- Joined
- Sep 14, 2024
- Messages
- 175
1. None. The property the plaintiff owned was charged with Failure to Monitor and Failed Inspection.
2. Yes, the plaintiff was responsible for the propere, thus its fines.
Case: Pending Aero Nox v. Ministry of Urban Development (2026) CV 23
- Thread starter Aero
- Start date
2. Yes, the plaintiff was responsible for the propere, thus its fines.
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2025
- Messages
- 417
- Thread Author
- #42
1. In Exhibit P-001 you state, "No information is being hidden. You can determine all information required from public information." Where can someone find the publicly available record of fines levied against Plaintiff for the fines you've mentioned?
2. In Exhibit P-001 Plaintiff asked, "2. How many industrial property owners have been fined by MUD?" You answered, "2. Zero, all industrial property owners have been feed using /fee was used. Not /fine. Additionally the IRA refers to these as penalties." Do you still believe this to be factually correct given the testimony you provided to the Court?
2. In Exhibit P-001 Plaintiff asked, "2. How many industrial property owners have been fined by MUD?" You answered, "2. Zero, all industrial property owners have been feed using /fee was used. Not /fine. Additionally the IRA refers to these as penalties." Do you still believe this to be factually correct given the testimony you provided to the Court?
- Joined
- Sep 14, 2024
- Messages
- 175
1. https://cityrp.org/forums/industrial-inspections.91/
2. Yes, i used /fee on every property owner. I did not use /fine. As the owner is not receiving a fine, the property itself holds the fine, the owner(s) are feed as to not imply they are guilty of crime since the IRA runs with the land. This is an administrative fee taken from the owner, and applied to the fine of the property, since the property cannot have /fine used on it.
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2025
- Messages
- 417
- Thread Author
- #44
I don't see any record of fines in the forum you linked. Can you provide a concrete example of what you mean?
You were asked previously "Was Plaintiff fined for those charges?" You answered "Yes, the plaintiff was responsible for the propere, thus its fines."
You have testified that you have fined Plaintiff as part of your enforcement, which is consistent with how the text of the Act defines these penalties. A fact which the Court affirmed.
Why do you now claim that these are administrative fees, in direct contradiction of your previous testimony and the Court's ruling?
- Joined
- Sep 14, 2024
- Messages
- 175
The court did not affirm this, in fact your motion to compel in response to the monetary fine was denied. If you dont understand how it was cleared up thats on you. As the court understood it clearly.
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2025
- Messages
- 417
- Thread Author
- #46
MOTION TO COMPEL
Your Honour, the witness has not addressed to first question.
Additionally, we ask the Court to clarify for the witness that by affirming that the offenses in Section 4 of the original Industrial Regulation Act were ruled to be crimes committed by a property owner, it follows that the penalties for those crimes are fines. This fact is supported by the text of the Act, which clearly refers to them as fines:
We, therefore, have no choice but to also ask to Court to compel the witness to answer both questions.
Your Honour, the witness has not addressed to first question.
Additionally, we ask the Court to clarify for the witness that by affirming that the offenses in Section 4 of the original Industrial Regulation Act were ruled to be crimes committed by a property owner, it follows that the penalties for those crimes are fines. This fact is supported by the text of the Act, which clearly refers to them as fines:
We, therefore, have no choice but to also ask to Court to compel the witness to answer both questions.
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2025
- Messages
- 69
The Defendant has 48 hours to respond to this motion before the court rules on it.
In the meantime, the time remaining for Plaintiff's questioning is paused. Questioning may resume after this motion has been ruled on.
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2025
- Messages
- 69
While we await the motion response of the Defendant, the court has a question of its own for the witness, in the pursuit of truth.
Minister Russel, do Ministers of Azalea Isles ordinarily have access to the
I ask this because your witness testimony places significance on your choice to use the
Minister Russel, do Ministers of Azalea Isles ordinarily have access to the
/fine command?I ask this because your witness testimony places significance on your choice to use the
/fee command, instead of /fine, but I do not recall having access to /fine, when I served as a Minister prior to my appointment to the District Court.- Joined
- Sep 14, 2024
- Messages
- 175
No, it is to my understanding that only the MoJ has access to /fine. Whilst /fee is intended for other ministries to use. Though there is no documentation to support this anywhere. I believe I had the permission for /fine due to unrelated matters. /fee would have been the only way for a MUD minister to administer this fee. I've been avoiding bringing this up as it seems... "Technical" (ORP)
- Joined
- Sep 14, 2024
- Messages
- 175
Additionally to clarify, there is no official documentation on what /fine is for versus /fee. Only community sentiment so it makes it actually hard to distinguish what the point of these two commands are when there is nothing telling us anywhere what they are used for in any form of official guidance.
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2025
- Messages
- 43
Your Honour,
The defendant DISAGREES with the motion to compel made by the plaintiff.
While the witness did NOT provide an exact link to this information this information is publicly available. The witness should not have to do unnecessary research for the plaintiff. The witness provided a link to property inspections.
