- Joined
- Sep 14, 2024
- Messages
- 136
Objection your honor.
The definitions provided are not from the IRA and do not apply to the IRA. This was completely cleared up with the amendment made to the IRA. A property owner in this case can be a company, therefore the definition provided is incorrect. I ask your honor to look at quite a few completed property inspections conducted on properties owned by various companies. RDS & Corpora. The definition provided in the NCCA does not properly allow properties without individual or "person" owners to be considered as property owners. I ask that you look at the clear intent of the bill, and furthermore evaluate how this was made painfully clear by the amendment that added a definition to this law which speaks purely to the intent of the original bill.
Definition's from the IRA which are currently in effect by Queen Eleanora of the Kingdom of Regalis
> (b) "Property" A plot or subplot that is either owned or rented by a person or entity.
> (c) "Property Owner" The person or entity who owns or rents the Property.
It is clear that if you evaluate the intent of the bill, property owner clearly means the property owner entity. There is no other logical reason for the bill to include various points affirming and enforcing the crimes to run with the land, unless it is the case that its the property itself that holds the crime.
Your honor, I ask the court to rule in whatever way the court deems as sensible and at the very least consider the unadultered intent of the bill regardless of how the plaintiff might perverse the act.
The definitions provided are not from the IRA and do not apply to the IRA. This was completely cleared up with the amendment made to the IRA. A property owner in this case can be a company, therefore the definition provided is incorrect. I ask your honor to look at quite a few completed property inspections conducted on properties owned by various companies. RDS & Corpora. The definition provided in the NCCA does not properly allow properties without individual or "person" owners to be considered as property owners. I ask that you look at the clear intent of the bill, and furthermore evaluate how this was made painfully clear by the amendment that added a definition to this law which speaks purely to the intent of the original bill.
Definition's from the IRA which are currently in effect by Queen Eleanora of the Kingdom of Regalis
> (b) "Property" A plot or subplot that is either owned or rented by a person or entity.
> (c) "Property Owner" The person or entity who owns or rents the Property.
It is clear that if you evaluate the intent of the bill, property owner clearly means the property owner entity. There is no other logical reason for the bill to include various points affirming and enforcing the crimes to run with the land, unless it is the case that its the property itself that holds the crime.
Your honor, I ask the court to rule in whatever way the court deems as sensible and at the very least consider the unadultered intent of the bill regardless of how the plaintiff might perverse the act.
