. . . .
D.C. Code § 50-2303.03 (b) (2001 & 2006 Supp.) requires that "[a] duplicate of each notice of infraction shall be served on the person to whom it is issued" and that "[t]he original or a facsimile thereof shall be filed with the Department [of Motor Vehicles]...." Pursuant to regulation, a notice of infraction may be issued from a hand-held electronic device. 18 DCMR §3000.7 (2006). 18 DCMR § 3000.9 (2006), in turn, provides that "[u]ploading of the data contained in hand-held electronic devices into the automatic ticket database shall be deemed the filing of a facsimile with the Department . . . ." Mr. Dorsey complains that this regulation violates the statute because the detailed printout produced by the data base is not an "exact copy" of the notice of infraction.
. . . .
Many of Mr. Dorsey's complaints are generalized, and we will not consider them because he has not alleged injury in fact. See generally York Apartments Tenants Ass'n v. District of Columbia Zoning Comm'n, 856 A.2d 1079, 1084 (D.C. 2004) (discussing the requirements for standing). The complaint does identify three parking tickets he received, and he does have standing to complain about them. Yet, so far as the complaint alleges or we could discern from oral argument, Mr. Dorsey did not appear at a hearing to contest those tickets. Moreover, he did not move to set aside the default judgments entered against him. He stated that he had concluded from years of experience that it would be futile to move to vacate those judgments.
. . . .
D.C. Code § 1-301.42 (2001) provides that "[f]or any speech or debate made in the course of their legislative duties, the members of the Council shall not be questioned in any other place." Patterned after the Speech or Debate Clause of the Constitution, Art. I, § 6, cl. 1, this statute was enacted in part to provide Council members with the same protection afforded to members of Congress "against civil actions and criminal prosecutions that threaten to delay and disrupt the legislative process." COUNCIL OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY AND CRIMINAL LAW, REPORT ON BILL 1-34, THE "LEGISLATIVE PRIVILEGE ACT OF 1975," at 2 (Dec. 4, 1975). See Gross v. Winter, 277 U.S. App. D.C. 406, 414-15, 876 F.2d 165, 173-74 (1989) (discussing purpose of D.C. statute, which previously was codified at D.C. Code § 1-223 (1981)).
. . . .
A published opinion or order of this court may be cited in any brief. Unpublished orders or opinions of this court may not be cited in any brief, except when relevant (1) under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel; (2) in a criminal case or proceeding involving the same defendant; or (3) in a disciplinary case involving the same respondent.
. . . . All citations to cases decided by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit shall include the volume number and page of both U.S. App. D.C. and the Federal Reporter.
Note: The format of citations in the published opinions of the D.C. Court of Appeals is the subject of a detailed guide, Citation and Style Guide (2009), http://www.dccourts.gov/internet/documents/RevisedCitationGuide2009.pdf.