Sunday, October 5, 2014

VoteHannah4happyfamilysNicollet,BrandonBorgos4MNAG Gubernatorial Debate

      FURTHER Vote Hannah4HappyFamilys re  must expose Probate Fraud tying to
taking Darlene Winter Homestead at 1113 St.PaulAve,St.Paul,MN
BY Building Inspector Ed Smith based on Kitty Litter.
triggers Antitrust  5th amendment takings tying to Disparate Inpact

BrandonBorgos4mnag and better government re

English: Downtown St. Paul, Minnesota, USA. Lo...
Downtown St. Paul, Minnesota (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
How would you feel if you knew the federal government was making secret deals to keep cases harmful to its agenda out of the Supreme Court? Well, it has been.
At the center of this saga are two cases involving St. Paul, Minnesota. One case, Magner v. Gallagher, sat on last term’s Supreme Court docket, the city having brought it to the Court to ask the justices to overrule a darling policy of the Obama administration. The other case was a potential lawsuit against St. Paul that the federal government was considering supporting. A deal was struck where the city would drop their Supreme Court appeal in exchange for the federal government not supporting the lawsuit against the city.
That, at least, was the finding of a report from the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. The report described the backroom deal as harming “the rule of law in the United States and the reputation of the Department of Justice as a fair and impartial arbiter of justice.”
To understand the nuances of the story we must first understand why Magnerwas a potentially landmark case that could have radically changed the administration’s housing policies, as well as its prosecution of big banks for non-intentional, statistical discrimination, the so-called “disparate impact” theory of discrimination.

No comments: