Case: Pending Kendall Hamilton v. Azalea Isles CV 26

[xXLordLyonXx]

Kendall Hamilton, Plaintiff

v.

Azalea Isles, Defendant


Civil Complaint:
The Plaintiff opened a ticket with the Ministry of Urban Development on February 2nd, to paste in his build across b048, b050, and b051. Plaintiff requested the build be tendered on March 15th. It has been more than two months since this initial request was made, and the Ministry of Economic Affairs has failed to do the cost calculation and tendering to allow the build to be pasted in, including publicly stating the refusal had to do with the Plaintiff being on LoA.

This failure by the Ministry of Economic Affairs to do the tenders is a violation of the Government fulfilling their responsibilities, and has cost the Plaintiff significant revenue that he would have otherwise received from rents, shops, and planned projects in the build.


Parties:
Plaintiff - Kendall Hamilton
Plaintiff's Counsel - Lysander Lyon
Defendant - Azalea Isles


Factual Allegations:
(1) Plaintiff opened his first ticket to request the paste on February 2nd (Exhibit B).
(2) Plaintiff made a request for his build to be tendered on March 15th, confirmed by the MUD Minister Nanicholls Nanicholls (Exhibit B).
(3) Plaintiff’s paste was not tendered.
(4) Plaintiff’s ticket was closed by the Ministry of Urban Development during reorganizing and review under a new MUD Minister, Octavian Russell (Exhibit B).
(5) Plaintiff opened the correct new ticket on April 29th (Exhibit D).
(6) The MUD Minister gave the MEA the block list that same day (Exhibit D).
(7) The paste has still not been tendered, or even cost calculated.
(8) The Minister of Economic Affairs has publicly stated he is “Not tendering for someone who doesnt play and is on loa for 2 more months.” (Exhibit A)
(9) There is no MEA policy about leaves of absence affecting the paste tender process.
(10) The cost calculation/tender process has been the duty of the Minister of Economic Affairs for the duration of multiple MUD and MEA Ministers’ terms, as is explictly assigned to the MEA under Section 7(a)viii of the Governing Structure Act.
(11) Another citizen, Iturgen Bolir, is not on a Leave of Absence, and has had his cost calculation done and tenders posted (Exhibit E).
(12) Plaintiff was unable to use his plots for planned store rentals, apartments, and a casino, and has lost significant revenue as a result.
(13) To demonstrate this revenue loss, Plaintiff hosted one of his planned casino games that has been delayed by this project on the evening of May 21st. Plaintiff made approximately $56,000 in cash profit and also won four plots, which were accepted as bets, offered at $45,000 each, on this one night he hosted the game (Exhibit F).


Legal Claims:
(1) Citizens have a reasonable expectation that Ministries will fulfill their legally assigned obligations, particularly where it impacts citizen services facilitated by the Government, and failure by a Ministry to do so creates standing for claims. A citizen's pastes being held up by a Ministry, particularly where the law clearly dictates responsibilities to the Ministry it is not fulfilling, creates a clear claim and standing.

(2) Regardless of the specific amount of time that should be considered reasonable or timely, the Plaintiff’s wait cannot be considered either.

(3) The MEA’s extended failure to provide Plaintiff the cost calculation and tendering violates Article I of the Constitution, in light of the Minister’s claim that Plaintiff’s Leave of Absence means he will not have tenders or cost calculating done. There is no MEA policy that declares this, and as such, Plaintiff is unconstitutionally being treated as different from other citizens who had their pastes processed.

(4) The extended failure to provide cost calculation and tendering not only creates standing for this claim, but also for damages. Plaintiff has been unable to utilize his plots, which could otherwise have been actively receiving rent, selling items, or taking in revenue from Plaintiff’s planned projects.

This is clearly demonstrated by Plaintiff’s one singular test night, which earned him $236,000 in profit, counting the plots. Over sixty days (allowing 8-9 days for tendering), that would be $14,160,000 in earned revenue. Now, the Plaintiff recognizes not every single day would make that much. Instead, for the sake of reasonable compensation, the Plaintiff is asking for just 5% of that single day’s figure to be considered reasonable daily revenue from the casino, $11,800 per day, which still comes out to $708,000.

We understand this is a significant sum, but Plaintiff’s test for just one single night and one single game clearly proves that he has lost revenue well into the six figures because of the Government's, and specifically the Ministry of Economic Affairs', failure to complete their legal responsibility of tendering his plots. We ask Your Honor to factor that in when reviewing the Prayer for Relief.


Prayer For Relief:
(1) Compensatory damages in the amount of at least $1,000 per week the case goes on, in accordance with Section 2(a) of the Damages Reform Act.

(2) Compensatory damages in the amount of up to $15,000 for lost rental revenues, accounting for the Plaintiff’s inability to use his plots and earn revenue from planned shop and apartment rentals.

(3) Compensatory damages in the amount of up to $708,000 for lost business revenues, to account for an extremely low valuation of Plaintiff’s lost revenue from his planned casino business for the plots.

(4) Punitive damages in the amount of $25,000, to account for constitutional violations in how the Plaintiff was treated, and for the significant length of time Plaintiff has waited without the process being done.

