affirmative vote will result in the immediate removal of that ''Top Branch Official''.

	=== '''Path 4: Defiance of Guidance''' ===		=== '''Path 4: Defiance of Guidance''' ===

Mr Fox at 01:59, 28 July 2026

2026-07-28T01:59:10Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:59, 28 July 2026
Line 1:		Line 1:
	Should office fitness of a Top Branch Official ever be in question, there are several paths available for immediate removal.		Should office fitness of a ''Top Branch Official'' ever be in question, there are several paths available for immediate removal.

	=== '''Path 1: Death, Loss of Mental Facilities, Missing Person, etc.''' ===		=== '''Path 1: Death, Loss of Mental Facilities, Missing Person, etc.''' ===
	# The two remaining Top Branch Officials must be in agreement and then present their request to the Justice Branch'~~s Enforcement Agency~~.		# The two remaining ''Top Branch Officials'' must be in agreement and then present their request to the ''Enforcement Agency'' of the ''Justice Branch''.
	# The Justice Branch'~~s Enforcement Agency~~ will ~~investigate~~ the situation.		# The ''Enforcement Agency'' of the ''Justice Branch'' will provide an ''Independent Investigation'' of the situation.
	# Based on the evidence gathered from the investigation, the three Top Justice Branch Officials will vote, with a simple majority deciding.		# Based on the evidence gathered from the investigation, the three ''Top Justice Branch Officials'' will vote, with a simple majority deciding.
	## This ~~is assuming~~ the official to be removed does not belong to the Justice Branch.		## This assumes the official to be removed does not belong to the ''Justice Branch''.
	## In the ~~case~~ of a Top Justice Branch Official'~~s removal~~, based on the evidence gathered from the investigation ~~a simple majority of the Executive Group~~ will decide the outcome.		## For the removal of a ''Top Justice Branch Official'', a simple majority vote by the ''Executive Group,'' based on the evidence gathered from the investigation, will decide the outcome.

	=== '''Path 2: Office Misuse, Criminal Activity, etc.''' ===		=== '''Path 2: Office Misuse, Criminal Activity, etc.''' ===
	# Anyone within the branch or with information regarding official misconduct of one or more Top Branch Officials may present their concern to the Justice Branch'~~s Enforcement Agency~~ (anonymously, if desired).		# Anyone within the branch or with information regarding official misconduct of one or more ''Top Branch Officials'' may present their concern to the ''Enforcement Agency'' of the ''Justice Branch'' (anonymously, if desired).
	# The Justice Branch'~~s Enforcement Agency~~ will ~~investigate~~ the allegations.		# The ''Enforcement Agency'' of the ''Justice Branch'' will provide an ''Independent Investigation'' of the allegations.
	# Based on the evidence gathered from the investigation, the Justice Branch will hold a ~~general branch vote~~, independently evaluating each ~~accused~~ Top Branch Official~~, with a simple majority deciding~~. If a Top Justice Branch Official is the target of the investigation, then the Top Branch Officials will recuse themselves of the branch vote and the Executive Group will vote in their place.		# Based on the evidence gathered from the investigation, the ''Justice Branch'' will hold a ''General Branch Vote'' using a simple majority, independently evaluating each indicted ''Top Branch Official''. If a ''Top Justice Branch Official'' is the target of the investigation, then the ''Top Branch Officials'' of the ''Justice Branch'' will recuse themselves of the branch vote and the ''Executive Group'' will vote in their place.

	=== '''Path 3: Department No-Confidence''' ===		=== '''Path 3: Department No-Confidence''' ===
	Any branch that has three or more permanent or temporary departments can propose a "Department No-Confidence Vote."		Any branch that has three or more permanent or temporary departments can propose a ''Department No-Confidence Vote''.

	# The Department Heads of two or more departments must vote in unanimous agreement, along with their standard required vote reasoning.		# The ''Department Heads'' of two or more departments must vote in unanimous agreement, along with their standard required vote reasoning.
	# Each charging department must compile all relevant evidence for their argument of no-confidence.		# Each charging department must compile all relevant evidence for their argument of no-confidence.
	# All participating departments must present their evidence to the Justice Branch within 30 days of the conclusion of the charging vote. This information must include:		# All participating departments must present their evidence to the Justice Branch within 30 days of the conclusion of the charging vote. This information must include: