CoS M.2
For your viewing pleasure, here is the relevant section of CoS M.2.
Code:
M. Judicial Review
2. Judicial Review of a Proposed Law
a. As citizens, the members of the Judiciary should be
active during any discussion of a new law.
b. Once a final proposal has been made and agreed upon
for a proposed Law, the Chief Justice should post in
the discussion thread that the Judiciary will review
the law and the text of the law to be reviewed.
c. The Judiciary will then meet privately to discuss the
law.
d. If the proposed law passes review, the Chief Justice
shall post the poll for the proposed law in the Poll
sub-forum.
1. A majority of Justices must agree that the proposed
law does not conflict with any existing law or
constitutional article for it to pass review
e. If the proposed law does not pass review, the Chief
Justice shall post in the discussion thread the
reasons for the rejection.
1. Should a poll already be posted for this proposal,
the poll is deemed void.
Nowhere in this standard does it require a public record of the results of the Judicial Review, other than in the form of the Chief Justice posting the ratification poll.
Given that a ratification poll was posted, it is evident that a Judicial Review must have been conducted, and the proposed law passed review.
The only plausible conclusion to be drawn is that CJ Ravensfire and AJ Peri must have met and agreed that the law was OK, and AJ donsig missed out somehow on that review.
Unless Peri steps forward to say that no review was held, there is no basis in law to do anything other than assume this law was reviewed.
Although no provision is made in the standard, the principle of free speech permits donsig to state his disagreement with the review, if he so chooses.
Even if Peri agrees that no review was held, this would not invalidate the poll. The review has to "not pass", that is "fail", in order for the poll to be invalidated. The standard explicitly plans for polls which have already been conducted being retroactively invalidated, but does not put a timeframe on
when the review must be conducted.
Has anything been done by this court that was legal? Even when things are done illegally, this court claims they are legal. 
