The case

 The case has two documents beside the exhibits, which are not included (too much work putting it in present format.). The Complaint tells the facts in a straightforward manner with attached exhibits. Then there is the Memorandum of Law which is the underpinning of the laws that if correct will be used to achieve justice for the complaints cited.

This case is not about seeking compensation for wrongs; it’s about correcting the wrongs, applying solutions to the complaints.

COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS

SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION

As a tenant living in Department of Housing and Urban Development subsidized housing, Plaintiff’s complaint concerns breaches in federal laws, especially, the fair housing Act and constitutional amendments which are the purview of this Court.

COMES NOW Lorraine Saint Pierre and states:

1. On February 9, 2019 Plaintiff Saint Pierre (Tenant) entered into agreement with NFG Housing Partners LP, (Landlord) to lease the apartment numbered 14 at Northfield Green, located at 147 Allen Avenue in Portland Maine. The lease, (exhibit 1, (exhibits 1 through 20 may be found in Plaintiff’s Supplemental Jurisdiction Motion for this case)) was formulated by its principal obligor, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), which subsidizes a major portion of tenant leases at the complex and provides multiple benefits to Landlord.

2. There is Landlord’s Agent (Preservation Management Inc., (Agent, PMI) Although Plaintiff has no contractual relationship with Agent, it has been allowed by Landlord to create its own rules (ex. 20,) governing tenants and/or has on its own initiative taken on the role of overseer. Tenant is not privy to Landlord, Agent agreement, contractual obligations, nor is it contributory to its proposition.

HEARING DISABILITY

3. Shortly after move-in Tenant began to receive noise complaints. The complaints were not specific as to time, duration, type of noise, nor identity of complainant. Some of these complaints have been attached (ex. 21,) most have been lost. There is a report from Residence Services Coordinator Wendy Akerlind (Akelind, RS Coordinator) about the police being called for noise complaint, (Akerlind urged complainant to do so.) On noting that Saint Pierre was hard of hearing, the officer apologized and walked away, (22.) There is the email Tenant sent to site manager about the lack of specificity and evidence cited in the violations, and her request for reasonable accommodations (19.) There is a Fax copy of the report furnished by Plaintiff audiologist, Ruth Cook, that she sent to PMI attesting to Tenant hearing disability (23) and PMI’s rejection of reasonable accommodation request to insulate the wall between her and complainant, (18,) which contrary to stated reason, would not require fundamental alteration to the program or operations of property; insulation is blown into the wall via an existing electric outlet.

THE GAZEBO

4. A few months after move-in MAY 15, 2019, Tenant was given an open-ended written permission to place a gazebo in the yard facing her apartment (6.) The permission was shortly rescinded by Landlord’s agent (10,) Preservation Management Inc. for no stated reason other than it’s not allowed. Thus began a conflict that lasts to this day between Tenant, Landlord and its agent. On July 14, 2019 Tenant filed a suit in state court seeking an injunction barring Agent from dismantling the gazebo, Docket # CD 19-386, a case yet unresolved. Agent never intended to keep its promise as can be seen from the jerry-rigged photo they presented in their Response (3;) it was done to match the permission wording calling the gazebo a “trellis.” Tenant’s time stamped photo (5) May 14, 2019 of what was present before permission was granted exposes Agent’s duplicity. It was as stated in the permission document heading: “Re: House Rules Education.” Tenant, new to the project, was being given an education of what Agent was expecting from her. Agent spread Tenant’s lawsuit information among tenants and inveigled them in the case (19.)

5.Through the discovery process, Tenant sought to uncover the many noise complaints in her tenant file; they were missing. But she did find a report written by Residence Services Coordinator, Wendy Akerlind in which a tenant reports that she will poison Saint Pierre’s cat. The cat, Chloë died a horrible death. Akerlind never notified the police as she is mandated to do that an animal’s life was being threatened, nor did she inform Tenant of the threat to Chloë, but she did, and does encourage tenants to seek her out to gossip about others. A very hurt and angry Saint Pierre, responded to Vice President Green’s threat to evict her for approaching the person who threatened her cat and inform her of the seriousness of the allegation (25.)

6. During the course of Tenant’s research for the gazebo case she discovered the HUD rules governing her lease. She had not been informed that Agent had no obligation to Landlord’s tenants, was free to act for its own benefit to the disadvantage of tenants. Her only ally was HUD who sent her an authenticated copy of the Handbook governing her lease. She sent a letter on May 1st , 2020 (12) to Agent and informed Landlord of her rights. Twenty seven days later she received an eviction notice.

THE FIRST EVICTION

7. On May 28, 2020, she was served a complaint for Forcible Entry and Detainer, Docket # SA 2020-301. This occurred two months after she complained about the mold spores in her apartment (17,) which Landlord never responded to. It is in this case that Landlord’s agent chose to exhibit some, but not all of the noise complaints she had received. When asked in eviction hearing about the placement of the report threatening her cat in Saint Pierre’s file, RS Coordinator Akerlind responded “Oh, but that was an accident.” In its decision, the court on March 8, 2021 dismissed the complaint and judgment was granted to Tenant. The court notes in its ruling the discrepancies in Landlord’s noise complaints, the measures Tenant had taken to alleviate the problem.

8. Giving Agent rights to the land to parcel out to individuals as they saw fit created an atmosphere in which Agent has come to see itself above the law and it mistreats residents at will. Petitioner has had to install a surveillance camera because her home is entered freely when she is not present, then leaving the door slightly ajar to inform her of their trespass. A few days after the eviction case was decided in Tenant’s favor, there was a knock at her door; she didn’t answer, then an hour later another knock. There were 6 to 8 officers standing there. It appeared that Resident Services Coordinator Akerlind called them and told them that Plaintiff had not opened the door earlier that morning (she was in bed) and a neighbor (always an anonymous neighbor) had heard a very loud noise emanating from the apartment. Akerlind was concerned that plaintiff might be injured in the unit. These men and women were from the police and fire department, and they were none too pleased that they were being played by PMI. See report, (26.)

MOLD

9. On move-in day in February 9, 2019, there were men from Zachau Construction Company working in the yard facing Tenant’s apartment. They were putting up facing to cover the slab on which the building sits. One of Tenant’s moving men commented that the work being performed had something to do with mold in the building. Zachau Company’s superintendent, Adam Routhier commented that he had upgraded the ventilation system, which then minimizes mold infestation. Tenant, at the time, was relieved that Landlord was eliminating the mold to which she is allergic.

10. Then on January 8, 2020 Tenant succumbed to her first allergic reaction, and was taken by ambulance to the emergency room at Maine Medical Center, (27.) Also attached is a letter from Tenant’s personal doctor attesting to her allergy. Saint Pierre wrote to Manager Rivera and there followed a series of emails in the midst of which Tenant had another reaction on January 30, 2020 (28.) From exchanges with Agent it became evident that the Agent had no intention of acknowledging or eradicating the mold. They intended to procure a “Report” exonerating them of any culpability. Tenant has suffered damage to her heart in the past for exposure to mold; something had to be done. She took it upon herself to wash down the side of the building with evident mold growing, which Manager would not accomplish when asked, and in February and March of same year Tenant bought 3 hepa filter air purifiers and later a dehumidifier (29.) In April 2020, she wrote to Landlord about the situation (30;) there was never a response.

11. The situation got much worse; in June of 2020; Tenant becomes sick and notifies Agent when the situation becomes intolerable. There follows another series of emails between Tenant and Manager (31) and then the “Report” on May 11, 2021 (32) in which apparently there are mold spores in Tenant’s books which emanate from her rotting plants. She is advised to get rid of the books and the plants to resolve the situation. There are no rotting plants in Tenant’s unit and no evidence is proffered to validate that statement. There are definitely mold spores in the books, but also in the carpeting, sofa, clothes, the air purifier filters, bedding, linen, etc. which were not tested.

12. Manager Rivera resolves her situation with Tenant by blocking her emails, (33.) What’s to be done? Tenant contacts Northeast Test Consultants and enlists them to perform an Indoor Air Quality Mold Assessment (16.) There is now professional evidence that there are mold spores in her apartment capable of launching an allergic reaction. Tenant sends a copy to both Agent and Landlord; no action is taken. Defendants’ attorney offers that Tenant should wash the furniture with a vinegar solution to take care of the situation.

13. Of the report’s many findings, it is noted that the bathroom vent has no exhaust fan and serves no purpose. As a first step in alleviating the mold problem Tenant seeks the reasonable accommodation of installing an exhaust fan for the bathroom (34.) It is rejected, would interfere with the ventilation system in the building. How so? An exhaust fan would increase the ventilation system’s efficiency. Like the rejection for the reasonable accommodation for noise complaints, this rejection offers no evidence to support its allegation.

14. The building has no gutters causing rain water and melting snow to fall directly abutting the building, thus seeping under it. Management would not eradicate the mold growing on side of building, has not, in the past 3 years, made any attempt to eliminate the problem of standing water (14) in stated building’s yard, blocks Tenant’s mold email complaint. Their solution? It’s simply not happening.

