Request for Review: Violation of Review Requirements

[SillyString]

Edit: pending

Spoiler

I hereby request that the Court review the following action by a government official:

Thank you for your request.

I accept this review and will be moderating Justice. There will be a period of five days allotted for the submission of briefs on this issue.

I believe that the above action has violated the following portion of the Constitution:

Article 5. The Court

1. The Court will try all criminal cases, resolve conflicts or ambiguities in the law, and review the constitutionality of laws or legality of government policies by request of an affected party.

I believe that it has violated the Constitution in the following way: This request was accepted despite the petitioner having no standing to make the request. Although the petitioner cites the Adopted Court Rules stating that anybody may submit a request, the petitioner does not establish standing to make this particular request as required by law.

I believe that the above action has additionally violated the following portion of the Constitution:

4. The official opinion of the Court in any trial or review will be binding on all Government bodies and officials.

I believe that it has violated the Constitution in the following way: By accepting this request for review, a single justice has attempted to overturn a ruling issued by the court, a ruling which is legally binding on all government officials up to and including the court.

I cite the following ruling by the Court in support of my request, issued by Justice Abbey Anumia on 2013-04-22:

The Court opines that an affected party, with respect to one's the ability to request judicial review, is someone who reasonably perceives that their rights have been infringed through action or inaction undertaken by a governmental body or bodies. An affected party also include those affected, adversely or otherwise, by laws passed by the regional assembly and policies enacted by the executive and judicial branches of government.

The affected party must detail in their review request the rights they perceive have been violated and/or the laws put asunder showing a clear connection between the law and how they are personally affected in the situation.

This ruling supports my request in the following way: The petitioner makes no claim of having had their rights infringed, either by inaction or action, nor having been adversely affected by laws passed by the RA or policies enacted by the executive or judicial branches. Additionally, within the request for review, the petitioner did not detail any rights of theirs that were violated, nor how any laws broken personally affected them in this situation. Accepting this request without any of the required information is a violation of the law and of the constitution.

I additionally cite the following ruling by the Court in support of my request, issued by Justice Gaspo on 2013-02-20:

The Court does not believe, however, that precedent may be overturned sua sponte (unilaterally, at the Court's discretion, without an action being brought), nor do we believe that precedent may be disregarded unless it is conclusively overturned.

This ruling supports my request in the following way: Not only has the acceptance of the standingless request violated the Constitution, it is also entirely inappropriate under the binding rulings of the Court. As this cited ruling makes clear, the Court may overturn precedent (specifically, in this case, what counts as an affected party) only as a full panel, and only in response to a specific challenge over what constitutes standing. An individual justice may not do so, nor may the Court do it sua sponte, without being in blatant violation of the law.

As a member of the Attorney General's office, I have legal standing to request this review.

I additionally request that DD recuse himself from this review, and that the Court refrain from moving forward on the illegal review until this has been resolved.