MOTION TO COMPEL
Your Honour, Minister Russell is attempting to litigate by claiming that crimes defined under Section 4 of the Industrial Regulation Act are crimes against the property, not the property owner. This is simply ridiculous. Section 4.c.1 of the Industrial Regulation Act even states, "(1) This crime is committed by a property owner that has failed an inspection."
Furthermore, criminal charges must be brought against a Person or Legal Entity. These terms are clearly outlined in Section 3.a-b of the New Criminal Code Act:
The idea of bringing a charge against an inanimate concept is nonsensical. A property does not act, therefore it does not fail to act. A property is incapable of seeking legal representation. A property is incapable of inflicting harms. A property cannot plead.
We ask the Court to rule that the crimes found in Section 4 of the Industrial Regulation Act are obviously crimes against property owners and ask the Court to compel the witness to answer the question using the clarified interpretation with a simple yes or no.
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.
Ruling on Motion to Compel and associated "Objection"
Given that this case was filed before and concerns events which occurred before the Crown's ratification of the "Amendment to the Industrial Regulation Act", the changes made by that amendment bill are irrelevant to the legal questions of this lawsuit.
The court finds that NCCA §3.a and §3.b fail to support Plaintiff's claim of all crimes only being applicable to Persons or Legal Entities, as they are defined in the NCCA. Those definitions are used to define the NCCA's crimes, but the crime definitions in the original Industrial Regulation Act bill did not use the words "Person" or "Legal Entity".
4. Industrial Crimes
(a) Any offense against a property is reset during the following events.
(i) The property has passed an inspection.
(ii) The property owner has been declared dead.
(ii) The property owner was evicted from the property for any reason.
(c) Failed Inspection
(1) This crime is committed by a property owner that has failed an inspection.
(2) Penalty: Dependent on repeat offenses
(i) First Offense: $100 fine
(ii) Second Offense: $500 fine
(iii) Third Offense: $1000 fine
(iv) Subsequent Offenses: $2000 fine
(3) If a new owner purchases an industrial property, they inherit the current state of the industrial inspection, this includes its current offense and its next inspection date.
(d) Failure to Monitor
(1) This crime is committed when a property does not have a public production monitor & a public power pylon on every grid within the property for a inspector to use for an inspection.
(i) First Offense: $100 fine
(ii) Second Offense: $500 fine
(iii) Third Offense: $1000 fine
(iv) Subsequent Offenses: $2000 fine
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.
This court is prepared to
accept the Plaintiff's request to compel answer from the witness, Mr. Russel.
Mr. Russel is
ordered to answer the Plaintiff's first question under the context of this interpretation
within 48 hours. Failure to answer may result in being charged with civil or criminal Contempt of Court.
OBJECTION RELEVANCE
Your Honour, this complaint revolves around a freedom of information request made on April 26, 2026 (Exhibit P-001). At that time, the original version of the Industrial Regulation Act (Exhibit P-002) was still in effect. The amendment that Minister Russell refers to was ratified days later on April 29, 2026 and is not the subject of this complaint.
MOTION FOR SANCTIONS
Your Honour, Minister Russell is not following normal Court rules and procedures. If he wished to respond to the motion to compel, it should have been in the form of a response, not an objection. While we do understand that Minister Russell is a party in the case, we find it highly unusual that he would act in this way and not let the Ministry of Justice continue to represent the Ministry of Urban Development in this matter.
Statement from the Defendant
Your Honour,
The defendant is forced to agree with the plaintiff, Minister Russell was NOT given consent to speak on behalf of the defendant.
The defendant AGREES with the witness, on the first objection Minister Russell made. However not in the way they presented it to the court.
The defendant DISAGREES with the witness on the second objection they made. No law requires a counsel to have passed or currently hold the lawyer profession in game.
With respect to the witness, the defendant AGREES with the plaintiff on the motion for sanctions. Stating the witness should’ve followed proper court procedures.
Ruling on Plaintiff's "Objection Relevance" and Motion for Sanctions
The Plaintiff's objection is
sustained. As I stated in my other ruling, the "Amendment to the Industrial Regulation Act" has no bearing on this case.
The court is prepared to
agree to Plaintiff's Motion for Sanctions.
This court chastises Mr. Russel for inappropriate use of an "Objection", for what should have been a Response to the Motion to Compel instead and will treat the Objection against the Motion to Compel as such. Said objection is hereby
overruled.
At this time, the court does not yet believe it necessary to impose fines or other substantive punishment, but this may change, should further violations of rules or procedure occur.
Objection your honor.
Your honor, its come to my attention that the "lawyer" for the plaintiff is not actually a lawyer. According to
legal regulations the plaintiff's legal lawyer must be a legitimate lawyer. I myself am not a legal lawyer, so your honor I hope you forgive me if this is irrelevant. But my understanding is you must be a lawyer to be on and to take any legal cases as proof that you passed the legal exam allowing you at all the ability to properly execute the law.
The "lawyer" for the plaintiff has been a hunter since at least 11AM EST. As that is when the meta data attached to the image and the source of the image provided. I am unsure of what actions can be taken your honor, but I ask the court to recognize all claims or assertions after 11AM EST at bare minimum are not formal court procedure. This would be quite an exception to make for an individual.
Statement from the Defendant
Your Honour,
The defendant is forced to agree with the plaintiff, Minister Russell was NOT given consent to speak on behalf of the defendant.
The defendant AGREES with the witness, on the first objection Minister Russell made. However not in the way they presented it to the court.
The defendant DISAGREES with the witness on the second objection they made. No law requires a counsel to have passed or currently hold the lawyer profession in game.
With respect to the witness, the defendant AGREES with the plaintiff on the motion for sanctions. Stating the witness should’ve followed proper court procedures.
Ruling on Defendant's Objection in regards to Plaintiff's Profession
Objection
overruled.
The court is not aware of any current law preventing non-lawyers from acting as Party or Party's Counsel in any court case.
The opposite is true: The ninth fundamental protection in Article 1 of the Constitution grants "The right to self-representation or counsel in a court of law."
As Mr. Nox is representing himself in this case, the right to self-representation applies.
Should Defendant be aware of statute which restricts non-lawyers ability to represent a party in District Court trials, they may cite it for the court's reconsideration.
Lastly, the court wishes to remind Prosecutor Cookie that this is a Civil Complaint with the Ministry of Urban Development as Defendant.
The Defendant, whom Minister Russel is a signing authority of, does not need the permission of the Ministry of Justice or its agents to self-represent.
The Ministry of Justice is merely acting as provider of Defendant's Counsel in this case and may be dismissed from this role, if the Defendant requests it.
In light of the apparent tensions between Defendant and their MoJ-provided Counsel, I recommend that the Ministry of Urban Development and the Ministry of Justice communicate more with each other outside of court on how they wish to proceed.
Courtroom decorum must be maintained here at all times, to preserve the dignity of the District Court. Should any party fail to do this, the court will consider imposing sanctions.
Signed,
Hon. Judge Iturgen "jotoho" Bolir