MALTREATMENT

15. On March 4, 2019, less than a month since her move-in, she receives taped to her door a Notice Of Lease/House Rules Violations with a X mark on the category marked Excessive Noise from your unit. It is followed by an envelope on which is stated “To tell on your Neighbor.” Within the envelope is a form titled Incident Report. Does Agent expect Plaintiff to make trouble for the complainant? Saint Pierre will not tell on her neighbors. It is her introduction to the system of control maintained by Agent on Northfield Green residents. The Notice is followed a few days later with a visit from one of the office personnel who has another violation notice. There have been complaints that Tenant’s music is too loud. The person stands at Plaintiff’s door less than ten feet from stereo speakers, but she cannot hear the music emanating from them. Nevertheless, she states, turn it down! When asked who made the complaint, she refuses, mentions privacy rights. In her report, Ms. Farr embellishes and states the music could be heard in the hall and that resident “was not very nice.” These reports are never seen by tenants. It is only through court proceedings that one discovers who made the complaint and management’s statement on the matter; one only gets the complaint document with the X mark denoting the transgression committed. The noise complaints continued till the eviction case on July 6, 2020 no matter what Tenant did or did not do to alleviate the situation, including purchasing a ear buds for her music and a laptop for her bedroom away from complainant’s adjoining wall to Plaintiff’s living room.

THE GAZEBO

16. There is the permission granted by Agent to place a gazebo in the yard, and then rescinded on July 10, 2019 (6, 10) with attached emails in which Agent states that a notice dated May 30, 2019 sent to all tenant forbade it; tenants were given 7 days to remove their property. Permission for gazebo had been granted on May 15, 2019. (The rescindment was hand-written at the bottom of a memo dated May 30, 2019, but served on Tenant on July 10, 2019) She was given the next day, July 11, 2019 to remove the gazebo or else maintenance would remove and dispose of it the following day. Tenant asked if other tenants were given the same deadline. There was no response. Not until the fall was the gazebo dismantled and Tenant’s possessions within it taken away. The curtilage of her unit was stripped bare, not so other tenants (11.)

SECOND EVICTION

17. Tenant filed a complaint with the Maine Human Rights Commission MHRC #H21-0132-A for discrimination on April 21, 2021, but it was not successful, September 22, 2021. She then approached the U.S. District Court in Portland on October 14, 2021 in hopes of appealing MHRC’s decision, but the appeal was unnecessary as she was able to restate her case de novo. On December 14, 2021 Saint Pierre was served with a second notice of eviction instigated by Landlord, NFG Housing Partners LP v. Lorraine Saint Pierre, SA 2021-545, which Tenant removed to instant Court, 2:22-cv-00011GZS. It was remanded and has yet to reach verdict. The Complaint stated that Tenant did not notify Landlord of an emergency situation in her unit, she did not allow access to her unit, there was damage to property, refused to allow management to conduct the yearly inspection of her unit and she kept her apartment door open (35).

18. Tenant spilled water in her apartment late one evening on July 20, 2021. She wiped it up and placed fans facing carpeting to facilitate its drying, similar to what maintenance does after cleaning the hallway carpeting, then she went to bed. She keeps her apartment door partially open when the mold gets out of hand, and some of the water had seeped into the hall. This was noted on the following morning and seeing the wet carpeting, they entered her apartment while she lay sleeping, and took photos. There are photos taken from Manager Rivera camera, and Randy Ketchum, a maintenance man who stated at hearing that he also took pictures on that morning. There is another maintenance man named Steve who was also involved.

19. They entered her apartment, knowing that Saint Pierre is severely hard of hearing, to gather evidence. How many people were in her apartment while she lay in bed sleeping and took photos? In their account there is mention of repeated knocking at her door and calling her name within the small apartment. They did no such thing. Later, in the day, Randy Ketchum, came over to see about the purported emergency and brought a fan to help dry up the carpet. Rivera issued 3 violations from this event (35). Tenant failed to notify them of the “flooding” of her apartment, there was damage to property and she refused them entry that morning. Spilling water on the floor is not an emergency and it is not flooding; PMI did not wait to be notified; they took it upon themself to enter the apartment before she was even up. There was no damage to the property as Ketchum readily testified at the hearing.

20. Eviction complaint that Tenant refused to allow maintenance to perform the yearly inspection was another set-up. Manager Rivera issued a memo on October 7, 2021 announcing the upcoming inspection. She and RS Coordinator Akerlind would accompany the inspector, and Tenant was to step out in the hall while the inspection occurred. There was no reason to have Rivera and Akerlind present; they had acquiesced the previous year to only have the inspector in her apartment. Tenant notified her and her superiors in South Portland that she wanted only the inspector to do his job in her home. On the appointed day, Rivera, fully aware of Tenant’s request, created a scene at Tenant’s door and would not allow the inspection to be held unless Tenant put on her mask, step out of the apartment and let her enter. Tenant tried to find an outside source to do the inspection but was not successful. Upper management of PMI in South Portland, during this period was also harassing her with trumped up violations. Tenant put an end to it by blocking them from emailing her. Below the court will find a list separated by year of the maltreatment she has received.

PMI INCIDENT REPORTS, VIOLATIONS, EDICTS, EXCHANGES

2019 (37)

3.4.19 Assistant Manager Farr: Linda Moody complains playing music too loud. Report written by Farr

JULY 14, 2019 TENANT FILES A SUIT IN STATE COURT, “GAZEBO”

7.29.19 Patricia Cameron: I witnessed Lorraine Saint Pierre in unit 14 taking pictures of other tenants’ yards – Report written by RS Coordinator Akerlind

11.3.19 Patricia Cameron: Mentally challenged residents [Saint Pierre] are allowed to continue doing whatever they want without repercussion, Report written by Akerlind.

2020 (38)

JANUARY 8, 2020 SUCCUMBS TO FIRST ALLERGIC REACTION

1.16.20 Windows open with fans in them. Report written by Cynthia Nock.

1.31.20: Lorraine has mold reaction, rejects Med-Cu offer for hospital visit. Report written by Sheilah Pires, office.

1.31.20 Informed by tenant Cynthia Nock that Saint Pierre leaves window open. Report written by Chris Conant, maintenance crew.

2.11.20 Fabricated account. Report written by Nock and RS Coor. Akerlind

5.1.20 Not wearing mask; (no such PMI rule at that time.) Report written by Sheilah Pires, office.

10 5.11.20 Exercising in common area. Report written by tenant Wanda Sue St. Peter.

5.11.20 Exercising in common area. Report written by unnamed person.

5.14.20 Lifting weights in common area. Report written by Sheilah Pires, office.

5.18.20 Police are summoned because Tenant has plastic chair in yard, altering the grounds. Report written by Vice President Green, PMI.

7.13.20 Fabricated report by RS Coor. Akerlind and Patricia Cameron.

10.23.20 Fabrications. Report written by Cynthia Nock.

12.31.20 Rob Young, ceiling fan making noise, & Plaintiff reply

2021 (39)

23. 2.3.21 Surveillance camera purchase; management enters her unit when Tenant is out.

3.1.21 Letter to management about fan, The red hair troublemaker. Report written by Rob Young.

3.12.21 PMI abuse of service. Report written by Fire dept.

4.9.20 Reinstalling my garden, email with photo of previous year’s set-up. Is offered a 2’ x 4’ box already in use; see other gardens (8)

APRIL 21, 2021 FILES DISCRIMINATION COMPLAINT WITH MAINE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION

7.21.21 Maintenance, manager enters tenant apt while she sleeps to gather evidence and take photos

7.21.21 Failure to allow landlord or agent to enter premises, violation

7.21.21 Damage to unit or common area, violation

7.29.21 Slamming door complaint, upper management (see ex. 19, email to manager 4 th graph about Plaintiff sealing the door against noise.)

8.17.21 Place in file, emails exposing complaint system; were not placed in file.

11 10.1.21 Password, won’t give Tenant password, Resident Computer Access

10.7.21 Unit inspection, as per previous years; Manager Rivera blocks Tenant’s email.

OCTOBER 14, 2021 FILES DISCRIMINATION SUIT IN U.S. DISTRICT COURT

10.17.21 Tenant blocks upper management emails

10.26.21 Keeps door open; (because of mold) violation

10.27.21 Manager creates scene, refuses to let inspector check her unit

10.27.21 Failure to allow landlord or agent to enter premises violation

12.14.21 SERVED EVICTION NOTICE

24. Northfield Green is managed by Lucia Rivera, and aided by Resident Services Coordinator, Wendy Akerlind and also two maintenance workers. Ms. Rivera’s governing authority is limited by her superiors, namely Vice President Green, regional Vice President Kris Landry, Regional Manager Marissa Severance, and there are others. Landlord through its agent shuns its responsibility, neglects its duties as signatory to Saint Pierre’s lease, and now must bear the burden of Agent’s actions or lack thereof. Tenant informed Landlord of the ongoing harassment and abuse (19) she was subjected to and still is, after she filed the gazebo suit; the harassment didn’t stop. Since the onset of Tenant’s gazebo suit, in its efforts to undo what has been permitted or ignored for years, Agent has disrupted the lives of tenants at Northfield Green with arbitrary and discriminatory decisions about gardens.Plaintiff wrote a long letter to Landlord explaining the mold problem at 147 Allen Avenue, the actions she had taken to mitigate it and seeking its help, no response, (17.) PMI’s manager Lucia Rivera stated in first eviction court hearing that she took her mandate from Landlord and not HUD (2.) Landlord’s responsibility to inform PMI of the HUD rules, the Fair Housing Act governing treatment of tenants was lacking or, most likely, was ignored with impunity by both parties.

