The Fair Housing Act ("FHA ") is a policy enacted by
Congress to provide, within constitutional limitations, for fair
housing throughout the United States. (42 U.S. Code §3601(et
seq.)) By outlawing individual acts of discrimination, you will
foster integration. The 1968 FHA was enacted when racially
discriminatory rules, laws, covenants, etc. were blatant and
overt. It would be another 20 years before families and the
disabled would gain protection under the Acts.

Like all things in life, discriminatory acts evolve. Now,
intentional discriminatory and retaliatory acts exist in a
continuum of subtlety and are cloaked in ordinarily
permissible actions; but when actions are applied in a
disparate manner or as a result of an unfavored but protected
activity —without any legitimate reason —those acts are no
longer permissible. The disparate treatment is proof of
discriminatory animus. When housing-providers ignore,
disregard, dismiss the disabled, it is intentional
discrimination and when inaction deprives the disabled from
equal housing, they are liable for violating the FHA. To
determine indirect, pretextual discrimination, the Courts
must apply the elements and burdens of proof properly and
consider the entirety of all the circumstances of the alleged
discriminatory acts.

This Court has held that the language of the FHA
prohibiting discrimination in housing is "broad and inclusive, "
(Trafficante v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 409 U.S. 205 (1972))
(City of Edmonds v. Oxford House, Inc., 514 U.S. 725 (1995))
and requires a "broad and liberal construction, " but
sometimes too broad and liberal interpretation and
application may frustrate rather than promote justice and not
serve to effectuate the plain and clear language of the FHA.
This Court must provide clear direction to provide equal
justice under the law. Victims of discrimination should not be
revictimized by State Courts when they issue erroneous
decisions because they are not bound by the federal precedent
and fail to properly apply elements of FHA discrimination
claims or dismiss a victim 's complaint because the pro se
party is unable to navigate the complicated rules and
procedures of appeal. The case below illustrates the injustice
that occurs when the victim is denied their choice of law
because the Respondent files a retaliatory lawsuit in a
respected "Corporation Court " with little to no experience and
scant to nil FHA binding case law. This Court must make it
clear that housing providers cannot ignore reasonable-
accommodation requests and avoid liability for their
discriminatory actions by bullying the disabled and cannot
hide their discriminatory acts in pretextual claims of
settlement negotiations.

Whether the Fair Housing Act requires housing providers to reasonably accommodate a disabled resident's request for a fence to protect their autistic child from wandering and drowning, even when the housing provider's rules prohibit such fences