(5) A Writ of Mandamus compelling the Ministry of Economic Affairs to complete and return the cost calculation to the Plaintiff within seven calendar days of a verdict being returned in favor of the Plaintiff.

(6) A Writ of Mandamus compelling the Ministry of Economic Affairs to complete the tendering process in entirety, including collecting items, within fourteen calendar days of the Plaintiff responding to the MEA-provided cost calculation with approval to tender, or a specific subset of blocks to tender.



Verification:
I, Lysander Lyon, hereby affirm that the allegations in the complaint AND all subsequent statements made in court are true and correct to the best of the plaintiff's knowledge, information, and belief and that any falsehoods may bring the penalty of perjury.

Evidence:
All Exhibits should be attached to this filing. There should be 6 - two images and four PDFs. Please let me know if any are not open-able. Exhibit E can also be found here - https://cityrp.org/threads/i021-paste.3483/

 

[xXLordLyonXx]

Exhibit E is attached to this reply as an image, since the original PDF failed to upload.

 

[MilkCrack]

Writ of Summons

Azalea Isles District Court, Civil Case (CV)

Case No. CV-26-26​

Plaintiff: Kendall Hamilton
Defendant: Azalea Isles

​

The Defendant is required to appear before the court in the case of Kendall Hamilton v. Azalea Isles. Failure to respond within 48 hours may result in a default judgement. Both parties are asked to familiarize themselves with the relevant court documents, including proper formats, as well as the laws referenced in the complaint. Ensure that you comply with any court orders.

Please indicate in your response whether you wish to conduct the proceedings in person at the Azalea Courthouse. If you do not wish to hold the trial at the Azalea Courthouse, you must also state this in your response. The Court will try to work with both parties to hold live hearings at convenient times.

​

Signed,
Hon. Judge Milk Crack

 

[Phoenix Flamesong]

Your Honor,

The Azalea Isles Government represented by the Ministry of Justice is present and Prosecutor Alexander Davis will be working as prosecutor for this case.

The answer to this complaint will be posted shortly.

Sincerely,
Phoenix Flamesong
Deputy Minister of Justice

 

[SHIELD_Hand3]

Kendall Hamilton, Plaintiff

v.

Azalea Isles, Defendant

Answer to Civil Complaint:

Your Honor, this case hinges on the idea that a ministry has to act within a certain time frame when responding to requests, and on a loose footing of a single day's experiment. The MEA has no legislated or policy timeline for the execution of its tenderings, and as such, the plaintiff is attempting to apply standards that do not exist. The plaintiff is also attempting to apply a questionable income experiment to justify an exorbitant claim for damages.

Parties:

1. Plaintiff, Kendall Hamilton
2. Defendant, Azalea Isles

Factual Defenses or Challenges:

(1) Plaintiff opened his first ticket to request the paste on February 2nd (Exhibit B). AGREE
(2) Plaintiff made a request for his build to be tendered on March 15th, confirmed by the MUD Minister Nanicholls Nanicholls (Exhibit B). AGREE
(3) Plaintiff’s paste was not tendered. AGREE
(4) Plaintiff’s ticket was closed by the Ministry of Urban Development during reorganizing and review under a new MUD Minister, Octavian Russell (Exhibit B). AGREE
(5) Plaintiff opened the correct new ticket on April 29th (Exhibit D). AGREE
(6) The MUD Minister gave the MEA the block list that same day (Exhibit D). AGREE
(7) The paste has still not been tendered, or even cost calculated. AGREE
(8) The Minister of Economic Affairs has publicly stated he is “Not tendering for someone who doesnt play and is on loa for 2 more months.” (Exhibit A) AGREE
(9) There is no MEA policy about leaves of absence affecting the paste tender process. AGREE
(10) The cost calculation/tender process has been the duty of the Minister of Economic Affairs for the duration of multiple MUD and MEA Ministers’ terms, as is explictly assigned to the MEA under Section 7(a)viii of the Governing Structure Act. AGREE
(11) Another citizen, Iturgen Bolir, is not on a Leave of Absence, and has had his cost calculation done and tenders posted (Exhibit E). AGREE
(12) Plaintiff was unable to use his plots for planned store rentals, apartments, and a casino, and has lost significant revenue as a result. DENY:
(13) To demonstrate this revenue loss, Plaintiff hosted one of his planned casino games that has been delayed by this project on the evening of May 21st. Plaintiff made approximately $56,000 in cash profit and also won four plots, which were accepted as bets, offered at $45,000 each, on this one night he hosted the game (Exhibit F). DENY: The defense denies that a one-time, highly advertised, opening-night, and event warp provided event could accurately represent the average income for the casino, and therefore, it can not be used to calculate damages accurately.