25. Saint Pierre came to Northfield Green with an excellent recommendation from former landlord. Residents at Northfield Green are responsible adults who have contributed years of their lives, and many still do, to valuable work in their community, have raised families and are worthy of respect. They have come to Northfield Green for the affordable housing. It is not a convent, an institution, or a prison where one is at the mercy of an indifferent agent with no incentive to serve them, but rather with the unfettered power given to them by landlord.

CONCLUSION

WHEREFORE, in light of the issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, it is humbly prayed, that a ruling be set in motion to relieve Plaintiff, and by extension, the residents of Northfield Green of the continual emotional and psychological abuse she is subjected to from Landlord and its Agent. The same pattern will likely hold unless a ruling by the Court decides the matter, and with such other and further relief to which it deems just, proper and equitable.

Dated: March 17, 2022

Respectfully submitted,

MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF A COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS

MOTION FOR PERMANENT MANDATORY INJUNCTION

This suit in equity seeks an enforcement action for injunctive relief to compel Defendants to observe constitutional rights, national, state housing laws, and principal lease obligor, Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) required rules and regulations attached to Plaintiff’s lease. Their encroachment on plaintiff’s rights is immediate, intentional and repetitive. Defendants must undo the wrong is the appropriate remedy for the following reasons: 1. Wrongs have been proven sufficiently likely to reoccur; 2. the damage is not easily susceptible in measured economic terms, and 3. most of the damage is not financial and is inappropriate in light of the importance of the interest at issue.

42 U.S. Code § 1983 - Civil action for deprivation of rights: Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress.

CITED IN THIS MEMORANDUM

CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS VIOLATED:

1st amendment:

Guarantees freedom of expression by prohibiting Congress from restricting the press or the rights of individuals to speak freely. It also guarantees the right of citizens to assemble peaceably and to petition their government.

4 th amendment:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

5th amendment:

requires that “due process of law” be part of any proceeding that denies a citizen “life, liberty or property” and requires the government to compensate citizens when it takes private property for public use.

14th amendment

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

FEDERAL LAWS

42 U.S. Code § 1983 Civil action for deprivation of rights

CFR § 886.127(b)(2 Lease requirement: Required and prohibited provisions

41 U.S. Code § 6503 Breach or violation of required contract terms

24 CFR § 884.118 Responsibilities of the owner

42 USC §3617 Interference, Coercion, or Intimidation,

42 USC § 12203. Prohibition against retaliation

24 CFR §966.6(b) distraint for rent and other charges

24 CFR §100.600, quid pro quo, harassment, hostile environment

24 CFR subtitle A §5.705, Uniform Physical Inspection Requirements

42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(B Discrimination in sale or rental of housing

STATE LAWS

Title 14, §6030.2. A.D Unfair Agreements

Title 5 §4633.1.2 Prohibition against retaliation or coercion

Title 14 §6001.3.B Prohibition against retaliation

Title 5, §4581-A. Unlawful housing discrimination

Title 14, §6021.3DE The Warranty of Habitability, supplemental rights

COMMON LAW:

The Waiver Doctrine

The Doctrine of Reasonable Expectation

The Doctrine Of Unconscionability, Substantial Unconscionability

RST § 250. When A Statement Or An Act Is A Repudiation.

RST § 241(1981.) Circumstances Significant To Determining Whether A Failure Is Material.

RST § 251. Failing To Provide An Assurance Of Due Performance

RST § 237. Effect On Other Party's Duties Of A Failure To Render Performance.

RST § 211 (1981.) Unfulfilled expectations

CASES

Conille v. Secretary of Housing & Urban Devel. 840 F.2d 105 (1st Cir. 1988), 87-1120

Thompson v. Thompson, 484 U.S. 174, 108 S. Ct. 513, 98 L. Ed. 2d 512 (1988)

Javins v. First National Realty Corporation, 428 F.2d 1071, 1074 (D.C. Cir. 1970)

Cort v. Ash, 422 U.S. 66, 78, 95 S. Ct. 2080, 2088, 45 L. Ed. 2d 26 (1975)

Thompson v. Thompson, 484 U.S. 174, 108 S. Ct. 513, 98 L. Ed. 2d 512 (1988)

Broemmer v. Abortion Services of Phoenix, 173 Ariz. 148 (1992) 840 P.2d 1013

PERIODICALS

Implied Warranty of Habitability in Federal Housing Project: Alexander v. United States Department of Housing and Urban Development by David Slacter, Boston College Law Review, vol 19, issue 2 number 2.

the National Library of Medicine, National Institute of Health: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5490296/

LEGAL FRAMEWORK

THE LEASE

1. Plaintiff Saint Pierre (Tenant) and NFG Housing Partnership LP (Landlord) are joined by a Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Multi Family Housing Program Lease (1. (Exhibits 1 through 20 may be found in Plaintiff’s Supplemental Jurisdiction Motion for this case.)) One of the lease clauses, page 4, section 14.Rules: “Tenant agrees to obey the House Rules . . ” The lease does not state who has created the house rules and for whose benefit they have been created, for tenants, Landlord, HUD, or Landlord’s agent? In fact the rules have been created by Landlord’s agent, Preservation Management Inc. (PMI.) Tenants have no legal contract with Agent, are not bound to it in any way. It is hired by Landlord to do its bidding, and has been given a free hand (20.) PMI has asserted (13), that Landlord is not consulted before giving permission to parcel out the land in tenants’ yard. Agent creates rules independently of Landlord. May Landlord hand over its share of responsibilities to its agent without the consent of the other two lease obligors, namely HUD and its tenant? HUD has this to say: Per CFR § 886.127(b)(2) Lease requirement: Required and prohibited provisions. The lease between the owner and the family must comply with HUD regulations and requirements, and must be in the form required by HUD. It makes no assertion that Landlord may surrender its responsibilities to a third unattached entity, (Restatement (Second) of Contracts §§ 250, 251, § 241 (1981.) also RST § 237. See (19) letter to Landlord about Agent abuse.

2. Landlord may not allot its sovereignty to Agent without the consent of its obligors. There is no mention whatsoever in Tenant’s lease of Agent Preservation Management, or its authority to rule over tenants. Landlord has breached the lease, a material breach. With this authority, Agent, dealing with a vulnerable population, has denied them their constitutional rights per 1st, 4th , 5th and 14 th amendment. The lease is a contract, and as such must comply with 41 U.S. Code § 6503 - Breach or violation of required contract terms. There is also 24 CFR § 884.118 - Responsibilities of the owner, and state statute Title 14, §6030.2. A.D. – Unfair Agreements. Many if not most of Northfield Green senior housing tenants are members of a protected class who use walkers, are bound to wheelchairs, require oxygen tanks to help their breathing, have hearing difficulties and then there are all the unseen maladies that seniors are prone to, to which Landlord has a fiduciary duty. It owes its tenants a duty of loyalty.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

HOUSE RULES

3. Page 3-4, section 12 of lease: Restrictions and Alterations: Tenant sought Landlord’s assent to place a gazebo in the yard facing her apartment. Per lease clause, “No alteration, addition, or improvements shall be made in or to the premises without the consent of the Landlord in writing.” Tenant did receive permission without stipulation for it (6.) Albeit tricked up in such a way as to cloud its clear intent. PMI is not without blame in this matter. When notifying Tenant that permission was rescinded PMI stated that Tenant had been warned on the May 30, 2019 memo that stated items “left after [June 7, 2019] will be removed by maintenance.” (See 10, and its emails.) The rescinding document with its hand written note at bottom was handed to Tenant on July 10, 2019. Permission was granted for the gazebo on May 15, 2019 preceding the memo; the gazebo was not on the memo’s stated list of forbidden things. PMI had no intention of fulfilling the permission it granted Tenant, but used it to instruct, as stated in permission heading, “Re: House Rules Education.” It interfered in a matter that was Landlord’s decision to make, not theirs; it used the interference to threaten and intimidate Tenant. Per 42 USC §3617, Interference, Coercion, or Intimidation, also 42 USC § 12203. Prohibition against retaliation, then state law Title 5 §4633.1.2 Prohibition against retaliation or coercion, they may not. It was denying Tenant her 5 th and 14 th amendment rights. She was being held to rules that applied solely to her, Title 14, §6030.2. A.D. – Unfair Agreements. Marissa Severance, Senior Regional Manager, no matter title at PMI, is not an obligor to Tenant’s lease and may not rescind Landlord permission to place gazebo in the curtilage of Plaintiff’s home. Severance does not work at Northfield Green, her only tie to the project is through its inhouse personnel.

THE GAZEBO

4. After permission was rescinded, the gazebo was dismantled and her property was seized and has yet to be returned; see 24 CFR §966.6(b) /distraint for rent and other charges on this matter. Saint Pierre filed suit to keep her gazebo in the yard on July 14, 2019 (Saint Pierre v. Preservation Management Inc. CD 19-386.) Agent informed other tenants about the case and they were inveigled to report on Tenant, which created a hostile environment; see 24 CFR §100.600, quid pro quo harassment, hostile environment. As can be seen from the photos submitted (8) tenants were not treated equitably. She was, and is subjected to harassment, bogus complaints are lodged against her (37, 38, 39.) Her garden was mowed down. Agent seized furnishings she had placed in the yard while others had extensive gardens, furnishings, fencing, sunbrellas on the property grounds. Agent seeks to deny Tenant her 1 st 5 th and 14 th amendment rights.

