Neither the Rooker-Feldman nor Mootness doctrines nor the Anti-Injunction Act apply to the facts of this unlawful tenant eviction case from HUD Section 8 and Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) federally subsidized housing based on the Public Husing Authority's secret emails (.APP.F) to the state court judge with no hearings or trial in state court.

This is a case of a retired disabled veteran being evicted from his Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) apartment community under two (2) federally subsidized housing programs, LIHTC under 26 USC § 42 [Extended Low ,Income Housing Agreement (ELIHA) recorded in the public records and therefore a land use restriction] and Section 8 HUD-Veterans Administration Supported Housing Choice Voucher (Section 8 HUD-VASH HCV) under 24 CFR 982.552 and HUD Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers: Revised Implementation of the HUD-VA Supportive Housing Program, 77 FR 17086 [Docket FR-5596-N-01] (March 23, 2012), each of which independently adopted the HUD Tenancy Addendum, HUD-51641-A, which mandates the same "No-Cause Eviction Protection," evidence of good cause for eviction and lease non-renewal and a due process hearing or trial before eviction. The recorded ELIHA, the HUD Tenancy Addendum, HUD-51641-A, and these federal subsidy programs provide for the tenant's right of enforcement: 24 CFR 982.308(a) and (f)(2), 24 CFR 982.456(b)(2 ) and 24 CFR 982.552.

Whether the Rooker-Feldman and Mootness Doctrines and the Anti-Injunction Act apply, with no discovery in state or federal court, to a tenant in Section 8 HUD-VASH HCV and Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) federally subsidized housing mandating "No-Cause Eviction Protection" who was forcefully evicted in state court in retaliation for his advocating for safer and healthier living conditions as a result of the Public Housing Authority's conclusionaiy non-renewal notice with no evidence of "good cause," legally insufficient complaint, "fake" lease, and secret emails to the state judge with no due process mandated hearings or trial resulting in an ex parte non-final Default Final Judgment for Removal which is currently on appeal in state court?

Whether live controversy and irreparable harm to the Section 8 HUD-VASH HCV and Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) tenant continues when in further retaliation and relying upon the non-final Default Final Judgment for Removal from state court which is currently on appeal, the Public Housing Authority failed to utilize due process mandated practices and procedures as required by HUD Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers: Revised Implementation of the HUD-VA Supportive Housing Program, 77 FR 17086 [Docket FR-5596-N-01] (March 23, 2012), to then permanently terminate the tenant's Section 8 HUD-VASH HCV, thereby depriving him of his voucher and affordable housing?

Whether the Rooker-Feldman and Mootness Doctrines and the Anti-Injunction Act apply to this unlawful tenant eviction case from Section 8 HUD-VASH HCV and Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) federally subsidized housing