Legal Defenses or Challenges:

1. For claim 1, the defense agrees that a citizen has a right that a ministry will fulfil its legal obligation, but since there are no legal or procedural policies on how or when those obligations must be fulfilled, there is no standing.
2. For claim 2, the defense argues that since there is no legislated or policy-enforced timeline for action from the MEA, the specific amount of time that is reasonable is to be determined by the ministry to ensure that it can accurately and faithfully execute its duties.
3. For claim 3, the Plaintiff claims that his Article I protections in the Constitution were violated. The defense argues against this claim because there is no set timeframe for the MuD or MEA to paste or tender. There is also precedent in the fact that delays with tendering before, and therefore the Plaintiff just happens to be facing one of those delays that others have faced in the past.
4. For claim 4, the Plaintiff claims his “one singular test night” earned $236,000 in profit. The defense argues that this one night does not and can not accurately represent the income for the plaintiff.

Trial Location:

The Defense does not wish to have an in-person trial.

Verification:

I, Alexander Davis, hereby affirm that the allegations in the answer AND all subsequent statements made in court are true and correct to the best of the defendant’s knowledge, information, and belief, and that any falsehoods may bring the penalty of perjury.

 

[MilkCrack]

Will the Plaintiff please present their opening statement within the next 48 hours.

 

[xXLordLyonXx]

Your Honor,

There is a very simple line in Article 4 of the Constitution. It states, "Portfolios may be established through law to manage the following government responsibilities..." The Defendant would have you believe that a Ministry ignoring its responsibilities for two months is the same thing as managing them, which is a ridiculous idea.

My client requested his build be tendered more than two months ago, on March 15th. He followed up on April 9th. He followed up on April 19th. His ticket was closed on him on April 22nd. He reopened a new and correct one on April 29th. He followed up on May 1st. He followed up on May 4th. He was told the MEA recommended getting the items himself. He was told it was still waiting on the MEA on May 6th. MUD followed up on May 18th, with the tender still with the MEA. My client followed up on May 20th and was told by the MEA Minister, in violation of Section 7(a)viii of the Governing Structure Act, that MUD now handles calculating (part of the tender process).

Plaintiff had eight different check-in interactions with the Government over the two months it has been so far. He has made every effort to be reasonable, and give the Government fair time and opportunity to complete their legal responsibilities under the Governing Structure Act and Azalea Sourcing Act. The Government has failed to do so.

The Defendant even agrees with the Plaintiff that citizens have a right that the Government fulfill its legal obligations (see: Legal Defense 1 of the Defendant's Answer to the Complaint), but claims that without legal or procedural policies, there is no standing. Section 4(a) of the Governing Structure Act states "Ministers are empowered to establish programs and policies necessary to fulfill the responsibilities of their ministries." If the law dictates a responsibility, it is the Ministry, and by extension the Government, responsible for creating a program to fill that gap. Failing to do so does not exempt a Ministry or the Government from its responsibilities under the law. The Government has a duty to perform.

Furthermore, the Defendant claims that, absent a legislated deadline period, it is left to the Ministry to determine what a reasonable timeframe is. Out of context, this is not an unreasonable claim. However, Plaintiff has been waiting more than 70 days - longer than a parliamentary term lasts. Plaintiff's paste request, from the date he opened the first ticket, has outlasted two MEA Ministers and a MUD Minister, and has languished under three total Ministers of each ministry. This cannot be counted, in any circumstance, as an accurate and faithful execution of the Government's duties.

The deadline claim also shields the Executive from judicial review when it fails to execute its duties. A political party going ignored by the Ministry of State and being unable to compete in an election would have no recourse under this process, as Parliament did not dedicate a specific deadline for registration responses. The delegation of program creation and the general authority of the Executive to execute the law is predicated upon action; it is the Executive's responsibility to act upon the responsibilities assigned to it. Enabling Ministries to ignore their responsibilities for 70+ days is giving the Executive branch the power to ignore the legislative branch, whose laws it specifically derives its power from.

The idea that there is no implicit responsibility to act is preposterous, and violates the precedent set in The Greatfired v Lyon. To quote Chief Justice West’s ruling; “Considering the principle of the anti-surplusage canon, statutes must be interpreted so that every provision has effect.” If there is no inherent requirement to act, the provisions hold no effect, which runs directly counter to any intuitive understanding of why Parliament would write the law.

Defendant's third legal defense is irrelevant to the Article 1 right to equal treatment under the law. We have established that not having a deadline does not change the Government's duty to perform its responsibilities. Selective performance of those responsibilities is a violation of equal treatment. No response has been given to why another citizen's paste was completed before the Plaintiff's, nor has the Defendant addressed the public statement of the Minister of Economic Affairs that Plaintiff's Leave of Absence was a factor in his tender not being completed. And the fourth legal defense ignores the Plaintiff's own point in this case. We already agreed $236,000 is not a fair nightly estimate, which is why we proposed an obscenely reduced rate of just 5% of that value for regular income. Even 1% is now more than $160,000. This is revenue the Plaintiff could have been earning with employees and an established business had the Government fulfilled their responsibilities.

Ultimately, Your Honor, the Government cannot be allowed to claim it does not have a duty to perform its legally mandated responsibilities. The Executive is granted the power to make programs to perform those duties; declaring the absence of an explicit deadline in effect nullifies the entire law violates both reason and precedent. The Government has failed to perform their legally mandated duty, as we have shown, and we look forward to continuing to prove this throughout the course of the trial.

Thank you, Your Honor.