5. Tenant sought out the Maine Human Rights Commission, (MHRC H21-0132-B,) to curtail Agent’s abuse, but was unsuccessful. Presently she is in instant Court with a complaint for violation of human rights to which she is seeking supplemental jurisdiction for the gazebo case. State court has since reached its decision and denies Tenant’s right to have the gazebo in the yard facing her home.

THE FIRST EVICTION COMPLAINT

6. Tenant was subjected to materially adverse action. A Forcible Entry and Detainer Complaint was initiated seeking to evict her from her home, (NFG Housing Partners LP v. Saint Pierre, # CD 19-386.) The causal link between the gazebo lawsuit with its notice to Landlord and Agent about the HUD rules governing her leasehold to which she informed them on May 1, 2020 (12) is the twenty seventh day window where Landlord initiates the eviction on May 28, 2020. The eviction was retaliatory. Per Maine Revised Statute Title 14 §6001.3.B and also 42 USC § 12203. Prohibition against retaliation; the eviction was discriminatory 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(B) and TITLE 5, §4581-A. Unlawful housing discrimination because of the noise complaints for Saint Pierre’s hearing disability, and Agent’s refusal of Saint Pierre’s request for the reasonable accommodation(18.) The court dismissed Landlord’s noise allegations. Landlord could not on the one hand give permission for the gazebo then seek to evict her for installing it, 42 U.S.C. §12203(a,) and RST § 250. At trial, tenants testified against her 24.CFR §100.600 quid pro quo, harassment, hostile environment because her cat was allowed to roam in the yard, a matter that was of no concern to them, didn’t interfere in their life. One person testified that she liked birds and cats were known to kill birds, hence Tenant should be evicted. Saint Pierre has since been served another eviction notice.

MALTREATMENT

7. Exhibits 37, 38, 39, of Incident Reports were presented at first eviction, at Maine Human Rights Commission and at second eviction. They correlate with Plaintiff’s actions to assert her rights whether with Agent, Landlord or through the court system, and they increase exponentially as time unfolds. That Agent presents, these documents to the courts as evidence of Tenant’s wrong-doing indicates they are either unaware, or do not care that there is anything wrong in what they are doing. They see their authority as preeminent. At the very least, that is a privacy violation under the first, a negation of the requirement of due process of the fifth amendment and abridging the privileges and immunities guaranteed to citizens of the fourteenth Amendment, then 24 CFR §100.600, quid pro quo harassment, hostile environment, 42 USC §3617, Interference, Coercion, or Intimidation, also 42 USC § 12203. Prohibition against retaliation, state law Title 5 §4633.1.2 Prohibition against retaliation or coercion. She is harassed, maltreated at will. The maltreatment will continue until the matter is settled by the courts.

THE SECOND EVICTION COMPLAINT

8. Taking advantage of Tenant’s hearing disability, they entered her apartment while she lay sleeping and took pictures of her apartment knowing she would not hear the noise is a flagrant privacy violation under the first amendment. Agent was retaliating because Saint Pierre sought out instant Court to demand her rights; then the fourth amendment, the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses . . ; a negation of the requirement of due process of the fifth amendment and abridging the privileges and immunities guaranteed to citizens of the fourteenth Amendment, then 24 CFR §100.600, quid pro quo harassment, hostile environment, 42 USC §3617, Interference, Coercion, or Intimidation, also 42 USC § 12203. Prohibition against retaliation, state law Title 5 §4633.1.2 Prohibition against retaliation or coercion. They? Tenant does not know who came into her home. There are pictures taken from PMI Manager Rivera’s camera, both maintenance men appeared to be part of it. It was a poorly planned attempt to frame her with complaints of an emergency situation that Tenant did not notify management about, that she had refused them entry. Plaintiff has suffered great humiliation and embarrassment from PMI’s entry into her home while she lay sleeping, undressed. PMI was creating evidence to have her evicted. On another occasion Rivera and her superiors insisted that Manager and RS Coordinator accompany the inspector for his yearly inspection of her unit, a 5 minute look around, which had been done previously by the inspector with no problem, and Tenant was to step out of her home while they did so. Rivera created a scene in the hallway on the appointed day; she was coming into the apartment or there would be no inspection. Per 24 CFR subtitle A §5.705, Uniform Physical Inspection Requirements states: Any entity responsible for conducting a physical inspection of HUD housing, to determine compliance with this subpart, must inspect such HUD housing annually in accordance with HUD prescribed physical inspection procedure. There is no requirement that anyone else be present for the inspection. PMI was and is operating completely outside the law. To name a few, there is 42 USC § 3617 Interference, Coercion, or Intimidation, 42 USC § 12203. Prohibition against retaliation.

MOLD

9. Plaintiff is allergic to mold and has made that known to Landlord and Agent repeatedly (14, 15, 16, 17, 18.) She succumbed to her first allergic reaction eleven months, that is on January 8, 2020, after move-in to her apartment, and was taken by ambulance to the emergency room at Maine Medical Center. As a long-time sufferer, Saint Pierre is well aware of the paucity of laws protecting patients because the fungus presents with such a wide variety of symptoms that it is not easily categorized or fitted into the bright-line rule. Presently, she suffers from hydronephrosis, a swelling of her kidneys. But Tenant is not suing for damages, rather she is seeking equitable remedies to eradicate the mold causing its spores to infect her apartment.

10. The best one can hope for, if the mold is visible, is to take Landlord to court to have it eradicated. If the mold is not visible, i.e. within walls, under flooring, within the building’s eaves, etc., it becomes more difficult to prove culpability. The mold spores penetrating Tenant’s apartment are from under the flooring where building rests on slab and is susceptible to water seeping in as has been asserted by Agent’s Air Quality assessment’s Mark Coleman. Photos of the yard (14) enclosed within the arms of the building where her apartment is located show the perennial standing water. The medical evidence (15,) air quality assessment of her apartment (16,) even Agent’s air quality test (32) confirm the presence of mold spores in her apartment. Yet, Landlord and its agent have consistently denied and ignored the presence of mold.

11. There are any number of ways to correct the problem. Agent’s inspector offered this when he tested Plaintiff’s unit: Lifting the carpeting in her unit and sealing the floor underneath, thus preventing spores from entering her unit would help. Landlord was not interested – there is no mold. “Landlord shall be deemed to covenant and warrant that the dwelling unit is fit for human habitation” attests Maine statute Title 14, §6021.3DE Enforcement of the Warranty of Habitability, supplemental rights.

12. After receiving Tenant’s own Air Quality Report, she sought the reasonable accommodation (43) as a good faith start to eradicating the mold of placing an exhaust fan in the bathroom, whose lack was pointed out by the Report. It was rejected by Geoff Green, Vice President, Administration because, “[B]ecause doing so would interfere with the existing ventilation system.” How so? Offers no proof. The fan would increase the ventilation system’s efficiency by adding to it.

13. Saint Pierre then sought out Christine Jenkinson, PMI’s President and Chief Executive Officer who states: “The assessment conducted by Northeast Test Consultants (NTC) at your request found the air in your living room to be “slightly compromised” by Aspergillus/Penicillium-like mold spores which require only settled dust and moisture and humidity to grow.” By far, CEO Jenkinson’s reply is the most reprehensible. And she lies, tries to blame Tenant for the mold spores. There was never “flooding” in Tenant’s apartment. Also, Agent’s test did find heavy presence of mold spores.

14. Is Aspergillus Penicillium mold dangerous?

Per the National Library of Medicine, National Institute of Health: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5490296/

“Aspergillus is one of the well-documented molds known to cause health problems. Molds such as Aspergillus may adversely affect human health based on toxicity, allergy, and infection [21]. Some species of Aspergillus are known to be capable of producing secondary metabolites or mycotoxins [22].” (Enclosed numbers 21 and 22 are not exhibit markers, but part of the quoted passage.)

DISCUSSION

MOLD

15. Courts have recognized a federal common law warranty. David Slacter in the Boston College Law Review, vol 19, issue 2 number 2: Implied Warranty of Habitability in Federal Housing Project: Alexander v. United States Department of Housing and Urban Development poses the question whether the lease is a contract or a conveyance. If a conveyance, then caveat emptor, landlord has no obligation to maintain property once the lease is agreed to. If a contract it should be considered in the same manner as other federal contracts, then the implied warranty of habitability comes into play. The case for the latter interpretation is stated in Javins v. First National Realty Corp. The court in its ruling for viewing the lease as a contract asserts, 1. The rule [of lease as conveyance] was based on factual assumptions no longer true; the court found that urban tenants are interested not in the land, but in a habitable dwelling. Modern tenants, unlike their agrarian predecessors are no longer able to repair the premises themselves. 2. The court found that the development of consumer protection law by which sellers are held impliedly that to warrant that their goods are fit for the use intended by the parties, should be extended to landlord-tenant area. 3. Additionally, abandoning the common law rule concerned the urban housing market, i.e. the housing shortage and the subsequent inequality of bargaining power that have resulted in tenants having little leverage to seek better housing.

