Case: Pending Aero Nox v. Ministry of Urban Development (2026) CV 23

[Aero]

Closing Statement

Your Honour,

The legal question at hand in this matter is simple. Did the Ministry of Urban Development provide complete and accurate answers to the questions posed by the plaintiff in their FOI request? The answer is clearly no.

The Court has already clarified two important things:

1. That the crimes in Section 4 of the original Industrial Regulation Act are "crimes committed by a property owner".

The original Industrial Regulation Act explicitly said that "Failed Inspection" was a crime "committed by a property owner", not the property.

While the definition for "Failure to Monitor" was less explicit, §4.a referred to the category of offenses under section 4 as a whole as "offense against a property". It is customary for such wording to be read as 'committed' against a property. (examples: "Crimes Against Persons", "Crimes Against Property", "Crimes Against the Government" from the New Criminal Code Act)
Under this context, the court finds that it would be nonsensical to interpret "Failure to Monitor" in such a way to be a crime committed by the property against itself, or in such a way that would imply non-sentient property to be capable of criminal action or inaction.
The most logical conclusion is that, like "Failed Inspection", "Failure to Monitor" was a crime committed by the property owner.

Finally, while evidence of legislative intent may be considered on a case-by-case basis to guide interpretation of truly ambiguous wording in legislation, it does not supersede the contents of the legislation. The court additionally needs to consider that while Mr. Russel is the author of the original Industrial Regulation Act, he is also, as current Minister of Urban Development, a signing authority of the Defendant, indicating a likely conflict of interest.

This court respectfully denies to rule Industrial Crimes under the pre-amendment IRA as "crimes against property owners".
Instead, this court rules that they were crimes committed by a property owner against the property.

2. That the penalties for said crimes are clearly defined as fines in Section 4 of the original Industrial Regulation Act.

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.

Minister Russell even admitted that he fined the plaintiff as a direct result of the criminal offenses in Section 4 of the Industrial Regulation Act.

2. Was Plaintiff fined for those charges?

2. Yes, the plaintiff was responsible for the propere, thus its fines.

So, it could not be clearer. The answer to the FOI question "How many industrial property owners have been fined by MUD?" is at least one industrial property owner has been fined. Definitely not zero.

Then there's the question of whether this information was a matter of public record. When asked to show the Court where the public record of fines levied against the plaintiff, Minister Russell answered with a link to the industrial inspection reports.

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?

1. https://cityrp.org/forums/industrial-inspections.91/

Your Honour, those inspection reports do not contain a record of fines levied against plaintiff. They may show what the government intends to do, but they are not a record of the act of fining someone. To my knowledge, the only record of this is the #payment-log.

And that's it, your Honour. Questions provably inaccurately answered, and no public record to be able to actually find out the correct answer to what is, ultimately, a simple question.

That's why we ask the Court to find in favour of the plaintiff in this matter.

 

[jotoho]

The Defendant is up next and has 48 hours beginning now to present their Closing Statement.