Case: Pending Death Thegreatfired v. Azalea Isles (2026) CV 24
- Thread starter Aero
- Start date
- Joined
- Dec 24, 2025
- Messages
- 58
Your honor,
The plaintiff was in direct violation of the law by not having the required machinery on site and accessible to inspectors. This is not a case of the ministry picking on one person. They didn’t have the items required by law, and refused to allow the inspectors to verify if their claim of no industrial equipment was correct.
The plaintiff just ignored the procedure of inspections, while also not having the required machinery that could be used to keep the inspection solely on public ground. This was willful violation of the law. The law gave a way for inspections to be done without entering the property. All they had to do was have a production monitor on the outside. Without this, it was impossible for the ministry to determine that the plaintiff didn’t have any industrial equipment without a full inspection of the property which the plaintiff also denied.
The ministry fairly applied the law as written. The plaintiff decided the law didn’t apply to them. Therefore they faced the charges as written.
although parts of the initial law were a little rough, amendments were made to allow for better application. However, disagreeing with a law does not mean you can’t not follow it.
The defense asks the court to uphold the fines, as the plaintiff was in violation of the law.
The plaintiff was in direct violation of the law by not having the required machinery on site and accessible to inspectors. This is not a case of the ministry picking on one person. They didn’t have the items required by law, and refused to allow the inspectors to verify if their claim of no industrial equipment was correct.
The plaintiff just ignored the procedure of inspections, while also not having the required machinery that could be used to keep the inspection solely on public ground. This was willful violation of the law. The law gave a way for inspections to be done without entering the property. All they had to do was have a production monitor on the outside. Without this, it was impossible for the ministry to determine that the plaintiff didn’t have any industrial equipment without a full inspection of the property which the plaintiff also denied.
The ministry fairly applied the law as written. The plaintiff decided the law didn’t apply to them. Therefore they faced the charges as written.
although parts of the initial law were a little rough, amendments were made to allow for better application. However, disagreeing with a law does not mean you can’t not follow it.
The defense asks the court to uphold the fines, as the plaintiff was in violation of the law.
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2025
- Messages
- 449
- Thread Author
- #63
MOTION TO STRIKE
Your Honour, the Defense is asserting facts not in evidence. They have provided no evidence, and secured no testimony that would back this claim. We move the Court to strike this statement from the record.