“[T]he continued vitality of the common law * * * depends upon its ability to reflect contemporary community values and ethics[,]" and “[i]n our judgment the common law itself must recognize the landlord's obligation to keep his premises in a habitable condition. “Javins v. First National Realty Corporation, 428 F.2d 1071, 1074 (D.C. Cir. 1970)

16. Tenant’s complaint of mold infestation is a perfect example of the fitness of the Javins’ court ruling. Saint Pierre could not know of the mold situation when she signed the lease, is not cognizant of the mold colonies beneath the flooring of her apartment, has no way of observing them, and does not have the skills to repair the problem. Landlords are well aware of the difficulties tenants encounter in proving that the problem exists or of proving its specific harm to the individual, and then the cost involved when seeking remediation through the court system. No less than the Center for Disease Control and Prevention, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency have warned of the danger of living with mold. NFG Housing Partners LP and Preservation Management Inc., in this case have worked hand in hand to deny the existence of mold.

LEGISLATIVE INTENT

17. In Cort v. Ash, 422 U.S. 66, 78, 95 S. Ct. 2080, 2088, 45 L. Ed. 2d 26 (1975), the United States Supreme Court set forth four criteria used in determining whether a private right of action may be properly implied in a federal statute: (1) Does the statute create a federal right in favor of the Plaintiff? (2) Does legislative intent, explicitly or implicitly, create such a private remedy or deny one? (3) Is it consistent with the purpose of the statute to imply such a remedy for the Plaintiff? And (4) is the cause of action relegated to the states, so that inferring a right based solely on federal law would be inappropriate? “The intent of Congress remains the ultimate issue” states Thompson v. Thompson, 484 U.S. 174, 108 S. Ct. 513, 98 L. Ed. 2d 512 (1988)

18. What of legislative intent in this matter, of Cort’s first criteria, that the statute creates a federal right in favor of the Plaintiff? From the Housing Act in 1937, Congress’ policy was intended to alleviate the shortage of decent, safe and sanitary dwellings for families of low income. The importance of this goal, declared in the Housing Act of 1949 is that the elimination of substandard housing would improve the general welfare and contribute to the advancement of the growth, wealth and security of the nation. The 1968 passage of the Housing and Development Act explicitly reaffirmed those goals, and did so again in 1974. Congress has consistently established a goal of national policy, a decent home for every American family. It intends the remedy to be an implied warranty of habitability in homes to which the government creates and or supports.

MALTREATMENT

19. Agent’s system for controlling tenants is through its dissemination of Violation Notices, the X mark on a selected set of offenses. There is no other information proffered beyond the stated one line complaint; how often it occurred, and at what time, its severity, extenuating circumstances, physical proof are not offered. One may not be told who made the complaint, one may not respond to the complaint and add it to one’s tenant file. See (42,) wherein Tenant is accused of slamming her apartment door. A lie per (19, 4 th graph) as Tenant herself insulated the door. Her request to manager to place the exchanges between herself and upper management in her tenant file is not acted upon. (Tenant requested her tenant file for 2 nd eviction complaint and the “place in file” documents had not been placed in it.) There are the Incident Reports, which one is not apprised of till they surface in court hearings. These are documents, mostly created by Agent, in which tenants make complaints to management about their neighbors. It is by and large gossip encouraged by Resident Services Coordinator Akerlind and other PMI personnel. Agent’s system is a trap that deprives tenants of their 1st , 5th , and 14th amendment rights. They cannot respond to the allegations, have no way to defend themselves. It’s a closed system in which Agent asserts despotic power.

20. Some of the treatment Plaintiff received was petty and cruel; withholding the knowledge that Plaintiff’s cat Chloê was to be poisoned, then placing the Incident Report in her file knowing Plaintiff would see it when requesting the file for the gazebo case; giving permission for the gazebo, then rescinding it with no credible reason for doing so; the noise complaints that kept coming, no matter what was done to silence oneself; it was such a searing experience that to this day, no music is heard emanating from her home, and whatever electronic sound issues from her computer travels to her via ear buds or preferably she chooses captioned missives. She has no television. Her home is violated repeatedly, and the apartment door left slightly ajar to let her know of the trespass, she was forbidden use of the yard the whole of past summer while others had no such restrictions; the calling of police and fire department to harass her (26) after the first eviction ruling went in Tenant’s favor. PMI enjoyed creating scenes at her apartment door, it served as warning to neighbors: This person is a troublemaker and also, This is what happens if you oppose us. In its second eviction there is a complaint in which Tenant keeps her apartment door open, slightly. This complaint has been repeated a number of times. The door is left open, not enough for anyone to see within, but enough to help rid the apartment of mold spores. PMI have been told of the reason. They know there is mold; they do not care; one of their House Rules forbids the open door and Plaintiff must obey. Then again the open door is an affirmation of the building’s mold, which is not something it wants discussed in the resident population.

THE EVICTIONS

21. It is Agent who dictates who may have a subsidized apartment, not HUD, (except for its low-income criteria) or even building owner who gave away that power. Landlord’s name may be on the Forcible Entry and Detainer Complaint, but that is a mere formality. If Agent finds you not to its approval, it can marshal up a small army to testify against you. At Tenant’s first eviction hearing five PMI employees testified against her, Marissa Severance, Senior Regional Manager, Wendy Akerlind, Residence Services Coordinator, Shari Letourneau, Property Manager, Lucia Rivera, Property Manager, and Christopher Conant, Maintenance Worker, then Police Officer Joseph Bliss, and tenants, Patricia Cameron, Sheila Carson, Linda Moody and Cynthia Nock. In both evictions, Saint Pierre’s disability was used against her. A person living on a fixed income, ignorant of the laws that protect them is shortly made aware of its vulnerability. Plaintiff wrote to Landlord (19) about the elder abuse, the harassment, threats. It was made aware, with proof, of what was happening, and it did not correct the situation. The threat of eviction is common at the Northfield Green complex as are the violation memos posted on one’s door for all to see.

GAZEBO, YARD, GARDENS

22. Attached as exhibit 24 is a letter to landlord with photos of yard at time Plaintiff’s gazebo presence was being threatened with removal. It did not respond. There is also an Agent memo dated June 12, 2019, a photo dated June. 2, 2021 and a Manager Reminder that states under the heading PLANTING, “Residents are allowed to plant flowers throughout the community. If this is something you would like to do please let us know so we can show you specific areas that could use a little TLC. (Emphasis theirs.)” Agent seeks to have tenants do landscaping on building owner’s property at tenants’ own expense, in order to enjoy the grounds, Title 14, §6030.2. A.D Unfair Agreements. The photo dated 6.2.21 was taken on a day, with no warning from management, no prior memo, in which maintenance crew went about the complex and gathered all the chairs it found on the grounds and brought them to the dumpster. One was no longer permitted to have a chair on the grounds. The Memo dated June 12, 2019, 5 th graph, states, “ They [Landlord] are not however okay with having patios and/or other structures built . . .” Yet, if one looks at exhibit 9, permission is granted to tenant in unit 6 which is dated June 26, 2019 to have a patio “outside your unit,” after landlord has disallowed patios. Permission was rescinded for Plaintiff’s gazebo on July 10, 2019. Whatever plan Agent and or Landlord has in mind for the grounds at Northfield Green is unbeknownst to tenants. It has been the practice, for years, that tenants are allowed to garden in the curtilage of their homes, what Landlord has labeled “the front of their unit.” In its ruling on Plaintiff’s first eviction case Judge Darvin states, “Notwithstanding this clarification, [about changing outdoor garden rules] the evidence and testimony at trial, suggested a wide range of continuing practices regarding the placement of tables and chairs of various types by tenants and the planting of flower gardens, as well as confusion amongst the tenants as to what was, or was not, permitted.” Agent infantalizes and subjugates individuals with its violations notices with an X mark on one’s particular effrontery, its demands that one needs to seek their permission to do any number of things, its ever changing rules. Infantilization is a term used by social scientists to discuss the ways in which treating humans as hapless can prolong or encourage their dependency on others. Any of the subsequent statutes may be applied to Agent’s behavior vis a vis the rules or lack thereof for the grounds at Northfield Green,: 42 USC § 12203. Prohibition against retaliation, 24 CFR §966.6(b) /distraint for rent and other charges, 24 CFR 16 §100.600, quid pro quo harassment, hostile environment, Title 14, §6030.2. A.D Unfair Agreements, Title 5 §4633.1.2 Prohibition against retaliation or coercion, Title 14 §6001.3.B Prohibition against retaliation, TITLE 5, §4581-A. Unlawful housing discrimination. But most importantly, the lease is mute about gardens.

THE LEASE

23. An offer to contract must be complete and definite in its material terms. Tenant’s lease is an adhesion contract and as such the doctrine of reasonable expectation comes into play. It states that a party who adheres to the other party's standard terms does not assent to the terms if the other party has reason to believe that the adhering party would not have accepted the agreement if he had known that the agreement contained the particular term. Were the provisions written in clear, unambiguous terms? Would a reasonable person signing that contract expect to be ruled by PMI? Most assuredly, HUD would not have approved of Landlord putting it in charge of tenants. And Tenant would not have signed on had she known that such an arrangement between Landlord and its Agent was part of the lease’s intentions. The lease clause, page 4, section 14. Rules: “Tenant agrees to obey the House Rules . .’ on its face appears to indicate a short list of Landlord do’s and don’ts, not Agent’s 33 pages of self serving edicts.

