Your Honor,
This case is as straightforward as it gets. The Defendant has not disputed the Plaintiff’s factual allegations, except for where they disagreed with monetary estimates. The Defendant claims delays, while having completed another citizen’s tender during the same time period they failed to do the Plaintiff’s, and pretends there is no reasonable expectation for ministries to fulfill their legally mandated responsibilities, which would give the Executive implicit veto power over all legislation by simply refusing to comply, without penalty. Our witnesses have testified to the Plaintiff’s revenue and to the Defendant having everything needed to do the tenders and costing calculation.
The Defendant is not free from judicial review for failure to do their duties under the law. The Executive does not have an implicit veto over legislation, where they can set two to three month time periods to complete their legally assigned responsibilities, essentially refusing to do them in any timely manner. Approving this concept would broadly nullify legislative authority and oversight of the Executive.
The Plaintiff understands there is some concern over the size of the judgement being requested, and we understand and accept if Your Honor feels the need to approve a lesser valuation. However, we would encourage the court to truly consider what has happened here. The Plaintiff has been unable to use his property for an intended purpose, because of the Defendant’s actions. The Plaintiff could definitely have earned another ~$250,000 in revenue through just two additional major game nights (half the revenue of the singular test). As the Defendant pointed out, this was made into a larger event - that is why the Plaintiff’s property holds relevance. It is near spawn and in a good location for a game setup that does not need to be made into an event in order to see attendance. This location was the chosen setup for the Plaintiff, out of his properties, able to draw in and support the attendance necessary to sustain the revenue we are arguing was lost, and the Defendant’s actions prevented the Plaintiff’s use of it.
If the court rules in this case that the Government cannot be sued for failing to do their responsibilities to the citizens of the Azalea Isles, either on its face or by approving the idea that ministries can drag out compliance for months on end for a specific citizen, such a ruling will end all responsibility of the Government, and all recourse for citizens wronged by Government failure to do its legally mandated duties. Negligible fine will have the same effect. This court must make clear that the Government cannot dodge their responsibilities by claiming the right to an indefinite timeline, and they must pay fairly if they fail in their duty to the citizenry.
Thank you, Your Honor.
