Lawsuit: In Session jsrkiwi v Department of Construction & Transportation [2025] FCR 112

[jsrkiwi]

Case Filing

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION

jsrkiwi
Plaintiff

v.

Department of Construction & Transportation
Defendant


COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

This action concerns the Department of Construction & Transportation’s repeated failure to enforce its own eviction regulations on government-owned properties, resulting in an inconsistent and arbitrary application of Redmont’s property laws. The Plaintiff asserts that this inaction violates the constitutional principles of equal treatment under the law and fair market competition, falling beyond the bounds of proper administrative discretion.

I. PARTIES
1. The Plaintiff, jsrkiwi, is a licensed Realtor operating within the Commonwealth of Redmont, engaged in the business of buying, selling, and managing real estate.
2. The Defendant, Department of Construction & Transportation (DCT), is a government agency of the Commonwealth responsible for enforcing property standards, including evictions, demolitions, and auctions pursuant to the Property Standards Act and DCT policies.

II. FACTS
1. The Property Standards Act grants the DCT power and duty to enforce construction standards, expounded in detail within the department’s Evictions Policy.
2. The DCT has consistently enforced these standards against private citizens, including for inactivity, failure to maintain property, and lack of commercial or residential use.
3. However, the DCT has failed to act upon numerous government-owned properties that violate these same standards, creating a double standard that undermines equal application of the law.
4. The following non-exhaustive list of examples illustrate the Defendant’s failure:
(a) Redmont Art Gallery (Government-Owned): Vacant, unused, and serving no valid commercial, artistic or cultural purpose for a prolonged period. The building remains idle, contributing no economic or community value, and would qualify as abandoned under ordinary DCT enforcement standards.
(b) Plot s024: A skyscraper-zoned plot currently occupied by a petrol station and lacks the skyscraper structure required under zoning regulations. In addition, the lack of chest shops selling fuel shows non-compliance by invalid commercial purpose. Despite this, the DCT has taken no enforcement or eviction action.
(c) Plot r050: A government-owned residential property that grants access to a single “friend” smokeyybunnyyy whose last-month playtime is only four hours, and is therefore not compliant with activity requirements. Such inactivity would normally trigger eviction for private owners under DCT evictions policy.
(d) Plots c155/c156/c157/c158 (merged): These merged commercial plots have stood vacant for an extended duration, lacking any active business or commercial use, again in breach of DCT’s commercial purpose rules.
5. In each of these cases, if the plots were privately owned, the DCT’s existing eviction procedures would have resulted in repossession, demolition, or auction.
6. By refusing to apply eviction standards to its own or other government-held properties, the DCT is exercising selective enforcement, violating both the Property Standards Act and the constitutional guarantee of equal treatment under law.
7. The Defendant’s inaction artificially restricts property availability, distorts market supply, and directly harms the Plaintiff’s business as a realtor reliant on fair access to active, tradeable plots.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. The DCT’s refusal to evict government-owned properties constitutes a violation of the Property Standards Act, which imposes a duty upon the Department to establish and enforce property regulations.
2. This selective enforcement infringes the constitutional principle of equal application of law by favouring government properties over private citizens.
3. The Plaintiff has standing as an active Realtor directly impacted by the Department’s inconsistent enforcement, which restricts supply, inflates prices, and damages free and fair market operation.
4. The Federal Court has proper jurisdiction as the case raises a constitutional question on equal treatment and administrative fairness, falling outside the established bounds of lower court jurisdictions.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. A declaratory judgment that the DCT’s failure to apply eviction regulations to government-owned properties is unlawful and unconstitutional.
2. Order a mandatory injunction compelling the DCT to enforce its eviction and property standards equally on all properties, including government-owned plots such as the Redmont Art Gallery, s024, r050, and c155/c156/c157/c158.

V. ATTACHED EVIDENCE
1. Photos of the Redmont Art Gallery, taken on 21 October 2025.
2. Photos of s024, taken on 21 October 2025.
3. Screenshot showing the result of “/as info region –region s024”, taken on 21 October 2025.
4. Screenshot showing the result of “/as info region –region r050”, taken on 21 October 2025.
5. Screenshot showing the active status of smokeyybunnyyy, taken on 21 October 2025.
6. Photos of c155/c156/c157/c158 (merged plots), taken on 21 October 2025.
7. Screenshots showing the result of “/as info region” for c155, c156, c157, and c158, taken on 21 October 2025.
8. Screenshot showing the plaintiff’s profession as a realtor.

By making this submission, I agree I understand the penalties of lying in court and the fact that I am subject to perjury should I knowingly make a false statement in court.

DATED: This 21st day of October 2025.

 

[Matthew100x]

Writ of Summons

@Kaiserin_, is required to appear before the federal Court in the case of jsrkiwi v Department of Construction & Transportation [2025] FCR 112

Failure to appear within 72 hours of this summons will result in a default judgement based on the known facts of the case.

Both parties should make themselves aware of the Court Rules and Procedures, including the option of an in-game trial should both parties request one.

 

[gribble19]

The Commonwealth is present, your Honor.

 

[Matthew100x]

Please present the Defendant's answer in the next 48 hours.

 

[gribble19]

Answer to Complaint

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

jsrkiwi
Plaintiff

v.