24. There is the case of Broemmer v. Abortion Services of Phoenix, 173 Ariz. 148 (1992) 840 P.2d 1013 in which Plaintiff suffered damage, a perforated uterus, during an abortion procedure. She sought relief through the court. But she had signed a binding arbitration document before the procedure and now sought to vacate, quash or set aside the order. It was denied. On appeal, the court found that the contract as adhesion, is not, “of itself determinative of its inforceability[,]” for several reasons: The first is that such a contract or provision which does not fall within the reasonable expectations of the weaker or "adhering" party will not be enforced against him. The second, a principle of equity applicable to all contracts generally is that a contract or provision, even if consistent with the reasonable expectations of the parties, will be denied enforcement if, considered in its context, it is unduly oppressive or "unconscionable."

25. Broemmer met its requirements as does Tenant in this case. The nature of the contract term is oppressive, thus the doctrine of unconscionability, substantial unconscionability arises.

26. Landlord’s conscious failure to monitor and oversee the corporation’s compliance with human rights obligations is a breach of duty. It has failed in its duty to act in good faith. Landlord is depriving tenants of their 1st and 14 th amendment right by imposing Agent house rules for which tenants have no voice. It is also placing tenants in harm’s way by not eradicating the mold. It has created a stressful environment for seniors to live in.

27. Tenant more than meets the criteria for making a prima facie case for a first amendment: Intentional infliction of emotional distress: Threats against Tenant’s cat Chloê that Agent uses to coerce her,

• The Defendants act;

• The Defendants’ conduct is outrageous

• The Defendants act for the purpose of causing the victim emotional distress so severe that it could be expected to adversely affect mental health

• The Defendants’ conduct causes such distress

28. Negligence Per Se: PMI discriminates against Tenant for her hearing disability

• Statute or administrative created a duty

• Plaintiff is in class of people protected by the duty statutorily imposed on Defendants

• Defendants violated that statute or administrative regulation

• The Statute was intended to prevent the type of injury suffered

29. Res ipsa loquitur negligence: Plaintiff must prove 3 things: Landlord and Agent worked in concert to deny the existence of mold on the property

• The incident was of a type that does not generally happen without negligence

• It was caused by an instrumentality solely in Defendants’ control

• Plaintiff did not contribute to the cause

30. Public Nuisance: PMI violated her privacy by entering her unit when she was not home or was incapacitated

• Injury resulting from intentional, unreasonable interference with right common to the public

• The injury singles out Plaintiff from the rest of the public

31. Inducement of contract Landlord induced PMI to ignore mold complaints

• Valid contract between Landlord and Tenant

• PMI has knowledge of a valid contract

• Landlord induces PMI to disrupt the contract with Plaintiff

• Landlord's inducement causes harm to Plaintiff

CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

:COUNT ONE

BREACH OF LEASE Breach of fiduciary duty, of good faith, Failure to render performance, unfulfilled expectations 5 th amendment, due process of law 14 th amendment, equal protection under the laws 1 st amendment, freedom of speech, infliction of emotional distress. Material repudiation of lease clauses, due performance failings Failure to render performance, unfulfilled expectations

THE LEASE

32. May Landlord hand over its share of responsibilities to its agent without the consent of the other two lease obligors, namely HUD and its tenant? HUD has this to say: Per CFR § 886.127(b)(2) Lease requirement: Required and prohibited provisions. It has consistently stated, as part of its lease requirements, that only Landlord may create house rules, and for good reason. And Tenant as the other obligor would never have signed that lease had she known what was behind clause 14 Rules: Tenant agrees to obey the House Rules, which on its surface appears to indicate an innocent landlord’s do’s and don’ts list. The doctrine of reasonable expectation comes into play. The nature of the contract term is oppressive, thus the doctrine of unconscionability, substantial unconscionability arises.

33. The lease is a contract, and as such must comply with 41 U.S. Code § 6503. There is also 24 CFR § 884.118 - Responsibilities of the owner, and state statute Title 14, §6030.2. A.D. – Unfair Agreements

34. The lease as contract is subject to Restatement (Second) of Contracts §§ 250, 251, § 211 (1981.) also RST § 237.

35. Landlord may not allot its sovereignty to Agent without the consent of its obligors. There is no mention whatsoever in Tenant’s lease of Agent Preservation Management Inc., or its authority to rule over tenants. Landlord has breached the lease, a material breach.

36. With its given authority, Agent, dealing with a vulnerable population, has denied them their constitutional rights per 1st, 4th , 5th and 14 th amendment. Landlord is responsible for its agent and shares the blame for every wrongful thing they have done.

37. And then there is its refusal to eradicate the mold, Title 14, §6021.3DE The Warranty of Habitability, supplemental rights

38. Many if not most of Northfield Green senior housing tenants are members of a protected class, to which Landlord has a fiduciary duty.

39. Landlord’s conscious failure to monitor and oversee the corporation’s compliance with human rights obligations is a breach of duty. It failed in its duty to act with good faith.

40. Landlord is depriving tenants of their first amendment right by its intentional infliction of emotional distress, its suppression of the freedom of speech by imposing Agent house rules for which tenants have no voice, and the, 5 th amendment, due process of law and the 14 th amendment of equal protection under the law.

41. Landlord is also placing tenants in harm’s way by not eradicating the mold and created a hostile environment for seniors to live in, 24 CFR §100.600.

COUNT TWO

Breach of lease 5 th amendment, due process of law 14 th amendment, equal protection under the laws 1 st amendment, freedom of speech, infliction of emotional distress. Discrimination, retaliation, inequity, hostile environment, coercion, Distraint of property, unfair agreements, quid pro quo harassment, hostile environment

The GAZEBO

42. Landlord gave Plaintiff written permission to place a gazebo in the yard facing her apartment. PMI rescinded that permission, RST § 250. Repudiation. Agent used the permission to threaten and intimidate Tenant. Per 42 USC §3617, Interference, Coercion, or Intimidation, also then state law Title 5 §4633.1.2 Prohibition against retaliation or coercion, they may not. Once Tenant took them to court it got worse, 42 USC § 12203. Prohibition against retaliation and 1 st amendment rights. She was being held to rules that applied solely to her, Title 14, §6030.2. A.D. – Unfair Agreements. They were discriminating, 42 U.S. Code § 3604 - Discrimination in the sale or rental of housing. Then taking her property within the gazebo, 24 CFR §966.6(b) /distraint for rent and other charges.

43. Agent informed other tenants about the case and they were inveigled to report on Tenant, testify against her in court, which created a hostile environment; see 24 CFR §100.600, quid pro quo harassment, hostile environment. Resident Services Coordinator pitted tenants against each other some gaining favors, others mistreated. Agent seeks to deny Tenant her 1 st 5 th and 14 th amendment rights.

COUNT THREE

Breach of lease 1 st amendment, freedom of speech, infliction of emotional distress. 5 th amendment, due process of law 14 th amendment, equal protection under the laws Retaliation, discrimination, quid pro quo, hostile environment

THE FIRST EVICTION

44. Landlord sought to evict her once she became aware of rules governing her lease. Per Maine Revised Statute Title 14 §6001.3.B and also 42 USC § 12203. Prohibition against retaliation; the eviction was discriminatory 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(B) and TITLE 5, §4581-A. Unlawful housing discrimination because of the noise complaints for Saint Pierre’s hearing disability, and Agent’s refusal of Saint Pierre’s request for the reasonable accommodation.

45. Landlord could not on the one hand give permission for the gazebo then seek to evict her for installing it, 41 U.S. Code § 6503 Breach or violation of required contract terms; RST § 250: Repudiation

COUNT FOUR

5 th amendment, due process of law 14 th amendment, equal protection under the laws 1 st amendment, freedom of speech, infliction of emotional distress. Quid pro quo, hostile environment, interference, intimidation, Retaliation, coercion.

MALTREATMENT

46. Incident Reports from the year 2019 to present illustrate the underpinnings of 24 CFR §100.600, quid pro quo harassment, hostile environment. These reports are created by Agent unbeknownst to intended tenants. It keeps secret files in which residents are encouraged to report on their neighbors. These covert files come to life in court proceedings and are used against tenants. Then there are the one-line description Violation Notices which are used extensively.

47. At the very least, that is a privacy violation under the First, a negation of the requirement of due process as they are employed in the courts, of the fifth amendment and abridging the privileges and immunities guaranteed to citizens of the fourteenth Amendment, then 24 CFR §100.600, quid pro quo harassment, hostile environment, 42 USC §3617, Interference, Coercion, or Intimidation, also 42 USC § 12203. Prohibition against retaliation, state law Title 5 §4633.1.2 Prohibition against retaliation or coercion. She is harassed, maltreated at will. The maltreatment will not stop until the court intervenes.

COUNT FIVE

5 th amendment, due process of law 14 th amendment, equal protection under the laws 1 st amendment, freedom of speech, the right to assemble Quid pro quo, hostile environment, interference, intimidation, retaliation, coercion.

THE SECOND EVICTION

48. Taking advantage of Tenant’s hearing disability, they entered her apartment while she lay sleeping and took pictures of her apartment knowing she would not hear the noise is a flagrant privacy violation under the first amendment. Agent was retaliating because Saint Pierre sought out this very Court to demand her rights; there is the fourth amendment, the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses . . ; and a negation of the requirement of due process of the fifth amendment and abridging the privileges and immunities guaranteed to citizens of the fourteenth Amendment, then 24 CFR §100.600, quid pro quo harassment, hostile environment, 42 USC §3617, Interference, Coercion, or Intimidation, also 42 USC § 12203. Prohibition against retaliation, state law Title 5 §4633.1.2 Prohibition against retaliation or coercion.

