1. What law, government policy, or action (taken by a government official) do you request that the Court review?
Court ruling number 44 (2015), On RA Oversight of the North Pacific Armed Forces.
2. What portions of the Constitution, Bill of Rights, Legal Code, or other legal document do you believe has been violated by the above? How so?
Chapter 7 of the Legal Code, specifically Section 7.6. The law regarding the Regional Assembly’s oversight of NPA operations and the latter’s reporting requirements to the former has been comprehensively amended by the Regional Assembly over the years since the original ruling. As a result, the ruling relies on outdated provisions contrary to presently existing law, and its imposed reporting requirement is in conflict with the same.
3. Are there any prior rulings of the Court that support your request for review? Which ones, and how?
Court ruling number 41 (2015), On Recognizing Outdated Rulings, establishes the precedent for acknowledging obsolete rulings to be no longer in effect, as a result of subsequent legislation superseding the language that they relied on at the time. This was further reinforced by Court ruling number 72 (2023), On Defunct Rulings, which establishes the ability for the Court to render previous Court rulings defunct as precedent due to subsequent legislation superseding them when targeted by an R4R. The Court has also recently reversed some of its arbitrarily imposed restrictions on the NPA as observed in Court ruling number 84 (2024), On the Reconsideration of the Constraints of the NPA while on Joint Raiding Operations, when it overturned a previous ruling that restricted the NPA’s ability to participate in joint raiding operations.
4. Please establish your standing by detailing how you, personally, have been adversely affected. If you are requesting a review of a governmental action, you must include how any rights or freedoms of yours have been violated.
Standing derives from my position as Court Examiner, as defined in Section 3.6, Clause 25 of the Legal Code: “The Court Examiner will have standing in all cases of judicial review brought before the Court.”
5. Is there a compelling regional interest in resolving your request? If so, explain why it is in the interest of the region as a whole for your request to be decided now.
This ruling relies on legal provisions that no longer exist and imposes a new reporting requirement for the NPA ex nihilo without any constitutional or legal principle or basis, which is a usurpation of the Regional Assembly’s powers to make laws and regulate the NPA, and contrary to the Court’s standing principles against legislating from the bench as expressed in Court ruling number 75 (2023), On Resolving Ambiguity in the Absence of Subordinate Rules for Government Bodies:
The Regional Assembly has reasserted its authority in this area by ratifying subsequent legislation that expanded and clarified the extent of its oversight over the NPA. It is therefore in the region’s best interests that the ruling is rendered defunct for the sake of consistent law, sound jurisprudence, and continued enforcement of the separation of powers as outlined in the Constitution.
6. Do you have any further information you wish to submit to the Court with your request?
No.
Court ruling number 44 (2015), On RA Oversight of the North Pacific Armed Forces.
2. What portions of the Constitution, Bill of Rights, Legal Code, or other legal document do you believe has been violated by the above? How so?
Chapter 7 of the Legal Code, specifically Section 7.6. The law regarding the Regional Assembly’s oversight of NPA operations and the latter’s reporting requirements to the former has been comprehensively amended by the Regional Assembly over the years since the original ruling. As a result, the ruling relies on outdated provisions contrary to presently existing law, and its imposed reporting requirement is in conflict with the same.
3. Are there any prior rulings of the Court that support your request for review? Which ones, and how?
Court ruling number 41 (2015), On Recognizing Outdated Rulings, establishes the precedent for acknowledging obsolete rulings to be no longer in effect, as a result of subsequent legislation superseding the language that they relied on at the time. This was further reinforced by Court ruling number 72 (2023), On Defunct Rulings, which establishes the ability for the Court to render previous Court rulings defunct as precedent due to subsequent legislation superseding them when targeted by an R4R. The Court has also recently reversed some of its arbitrarily imposed restrictions on the NPA as observed in Court ruling number 84 (2024), On the Reconsideration of the Constraints of the NPA while on Joint Raiding Operations, when it overturned a previous ruling that restricted the NPA’s ability to participate in joint raiding operations.
4. Please establish your standing by detailing how you, personally, have been adversely affected. If you are requesting a review of a governmental action, you must include how any rights or freedoms of yours have been violated.
Standing derives from my position as Court Examiner, as defined in Section 3.6, Clause 25 of the Legal Code: “The Court Examiner will have standing in all cases of judicial review brought before the Court.”
5. Is there a compelling regional interest in resolving your request? If so, explain why it is in the interest of the region as a whole for your request to be decided now.
This ruling relies on legal provisions that no longer exist and imposes a new reporting requirement for the NPA ex nihilo without any constitutional or legal principle or basis, which is a usurpation of the Regional Assembly’s powers to make laws and regulate the NPA, and contrary to the Court’s standing principles against legislating from the bench as expressed in Court ruling number 75 (2023), On Resolving Ambiguity in the Absence of Subordinate Rules for Government Bodies:
The Regional Assembly has reasserted its authority in this area by ratifying subsequent legislation that expanded and clarified the extent of its oversight over the NPA. It is therefore in the region’s best interests that the ruling is rendered defunct for the sake of consistent law, sound jurisprudence, and continued enforcement of the separation of powers as outlined in the Constitution.
6. Do you have any further information you wish to submit to the Court with your request?
No.
