Lawsuit: Pending jsrkiwi v Department of Construction & Transportation

[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.