49. One of the complaints in the FED action, is that Tenant had refused Agent entry for yearly inspection. Manager Rivera and Resident Services Coordinator were to accompany the inspector, and Tenant was to step out of her apartment during inspection, 24 CFR subtitle A §5.705, Uniform Physical Inspection Requirements. The inspector was the only one needed. Agent purposely created situations to harass and intimidate tenants, 42 USC § 3617 Interference, Coercion, or Intimidation, 42 USC § 12203. Prohibition against retaliation.

COUNT SIX

5 th amendment, due process of law 14 th amendment, equal protection under the laws Breach of lease, warranty of habitability, Unfulfilled expectations, assurance of performance denied.

MOLD

50. Tenant is allergic to mold, has had several mold reactions requiring emergency hospitalization since move-in to Northfield Green and takes a myriad of drugs to alleviate the damage being done to her body. Landlord and its agent have been informed numerous times of the mold problem. They deny its existence, or recently, dismiss it, wipe the furniture with a water and vinegar solution also pass a hepa filter vacuum around. Tenant has been left to her own paltry devices, has expended money, on 3 hepa filter air purifiers, a dehumidifier, and an air quality assessment of her apartment, washed down the side of the building, shoveled snow away from the building, 24 CFR § 884.118 Responsibilities of the owner.

51. There is the Maine statute Title 14, §6021.3DE Enforcement of the Warranty of Habitability, supplemental rights, also. And then there is its refusal to eradicate the mold.

52. There is the Javins ruling in which it makes the case that the present-day lease is a contract which entitles lessees to the protection of a warranty of habitability, Javins v. First National Realty Corporation, 428 F.2d 1071, 1074 (D.C. Cir. 1970)

COUNT SEVEN

Breach of lease Retaliation , distraint of property, exploitation Quid pro quo, hostile environment, coercion, discrimination 5 th amendment, due process of law 14 th amendment, equal protection under the laws Breach of lease, warranty of habitability, equitable estoppel.

GARDENS, YARD

53. No other matter at the complex, has elicited as much ire, hurt, confusion as PMI dicta on property grounds, which has changed so many times in the past two years as to become a meaningless abuse of power. One could only have plants in the yard if they were in a pot; then, one may place plants in the ground; then again one needed to get permission to place plants in ground, but one was required to bring a photo of what the plant looked like. Out of the blue, all outdoor chairs were collected and brought to the dumpster. As things stand now, some are forbidden the grounds. To sit outdoors one has to bring one’s own chair and bring it back in when reentering or Agent will seize it. Others have gardens, outdoor furniture, bird feeders and tchotchkies.

54. “Residents are allowed to plant flowers throughout the community. If this is something you would like to do please let us know so we can show you specific areas that could use a little TLC. (Emphasis theirs.)” Agent seeks to have tenants do landscaping on building owner’s property at tenants’ expense in order to have access to the grounds, Title 14, §6030.2. A.D Unfair Agreements.

55. Any of the subsequent statutes may be applied to Agent’s behavior vis a vis the rules or lack thereof for the grounds at Northfield Green,: 42 USC § 12203. Prohibition against retaliation, 24 CFR §966.6(b) /distraint for rent and other charges, 24 CFR §100.600, quid pro quo harassment, hostile environment, Title 14, §6030.2. A.D Unfair Agreements, Title 5 §4633.1.2 Prohibition against retaliation or coercion, Title 14 §6001.3.B Prohibition against retaliation, TITLE 5, §4581-A. Unlawful housing discrimination.

56. There is no mention in the lease about gardens; Landlord cannot make rules that are upheld or not whenever it decides, 41 U.S. Code § 6503 Breach or violation of required contract terms.

57. THE WAIVER DOCTRINE. Through Landlord’s course of conduct it waived its right to the yard as a “common area” per permission granted for Respondent’s gazebo to be placed there, for permission granted to another tenant to have a patio in front of her unit, for others to have gardens, outdoor furniture, enclose their areas with fencing, stones, hedging, and so forth which has been the policy for over 20 years -- equitable estoppel.

MANDATORY INJUNCTION FACTORS

PETITIONER HAS AND WILL SUFFER IRREPARABLE HARM:

58. Landlord must eradicate the mold. Plaintiff suffers daily from the effects of the mold spores that enter her apartment from ground water in and around the building. The medications, the doctors, the emergency room visits make her life a constant search for protection. The fear at bottom is that some major organ will become overwhelmed by mold spores and irreparable damage will occur.

59. Agent’s infliction of emotional distress, their petty cruelties, the denial of rights, discrimination, the hostile environment they foster, one is at home at Northfield Green solely at the indulgence of Agent. It dominates every aspect of one’s leasehold on the property rented, to the point that it feels free to enter one’s home at will. One cannot even place a lawn chair in the yard without their permission or they will seize it. Building owner, warned of the mistreatment, the mold mycotoxins affecting resident’s health is mute on the matter, save for its acquiescence to lend its name to Agent’s eviction activities.

REMEDIES AVAILABLE AT LAW ARE INADEQUATE TO COMPENSATE THAT INJURY:

60. This suit in equity seeks an enforcement action for injunctive relief to compel Defendants to observe national and state housing laws. Their encroachment on plaintiff’s rights is immediate, intentional and repetitive. Defendant must undo the wrong is the appropriate remedy for the following reasons: 1. Wrongs have been proven sufficiently likely to reoccur; 2. the damage is not easily susceptible in measured economic terms, and 3. most of the damage is not financial and is inappropriate in light of the importance of the interest at issue.

THE BALANCE OF EQUITIES FAVORS THE INJUNCTIVE RELIEF PETITIONER SEEKS:

61. Landlord, as things stand at present, collects Saint Pierre’s monthly rent payment and also HUD’s portion of the rent to bring up the payment Landlord receives to market value of similar rents in the area, they receive compensation for the services of a Resident Services Coordinator. They undoubtedly receive a number of other benefices such as guaranteed loans of which Tenant is not cognizant of.

62. It was Landlord’s duty to monitor and oversee the corporation’s compliance with human rights obligations. It has not. Tenants have been left at the mercy of a company that has no ties to them, and are seen by it as an encumbrance to their work at the project. This has led to an imbalance of power in which tenants are maltreated.

63. Tenant seeks a declaratory judgment that NFG Housing Partners whose senior housing program violates provisions of the Fair Housing Act, federal and state housing laws and also rules and regulations attached by the Department of Housing and Urban Development’s multifamily housing lease requiring the partners to achieve substantial compliance throughout its holdings.

A MANDATORY INJUNCTION IS IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST:

64. Plaintiff’s request is simple: enjoin Defendants from violating Tenant’s rights and abide by Plaintiff’s lease, the federal laws, the state laws, her constitutional rights. Defendants have disrupted the lives of residents at Northfield Green with arbitrary and discriminatory decisions upsetting their lives. Tenant is not alone at 147 Allen Avenue who suffers from the mold problem; tenants have all made numerous complaints that undoubtedly placed them on Agent’s troublemaker list. Residents at Northfield Green would favor such a ruling clarifying their rights according to their leases and an elucidation of lease covenants. A mandatory injunction is the first step in correcting the imbalance of power at the senior housing project. It is not only Plaintiff who suffers, other residents are also being subjected to Defendants erratic decrees. As is presently the case, tenants, along with Tenant, would continue to be pitted against each other with some gaining privileges while others not, creating a hellish atmosphere. The ruling against injunction would become permanent. Public interests therefore counsels in favor of an injunction that will prevent Defendants from further encroachments on their rights. The Department of Housing and Urban Development whose lease Petitioner signed on February 9, 2019 does not recognize Agent’s rules. It is a maintenance company and is not at liberty to make rules governing Tenant behavior, which HUD has recognized is not appropriate. Undoubtedly the ruling is to protect tenants from exactly what is occurring at Northfield Green where tenants are at the mercy of mercenary companies, nor does it condone the seizing of personal property, and is very clear about fair and even treatment of tenants. Maintenance companies have no legal obligation to tenants, or financial incentive to serve them. If left to create its own rules would, as is amply evident in this case, indulge in abusive behavior toward tenants.

65. It was surely not HUD’s intention when sponsoring senior housing programs to have them treated in such an arrogant manner, to have Landlord expect landscaping duties in order for residants to enjoy outdoor grounds. The state’s paramount interest is always in the health, welfare and safety of its citizens.

PRAYER FOR EQUITABLE RELIEF

AGENT

66. Preservation Management Inc. is a company with unfettered power at Northfield Green. Yet that power is tenuous because of Agent’s ambivalent situation. It does not own the property it works on, it has no rightful authority over tenants, and it is working for an indifferent building owner who gives it a free hand over matters it is not qualified to handle.

67. Agent has no training, no expertise in dealing with a vulnerable population; and they are abusive toward seniors as can be seen from the abundance of evidence Tenant has exhibited. It violates provisions of the Fair Housing Act, federal and state housing laws and also rules and regulations attached by the Department of Housing and Urban Development’s multifamily housing lease, who as principal obligor determines how its allocations are invested. There is a lack of professionalism, which is exhibited in the improper relationships it maintains with tenants. They have created a hostile environment in which tenants are pitted against one another to do Agent’s bidding. Tenants are trapped in a reporting system in which there is no method whereupon they can respond, a system that indulges in pettiness and cruelty. What was and is needed is a landlord responsible for the welfare of its tenants who ensures their human rights are protected and sees that Agent treats its tenants respectfully.