Department of Construction & Transportation
Defendant

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
1. The Defendant DENIES that the Property Standards Act grants the DCT power and duty to enforce construction standards, expounded in detail within the department’s Evictions Policy. While the Property Standards Act states that the Department of Construction & Transport (DCT) has jurisdiction over enforcing these standards, thus granting them the power to, it does not define any duties regarding this onto the DCT.
2. The Defendant AFFIRMS that the DCT has consistently enforced these standards against private citizens, including for inactivity, failure to maintain property, and lack of commercial or residential use. Under the assumption that "these standards" refers to those standards set within the DCT's eviction policy.
3. The Defendant DENIES that the DCT has failed to act upon numerous government-owned properties that violate these same standards, creating a double standard that undermines equal application of the law. No double standard was created, no equal application of laws was undermined, and the DCT did not fail.
4. The Defendant DENIES that the list of examples given under fact 4 illustrates the Defendant's failure. The Defendant believes that there has not been any failure on the part of the Defendant.
5. The Defendant DENIES that in each of the cases listed under fact 4, if the plots were privately owned, the DCT’s existing eviction procedures would have resulted in repossession, demolition, or auction. The Plaintiff alleges that r050 would be evicted due to a lack of playtime for an added friend, however playtime requirements apply to the owner of the plot, not to added friends.
6. The Defendant DENIES that by refusing to apply eviction standards to its own or other government-held properties, the DCT is exercising selective enforcement, violating both the Property Standards Act and the constitutional guarantee of equal treatment under law. The Defendant does not believe this behavior is occuring, and even if the Court were to find it occured it would not violate the Property Standards Act nor the constitutional guarantee of equal treatment under law.
7. The Defendant DENIES that the Defendant’s inaction artificially restricts property availability, distorts market supply, and directly harms the Plaintiff’s business as a realtor reliant on fair access to active, tradeable plots. The Defendant has not been inactive. There also is and has been a large availability of properties and actively tradeable plots.

II. DEFENCES
1. The Property Standards Act does not state that the DCT has any duties whatsoever, and thus also not that the DCT has a duty to enforce construction standards. The Plaintiff appears to have simply made this up. This claim for relief appears to be frivolous.
2. The Defendant alleges that there has not been any selective enforcement between the Government and private citizens. Even if there had been however, the Plaintiff's claim that this would constitute a breach of a constitutional right is incorrect. The Constitution states as the right that the Plaintiff appears to be referring to: "(13) Every citizen is equal before and under the law and has the right to equal protection and equal benefit of the law without unfair discrimination and, in particular, without unfair discrimination based on political belief or social status". This right however specifically states "Every citizen". The Commonwealth is not a citizen, and even the Plaintiff himself agrees that the Commonwealth has consistently enforced these standards against all citizens, as can be seen under Fact 2 of the Complaint.

By making this submission, I agree I understand the penalties of lying in court and the fact that I am subject to perjury should I knowingly make a false statement in court.

DATED: This 2nd day of November 2025

 

[Matthew100x]

We shall now be moving towards Discovery. Discovery will end in 5 days. Discovery can be voluntarily ended or extended with both parties agreeing to do so. Please remember the following rules:

Rule 4.2 (Submission Required For Use)​

All material used in legal arguments must have either been included in the case prior to the submission. Material must have been included within the complaint, within the answer, within an amendment to a complaint, within an amendment to an answer, or within a discovery submission. Otherwise the material will be deemed inadmissible and the argument can be voided by the presiding judge.

Rule 4.5 (Consent to End Discovery Early)​

If both parties consent to end Discovery early, they may request the presiding Judicial Officer to move to the next phase of the trial.

Rule 4.9 (Witness Protocol)​

A party may submit a list for witnesses at any time before the end of discovery. In order for a witness to be called during witness testimony, they must be announced under this rule, during discovery. Any witness may be objected to according to the objections laid out within rule 6.3.

Failure to adhere to the timelines of this rule may subject that party to a contempt of court charge at the presiding judge’s decision. The presiding judge shall include a warning regarding the timeline when summoning the witness.

 

[jsrkiwi]

Plaintiff’s request for discovery
Pursuant to rule 4.7, the Plaintiff requests the following from the Defendant:
1. All documents and communications relating to the transfer of s024 into and out of government ownership.
2. All documents and communications relating to the transfer of r050 into and out of government ownership.
3. All documents and communications relating to the transfer of c155/c156/c157/c158 into government ownership.
4. All communications of DCT employees within the past year, where government-owned properties were discussed.
5. All communications of DCT employees within the past year, where non-enforcement of policy in spite of a noted violation was discussed.
6. All communications between the DCT and other government departments, where a DCT policy violation was discussed.

 

[jsrkiwi]

Plaintiff’s interrogatories for the Defendant
Pursuant to rule 4.8, the Plaintiff requests answers to the following from the Defendant:
1. Why did the DCGovernment take ownership or control of s024?
2. Why did the DCGovernment take ownership or control of r050?
3. Why does the DCGovernment have ownership of c155/c156/c157/c158?
4. Does the DCT have an unlisted/unwritten policy of not enforcing property standards against buildings in government ownership?
5. Why does the DCT actively not enforce its own property standards against properties owned or controlled by the government?