The plaintiff could easily determine the amount of fees given by:
- Going to the link given by the witness
- Going to the original bill section 4 and searching under the fees section in which the plaintiff had already done
- Calculating total amount of penalty given for each property
The defendant DISAGREES with the motion to compel made by the plaintiff.
While the witness did NOT provide an exact link to this information this information is publicly available. The witness should not have to do unnecessary research for the plaintiff. The witness provided a link to property inspections.
The plaintiff could easily determine the amount of fees given by:
- Going to the link given by the witness
- Going to the original bill section 4 and searching under the fees section in which the plaintiff had already done
- Calculating total amount of penalty given for each property
- Joined
- Dec 24, 2025
- Messages
- 29
Your honor,
Due to Mr. Cookie's resignation from all his Ministry of Justice positions, I shall be taking on this case.
Phoenix Flamesong
Deputy Minister of Justice
Due to Mr. Cookie's resignation from all his Ministry of Justice positions, I shall be taking on this case.
Phoenix Flamesong
Deputy Minister of Justice
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2025
- Messages
- 69
Ruling on Motion to Compel
The court notes that the motion response from the Defendant does not address the reasoning raised by the Plaintiff for motioning to compel.
Plaintiff's Motion refers to a question addressed to the Plaintiff which did not receive an answer, and a second question aimed at an alleged contradiction in testimony on which the witness evaded answering by making a statement regarding prior court ruling instead.
The motion response provided by the Defense instead addresses a broader topic of the case, which is not directly relevant to this Motion to Compel.
The court agrees that the witness did not answer the first question ("Can you provide a concrete example of what you mean?").
On the second question ("Why do you now claim that these are administrative fees, in direct contradiction of your previous testimony and the Court's ruling?"), the witness only responded with a countering statement regarding "the Court's ruling" without answering the actual question.
In light of these considerations, the court grants the Plaintiff's requested Motion to Compel.
Mr. Russel is hereby ordered to answer the two previously mentioned questions within the next 48 hours. Failure to comply may result in being charged with civil or criminal Contempt of Court. If extenuating circumstances may prevent a response within this time frame, the witness may request an extension from the court.
On the requested clarification
Plaintiff appears to be referencing this court's ruling in this case from May 3rd, which clarified that the crimes listed in the original Industrial Regulation Act (which is the relevant version for the purposes of this case) were "[...] crimes committed by a property owner against the property.", not committed by a property.
The original Industrial Regulation Act also explicitly refers to the financial penalties associated to those section 4 crimes as "fine". There appears to be no ambiguity that those financial penalties were by law criminal fines, not fees.
The Defense may, of course, present any reasons why they should be considered fees after all, as part of future motions/objections or within their Closing Statement.
Lastly, it should be noted that the May 10th ruling on Plaintiff's Motion to Compel did not rule the witness's answer objectively correct, but merely that it was an acceptable witness answer due to seemingly containing the witness's belief and information as they understood it and referring to actions taken prior to the court's interpreting May 3rd ruling.
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2025
- Messages
- 69
The court acknowledges the substitution of Defendant's Counsel.
- Joined
- Sep 14, 2024
- Messages
- 175
Question Can you provide a concrete example of what you mean?
Answer
Question Why do you now claim that these are administrative fees, in direct contradiction of your previous testimony and the Court's ruling?
Answer
There is no contradiction occurring. The property owner is solely responsible for the properties compliance. This would include cover the cost of the fine. But the property owner cannot be fined for it directly as this would not properly execute the IRA law, as the property itself holds the industrial crimes as they run with the land. Thus the property owner is fee FOR the fine. Which all funds are then used to cover the fine FOR the property. As the property owner is solely responsible for the compliance, they do NOT hold the crime. Industrial crimes in the IRA run with the land. If you choose to conflate the property owner as receiving the fine for the crime that was simply be incorrect. They receive and did receive a fee to cover the fine. Again the property owner was never charged with a crime they were charged a monetary fine which to form of a FEE. All funds were directed towards the properties crime. Since the property itself had committed a crime.
You have undeniable evidence that this is the case, as if you look in game at the plaintiffs criminal record, there is NO record of any of the claimed industrial crimes. Undeniable proof that this is not a crime charged against the person, rather the property. And you can find the record of any given industrial crime on the properties inspection. This is the only place where you can find such record.
Here is the an example property that failed its very first inspection.
Here is that same property failing a follow up inspection, pay close attention to the Current Crimes. Note how in the first report it held no crimes. Then on the second report, it held the crimes from the prior inspection. Clearly outlining that the crime runs with the land, and never changes with a change of ownership. It is clear, beyond a reasonable doubt because of these reasons, that these crimes cannot apply to an individual and never have.
@jotoho I ask the judge to monitor my reply and ensure the same question is not asked of me again, especially if its only slightly different. As i have been asked the same question worded slightly differently and i keep giving the same response. I wish to not waste the courts time and my own time. Anytime spent answering the same question over and over again is time taken from my family. I ask that this be respected.