Welcome!

By registering with us, you'll be able to discuss, share and private message with other members of CityRP.

SignUp Now!

Latest posts

Case: Pending Death Thegreatfired v. Azalea Isles (2026) CV 24

Alright the Defence shall have 48 hours to submit any questions to their own witness.
 
Motion to continue Questioning

Your Honor,
The defense wishes to ask a few more questions to Mr. Russell.
 
The court does not know the precise questions you intend to ask. However, you have thus far only submitted a single question.

In the interest of efficiency and the orderly progression of these proceedings, you are always expected to consolidate all questions, when asked to present your questions. If genuinely new relevant follow-up questions arise that could not reasonably have been anticipated earlier, the Court will ofcourse permit them.

Otherwise, the Court will weigh the relevance and necessity of additional questioning against the burden imposed on the witness and the efficient administration of these proceedings.

So please present the questions you want to ask.
 
Your honor,
this has not been prior court precedent. In another active case, Aero Nox v. Ministry of Urban Development (2026) CV 23, the plaintiff was allowed multiple lines of questioning, some within the same degree of thought to former minister Russell. I was merely working off of the idea of prior precedent in the thought process of my questioning, so it would be outlined in a logical fashion.

My remaining questions to Mr. Russell are as followed:

1. How long did AgentSquid inspect the property before you took over the case?
2. Is there any specific reason for Agent Squid giving the case to you?
3. Did your report match with observations noted by Agent Squid in the initial inspection attempt?
 
Alright. Since other judges have appear to have permitted broader questioning, I will allow some additional leniency here. However, counsel is advised that for future witnesses, the Court expects you to consolidate your questions to the greatest extent practicable. While foundation is important, the Court must also consider the efficient administration of these proceedings.

The objection on the basis of speculation is sustained. As phrased, the question calls for the witness to speculate as to Agent Squid’s motives or reasoning for reassigning the case. To the extent the testimony would instead be based on out-of-court statements made by Agent Squid, it would raise hearsay concerns if offered for the truth of the matter asserted.

Accordingly, the question is stricken. Any testimony regarding Agent Squid’s reasons or state of mind can be elicited directly from Agent Squid when called as a witness.
 
Mr. Russell (@Methedex ) please answer the following questions within 48-hours:
1. How long did AgentSquid inspect the property before you took over the case?
2. Did your report match with observations noted by Agent Squid in the initial inspection attempt?
 
MilkCrack said:
Mr. Russell (@Methedex ) please answer the following questions within 48-hours:
1. How long did AgentSquid inspect the property before you took over the case?
2. Did your report match with observations noted by Agent Squid in the initial inspection attempt?
Click to expand...
Agent was deployed to the location, i'd say probably within 10 minutes or so Agent messaged me saying something along the lines of they did not want to do the inspection anymore as the property owner was answering his questions weirdly.
2. Yeah, agent squid mentioned they could not find a power pylon or production monitor on site, this was the question that the property owner replied to agent with *guess you will have to find out* when asked about what areas are public and where the required devices for the inspection would be. After doing the inspection myself I came to the same conclusion. The IRA law at the time made it mandatory to have those devices on any industrial property in order to pass the inspection. So not having them was noted as a result as it was the reason for failure.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Alright, thank you. The Defence has 48 hours to present their questions to their own witness.
 
Methedex said:
Agent was deployed to the location, i'd say probably within 10 minutes or so Agent messaged me saying something along the lines of they did not want to do the inspection anymore as the property owner was answering his questions weirdly.
2. Yeah, agent squid mentioned they could not find a power pylon or production monitor on site, this was the question that the property owner replied to agent with *guess you will have to find out* when asked about what areas are public and where the required devices for the inspection would be. After doing the inspection myself I came to the same conclusion. The IRA law at the time made it mandatory to have those devices on any industrial property in order to pass the inspection. So not having them was noted as a result as it was the reason for failure.
Click to expand...
OBJECTION: HEARSAY

Your Honour, these are out-of-court statements and constitute hearsay.
 
Mr Cookie,

1. What happened when you arrived at the plaintiff’s plot for the initial inspection?
2. What did you notice while at the plot for the initial inspection?
3. Why did you end up giving the inspection to Mr. Russell?
 
MOTION TO CONTINUE

Your Honour, it seems the defenses' witness has failed to answer the questions within the allowed time. We motion the court to proceed in this matter.
 
The witness, Mr. Cookie (@Agentsquid2012), is hereby held in contempt of court. The Ministry of Justice is hereby instructed to impose a sentence of 10 minutes of jail time and a $500 fine.


The Plaintiff has 48-hours to submit their closing statement.
 
Phoenix Flamesong said:
There were additional areas of the plot where the inspector noticed a name tag but was denied entry to.
Click to expand...

MOTION TO STRIKE

Your Honour, the Defense is testifying for a third party and has not provided any evidence to back up this claim. The Defense has failed to support the statement by witness testimony, so we move that it be struck.
 
CLOSING STATEMENT

Your Honour,

The law and the facts here require judgment for the Plaintiff.

First, the original version of the Industrial Regulation Act allows routine, suspicionless entries into private industrial property. It requires monthly inspections and authorizes inspectors to enter properties (Sections 3(a)(i) and 3(a)(vii)). That is a warrantless intrusion. Calling it an "inspection" does not avoid Article 1's protection against unreasonable searches and seizures. Worse, the Act makes refusal to allow entry an automatic "failure" that becomes a criminal offense with escalating fines (Sections 3(a)(vii) and 4(c)). That choice - allow entry or be criminally punished - coerces owners to give up their constitutional rights.

Second, the Act defines crimes and penalties but provides no judicial process. Sections 4(c)-(d) define offenses and escalating penalties, while Sections 5 and 6 assign MUD responsibility for inspection reports, templates, schedules, and enforcement. The Defense offered no evidence establishing that Plaintiff committed the offenses defined in Section 4. Nowhere does the Act vest MUD with the authority to adjudicate criminal offenses. Unlike the New Criminal Code Act, which expressly authorizes the Ministry of Justice to make administrative rulings for misdemeanor offenses, no comparable language appears here granting the Ministry of Urban Development that authority. Letting the executive investigate, adjudicate, and punish criminal conduct without explicit authority from Parliament usurps the judiciary's essential role and breaches the separation of powers.

Third, the Act provides no clear standards for what counts as a "pass" or "fail." Section 5 leaves substantive criteria to an agency template created after the law passed. That open-ended discretion invites arbitrary and unequal enforcement. Here, Plaintiff's property was found to have "failed" despite no industrial devices being located, while a different property passed under similar circumstances. Without objective standards, enforcement is unreliable and unfair.

For these reasons, the Court should:
  • Declare unconstitutional the provisions authorizing and enforcing warrantless routine inspections and automatic failures for refusal to permit entry (including Sections 3(a)(i), 3(a)(vii), 4(c)-(d), 5, and 7(b));
  • Permanently enjoin Defendants from enforcing those provisions against Plaintiff or entering Plaintiff's properties without a judicial warrant or other constitutionally adequate process;
  • Vacate and rescind the fines and sanctions imposed on Plaintiff (Exhibit P-009) and order the return of any seized assets; and
  • Award compensatory damages, costs, and attorney's fees as appropriate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top