Friday, January 31, 2020

Sharon4USAWhistleblowerTrumpSupportOutEricCiramellaObamaappointee

          Note to Andrew, Minnesota hot bead of DFL CORRUPTION 
           Justice Roberts on the Hot Seat techinally the Magner vs Gallagher USSC 10-1032 must be rExposing Eric Ciaramella would exonerate the President. Rand Paul, John Roberts, and Adam Schiff know this.eopened on the Bad BehaOf now DNC Nat. Chair Tom Perez and now Justice David Lillhaug appointed via Quid Pro Quo.
House Committee on Oversight and Government Reformvior

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


xx


Sharon Anderson aka Scarrella 651-776-5835 sharon4anderson@aol.com
LEGAL NOTICE: /s/Sharon4Anderson@aol.com ECF_P165913Pacersa1299 telfx: 651-776-5835:
Attorney ProSe_InFact,Private Attorney General QuiTam Whistleblower, www.taxthemax.blogspot.com 
The Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C.
Ch.119 Sections 2510-2521 et seq., governs distribution of this "Message,"
including attachments, may contain the originator's
proprietary information. The originator hereby notifies
recipients Message review, dissemination, copying, and content-based
actions. Authorized carriers of this message
shall expeditiously deliver this Message to intended recipients.  See: Quon
v. Arch
Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)