Custom Search

Monday, February 06, 2012

Saint Paul Fair Housing Lawsuits No. 10-1032 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES (AMICUS BRIEFS)

Institutional racist vs Anti racist? You decide.
View all the briefs HERE.

18 Comments:

Blogger Bob said...

In support of the city.

A bunch of fat cat bankers. Historically financial institutes have a long history of discriminating against people of color.

I guess I shouldn't be surprised there is right wing conservative legal organizations siding with the city. Siding with a city government who claims to be Liberal Democrats.

City leaders in Saint Paul pulled the wool over good democrats eyes. These folks in city government are far right conservatives, look at this list of amicus briefs supporting your city leaders.

Amici Support for city of St. Paul

American Bankers association
CONSUMER BANKERS ASSOCIATION
FINANCIAL SERVICES ROUNDTABLE
HOUSING POLICY COUNCIL

Eagle Forum Education & Legal Defense Fund

Pacific Legal Foundation
CENTER FOR EQUAL OPPORTUNITY,
COMPETITIVE ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE,
AND THE CATO INSTITUTE

THE INDEPENDENT COMMUNITY BANKERS OF AMERICA,
THE CONSUMERMORTGAGE COALITION
THE AMERICANFINANCIAL SERVICES ASSOCIATIONBRIEF FOR THE INDEPENDENT COMMUNITY BANKERS OF AMERICA
THE CONSUMER MORTGAGE COALITION
THE AMERICAN FINANCIAL SERVICES ASSOCIATION

AND BRIEF FOR THE INTERNATIONAL MUNICIPAL
LAVVYERS ASSOCIATION

TOWNSHIP OF MOUNT HOLLY, NEW JERSEY

Institutional racist?

9:28 PM  
Blogger Bob said...

In support of the landlords.

High profile, high powered people and organizations who are genrally thought to be liberal democrats.

And 12 states of the union!

AARP
MOUNT HOLLY GARDENS CITIZENS IN ACTIONDevelopment;

HENRY G. CISNEROS,former Secretary of the United States Department
of Housing and Urban Development

ANTONIOMONROIG
JUDITH Y. BRACHMAN
ROBERTA ACHTENBERG
ELIZABETH K. JULIAN
EVA PLAZA
KIM KENDRICK, former Assistant
Secretaries for the Office of Fair Housing and
Equal Opportunity, Department of Housing and
Urban Development


J. MICHAEL DORSEY
JUDGE NELSON A. DIAZ, former General Counsel, Department of Housing and Urban Development;

HARRY L. CAREY, former Associate General Counsel for Fair Housing

LAURENCE PEARL, former Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for
Program Operations and Compliance

MARTHA COAKLEY
Attorney General
JONATHAN B. MILLER
Counsel of Record
MAURA T. HEALEY
ERIKA J. RICKARD
OMAR GONZALEZ-PAGAN
Assistant Attorneys General
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS

THOMAS C. HORNE
Attorney General of Arizona
1275 West Washington Street
Phoenix, Arizona 85007

KAMALA D. HARRIS
Attorney General of the
State of California
1300 I Street
P.O. Box 944255
Sacramento, CA 94244

GEORGE JEPSEN
Attorney General
State of Connecticut
55 Elm Street
Hartford, CT 06106

DAVID M. LOUIE
Attorney General of Hawai`i
425 Queen Street
Honolulu, Hawaii 96813





CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO
Attorney General for the
State of Nevada
100 North Carson Street
Carson City, Nevada 89701

GARY K. KING
Attorney General
of New Mexico
P.O. Drawer 1508
Santa Fe, New Mexico 87504

ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN
Attorney General of the
State of New York
120 Broadway, 25th Floor
New York, NY 10271

MICHAEL DEWINE
Ohio Attorney General
30 E. Broad Street, 17th Floor
Columbus, Ohio 43215

JOHN R. KROGER
Attorney General
State of Oregon
1162 Court St. N.E.
Salem, Oregon 97301

MARK L. SHURTLEFF
Utah Attorney General
Utah State Capitol
Suite #230
P.O. Box 142320
Salt Lake City, Utah 84114

DARRELL V. MCGRAW, JR.
West Virginia Attorney General
Office of the Attorney General
State Capitol, Room 26-E
Charleston, WV 25305

THE AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION
THE NATIONAL COMMUNITY
REINVESTMENT COALITION
FUTURES WITHOUT
VIOLENCE
THE NATIONAL NETWORK TO END DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, IN SUPPORT OF RESPONDENTS

THE OPPORTUNITY AGENDA
POVERTY & RACE RESEARCH ACTION COUNCIL
PUBLIC ADVOCATES INC.
PROFESSOR MICHELLE ADAMS
THE EQUAL JUSTICE SOCIETY
THE KIRWAN INSTITUTE FOR
THE STUDY OF RACE AND ETHNICITY

NATIONAL FAIR HOUSING ALLIANCE
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF HISPANIC REAL ESTATE PROFESSIONALS
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF REAL ESTATE BROKERS

THEHOUSING ADVOCATES, INC.
BUCKEYE COMMUNITY HOPE FOUNDATION

THE LAWYERS’ COMMITTEE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS UNDER LAW AND OTHER
NATIONAL CIVIL RIGHTS ORGANIZATIONS

NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE & EDUCATIONAL FUND, INC.

Anti-racist?

9:52 PM  
Anonymous Amicus briefs said...

link above

9:53 PM  
Blogger Bob said...

I removed Pacific Legal Foundation from the town hall links.

I will not link a suspected institutionally racist organization here.

10:03 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Does this mean that Eric and Chuck are Republicans?

6:36 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Kinda looks that way.

Ralph

6:46 AM  
Anonymous States4LandLords said...

Thanks for posting All AG Candidates should be involved In a "due process" democracy let all parties produce their briefs.

Let the Public decide.
The Most impressive Amicus Brief is the Mass With certain "States" involved This Case will go on for years

Affiant must force the MN AG to write an Amicus Brief

Disparate Impact Housing is just as important as Health Care.

7:01 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

All the predators and other criminals like to hang together that's why they support the city.

10:16 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

In general the landlord's amicus briefs are all concerned with the same thing, that the court won't just determine that disparate impact claims are not aplicable in code enforcement cases, but that the court will determine that they are not aplicable in any FHA cases.

You can see that level of concern has been raised by the fact that the number of banking groups doing amicus briefs in support of the City asking to have the FHA not include disparate impact at all.

In fact the ACLU's brief is almost all about banking practices and the concern over if this were to pass what would be the impact on them going after the banks on bad mortgages that were done in the past.

I told you that was going to be the issue with your friends with Pacific. Property rights groups would tend to be on the side of the banks and their abilities to lend money as they chose to with the least government control.

JMONTOMEPPOF

Chuck Repke

10:17 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The scorecard of amicus briefsfor the landlords is a lot more impressive than for the city. I don't know if this is it or if there will be more briefs.

Im disappointed in the Pacific legal foundation. For all their bravado about protecting freedom and defending property rights, their actions show they support robbing and property rights abuse by the city. I think they exploited the followers of this blog with a hidden agenda.

Bob G.

6:53 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

racist vs anti-racist

guilty!

9:44 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You can see that level of concern has been raised by the fact that the number of banking groups doing amicus briefs in support of the City asking to have the FHA not include disparate impact at all

yah got that right bucko. they don't want FHA to include disparate impact. gotta protect their investments. keep those neighborhoods lily white.

10:40 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Where's that good for nothing Eric? Thought sure he'd have his big mouth going on this subject

1:18 AM  
Anonymous Amicus States said...

You Persons have failed to read whats before the US Supreme Court ie: Not on ly Disparate Impact but for "Burden Shifting"

Thank God the LandLords have Tom Goldsxxx for Washington Lawyer

8:22 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

8:22 - what is meant by "burden shifting" is the three part test that is used in disparate impact cases.

If the Supreme Court rules that there can be disparate impact cases under FHA then the court is also asked by the City to rule as to which method courts should use to determine guilt. What most of the amicus briefs agree on (both sides) is to use the harder three part "burden shifting" test.

The test is in this case would be:

1. The landlords have to prove that more people of color were impacted than whites. They will need some statistical data that says how many people lost their housing or had the cost of homes raised do to these inspections, how many of those people were black, how many were white... something to actually show that people of color were impacted disparately than whites.

2. Then the burden shifts to the City. If the court accepts that a disparate amount of people of color were impacted the City must then prove that the purpose was legitimate and should be allowed to continue. This is where the City would make the argument that all of the properties failed inspections and they were real life safety/health violations. That this social need and protection of the public is a high enough cause (protecting the people who live in the buildings) that even if it costs people their place to live it is worth it.

3. Then the burden shifts back to the landlords. They would then need to prove that some other method could get the same code compliance without having the impact on tenants. That is why you see them arguing that PP2000 would do it and the City talking about how it doesn't matter if you use honey or a stick the code compliance would cost the same either way.

So, if the landlords win, that is the case that is left to be tried... no evil false inspections... no Dawkins did this or that... just those tree parts of a disparate impact case.

JMONTOMEPPOF

Chuck Repke

9:19 AM  
Blogger Bob said...

Real good explanation of burden shifting Chuck.

Thank you.

10:28 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The code compliance would not have cost the same Chuck because they came out to properties and lied about violations that did not exist so they could condemn the property and get the more expensive code complaince rather than the legitimate minor violations that really existed. But the violations were not the problem. The peole were and that is why they had the forced sale program they were so proud of. If ya get rid of the nest ya get rid of the critter.

5:25 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

5:25 - but they lost that part of the case. Its not my fault that they lost that part of the case, but they lost that part of the case. That would have been disparate treatment. If people of color were targetted that would have been disparate treatment (not impact). There isn't a disparate treatment case left.

What I gave you is what is left.

JMONTOMEPPOF

Chuck Repke

11:55 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home