Lawsuit: Dismissed Plura72 V. Ministry Of Construction, Case 3 (Ch. 2025)

[Plura72]

Plura72
Plaintiff

v.

Ministry Of Construction
Defendant

COMPLAINT

I. PARTIES
1. Plura72 (Plaintiff)
2. Ministry Of Construction (Defendant)

II. FACTS 1. On April 14, 2025, Plots released, but it was just a few, in 2:00 AM
2. This made me with severe Emotional damage

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. I am sueing for my emotional damage
2. Ministry Of Building should chosse a better timezone
3. This Bad Time and subsequent future property loss.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. Compensation in the amount of £5000 coins for lost inventory items.
2. The Resignation of MrFluffy2U94

 

[Smallfries]

CHANCERY OF ALEXANDRIA​

WRIT OF DISMISSAL​

​

The matter before us is, quite frankly, ridiculous.

To begin, Petitioner does not hold standing to seek relief before the Chancery. Without even walking through what cases may or may not be brought to the Chancery for deliberation, it is quite clear to any with more than a passing interest in the law that suffering emotional damage alone from any party—even the Government—does not necessitate intervention from the Chancery. Further, neither the "Ministry of Construction" nor the "Ministry of Building" even exist. Petitioner surely cannot claim relief against a non-existent party.

This would typically be the end of our inquiry, and we would dismiss this case and allow the Petitioner to re-file in the lower court. However, in the interest of Justice and efficiency, my colleague and I have decided to take it upon ourselves to answer this question now.

The "Ministry of Building" is well within its rights to "chosse [sic]" whichever time zone it likes for its initial offering of land to the public. If every offering was only in one time zone, perhaps this could be grounds for a suit alleging discrimination. However, the Petitioner has not even attempted to show that his claim has merit here. While the Petitioner does not need to indisputably prove their alleged claims, they do need to grant some reasonable argumentation or evidence by which the Respondent may defend against.

The time chosen for the release of plots could have very well been any hour of the day. The time chosen just so happened to be one the Petitioner disliked, and so he sued. Could any person sue for a single time-related dispute that they did not like? This is a ridiculous assertion, and the thought of the tidal wave of litigation resulting from such approval confounds and horrifies the author of this Writ.

"Subsequent property loss" further does not hold any weight. The mere fact that one may not be able to purchase a plot of land in this singular release of land is not one that grants a claim of relief, clearly. There will be other land the Petitioner may purchase. Further, it is preposterous that "emotional damages" occurred at all because the Petitioner was too late to purchase land; if such damages existed, they surely did not rise to the level to pursue suit.

Further, £5,000 is an absurd amount to claim damages for in properties that were either £500 or £1,000. The Petitioner claims this is "for lost inventory items," but makes no reference to what inventory items were lost, or how they were lost, and provides no proof or attempt at specificity, so this prayer is disregarded.

Finally, the demand that the Chancery order the Resignation of a duly-appointed member of the Government fulfilling their legal obligations is extremely odd. The Good Minister was well within his rights to sell off the plots at the time he chose in this instance.

The Chancery highly disapproves of this frivolous, greedy, and clearly fraudulent case. We hereby charge the Petitioner, Plura72, with Contempt due to filing an obviously frivolous case, and fine him £500.

This complaint is dismissed with prejudice.

Regi Salutem, Patriae Felicitatem, et Omnibus Iusticiam.​