1. A Vancouver Housing Authority Hearings Officer who is with out
original subject matter jurisdiction is Ultra Vires and did not present
Plaintiff, Housing Choice Voucher participant, a Goldberg pre-termination
hearing that is tailored to .the circumstances of Plaintiff's needs
based property interest? At the State of Washington, who is a violence
threat is an original subject matter jurisdiction exclusively with
in the criminal or civil province of the judiciary?

2. A Reasonable Accommodation Attorney who effect communication
for the federal disabled Plaintiff is an essential nexus to Plaintiff
having equal access to the Housing Choice Voucher program? Such a
said reasonable accommodation does not fundamentally alter the administra
tion of the Housing Choice Voucher program by Defendants?

3. The common law implied mens rea element must be proven in all
allegations of violence threats that are pending accusations when the
decision at Anthony Doughlas Elonis, 575 US (2015) is handed down?

4. Article VI, paragraph 2, includes the Supremacy Clause that
preserves the disabled Plaintiff's right to object under 24 CFR 982.554
(b) (2) notwithstanding the color of state law at Vancouver Housing
Authority equal to able persons whether at Seattle Housing Authority.

5. Vancouver Housing Authority Administrative Plan 3 III-C
purport a proscribed violence threat or threats on the property
of another? It incorporates violence acts absent an enumerations
clause? Nonetheless its residual clause renders the regulation
unconstitutional owing to vagueness? The categorical approach
to an idealized offense fails to publish which conduct poses
a risk? How does a notice at a public forum to sue at law
or in equity per the substance of RCW 4.28.080 (16) (17)
for conduct outside the scope of an employment breach 24 CFR
§ 5.100 defining violence? As applied speech is chilled?
An uncorroborated statement based on other than personal
knowledge in the face of two persons who each have personal
knowledge will not save VHA Admin. Plan 3 III-C? U.S. Constitu
tion Amendments I and XIV, Section 1.

6. Financial needs based programs, including subsidized housing,
shall apply a minimal due process federal Administrative Procedure Act
as the Eright Line Rule. Hearsay and multiple hearsay shall be limited
by and under the rule of the judiciary. US Constitution Amendments
V. and XIV Section 1.

Whether a Vancouver Housing Authority Hearings Officer without original subject matter jurisdiction is ultra vires and failed to provide a Goldberg pre-termination hearing tailored to the plaintiff's needs