 |
| Tom Perez made RICO Deals |
| DOJ-St-Paul.pd |
Sun.3Mar2019 lEGAL NOTICE TO PUBLIC fTHAT FRAUD OCCURRED
Current DFL Nat.Chair Tom Perez, who committed Fraud vs. USA, Perez former Asst.AG, then Hud Commissioner, current DFL Chair has lied to Congress and the Citizens of St. Paul,MN, ACTING IN CONCORT with VChair Muslin Keith Ellison now MNAG.
THESE BAMA BOYS MUSLINS ELLISON/PEREZ HAVE AND ARE COMMITTING CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY. http://crimes-against-humanity.blogspot.com
 |
| DflChairTomPerezformerUSAG,HUD,labor |
 |
| Muslin Kassimi Busuri appt St.Paul Council2019 |
 |
| Doug Wardlow exposing Muslin Keith Ellison now MNAG |
Executive Summary In early February 2012, Assistant Attorney General Thomas E. Perez made a secret deal behind closed doors with St. Paul, Minnesota,
Mayor Christopher Coleman and St. Paul’s outside counsel, David Lillehaug. Perez agreed to commit the Department of Justice to declining intervention in a False Claims Act qui tam complaint filed by whistleblower Fredrick Newell against the City of St. Paul, as well as a second qui tam complaint pending against the City, in exchange for the City’s commitment to withdraw its appeal in Magner v. Gallagher from the Supreme Court
, an appeal involving the validity of disparate impact claims under the Fair Housing Act. Perez sought, facilitated, and consummated this deal because he feared that the Court would find disparate impact unsupported by the text of the Fair Housing Act. Calling disparate impact theory the “lynchpin” of civil rights enforcement, Perez simply could not allow the Court to rule. Perez sought leverage to stop the City from pressing its appeal. His search led him to David Lillehaug and then to Newell’s lawsuit against the City. Fredrick Newell, a minister and small-business owner in St. Paul, had spent almost a decade working to improve economic opportunities for low-income residents in his community. In 2009, Newell filed a whistleblower lawsuit alleging that the City of St. Paul had received tens of millions of dollars of community development funds, including stimulus funding, by improperly certifying its compliance with federal law. By November 2011, Newell had spent over two years discussing his case with career attorneys in the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Minnesota, and the Civil Fraud Section within the Justice Department’s Civil Division. These three entities, which had each invested a substantial amount of time and resources into Newell’s case, regarded this as a strong case potentially worth as much as $200 million for taxpayers and recommended that the federal government join the suit. These career attorneys even went so far as to prepare a formal memorandum recommending intervention, calling St. Paul’s actions a “particularly egregious example of false certifications.” All this work was for naught. In late November 2011, Lillehaug made Perez aware of Newell’s pending case against the City and the possibility that the Justice Department may intervene. A trade was proposed: non-intervention in Newell’s case for the withdrawal of Magner. Perez contacted HUD General Counsel Helen Kanovsky and asked her to reconsider HUD’s support for intervention in Newell’s case. Perez also spoke to then-Civil Division Assistant Attorney General Tony West and B. Todd Jones, the U.S. Attorney for the District of Minnesota, alerting them to his new interest in Newell’s case. The withdrawal of HUD’s support for Newell’s case led to an erosion of support in the Civil Division, a process that was actively managed by Perez. In January 2012, Perez began leading negotiations with Lillehaug, offering him a “roadmap” to a global settlement. Once negotiations appeared to break down, Perez boarded a plane and flew to Minnesota to meet face-to-face with Mayor Coleman. At that early February meeting, Perez pleaded for the fate of disparate impact and reiterated the Justice Department’s willingness to strike a deal. His lobbying paid off when Lillehaug accepted the deal on Mayor
Magner v. Gallagher
Docket No. Op. Below Argument Opinion Vote Author Term 10-1032 8th Cir. Not Argued Feb 14, 2012 N/A N/A OT 2011 Disclosure: Goldstein & Russell, P.C. serves as counsel to the respondents in this case.Issue: (1) Whether disparate impact claims are cognizable under the Fair Housing Act; and, if so (2) what test should be used to analyze them.Plain English Issue: (1) Whether a lawsuit can be brought for a violation of the Fair Housing Act based on a practice that is not discriminatory on its own, but has a discriminatory effect; and, if so, (2) how should courts determine whether a practice has a discriminatory effect and violates the Act?Judgment: Dismissed - Rule 14 on February 14, 2012.SCOTUSblog Coverage
- Fair housing case dismissed (Lyle Denniston)
- Petition of the day (Conor McEvily)
Briefs and Documents
Merits Briefs for the PetitionersAmicus Briefs in Support of the Petitioners
- Brief of the International Municipal Lawyers Association et al.
- Brief of the Township of Mount Holly, New Jersey
- Brief of the Pacific Legal Foundation et al.
- Brief of the Independent Community Bankers of America et al.
- Brief of the Eagle Forum Education & Legal Defense Fund, Inc.
- Brief of the American Bankers Association et al.
Amicus Briefs in Support of Neither PartyMerits Briefs for the RespondentsAmicus Briefs in Support of the Respondents
- Brief of the NAACP Legal Defense & Education Fund
- Brief of the Lawyer’s Committee on Civil Rights et al.
- Brief of the Housing Advocates, Inc., and Buckeye Community Hope Foundation
- Brief of the National Fair Housing Alliance et al.
- Brief of the Opportunity Agenda et al.
- Brief of the ACLU
- Brief of Massachusetts et al.
- Brief of Henry G. Cisneros
- Brief of AARP and Mount Holly Gardens Citizens In Action
Certiorari-stage documents
- Opinion below (8th Cir.)
- Petition for certiorari
- Brief in opposition of respondents Thomas J. Gallagher et al.
SharonMayoralCandidateChrisColeman ex;posing USSC 10-1032
Julian Assaugne exposint DFL Chair Tom Perez - Petitioners' reply