68. A company that uses the methods stated in this complaint and memorandum, denying them the basic rights guaranteed to all citizens of the United States, is so far off the mark that it is not possible to provide it with training in hopes that it will release its power grip on the tenuous situation it holds at the senior housing complex. Landlord may have been negligent of its duties, but Agent had an obligation to inform Landlord of its responsibilities in the matter, not take advantage of it.

69. Tenant seeks an injunction terminating Preservation Management’s employment at Northfield Green and prays that PMI is enjoined from any further employment in senior housing projects for the next 3 years, which may be spent devising a better approach to working with vulnerable populations and acquiring the necessary training to qualify for it.

MOLD

70. Tenant has presented much evidence to indicate that there is mold in the building at 147 Allen Avenue in Portland Maine. She has presented medical evidence that she suffers from it, her doctor has stated that she is allergic to it. Tenant has gone to great lengths and expense seeking a solution to the situation as neither Landlord or its agent will address the problem. There have been two air quality assessments of her apartment asserting mold spores in her unit. No less than the Center for Disease Control and Prevention, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency have warned of the danger of living with mold. NFG Housing Partners LP and Preservation Management Inc., in this case, have worked hand in hand to deny the existence of mold.

71. Aspergillus Penicillium, the type of spores found in Tenant’s apartment is dangerous. It “is one of the well-documented molds known to cause health problems. Molds such as Aspergillus may adversely affect human health based on toxicity, allergy, and infection. Some species of Aspergillus are known to be capable of producing secondary metabolites or mycotoxins, (quote cleaned up,)” states the National Institute of Health.

72. Courts have recognized a federal common law warranty. The Javins court (Javins v. First National Realty Corp.) articulated its rules for doing so. From the Housing Act in 1937 to present the legislative intent is a decent home for every American family. It intends that such a home warrants a habitable dwelling.

*Maine statute Title 14, §6021.3DE Enforcement of the Warranty of Habitability, supplemental rights. “Landlord shall be deemed to covenant and warrant that the dwelling unit is fit for human habitation”

73. Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment enjoining Landlord to provide the reasonable accommodation of lifting Tenant apartment’s inlaid carpeting and sealing the floor underneath it to prevent mold spores from coming up into Tenant’s unit as advised by Agent’s own Mark Coleman of ESHA, Environmental Safety & Hygiene Associates. Tenant seeks this accommodation as an interim solution because she is allergic to mold, but it does not solve the presence of mold on the property.

74. That Landlord provide the reasonable accommodation, per Tenant’s Air Quality Assessment team, noting the lack of an exhaust fan to help remove the spores from the unit, to install one in the bathroom. Tenant seeks this accommodation as an interim solution because she is allergic to mold, but it does not solve the presence of mold on the property.

75. In order to resolve the situation, Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment enjoining Landlord to provide the court with an assessment of the mold problem and its resolution at 147 Allen Avenue in Portland by EnviroVantage Inc. 680 Stroudwater St, Westbrook, ME 04092 or PBC Environmental & Demolition, 37 Route 236, Suite 201 Kittery, Maine 03904; two companies recommended by the Zachau Construction Company that has worked for Landlord in the past and are familiar with the problem. It does not itself offer mold remediation.

76. Saint Pierre seeks reimbursement for the 3 hepa filter air purifiers and 1 dehumidifier in the amount of $650.85 that she purchased to alleviate mold contamination. Also for the Northeast Test Consultants’ Indoor Air Quality Mold Assessment she was obliged to acquire at $490 to prove the known existence of mold spores in her apartment. This may be accomplished by deducting said amount with state tax of $1149.85 from Tenant’s monthly rent payment in three monthly installments.

LANDLORD

77. NFG Housing Partners LP, as signatory and Landlord of residential housing leases at Northfield Green, neglects its duties to maintain its property in habitable condition, has failed to protect its tenants from the very predatory maintenance company it has employed to provide services for its tenants. It has allowed an unattached third party to determine not only how its services are rendered, but the very services themselves. Without any outward expression of how Landlord wants the complex to function i.e. expectations of Agent and tenants, the maintenance company is free to make policy on the premises, even so far as to how the land will be parceled out to individual tenants. It has created a hellish atmosphere for all concerned.

78. Landlord’s failure to monitor and oversee the corporation’s compliance with human rights obligations is a breach of duty. It has a fiduciary duty to its vulnerable tenant population; employs an agent, with the knowledge that Agent abuses tenants (19,) in view of all the evidence of its malfeasance, Landlord may not contract for such services with Preservation Management Inc.

79. An offer to contract must be complete and definite in its material terms. Tenant’s lease is an adhesion contract and as such the doctrine of reasonable expectation comes into play, and even if consistent with the reasonable expectations of the parties, it will be denied enforcement if, considered in its context, it is unduly oppressive or "unconscionable.”

80. Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment invalidating the inclusion in her lease with property owner, Northfield Green Housing Partners LP, namely lease clause, Rules: page 4, section 14. The attached rules have been created by Landlord’s agent, Preservation Management Inc., an unaffiliated third party, which has robbed Tenant of its right to quiet enjoyment of leased property. Landlord may not allot its sovereignty to Agent without the consent of its obligors. There is no mention whatsoever in Tenant’s lease of Agent Preservation Management, or its power to create rules at will to suit its needs. Such unconditional authority is an invitation to abuse.

*Should property owner choose to adopt its own set of house rules, that it seek tenants and HUD contributions to its regulations.

81. A few months after move-in to her apartment, Tenant was given an open-ended written permission to place a gazebo in the yard facing her apartment (6). Less than a month later, permission was rescinded by Agent for no reason other than that it was not permitted.

82. Attached as exhibit 24 is a letter to landlord with photos of yard at time Plaintiff’s gazebo presence was being threatened with removal. Tenant in unit six who got written permission to have a patio in her yard, has been living at Northfield Green for 18 years and has had her garden throughout that time. What’s more, there was a garden and patio already installed when she moved in.

83. “ They [Landlord] are not however okay with having patios and/or other structures built . . .” Akerlind memo dated June12, 2019, 5 th graph. Yet, if one looks at exhibit 9, permission is granted to tenant in unit 6 which is dated June 26, 2019 to have a patio “outside your unit,” after landlord has disallowed patios. Permission was rescinded for Plaintiff’s gazebo on July 10, 2019. Whatever plan Agent and/or Landlord has in mind for the grounds at Northfield Green is unbeknownst to tenants. It has been the practice, for years, that tenants are allowed to garden in the curtilage of their homes, what Landlord has labeled “the front of their unit.”

84. Landlord abrogated its right to claim the yard enclosed within the arms of the building at 147 Allen Avenue as a common area by its laissez faire attitude toward Agent, its permissions for private use of the property, the enclosed private gardens and furnishings establishing entitlement by tenants to sections of the yard. Landlord may not after several decades claim the yard as a common area. See Waiver Doctrine on this matter.

85. Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment validating the permission Northfield Green Housing Partners LP granted Tenant to place a gazebo in the curtilage of her home per lease clause 12, Page 3-4 of lease: Restrictions and Alterations:, “No alteration, addition, or improvements shall be made in or to the premises without the consent of the Landlord in writing.” Tenant did receive permission without stipulation for it. Permission granted to be honored and Saint Pierre allowed to reinstall the gazebo without fear of it being dismantled. Similarly, gardens permitted to some, are permitted to all should they choose that entitlement.

*Tenant seeks a return of seized property (40) from her gazebo and/or make good what is missing or damaged.

Lease Provisions:

86. Eviction is a Landlord’s right and duty to remove tenants when serious lease offenses make their leasehold impossible to maintain. They are not a tool to intimidate, coerce or antagonize tenants at will, deprive them of their rights, or silence them. Tenants may not be threatened with eviction. If eviction is mandated by circumstances, then it should be set in motion.

87. It is Landlord’s obligation and duty to its fellow lease signatories, when employing firms to work with resident population, to apprise them of the federal and state housing laws, the requirements of antidiscrimination policies, procedures, and the Department of Housing and Urban Development’s rules and regulations governing HUD subsidized properties.

*That Landlord provide reasonable accommodation, insulating wall between Saint Pierre, who is a member of a protected class because of her hearing disability, and that of neighboring unit 12. Saint Pierre is entitled, like fellow residents to have sounds in her apartments, music, movies, broadcast information, etc.

88. Tenant seeks a declaratory judgment that NFG Housing Partners whose senior housing program violates provisions of the Fair Housing Act, federal and state housing laws and also rules and regulations attached by the Department of Housing and Urban Development’s multifamily housing lease requiring the partners to achieve substantial compliance throughout its holdings.

CONCLUSION

WHEREFORE, in light of the issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, it is humbly prayed, that a ruling be set in motion to relieve Plaintiff, and by extension, the residents of Northfield Green of the continual emotional and psychological abuse she is subjected to from Landlord and its Agent. The same pattern will likely hold unless a ruling by the Court decides the matter, and with such other and further relief to which it deems just, proper and equitable.

Dated: March 17, 2022

Respectfully submitted,