1. What law, government policy, or action (taken by a government official) do you request that the Court review?
Court ruling number 42 (2015), On the Recusal of Justice Funkadelia.
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 3 of the Legal Code, specifically Section 3.2. The law regarding the recusal of Justices due to a conflict of interest was amended by the Regional Assembly’s ratification of the COI Mark II bill after the ruling.
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Court ruling number 41 (2015), On Recognizing Outdated Rulings, establishes the precedent for acknowledging obsolete rulings to be no longer in effect, as a result of subsequent legislation superseding the language that they relied on at the time.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.
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.
The ruling uses a recusal procedure outlined in the Adopted Court Rules, now known as Court Rules and Procedures, to order the recusal of former Justice Funkadelia from an R4R due to a conflict of interest. Said procedure has been superseded by an RA amendment to Chapter 3, Section 3.2 of the Legal Code, which includes a new recusal process for Justices without the need to file a separate R4R. Thus, requesting a Justice’s recusal by filing a separate R4R is no longer a legally prescribed method, which means that both the ruling and the Court-mandated procedure are in conflict with presently existing law. In the interests of legal clarity, procedural consistency, and a coherent application of the law, both the ruling and the Court-mandated procedure in the Court rules should be struck down in favour of the Legal Code's process.
6. Do you have any further information you wish to submit to the Court with your request?
No.
Court ruling number 42 (2015), On the Recusal of Justice Funkadelia.
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 3 of the Legal Code, specifically Section 3.2. The law regarding the recusal of Justices due to a conflict of interest was amended by the Regional Assembly’s ratification of the COI Mark II bill after the ruling.
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.
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.
The ruling uses a recusal procedure outlined in the Adopted Court Rules, now known as Court Rules and Procedures, to order the recusal of former Justice Funkadelia from an R4R due to a conflict of interest. Said procedure has been superseded by an RA amendment to Chapter 3, Section 3.2 of the Legal Code, which includes a new recusal process for Justices without the need to file a separate R4R. Thus, requesting a Justice’s recusal by filing a separate R4R is no longer a legally prescribed method, which means that both the ruling and the Court-mandated procedure are in conflict with presently existing law. In the interests of legal clarity, procedural consistency, and a coherent application of the law, both the ruling and the Court-mandated procedure in the Court rules should be struck down in favour of the Legal Code's process.
6. Do you have any further information you wish to submit to the Court with your request?
No.
